Abstract
The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM Convention) aims to mitigate the introduction risk of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens (HAOP) via ships’ ballast water and sediments. The BWM Convention has set regulations for ships to utilise exceptions and exemptions from ballast water management under specific circumstances. This study evaluated local and regional case studies to provide clarity for situations, where ships could be excepted or exempted from ballast water management without risking recipient locations to new introductions of HAOP. Ships may be excepted from ballast water management if all ballasting operations are conducted in the same location (Regulation A-3.5 of the BWM Convention). The same location case study determined whether the entire Vuosaari harbour (Helsinki, Finland) should be considered as the same location based on salinity and composition of HAOP between the two harbour terminals. The Vuosaari harbour case study revealed mismatching occurrences of HAOP between the harbour terminals, supporting the recommendation that exceptions based on the same location concept should be limited to the smallest feasible areas within a harbour.The other case studies evaluated whether ballast water exemptions could be granted for ships using two existing risk assessment (RA) methods (Joint Harmonised Procedure [JHP] and Same Risk Area [SRA]), consistent with Regulation A-4 of the BWM Convention. The JHP method compares salinity and presence of target species (TS) between donor and recipient ports to indicate the introduction risk (high or low) attributed to transferring unmanaged ballast water. The SRA method uses a biophysical model to determine whether HAOP could naturally disperse between ports, regardless of their transportation in ballast water. The results of the JHP case study for the Baltic Sea and North-East Atlantic Ocean determined that over 97 % of shipping routes within these regions resulted in a high-risk indication. The one route assessed in the Gulf of Maine, North America also resulted in a high-risk outcome. The SRA assessment resulted in an overall weak connectivity between all ports assessed within the Gulf of the St. Lawrence, indicating that a SRA-based exemption would not be appropriate for the entire study area. In summary, exceptions and exemptions should not be considered as common alternatives for ballast water management. The availability of recent and detailed species occurrence data was considered the most important factor to conduct a successful and reliable RA. SRA models should include biological factors that influence larval dispersal and recruitment potential (e.g., pelagic larval duration, settlement period) to provide a more realistic estimation of natural dispersal.