This week Australia became the 56th country to ratify the Ballast Water Management Convention. The country has had national controls in place for ballast water management since 2001.
The Convention was ratified by Australia’s High Commissioner to Britain, Alexander Downer in London this week.
55 other states have ratified the convention representing 53.67 percent of world tonnage. Most recently, Saudi Arabia ratified the convention in April and New Zealand in January.
Other states to have ratified are: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Congo, Cook Islands, Croatia, Denmark, Egypt, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Lebanon, Liberia, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Niue, Norway, Palau, Panama, Peru, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey and Tuvalu.
The Convention will enter into force on 8 September 2017.
Ships required to treat ballast water
According to the Maritime Industry Australia Ltd (MIAL) ship-owners welcomed the step. Teresa Lloyd, the chief executive officer of MIAL was quoted in The Maritime Executive as saying: ‘The convention requires ships to have equipment to ‘treat’ ballast water so as to render it harmless. This technological progress has been a long time coming and Australia’s ratification of the Convention… is commended by the industry – even though it comes at a hefty cost to install and operate.’
Compliance with the Convention represents a significant expense of up to $5 million dollars per ship.
'The Australian Government and industry has shown tremendous leadership in this area for decades, and this convention being adopted globally adds strength to our existing control measures,’ says Lloyd.
‘The universal application through international agreements helps to avoid a situation where providing greater environmental protection produces a commercial disadvantage.’
