Ballast water, International Maritime Organization, Regulations/advisory

MEPC 69 Rejects BWMS First-Mover Penalty Proposal

A proposal put forward by the Community of European Shipyards Associations (CESA) that called for the replacement of any ballast water management equipment that does not meet the standard failed to gain support from the International Maritime Organisation’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) today.

The Committee deemed that there was not enough support for the submitted Proposals Related To The Non-Penalization Of First Movers and have said that the next MEPC (MEPC 70) will continue the work due to lack of submissions at this point.

The proposal made by CESA was as follows:

4/9 Proposals related to the non-penalization of first movers – CESA

CESA states that first movers should not be penalized as a result of the revision of the G8 Guidelines.

CESA includes as first movers those who have developed BWMSs prior to the application of the revised G8 Guidelines.

Main points/views expressed in the submission are as follows:

“Although it must be assumed that approved systems do meet the standard, it seems clear that a renewed approval procedure should lead to the elimination of any equipment that does not meet the standard” (see par. 3);

“As the systems are improved it may be reasonable to require that any systems that do not consistently comply with the D-2 standard be upgraded or replaced with systems tested to the revised Guidelines (G8)” (see par.6);

“A more detailed approach might be to limit the use of systems to those conditions for which testing of the system has been done” (see par 8)

The official statement made by the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) was as follows:

It should be noted that the non-penalization of early movers agreed by this Committee refers to, quote from para 1 of WP 8 from MEPC 68, “Shipowners who have installed, prior to the application of the revised Guidelines (G8), ballast water management systems (BWMS) approved in accordance with the Guidelines (G8) (MEPC.174(58))”. Quite rightly we believe the protection is being afforded by this Committee to those that have or will invest huge sums in purchasing systems they were sold as being fit for purpose. Shipowners have been told by manufacturers that the current systems they have been sold are fit for purpose and the testing that manufacturers have done has been robust enough to ensure the systems will work. Manufacturers should therefore have nothing to fear from the revision of the approval Guidelines (G8) as the discharge standard D-2 remains unaltered and the operation of the ships remains unchanged.

With respect to the proposals in paragraphs 9 and 10 of this submission ICS cannot agree. Systems approved and certified in accordance with the current G8 Guidelines and installed prior to the application of the revised G8 Guidelines should be allowed to operate under their original certification and the shipowner should not be penalized in accordance with resolution MEPC.253(67) and paragraphs 1 to 5 of the Roadmap for the Implementation of the BWM Convention contained in annex 2 to document MEPC 68/WP.8.

Systems approved and certified in accordance with the revised G8 Guidelines and installed following the application of the revised G8 Guidelines should be used on ships in accordance with the operational limitations specified on the certification issued in accordance with the same Guidelines.

CESA’s comments are extremely concerning and, we believe, questionable. If agreed, manufacturers having sold systems stated to be fit for purpose, would be able to manage when systems already installed would be forced to be replaced or control at will when expensive and possibly unnecessary upgrades would have to be purchased.

Intertanko also voiced that they did not supporting proposal by CESA.