The issues raised were, once again, a lack of a robust type approval procedure for new Ballast Water Management (BWM) systems, increasing the possibility of shipowners investing in faulty equipment; the lack of a “grandfathering” arrangement for existing type approved equipment, so that early adopters would not be penalised; and the lack of definitive set of guidelines for Port State Control inspections, resulting in inspections “more stringent than the type approval process itself” in the words of Intertanko senior environment manager Tim Wilkins, speaking in London last week.
The problems had drawn serious criticism from industry representatives from the outset of MEPC 66.
In a joint statement, the organisations asserted that “Governments decided neither to discuss in full nor to resolve these pivotal issues on which industry had made a detailed written submission.
“Once the Convention enters into force shipowners will collectively be required to invest billions of dollars in BWM equipment. The consequence of last week’s decision by the MEPC is that shipowners, and society at large, will continue to lack confidence that the new treatment equipment will actually work, or that it will be found to comply with the standards that governments have set for killing unwanted marine micro-organisms.”
Numerous industry representatives have voiced concerns on what is regarded as an overly lax type approval process for new systems. ICS secretary general Peter Hinchliffe told Seatrade Global: “We’re looking for protection for owners who are ahead of the game – the early compliers. At the moment, shipowners can have no confidence that type approved systems will operate correctly.”
Citing the high cost of the equipment itself – “$1-3m” – Hinchliffe added “if the equipment is found to be non-compliant by port-state control inspection, not only will the shipowner face a penalty, but they will also have to buy another system.”
Conversely, ICS, BIMCO, Intercargo, Intertanko, WSC, CLIA and IPTA’s joint statement asserted that implementing its suggestions would not be difficult for IMO member states: “The legal changes needed to make the ballast regime truly global and fit for purpose… are relatively straightforward and could still be agreed in principle by governments quickly.
“In a constructive response to the IMO’s decision, the industry therefore intends to make another full submission outlining concerns and proposing a possible way forward to the next IMO MEPC meeting (October 2014).
“In the meantime, the shipping industry cannot recommend that further member states ratify the BWM Convention until confidence building measures on resolving implementation concerns have been set in place.”
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. Seatrade, a trading name of Informa Markets (UK) Limited. Add Seatrade Maritime News to your Google News feed.
