European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report 

 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

WORKSHOP REPORT 

EMSA Workshop on Ballast Water 

Sampling and the development of 

a Joint European Ballast Water 

Sampling Strategy 

 

23rd and 24th February 2010 

1
European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report 

 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

Table of contents 

I. Introduction 3 

II. Objective of the workshop 3 

III. Workshop Report 

Day 1 

Background to Sampling 

Port State Control 

Sampling for Compliance 

Analysis for compliance 

Experiences of Shipboard Testing and the Analysis of Samples 

The Member State’s Perspective 

The Sampling Protocol 

Day 2 

The Ballast Water Sampling Strategy 

3 

3 

4 

5 

6 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

11 

IV. Conclusions 12 

2
European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report 

 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

I. Introduction 

In November 2008, EMSA hosted a workshop entitled: Implementing the Ballast 

Water Management Convention1 (BWM) – the EU dimension. This workshop 

resulted in the development of an Action Programme, through which the 

European Maritime Safety Agency and the European Commission could add value 

to the Member States work in ratifying the BWM Convention and developing and 

contributing to the strategies being developed by the Regional Sea 

Organisations2. 

Issues surrounding ballast water sampling and analysis were included in this 

Action Programme. Therefore, in order to develop an EU-wide ballast water 

sampling strategy EMSA set up this workshop to discuss the many issues 

surrounding compliance testing. The workshop was attended by 17 Member 

States, Croatia and Norway (please see Annex 1 for an attendance list). It also 

bought together 36 experts in ballast water sampling, ballast water analysis, 

policy making, port State control, statistics and legal issues from both the 

industry, EMSA and the Member States. It should be noted that two further 

Member States, Denmark and Sweden, could not attend due to other 

commitments and Turkey could not attend due to visa logistics. 

II. Objectives of the workshop 

The overall objectives of the workshop were to: 

 develop an understanding of the following within the Member States: 

1). the latest developments in sampling and analysis for compliance 

testing; 

2). the practicalities and problems encountered when sampling on 

board a vessel; 

3). the practicalities and problems encountered when analysing a 

sample; and 

4). the practicalities and problems encountered when developing a 

case against a ship for non-compliance; 

 identify the elements that need to be included in a European Ballast Water 

Sampling Strategy; and, 

 identify any actions or research that may be needed in order to develop a 

European Ballast Water Sampling Strategy. 

III. Workshop Report 

Day 1 

The meeting was opened by Theresa Crossley, EMSA’s Head of Department B –

Implementation. After welcoming everyone to Lisbon and to EMSA, she outlined 

the history of EMSA’s work in the field of Ballast Water, which has resulted in the 

 

1 The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments 

2004 

2 HELCOM (the Helsinki Commission), the OSPAR Commission, the Barcelona Convention, through 

REMPEC, and the Black Sea Commission. 

3
European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report 

 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

development of a Ballast Water Action Programme. She then outlined the 

objectives of the workshop and wished everyone success in their endeavours. 

Brian Elliott, Senior Project Officer in EMSA’s Environmental Protection Sector and 

Co-Chairman of the Workshop then also welcomed everyone and ran through the 

Agenda of the workshop. 

 

Background to Sampling 

Originally the IMO was asked to attend the meeting, set the scene and outline the 

development of guidance on ballast water sampling and analysis at the MEPC and 

BLG Committees. Unfortunately due to the proximity to the BLG 14 and MEPC 60 

meetings and the workload that this entails, Dandu Pugiuc, Head of Biosecurity at 

IMO could not attend. In absentia, he supplied a paper on the issue entitled 

"Ballast Water Sampling – An overview of the work carried out by IMO”, which 

was presented by Mirja Ikonen, Senior Project Officer in EMSA’s Environmental 

Protection Sector. This paper outlined the principles that have been developed 

and the discussions on sampling that have been held under the auspices of the 

IMO and the Globallast Project, from the first Globallast Workshop on this matter 

in Brazil in 2003, to the adoption of the Guidelines (G2) at MEPC in 2008. 

Key principles that have been developed and utilised in the development of the 

Guidelines (G2), include: 

 sampling techniques and programmes should be tailored to the purpose of 

sampling, such as scientific research, risk assessment, capacity building, 

efficacy testing of ballast water management systems or compliance 

monitoring; 

 sampling has to be practical, rapid and, most importantly, needs to enable 

comparison of results when samples are taken in different countries by 

different stakeholders; 

 the samples should be representative of the whole discharge from any 

single tank or any combination of tanks; 

 sampling methods should be safe to the ship, inspectors, crew and 

operators as well as simple, feasible, rapid and applicable at the point of 

the ballast discharge; 

 compliance testing methods can be grouped into indicative analysis, which 

can be completed rapidly and conducted by the port State control officers, 

and detailed sampling, which is time-consuming, labour-intensive and 

requires expert personnel and laboratory facilities; 

 indicative analysis can help the port State to identify immediate mitigation 

measures to avoid additional impact from a possible non-compliant ballast 

water discharge, and assist ships’ Captains to evaluate the situation and 

decide on the most appropriate course of action; 

 sample analysis shall not be used as a basis for unduly delaying the 

operation, movement or departure of the ship; and, 

 that automated systems for ballast water sampling can be used, provided 

such systems are sufficiently progressed and can be validated. 

The Guidelines (G2) provide a set of principles that, if properly applied, ensure a 

consistent approach and provide much needed certainty to the shipping industry. 

However, the IMO still need to compile further guidance on appropriate ballast 

water sampling and analysis protocols; uniform application of such protocols; 

and, the interpretation of the results arising from sample analysis. An aidememoire has been developed to help compile guidance and an IMO circular on 

these issues. The IMO hope that the EMSA Workshop on Ballast Water Sampling 

4
European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report 

 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

will carry out a candid evaluation of issues surrounding sampling and analysis and 

offer its findings to the international community to facilitate further progress on 

this complex matter, both at the BLG and FSI Sub-Committees. 

At the end of the presentation the Workshop the delegates were informed of 

recent developments at BLG 14, which was held two weeks before the EMSA 

Workshop. The issue of the development of further guidance on sampling and 

analysis protocols and the interpretation of the results has been a high priority 

item for the BLG Sub-Committee over the last few years, however very little 

progress has been made and only two submissions on this matter from Brazil 

(BLG 14/5/2) and Germany (BLG 14-INF.06) were made to BLG. In the light of 

the work that the European Commission, through EMSA, was planning to 

undertake on this issue, the IMO asked if EMSA could co-ordinate the 

development of a base paper on this matter for discussion at BLG 15. After liaison 

with the European Commission, their Permanent Representative at IMO and the 

Member States, it was agreed that the findings of the workshop could be used for 

this purpose and an EC paper would be developed and submitted to the next 

meeting of the Sub-Committee. A statement to this effect was then drawn up and 

used to inform BLG 14 of our intentions. This statement can be found in Annex 2. 

Port State Control 

Brian Elliott then gave a presentation on the issues faced by a port State control 

(pSc) officer in checking a ship for compliance with the BWM Convention, 

specifically the D-2 Standard. Key issues that were covered in this presentation 

included: 

 What, realistically, would the port/flag State control inspectors check on a 

ship; 

 Is checking certification, documentation and record keeping a sufficient 

deterrent? Or do we need to sample?; 

 When to take a sample - What is the trigger? or the threshold?; 

 What are the “Clear Grounds” needed to stop a discharge?; 

 Pollution liability issues that arise when allowing a vessel to continue 

discharging if there is a suspicion it is not in compliance with the D-2 

Standard, and/or restarting the discharge to undertake testing; and, 

 Ways to overcome these issues. 

Extensive discussion followed on what exactly a pSc Officer can do in the short 

period he is on board, especially if he arrives during the ballast water discharge or 

after it has happened. Unlike other environmental legislation the BWM Convention 

offers the port State the opportunity to sample a very large discharge which takes 

place over a long time scale. There was some concern amongst some Member 

States that the pSc officers were not experts in this field and sampling for 

compliance should be done by trained professionals. Nevertheless, the logistics of 

calling on specialised personnel or experts to attend remote or distant ports was 

identified as a significant problem that would be costly and cause undue delay. 

EMSA was thanked for raising the issue of the potential port State liability for any 

damage caused by the ballast water discharge once the pSc officer thinks there 

may be a problem, but doesn’t have “clear grounds” to stop the discharge. None 

of the Member States had had experience of this problem with other discharges, 

mainly because testing methods are not based on biological standards. However, 

the point was made that there is in fact two sets of liability, one for the pollution 

and one for the undue delay that any halt in the discharge may cause, if it has 

5
European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report 

 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

not been based on “clear grounds”. This is especially difficult as under the new 

pSc Directive - EC Directive 2009/16/EC on Port State Control - it the Recognised 

Organisations and the Master/Owner of the ship are likely to challenge any pSc 

decision that will detain the vessel if there is no clear and common guidance. 

What is needed is some form of simple spot check sampling methodology that can 

provide “clear grounds” that an offence has been committed. This can then be 

added to the tools used by the pSc officer to decide if the ship is in compliance 

with the D- 2 Standard and whether the ballast water discharge needs to be 

stopped. 

 

Sampling for Compliance 

Stephan Gollasch of Go-Consult then gave a presentation on “Onboard Ballast 

Water Sampling for Compliance Control”. His presentation covered the following 

issues: 

 An overview of sampling methodologies for compliance control; 

 Comparison of sampling methods for discharge directly after treatment 

and for treatment on uptake and then storage in the ballast water tank 

before direct discharge to the sea; 

 Representativeness – statistical versus biological conflicts; 

 Effect of homogeneity on representativeness; 

 How to test for performance, i.e. sequence testing versus. Sampling over 

the entire discharge; 

 Suitable sample volumes; 

 Timing of the sample; 

 Problems with concentrating a sample; 

 Sample handling; and 

 The pro’s and cons of indicative sampling and full scale sampling. 

He then finished his presentation outlining recommendations for sample 

frequency and size for full scale testing. Issues raised in the following discussion 

included: 

 the time it takes for sampling a discharge event, bearing in mind that the 

discharge may occur continuously over a long time (for bulk carriers), or 

consist of many small individual operations (for container ships); 

 the time it takes to get a sample to a laboratory and how to get it there, 

especially from remote ports, or in countries that have no facilities for 

analysis; and 

 how the filtered water should be disposed of during sampling; 

Additionally the question was raised as to whether there were any methods to 

undertake indicative sampling? A few methodologies were briefly outlined, 

however the issue of whether they are representative has yet to be tested. 

Analysis for Compliance 

Tracey McCollin of Marine Scotland then outlined the issues surrounding analysis 

for compliance. In her presentation she identified the differences between 

traditional plankton analysis methods and the specific analysis needed for 

compliance testing for the D-2 Standard. Issues surrounding the measurement of 

plankton, testing for viability, counting numbers of organisms and the robustness 

of statistical analysis were also discussed. 

6
European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report 

 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

The discussion that followed raised some interesting points with regard to how to 

test, measure and record species that form colonies. Additionally, the potential 

need for an ISO Standard on this matter was discussed. 

Experiences of Shipboard Testing and the Analysis of Samples 

The next two presentations were given by Marcel Velhuis from the Royal 

Netherlands Institute for Sea (NIOZ) and August Tobiesen from the Norwegian 

Institute for Water Research (NIVA). Both of these organisations have been 

shipboard testing and analysing results for sometime now. Although, this testing 

and analysis has been focussed on certification through the type approval testing 

there are some parallels and lessons can be learnt for compliance testing. 

Issues raised in these presentations included: 

 Phytoplankton analysis and flow cytometry can be used but viability 

testing is difficult. The presence of some active substances for example 

can reduce the effectiveness of some of the stains used to test for 

viability, resulting in false positive results; 

 There seem to be inherent flaws in the statistical calculation of how many 

samples are needed to test for representativeness. If the model being 

used was applied in the natural environment – the whole environment 

would have to be destroyed to sample it; 

 The pro’s and con’s of manual versus automated sampling; 

 Problems encountered with respect to the variation in organism size; 

 The creation of false negative results from ballast water treatment 

system’s that need time to take effect i.e. Ultra-violet systems; 

 Significant dead volume in piping and tanks exist, which needs to be 

discharged before sampling can begin; 

 Evidence of potential re-growth of organisms in the ballast water tank has 

been observed after the water has been treated on uptake; 

 Intake water is never homogenous with respect to the type and number of 

organisms; 

 On average systems are achieving 1 order of magnitude lower than the 

D2-Standard, however numbers of organisms can vary significantly in the 

discharge within the compliance limits of the D-2 Standard; 

 Sampling for less than 10 organisms in any volume of water gives a 31% 

statistical variation, therefore part of the D-2 standard practically becomes 

“between 7 and 13 organisms”; 

 Presently a gap exists between the IMO definition of viability and what can 

be observed. Tests are done using strains that reflect the integrity of cell 

membranes or presence of DNA, however stains are needed to test for 

reproductive ability; 

 Some organisms may die or be injured during the concentration process 

and movement in a concentrated sample may be limited; and, 

 Although tests have been devised to count the number of viable organisms 

in the 10-50 μm size range, these are not suitable for all species, i.e. 

some species do not grow in test tubes. 

During these presentations, some interesting methods of undertaking indicative 

analysis and sampling, and even full scale sampling, were raised. From using very 

basic statistics to identify the number of organisms over 50 μm in size and then 

extrapolating up to check that the D-2 Standard is being met – to creating a 

system where the vessel is told a set volume will be taken analysed for live 

organisms and then the results extrapolated to check for D-2 compliance. 

However, the issue of representativeness repeatedly came up, with questions 

7
European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report 

 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

being raised on the meaning of the results of these proposals and whether they 

can be used as “clear grounds” to stop the discharge. 

Later in the day, the discussion turned back to the pSc issue and the role of pSc 

officers in the process of sampling. However in this section of the workshop 

questions were specifically raised on the issue of when sampling would be needed 

and the fact that it would not be needed in every case. Therefore, some form of 

check list would be needed as a tool to help pSc officers conclude whether there 

are “clear grounds” that the ship is not meeting the D-2 Standard, and make a 

decision on further action. 

The Member State’s Perspective 

Karin Schröder of the Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie (BSH – the 

Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency) then gave a presentation on issues 

that may need to be considered from a Member States perspective when 

considering compliance testing, based on the three documents available to the 

port State: Art. 9 of the BWM Convention; the Guidelines for Ballast Water 

Sampling (G2); and, the Aide-Memoire attached to the guidelines (G-2). Issues 

raised in this presentation included: 

 The principles that need to be considered – no undue delay and sampling 

has to be safe to ship, inspectors, crew and operators, simple, feasible, 

rapidly applicable at the point of discharge and representative; 

 The need to identify and define “clear grounds”; 

 Compliance testing means testing the ship’s discharges for compliance to 

the D-2 Standard – not the BWTS. Therefore, port States need to also look 

and focus on the operation and use of the system by the ship; 

 The focus is on indicative analysis rather than indicative sampling in the 

guidance to evaluate the potential of compliance or non-compliance, with 

the goal of identifying immediate mitigation measures; 

 What happens after this point? – what mitigation measures can be used 

and is further sampling needed? 

 The need for a feasible/practical sampling methodology using small 

sampling quantities; simple, standardized and fast methods; and, light 

equipment that does not require the user to attend a extensive training 

course to use (i.e. longer than a couple of days); 

 Sampling and analysis is mentioned/planned for in the BWMC – so 

compliance should not only be based on “paper” inspection – therefore are 

we obliged to sample?; 

 The potential need for an ISO Standard on Sampling and Analysis; and, 

 Examples and potentially a definition of “clear grounds” are needed. 

Following the presentation there was some debate over the terminology being 

used in the workshop, the BWM Convention and the new EC Directive 2009/16/EC 

on Port State Control. For example the different terminology being used for initial 

inspection and detailed inspection are not consistent and thus some confusion is 

starting to occur. This needs to be sorted out in any further documentation. The 

other non defined term being used is “clear grounds”. Other points raised were 

the link between ballast water sampling and the ISM code and the fact that 

ballast water discharges are often not constant, depending on the loading 

pattern, the initial trim of the vessel and the water levels in the port. 

The workshop then went on to discuss other issues that the Member States had 

with respect to sampling. These included: 

8
European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report 

 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

 The need for representative and indicative analysis or sampling; 

 The timing of the arrival of the pSc office in conjunction with the deballasting operations of the ship 

 The need to fill the present gaps in the D2 Standard through development 

of the aide memoir 

 Could the owner be made to take and analyse the sample? Or could this 

be linked to the interim and annual surveys? – this was discussed 

extensively, however the detention of the ship on the masters evidence 

was found to be a problem; 

 The need for guidance on how to prove “clear grounds”. In this way the 

vessel is then responsible for fixing the problems and there should not be 

any undue delay caused by the sampling methodology – (ie logistics and 

or time for equipment to be set up). The use of indicative analysis/ 

sampling would limit the grey areas where the pSc officer does not have 

“clear grounds” to stop the discharge and pass the responsibility over to 

the owner, but thinks there may be a problem and needs to confirm it. 

This is critical as it may take the owner weeks to fix any fault; 

 What does pSc do if a ship reports a problem en-route into the port – what 

management options are legally available?; 

 Awareness of other methods under B3.7 of the BWM Convention may be 

needed, although the method of compliance testing these should be 

available on the ship; 

 The need to encourage or make use of data recording apparatus built into 

the systems for manufacturers to test whether a system is working; and, 

 Looking for other key indicators , for example Japan are looking at testing 

for active substance by-products to indicate whether a system has 

worked; Australia are working with one manufacturer to develop specific 

indicative methods for their systems to aid pSC; and, Brazil are suggesting 

that sampling protocols for individual vessels and be held onboard or type 

of vessels. 

However time and time again the debate returned to the key questions: 

1). What does the port State control officer do? 

2). How and when is sampling needed? 

3). How can indicative analysis and sampling be incorporated in into the 

compliance testing procedure? 

4). How can this be representative? 

The Sampling Protocol 

Matej David from the University of Ljubljana then gave a presentation on the 

ballast water sampling protocol and implications for pSc. He: 

 split the compliance testing proceedure into stages from the pSc 

perspective to begin integrating pSc and ballast water compiance testing 

proceedure; 

 discussed the role and scope of indicative analysis/sampling in ballast 

water compliace testing; 

 discussed the difference between biological and statistical 

representativeness and the istantaneous and average treatment of results; 

 discussed the impact of sediment load on the sample; 

 provided recommendations for: 

o the appropriate sampling point; 

o safe sampling methods; 

o sample sizes, 

9
European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report 

 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

o handling and storage of samples and 

o what the port State could do in the 

 pre sampling stage both prior to going on a vessel, and on 

boarding a vessel; 

 during the testing procedure; and, 

 the post testing period. 

The workshop then discussed the following major points: 

 The uniqueness of the BWM Convention in that the consequence of the 

failure of a BWTS is major for the ship’s operation and business; 

 The need for long term monitoring of the performance of BWTS; 

 Can indicative sampling be undertaken without full scale sampling? This 

would depend on whether it is representative and can provide “clear 

grounds”; 

 A common, colllective, consistent understanding on the approach to 

sampling is important for the EU as each individual Member State may not 

be able to formulate individual strategies on their own; 

 The need to send a positive message to the industry that pSc take this 

issue seriously, however using indicative sampling only may undermine 

this message; 

 pSc need to have a system that provides “clear grounds” of a violation so 

the discharge can be stopped, but Member States also have to consider 

any potential legal challenges based on undue delay or the specific 

reasons for the recorded violation; 

 concerns as to whether the BWTS will meet the D-2 standard at all times 

as: 

o systems may not be able to deal with the large spikes in the 

number of organisms passing through the BWTS, that are caused 

by migrating plankton forming naturally occurring horizontal 

variation in the ballast tank; 

o the time lag that may be needed for a BWTS to begin working at 

full efficiency after being switched on; and, 

o the fact that some of the Type Approval testing is based on a 

regime that averages results. Despite evidence to the contrary – 

systems are proving to be at least ten times more effective than 

the D-2 Standard – and are made to meet the D-2 Standard at all 

times, there is still a concern whether systems can meet this 

standard at all times; 

 pSc will not be able to do everything, a balance is needed through a 

staged appoach using indicative analysis and sampling, and then full 

sampling if needed; 

 the need to define indicative analysis, indicative sampling and full scale 

sampling and whether or not the indicative tests can provide “clear 

grounds” or be representative; 

 the potential to use samples before treatment and after treatment as an 

indicative analysis (to see if the BWTS is working). This would be difficult 

as there is only one sampling point and it would not be appropriate for UV 

systems with time lag effect or sytems that treat on uptake; and 

 The potential to extrapolate the results of indicative analysis for 

compliance testing. 

10
European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report 

 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

Day 2 

Day 2 began with Henrik Ringbom, EMSA’s Head of Unit B.3, and the CoChairman of the workshop, welcoming everyone back to the meeting. 

A European Ballast Water Sampling Strategy (BWSS) 

The only presentation of the day was then given by Brian Elliott from EMSA. This 

presentation began by identifying what a BWSS ideally should include – that is a 

system that easily identifies a ship whose ballast water discharge does not 

comply with the D-2 Standard. However, over the course of the workshop certain 

issues have been identified that complicate this ideal. These include: sample 

representativeness; sample homogeneity; the definition of “clear grounds”; 

inherent variability in results; liability; and, undue delay. Combined with the 

practicality, logistics and costs of sampling then there are some significant 

problems to be rectified. This ideal situation is also restricted by the traditional 

method of enforcement through pSc which is not set up to take samples and 

relies on other parties to progress enforcement matters past the point of inital 

concern and the order to stop any discharge. 

The presentation went on to identify a practical methodology for enforcement, 

based on a staged approach - firstly through pSc, then Indicative Sampling (later 

changed to Indicative Analysis, followed by a new concept - Indicative Sampling - 

to be in line with the Guidelines (G-2)) and then full sampling. The use of each 

would depend on: 

 when and how “clear grounds” can be found to ascertain whether the 

discharge is non-compliant and therefore stop the discharge; 

 whether some form of analysis/sampling is needed to provide these “clear 

grounds”; and, 

 whether full scale sampling is needed to gather data for enforcement 

procedures or restart the discharge. 

A flow diagram of this procedure can be found in Annex 3. 

Methods of how to undertake indicative analysis/sampling and full scale sampling 

were then discussed, with the emphasis on devising an indicative analysis/ 

sampling test that indicates whether a system is working or not. For example - if 

a BWTS does not work there will be a significant number of live individuals in a 

small sample of water, rather than one or two. Therefore, such a test maybe used 

in the meantime until the issues of representativeness, homogeneity and liability 

in full testing can be worked out and we can specifically test to the D-2 Standard. 

The presentation then went on to discuss what can be in a BWSS for Europe and 

this is outlined in the Conclusions. 

Following this presentation the following issues were raised: 

 The possibility of automatic testing and the potential for this technology to 

mature in the future, either through flow cytometry or algal monitoring 

(which has been built into one system); 

 The need to enhance the guidelines for pSc being developed at FSI. 

EMSA’s pSc expert outlined the work that has been undertaken at FSI and 

indicated that there was a correspondance group discusing the pSc 

Guidelines on this matter. The group felt that there were some key issues 

11
European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report 

 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

that had been bought up in this workshop and these needed to be passed 

to the Group. The Chair suggested that he would liaise with the respective 

Member State interested and present any issues to the IMO 

Correspondance Group through the EMSA Member contact point, and this 

was welcomed by the delegates; 

 Instantaneous versus average testing – the chair started by stating that 

previously there had been no consensus on this issue and that there was 

unlikely to be at this meeting, therefore any EU BWSS would have to 

consider both options. After some discussion this conclusion proved to be 

right as there were opposing views between the Member States on how to 

interpret the results of any analysis; 

 That this Strategy is meant to be guidance – MS can and may have to add 

to it to ensure compliance with the BWM Convention under their legal 

system; 

 The need for training all the way through the process; and, 

 The need for research – the chair put forward some views on what 

research needs to be undertaken and the workshop added to these. After 

some discussion it was felt that research was needed in the following 

areas: 

o How to test for representativeness of a discharge from a BWTS and 

a ballast water tank; 

 For a discharge from a BWTS, this can be achieved through 

testing the discharge prior to treatment and after it to see if 

there is any correlation between organism levels. This can 

also be used to see if a system can meet the D-2 Standard 

throughout the discharge cycle and deal with spikes in the 

numbers of organisms present. 

o How to undertake indicative analysis/sampling to provide “clear 

grounds” for stopping a discharge and/or enforcement; and, 

o The development of guidance for how to take and analyse a 

sample. 

In addition research on the long term efficiency of the BWTS was 

suggested for future research; maybe five years after the systems have 

been installed on vessels. 

Brian Elliott then outlined proposals for future work on this issue which included 

the following actions: 

 Papers will be put on the EMSA Website as soon as possible; 

 Workshop report will circulated widely (EC, MS and speakers) by mid 

March; 

 Input to the FSI correspondence Group by 16th March; 

 Workshop report will be widely distributed for information and to pave the 

way for the BLG 15 paper – US, Can, NZ, Aus, Japan, Bz etc.; 

 Workshop report used as basis of report to ICES meeting in mid-March; 

 Preliminary European Ballast Water Sampling Strategy circulated for 

comment at the end of April/mid May; 

 Research tender Sent out in Mid May; and, 

 Draft paper for IMO sent out at the end of the summer 2010 

The co-chairs then thanked everyone for attending and closed the workshop. 

12
European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report 

 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

IV. Conclusions 

The workshop concluded that an EU BWSS is valuable, but needs to focus on 

the following issues: 

a. Pre pSC – Guidance for port States on what to do when a vessel 

indicates that they have a problem with their BWTS prior to 

entering a port; 

b. pSc - 

i. bringing the specific ballast water issues that were raised in 

the workshop to the attention of the FSI Correspondance 

Group; 

ii. providing guidance on how “clear grounds” can be identified 

in the normal pSc inspection 

iii. providing guidance on, or procedures for, when a pSc office 

suspects there is something amiss, but needs some form of 

analysis/ sampling to prove “clear grounds”; 

iv. providing guidance for the port State on management 

options for the vessel once a discharge has been stopped; 

and, 

v. providing training to pSc officers. 

c. Indicative analysis/sampling 

i. Guidance on how to undertake indicative analysis/sampling 

within pSc inspections and/or supplementary to pSc 

inspections, the difference between indicative analysis and 

indicative sampling and how to interpret the results from 

these tests; 

d. Full scale testing/analysis – 

i. Guidance on: 

1. the relationship between indicative analysis, 

indicative sampling and full scale sampling; 

2. preparations needed before sampling, including the 

use of Health and Safety Risk Assessements; 

3. going on board to sample; 

4. the sampling procedures (an EU, IMO or ISO 

Standard); 

5. Sample handling, transport and chain of custody 

procedures; and, 

6. the analysis procedure (an EU, IMO or ISO 

Standard); 

ii. Research and the development of standards to ensure 

representativeness: 

a. In situations where discharge takes place 

after treatment; and, 

b. situations where the discharge takes place 

after a holding period in the ballast water 

tank; 

iii. providing training to samplers and analysts 

e. Research into; 

i. How to obtain a representative sample from a BWTS that is 

directly discharging into the sea; 

13
European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report 

 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

14

ii. How to undertake indicative analysis/sampling to provide 

“clear grounds” for stopping a discharge and/or 

enforcement; and, 

iii. The development of guidance on how to analyse a ballast 

water sample. 
European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report 

 Annex 1: Participants 

Country Name First Name Organisation 

Belgium Mille Walter Federal Public Service Mobility&Transport Bulgaria Georgieva Veneta BULGARIAN MARITIME ADMINISTRATION Croatia Marovi

ć Ivana Harbour Master Office Split 

Cyprus Attas Nicos Department of Merchant Shipping Finland Mäkinen Anita Transport Safety Agency, Marine Environment 

Protection Unit 

Finland Helavuori Markus Finnish Transport Safety Agency Germany Karin Schröder Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency Germany Gollasch Stephan GoConsult Greece Karayannis Theofanis Merchant Ships Inspection Directorate General Ireland Taylor David Marine Survey Office Italy Roberto Giangreco Italian Ministry of Environment territory and sea Lithuania Supiniene Egle Lithuanian Environment Protection Agency 

Department of Marine Research 

Malta Keon Vella Merchant Shipping Directorate Netherlands Vollaard Theo KVNR Netherlands Pronk Leon Netherlands Shipping Inspectorate Netherlands Veldhuis Marcel Royal NIOZ Netherlands Kaag Nicolaas IMARES Norway Tobiesen August NIVA Norway Terje Sagebakken Norwegian Maritime Directorate Poland Dudek Marta Centrum Techniki Okretowej S.A. Portugal Viegas Graça APSS Portugal Cruz Maria 

Manuel 

Administraçãoo do Porto de Aveiro S.A. 

Portugal Semedo Da Silva Jorge IPTM Portugal Chainho Paula Faculdade de Ciências da universidade de Lisboa 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

15
European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

16

Romania Zanfir Laurentiu Romanian Naval Authority Slovenia David Matej University of Ljubljana Spain Velasco Aida CEDEX-CEPYC United Kingdom Hughes Edmund Maritime & Coastguard Agency United Kingdom McCollin Tracy Marine Scotland Science EMSA Elliott Brian EMSA EMSA Ringbom Henrik EMSA EMSA Crossley Theresa EMSA EMSA Ikonen Mirja EMSA EMSA Panella Eleonora EMSA EMSA Meyer Holger EMSA EMSA Soares Mário EMSA 
European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report 

 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

Annex 2: The European Commission’s Statement at BLG14 

"The European Commission, through the European Maritime Safety Agency, in 

conjunction with the EU Member States, have begun to discuss ballast water 

sampling for enforcement and will continue debating and discussing it in various 

fora over the next few months. The European Commission will share the 

conclusions and results of this debate with the IMO Member States in due course. 

Based on the conclusions and findings of our discussions, we intend to present a 

paper to BLG 15 on this issue, that develops the existing "aide memoire" into a 

potential draft guidance document. The European Commission will welcome offers 

of help from any IMO Member State or observer who would like to assist us, help 

us in this endeavour, or potentially co-sponsor a paper." 

17
European Maritime Safety Agency Workshop Report 

 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

Annex 3: A Flow Diagram of the proposed Staged Approach to 

Compliance Testing 

Ship to Fix 

or Detention 

port State 

control Indicative 

Analysis/Sampling

port State 

control 

Inspection of 

Documentation/ 

BWTS and use 

of the BWTS 

No Problem Proceed with 

Discharge 

Problem: 

“Clear Grounds”

Stop Discharge 

- Ship’s Liability 

Problem: 

No “Clear 

Grounds” 

Stop Discharge 

- port State Liability 

Options 

“Clear Grounds” 

Yes 

No 

Further Sampling 

Options Available? 

Yes

Indicative 

Analysis/Sampling

Full Sampling

No

18