A pilot study on granting exemptions for ships under the Ballast Water Management Convention regulation A-4, based on the operability of HELCOM & OSPAR Risk assessment tool and expert judgement Okko Outinen Supervisors: Maiju Lehtiniemi (Finnish Environment Institute), Ville-Veikko Intovuori, Anita Mäkinen (Finnish Transport Safety Agency) Responsible traffic. Courage and co-operation.
Introduction • Over 90 percent of the world’s trade is operated through shipping (IMO, 2012). • Approximately 3 to 5 billion tons of ballast water is transferred internationally by shipping each year. • Regulation A-4 (IMO, 2009); Environmental Species’ Species-specific matching RA Biogeographical RA RA Compares Assesses the Evaluates the environmental overlap of native invasive conditions between and non-native characteristics locations and species to analyze individually for the evaluates species the environmental identified target distribution similarity and to species. according to them. identify the target species. Finnish Transport Safety Agency
• Helcom & OSPAR RA tool (HELCOM & OSPAR, 2015); Finnish Transport Safety Agency
Aims and objectives The aim of the present study was to evaluate the operability of the RA • tool of HELCOM & OSPAR joint harmonised procedure on granting exemptions for ships under BWM Convention regulation A-4 with the following objectives; 1. To compare the target species found from the associated ports between the routes of Sköldvik – Rotterdam – Sköldvik and Kotka – Gdynia – Kotka, 2. To assess whether the found target species would be able to adapt into the recipient port habitats using the HELCOM & OSPAR RA tool, 3. To examine whether ships travelling the associated routes could be granted for exemptions from the ballast water treatment and the performance standard according to the risk levels and the potential impacts of the species in destination port habitats, and 4. To discuss the practicality of the risk assessment tool and provide potential development suggestions in order to improve the functionality Responsible traffic. of the tool. Courage and co-operation.
Materials and methods • Study routes; • Kotka – Gdynia – Kotka • Sköldvik – Rotterdam – Sköldvik 29.11.2016 Finnish Transport Safety Agency 5
• The study was done using already collected data on NIS in the study ports, available via HELCOM/OSPAR. • Data from the port of Rotterdam was not available in the RA tool and therefore it was compared manually to species from Sköldvik. Table: (HELCOM & OSPAR, 2015). 29.11.2016 Finnish Transport Safety Agency 6
RA tool results Species Taxon Target in Target in Salinity • Kotka – Gdynia: Baltic Sea North East tolerance Atlantic • Fish-hook water flea Acartia tonsa Crustacea no yes 5 – 30 • Amphipod G. tigrinus Cercopagis pengoi Crustacea yes yes 0.5 – 10 Gammarus tigrinus Crustacea yes yes 0 – 30 HIGH RISK Marenzelleria spp. Polychaeta yes yes 0.5 – 40 Palaemon elegans Crustacea yes no 0.5 – 5 • Gdynia – Kotka: Species Group Target in Target in Salinity • Round goby Baltic Sea North East tolerance Atlantic • Harris mud crab Acartia tonsa Crustacea no yes 5 – 30 Marenzelleria spp. Polychaeta yes yes 0.5 – 40 HIGH RISK Neogobius Pisces yes yes 4 – 40 melanostomus Palaemon elegans Crustacea yes no 0.5 – 5 Rhithropanopeus Crustacea yes yes 0.5 – 30 harrisii 29.11.2016 Finnish Transport Safety Agency 7
• Sköldvik – Rotterdam: • Fish-hook water flea • Red gilled mud worm • Dark false mussel HIHG RISK Species Taxon Target in Target in North East Salinity Baltic Sea Atlantic tolerance Cercopagis pengoi Crustacea yes yes 0.5 – 10 Marenzelleria spp. Polychaeta yes yes 0.5 – 40 Mytilopsis leucophaeata Mollusca yes yes 0 – 30 Neogobius melanostomus Pisces yes yes 4 – 40 Palaemon elegans Crustacea yes no 0.5 – 5 29.11.2016 Finnish Transport Safety Agency 8
• Rotterdam – Sköldvik: • Zebra mussel • Asian clam • Australian tubeworm • Diatom C. wailesii • Gulf wedge clam • Pacific oyster • Harris mud crab • Slipper limpet HIGH RISK • Quagga mussel Species Group Target in Target in North Salinity Baltic Sea East Atlantic tolerance Caprella mutica Crustacea yes yes 15 – 35 Corbicula fluminea Mollusca yes yes 0 – 5 Coscinodiscus wailesii Bacillario-phyceae yes yes 5 – 40 Crassostrea gigas Mollusca yes yes 5 – 42 Crepidula fornicata Mollusca yes yes 5 – 30 Dreissena bugensis Mollusca yes yes 0 – 3 Dreissena polymorpha Mollusca yes yes 0 – 3 Ficopomatus enigmaticus Polychaeta yes yes 5 – 40 Hemigrapsus sanguineus Crustacea yes yes 10 – 35 Hemigrapsus takanoi Crustacea yes yes 15 – 35 Mnemiopsis leidyi Ctenophora no yes 2 – 40 Neogobius melanostomus Pisces yes yes 4 – 40 Palaemon elegans Crustacea yes no 0.5 – 5 Rangia cuneata Mollusca yes yes 5 – 15 Rhithropanopeus harrisii Crustacea yes yes 0.5 – 30 Styela clava Tunicata yes no 18 – 40 29.11.2016 Finnish Transport Safety Agency 9
Discussion – expert judgement • Kotka – Gdynia: • Fish-hook water flea is able to alter food webs by grazing on smaller zooplankton (Lehtiniemi & Gorokhova, 2008). • Fouling on fishing equipment Photo: Birnbaum (2011). (Antsulevich & Välipakka, 2000). • G. tigrinus is equally able to damage fishing nets and is generally more competitive than native species (high population densities, tolerant to anaerobic conditions, eutrophication and high alkalinity) (Jensen, 2010). Exemption not granted Photo: Jensen (2010). 29.11.2016 Finnish Transport Safety Agency 10
• Gdynia – Kotka: • Round gobies can be a threat to native fish species and increase eutrophication indirectly (Bunnel et al., 2005, Kornis et al., 2012). • May have commercial value in the future (Sapota, 2012). • Harris mud crab feeds on native Photo: Sapota (2012). amphipods and damages fishing equipment (Roche and Torchin, 2007, Jormalainen et al., 2016). Exemption could have been granted due to round gobies being able to restrict the distribution of R. harrisii . Endangering and Eutrophication-enhancing effects of round gobies not considered very likely. Photo: Roche and Torchin (2007). 29.11.2016 Finnish Transport Safety Agency 11
• Sköldvik – Rotterdam: • Fish-hook water flea • Red-gilled mud worm is not considered having significant negative impacts on invaded areas (Orlova et al., 2006). In turn, they can improve oxygen circulation in the seabed sediments (Didziulis, 2006). Photo: Andrius Siaulys (Coastal Research and Planning Institute, 2012). • Dark false mussel can damage fishing equipment and is able to attach on cooling water systems of power plants (Laine et al., 2006, Kennedy, 2011). Exemption could have been granted to the Rotterdam oil terminal (salinity 14 – 18), but not to the other terminals within the port of Rotterdam. Photo: Laine et al. (2006). 29.11.2016 Finnish Transport Safety Agency 12
• Rotterdam – Sköldvik • 9 target species presented in results were divided into 2 categories: Species that are unlikely to distribute into the Gulf of Finland: Asian clam, diatom C. wailesii , Pacific oyster, Slipper limpet and Australian tubeworm. • Most common reasons to the unlikely transfers of these species: Poor tolerance to low oxygen/temperature/salinity conditions or to high nutrient concentrations. • Species that could potentially transfer to the Gulf of Finland: Zebra mussel, Quagga mussel, Gulf wedge clam and Harris mud crab. Photo: Richter (2008). Photo: Fofonoff et al. (2003). 29.11.2016 Finnish Transport Safety Agency 13
• Zebra and quagga mussels tend to attach into power plants’ cooling water systems (Strayer, 2010). These species, as well as the Gulf wedge clam have also impact on local food webs through zoo- and phytoplankton filtration and competitive dominance (Jones and Ricciardi, 2005, Wong et al., 2010). • Impacts of Harris mud crab were presented earlier. Exemption can be granted from Rotterdam oil terminal since only 2 out of 9 target species were found from there and they were considered unlikely to inhabit Gulf of Finland. Exemption cannot be granted if the vessel arrives from other terminals in the port of Rotterdam. 29.11.2016 Finnish Transport Safety Agency 14
Conclusions • The importance of port surveys cannot be highlighted enough, they should be conducted more often. Additionally the accuracy of these surveys is essential. • When assessing exemptions, species adaptation and potential effects of climate change need to be considered (Leidenberger et al., 2015). • Exemption applications can be evaluated with the RA tool and expert judgement, even though the operability of the tool can be significantly improved by enhancing the frequency and accuracy of port surveys. • Simplicity of the RA tool enables the user to concentrate on individual species characteristics, instead of implicitly stating definite answers for the decision-making processes. • Utilization of complex species distribution models can lead to high uncertainties. 29.11.2016 Finnish Transport Safety Agency 15
Recommend
More recommend
