Examining the performance of three ballast water compliance monitoring devices for quantifying live organisms in both regulated size classes (≥50 µm and ≥10-<50 µm).

A number of ballast water compliance monitoring devices (CMDs) have been made commercially available to verify the efficacy of ballast water management systems by quantifying the living organisms for both plankton size classes (≥50 µm and ≥10-<50 µm). This study aimed to examine whether new CMDs can provide a reliable indication of compliance regarding Regulation D-2 and to evaluate their performance for indicative analysis of organisms by assessing their accuracy (comparison to microscopy) and precision (comparison within measurement). Challenge fresh water samples were collected in four locations of Lake Ontario, Canada, whereas marine challenge water samples were collected around the Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick, Canada. Ballast water samples were collected from ships visiting several ports across Canada. Overall, accuracy was higher (>80%) in estimating organisms from prepared-challenge water (Ballast Eye and BallastWISE) than from ballast water samples (>70%) (B-QUA only). The sensitivity ranged from 50 to 100% for the ≥50 µm organism size class, whereas for the ≥10-<50 µm organism size class, it was higher for freshwater samples (>75%) than for marine samples (>50%). The performance of CMDs should be assessed under real-world conditions for a better understanding and to improve their use.

Exceptions and exemptions under the ballast water management convention - Sustainable alternatives for ballast water management?

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.

Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment Lowers Species Invasion Rate in Freshwater Ecosystems.

The movement of ballast water by commercial shipping is a prominent pathway for aquatic invasions. Ships' ballast water management is now transitioning from open ocean exchange to a ballast water performance standard that will effectively require use of onboard treatment systems. Neither strategy is perfect, therefore, combined use of ballast water exchange plus treatment has been suggested to provide greatest protection of aquatic ecosystems. This study compared the performance of exchange plus treatment against treatment alone by modeling establishment rates of nonindigenous zooplankton introduced by ballast water across different habitat types (fresh, brackish, and marine) in Canada. Treatment was modeled under two efficacy scenarios (100% and 50% of ship trips) to consider the possibility that treatment may not always be successful. The model results indicate that exchange plus treatment will be more effective than treatment alone at reducing establishments when recipient ports are freshwater (58 140 vs 11 338 trips until ≥1 establishment occurs, respectively). Exchange plus treatment also serves as an important backup strategy if treatment systems are partially effective (50% of trips), primarily for freshwater recipient ecosystems (1442 versus 585 trips until ≥1 establishment occurs, respectively).