The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (the BWM Convention) entered into force on 8 September 2017. The Convention, with a view to facilitate a global and uniform instrument on protection of marine ecological system under the IMO framework, aims to prevent the spread of harmful aquatic organisms from one region to another and halt damage to the marine environment from ballast water discharge.

Parties to the Convention are required to provide support in respect of effective implementation of the Convention and investigation into incompliance and are allowed to set up more stringent penalties in accordance with applicable laws. The obligations undertaken by the Parties include not only certification but also inspections on record-keeping, sampling, exchanging the implementation of the BWM Convention on ships focus not only on certificate management, ballast water recording, sampling, replacement, and treatment, but also on more stringent supervision and inspection of ships in conjunction with the MARPOL Convention.

Recently, during the berthing operation of an entered ship in the Port of Adabiya, Egypt, even if she has passed the port state control inspection without defects, she was fined by the port authority for suspected discharge of pollutant ballast water.

I. Details of the case

It’s a routine process on ships to pump in ballast water to ensure its trim, stability and structural integrity during a long-distance empty load voyage as logistic typically flows in a single direction.

The ship was on a voyage to the port of Adabiya in Egypt to load urea cargo during May 2021. The master received a notice from the port agent after departure from the previous port suggesting a port clearance of not more than 12.3 meters. The master then arranged to pump in clean ballast water to the vessel’s third cargo hold (storm tank) when she was sailing through the Red Sea.

The ship berthed at Adabiya on 20 May 2021 and failed the first-round pre-loading inspection as loose scales and cargo residues were found in the first, second, fourth and fifth holds, during which the third hold was kept with ballast water and could not be inspected. The photos provided by the ship suggested that the ballast water was clean, and the master discharged water on the same day upon notice of the local agent. The hold was deballasted around 8:00 p.m. on May 21.

In the morning of May 22, the ship went through PSC inspection at the port with zero deficiency. In the afternoon, yellowish-brown floating substances were found in port waters where the ship was berthed. The Harbour Master and Port Authority believed that the pollution was caused by the discharge of unclean ballast water from the ship.

II. The result

The Association immediately contacted the local correspondent to help investigate the alleged pollution incident. According to the master’s statement report, there were five other vessels at the port, and he had noticed unknown substance floating in the waters during berthing. The master has also confirmed with the crew that no garbage, or sewage was discharged during the entire period of berthing, and a PSC inspection report with no deficiencies identified was attached to his statement.

Nevertheless, according to the local agent and correspondent, the port authority decided to issue a fine of over one million EGP (about $70,000) on the ground that the hold was found unclean with rust scales and cargo residues and that the pollutants were in the surrounding waters where the ship was berthed. No samples of the pollutants or the ballast water were taken. The port authority claimed that the penalty was merely one third of the normal amount for pollution in the Suez Canal Economic Zone, and that the incident will be referred to the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA) if the ship does not accept its decision. By then, the ship will not only be fined, but will also be responsible for cleaning up and the crew may be charged with criminal liabilities.

Judging from current information, the port authority’s decision was made with procedural flaws, but based on actual laws and regulations. For pollution caused by discharge of either dirty ballast water or sewage from ships, the right to issue penalties under applicable laws of the contracting parties and port states is protected by the BWM Convention and MARPOL convention.

III. Lessons learnt

The primary concern here is about the source of the pollutants. According to the master’s statement report, the ship has ruled out the possibility of intentional or unintentional discharge of any pollutants during berthing. A ship engaged in international voyages under the MARPOL Convention is unlikely to not abide by the provisions and local regulations, with the crew trained to be aware of environmental protection, and with the port area covered with cameras. Also, passing the PSC inspection with no deficiency has in some way supported the master’s statement regarding the ship’s compliance with safety and anti-pollution requirements.

Tank cleaning during the voyage can be highly demanding and it is sometimes inevitable that corners of the hold are left out. Although rust scales and cargo residues were noted during hold inspection, it is questionable that whether these impurities are the exact pollutants floating in the port waters after being mixed with 15,000 tons of ballast water in all three holds and then discharged from the ship’s ballast system.

The master later confirmed that the surveillance video screenshot provided by the port authority of the ship and surrounding pollutants did not even match with the Member’s ship. While the port authority did not take any samples for laboratory test, the ship could not afford to throw in more time just for clarification, considering charterparty execution and operational efficiency. The Port of Adabiya is situated on the northern part of Suez Gulf on the gate of Suez Canal, with no breakwater in the port area and a barge terminal for fishing vessels in the vicinity. It is therefore likely that the pollutants found in port waters are dead algae, or contaminants from other vessel discharges, or operational residues from nearby fishing vessels. It had been reported in other ports that oil or garbage are already there even before berthing.

It is good practice for the master to take photos or video evidence in the presence of the pilot and report to the port authority, thus fulfilling the reporting duty under the Convention and preventing the ship from being accused of polluting port waters.

IV. Conclusions

With more ships engaged in maritime trade and transportation, there has been an intensified awareness on marine environment protection and enhanced control on ship-sourced pollution by the IMO and contracting governments. By looking at the above case, the Association considers it a good opportunity to remind Members to carry out crew training on preventing pollution and to help them improve environmental consciousness and professional skills in terms of compliance with all the technical requirements. The crews should be supervised to strictly follow proper procedures of information exchange and incident reporting. Any pollutants discharged illegally, from her ship or not, should be reported to the flag state or the port state immediately so that early actions can be taken.

For more information, please contact Managers of the Association.