2 (a) Any port State [or port States]
may exempt any ship or ships
from compliance with all
or part of these regulations
in an area under its
jurisdiction [provided this does not:
?.
endanger marineaquatic
ecosystems of neighbouring
port
States;]and/or
?
increase the risk of transferring harmful
aquatic organisms and
pathogens ships'
ballast water and associated
sediments;
and/or
?.
[provided this does not
give favourable treatment
conditions to those
ships being exemptedflying
the flag of non-Parties
to this Annex].
(b) Particulars of any such
exemption shall be explained.
motivated and granted
by the port State and indicated
in the ships Ballast
Water Management Plan.
(c) The port State which allows any such
exemption shall, as soon as possible,
but not more
then 90 days thereafter, communicate
to the
Organization particulars of the
same and the reasons
therefore, which the Organization
shall circulate to
the Parties of the Convention
for their information
and appropriate action, if any.9
9 3.2(a):?) the provision not endangering
ecosystems of other States is in accordance
e.g. with UNCLOS
1992, Part X??, Article 194(2) &
(3) and should be
retained. ?) UNCLOS furthennore specifically
identifies the
obligation "to take all measures
necessary" to
"prevent, reduce and control pollution
of the marine
environment resulting from [...] the
intentional or
accidental introduction of species, alien
or new, to a
particular part of the marine environment,
which may cause
significant and harmful changes thereto."
(Article 196).
?). Favourable treatment should not
be given regardless of
flag.
- 3.2(b) & (c): The kind of exemption
provided for in 3
.2(a) does not seem to have a precedent
in other MARPOL
Annxes, and as a minimum there should
be a reporting
requirement on those port States granting
such exemptions.
The suggested additions are based on
(but not identical to!)
the language of MARPOL 73/78, Annex I,2.4.b
& c.
