3.3 Several relevant research results were taken
into account by drafting the application concepts. The
regulations should apply to all ships that carry ballast
water independent of the amount of ballast water carried.
Small ships should not be excluded because of their size,
which would enable them to sail into a wider variety of
ecosystems than larger vessels.
3.4 Some countries are characterized by coastlines
bordering different oceans and thus different ecosystems.
Considering that previously introduced foreign species may be
distributed by national transportation modes (secondary
introductions), it was recommended that the regulations
should also apply to national shipping lines with a view to
avoiding the translocation of species.
3.5 Under this item the Working Group also discussed
in a general way exemptions for ships entitled to sovereign
immunity, and agreed that this issue would be taken into
account after the Committee's decision on a legal framework.
3.6 Ballast Water Management Areas. Norway,
supported by several other delegations, proposed the
development of a world map indicating adequate zones for
ballast water exchange and areas which were incompatible for
ballast water exchange. This would result in a network of
Ballast Water Management Areas. The responsibility of coastal
States in identifying such areas and, further, their right to
enter into regional agreements involving neighbouring coastal
.States was recognized.
3.7 Ballast Water Management Plan. With regard to
Regulation 7, the Working Group agreed to divide this into
two regulations, thus keeping the Ballast Water Management
Plan as a separate issue. Responsibilities and requirements
of port States vs. Flag States concerning the implementation
of the Ballast Water Management Plan need to be clarified.
Controversial views were expressed concerning the question
whether all ships should have on board a Ballast Water
Management Plan, i.e., on board every ship carrying ballast
water and involved in international trade, or only on board
those vessels which are operating in Ballast Water Management
Areas.
3.8 Risk Assessment. Generally, for carrying out a
risk assessment the origin of the ballast water, length of
voyage and number of ship visits are the relevant factors but
not the volume of the discharged ballast water. INTERTANKO
emphasized the use of a risk assessment approach when
developing ballast water management strategies to balance
qualitatively and quantitatively the ecological and
economical consequences of ballast water management. The
principles of risk assessment in the regulations need to be
developed and incorporated.
3.9 New Regulations. Two draft regulations,
Regulation 9 referring to Port State Control and Operational
Requirements and Regulation 10 referring to Detection of
Violations and Enforcement had been prepared by the
Secretariat. Comments and proposals made at the meeting will
be taken into account in a revision by the Secretariat.
3.10 Alternate areas for ballast water exchange
might result in new potential donor regions for
non-indigenous species and thus provide a new pool for
translocation of foreign organisms. Germany pointed out that
in some regions this model is not applicable because
potential sites were often situated near conservation areas
(e.g. the Wadden Sea of the Southern North Sea).
3.11 Precautionary Practices. Practices that had
been recommended to minimize the risk of uptaking harmful
organisms were often not applicable because of natural
constraints, Nevertheless, Australia recommended strongly to
keep all precautionary practices set out in the Code, Part A,
Section 2.
3.12 Safety aspects. The delegation of Greece,
supported by other delegations, stated that the provisions on
safety aspects should appear in more prominent positions in
the regulations. A proposal on a Safety Regulation is
attached (annex 5) and the Working Group was invited to
discuss this issue during MEPC 43.
3.13 Editorial comments. Wording such as "where
practicable", "wherever possible" should be
avoided because these could be subject to interpretation and
might therefore be difficult to implement in a uniform
manner.
3.14 Port State - coastal State - flag State. The
unclear and inaccurate terminology of "port State"
and "coastal State" requires definition. The
principles of responsibilities and application of port
States, coastal States and flag States need to be clarified.
The Secretariat undertook to review this question in a
revision of the draft regulations and the associated code.
3.15 The Working Group agreed that the draft
Regulations and Code developed so far during previous
sessions (annex 1), should be reviewed during the
intersessional period.
4 Ballast Water Questionnaire
The Chairman of the Working Group drew attention to
the importance of the responses to the questionnaire on
ballast water management distributed under MEPC/Circ.342. So
far the Secretariat has received 11 responses only, In
addition IAPH submitted approx, 50-60 responses on individual
ports, Further responses should be received by the end of the
year so that an evaluation may be presented to the next
session of MEPC.
5 Work Programme of the Ballast Water Working Group
5.1 The Chairman drew attention to the fact that
MEPC 42 had agreed that a Conference should be convened in
2000 for the consideration and adoption of legally binding
provisions for ballast water management. Every effort should
be made to fulfill such expectations. This means that at MEPC
43 in June/July 1999 the relevant drafts would have to be
completed.
5.2 The Secretariat was requested to distribute the
report of this meeting before the end of 1998, and to collect
comments and distribute these by March 1999.
5.3 Finally the Chainnan expressed his thanks to the
members of the Working Group for their goodwill and
co-operation; this enabled him to guide the group through
many controversial issues.
6 Action requested by the Committee
The Committee is invited to approve the report of
the Working Group on Ballast Water which reflects the results
of its meeting held during MEPC 42.
***
