MEPC 56/23

I:\MEPC\56\23.doc ANNEX 2

RESOLUTION MEPC.162(56)

Adopted on 13 July 2007

GUIDELINES FOR RISK ASSESSME NT UNDER REGULATION A-4 OF THE BWM CONVENTION (G7)

THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE,

RECALLING Article 38(a) of the Convention on the International Maritime Organization concerning the functions of the Marine Envi ronment Protection Committee conferred upon it by

the international conventions for the prevention and c ontrol of marine pollution,

RECALLING ALSO that the International C onference on Ballast Water Management for Ships held in February 2004 adopted the In ternational Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Se diments, 2004 (the Ballast Water Management Convention) together with four Conference resolutions,

NOTING that regulation A-2 of the Ballast Water Management Convention requires that discharge of ballast water shall only be conducted through Ballast Water Management in accordance with the provisions of the Annex to the Convention,

NOTING FURTHER that regulation A-4 of the Convention stipulates that a Party or Parties, in waters under their jurisdiction, may grant exemptions to a ny requirements to apply regulation B-3 or C-1, in additi on to those exemptions containe d elsewhere in this Convention, but only when they are, inter alia , granted based on the Guidelines on risk assessment developed by the Organization.

NOTING ALSO that the International Conference on Ballast Water Management for Ships, in its resolution 1, invited the Organi zation to develop the Guidelines for uniform application of the Convention as a matter of urgency,

HAVING CONSIDERED, at its fifty-sixth session, the draft Guidelines for risk assessment under regulation A-4 (G7) of the BW M Convention developed by the Ballast Water Working Group, and the recommendation made by the Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases at its eleventh session,

1. ADOPTS the Guidelines for risk assessment under regulation A-4 (G7) of the

BWM Convention as set out in th e annex to this resolution;

2. INVITES Governments to apply the Guidelin es as soon as possible, or when the Convention becomes applicable to them; and

3. AGREES to keep the Guidelines under review.MEPC 56/23

ANNEX 2 Page 2

I:\MEPC\56\23.doc ANNEX

GUIDELINES FOR RISK ASSESSMENT UNDER REGULATION A-4 OF THE BWM CONVENTION (G7)

1 PURPOSE

1.1 The purpose of these Guidelines is to assist Pa rties to ensure that pr ovisions of regulation A-4 of the Convention are applied in a consistent manner, and base d on scientifically robust risk assessment, which ensures that the general and sp ecific obligations of a Party to the Convention

are achieved.

1.2 An additional purpose is to provide assurance to affected States that exemptions granted by a Party meet the regulation A-4.3 obligations.

1.3 The Guidelines outline three risk assessment methods that will enable Parties to identify unacceptable high risk scenarios a nd acceptable low risk scenarios, and advise Parties on procedures for granting and withdrawing ex emptions in accordance with regulation A-4.

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Regulation A-4 of the Conventi on states that a Party or Pa rties, in waters under their jurisdiction may grant exemptions to any requireme nts to apply regulation B-3 or C-1, in addition to those exemptions contained elsewhere in the Convention, but only when they are:

.1 granted to a ship or ships on a voyage or voyages between specified ports or locations; or to a ship which operates exclusively between specified ports or locations;

.2 effective for a period of no more than five years subject to intermediate review;

.3 granted to ships that do not mix ballast water or sediments other than between the ports or locations specifie d in paragraph 2.1.1; and

.4 granted based on the Guidelines that ha ve been developed by the Organization.

2.2 These Guidelines provide advice and inform ation regarding risk assessment principles and methods, data needs, advi ce on application of risk asse ssment methods, procedures for granting exemptions, consultation and communicat ion processes, information for reviewing exemptions and advice regarding technical assi stance, co-operation and regional co-operation.

2.3 These Guidelines also provide advice rega rding the roles of the Organization, shipping industry, port States and other States that mi ght be affected by granting an exemption in accordance with regulation A-4 of the Convention.

2.4 Scientifically robust risk assessment underpin s the process of Parties granting exemptions under regulation A-4 of the Convention. The assessment must be sufficiently robust to distinguish between unacceptable hi gh risk scenarios and acceptable low risk scenarios where the discharge of ballast water not m eeting regulations B-3 and C-1 is unlikely to impair or damage the environment, human health, property or resour ces of the granting Party and of adjacent or

other States.MEPC 56/23

ANNEX 2 Page 3

I:\MEPC\56\23.doc 2.5 Risk assessments should be based on best available scie ntific information.

2.6 The Guidelines should be kept under review in order to incorporat e experiences gained during their application and any new scientific and t echnical knowledge.

3 APPLICATION

3.1 These Guidelines apply to Parties granting exemptions to ships under regulation A-4 of

the Convention.

3.2 Shipowners or operators wanting to seek an exemption under regulation A-4 should also

consult these Guidelines.

4 DEFINITIONS

4.1 For the purposes of these Guidelines, the definitions in the Convention apply.

4.2 “Anadromous”: species that spawn/reproduce in freshwater environments, but spend at least part of their adult life in a marine environment.

4.3 “Biogeographic region”: a large natural region defined by physiogr aphic and biologic characteristics within which the animal and plant species show a high degree of similarity. There are no sharp and absolute boundaries but rather more or less clearly expressed transition zones.

4.4 “Catadromous”: species that spawn/reproduc e in marine environments, but spend at least part of their adult life in a freshwater environment.

4.5 “Cryptogenic”: species that are of unknown or igin, i.e. species that are not demonstrably native or introduced to a region.

4.6 “Donor Port”: port or location wher e the ballast water is taken onboard.

4.7 “Euryhaline”: species able to to lerate a wide rang e of salinities.

4.8 “Eurythermal”: species able to tole rate a wide range of temperatures.

4.9 “Freshwater”: water with salinity lower than 0.5 psu (p ractical salinity units).

4.10 “Marine water”: Water with salinity higher than 30 psu.

4.11 “Non-indigenous species”: any species out side its native range, whether transported intentionally or accidentally by humans or transported th rough natural processes.

4.12 “Recipient port”: port or location wh ere the ballast water is discharged.

4.13 “Target species”: species identified by a Part y that meet specific cr iteria indicating that they may impair or damage the environment, hum an health, property or resources and are defined for a specific port, State or biogeographic region.MEPC 56/23

ANNEX 2 Page 4

I:\MEPC\56\23.doc 5 RISK ASSESSMENT PRINCIPLES

5.1 Risk assessment is a logical process fo r assigning the likelihood and consequences of specific events, such as the entry, establishment, or spread of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens. Risk assessments can be qualitative or quantitative, and can be a valuable decision aid if completed in a systematic and rigorous manner.

5.2 The following key principles define the nature and performan ce of risk assessment:

.1 Effectiveness – That risk assessments accurately measures the risks to the extent necessary to achieve an appr opriate level of protection.

.2 Transparency – That the reasoning and evidence supporting the action recommended by risk assessments, and ar eas of uncertainty (and their possible consequences to those recommendations ), are clearly documented and made

available to decision-makers.

.3 Consistency – That risk assessments achieve a uni form high level of performance, using a common process and methodology.

.4 Comprehensiveness – That the full range of values, including economic, environmental, social and cultural, are considered when assessing risks and making recommendations.

.5 Risk Management – That low risk scenarios may exist, but zero risk is not obtainable, and as such risk should be managed by determining the acceptable

level of risk in each instance.

.6 Precautionary – That risk assessments incorporate a level of precaution when making assumptions, and making recommen dations, to account for uncertainty, unreliability, and inadequacy of informati on. The absence of, or uncertainty in, any information should therefore be consid ered an indicator of potential risk.

.7 Science based – That risk assessments are based on the best available information

that has been collected and anal ysed using scientific methods.

.8 Continuous improvement – Any risk model should be periodically reviewed and updated to account for improved understanding.

5.3 In undertaking risk assessment when c onsidering granting an exemption, the risk assessment principles should be carefully applied. The lack of full scientif ic certainty should be carefully considered in the decision making pr ocess. This is especi ally important under these Guidelines, as any decision to grant an exemption will allow for the discharge of ballast water

that does not meet the standard s of regulation D-1 or D-2.MEPC 56/23

ANNEX 2 Page 5

I:\MEPC\56\23.doc 6 RISK ASSESSMENT METHODS

6.1 General

6.1.1 There are three risk assessment methods outli ned in these Guidelines for assessing the risks in relation to granting an exemption in accordance with regulation A-4 of the Convention:

• Environmental matching risk assessment

• Species’ biogeographical risk assessment

• Species-specific risk assessment

6.1.2 Environmental matching risk assessment relies on comparing environmental conditions between locations, species’ biogeographical risk assessment compares the overlap of native and non-indigenous species to evaluate environmental similarity and to identify high risk invaders, while species-specific risk assessment evaluates the distribution and charact eristics of identified target species. Dependent on the scope of the assessment being performed, the three approaches could be used either individually or in any co mbination, recognizing that each approach has its

limitations.

6.1.3 Environment matching and species’ biogeograp hical risk assessment may be best suited to assessments between biogeographic regions. Sp ecies-specific risk assessment may be best

suited to situations where the assessment can be conducted on a limited number of harmful species within a bi ogeographic region.

6.2 Environmental matching risk assessment

6.2.1 Environmental matching risk assessment s compare environmental conditions including temperature and salinity between donor and recipien t regions. The degree of similarity between the locations provides an indication of the likel ihood of survival and th e establishment of any species transferred between those locations.

6.2.2 Since species are widely dist ributed in a region, and are rare ly restricted to a single port

the environmental conditions of the source region should be considered.

6.2.3 These regions are typically defined as biogeogra phic regions. Noting that all of the existing biogeographical schemes were derived fo r different purposes than proposed here, it is suggested that the Large Marine Ecosystems (LME) scheme ( http://www.edc.uri.edu/lme ) be

used based on best available info rmation at this time, with local and regional adaptation as necessary. It is recognized that the suggested bi ogeographical scheme may not be appropriate in

certain circumstances and in this case other rec ognized biogeographical sc hemes may need to be

considered 1

.

1 Watling and Gerkin (http://marine.rutgers.edu/OBIS/index.html) based on Briggs (1953) and Springer (1982); IUCN bioregion system; Briggs (1953) and Ekman (1974; 1995); Longhurst provinces.MEPC 56/23

ANNEX 2 Page 6

I:\MEPC\56\23.doc 6.2.4 Environmental matching should therefore co mpare environmental conditions between the donor biogeographic region and the recipient port to determine the likelihood that any species found in the donor biogeographic region are able to survive in the reci pient port in another biogeographic region. The environmental conditions that may be considered for environmental matching include salinity, temperature or other e nvironmental conditions, such as nutrients or

oxygen.

6.2.5 The difficulty in using environmental matc hing risk assessments is identifying the environmental conditions that are predictive of the ability of the harmful species to successfully

establish and cause harm in the new location, and in determining whether the risk of ballast water discharge is sufficiently low to be acceptable. Environmental matching risk assessments have

limited value where the differences between a donor biogeographic region and a recipient port are small as high similarity is likely to indi cate high likelihood of successful establishment.

6.2.6 Environmental conditions should also be comp ared between the donor and recipient ports. Similarity in key environmental conditions betw een the two ports is a stronger indication that species entrained in ballas t water in the donor port could survive when rel eased into th e waters of the recipient port. The environm ental conditions that may be considered for environmental matching include salinity, temperature or other e nvironmental conditions, such as nutrients or

oxygen.

6.2.7 The data necessary to enable a risk asse ssment using environmental matching includes,

but is not limited to:

.1 Origin of the ballast water to be discharged in recipient port.

.2 Biogeographic region of donor and recipient port(s).

.3 The average and range of environmenta l conditions, in particular salinity and

temperature.

This information is used to determine the degr ee of environmental similarity between the donor and recipient environments. In many cases, it s hould be possible to use existing data for part or

all of these envir onmental profiles.

6.2.8 The following should be considered in gath ering data on the envi ronmental conditions:

.1 The seasonal variations in surface and bottom salinities and temperatures at the recipient port and the larger water body th e port is contained within (e.g., estuary or bay). Surface and bottom values are needed to determine the full range of

environmental conditions available for a potential invader (e.g., low salinity surface waters allowing the invasion of a freshwater species). Salinity and temperature depth profiles are not required if available data indicates the waters are well mixed over the entire year.

.2 In recipient ports with strong tides or cu rrents, the temporal variations in salinity should be determined over a tidal cycle.

.3 In areas with seasonal or depth variati ons, the salinity should be determined on a seasonal and/or depth basis.MEPC 56/23

ANNEX 2 Page 7

I:\MEPC\56\23.doc .4 Any anthropogenic influences on freshw ater flow that could temporarily or permanently alter the salinity regime of the recipient port and surrounding waters.

.5 The seasonal temperature variation of co astal waters for the biogeographic region of the recipient port. Consideration shoul d be given to both surface waters and to how temperature varies with depth.

6.2.9 It is recommended that the analysis of environmental conditions be followed by a consideration of the species known to be in the donor regi on that can tole rate extreme environmental differences. If present, a species-sp ecific approach should be used to evaluate the risks associated with these sp ecies. Such species include:

• species that utilize both fresh and ma rine environments to complete their life-cycle (including anadromous (e .g., Sea Lamprey) and catadromous (e.g., Chinese Mitten crab) species);

• species with a tolerance to a wide range of temperatures (eurythermal species) or salinities (euryhaline species).

6.3 Species’ biogeographical risk assessment

6.3.1 Species’ biogeographical risk assessment compares the biogeogra phical distributions of nonindigenous, cryptogenic, and harmful native sp ecies that presently exist in the donor and recipient ports and biogeographic regions. Over lapping species in the do nor and recipient ports and regions are a direct indicati on that environmental conditions are sufficiently similar to allow

a shared fauna and flora. The biogeographical analysis could also be used to identify high risk invaders. For example, native spec ies in the donor biogeographic region that have successfully invaded other similar biogeographi c regions but that are not found in the recipient biogeographic region could be considered high risk invaders fo r the recipient port or location. The larger the number of biogeographic re gions that such species have inva ded, the greater the potential that those species would be able to become establishe d in the recipient port or biogeographic region if introduced by ballast water not meeting regulation B-3 or C-1. Another general indicator of risk would be if the donor biogeographic region is a major source of invaders to other areas.

6.3.2 The data necessary to enable a risk asse ssment using a species biogeographical approach includes but may not be limited to:

.1 records of invasion in the donor and r ecipient biogeographic regions and ports;

.2 records of native or non-indigenous sp ecies that could be transferred through ballast water in the donor biogeogra phic region that have invaded other biogeographic regions and the number a nd nature of biogeographic regions invaded;

.3 records of native species in the donor re gion that have the potential to affect human health or result in substantial ecological or economic impacts after introduction in the recipient regi on through ballast water transfer.MEPC 56/23

ANNEX 2 Page 8

I:\MEPC\56\23.doc 6.3.3 The species’ biogeographical risk assessment could also be used to identify potential target species in the donor regions as indicate d by native species with wide biogeographical or

habitat distributions or which are known invaders in other biogeographic regions similar to that of the recipient port.

6.4 Species-specific risk assessment

6.4.1 Species-specific risk assessments use information on life history and physiological tolerances to define a species’ physiological limits and thereby estimate its potential to survive or complete its life cycle in the recipient environm ent. That is, they compare individual species

characteristics with the environmental conditions in the recipient port, to determine the likelihood

of transfer and survival.

6.4.2 In order to undertake a specie s-specific risk assessment, species of con cern that may impair or damage the environment, human health, property or resources need to be identified and selected. These are known as the target species. Target species should be selected for a specific port, State, or geographical regi on, and should be identified and agreed on in consultation with

affected States.

6.4.3 To determine the species that are potentially harmful and in vasive, parties should initially identify all species (including cr yptogenic species) that are pres ent in the donor port but not in the recipient port. Target spec ies should then be selected base d on criteria that identify the species that have the ability to invade and be come harmful. The factors to consider when identifying target species includ e, but should no t be limited to:

• evidence of prior introduction;

• demonstrated impacts on environment, economy, human health, property or

resources;

• strength and type of ecological in teractions, e.g. ecological engineers;

• current distribution within biogeogra phic region and in other biogeographic regions; and

• relationship with ball ast water as a vector.

6.4.4 Species-specific risk assessments should then be conducted on a list of target species, including actual or potentially harmful non-indige nous species (including cryptogenic species). As the number of species included in the assessment increases th e number of low risk scenarios decreases. This is justified if the species assessments are accurate. The difficulty arises when the

assessments are conservative due to lack of data. It s hould be recognized how ever, that the fewer the number of species analyzed, the greater the uncertainty in predicting the overall risk. The uncertainty associated with limiting the an alysis to a small num ber of species should

therefore be considered in assess ing the overall risk of invasion.

6.4.5 It should be noted that there are limitations involved with using a ta rget species approach. Although some data and information can be obt ained to support decision making, identifying species that may impair or damage the enviro nment, human health, property or resources is subjective and there will be a degr ee of uncertainty associ ated with the approach. For example, itMEPC 56/23

ANNEX 2 Page 9

I:\MEPC\56\23.doc is possible that species identified as harmful in some environments may not be harmful in others

and vice versa.

6.4.6 If species-specific risk as sessments are undertaken when th e donor and recipi ent ports are within different biogeographic regions, Partie s should identify and consider any uncertainties resulting from lack of data on the presence of potentially harmful speci es in the donor location.

6.4.7 The data necessary to enable a risk asse ssment using the species-specific approach includes, but is not limited to:

.1 biogeographic region of donor and recipient port(s);

.2 the presence of all non-indigenous sp ecies (including cryp togenic species) and native species in the donor port(s), por t region and biogeographic region, not present in the recipient port, to allo w identification of target species;

.3 the presence of all target species in the recipient por t(s), port region, and biogeographic region;

.4 the difference between targ et species in the donor and r ecipient ports, port region, and biogeographic region;

.5 life history information on the target species and physiologi cal tolerances, in particular salinity and temperature, of each life stage; and

.6 habitat type required by th e target species and availability of habitat type in the recipient port.

6.4.8 If a target species is already present in th e recipient port, it may be reasonable to exclude that species from the overall ri sk assessment for that port unless that sp ecies is under active control. It is important to recognize, however, that even when a non-indigenous species or cryptogenic species has been reported from the donor and recipient ports, its continual introduction into the recipient ports could increase the probability that it will become established

and/or achieve invasive population densities.

6.4.9 A risk assessment can take different forms. A simple assessment can be undertaken as outlined in paragraph 6.4.7 of whether a target sp ecies is present in the donor port but not in a recipient port and can be transpor ted through ballast water. Howe ver, if consider ed appropriate, the likelihood of target species surviving ea ch of the following stages may be assessed, including:

.1 Uptake – probability of viable stages entering the vessel’s ballast water tanks during ballast water uptake operations;

.2 Transfer – probability of survival during the voyage;

.3 Discharge – probability of viable stages entering the recipient port th rough ballast water discharge on arrival; andMEPC 56/23

ANNEX 2 Page 10

I:\MEPC\56\23.doc .4 Population establishment – probability of the species establishing a self-maintaining population in the reci pient port.

6.4.10 To determine the likelihood of transfer and survival of a harmful species, the probability of each species surviving each of th e stages contained in paragraph 6.4.9 may be assessed. To the extent possibl e the different life stages of the target species may also be assessed considering seasonal vari ations of life stage occurrenc e in donor port with seasonal conditions in the recipient port. The overall risk assessment fo r the discharge of unmanaged ballast water is therefore determined based on the assessment of all target species surviving all these stages.

6.4.11 In assessing whether a species will su rvive in the recipient port, physiological tolerances of all life stages need to be considered.

.1 The ability of the adults to survive would be indicat ed by the physiological limits for both temperature and sa linity that fall within the environmental ranges observed in the recipient port and larger water body. As a check, a comparison

could be made with the native and/or introduced ranges of the species to determine if the predicted tolerances (bas ed on lab or field st udies) reflect actual

distributions.

.2 For other life stages the physiological requ irements of each stag e in the life cycle should be compared against the environm ental conditions during the season(s) of reproduction, noting that these stage(s) may live in different habitats to complete their life cycle (e.g., coastal pelagic larvae of estu arine benthic invertebrates). Data should be collected as appropriate.

.3 Comparisons of known physiological tole rances for other conditions should be

conducted if the data are available and relevant.

6.4.12 To evaluate whether the species-specific ri sk assessment approach is sufficiently robust to predict invaders, the approach could be used to estimate th e probabilities of invasion for a suite of existing invaders within the recipient port . Failure to accurately predict existing invaders may indicate that the mode l under predicts the risk.

6.5 Evaluation and decision-making

6.5.1 The port State granting exemptions shal l, in both the evalua tion and consultation processes, give special attention to regulation A-4.3 which st ates that any exemptions granted under this regulation shall not im pair or damage the environment, human health, property or resources of adjacent or other States. Regulati on A-4.3 also states that States that may be adversely affected shall be consulted, and Partie s should refer to section 8 regarding consultation.

6.5.2 It is important for the transparency and c onsistency of the risk a ssessments to define a priori criteria to distinguish between unacceptable high risk scen arios and acceptable low risk

scenarios where the risk of ballast water not meeting regulations B-3 and C-1 is unlikely to impair or damage the environment, human healt h, property or resources of the granting Party and of adjacent or other States. The specific crite ria depend upon the risk assessment approach, as well as the uncertainty in the analysis.MEPC 56/23

ANNEX 2 Page 11

I:\MEPC\56\23.doc 6.5.3 For an environmental matching risk assessment:

.1 A high-risk scenario could be indicated if the environmental conditions of the donor ports overlap the environmental conditions of the recipient region.

.2 A low-risk scenario could be indicated if the environmental conditions of the donor port do not overlap the environmental conditions of the recipient region.

6.5.4 For the species’ biogeographical risk assessment:

.1 A high-risk could be indicated if the recipient port presently contains non-indigenous species whose native range includes the donor biogeographic region.

.2 A high-risk could be indicated if the donor and recipient ports share non-indigenous species w hose source is from other biogeographic regions.

.3 A moderate to high risk could be indicated if the recipient biogeographic region presently contains non-indigenous species whose native range includes the donor biogeographic region.

.4 A moderate to high risk could be indi cated if the donor biogeographic region is a major source for invaders for other biogeographic regions.

6.5.5 For a species-specific risk assessment, an assessment could be deemed high risk if it identifies at least one target species that satisfies all of the following:

• likely to cause harm;

• present in the donor port or biogeographic region;

• likely to be transferred to the reci pient port through ba llast water; and

• likely to survive in the recipient port.

6.5.6 The overall probability of a successful invasion also depends in part on the number of organisms and the frequency with which they are introduced over the entire period of the exemption. Therefore, it is recommended that a risk assessment should consider estimates of at least the following four factors:

.1 the total volume of water discharged

.2 the volume of water discharged in any event (voyage)

.3 the total number of discharge events

.4 the temporal distribution of discharge events.

6.5.7 In all cases, the level of un certainty needs to be considered in evaluating the extent of risk. High levels of uncertainty in the biog eographical distributions and/or physiological tolerances of a target species may be sufficient in themselves to classify the risk as high. Additionally, the potential ecologi cal impact of the target species should be considered in deciding the level of acceptable risk. The abse nce of, or uncertainty in , any information should not be considered a reason to grant an exemption to regulation B-3 or C-1.MEPC 56/23

ANNEX 2 Page 12

I:\MEPC\56\23.doc 6.5.8 Once the level of risk and the extent of uncertainty have been assessed, the result can be compared to the levels a Party(s) is willing to accept in order to determine whether an exemption can be granted.

6.5.9 Ships on a voyage(s) or route(s) that satisfy the requirements of regulation A-4.1 and that pass(es) the terms of acceptance in the risk assessment may be granted an exemption.

6.5.10 It is recommended that an independent p eer review of the risk assessment method, data and assumptions be undertaken in or der to ensure that a scientific ally rigorous analysis has been conducted. The peer review should be undertaken by an independentthird party with biological and risk assessment expertise.

7 PROCEDURES FOR GRANTING EXEMPTIONS

7.1 The purpose of this section is to provide gui dance for Parties, Administrations and ships, engaged in the process of applying for, evaluatin g and/or granting exemptions in accordance with the provisions of regulation A-4. The appendix al so identifies minimum information required for an exemption application.

7.2 Parties may undertake the risk assessment th emselves in order to grant exemptions, or require the shipowner or operato r to undertake the risk assessmen t. In any event the Party granting an exemption is responsible for evaluati ng the risk assessment, verifying the data and information used, and ensuring the risk asse ssment is conducted in a thorough and objective

manner in accordance with the Guidelines. Th e recipient port State( s) should reject any application for exemption found not to be in accordance with these Guidelines, and should provide reasons as to why the application was not accepted.

7.3 Shipowners or operators wan ting to seek an exemption should contact the relevant Parties to ascertain the risk assessment procedures to be undertaken and the information requirements of these procedures.

7.4 Where a Party has determined that the shi powner or operator should undertake the risk assessment, the Party should provide releva nt information, including any application requirements, the risk assessment model to be us ed, any target species to be considered, data standards and any other required information. The shipowner or operator should follow these Guidelines and submit relevant information to the Party.

7.5 The port State shall ensure that, as re quired by regulation A-4.1.3, exemptions are only granted to ships that do not mi x ballast water or sediments ot her than between the locations specified in the exemption. The port State shoul d require evidence of the specific measures undertaken to ensure compliance with this regulation at the time the exemption is granted and over the duration of the exemption. Non-comp liance during the period of exemption should result in prompt suspension or revocation of the exemption.

7.6 An exemption shall not be effective for mo re than 5 years from the date granted. The approval may contain seasonal an d time-specific or other restrictio ns within the ti me of validity.

7.7 The result of the risk assessment should be stated as:

.1 The voyage(s) or route(s) represent(s) an acceptable risk. The application for an exemption is granted.MEPC 56/23

ANNEX 2 Page 13

I:\MEPC\56\23.doc .2 The voyage(s) or route(s) may repr esent an unacceptable risk. Further

consideration is required.

.3 The voyage(s) or route(s) represent(s) an unacceptable risk. The exemption from the ballast water management requireme nts of regulation B-3 or C-1 of the Convention is not granted.

8 CONSULTATION

8.1 In accordance with regulation A-4.3, Parties sh all consult any State that may be adversely affected from any exemptions that may be grante d. This should include adjacent States and any other States that may be affect ed, including those located in the same biogeographic region as the recipient port(s). States shoul d exchange information and end eavour to resolv e any identified

concerns. Sufficient time must be given for affected States to consider proposed exemptions carefully.

8.2 Affected States should be provided with information on: the risk assessment method applied; the quality of the information used in the assessment; uncertainties in the model, model inputs and/or risk assessments; the rationale for the proposed exemption; and any terms or conditions applicable to the exemption.

8.3 The risk assessment should document the following elements as appropriate:

• Criteria or reference for defining ta rget species in the risk method.

• The inventories of native, non-indigenous , and cryptogenic species used in the species’ biogeographical risk assessment.

• Acceptance criteria applied in each step of the analysis . The risk assessment has to be put in a relevant context to enable determination of whether the risk level is acceptable or not. The only transparent verifiable way of doing this is to compare

the actual risk level with clear predefined acceptance criteria in paragraphs 6.5.2 to 6.5.8.

8.4 In addition, the criteria or scientific methods used in defining and delimiting the biogeographic regions shall be presented if a scheme other than that recommended in paragraph 6.2.3 is used.

8.5 The invitation for comments should contain one of the two following options for the affected State’s response:

.1 Supported without comments or conditions.

.2 Supported with comments and/or conditions.

8.6 The deadline for comments from the affect ed State(s) should be specified in the invitation. If no response within the given time- limit is received, this may be regarded as “Accepted without comments or conditions”.MEPC 56/23

ANNEX 2 Page 14

I:\MEPC\56\23.doc 8.7 If an affected State does not support th e granting of the exemp tion(s), the appropriate reasons should be provided. Any conditions or lim itations which an affected State believes to be necessary to enable them to support an exemption shoul d be clearly identified.

9 COMMUNICATION OF INFORMATION

9.1 Each Party to the Convention that has indica ted it will grant exem ptions should establish a point or points of contact for receipt of app lications. Relevant co ntact details should be submitted to the Organization. In the absence of such information from a Party, the IMO MEPC contact point should be regarded as the contact point for the purpose of these Guidelines.

9.2 The Organization should circulate the list of contacts, and keep this list updated on a regular basis.

9.3 The decision of the recipient port State(s) shall be communicated to the shipowners or operators, the affected State(s), and the Organizati on as soon as possible before the effective date of the exemption. The decision should explain th e basis for granting the exemption and how any

comments from affected States were addressed and specify the voyage or voyages in which the exemption is granted, including th e specified ports or location(s), the duration of the exemption and details of any conditions or limitations on the exemption.

9.4 Exemptions granted in accordance with regulation A-4 of the Convention, shall be effective after communication to the Organization and circulation of relevant information to

Parties.

9.5 Any exemption granted shall also be reco rded in the ballast water record book in accordance with regulation A-4.4.

9.6 Where exemptions have been granted for a specific voyage, any changes in voyage plans must be communicated to the Party that has granted the exemption prior to undertaking the voyage or prior to discharge of ballast water.

10 REVIEW OF RISK ASSESSMENT AND WITHDRAWAL OF EXEMPTIONS

10.1 It is recommended that information used in the risk assessment be reviewed regularly as data and assumptions used in the assessment can become outdated.

10.2 It is recommended that an intermediate revi ew be undertaken within 12 months but in any circumstances no later than 36 months after perm ission is granted. A r ecipient port State may require several reviews to be taken during the period the exemp tion is granted for, but more frequent than annual reviews ge nerally should not be required.

10.3 Renewal of an exemption following the initia l 60 months must not be granted without a thorough review of the risk assessment, consulta tion with affected States, and notice of the decision to the Organization under regulation A-4.2.MEPC 56/23

ANNEX 2 Page 15

I:\MEPC\56\23.doc 10.4 An exemption granted under regulation A-4 of the Convention may ne ed to be withdrawn where the actual risk associated with a voyag e has increased substant ially since the risk assessment was conducted. This would include emergency situations such as outbreaks, incursions, infestations, or pr oliferations of popul ations of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens (e.g., harmful algal blooms) which ar e likely to be taken up in ballast water (regulation C-2 of the Convention).

10.5 When a port State notifies mariners of areas under its jurisdiction where ships should not uptake ballast water due to an emergency or other high risk situation, all exemptions should be withdrawn from ships that take up ballast water in the defined area. In such circumstances the shipowners or operators should be notified of the decision to wit hdraw the exemption as soon as possible.

10.6 Guidelines for additional measures re garding ballast water management including emergency situations (G13) adopted by resolu tion MEPC.161(56) provide guidance to rapidly identify appropriate additional measures whenev er emergency situations occur in relation to ballast water operations.

11 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, CO-OPERATI ON AND REGIONAL CO-OPERATION

11.1 Article 13 of the Convention provides that Parties undertake, directly or through the Organization and other in ternational bodies, to provide suppor t for those Parties which request technical assistance, that Partie s undertake to co-operate and th at Parties shall endeavour to enhance regional co-operation.

11.2 With regard to these risk assessment Guid elines, assistance should include provision of data and information required to undertake a risk assessment, technical assistance regarding the methods for undertaking risk asse ssment and acceptance criteria.MEPC 56/23

ANNEX 2 Page 16

I:\MEPC\56\23.doc APPENDIX

APPLICATION TO PORT STATE

An application for exemption to the port State should as a minimum contain information on the points listed below.

1 GENERAL INFORMATION

• Period for which an application is s ought; from month and year to month and

year.

• Why an exemption under re gulation A-4 is sought.

2 SHIP’S INFORMATION

• Ship name

• IMO number

• Port of registry

• Gross Tonnage

• Owner

• Call sign

• Ballast water management option usually undertaken by ship, including ballast water treatment technology, if installed

• A copy of the Ship’s Ballast Water Management Plan should be submitted

• The Administration may also require ba llast water and sediment management history for a determined period

3 ROUTE INFORMATION

• Route of application, gi ven as donor port(s) and reci pient port for ballast water discharge.

• If single voyage: Date and tim e of departure and arrival.

• If multiple voyages: Voyage frequency, regularity and estimated amount of ballast water discharged during the exemption period. Estimated time and dates for departures and arrivals.

• Any voyages the ship plans to take to por ts other than the specified ports during the duration of the exemption.

• If multiple voyages, the estimated to tal number of voyages and the amount of ballast water discharged under th e duration of the exemption.

***