Testing times

There are two questions facing ports over the new waves of environmental legislation crashing down on shipping. The first is, could they cause a distortion of the market? The second is, will there be delays or more ship detentions?

Peter Krog-Meyer of the Danish Maritime Authority outlines the first issue: “Manpower and running costs to enforce all this new environmental legislation is going to be a challenge, but if you want to make rules, you have to invest in enforcement of those rules.”

He is aware that a difference in how the rules are interpreted could dissuade lines from calling at more stringent ports: “There needs to be a roughly level playing field for enforcement or the ships may move to other places,” he says – and admits when it comes to the wider picture “we aren’t there yet”. Having said this, he is pretty confident that port inspection regimes could eventually present a ‘unified’ face to shipping. And Denmark is keen to show how.

The new low sulphur regime which asks ships to burn compliant fuel or fit mitigation equipment is a good place to start. The Danish Environmental Protection Agency and the Danish Maritime Authority are supporting ship inspections in port including fuel sampling as well as surveillance at sea with ‘sniffer’ technology mounted on its Great Belt Bridge and on small planes: as the area acts as a gateway “if you try to pass through burning non-compliant fuel you will be found out” says Mr Krog-Meyer. “To my knowledge, land based ‘sniffers’ aren’t overly expensive, and there probably aren’t many port or harbour authorities in the world that couldn’t afford it.”

But for those that don’t have a handy bridge, there is an issue: helicopters and planes are expensive to fly and not best suited to long duty cycles. So, Denmark is also trying out new drone technology: this looks like bringing down deployment costs to the point where again, a nose in the sky is an affordable option for even cash strapped areas.

Working together

Denmark’s second enforcement strategy relies on information sharing well beyond its established partners: “If a ship on its way to Poland passes by us and we sniff high sulphur exhaust gas, even though it’s not berthing in Denmark we can still let the Polish authorities know,” says Mr Krog-Meyer. This might go against the grain with those who see data as a valuable resource to be parted with sparingly but it’s part of a wider strategy.

In short, Mr Krog-Meyer believes it’s this kind of co-operation that will eventually raise the game across the board as ports will find it in their interest to form closer information connections as this takes the pressure off everyone’s manpower. As a result, he says “shipping will find it’s harder and harder to cheat”. Of course it’s something of a gamble but Denmark’s got the odds in its favour: it’s making a name for itself and with a little luck its efforts will help others address the practicalities of the new environmental regime and gain goodwill.

On the other hand, inspectors on the ground also need to act both effectively and consistently in order to create that all important level-playing field: “Training is one of the biggest issues we have,” admits Carien Droppers of the Paris MoU, the body mandated with supporting Port State Control Officers (PSCOs) across 27 member states. However, she adds “a lot of work”, both at IMO and MoU level, has been put into making sure each stage of inspection is on a very solid footing in order to keep everyone in step.

Despite this, the pool of people and the resources each port has to carry out the tests varies a lot. While some regions like the big US West Coast facilities will have a dedicated environmental officer, in others it will be down to the PSCO, and in some regions there has been alarm at the potential burden.

Adnan Awad, director of the International Ocean Institute’s South African branch, explains that unfortunately the upcoming ballast water legislation, aimed at controlling the spread of non-indigenous invasives via ballast tanks, has created a lot of misplaced concern, even prompting some countries to avoid ratification.

“One of the misinterpretations is that ports will need the scientific capability to process ballast water samples themselves and so would need a lab on site and a scientist on standby – not the case. While the PSCO has every right to take samples, the level of response is down to their judgement… actually these inspections won’t be any more sophisticated than they are doing already and so shouldn’t be slowing the vessel down.” Ms Droppers’ concurs, adding that in the main these checks should “sit inside the framework of PSCO inspections we already have in place”.

Hitting targets

Still, given the manpower issue, most areas will use a ‘targeted’ approach, with either overt analysis, technological telltales (such as Denmark’s ‘sniffers’) or not-so-defined tacit assumptions which may be fine for a while but stand to wither in effectiveness over time.

So, in order to help make things a little clearer, the IOI has helped develop a risk analysis ballast water tool based on environmental similarities, routes, trading partners and GIS-map databases for developing areas with limited resources such as Africa, Southeast Asia and South America. Mr Awad explains this information is tied together into a system that presents port inspectors with a simple, one-to-five risk assessment on visiting ships that walks the inspector through the next steps, backed up by data that can be drilled into for more detail. Its use should also dispel the notion that a particular group of vessels are being unfairly treated.

Even so, some think these new areas of legislation could result in hold ups and more ship detentions.

Max Thompson, associate at lawyer Holman Fenwick Willan, believes the extent to which these regulations will be enforced depends on the “vim and vigour of the port state” and according to him, it could mean delays in certain areas: “Our view is that increased inspections and more in-depth inspections will have the potential to impact upon speed of turnaround at port,” he says, adding that the port might do well to remind masters to have their documents in order, including copies of bunker delivery notes and compliant fuel changeover or ballast water logs.

Certainly there is a learning curve for everyone involved. California has seen a rash of violations where vessel’s have bunkered close-to the limit fuel that has then mixed with residual stuff in tanks and lines, pushing it over the edge: its Air Resources Board has found it necessary to issue an advisory telling ships to take housekeeping seriously and switch over to compliant fuel early.

Mr Awad explains certain areas, such as Singapore – which sees extremely heavy traffic – are interested in driving a ballast water risk assessment approach. In some cases this may lead to exemptions for ships that will be shuttling backward and forward on dedicated runs between two zones that have established low risks for invasive species: obviously it will help them to be able to waive the inspection process wherever possible. However, Mr Awad adds that although an exemption may be granted, the ports and PSCOs will still need to keep on top of the information “and not just let them slip through under the radar”.

Keep it simple

Simple, practical innovation is key to making the new rounds of marine ecolegislation workable: The Danish Maritime Authority’s Mr Krog-Meyer says an onboard spigot close to the engines for reliable fuel sampling may be proposed at the International Maritime Organisation, and a number of countries have either started or are considering on-the-spot fuel tests, rather than waiting around for lab results by which time the vessel may well have long gone.

However, it remains an area of contention when it comes to ballast water as so-called ‘indicative’ tests aim at inferring the density of a number of marine organisms, not just the presence of a single chemical. This is tricky; it’s difficult to do in a short period of time and results will be relied on to help inspectors determine whether a vessel should be delayed while more detailed analysis is carried out.

Even with all this focus on environmental regulations, the Paris MoU’s Droppers has a last word on the potential rise in ships being detained and explains that it might well not increase the overall numbers: “Frankly, if there’s one thing seriously wrong, we usually see a lot more grounds for detention.”