Consultation outcome

Consultation Report: Consultation on the proposed Merchant Shipping (Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Updated 20 February 2026

Section 1: Introduction

This report summarises the responses to the public consultation on the proposed Merchant Shipping (Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (“the amending Regulations”) that was conducted by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA). The consultation sought views on draft legislation and associated guidance intended to update UK Regulations in line with recent international developments under the Ballast Water Management Convention (“the BWM Convention”).

The UK is a Party to the BWM Convention which aims to prevent the spread of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens through ships’ ballast water. The BWM Convention is implemented domestically through The Merchant Shipping (Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments) Regulations 2022 (“the 2022 Regulations”). The proposed 2026 amendments are necessary to give effect to IMO Resolution MEPC.383(81), adopted on 22 March 2024 and which entered into force internationally on 1 October 2025.

The amendments are primarily intended to:

• introduce a requirement for the approval of the software systems used for electronic records;
• clarify the application of ballast water management requirements to ships operating exclusively in UK and certain other waters.

The amending Regulations are designed to keep United Kingdom domestic law fully up to date with the United Kingdom’s international maritime obligations. These changes are part of the UK’s commitment to maintaining high environmental standards while supporting efficient maritime operations.

Section 2: Consultation

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (“the MCA”) carried out a formal public consultation over a 4-week period from 22 October 2025 to 20 November 2025. The consultation was published on www.gov.uk and notifications of the consultation were sent to more than 230 organisations including shipping and marine industry companies, government departments, devolved administrations and other interested parties.

Consultees were invited to comment on any aspect of the consultation; but more specifically to respond to the consultation questions as outlined in Section 4 of this report. Specific questions were asked relating to whether the amending Regulations fulfil their intended purpose, whether any cost implications or unintended consequences are foreseen and whether the draft guidance is sufficient to support industry in meeting the requirements. No specific costings were received as feedback.

Eight responses were received from a range of stakeholders and the list of respondents is provided in Section 6.

The MCA thanks everyone who took part in the consultation. The views shared have played an important role in shaping the final legislative package.

Section 3: Key Findings

The feedback received through the consultation resulted in a number of editorial amendments aimed at clarifying the implications of the amending Regulations. No changes to policy were required. Eight individuals responded to the consultation. Five indicated their support in their covering emails or confirmed that they had no comments to provide. Three respondents submitted comments addressing various aspects of the questionnaire. The responses also provided valuable insight into areas where further clarification would be beneficial. These areas have been split into themes below:

Application of the Regulations

One respondent requested clearer clarification of the changes made by the amending Regulations to regulation 4 of the 2022 Regulations (application), either through a case study of the Isle of Man and UK or a map highlighting areas, which they suggested may be beneficial to eliminate any confusion. A different respondent questioned the suitability of the legal powers to deliver this amendment and also questioned some of the terminology used to describe the application of the 2022 Regulations to the Isle of Man. The respondent questioned the inclusion of reference to “British Overseas Territories” when the context appears to relate primarily to the Isle of Man.

Ensuring environmental compliance

One respondent noted that the amendment related to electronic record books is expected to support overall environmental improvements and strengthen compliance with the convention by making record‑keeping and verification more efficient.

Another respondent indicated that clarification would be beneficial regarding how the UK demonstrates that ballast water discharge has not resulted in environmental harm, as referenced in MGN 675 Section 5.1.

Clarity on record-keeping requirements

A respondent asked for clearer guidance on the future of record‑keeping requirements including whether electronic record books are intended to replace paper records or operate alongside them.

Feedback emphasised the importance of clearer explanations regarding the potential financial implications of the use of electronic record books particularly the possibility that upgrade costs may ultimately be passed on to consumers alongside uncertainty about the expected cost of approved systems. The same respondent noted that internet connections and requirements for uploads and timescales may require consideration.

Section 4:       Summary of Responses

Eight responses were received to the consultation from a variety of industry stakeholders:

• The UK Chamber of Shipping,
• The Royal Yachting Association,
• Milford Haven Port Authority,
• Orkney Islands Council,
• Peel Ports,
• Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Northern Ireland),
• the Ballast Water and Environmental Manufacturers’ Association (BEMA) and
• an individual respondent.

A summary of the comments received, together with the responses provided by the MCA, is set out below.

1. If you are a shipowner or seafarer, which type of record book is used onboard your vessel to record ballast water operations?

One respondent answered this question to highlight that their members use different systems. The same respondent used this opportunity to flag concern from members that this consultation may mean that electronic record books may be replacing paper records entirely.

MCA response: These updates align the use of electronic record books under the BWM Convention with the use of electronic record books under MARPOL by requiring that, from the legal entry into force of this new requirement in the UK, manufacturers apply for approval for their systems and that operators choose an approved system if they wish to use an electronic record book. There will be no obligation for operators to use an electronic record book, and paper records will still be acceptable. This is simply to formalise the standard for electronic versions when they are used, and to ensure consistency.

2. Do you consider that the amendments regarding the use of electronic record books will implement the changes to the BWM Convention as per the requirements of IMO Resolution MEPC.383(81) accurately and appropriately?

The five respondents who answered this question all responded ‘yes’.

3. In your assessment, do you consider the assumptions and estimates of the costs and benefits in the DMOA that is attached to this consultation as a fair reflection of potential impact on business due to the regulations?

All respondents either responded ‘yes’ or indicated that they were not able to comment.

4. Are you/do you know of a small and/or micro business(es) that will be disproportionally affected by any of the measures outlined?

All respondents either responded ‘no’ or indicated that they were not able to comment.

5. Do you consider that you have received sufficient notification of the requirements to which you will have to comply?

All respondents indicated that they had received sufficient notification.

6. Do you have any comments on the clarification of the regulations relating to Article 3.2(b) to (d) of the BWM Convention regarding exclusions to ships travelling exclusively between the UK and the Isle of Man?

Three respondents responded ‘yes’; however, one respondent did not provide any comments which indicates that they may have responded ‘yes’ erroneously.

One of these respondents raised concerns that references to the British Overseas Territories, and the term “territory”, should be removed from the amending Regulations and accompanying guidance as they give rise to confusion about the scope of the legislation.

The same respondent stressed that the clarification to the application provision made by the amending Regulations should either be limited to the Isle of Man, if that is constitutionally correct, or if the amending Regulations are intended to cover other areas, should use clearer and more precise definitions for the specific types of British ‘possessions’ involved. The respondent also highlighted that the MGN should accurately state that the effect of the amending Regulations is that the 2022 Regulations do not apply to ships in the waters of other Crown Dependencies or Overseas Territories whose own legislation governs their position.

MCA response: MCA have taken the respondent’s comments onboard and removed the reference in the amending Regulations to the OTs. It should also be noted that the amending Regulations do not refer to ‘territory’. The provision in relation to the Crown Dependencies (e.g. the Isle of Man) is framed so as to ensure that the exception only applies to ships while they are in United Kingdom waters or controlled waters, so leaving it to the Crown Dependencies to legislate in respect of their own waters.

A different respondent provided feedback regarding the communication of the application of the provision in the amending Regulations to the Isle of Man, suggesting that a map could be used to illustrate more clearly.

MCA response: At present, MCA do not consider there to be sufficient need to develop a case study or map in response to this request, as this amendment only affects a small number of operators. However, we remain open to revisiting this matter should additional feedback be received in the future that indicates greater interest or necessity.

7. Do the draft MGN 675 Amendment 2 and draft MSN 1908 Amendment 2 clearly communicate the requirements?

Three respondents responded ‘yes’ to this question.

One respondent noted that their earlier feedback on clarifying how a Crown Dependency governs its own waters is also relevant to this question. MCA’s response to Q6 applies here.

Another respondent stated that the requirements for the electronic record book are clearly stated in MGN 1908; however, they requested that the MCA should clarify how the UK would be expected to satisfy that ballast discharge has not impaired or damaged the environment.

MCA response: The UK undertook a desk‑based environmental risk assessment, in conjunction with the Isle of Man, to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendment to ensure there would be no impairment or damage from ballast water operations. The amendment to the SI is simply a legal clarification and does not change anything for industry in practice and therefore the environmental risk has also largely remained the same.

8. Do you foresee any unintended consequences of the draft Regulations that have not been mentioned in the consultation documents?

Three respondents responded ‘no’ to this question. One respondent highlighted that their concerns had already been raised in answer to Q6.

Another respondent expressed concern that potential costs associated with upgrading to an electronic record book may ultimately be passed on to consumers and the expected price of an approved system is not yet known. The same respondent flagged that the amendment may lead to improved environmental outcomes and better compliance with the Convention as records can be checked more easily.

MCA response: The Electronic Record Book (ERB) format remains unchanged from what was established by the 2022 Regulations. The amendment introduces the requirement that, if a ship chooses to use an electronic record book, it must be an approved system and this is consistent with the approval process for MARPOL ERBs. If ships are already using ERBs under MARPOL, they will be familiar with the criteria for approved ERBs. As part of the consultation, we asked industry to send us information about cost but have not received any feedback. If a ship wants to keep using a hard copy they may do so.

9. Do you have any additional comments to add to the response?

One respondent summarised that, overall, the move to electronic systems is expected to support stronger environmental compliance and better ballast water management, contributing to long‑term biodiversity gains by reducing the biosecurity risks linked to unmonitored or inaccurately recorded ballast water discharge. Another respondent stated that, as a Statutory Harbour Authority with an established Ballast Water Management Policy, they will continue inspecting ballast water records as they have since 2015. No further additional comments were received.

Section 5: MCA Response

MCA concluded that no changes to the underlying policy measures were required as a result of the consultation feedback. However, respondents offered valuable observations on drafting and language which informed several refinements that strengthened the clarity and precision of the new Statutory Instrument and its accompanying guidance. The feedback also highlighted areas where further explanation would support industry in interpreting the new regulatory requirements which enabled MCA to enhance the guidance so that stakeholders have a clearer understanding of what is expected of them under the updated Regulations.

Section 6: Who Responded

Responses were received from the following organisations or individuals:

• UK Chamber of Shipping
• The Royal Yachting Association
• Milford Haven Port Authority
• Orkney Islands Council
• Peel Ports
• Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Northern Ireland)
• The Ballast Water and Environmental Manufacturers’ Association (BEMA)
• and an individual respondent.