Maritime University of Szczecin
Akademia Morska w Szczecinie
2011, 26(98) pp. 38–46 2011, 26(98) s. 38–46
Ships’ ballast water in The Southern Baltic area
Problem wód balastowych w rejonie Bałtyku Południowego
Zofia Jóźwiak
Maritime University of Szczecin, Faculty of Economics and Transport Engineering Institute of Transport Engineering
Akademia Morska w Szczecinie, Wydział Inżynieryjno-Ekonomiczny Transportu, Instytut Inżynierii Transportu 70-507 Szczecin, ul. H. Pobożnego 11, e-mail: zofia_jozwiak@interia.pl
Key words: invasive species, BWM Convention, Polish harbours Abstract
This article presents an analysis of environmental risks in the Southern Baltic area posed by the transfer of invasive species in ships‟ ballast water, based on the results of research and relevant literature. The prospects for the implementation of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships, Ballast Water and Sediments (the BWM Convention) have also been evaluated. The relevant research has been conducted in the Polish harbours of Szczecin, Police, Świnoujście and Gdańsk (the data for Gdańsk have been derived from the research study conducted by the CTO SA research team). The transport of ballast water is a highly complex issue, combining the requirements of technical and environmental safety, and the expected economic outcome. Alien species introductions appear to be a serious problem, especially if the species turn out to be invasive (IS). They have a damaging and limiting effect on the populations of the native fauna, some indigenous species even risk extinction. Moreover, some alien species generate high financial losses, fouling underwater structures, such as pipelines and ships‟ or boats‟ hulls, and constraining the volume of fishing. Owing to its low salinity, the coastal area of the Southern Baltic is conducive to the growth of populations of alien species brought from harbours located on the mouths of rivers. Apart from causing biological contamination of coastal waters, such species may go up the rivers. Both the Helsinki Commission and the European Commission are taking actions aimed at protecting the natural environment of the Baltic Sea, including, among others, at implementing the BWM Convention within the shortest possible time to minimize this type of biological contamination of the Baltic.
Słowa kluczowe: gatunki inwazyjne, konwencja BWM, porty polskie Abstrakt
W artykule, w oparciu o uzyskane wyniki badań oraz dane literaturowe, przeprowadzono analizę zagrożeń ekologicznych dla rejonu Bałtyku Południowego, będących skutkiem przenoszenia z wodami balastowymi gatunków inwazyjnych. Ponadto poddano ocenie możliwość wdrożenia Międzynarodowej Konwencji o Kon-troli i Zarządzaniu Wodami Balastowymi i Osadami na Statkach (Konwencja BWM). Badaniami objęto pol-skie porty morpol-skie: Szczecin, Police, Świnoujście. Dodatkowo na podstawie danych literaturowych do anali-zy włączono port w Gdańsku (dane dla Gdańska pochodzą z badań przeprowadzonych przez zespół badawcanali-zy CTO w Gdańsku). W analizie odniesiono się do liczby i wielkości statków, tras podróży, ilości przewożonych wód balastowych, gatunków inwazyjnych, wdrażania technologii oczyszczania wód balastowych i osadów dennych oraz wymogów prawnych. Transport wód balastowych jest problemem niezwykle złożonym, ponie-waż jest wypadkową wymogów bezpieczeństwa technicznego, ekologicznego oraz oczekiwanego efektu eko-nomicznego. Introdukowane nierodzime gatunki (ang. Alien Species, AS) są dzisiaj bardzo ważnym proble-mem, szczególnie, jeśli okażą się gatunkami inwazyjnymi (ang. Invasive Species, IS), wywierającymi nega-tywny wpływ na środowisko. Jest to zjawisko bardzo niepożądane, ponieważ populacje gatunków rodzimych mogą być degenerowane, ograniczane ilościowo, a nawet całkowicie wyginąć. Ponadto, niektóre z gatunków generują wysokie straty finansowe, obrastając budowle podwodne, w tym rurociągi, kadłuby statków i łodzi, jak również ograniczając wielkość połowów rybackich. Bałtyk Południowy w strefie brzegowej, ze względu na niskie zasolenie, jest dobrym środowiskiem dla gatunków obcych przywożonych z portów o podobnych warunkach. Zarówno Komisja Helsińska, jak i Komisja Europejska podejmują działania mające na celu ochronić środowisko naturalne Bałtyku, w tym doprowadzić do jak najszybszego wdrożenia Konwencji BWM, aby wyeliminować, na ile jest to możliwe, ten rodzaj biologicznego zanieczyszczenia Bałtyku.
Introduction
Introduced to ensure vessels‟ stability, ballast water has been used in sea transport for ca. 120 years. It was first discovered in 1903 that ballast water may transfer living organisms across a long distance (the Asian phytoplankton algae Odontella – Biddulphia sinensis). When removed from their natural environment, such organisms may behave in various ways and even destroy the populations of indigenous species. The problem of introduction of alien species, which become invasive beyond their natural range exacerbated in late 20th century, when
their damaging effect on the animate and inanimate environment was being reported increasingly often [1, 2, 3]. As a result, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) undertook to develop legal regulations aimed at minimizing the effect that the discharging of ballast into harbour waters has on the marine environment. Almost 10 years of unin-terrupted work of the Marine Environment Protec-tion Committee (MEPC) of the IMO resulted in the development of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships‟ Ballast Water and Sediments. The Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) and the European Commission, acting in consultation with ministers of the environment in the Baltic countries for the benefit of the protection of the Baltic Sea in general, and for the protection against alien marine species invasions in particular, agreed that the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships‟ Ballast Water and Sediments should be ratified and implemented within the shortest possible time, however no later than in 2013 [4].
Alien invasive species in the Baltic Sea
The 140 alien species have been introduced to the Baltic (not all of them are invasive). They include:
the barnacle (Balanus improvisus),
brought from the waters of South America, the Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis)
introduced from the Eastern Sea (Fig. 1),
the round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) from the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea,
the fishhook water flea (Cercopagis pengoi, the mud crab (Rhithropanopeus harrisii), prawn species (Palaemon adspersus and
Palae-mon elegans),
spiny-cheek crayfish (Orconectes limosus), the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), to mention just a few [5].
Observations, proved by scientific research, in-dicate that new species continue to be introduced. Some of them pose a threat to the fauna and the flora of the Baltic Sea.
Fig. 1. Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis) found in the Międzyodrze area [source: phot. Siedlewski M., 2010] Rys. 1. Krab chiński (Eriocheir sinensis) znaleziony na Mię-dzyodrzu [źródło: fot. Siedlewski M., 2010]
The Chinese mitten crab (Fig. 1) wreaks havoc on fishing nets by cutting them through and letting out the caught fish. The sea walnut (Mnemiopsis leidyi), brought in ballast water from the western Atlantic coastal waters through the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov, Sea of Marmara, Caspian Sea, the Mediterranean Sea and the North Sea to the Baltic, sparked alarm when it was discovered in the vici-nity of Jastarnia [6]. Fortunately, it did not survive in the Baltic [7]. This highly invasive predator has caused extensive damage along its route of migra-tion, and significantly reduced the volume of fish-ing in the Black Sea and Sea of Azov Sea (the anchovy up to 70%).
Shipping
The Baltic Sea area has a significant role in the EU sustainable development policy. In 2009, more than 540 thousand merchant vessels called at the major Baltic ports, of which more than 30% were vessels with a gross tonnage between 100,000 GT and 499,000 GT, and almost 20% – with a gross tonnage between 10,000 GT and 19,999 GT. Of the total number of ships calling at the Baltic ports, 2.8% called at the Polish ports. In 2010, the Polish harbours handled 59,506.5 thousand tonnes of cargo, of which 26,421.2 thousand tonnes were handled in Gdańsk, 7,969.2 thousand tonnes in Szczecin, 10,969.2 thousand tonnes in Świnoujście, and 1,829.0 thousand tonnes in Police. The number vessels, which called at the Polish seaports in 2010, there are: 2575 for Szczecin, 276 for Police, 4341 for Świnoujście and 2578 for Gdańsk [8, 9]. The number of shipping vessels and tonnes of cargo handled translates directly into the quantity of
ballast water discharged in harbours, and indirectly into the quantity of living organisms transferred (dumped into harbour waters).
Table 1 presents the Baltic countries‟ merchant fleet tonnage. In total, it amounts to 40,668,862 GT and makes up 4.89% of the world‟s tonnage. These values are important in terms of the requirements for the implementation of the BWM Convention (to be implemented, the BWM Convention must be ratified by the countries with a total of 35% of the world‟s merchant fleet gross tonnage) [10].
Table 1. The Gross Tonnage of shipping (2008) in HELCOM Contracting Parties and country-wise share (%) of the World‟s Shipping Tonnage [8, 11, 12]
Tabela 1. Tonaż floty państw nadbałtyckich oraz udział w tona-żu floty światowej w 2008 roku [GT] [8, 11, 12]
Country Gross Tonnage, 2008 [tons] World‟s Tonnage Percentage of
Germany 15 282 810 1.84 Denmark 10 569 967 1.27 Russian Federation 7 572 020 0.91 Sweden* 4 389 273 0.53 Finland 1 564 949 0.19 Lithuania 423 708 0.05 Estonia 363 492 0.04 Latvia 289 703 0.03 Poland 212 940 0.03 Total 40 668 862 4.89 World 8 168 000 000 100.00
Also, the type of vessels and character of cargo translates directly into the quantity of ballast water discharged in harbours (Tab. 2). Species invasions are related to the volume of ballast water dis-charged, the frequency of ship visits and the envi-ronmental match of the donor and recipient region of the ballast water. The data contained in table 2
show that the amount carried in ships ballast water can be very diverse. When analysing the problem of ballast water is generally accepted that ballast water account for 30% of the capacity of the vessel.
Convention for the Management of Ballast Water – BWM
International legislation has been adopted through the IMO to control the management of ballast water and reduce the transfer of alien spe-cies. The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships, Ballast Water and Se-diments (the BWM Convention) is designed to protect the marine environment against the adverse effects of discharges of ballast water to harbour basins. As at 30 June 2011, 28 countries with 25.43% of the world‟s fleet tonnage ratified the BWM Convention. However, for the Convention to become effective, it must be ratified by at least 30 countries with 35% of the world‟s fleet tonnage [14]. Among the countries that have ratified this convention, only five European countries: Spain, France, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, which ratified the Convention with some reservations. Ratification by the other EU countries, especially with a large fleet will make this an important in-strument for managing the marine environment came into force. Poland ratified the BWM Conven-tion in October 2010. Marine Environment Protec-tion Committee – MEPC through its resoluProtec-tions creates a level of protection of the marine environ-ment in a global dimension. In this case, the role of the Baltic Sea meets the Commission HELCOM, which is working intensively on ways to reduce introduction of alien species into the Baltic.
Table 3 presents the scope of regulations appli-cable to ballast water. The table data indicate that actions taken in this respect refer, in a comprehen-sive and detailed manner, to all the issues concern-ing the treatment of ballast water and sediments, with a view to the marine environment protection. Particular emphasis has been put on eliminating the possible transfer of living organisms which may be damaging to the marine environment.
Table 4 presents the dates of implementation of ballast water treatment standards (D1 and D2), bro-ken down by the ship‟s date of construction and total ballast water capacity [10, 15].
Regulation D-3 of the BWM Convention re-quires that ballast water management systems used, to comply with the Convention, must be approved by the Administration taking into account the Guidelines for approval of ballast water manage-ment systems (Tab. 5).
Table 2. Representative ballast capacities [13]
Tabela 2. Transport wód balastowych w zależności od typu i tonażu statku [13]
Vessel type dwt
Ballast condition Normal
(tonnes) dwt % (tonnes) Heavy dwt % Bulk carrier Bulk carrier Bulk carrier Bulk carrier Tanker Tanker Container Container General cargo General cargo Passanger/RORO 250,000 150,000 70,000 35,000 100,000 40,000 40,000 15,000 17,000 8,000 3,000 75,000 45,000 25,000 10,000 40,000 12,000 12,000 5,000 6,000 3,000 1,000 30 30 36 30 40 30 30 30 35 8 33 113,000 67,000 40,000 17,000 45,000 15,000 15,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a 45 45 57 49 45 38 38 n/a n/a n/a n/a
In accordance with the requirements of the BWM Convention, ballast water exchange should take place at a distance of not less than 200 nautical miles from shore and at a depth of 200 meters [17]. In the Baltic, practically such areas do not exist. If you are in areas that meet the conditions, they dropped all the ballast water of ships entering the Baltic Sea, an area can become a dangerous eco-logically.
Therefore, to meet the requirements of the Con-vention on the waters of the Baltic optimal solution is environmentally friendly ballast water treatment, which is possible because they have been approved by the appropriate ballast water purifying systems of living organisms (Tab. 5). An important barrier occurs when the ballast water treatment costs are the installed devices.
The research methodology
In order to define the origin of ballast waters dumped to the water basin of Szczecin, Police and Świnoujście harbours, the database contained in the Polish Harbors Information and Control System – PHICS has been made used of [15]. On the basis of the data concerning the years 2007–2009, there have been selected all vessels that arrived at the Szczecin, Police and Świnoujście harbours under ballast, assuming that their last port of call was the ballast waters donor port. All water ballast donor ports have been assigned to the bio-geographical regions according to the division of “Large marine ecosystems of the world” (LMG), according to the guidelines of the IMO Committee of the Sea Envi-ronmental Protection contained in the MEPC
Table 3. Guidelines and resolutions on ballast water treatment [16, 17]
Tabela 3. Wytyczne i rezolucje określające zasady postępowania z wodami balastowymi [16, 17]
G1 Guidelines for sediment reception facilities MEPC.152(55)
G2 Guidelines for ballast water sampling
G3 Guidelines for ballast water management equivalent compliance
G4 Guidelines for ballast water management and development of ballast water management plans G5 Guidelines for ballast water reception facilities
G6 Guidelines for ballast water exchange MEPC.124(53)
G7 Guidelines for risk assessment under regulation A-4 of the BWM Convention MEPC.162(56) G8 Guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems
G9 Procedure for approval of ballast water management systems that make use of Active Substances MEPC.169(57) G10 Guidelines for approval and oversight of prototype ballast water treatment technology programs MEPC.140(54) G11 Guidelines for ballast water exchange design and construction standards MEPC.149(55) G12 Guidelines on design and construction to facilitate sediment control on ships MEPC.150(55) G13 Guidelines for additional measures regarding ballast water management including emergency situations MEPC.161(56) G14 Guidelines on designation of areas for ballast water exchange
Guidelines for ballast water exchange in the Antarctic treaty area MEPC.163(56)
Table 4. Dates of implementation of ballast water treatment standards D1 and D2 [10] Tabela 4. Zalecane daty wprowadzania standardów D1 i D2 [10]
Ballast Capacities < 1500 m3 ≥ 1500m3 lub 5000 m3 > 5000 m3
Year of construction of the vessel < 2009 ≥ 2009 < 2009 ≥ 2009 < 2009 ≥ 2009 < 2012
Year of introduction of standard Standards
2009 D1 or D2 D2 D1 lub D2 D2 D1 or D2 D1 or D2 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 D2 2016 2017 D2 D2 D2
D1 – at least 95 percent volumetric exchange of Ballast Water or pumping through less than three times the volume
D2 – indicator microbes: Vibrio cholerae (O1 and O139) > 1 cfu (colony forming unit)/100 ml or > 1 cfu/g (wet weight) zooplank-ton samples; Escherichia coli > 250 cfu/100 ml, Enterococci > 100 cfu/110 ml
162(56) Resolution “Guidelines for risk assessment under regulation A-4 (G7)” [10, 18, 19]. Then each of the donor ports‟ conditions has been compared to the Szczecin, Police and Świnoujście harbours with reference to the water salinity and temperature [20, 21, 22, 23]. There has been calculated the time between the vessel‟s setting out on a voyage to Szczecin, Police and Świnoujście (taking the ballast waters) and her time of arrival in Szczecin, Police and Świnoujście (ballast waters dump), as well as
the donor ports have been located – within the Bal-tic area (+) and outside the BalBal-tic area (–). It has also been assumed that vessels dumped their ballast waters right after their arrival in Szczecin, Police and Świnoujście. The time of the voyage has been calculated by means of a voyage calculator placed on World Shipping Register – Sea Distances and Voyage Calculator [24]. For calculating the voyage time, 16 knots has been accepted as the vessel‟s average speed [2, 5, 25].
Table 5. List of ballast water management systems which received Type Approval Certification by their respective Administrations (resolution MEPC 175-58) (source: own work based on [16])
Tabela 5. Lista systemów oczyszczania wód balastowych, które otrzymały certyfikat (rezolucja MEPC 175-58) (źródło: opracowanie własne na podstawie [16])
Approval Date
Name of the Administration
Name of the ballast water management system Copy of Type Approval Certificate Active Substance employed MEPC report granting Final Approval 1 June 1 2008
Det Norske Veritas, as delegated by the Nor-vegian Administration
PureBallast System Provided to MEPC 56/2/2, Yes, please refer annex 5. MEPC 56/23, paragraph 2.8 2 June 10 2008
Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency,
Germany
SEDNA® ballast water treatment system using PERACLEAN® Ocean
Provided to MEPC 57/2/10, Yes, please refer annex 7. MEPC 57/21, paragraph 2.16 3 December 31 2008 Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Republic of Korea
Electro‐Cleen™
System Provided
Yes, please refer to MEPC 58/2/7, annex 7. MEPC 58/23, paragraph 2.8 4 17 April 2009
Det Norske Veritas, as delegated by the Nor-vegian Administration
OceanSaver® Ballast Water Management
System (OS BWMS) Provided
Yes, please refer to MEPC 58/2/8, annex 4. MEPC 58/23, paragraph 2.10 5 24 November 2009 Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Republic of Korea
NK‐O3 BlueBallast
System (Ozone) Provided
Yes, please refer to MEPC 59/2/16, annex 6. MEPC 59/24, paragraph 2.8 6 4 December 2009 Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Republic of Korea
GloEn‐Patrol™ Ballast Water Management
System Provided
Yes, please refer to MEPC 60/2/11, annex 4. MEPC 60/22, paragraph 2.7 7 March 5 2010 Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism
of Japan
Hitachi Ballast Water Purification System
(ClearBallast)
Provided to MEPC 59/2/19, Yes, please refer annex 4. MEPC 59/24, paragraph 2.8 8 2 September 2008
Office of the Maritime Administration,
Marshall Islands NEI Treatment System
VOS-2500-101 Provided
No Active Substances used according to the communica-tion received from the Admi-nistration of Marshall Islands
Not applicable 19 January
2010 Directorate of Malta Merchant Shipping
9 April 29 2009 Lloyd‟s Register, as delegated by the Administration of the United Kingdom Hyde GUARDIANTM Ballast Water Management System Provided
No Active Substances used according to the communica-tion received from the Admi-nistration of United Kingdom
(please refer to MEPC 59/INF.20) Not applicable 10 12 November 2009
Det Norske Veritas, as delegated by the Norvegian Administration OptiMarin Ballast System (OBS) Provided
No Active Substances used according to the communica-tion received from the Admi-nistration of Norway (please refer to MEPC 61/INF.4)
Not applicable
Salinity risk assessment
The risk of the water basin salinity level of the donor port, where the ships under ballast arrive from can be high, medium or low [2, 5, 7, 24]. The risk can be expressed in numbers from 3 to 1. The salinity ranges attributed to each of the particular risk levels for the ports of Szczecin, Police Świno-ujście and Gdańsk have been presented in table 6.
Temperature risk assessment
The temperature risk of donor port waters can be high (3 points), medium (2 points) or low (1 point), depending upon the temperature conditions simi-larities.
According to the areas of ballasting, the ships sailing to the Szczecin, Police Świnoujście and Gdańsk there have been outlined 5 risk geographi-cal areas:
1) Eastern-Atlantic-Boreal Region EAB – high risk zone – 3 points;
2) Mediterranean-Atlantic Region MA – medium risk zone – 2 points;
3) Western-Atlantic-Boreal Region WAB – me-dium risk zone – 2 points;
4) Indo-West-Pacific Region IWP –low risk zone – 1 point;
5) Carolina Region CL –low risk zone – 1 point (Tab. 6).
Voyage time risk assessment
The ballast water tests have proved that when the voyage time is getting prolonged, the number of the organisms living in the ballast waters decreases. Thus, short voyages from not distant ports appear to be the highest category risk. Moreover, considerable changes in ballast waters biological composition have been noticed after 3 and 10 days
of ballast waters transport in tanks; after the first 3 days the biggest decrease in number of living organisms has occurred; but after 10 days of the journey most of the other left organisms have died [25].
Risk range related to the voyage time has been presented in table 6.
Risk assessment of the voyage route
In order to assess the risk, two types of voyages have been enumerated:
voyages from the Baltic ports,
voyages from the ports outside the Baltic Sea. For voyages in the area of the Baltic Sea, the risk concerning the voyage route has been assumed to be low (1 point) and high (3 points) in the case of donor ports outside the Baltic Sea area.
Total risk assessment
In order to assess the total risk all points achieved for the particular risk factors: temperature (bioregion), salinity, voyage time (distance), voy-age route, combined mace the total risk.
The maximum potential number of points a do-nor port may obtain is 12. The accepted total risk according to Gollasch and other authors may appear on 4 levels as very high, high, medium, and low (Tab. 6).
In order to assess the total risk (R) totalled points obtained for individual risk factors: tempera-ture – rt, salinity – rs, the time of the voyage – rvt and the route of the voyage – rvr according to the formula: vr vt s t r r r r R (1)
The maximum total score for the donor specifies the port very high risk is 12 points [2, 5].
Table 6. Scale of risk Tabela 6. Skala ryzyka
Bioregion* Salinity level [‰] Time [day] or distance in nautical miles [thousand] Voyage route Scale of risk [point] Risk Scale of total risk Szczecin i Police 0.0 Świnoujście 1.6 Gdańsk 7.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IWP CL > 7 < 0.5
or > 14 > 10 > 3.5 Baltic ports 1 Low ≤ 8 WAB
MA > 3 i < 7 or 10.5–13.5 0.5–3.5 3–10 1–3.5 2 Medium 9– 10 EAB 0–3 4–10 < 3 0–1.0 Outside the Baltic ports 3 High 11 * IWP – Indo-West-Pacific Region, CL – Carolina Region, WAB – Western-Atlantic-Boreal Region,
Description of the results
Risk assessment has been conducted for donor ports, i.e. ports which are left for the Szczecin, Police, Świnoujście and Gdańsk harbours by vessels under ballast. In 2007–2009 these harbours were entered by vessels arriving from the ports situated at the coast of the Baltic Sea (bioregion 23), the Norwegian Sea (21), the North Sea (22), the coasts of Ireland and Great Britain (24), the coasts of Iberian Peninsula from the Atlantic Ocean (25), the Mediterranean Sea (26) and the north-east coast of the USA (7). Based on the assessment, ports of very high, high, medium and low risk cate-gory have been identified.
Harbour of Szczecin
Out of the 113 ports, the ballast waters are transported from to the Szczecin harbour there are 14 donor ports (12%) of very high risk category, 4 ports of high risk category (4%), 63 ports of me-dium risk category (56%) and 32 ports of low risk category (28%). The ports of very high risk are situated by the North Sea (4 – German, 4 – British, 2 – Dutch, 2 – Belgium, 1 – Norwegian) and one (French) by the Bay of Biscay. These are the following ports: Rotterdam, Terneuzen (NL), Hamburg, Butzfleth, Virow and Bremen (German), Fredrikstad (Norwegian), Antwerp and Gent (Bel-gium), Rochefort (French). The ports of high risk category are also situated by the North Sea (2 –
British and 2 – Norwegian). These are the ports Gunness, Flixborough,
Harbour of Świnoujście
Out of the 123, the group of ports whose ballast waters dumped into the Świnoujście harbour cause very high risk of alien species introductions com-prises 9 ports (7%), 2 ports (2%) of the high risk category, 70 ports (87%) of the medium risk cate-gory, and 25 ports (20%) of the low risk category. The ports of very high risk are situated by the North Sea (4 – Dutch, 3 – German, 2 – Belgian). The ports of high risk category are also situated by the North Sea (1 – British and 1 – German). Among the ports which the ballast waters taken from appear the most risky to the environment of the Świno-ujście harbour there should be enumerated the fol-lowing ones: Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Moerdijk and Terneuzen (Dutch), Hamburg, Bremen and Glück-stadt (German), Ghent and Antwerp (Belgian). The ports of high risk category are also situated by the North Sea (1 – British and 1 – German). These are the ports Gunness and Nordenham.
Harbour of Police
Out of the 31 donor ports, there are 3 ports (10%) of very high risk category, 2 ports of high risk category (6%), 15 ports of medium risk catego-ry (48%) and 11 ports (36%) of low risk categocatego-ry. The ports of very high risk are situated by the North
Fig. 2. Donor ports of risk category for ports Police, Świnoujście, Szczecin, Gdańsk [%] [source: own study]
Rys. 2. Kategorie ryzyka dla portów Szczecin, Police, Świnoujście i Gdańsk ze strony portów donorowych („dawców wód balasto-wych”) [%] [źródło: opracowanie własne]
Very high risk 7% High risk 2% Medium risk 71% Low risk 20% Very high risk 5% High risk1% Medium risk 63% Low risk 31% Gdańsk Very high risk 12% High risk 4% Medium risk 56% Low risk 28% Szczecin Very high risk 10% High risk 6% Medium risk 48% Low risk 36% Police Świnoujście
Sea (2 – German, 1 – Dutch). These are the follow-ing ports: Hamburg, Bremen (German) and Rotter-dam (Dutch). The ports of high risk category are situated by the North Sea (Gunness) and by the North Atlantic (Lisbon).
Harbour of Gdańsk
Out of the 144, the group of ports whose ballast waters dumped into the Gdańsk harbour cause very high risk of alien species introductions comprises 7 ports (5%), 2 ports (1%) of the high risk category, 91 ports (63%) of the medium risk category, and 44 ports (31%) of the low risk category. The ports of very high risk are situated by the North Sea (3 – Dutch, 2 – German, 2 – Norwegian). These are the following ports: Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Delfzijl (Dutch), Brunsbuttel and Bremerhaven (German), Fredrikstad and Moss (Norwegian). The ports of high risk category are also situated by the North Sea (2 – German). These are the ports Brake and Emden.
The ports whose waters, when used as ballast water, appear to be the most risky to the environ-ment of the all analysed harbours, include Antwerp and Ghent (Belgium), Hamburg, Brehmen, Butz-fleth (Germany), Rotterdam and Amsterdam (Hol-land). It is worth mentioning that these appear to be big ports called at by vessels from all over the world. Their waters can be strongly polluted with various kinds of fauna and flora organisms brought literally from all over the world. The ports of very high risk are situated by the North Sea in West Europa.
Conclusions
All of this points to the fact that the BWM Con-vention will become effective by the end of 2013. The research results presented in this article show that the carriage and discharge of ballast water is a major issue for the harbours of the Southern Baltic. The sea transport in Europe is expected to develop extensively in the forthcoming years. Therefore, the amount of ballast water and sedi-ments which will need treatment in accordance with the requirements of the BWM Convention is bound to increase. The Polish harbours which are the most vulnerable to the discharge of ballast waters con-taminated with alien species include those on the western coast, in particular the Szczecin and Police harbours. Ballast water brought from the harbours of the North Sea in Western Europe is the most hazardous for the marine environment of the Polish coastal waters. Considering the fact that the discharge of ballast water into the Baltic Sea in
accordance with the requirements of the BWM Convention (distance from the shore – 200 nautical miles, depth – 200 metres) is almost impossible, the installation of ballast water treatment systems which kill living organisms is of major importance. However, this is not an easy process due to its cost. Therefore, an easing of the requirements with re-spect to the transport of ballast water from those harbours, whose waters do not pose an environ-mental risk to the Polish harbours, should be con-sidered, as this environmental barrier may turn into an economic obstacle for the Polish ports in the competition for cargo with other Baltic harbours.
References
1. BEHRENS H.L., LEPPÄKOSKI E.,OLENIN S.: Ballast Water
Risk Assessment Guidelines for the North Sea and Baltic Sea. Nordic Innovation Centre NT TECHN REPORT 587, Approved 2005-12. Oslo 2005.
2. GOLLASCH S., LEPPAKOSKI E.: Initial Risk Assessment of
Alien Species in Nordic Coastal waters. Nodic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen 1999.
3. DICKMAN M.,ZHANG F.: Mid-ocean exchange of container
vessel ballast water. 2. Effects of vessel type in the transport of diatoms and dinoflagellates from Manzanillo, Mexico, to Hong Kong, China. Mar. Ecol.Prog. Ser. 176: 253–262, 1999.
4. Komunikat Komisji do Rady, Parlamentu Europejskiego, Europejskiego Komitetu Ekonomiczno-Społecznego i Ko-mitetu Regionów w Kierunku Strategii UE w Sprawie Gatunków Inwazyjnych. COM(2008) 789, Bruksela 2008. 5. GOLLASCH S.,LEPPÄKOSKI E.: Risk assessment and
mana-gement scenarios for ballast water mediated species intro-ductions into the Baltic Sea. Aquatic Invasions Volume 2, Issue 4: 313–340, 2007.
6. RILOV G., CROOKS J.A.: Biological invasions in marine
ecosystems: ecological, management, and geographic per-spectives. Series Ecological Studies, Springer, Berlin 2009. 7. DRAKE L.,MEYER A.,FORSBERG R.: Potential invasion of
microorganisms and pathogens via „interior hull fouling‟: biofilms inside ballast water tanks. Biological Invasions 7, 969–982, 2005.
8. STANKIEWICZ M.,LJUNGBERG R.,HELAVUORI M.: Ballast
Water Management in the Baltic Sea, Emerging ballast water management systems. Edited by Bellefontaine N., Haag F., Lindén O., Matheickal J. Proceedings of the IMO-WMU Research and Development Forum 26–29 January 2010 Malmö, Sweden.
9. Gospodarka morska 2010. Urząd Statystyczny w Szczeci-nie, Szczecin 2011.
10. Międzynarodowa konwencja o kontroli i postępowaniu ze statkowymi wodami balastowymi i osadami, 2004 (Kon-wencja BWM), Wyd. PRS, Gdańsk 2006.
11. UNTAC, Review of Maritime transport 2008, http://www. unctad.org
12. Lloyd‟s Register/Fairplay World Fleet Statistics 31 Decem-ber 2009.
13. Australian Quarantine & Inspection Service 1993. Ballast Water Management. Ballast Water Research Series Report No. 4, AGPS Canberra.
14. http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/StatusOfConven-tions/Documents/Status2011.pdf
15. KOŁWZAN K.: Kontrola i postępowanie ze statkowymi wodami balastowymi i osadami – przegląd wymagań kon-wencji Międzynarodowej Organizacji Morskiej oraz naj-nowszych systemów obróbki wód balastowych. Biuletyn Informacyjny PRS S.S., nr 5/272, Gdańsk 2008.
16. http://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/en/info_service/ballastwater/ index.html
17. http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/BallastWater Management/Pages/BWMGuidelines.aspx
18. Polish Harbors Information and Control System – PHICS, UM Szczecin, 2008.
19. EKMAN S.: Zoogeography of the Sea. Sidgwick & Jackson
Ltd., London 1953, 417.
20. Large Marine Ecosystems, Information Portal, http://www. edc.uri.edu/lme, 2008
21. DOBLIN M.,REID D.,DOBBS F.D.: Assessment of
Trans-oceanic Nobob Vessels and Low-Salinity Ballast Water as Vectors for Nonindigenous Species Introductions to the Great Lakes. Proceedings of the Second International Con-ference on Marine Bioinvasions, New Orleans, La., April 9–11, 2001, 34–35.
22. LOCKE A.,REID D.,LEEUWEN H.C. and other: Ballast water exchange as a means of controlling dispersal of freshwater organisms by ships. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50, 1993, 2086–2093.
23. HAMER J.,COLLIN T.,LUCAS I.: Dinoflagellate cysts in bal-last tank sediments: Between tank variability. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 40, 2000, 731–733.
24. World Shipping Register (Sea Distances and Voyage Cal-culator) – www.e-ships.net., 2008.
25. WALK M.,MODRZEJEWSKA H.: Ocena ryzyka zawleczenia
obcych gatunków na podstawie zaleceń HELCOM – Okre-ślenie zagrożenia introdukcji gatunków obcych w Zatoce Gdańskiej na podstawie badań wód balastowych. CTO SA, Gdańsk 2007.
Recenzent: dr hab. inż. Witold Biały, prof. PŚl Politechnika Śląska
