30 IMO member states have already ratified the Ballast Water Convention
With 30 IMO member states having ratified the Ballast Water Convention, many are looking to Panama to ensure that it comes into force soon.
Entry into force requirements say that 35% of the global fleet need to have ratified the convention in order for it to come into force a year later. The Convention still does not have the necessary percentage, being short by 8.56% with Panama, along with China (including Hong Kong) as the two countries who could make up the shortfall on their own.
Panama is already part of the GloBallast Partnerships programme which aims to reduce the risks and impact of invasive species being transferred in ballast water. In a presentation to the GloBallast conference in Turkey this week, the country indicated its support for the convention and said it was working towards ratification, but gave no indication of when this might take place.
According to some unofficial sources it has been suggested that Panama has probably has not signed the convention yet as there is no scientific solution for killing micro-organisms which has been recommended by the IMO as a scientifically based solution that will produce the very best results in treating the problem successfully. Discharge of ballast water is already not permitted in the Panama Canal.
Assuming that the necessary percentage of the world fleet is reached in the near future, the question remains as to whether those manufacturers who have had systems approved, will be able to keep up with the demand from owners seeking to retrofit systems on their ships.
According to Lloyd’s Register statistics put out last month, there are currently 17 approved ballast water management systems on the market. According to LR’s ballast water management specialist Graham Greensmith, there is a chance that the convention will in force for 2013, but he expects a “bunching effect” as far as fitting systems are concerned. The number of ships needing systems fitted will rise steadily from 2014, before beginning to tail off in 2018. He feels that “supply is not going to meet demand”.
A level playing field as far as the global legislative regime is concerned is advocated by BIMCO, who says that it is essential that ships can trade on equal terms and that port states accept a ship’s BWM certificate as evidence that its equipment fulfils the requirements of the Ballast Water Convention. “The Convention’s access to sampling of discharge water for analysis or other in-depth examination should in BIMCO’s view be restricted to situations where clear grounds have been established.
“Sampling/testing measures and procedures should aim at ensuring the lowest possible cost for the affected ships/owners. Costs in connection with sampling and testing, including for delays or other loss to the ship, without clear grounds warranting for an expanded inspection as described in the Convention should be borne by the inspection party.”
According to a paper submitted to the Marine Environment Protection Committee last year, Convention requirements that all ships be fitted with ballast water management systems by mid 2017 at the latest will mean retrofitting equipment to about 50,000 ships, in addition to newbuilding requirements. This would mean fitting 20 ships a day until 2017. Concerns have also been raised about the availability of equipment for ships with a very large ballast water capacity.
Meanwhile, operators in the US and Canada have reacted with alarm to the announcement by New York officials that they are pushing ahead with the introduction of tough new ballast water standards for vessels transiting the Great Lakes St Lawrence Seaway System, which according to a new impact study could put 72,000 jobs and USD 10.7 billion at risk in the two countries.
According to the survey, the New York rules would mean that by 2013 all vessels operating in New York waters would have to have fitted systems that can meet the state’s water quality standard, which is 100 times more stringent than the international standard.
According to the study: “A July 2011 evaluation by the US Environmental Protection Agency determined that technology does not exist to meet the water quality level stipulated by New York. For this reason the maritime industry believes these regulations to be unworkable, and if left unchanged, will cause economic harm when they come into effect, resulting in complete cessation of commercial maritime commerce in New York waters.”
Source: BIMCO, Sandra Spears