 London, IMO Headquarters,
February 13, 2004
According to many experts, including the Commandant of
the United States Coast Guard, the mounting problem of invasive species is one of the most critical environmental issues facing the world today. Many countries including the
U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand have been insisting that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) determine a worldwide format upon which invasive species
in ballast water can be managed. On Friday the thirteenth of February 2004, IMO finalized a document for managing aquatic invasive species titled the International
Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments. This much-anticipated Convention will set the standard for ballast water (BW) management legislation throughout the world.
Conveniently termed the Ballast Water Convention (BWC), this legal instrument has been long in preparation. Canada proposed the first international review of the burgeoning problem of invasive
species in ballast water back in 1988. IMO's ballast water working group has been drafting this particular piece of legislation for more than 12 years.
After so many years of debate, you could almost believe that the most controversial issues would have been agreed upon. Perhaps a few UN delegates to the weeklong diplomatic convention may have been
anticipating a trouble-free conference. The week was far from easy. Deliberations began Monday morning and went on constantly, often into late evening hours.
As of Thursday morning the outlook appeared bleak. The delegates had a scant 3 ½ hours of session debate time available upon which to agree upon an unseemly pile of issues. Many people were shaking
their heads with murmurs that IMO had left far too much unfinished before setting up the BWC. Highly contentious issues remained on the agenda including the entry-into-force provision, a provision to
allow Port States to adopt additional more stringent measures, and the dates for finalization of the Convention. Thanks to a herculean effort by Committee of the Whole Chairman Michael Hunter of the U.K., the
conference completed its task. With a Thursday 3:30pm "do or die" deadline hanging over their heads, Hunter was able to garner compromise and conciliation. In the final HOUR he was able to get 74
nations to agree upon: three major convention Articles, two Regulations, the form of the Ballast Water
Certificate and Ballast Water Record Book, as well as four conference resolutions. It can be imagined that a much-relieved Hunter passed the final document into the hands of Convention President Daniel
Joseph of India. At the signing ceremony on Friday the 13th, IMO Secretary-General Efthimios Mitropoulos told the
delegates that the Convention was "an achievement in no small measure that becomes all the more important and significant given the consensus decision you were able to make on a subject of
undeniable complexity." He said their work has resulted in a "significant step" towards "safeguarding the biodiversity of the oceans." Concerns and Commentary
Not everyone present at the conference was pleased with the final results. The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), supported by Intertanko & BIMCO said they were disappointed as they feel that "at
this stage" ship owners do "not have the clarity of purpose that they need." They were unhappy that the enforcement dates for the BWC are fixed, regardless of whether or not enough states have ratified it.
They also commented that the regulations leave too much open for interpretation.Intercargo supported ICS's statement and said they were "extremely concerned at the practical
implementation of the provisions of this convention." Speaking on behalf of EU member states and supported by Netherlands, Cyprus, and many nations,
Ireland said they "intend to implement and apply the BWC in order to insure that all decisions made are in line with the International Conference on Biological Diversity (CBD)." A few delegates wondered
whether this meant that EU states intend to apply only those BWC protocols that agree with the CBD. Beyond ballast water
Some far-reaching ramifications can be deduced from the week's Convention beyond the issues of
ballast water management. One theme is the strong demonstration of unification seen among the EU delegates. During the debates, EU nations consistently provided a unified voice. Their ability to vote
together upon many issues illustrates that the EU is already showing a capacity to exert a very strong political will. The fact that by May 1, 2004 they will number more than 25 nations representing over
25% of the world's shipping tonnage has other IMO members concerned. The EU is a geographically centered force that has the potential to enter considerable regional influence on future IMO issues.
DECISIONS OF THE BALLAST WATER CONVENTION The Instrument – the BWC uk car parts
is an international convention put forth by the IMO to mandate standards for ballast water management and treatment aboard ships. IMO is the United Nations
specialized agency with responsibility for marine pollution and ship safety and security. IMO's conventions set up policies that UN member states are requested to ratify and incorporate into their
legislation. The BWC will enter-into-force 12 months after ratification by 30 states representing 35% of the world's merchant shipping tonnage (Article 18). To Whom does the BW Convention Apply?
Exclusions exist (Regulation A-4), but most ships will have to perform some BW management.
Examples of exclusions are military vessels, ships that do not carry BW or have permanently sealed BW tanks, and ships that only operate in waters of their own state. Current Fleet
- Ships currently sailing and new buildings up to 2009 are covered by a "grandfather" provision (Regulation B-3). They can choose either full BW treatment to the optimal standard, or open
ocean ballast water exchange to 95% removal efficiency (flushing of BW tanks 3 times). The grandfather clause does expire, however. If your BW capacity is below 1500 m3 or above 5000m3
, you can exchange ballast water in the open ocean until 2016. For the remainder of the international fleet, grandfathering expires in 2014. New Vessels
- Ships built and delivered in 2009 have to perform to the optimal BW performance standard (see below). Those with greater BW capacity (5000 m3) are allowed an additional three years
to use BW exchange instead of BW treatment. By 2012 every new vessel shipped must be treating their BW to the fullest standards. What Are The Standards? Experts dealing with BW treatment technologies have been begging for a BW standard for years. CQD
Journal discussed the BW water quality standard (CQD Vol. 8.3) that had been devised by IMO's Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC). The establishment of an international standard upon
which all BW treatment should be judged is an extremely important outcome from this convention. The future BW performance standard (Regulation D-2) establishes that ships shall discharge less than:
a) 10 viable organisms per m3 greater than 50 micrometers in size, b) 10 viable organisms per ml between 10 micrometers and 50 micrometers in size.
c) A predetermined quantity of indicator microbes (such as E. Coli & V. Cholerae).
The BW standards represent considerable compromise between opinions regarding what constitutes
"environmentally safe" from an invasion of non-native organisms. Some nations including Japan and Norway argued for 100 organisms/m3. The U.S. felt 100 orgs/m3
represented the average for untreated BW and would mean little effort would be put forth towards establishing BW treatment
technologies. The U.S. has always opinioned the BW standard should set up a goal for future technology investment, hence they argued for less than 0.01 organisms/m3
. Experts believe that the compromise number "10" represents a standard that will be technically viable in the near future.
Although the BW performance standard is a guideline, the BWC does allow (Article 2.3) for parties to impose "more stringent measures to prevent, reduce, or eliminate the transfer of harmful aquatic
organisms." This means that if Port States feel the current standard is not safe enough, they can require ships entering their waters to adhere to a stricter standard than that suggested by IMO.
Ballast Water Exchange Those ships that can continue to follow the practice of open ocean ballast water exchange may do so
under certain obligations. The first provision is that the BW is exchanged at least 200 nautical miles
from shore and in 200 m depth (Regulation B-4). The ship is not required to deviate or delay its' voyage to comply with this provision.
If this is not possible, the BWC mandates BW exchange occur at least 50 nautical miles offshore in at least 200 m depth. If a ship's voyage does not fall under either of these provisions, then the Master
must hope that a Port State along his route has established a designated area for BW exchange.
Various other issues covered under the BWC include:
- Resolutions to adopt guidelines for implementation and technical co-operation as well as future review of the BWC.
- General Obligations of flag states and port states (Article 2)
- Sediment Reception Facilities (Article 5)
- Survey & Certification (Article 7)
- Violations (Article 8)
- Inspections (Article 9)
- Undue Delay to Ships (Article 12)
- Provisions for Amendments to the BWC (Article 19)
- Form of the Ballast Water Record Book (Regulation B-2)
- Sediment Management (Regulation B-5)
- Special requirement in certain areas (Regulations C-1 to C-3)
- Review of the BW Standard (Regulation D-5)
- Survey and Certification Requirements (Regulation E-1 to E-5)
|
