Document 1 Proposal for imo ballast Water Management Convention a-4 Target Species selection criteria

7Other elements of the proposed system

7.1Information system

The information system is a key element of the overall procedure for granting exemptions from BWMC requirements. The information system has to ensure meeting the key principles of the risk assessment as outlined by IMO (2007). As indicated by the Globallast Program (GloBallast 2014): “the systematic archiving of biological records, particularly of NIS, not only for future reference, but also for the benefit of the international community engaged in preventative NIS programmes is of crucial importance Such programmes are heavily dependent on reliable, up-to-date information on the status of NIS in different regions, in order to assess the risks associated with different routes and vectors, to develop suitable management measures and to identify priorities for risk mitigation. Suitable data archives should be created at national level and it is strongly recommended that national databases be made available for inclusion in archives at regional and international levels”.

Taking the above considerations into account the information system should include the following principal elements and inputs (see Figure 1):

• 
  Information on NIS, CS and HAOP’s (as output of port biological surveys, NIS/CS monitoring; see also point 7.2 below);
  
• 
  TS lists;
  
• 
  Port-to-port risk assessment outputs;
  
• 
  An administrative decision;
  
• 
  Review process outputs.
  

Specifically, a global information system on NIS/CS should include (but not limited to):

• 
  valid taxonomy of NIS and CS, including notes on availability of molecular data;
  
• 
  biological traits and environmental tolerance limits of NIS and CS;
  
• 
  documented evidences of species being found in ballast water, on ship hulls and other vessel vectors of introduction;
  
• 
  standardized impacts on human health, economy, biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and socio-cultural values;
  
• 
  introduction event records at the level of particular countries, country regions and ports;
  
• 
  information on species labelled as unacceptable risk species world-wide.
  

It is well known that there are deficiencies and contradictions among online NIS information resources that may hamper NIS risk assessments as well as the prioritization of management options and implementation of invasive species policies (Hulme and Weser, 2011). Scientifically validated, continuously updated and maintained databases are the most reliable source for undertaking control measures (Genovesi, 2001). Data management issues and long-term maintenance are both fundamental to providing an effective, pragmatic and accurate information system (Olenin et al., 2014). As indicated by the GloBallast Programme (GloBallast 2014), one of the information systems recently gaining momentum is AquaNIS, which already contains data on aquatic NIS and CS, introduced to marine, brackish and coastal freshwater environments of Europe, neighboring and overseas regions. The geographical component of AquaNIS is arranged in a hierarchical order ranging from oceans, ocean sub-regions, Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs), sub-regions of LMEs to smaller entities, including ports, from which a user can make a selection (Olenin et al. 2014).
The global information system on non-indigenous and cryptogenic species should be designed to assemble, store and disseminate comprehensive data. Needless to say that such information system must be freely available online. Of crucial importance is that the system is constantly updated by accommodating and validating information from:

• 
  port biological surveys, performed according to the guidelines (e.g. HELCOM 2013; GloBallast 2014); this includes data on species occurrences, abundance and environmental conditions in ports;
  
• 
  specialized NIS monitoring on national and regional (e.g. HELCOM) level;
  
• 
  other sources of information on NIS/CS and HAOP, such as regular national reports to expert groups (e.g. Working Group on Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms and Working Group on Ballast and Other Ship Vectors of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES WGITMO, WGBOSV), specialized data mining results, scientifically validated public science findings;
  
• 
  outcomes of the TS selection process worldwide (i.e. all species which at least once were identified as posing unacceptable risk should be recorded);
  
• 
  results of administrative decisions on granted / rejected / withdrawn exemptions on port-to-port basis, including all background information (e.g. why such decision was made).
  

The decision support tool should provide an interface to a risk assessment for translocation of TS in ballast water between two ports as is described by HELCOM (2013). The background data for the tool should be readily available from the global information system on NIS and CS.

7.2Monitoring

Monitoring for NIS/CS seldom takes place apart from a few baseline surveys. However, there are several practical suggestions and monitoring guidelines for both NIS/CS as well as port biological sampling (Olenin et al. 2011; HELCOM/OSPAR 2014; GloBallast 2014; Lehtiniemi et al. 2015). In addition to the sampling gear/device, an important consideration is sampling frequency, which should be dictated by the reproduction cycle of a particular organism to be surveyed, and which in turn defines the certainty/uncertainty of the outcome. Recently, sampling frequencies for different taxonomic groups have been suggested (Lehtiniemi et al. 2015; see below).

Table 6. Suggested sampling frequency requirements for monitoring of presence–absence and population dynamics (abundance and/or biomass) of NIS of different taxonomic groups and varying life cycle lengths (Lehtiniemi et al. 2015).

Results of various monitoring activities form one of the key inputs into the information system block of the proposed adaptive system (see section 7.1 above).

7.3Review process

Review of risk assessment (incl. withdrawal of the granted exemptions) is the required part of the system (IMO 2007). This might include, amongst other, the following considerations:

• 
  Emergency situation in HAB’s and HAOP’s: in case of arrival/development and/or bloom events;
  
• 
  Relationship with hull fouling and other vectors (incl. aquaculture);
  
• 
  Climate variability and change: potentially effective within the period of two exemptions;
  
• 
  Extreme weather events: short-term rapid changes in hydrological conditions altering the risk assessment conditions;
  
• 
  Port alteration: port reconstructions and potential changes in location of BW discharge/uptake areas;
  
• 
  Updates of monitoring: new findings/evidences of native and non-native species of concern;
  
• 
  Horizon scanning.
  

As a result of the review process, the TS list should be updated.

7.4Administrative decision

The administrative decision is the executive part of the system and should be performed by the relevant management body, based on the scientific advice generated for management through application of the risk assessment procedure. It should provide feedback into the system (information system component) on how the advice has been used (i.e., exemptions granted and justifications/argumentation in case of departure from the advice).

8Weighing the risk

When finally selecting the species to be included into the TS list, further considerations should be given on prioritizing the degree of risk. Undoubtedly, species having shown or potentially posing risk to human health should be treated as a ‘high risk’ species and included into the TS list (see ‘not acceptable’ risk for human health on Figure 3). The borderline between ‘not acceptable’ and ‘acceptable’ risk for the other two major categories of impact (i.e. economy/ecology and socio-cultural) should be further discussed and agreed upon, which should be included into the decision tree (Steps 6-11, Figure 2). Also, evidence of impact in a given LME/region and potential impact (Steps 6, 8, 10, and 7, 9, 11, respectively; see section 5.2 and Figure 2 above) need potentially to be given different loading in the evaluation process.


Figure 3. The conceptual diagram on the relationship between the degree of overall risk and manageability.

9References

AquaNIS. Editorial Board, 2015. Information system on Aquatic Non-Indigenous and Cryptogenic Species. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.corpi.ku.lt/databases/aquanis. Version 2.36+. Accessed 2015-08-04. www.corpi.ku.lt/databases/aquanis

David M., Gollasch S. And Leppäkoski, E. 2013. Risk assessment for exemptions from ballast water management – The Baltic Sea case study. Marine Pollution Bulletin 75: 205-217.

David M, Gollasch S (2015) Global maritime transport and ballast water management: issues and solutions. Springer Dordrecht. 306pp.

Genovesi, P. (2001). Guidelines for eradication of terrestrial vertebrates: a European contribution to the invasive alien species issue. Other Publications in Wildlife Management. Paper 24.

GloBallast (2014) Guidance on port biological baseline surveys. GloBallast Monograph Series No 22. International Maritime Organisation. London.

Gollasch S, MacDonald E, Belson S, Botnen H, Christensen JT, Hamer JP, Houvenaghel G, Jelmert A, Lucas I, Masson D, McCollin T, Olenin S, Persson A, Wallentinus I, Wetsteyn LPMJ, Wittling T (2002) Life in ballast tanks. In: Leppäkoski E, Gollasch S, Olenin S (eds) Invasive Aquatic Species of Europe Distribution, Impact and Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. pp 217 – 231

HELCOM. 2013. Joint HELCOM/OSPAR Guidelines for the Contracting Parties of OSPAR and HELCOM on the granting of exemptions under International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, Regulation A-4. Adopted by HELCOM Ministerial Meeting, 3 October 2013 in Copenhagen and OSPAR Agreement 2013-09 (http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/Ministerial2013/Ministerial%20declaration/Adopted_endorsed%20documents/Joint%20HELCOM_OSPAR%20Guidelines.pdf)

HELCOM 2015a. Outcome of the 48^th meeting of heads of delegation (HELCOM HOD). Tallinn, Estonia, 10-11 June 2015. 42 pp.

HELCOM 2015b. Revised Target Species List for BWMC A-4 exemptions in the Baltic. Heads of Delegation Tallinn, Estonia, 10-11 June 2015. 18 pp. HELCOM/OSPAR 2014 guidelines

Hewitt, C. L., Campbell, M.L., Thresher, R.E., Martin, R.B., Boyd, S., Cohen, B.F., Currie, D.R., Gomon, M.F., Keogh, M.J., Lewis, J.A., Lockett, M.M., Mays, N., McArthur, M.A., O’Hara, T.D., Poore, G.C.B., Ross, D.J., Storey, M.J., Watson, J.E., Wilson, R.S. (2004). Introduced and Cryptogenic Species in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, Australia. Marine Biology 144: 183-202.

Hulme, P.E., Weser, C. (2011). Mixed messages from multiple information sources on invasive species: a case of too much a good thing? Divers. Distrib. 17, 1152–1160

IMO (2004) International Convention on the control and management of ships’ ballast water and sediments. International Maritime Organisation, London. www.imo.org.

IMO (2007) Guidelines for risk assessment under regulation A-4 of the BWM Convention (G7), IMO, Marine Environment Protection Committee, Resolution MEPC. 162(56), 13 July 2007. International Maritime Organisation, London.

Lehtiniemi M, Ojaveer H, David M, Galil B, Gollasch S, McKenzie C, Minchin D, Occhipinti-Ambrogi A, Olenin S, Pederson J. (2015) Monitoring marine non-indigenous species to serve legislative requirements. Marine Policy 54: 26-35.

Leppäkoski, E. and Olenin, S. 2000. Non-native species and rates of spread: lessons from the brackish Baltic Sea. Biological Invasions 2: 151–163

Morrisey D, Peacock L, Inglis G, Floerl O (2007) Surveillance for the early detection of unwanted exotic marine organisms in New Zealand: summer 2005-2006. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Technical Paper No: 2007/02. 171pp.

NOAA, 2015. Large Marine Ecosystems of the World. Available at (accessed 12.08.15).

Ojaveer, H., B.S. Galil, M.L. Campbell, J.T. Carlton, J. Canning-Clode, E.J. Cook, A.D. Davidson, C.L. Hewitt, A. Jelmert, A. Marchini, C.H. McKenzie, D. Minchin, A. Occhipinti-Ambrogi, S. Olenin and G. Ruiz. 2015. Classification of non-indigenous species based on their impacts: considerations for application in marine management. PLoS Biol. PLoS Biol 13(4): e1002130.

Ojaveer H, Kotta J (2015) Ecosystem impacts of the widespread non-indigenous species in the Baltic Sea: literature survey evidences major limitations in knowledge. Hydrobiologia 750: 171–185

Ojaveer et al. (in prep.). Dynamics of biological invasions and pathways over time: case study of a temperate coastal sea (manuscript).

Olenin S, Minchin D, Daunys D (2007) Assessment of biopollution in aquatic ecosystems. Marine Pollution Bulletin 55(7-9): 379-394.

Olenin S, Alemany F, Cardoso AC, Gollasch S, Goulletquer P, Lehtiniemi M, McCollin T, Minchin D, Miossec L, Occhipinti Ambrogi A, Ojaveer H, Rose Jensen K, Stankiewicz M, Wallentinus I, Aleksandrov B (2010) Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Task Group 2 Report – non-indigenous species (April 2010). Joint Report ICES and JRC European Commission EUR 24342 –EN 2010.

Olenin S., Elliott M, Bysveen I, Culverhouse P, Daunys D, Dubelaar GBJ, Gollasch S, Goulletquer P, Jelmert A, Kantor Y, Mézeth KB, Minchin D, Occhipinti-Ambrogi A, Olenina I, Vandekerkhove J (2011) Recommendations on methods for the detection and control of biological pollution in marine coastal waters. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62(12): 2598-2604.

Olenin S, Narščius A, Minchin D, David M, Galil B, Gollasch S, Marchini A, Occhipinti-Ambrogi A, Ojaveer H, Zaiko A (2014) Making non-indigenous species information systems practical for management and useful for research: An aquatic perspective. Biological Conservation 173: 98-107.

Zaiko, A., Lehtiniemi, M., Narš

ius, A., Olenin, S., 2011. Assessment of bioinvasion impacts on a regional scale: a comparative approach. Biological Invasions 13, 1739–1765.