84
For example, there are no specifi c procedures to assess risks within – instead of
between – biogeographic regions proposed in the IMO Guidelines G7. For that reason, strategies to handle the interregional spread of IAS populations and effective
methods to carry out surveys within the Baltic Sea were developed by HELCOM. In
October 2013, guidelines for the contracting parties of OSPAR and HELCOM on
the granting of exemptions under the BWM Convention, regulation A-4, were
adopted by the 2013 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting. This document was jointly
developed by the Helsinki and OSPAR conventions, in accordance with Art. 13 (3)
of the BWMC , to provide a harmonised procedure for the issue of exemptions from
Regulation B-3 (Ballast Water Management for Ships) and Regulation C-1
(Additional Measures) under Regulation A-4 and ‘to ensure that exemptions are
granted in a constant manner that prevents damage to the environment, human
health, property or resources’ (HELCOM 2013 ).
Two recent HELCOM projects have also developed guidelines relating to implementation of IAS regulations and management. The fi rst one aimed at giving the
contracting parties the option to test, develop and implement the proposed, harmonised system for granting exemptions.
14 The second one, which was approved by the
European Union, studied the harmonisation of the BWM Convention and Marine
Strategy Framework Directive monitoring needs on alien species .
15 One of the most
relevant outcomes of HELCOM’s actions on IAS risks was the development of the
Baltic Sea Regional Project (BSRP) which aimed at creating conditions for applying an ecosystem approach to manage the Baltic Sea and sustain its biological productivity. This is regarded as a basis for developing subsequent programmes and
management strategies focused on improving the status of the Baltic Sea environment (Thulin 2009 ).
According to the BWM Convention , all ships have to have ballast water cleaning
systems in order to utilise ballast waters. This precondition has to be fulfi lled within
2015–2016,
16 by which time the required number of countries is expected to have
ratifi ed the Convention. While all countries that have ratifi ed the Convention have
to implement it within 12 months, most countries are yet to work on their implementation plans. If a country has ratifi ed the BWM Convention, it needs to ensure
that all ports in the country are prepared for BWM provisions. A detailed implementation plan is needed that will address issues such as (1) ballast water- and
sediment-mediated bioinvasion risk assessment , (2) ballast water receiving infrastructure in the donor areas and ballast water treatment systems on ships, (3) uncertainties regarding investment needs and costs and (4) defi nition of responsibilities.
As Lemke et al. ( 2010 ) and Kern ( 2011 ) argue, the development of law and its
implementation strictly depend on the policies of individual states in the Baltic Sea
region (BSR). It is believed that EU’s centralised structure and the weak political
initiatives of some states (particularly new EU members) stand in the way of
14 http://helcom.fi /helcom-at-work/projects/completed-projects/aliens-3
15 http://helcom.fi /helcom-at-work/projects/balsam/
16 The status of the BWMC can be checked at: http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/
StatusOfConventions/Pages/Default.aspx
K. Smolarz et al.
For example, there are no specifi c procedures to assess risks within – instead of
between – biogeographic regions proposed in the IMO Guidelines G7. For that reason, strategies to handle the interregional spread of IAS populations and effective
methods to carry out surveys within the Baltic Sea were developed by HELCOM. In
October 2013, guidelines for the contracting parties of OSPAR and HELCOM on
the granting of exemptions under the BWM Convention, regulation A-4, were
adopted by the 2013 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting. This document was jointly
developed by the Helsinki and OSPAR conventions, in accordance with Art. 13 (3)
of the BWMC , to provide a harmonised procedure for the issue of exemptions from
Regulation B-3 (Ballast Water Management for Ships) and Regulation C-1
(Additional Measures) under Regulation A-4 and ‘to ensure that exemptions are
granted in a constant manner that prevents damage to the environment, human
health, property or resources’ (HELCOM 2013 ).
Two recent HELCOM projects have also developed guidelines relating to implementation of IAS regulations and management. The fi rst one aimed at giving the
contracting parties the option to test, develop and implement the proposed, harmonised system for granting exemptions.
14 The second one, which was approved by the
European Union, studied the harmonisation of the BWM Convention and Marine
Strategy Framework Directive monitoring needs on alien species .
15 One of the most
relevant outcomes of HELCOM’s actions on IAS risks was the development of the
Baltic Sea Regional Project (BSRP) which aimed at creating conditions for applying an ecosystem approach to manage the Baltic Sea and sustain its biological productivity. This is regarded as a basis for developing subsequent programmes and
management strategies focused on improving the status of the Baltic Sea environment (Thulin 2009 ).
According to the BWM Convention , all ships have to have ballast water cleaning
systems in order to utilise ballast waters. This precondition has to be fulfi lled within
2015–2016,
16 by which time the required number of countries is expected to have
ratifi ed the Convention. While all countries that have ratifi ed the Convention have
to implement it within 12 months, most countries are yet to work on their implementation plans. If a country has ratifi ed the BWM Convention, it needs to ensure
that all ports in the country are prepared for BWM provisions. A detailed implementation plan is needed that will address issues such as (1) ballast water- and
sediment-mediated bioinvasion risk assessment , (2) ballast water receiving infrastructure in the donor areas and ballast water treatment systems on ships, (3) uncertainties regarding investment needs and costs and (4) defi nition of responsibilities.
As Lemke et al. ( 2010 ) and Kern ( 2011 ) argue, the development of law and its
implementation strictly depend on the policies of individual states in the Baltic Sea
region (BSR). It is believed that EU’s centralised structure and the weak political
initiatives of some states (particularly new EU members) stand in the way of
14 http://helcom.fi /helcom-at-work/projects/completed-projects/aliens-3
15 http://helcom.fi /helcom-at-work/projects/balsam/
16 The status of the BWMC can be checked at: http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/
StatusOfConventions/Pages/Default.aspx
K. Smolarz et al.