The document discusses a country's enforcement of ballast water treatment system (BWTS) rules without proper planning. BWTS is meant to treat ballast water before discharge to protect marine life, but was enforced without confirming the positioning of treatment machinery. Ship owners and managers were not fully informed, creating chaos. One ship was ordered to conduct an expensive ballast water exchange during cargo operations. The document concludes international trade can be harmed by changes enforced without foresight, and policies need feasibility assessments, equipment specifications, and stakeholder input.

2. PRESENTED
By
NISHITH CHATURVEDI
FOR
LEX CONSILIUM FOUNDATION

3. Name of vessel and other details have been
changed to protect their identity

4. DUE PLANNING
Without adequate inputs can result in framing
of impracticable rules. At times can create
chaos.

5. Blast water is carried by cruise ships,
large tankers and bulk cargo carriers to
acquire the optimum operating depth of
the propeller and to maintain stability.

6. Country X enforced BWTS without
confirming positioning of requisite
machinery.

7. BWTS is meant to enable ballast water to
be treated prior to its discharge in water.

8. When BWTS was conceptualized,
anticipated expense was about one
million USD per Vessel. Moreover,
installation would involve keeping the
vessel away from sea for one to three
months.

9. BWTS policy was
conceived to protect
precious marine life and
thereby humans.
Policy was promulgated
around 1st January 2016.

10. Ballast water has been found to be the waste
that is responsible for ocean pollution
considering continuous worldwide transfer
of non-indigenous species and other
pollutants when ballast is discharged in sea.

11. When BWTS rules were farmed, most of the
owners and managers were duly informed.
However, the policy did not percolate to
vessels.

12. Approval came up around March 2017.
This was promptly followed by start of strict
enforcement by Marine authorities.

13. Framing of initial policy in January 2016
as well as its enforcement were both the
handiwork of the coast guard.

14. However, the authorities concerned did
not name manufacturing companies
considered suitable for BWTS
compliance.

15. BWTS is supplied by ALFA LAVAL or
HYUNDAI, etc.

16. Coast Guard authorities ordered vessel MV
Anarkali during cargo operation at a port to
stop & move out 200 nautical miles to carry
out exchange of ballast water.

17. This order implied heavy financial cost
and loss of reputation in case of any
mishap.

18. LESSONS LEARNT

19. No. 1
Before issue of a policy, feasibility
of its implementation be thoroughly
examined.

20. No. 2
If policy needs any new equipment/
machine then proper manufacturer (s) &
specifications be also indicated.

21. No. 3
When system needs an upgradation
consequent upon any change in regulations
then early action for its dissemination and
also facilitate its implementation should be
taken by consulting all concerned.

22. No. 4
Charterer must inform the vessels
about all applicable compliances
enforced by the local authorities.

23. No. 5
Captain as a representative must also check
from the charterer about any special
compliances in force.

24. No. 6
Increased and eventually universal
access to internet is inescapable.

25. CONCLUSION
International trade and commerce can be
adversely hit by introduction of changes
or rules enforced without requisite
foresight.

26. m
THANK YOU

27. NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PPT:
KEY WORDS : BWTS, marine pollution, coastguard,
identification, compatible manufacture, local
compliances.
INTRODUCTION:
The main aim of this case is to highlight incorporation
of suitable inputs from the stakeholders before issue
of policy directions.

28. NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PPT:
INTRODUCTION 2 :
The case study discusses the need to take into
account different dimensions of a policy
change.