The Senior Environmental Policy Leader at the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Leanne Page, has stated that the UK will take a pragmatic approach to implementing the Ballast Water Management Convention once it comes into force.
During the London Ballast Water Forum today (Thursday June 30, 2016), the second being held in series of three hosted by the UK Chamber of Shipping in partnership with Fathom Maritime Intelligence, Leanne Page stated that the UK understands that it may be tricky for some to implement the Convention and will therefore take a pragmatic approach. However, they stated that we still have a commitment to ensure that it is met.
She also stated that the UK does not support the decoupling of the IOPP certificate from the Harmonised System of Survey and Certification (HSSC). The IOPP states that some owners are looking to renew their certificates to get a maximum 5 year spread, however, the HSSC was brought in to benefit ship owners and if it is decoupled by a ship owner then the UK will look to realign its surveys at the next renewal date, resulting in a number of surveys therefore needing to be undertaken in order to get the harmonisation that the HSSC offers.
The UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency also stated that it will offer exemptions from compliance on a one-to-one basis. At the moment there is no formal process out there and therefore the UK will follow the HELCOM exemption process in order to avoid doubling the work for ship owners applying for exemption.
Furthermore, as stated by the IMO, if the D1 exchange standard cannot be achieved then the ship owner will not be expected to implement the D2 discharge standard. If geographical restraints means that there are no suitable ballast water exchange areas available, then ship owners will not be required to carry out the D2 standard. The UK will hold onto this and will not force the D1 standard if D2 isn’t available.
As IMO Type Approval of ballast water treatment systems is an issue with the D2 standard at the current time, the confidence in systems and their success rate is something that needs to be explored further. As debated at MEPC 69, if a ballast system fails or does not comply, who is to blame? Is this a case for penalisation? The early movers penalisation issue is something that has been touched upon lightly but is expected to be further analysed during MEPC 70, while for now the UK Coastguard urges ship owners to talk to manufactures to ensure that the system they choose will comply for the route they are sailing on.
Ship Efficiency Review News
To contact the reporter responsible for this article, please email editor@fathom-mi.com
