MEPC 43/4
ANNEX 1
Page 8

8 　　　General Exceptions - Regulation 3 (2) allows any port State the option of exempting ships from compliance with all or part of the regulations in areas under its jurisdiction. We are concerned about this exemption since it could result in a State joining the treaty, while exempting many of the treaty's regulations. This would result in extensive uncertainty and inconsistency regarding where and how the treaty applies, and undermines its effectiveness and most importantly its ability to achieve its intended objectives. The international community clearly realizes that the translocation of marine organisms in ballast water is a world problem and is attempting to address this problem through the development of an international instrument. If this instrument then allows such a broad exemption, it will undermine its objective of preventing or minimizing the continued spread of marine organisms and the resulting extraordinary environmental and related economic impacts. There are two fundamental reasons for this reality. First, invasions through ballast water cannot generally be predicted in advance. Some may argue that there are voyages that have a lower risk of causing invasions of exotic species because of:

1 　　　Long-standing movement of ballast water from one State to another;

2 　　　Absence of organisms-of-concern (“target organisms”) in the ballast water; and

3 　　　Distinctly different environmental conditions in the donor vs. receiver port.

The United States believes that this rationale does not offer adequate protection against new invasions to justify so broad an exemption for the following reasons:

1 　　　Many invasions occur decades after ballast water movement was begun. For example the establishment of the European zebra mussel occurred in the Great Lakes of North America after decades of ballast water release from“zebra mussel home ports”in Europe.

2 　　　Other than known pest species, it is generally impossible to predict which organisms in ballast water will become serious invaders once released into a non-native and novel environment because there are few characteristics that distinguish the organisms that will become noxious pests from other organisms. Preventing the movement of organisms from one country to another is the only effective strategy to prevent invasions.
3 　　　The assumption that every organism in ballast water from a donor port with a distinctly different climate from the receiver port will necessarily die is questionable.

Second, even where invasions can be predicted, selective application of ballast water management measures will adversely effect efforts to prevent the international spread of marine organisms at the port State, regional and global levels. Ballast water management and exotic species invasions are not solely single port State-specific issues. A port State that unilaterally avails itself of the broad exemption could compromise the environment of neighboring States.
The United States however believes, that to preserve port State flexibility, as well as to focus on international movements of ballast water, the treaty should not apply to ships that operate solely within the jurisdiction of a single State (i.e. engage solely in domestic voyages). Similarly, the treaty's requirements with respect to voyages should apply only to international voyages.



H:/MEPC/43/4.WPD

MED/MN/HBu/jeh

前ページ　　　目次へ　　　次ページ