Lloyd's List is part of the Business Intelligence Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call UK support at +44 (0)20 3377 3996 / APAC support at +65 6508 2430

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

Ballast water: a reprieve is just a reprieve

The world is fast growing tired of the shipping sector’s excuses over Ballast Water Management Convention compliance. Owners and operators must get a move on

A TWO-YEAR reprieve has been granted for compliance with the Ballast Water Management Convention, giving some vessels until 2024 to fully comply.

The International Maritime Organization member states voted through the amendment despite concerns that it could cause confusion over the implementation date for some stakeholders and raised questions (read: eyebrows) over the IMO’s competence as a global standards-setting authority.

The decision could especially deal a blow to system providers that have been anticipating the convention for years. Owners are already expected to delay system installations as much as possible.

There were some pretty strong arguments for making the extension, including a lack of viable technology and retrofitting space at the world’s shipyards.

The jury is still out as to whether many of the world’s older vessels will be able to fit a BWM system on board, or whether the costs of doing so will force them into the scrap yards.

Much of the dry bulk fleet, for example, would fail to meet the original deadline, industry association Intercargo has been saying for some time.

But not everyone will be happy with the extension.

It will hurt early adopters that chose to invest in ballast water management systems. This includes shipowners, BWMS providers and manufacturers, classification societies and research organisations.

To an outsider, the failure to act on a convention that was first adopted in 2004 would seem really rather astounding. It’s not like the industry has been sideswiped by this change, after all, and the negative effects of invasive species on natural seawater habitats are well documented.

Hand-wringing over the slow progress of technology and subsequent system type approval process will only go so far. Now we have the extension, owners and operators must get a move on and comply.

The world is fast growing tired of the shipping sector’s excuses.

Advertisement

Related Content

Two-year delay for Ballast Water Management Convention
IMO rejects transitional period for sulphur cap
EU looking to IMO to impress
Gulf crisis spills over into IMO
Ballast water convention extension looms large

Topics

Advertisement
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

LL109016

Ask The Analyst

Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
Ask The Analyst

All set! This Question has been sent to my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel