At the most recent meeting of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC65) held earlier this year, the committee approved a draft resolution on the application of regulation B-3 of the BWM Convention to ease and facilitate the smooth implementation of the Convention.
This resolution will now be submitted to the 28th session of the IMO Assembly (due to be held from 25 November to 4 December 2013). The draft resolution recommends that ships constructed before the entry into force of the Convention will not be required to comply with regulation D-2 until their first renewal survey following the date of entry into force of the Convention. According to IMO, the aim of the draft resolution is to clarify uncertainty in relation to the application of regulation B-3, through the application of a realistic timeline for enforcement of regulation D-1 (ballast water exchange standard) and regulation D-2 (ballast water performance standard), upon entry into force of the Convention.
In making this decision, MEPC considered reports from the 24th and 25th meetings of the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environment Protection (GESAMP) Ballast Water Working Group (held during 2012-2013). It granted Basic Approval to three, and Final Approval to three more, BWM systems that make use of active substances. The MEPC also approved BWM-related guidance, including ballast water sampling and analysis for trial use and a BWM Circular on clarification of "major conversion" as defined in regulation A-1.5 of the BWM Convention. The MEPC also adopted a revised MEPC resolution regarding information reporting on type-approved ballast water management systems.
The effect of the decision is that IMO has effectively postponed the date from which shipowners must be able to prove that their vessels have a system in place for treating ballast water. Although shipowner sin general are happy with this, most equipment suppliers are less than impressed. Shipowner organisations feel that the change, which effectively means that compliance with the convention is postponed until after a ship’s next drydocking after the convention enters into force, rather than ships having to comply after a fixed date, will relieve a potential log jam. Some, such as the Danish Shipowners Association, believes that the transitional approach is correct. The DSA’s Peter Olsen is reported as saying: “The risk of not establishing a transitional scheme was that the entire convention could fall apart.” He believes there is an expectation that countries that cover the last 5% or so of the world's tonnage, which are still missing in order to achieve a final ratification of the proposal, will sign up (see panel).
Germanischer Lloyd held a meeting after MEPC to try to sum up the situation. “The delay in its adoption meant that the schedule for compliance on ballast water management (BWM) had to be adjusted,” explained Ralf Plump, from GL's Department of Safety and Environmental Research. “It was agreed at MEPC 65 that the time line for compliance with the D2-Standard (ballast water treatment) of the BWC should be shifted so that all ships constructed before the entry into force date would have to comply with the D2-Standard at the first renewal survey of the International Oil Pollution Prevention certificate.”
The insurer, the UK P&I Club, issued a comprehensive legal briefing document for its members, in which it said that: “There is strong support for the Ballast Water Management Convention, given the damage caused to the environment by invasive alien species, depletion of fish stocks and the high cost of controlling these effects. However, ballast water management systems must avoid harming ship, crew, environment and public health----and gain formal approval, in the UK from classification societies.
“The cost of compliance to shipowners will be very high. A ballast water treatment system can cost from half a million to four million dollars. There will be ancillary costs, including developing a ballast water management plan, dry docking and installation.”
The Club pointed out that there are two standards of compliance. The ballast water exchange standard (BWE) does not require the ship to install a treatment system but will be phased out by 2019. The ballast water performance standard (BWP) does require such a system. Moreover, states can impose their own. more stringent, regulations. “BWM systems complying with the Convention standards may still fall foul of more stringent standards set in the USA and other countries. Shipowners who trade to these jurisdictions must, therefore, install systems that meet these more stringent standards,” says the Club.