Risk Assessment in Ballast Water Management - Global Maritime Transport and Ballast Water Management: Issues and Solutions - page 150

species. Further, the full comprehensive port baseline study may further need to be
repeated to ensure most up-to-date information for RA (e.g., Hewitt and Martin
2001 ). In conclusion, biological data on a ballast water donor port can only be con-
sidered as reliable if a baseline survey for HAOP has been conducted and a regular
monitoring program for HAOP is in place. The lowest frequency of surveys per time
need to be decided depending on the target species group, e.g., harmful algae, indi-
cator species for pathogens. Another way to determine the required frequency for
sampling is proposed by Hewitt and Martin 2001 , i.e., with a repeated survey one
could then calculate the rate of arrival/establishment function which would then
inform about a suitable re-survey frequency based on the acceptable level of protec-
tion/risk.
During the developing HELCOM/OSPAR RA port survey sampling data are
regarded valid for granting an exemption for applicants for a period of in maximum
5 years. This means that the port survey data from the sampling in year one can also
be taken up to 5 years later as a basis for granting an exemption, i.e., no new port
baseline surveys are required (HELCOM/OSPAR 2013 ). We feel that a 5 year
period is rather long considering that approximately two new primary introductions
of non-indigenous species were found in this region per year over the last decade. In
consequence, should this species introduction trend continue, this approach may
overlook up to ten non-indigenous species thereby accepting the risk that such spe-
cies are transported, which could have been avoided.
It should further be noted that introduced and cryptogenic species are registered
only occasionally in continuous biological monitoring programs in Europe. The
dominating fi rst records of such species were made in projects and individual stud-
ies not part of regular monitoring programs. In some sampling studies the working
standards are unclear, i.e., the data reliability is uncertain. In Europe only very few
regular monitoring programs specifi cally target aquatic non-indigenous and crypto-
genic species (e.g., in Estonia and Germany (WGITMO 2013 )). However, reliable
data are a crucial component for a proper RA (Lodge et al. 2006 ; David 2007 ).
Further, introduced and cryptogenic species are also seldom targeted in port area
monitoring programs in most European countries. In less than 10 European ports
out of the more than 1,200 ports of all 22 coastal Member states 10 preliminary port
baseline surveys were conducted to document the presence and abundance of non-
indigenous and cryptogenic species. These port studies should be considered as
preliminary because not all habitats were surveyed. Other continents are more
advanced as, e.g., in North America, Australia and New Zealand the share of
surveyed ports is much higher compared to Europe (Campbell et al. 2007 ).
Introductions of harmful species may occur every day also between ports within
the same bioregion by secondary introductions and natural spread (e.g., Olenin et al.
2000 ; David et al. 2007 ; McCollin et al. 2008 ; Darling et al. 2012 ). As a result a
one-time port baseline survey alone cannot be suffi cient as a long-term basis for
RA, but should be followed by a regular monitoring program for new (harmful) spe-
cies (e.g., Hewitt and Martin 2001 ) and this should be done by experts in this fi eld
10 European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO), http://www.espo.be/ , last accessed November 2013.