Editorial:

Confusion rules after Ballast Water Convention is adopted

IMO has adopted the Ballast Water Convention amid considerable misgivings from leading international shipping organisations like Intertanko, Intercargo, Bimco and The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS). Like many of the conventions and codes adopted in the past five years, this latest one lacks the clarity required to assess the commercial implications. When 35 states, representing at least 35 per cent of global tonnage, ratify the convention it will come into force. That is when the problems are likely to occur, because countries will interpret the convention differently to satisfy domestic requirements.

Uncertainty for the shipping industry will ensue, and that is the last thing we want.
During the work with this convention the shipping industry was asked to supply information, but it appeared this input was largely ignored to satisfy parties like the United States, Australia and the European Union. The final result is an International Convention for Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, which on the face of it is trying to satisfy all interested parties – except the ship owners – and thus failing to impress with a lack of proper documentation and sense of purpose.

When ballast water in ships contains marine life it is regarded as an environmental problem. Although sea temperature differences will always prevent the spread of certain species, while landmasses represent another barrier, we suspect that the total contribution by ballast water is somewhat exaggerated.

Why then are there no known alien species in the Arabian Gulf, where most of the world ballast water ends up? If one were to ask authorities if alien species have been located in the North Sea, which is the most active crude and product loading area in Europe, the answers are inconclusive. Nevertheless, the IMO claim that 7,000 different species are carried in ships’ ballast tanks around the world. The idea is that when the convention come into force that will stop altogether. At least that is the intention, with the variable execution always found in international agreements. National and regional interpretations will mar the whole execution of a convention, which may be totally unnecessary in the first place.

Everyone knows that carriage of ballast water is an essential part of tanker operations. It maintains stability and ensures sufficient displacement for effective propeller emersion in an unladen ship. It is recognised that alien species have a better chance of survival in a coastal environment than on the open ocean.

Therefore, many shipping companies – among them Teekay – have introduced ballast exchange. This, apparently, is not good enough for the IMO. When new technology is available – and that may take some years – organisms should be filtered out onboard.

It is obvious that to the general public the provisions in this convention are very plausible. Environmental protection is high in the agenda in many countries around the world. The IMO has been under pressure to work out a solution. This solution is, however, not really at hand, even though the convention gives the impression of having the answers. When confusion rules, clarity is void. The ship owners are left to work his way through a maze of different interpretations and assumptions in every loading port. Costly delays will ensue and this will undermine the finely balanced logistics of products and crude oil transportation.

Petter Arentz
Editor, Norway