Ballast Water Issues

Ships use water as ballast to adjust their position in the water to improve their manoeuvrability and stability. They typically pump water into ballast tanks at one port and discharge it when taking on cargo at another port. Mariners have unintentionally transplanted locally native marine species to new areas with the ballast water.

The Extent of the Problem - Globally, it is estimated that about 10 billion tonnes of ballast water is taken on board ships and dumped each year.

Invasion of the Zebra Mussel - A Case History - Zebra Mussels are the primary reason why the United States has become involved in preventing the invasion or spread of non-indigenous aquatic species.

Managing the Threat - Many countries regard ballast water as the only route for transfer and they need to recognise other possibilities to help contain the risk.

Solutions - Perhaps the most important issue is the need for international agreement on the management of ballast.

The above sketch indicates a longitudinal cross section of a modern bulk carrier. The sections marked in grey are normally filled with water ballast when the holds are empty. As the cargo is delivered to the ship, the ship pumps out the water ballast into the receiving waters of the port. Larger or smaller bulk carriers simply have more or less hold spaces to carry extra cargo and of course more water ballast. This water ballast often contains foreign or exotic organisms.

These transfers now represent the single largest source of invasive, non-indigenous aquatic species in to all countries. The plants and animals in ballast water that survive the ship’s voyage sometimes flourish in new harbours. Successful invaders are likely to be hardy, aggressive, capable of displacing native species, and prolific breeders. They disperse rapidly and affect their environments quickly, frequently turning into uncontrolled pests.

The release of ballast water may introduce non-native organisms into the port of discharge. These introduced species are often referred to as exotic, nuisance, alien, or non-indigenous species. Typically, few organisms are able to survive in new surroundings because temperature, food, and salinity are less than optimal; however, the few that do survive and establish a population have the potential to cause ecological and economic harm. When a species enters a new ecosystem, often there are no natural predators. Jamie Clark, Director US Fish & Wildlife Service said recently “invasive species tend to be adaptive, aggressive and resilient, once they are established we are unlikely to ever completely eradicate them”. In many cases, organisms have been able to flourish in their new surroundings to the detriment of indigenous species. Historically, fouling on ship’s hulls accounted for most introduced species in ports, and it still remains a major threat, accounting for pests such as the Japanese kelp, Undaria. Over the last few decades, there appears to have been a shift so that a greater number of species are arriving in untreated ballast water. Greater attention to the problem has shown many more invasions than was originally thought. Ballast water dumped from a single ship can contain hundreds of species of phytoplankton, zooplankton, larval fish and invertebrates.

Although the effects of many introductions remain largely unmeasured, it is clear that some invaders have human-health consequences and significant economic and ecological impacts. Introductions such as the zebra mussel in the North American Great Lakes and toxic dinoflagellates in Australia’s southern coastal waters are both examples of introduced species that have reproduced at exponential rates in a new environment causing human health problems, environmental damage and economic loss.

At present, we can not predict which organisms will die during a long journey in a ballast tank or why some are still alive when ballast water is released. When faced with unfavourable conditions, some micro-organisms and plankton will form spores or tough outer coverings for protection. As a spore, an organism may survive for a long time without food or in a different salinity or temperature to its natural environment. Once the environment becomes favourable again, such as when they are discharged into a port, the organism can change back to its active form.

Organisms may establish semi-permanent or permanent communities in the layer of water and sediment that often exists in the bottom of ballast tanks. Adult organisms may reproduce and release larvae into ballast water while adults remain in the sediment. This pathway leads to the release of the same non-indigenous species into multiple ports.

Globally, it is estimated that about 10 billion tonnes of ballast water is taken on board ships and dumped each year. Countries such as Australia, Brazil, Canada, South Africa and the U.S. that export large amounts of minerals or crops are particularly exposed as a large bulk carrier can discharge up to 80,000 tonnes of water ballast into port waters on each trip. The water taken on board for ballasting a vessel may contain dormant stages of microscopic toxic aquatic plants such as dinoflagellates, which may cause harmful algal blooms after their release. Pathogens such as the cholera bacteria, have been transported with ballast water. Many varieties of fish, plants, and other animals have all been found in ballast water. Higher rates of species transfer have been attributed to:

· an increase in ship speeds with shorter voyage times and higher survival rates.

All these factors create a greater opportunity for the introduction of non-indigenous organisms in new locations. This can lead to disastrous consequences for regional ecosystems that include commercial fish or crustacean stocks or rare and endangered species.

Part of the problem with species transfer is the lack of data. A recently completed extensive study of Port Phillip Bay in Australia estimated the total number of exotic species at 300-400 benthic species alone, with two to three new species establishing themselves every year. Dr Thresher from the CSIRO said "This represents about 10-20% of the species in the Bay, a figure that does not include the plankton, which we suspect also contains many exotic species, but for which we can’t yet even begin to estimate numbers and rates of introduction." The number of exotic species found reflects the diversity of trade into the bay, the range of habitats, and the research effort expended examining the area.

The economic consequences of invasive species is only just starting to be quantified. More and more countries are realising that exotic species are displacing native species to the detriment of local industry. In Tasmania, Northern Pacific seastars have eaten out many commercial shellfish and fish species; several are now on the endangered list. Loss of jobs, exports and lower investment are direct consequences of this invasion. Zebra mussels in North America create clean up and maintenance bills of nearly $US 1 billion dollars a year.

Article 196 of the United Nations’s Law of the Sea convention states that "States shall take all measures necessary to prevent, reduce and control...the intentional or accidental introduction of species, alien or new, to a particular part of the marine environment, which may cause significant and harmful changes thereto."

The IMO has recognised its members increasing concern about the introduction of unwanted aquatic organisms and pathogens transferred through the discharge of ships' ballast water. In 1993 the IMO Assembly adopted resolution A.774(18) which contains guidelines for combating the problem. The Marine Environment Protection Council (MEPC) is examining a number of options including a new annex to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (1973) through the MARPOL 73/78 regulations.

IMO is anxious to ensure that the measures that are introduced to protect the environment do not threaten ship safety. One suggestion for reducing ballast water contamination has been to exchange ballast water obtained in port with water taken for oceanic water away from land that contains little marine life. Some concern has been expressed about the safety of this practice, especially if the ship was caught by bad weather before the ballast exchange could be completed. The guidelines identify the precautions that need to be taken to ensure the ship's safety, such as ensuring the ship's stability, being aware of the possible effects on the ship's structure, taking into account weather. They also cover crew training and familiarisation and the evaluation of safety aspects.

The MEPC has considered the different options available for introducing the new regulations and currently is continuing the debate. Options include:

· a new Annex to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by MARPOL 73/78.

· a completely new Convention on ballast water management, under which the terms for entry into force would be determined by a Conference, instead of having to comply with existing entry into force terms established by MARPOL 73/78.

On the global side, the International Maritime Organizations' Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) met last March 4-8 in London. Ongoing efforts to establish global unilateral regulations for invasive species progressed in meetings of the Ballast Water Working Group. While proposed legislation in the U.S. intends to deal with all aquatic invasive species, IMO's Working Group is concentrating entirely upon invasive species in ballast water. Ballast water exchange at sea is still the primary means of controlling invasive species, and IMO is focusing efforts towards perfecting this technique. Parameters for ballast water exchange at sea were debated, particularly developing ballast water management plans to guide the ship's Master in non-ideal sea-state conditions. Discussions also centred around producing suggestions to incorporate ballast water management in ship designs. Of course, the hottest debated topic was developing standards to measure the performance of ballast water treatment technologies. While some members continue to insist on 100% removal or inactivation of unwanted organisms, many delegates are coming to terms with realistic expectations. According to an IMO press release, " a large proportion of the Group was of the opinion that a 95% reduction would achieve a worthwhile reduction of risk and would be a practicable and achievable solution in the medium term." A definitive conclusion was not reached by the Working Group. The MEPC meets again in October, 2002. In the interim, experts for IMO will examine the viability of different performance standards and will make recommendations to the Working Group when it meets again in October.

The best known ballast water invader is the zebra mussel that now flourishes in many of the Great Lakes and rivers of North America. Since 1991, the mussels have been altering the entire food web of the region by removing vast amounts of basic food material from the ecosystem. These mussels grow on almost any structure, forming large clumps that clog water intake pipes and damage other structures. Periodically these organisms need to be removed and this requires time, money, and specialised equipment. Zebra mussel damage to industries, public utilities, navigation, boating, and sports fishing is estimated to reach $US 5 billion by the end of this year.

This explains why the United States is becoming more aggressive in its efforts to prevent the introduction of invasive species. New rules introduced by the US Coast Guard on July 1 1999 make it mandatory for all ships that have been outside U.S. waters to replace their ballast water at sea prior to entering U.S. waters. Earlier this year, US president Bill Clinton announced an executive order aimed at preventing the introduction of any invasive species. The order also provides for the control and minimisation of economic, ecological, and human health impacts that they cause. The order continues by making it incumbent on US agencies whose actions may affect invasive species to use relevant programs to:

· detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner;

· provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded;

· conduct research on invasive species and develop technologies to prevent introduction and provide for environmentally sound control of invasive species; and

Europe is also affected by the introduction of new species and their impact on regional economies. Mnemiopsis leidyi, is a comb jellyfish. It feeds on anything smaller than itself that gets stuck to the sticky lobes near its mouth, especially zooplankton. It was probably introduced via ballast water from U.S.A. into the Black Sea. It has no natural predators and has out-competed native species for food. As a consequence, the once profitable anchovy fisheries in Russia and Turkey have almost disappeared. There are now fears that this species may transfer to the Baltic via the Volga River. Toxic dinoflagellate algae have reappeared in the German Bight after an absence of 300 years, probably from ships’ ballast water.

Several European governments have undertaken ballast water research and most are supporting the work of the IMO on ballast water issues. However some countries are relatively inactive, primarily for economic reasons. Several of those European countries that are interested in the problem believe that the introduction of IMO regulation on ballast water exchange will only be the first step. They consider that the development of an effective biological sterilisation treatment is necessary.

The order establishes a high level Invasive Species Council whose members include State, Treasury, Defense, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Transportation Secretaries as well as the EPA. The Council is required to provide national leadership on invasive species. It must develop a plan that will be a science-based, public process and that will recommend specific objectives to evaluate the risks associated with the introduction and spread of invasive species. It will develop and coordinate systematic risk-based methods to identify, monitor, and interdict invasive species pathways. The Plan will be evaluated biennially and report publicly on its success in achieving its goals and objectives. The is a commendable broad approach that incorporates the ballast water problem.

The European Council has reached a agreement on a framework for co-operation in marine pollution for the period the year 2000 to 2006 The framework is intended to support and supplement existing regulation for the protection of the marine environment, human health and coastlines, and strengthen the conditions for efficient mutual assistance between Member States.

Australia

Australia has been leading much of the international debate on ballast waters, largely as a result of the impact invasive species have had on its unique and fragile ecosystems. "Port Phillip Bay is a microcosm of Australian ports and its marine ecology reflects 200 years of coastal and international shipping", said Dr. Thresher from CSIRO in his recent report. "Exotic species have been invading the Bay since records were first kept, dating back to the mid-1800s. They have been introduced from every region in the world and are now spread widely throughout the bay and its habitats."

Australia currently has a mandatory ballast water management system in place. This requires international ships to complete a ballast water report prior to arrival. Australia also encourages voluntary participation by ships to comply with the Australian Ballast Water Management Guidelines based on IMO resolution A.868(20) for ships entering Australia. These require shipmasters to undertake precautionary measures such as:

· avoiding taking on ballast in areas where there are known outbreaks of cholera or toxic algal blooms or where dredging is taking place.

In July 2001, Australia initiated new ballast water arrangements that screen incoming vessels and identify those that are carrying ballast that is likely to contain one or more of a group of target pest species. Vessels identified as carrying high risk ballast will be required to undertake some level of ballast water management if they are intending to discharge this ballast in Australian ports. This ballast management could include approved onboard treatment, ballast exchange at sea, or tank to tank transfer to contain high risk ballast water on the vessel. Vessels that have not or cannot implement any of these management options may be denied permission to discharge ballast in Australian waters.

Minister Truss said "Pests coming into Australia's coastal waters through ballast water have already caused significant problems. ”The Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS) checks ships' compliance. These ballast water arrangement apply only to international shipping at their first port of call, coastal shipping is also encouraged to follow these guidelines where practicable.

Australia’s unilateral action was adopted after frustration with continuing delays in implementing an international agreement on ballast water management. Mr. Truss said "By taking this action, we’re sending a clear message to the international community that Australia is serious about protecting its marine environment as well as the many industries that depend on it.”

The new rules will include providing a computer based decision support system that allows Australian Quarantine Inspection Service to determine a vessel’s risk profile. If an international vessel is expecting to discharge ballast water in Australia, its risk profile will determine what actions are required prior to being granted permission to discharge its ballast. Actions may include doing nothing, deep sea exchange ballast exchange, chemical or physical treatment etc.

Zebra Mussels are the primary reason why the United States has become involved in preventing the invasion or spread of non-indigenous aquatic species. In 1988, Zebra mussels were first discovered in North America at Lake St. Clair.

Within one year, they had colonised the surfaces of nearly every rock, pile and wharf in Lake Erie. By December 1993, they had been found in all of the Great Lakes. Major river systems that now have zebra mussels include the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Hudson, Illinois, Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, and Tennessee rivers.

Zebra mussels are native to an area in Russia near the Caspian Sea. Canals built during the late 1700s and the 1800s allowed the mussels to spread throughout Europe. By the 1830s, the mussels had covered much of the continent and had invaded Britain.

The introduction of zebra mussels into the Great Lakes appears to have occurred in about 1986, when a ship either discharged ballast water containing zebra mussel larvae or deposited live species into Lake St. Clair. The freshwater ballast would have been picked up in a European port or adult mussels may have been carried in a sheltered, moist environment, such as a sediment-encrusted anchor. The higher speed of modern shipping gives exotic species a better chance of surviving the trip across the Atlantic. The zebra mussels found the plankton rich, temperate, freshwater North American lakes just like home.

The rapid spread and abundance of the zebra mussel can be attributed to their reproductive cycles. A fully mature female mussel may produce up to one million eggs per season. Eggs are fertilized outside the mussel's body and within a few days develop into free-swimming larvae drifting with the currents. It is estimated that only about 2 percent survive to adulthood. Mussel beds in some parts of Lake Erie now contain more than 30,000 and sometimes up to 70,000-mussels per square meter. Adult mussels are very hardy and can survive out of water for about 10 days for adults.

Zebra mussels disrupt the aquatic food chain. They eat mostly algae filtering more than one litre of water per day, removing significant amounts of phytoplankton from the water. Zebra mussels remove the food source for zooplankton that are food for juvenile fish. These fish support sport and commercial fisheries. Pollutants accumulate in mussel tissue and the human health implications for consumers of the fish or waterfowl are not yet understood. As zebra mussels spread, biologists are concerned that populations of native mussels will decline, and some of the rarer species may be completely eliminated.

Zebra mussels foul water intakes such as those used for power generation and water treatment plants. Since 1989, some of these plants have reported high costs associated with the impact of zebra mussel colonisation. The have reported significant reductions in pumping capabilities and occasional shutdowns for cleaning and removal of mussels. Recreation industries along the lake shores have also been affected by zebra mussels settling on breakwaters, boat bottoms, and outboard engines. Numerous reports of engines overheating due to colonies of zebra mussels clogging cooling water inlets have been received.

The control of zebra mussels is not yet practicable. Neither the European community nor the Great Lakes Region have been unable to develop a treatment for control that is not deadly to other aquatic life forms.

Getting rid of established non-indigenous species is practically impossible. Even preventing them from causing damage is very difficult and expensive. Stopping invasions before they occur is the only long term practical and economical solution. To stop invasions, live organisms must not be discharged from ballast tanks.This can be achieved by:

Unfortunately, no method of ballast water treatment can today completely eliminate the risk of introducing exotic species. The goal of managing ballast water must be to minimise the risk. More research is needed on methods that might prevent introductions of unwanted species. The model below shows how such a system could work, as more information is received feedback improves the outcome.

Ballast water is not the only source of transfer of non-indigenous species, hull fouling is also a pathway that transfers marine organisms. With the phasing out of tri-butyl tin as an anti-fouling paint, there appears to a possibility that hull fouling rates will increase and consequently increase organism transfer risk. Many countries regard ballast water as the only route for transfer and they need to recognise other possibilities to contain risk.

Perhaps the most important issue is the need for international agreement on the management of ballast. Governments should work with international organisations such as the IMO and the International Council for Exploration of the Seas to focus attention on the problem and find solutions on a worldwide basis. The following could be used as a framework for the future management of ballast water in shipping:

At present, ballast water exchange is the only management tool used to reduce the risk of invasion. Ballast water exchange involves replacing coastal water with open-ocean water during a voyage. There have been objections to this on safety grounds where ship’s stability and stresses may be affected by changing ballast at sea. This method is not fully effective, organisms continue to survive in the sediment and residual water in the ballast tanks. It has been estimated that there is about a 36 percent organism survival rate using this method.

Many of these have been shown to be either too expensive or inefficient under the range of conditions found in sea transport. Treatment choices are likely to be a combination of ballast water exchange and one of the above systems depending on the perceived risk on specific voyages.

The continuing high rate of aquatic invasions and the consensus that ballast water is the main pathway for transfer emphasises the urgency for effective management of the ballast water. The recognition of the seriousness of the problem has only been acknowledged by governments in the last few years. The dumping of ballast water by sea-going vessels has resulted in widespread ecosystem changes and large economic costs. Many inland seas, estuaries, and bays are the most threatened ecosystems in the world today with their loss of their biological integrity.

There are still large gaps in the data that inhibit the development of better methods of containing the spread of these unwanted organisms. However, as knowledge of ballast water introductions increases it means that they can no longer be regarded as accidental. There are some who regard ballast water introductions as a form of pollution, and the shipping industry as polluters who are externalising the cost of their pollution.

Ballast water is an international issue, regulations for the management of ballast water to prevent introductions will be most effective if applied internationally. It is vitally important that the IMO take the lead in the management of invasive species internationally to achieve a set of acceptable control measures.

Port surveys designed to identify all exotic species present will inevitably be subject to scientific, logistic and cost constraints that will limit both their taxonomic and spatial scope. Recognition of these constraints has led to the adoption of a targeted approach, which concentrates on a known group of introduced and potentially invasive species and provides a cost-effective approach to the collection of baseline data for all ports studied. These surveys are designed to determine the distributions and abundances of a range of target species in each port. These species are listed in Appendix 1, and comprise: those species listed on the ABWMAC schedule of target introduced marine pest species; a group of species which are major pests in overseas ports and which, on the basis of their invasive history and projected shipping movements, might be expected to colonise and pose a threat to Australian ports; and those known exotic species present in Australian waters that currently are not assigned pest status.

These targeted surveys will also identify species of uncertain status (endemic or introduced) that are abundant in a port and/or are likely to become major pest species. Where appropriate, a component of the port survey may include a local public awareness program designed to collect any available information that might indicate the presence of introduced species in the port and adjacent areas, the approximate dates of any introductions, and their potential impacts on native marine communities.

This report details the results in relation to the search for targeted ABWMAC pest species during an introduced species survey of Port Kembla, New South Wales, carried out between 8 and 18 May 2000. This survey was undertaken as part of the broader AAPMA/CRIMP port survey initiative by staff of NSW Fisheries assisted by CRIMP staff. The Port Kembla Port Corporation funded the survey and the preparation of this report, with assistance from the Maritime Assets Division of the NSW Waterways Authority and significant in-kind contributions from NSW Fisheries.

Ballast water is carried by ships to provide stability and adjust a vessel's trim for optimal steering and propulsion. The use of ballast water varies among vessel types, among port systems, and according to cargo and sea conditions. Ballast water often originates from ports and other coastal regions, which are rich in planktonic organisms. It is variously released at sea, along coastlines, and in port systems. As a result, a diverse mix of organisms is transported and released around the world with the ballast water of ships.

Today, ballast water appears to be the most important vector for marine species transfer throughout the world. The transfer of organisms in ballast water has resulted in the unintentional introduction of tens to hundreds of freshwater and marine species to the U.S. and elsewhere (Carlton and Geller 1993, NRC 1995, Carlton and Cohen 1998). Furthermore, the rate of new invasions from ballast water has increased in recent years
(e.g., Mills et al. 1993, Carlton and Cohen 1998).

Although the effects of many introductions remain unmeasured, it is clear that some invaders are having significant economic and ecological impacts as well as human-health consequences. Ballast-mediated introductions such as the zebra mussel in the U.S. Great Lakes and toxic dinoflagellates in Australia have had tremendous ecological and economic impacts.

Presently, ballast water exchange is the only effective management tool to reduce the risk of ballast-mediated invasion. Ballast water exchange involves replacing coastal water with open-ocean water during a voyage. This process reduces the density of coastal organisms in ballast tanks that may be able to invade a recipient port, replacing them with oceanic organisms with a lower probability of survival in nearshore waters.

Ballast water exchange is recommended as a voluntary measure by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). However, it is important to recognize two short-comings of this procedure. First, the ability to safely conduct ballast water exchange depends upon weather and sea surface conditions, and it is not always possible to perform an exchange. Second, there is still some residual density of coastal organisms in ballast tanks following exchange, so this process is only partly effective.

The Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-646) required that all vessels entering Great Lakes Ports from beyond the EEZ undergo ballast exchange or some comparably effective ballast treatment which conforms to discharge requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251). These requirements were extended to vessels arriving in ports of the upper Hudson River, north of the George Washington Bridge on November 4, 1992.

The National Invasive Species Act (NISA) of 1996 (P.L. 104-332) re-authorized and amended the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990. NISA issued mandatory ballast management reporting and voluntary ballast exchange guidelines to all vessels that enter U.S. waters from outside the EEZ, with the exception military vessels, crude oil tankers that carry out coastwise trade, and some passenger ships that are equipped with ballast treatment systems.

If compliance with the voluntary guidelines is low, NISA authorizes the use of mandatory guidelines for vessels arriving to selected regions or the entire country. The National Ballast Water Information Clearinghouse will provide data and analysis to estimate the national patterns of ballast water management (see text). Policy decisions about the adequacy of voluntary guidelines and the acceptable rate of compliance will be based upon criteria and evaluation by a committee of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.

Re-ballasting at sea, as recommended by the IMO guidelines, currently provides the best-available measure to reduce the risk of transfer of harmful aquatic organisms, but is subject to serious ship-safety limits. Even when it can be fully implemented, this technique is less than 100% effective in removing organisms from ballast water. Some parties even suggest that re-ballasting at sea may itself contribute to the wider dispersal of harmful species, and that island states located 'down-stream' of mid-ocean re-ballastring areas may be at particular risk from this practice. It is therefore extremely important that alternative, effective ballast water management and/or treatment methods are developed as soon as possible, to replace reballasting at sea. Significant research and development (R&D) efforts are underway by a number of scientific and engineering research establishments around the world, aimed at developing a more complete solution to this problem.

Options being considered include:

· Mechanical treatment methods such as filtration and separation.

· Physical treatment methods such as sterilisation by ozone, ultra-violet light, electric currents and heat treatment.

· Chemical treatment methods such adding biocides to ballast water to kill organisms.

· Various combinations of the above.

All of these possibilities currently require significant further research effort. Major barriers still exist in scaling these various technologies up to deal effectively with the huge quantities of ballast water carried by large ships (e.g. about 60,000 tonnes of ballast water on a 200,000 DWT bulk carrier). Treatment options must not interfere unduly with the safe and economical operation of the ship and must consider ship design limitations. Any control measure that is developed must meet a number of criteria, including:

· It must be safe.

· It must be environmentally acceptable.

· It must be cost-effective.

· It must work.

One of the problems currently faced by the global R&D community is that apart from the general criteria above, there are currently no internationally agreed and approved performance standards or evaluation system for the formal acceptance of any new techniques that are developed. In addition, many groups are working in isolation from each other, and there are no formal mechanisms in place to ensure effective lines of communication between the R&D community, governments and ship designers, builders and owners. These are vital if the R&D effort is to succeed. The Glo Ballast programme hopes to reduce these barriers through two initiatives, a directory of ballast water treatment R&D on this web-site, and a Global Ballast Water R&D Symposium to be held in early 2001. One of the objectives of the symposium will be to workshop the development of performance standards and an evaluation system for the formal acceptance of new treatment techniques. These will be put to a meeting of the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) for consideration and hopefully adoption.

Re-ballasting at sea, as recommended by the IMO guidelines, currently provides the best-available measure to reduce the risk of transfer of harmful aquatic organisms, but is subject to serious ship-safety limits. Even when it can be fully implemented, this technique is less than 100% effective in removing organisms from ballast water. Some parties even suggest that reballasting at sea may itself contribute to the wider dispersal of harmful species, and that island states located 'down-stream' of mid-ocean reballastring areas may be at particular risk from this practice.It is therefore extremely important that alternative, effective ballast water management and/or treatment methods are developed as soon as possible, to replace reballasting at sea. Significant research and development (R&D) efforts are underway by a number of scientific and engineering research establishments around the world, aimed at developing a more complete solution to this problem.

Options being considered include:

· Mechanical treatment methods such as filtration and separation. Physical treatment methods such as sterilisation by ozone, ultra-violet light, electric currents and heat treatment.

· Chemical treatment methods such adding biocides to ballast water to kill organisms.

· Various combinations of the above. All of these possibilities currently require significant further research effort. Major barriers still exist in scaling these various technologies up to deal effectively with the huge quantities of ballast water carried by large ships (e.g. about 60,000 tonnes of ballast water on a 200,000 DWT bulk carrier). Treatment options must not interfere unduly with the safe and economical operation of the ship and must consider ship design limitations. Any control measure that is developed must meet a number of criteria, including:

· It must be safe.

· It must be environmentally acceptable.

· It must be cost-effective.

· It must work.

One of the problems currently faced by the global R&D community is that apart from the general criteria above, there are currently no internationally agreed and approved performance standards or evaluation system for the formal acceptance of any new techniques that are developed. In addition, many groups are working in isolation from each other, and there are no formal mechanisms in place to ensure effective lines of communication between the R&D community, governments and ship designers, builders and owners. These are vital if the R&D effort is to succeed.The GloBallast programme hopes to reduce these barriers through two initiatives, a directory of ballast water treatment R&D on this web-site, and a Global Ballast Water R&D Symposium to be held in early 2001. One of the objectives of the symposium will be to workshop the development of performance standards and an evaluation system for the formal acceptance of new treatment techniques. These will be put to a meeting of the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) for consideration and hopefully adoption.

Ballast Water - State of the Market
Expect the next two years to be dynamic ones in the developing ballast water treatment industry. Long ago documented as a vector of transfer for nuisance aquatic species, experts have been devising means to combat this global menace. International forces are finally coming together and the future of this market should be determined soon.

At the forefront is the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the nautical arm of the United Nations, responsible for developing environmental and safety regulations for shipping. After over a decade of debate in committee, IMO's directors recently set a deadline for their committee by announcing a Diplomatic Conference on Ballast Water for late 2003. This means that regulatory guidelines need to be established and standards for determining effective ballast water treatment must be finalized by that time.

Potential Market
Using IMO's timeline as a guideline, Royal Haskoning Environmental Management and the NE-MW Institute published a paper on the potential for the ballast technology market. Speaking at the Ballast Water Technology Fair in Chicago, Frans Tjallingi of Royal Haskoning said their paper describes worldwide market opportunities for ballast water (BW) treatment.

Tjallingi based the study on expert group and ship owner surveys as well as the Lloyds Register database of ships. The driving forces behind the BW technologies market are regulations, says Tjallingi. At least 14 countries have already devised some form of law requiring mandatory BW treatment. IMO standards should be in place by 2003, and the study expects worldwide acceptance and enforcement of IMO regulations by 2008.

The Royal Haskoning study makes a number of other key assumptions. They believe smaller ships (under 1000 DWT) and ships over 10 yrs old do not represent a viable market for new ballast water technologies. These vessels will either be exempt from regulations or will not be economically feasible to retrofit, say Tjallingi. The study also assumes that the first vessels for BW technologies will be those flagged under high income countries such as USA, Great Britain or Norway. The study identifies approximately 12,000 vessels that will use or adopt new ballast water treatment technologies by 2013.

Market Opportunities

The study identifies specific market opportunities in the following time frames:
2001- 2003 - expect a marginal market, investments primarily in research & development.
2003 - 2008 - the potential market is US $1.8 billion. Sales will concentrate upon approximately 3400 vessel retrofits and 2300 new vessels.
2008 - 2013 - anticipate a potential market of US$ 3.5 - $5.4 billion. This is based on rules requiring all new vessels (5300 ships) to incorporate ballast water treatment technologies and the remaining retrofit vessels under 10 yrs (12000 vessels).
Tjallangi notes that many market uncertainties and constraints exist that would affect his predictions. An IMO ballast water convention may not be signed by 2003 or standards may not be in place. Enforcement of ballast water regulations may be uncertain. Technologies better than ballast water exchange must be in place and the systems must meet the rigourous technical capacities of a sea going environment.

The Evolving Market

The Royal Haskoning report sets the standard for the potential market. One could expect a 1.5 billion dollar market in the next seven years would attract numerous investors into the fledgling technologies market. However, technology vendors indicate this is not the case.

Many vendors believe the opposite is happening. Private funding is very limited and public funds in the US are quickly drying up. Funding in other pro-BW treatment nations has been nonexistent since the mid-90's according to experts in Australia and New Zealand.

Speaking at the Ballast Water Technology Fair in Chicago, a number of venture capitalists discussed why the prospects for new technology investments are so dismal. George Lipper of the National Association of Seed and Venture Funds said corporate venture capital funding is down 90% from 2000, and the entire private funding market is at a standstill. He also indicated the ballast water technology market is in such an early stage of development that venture capitalists are not yet interested.

The crux of the problem is central to many environmental issues. The evolving ballast water treatment industry is regulations driven. Investors are naturally wary of any industry developed due to regulatory change. Highly subject to the whim of the public, regulators often add or drop rules with little concern of the economic effect upon businesses dependent upon such rules.

The BW industry is facing the additional burden that regulations are still undetermined. Most distressing to scientists and technology vendors is the inability of IMO and others to agree upon BW treatment standards. Standards are desperately needed to help ship owners decide the treatment technologies that are effective versus those that are not.