Maritime Studies
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Maritime Studies |
|
Michael Julian[2]
This paper identifies progress with some of the more significant marine environmental challenges on the agenda of the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) for the 2000/2001 biennium. The challenges include pollution prevention in several key areas including: air pollution, ballast water, anti-fouling paint systems, waste reception facilities, ship recycling, as well as excessive regulations, and new pollution response requirements. Also some significant policy decisions facing IMO member governments regarding entry into force of provisions for future international marine environmental instruments are noted.
Society is continually demanding greater protection for the marine environment, and new issues of concern are being identified on an increasing basis. Where such demands can be justified it is usually assumed that governments will initiate the necessary action. Should this be the case? Why not let those likely to cause pollution take the lead and put in place appropriate strategies to minimise the risk of pollution, for example, industry self-regulation?
The MEPC broke new ground in September 1997 when it adopted the Protocol of 1977 to amend MARPOL 73/78. The Protocol introduced a new Annex VI – Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships. Previously MEPC had only been concerned about pollution of the sea, so this is a good example of IMO Member Governments meeting the increased demands of society to protect the environment whether it be sea or air.
The main objectives of the Air Pollution Annex are to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new engines and to ensure there is no increase in the sulphur content in fuel oil used by ships. The NOx Technical Code specifies the requirements for the testing, survey and certification of marine diesel engines. Other items in the Annex include reduction in emissions from ozone-depleting substances such as halons and CFCs, and the fitting of a vapour emission control system on oil tankers for use during cargo operations.
It is disappointing that only two States, Sweden and Norway, have to date, ratified the 1997 Protocol. Australia is progressing its preparations to ratify, however, because of the Australian Constitution, this involves the Commonwealth engaging in discussions with State and Territory Governments as well as with industry. These discussions have focused on various proposals as to how the Annex will be regulated in Australia. Like all new regulations there is often uncertainty as to the precise meaning of a regulation, and these uncertainties need to be clarified before Australia can introduce its legislation.
During the Conference that adopted the 1997 Protocol concerns were raised by a number of Member Governments about possible delays in the Regulations coming into force due to the excessive entry into force provisions. These are contained in Article 6 of the Protocol. The Article states that the Protocol shall enter into force twelve months after the date on which not less than fifteen States, the combined merchant fleets of which constitute not less than 50% of the gross tonnage of the world’s merchant shipping, have become Parties to the Protocol.
To highlight the possible need to take action should delays occur, the Conference adopted a rather unusual but appropriate Resolution. The Resolution firstly urges Member States to sign up to the Protocol no later than 31 December 2002 and secondly requests the Secretary General to review the progress of Member States consenting to be bound by the 1997 Protocol. If the conditions for entry into force have not been met by 31 December 2002 the MEPC will initiate a review to identify the impediments to the entry into force of the Protocol and any necessary measures to alleviate those impediments.
With less than two years to go there needs to be a concentrated effort to encourage Member States to take the necessary action to become Party to the Protocol.
IMO is currently undertaking a study on greenhouse gas emissions from ships to determine how and to what extent hydrocarbons and NOx emissions may contribute to the production of tropospheric ozone, a greenhouse gas. Also whether the potential exists to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships. In this context the study will look at both short and long term considerations, i.e. reductions through current technologies or market base approaches and through fuel switching or alternative plant designs. The report of the consultants will be discussed at MEPC 45 in October 2000.
Greenhouse gas emissions from ships as well as aircraft is being considered under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA). IMO and ICAO will report their findings to SBSTA for consideration by UNFCC in the context of total global greenhouse gas emissions and the actions required to reduce global warming.
The Netherlands conducted a preliminary trial monitoring the average sulphur content of residual fuel oils supplied for use onboard ships. This trial led to a five-year monitoring program which is being conducted by some of the world leaders in bunker fuel quality analysis, under contract to IMO. The monitoring program guidelines provide for calculations of a rolling average of sulphur content over a three-year period which commenced in 1999. Therefore the reference value will not be calculated until 2002. Consequently data will not be available for comparison with the rolling average until 2003. If results demonstrate sulphur levels increasing above the approved 4.5%, steps will need to be taken to set a lower limit.
Although Annex VI has not yet entered into force, the NOx Technical Code under Regulation 13 applies to engines installed on ships constructed on or after 1 January 2000 or an engine which undergoes a major conversion on or after 1 January 2000. This arrangement, referred to as a ‘gentleman’s agreement’, was instituted to provide engine manufacturers and shipowners with an agreed international standard to work to, thus ensuring that when the Annex does enter into force, ships built since 1 January 2000 will comply and would not have to be re-engined.
Since the introduction of the NOx Technical Code, which was based on an draft ISO standard, and the finalisation of ISO 8178, a number of editorial corrections need to be made to the Code to ensure it is identical with IOS 8178. These amendments were approved at the last meeting of the MEPC in March 2000.
One of the most significant controls on air pollution adopted in the course of Annex XI is the concept of designated areas where the coastal State(s) have clearly demonstrated to MEPC that significant damage to the environment is occurring because of SOx emissions. Strict criteria have to be met for a sea area to be designated. Once an SOx Emission Control area is approved by MEPC ships passing through or operating in the area can only use bunker fuel with a sulphur content not greater than 1.5% m/m.
At MEPC 44 (March 2000) the Committee approved a submission by North Sea States for the North Sea to be designated an SOx Emission Control Area. However, this will not take effect until the Air Pollution Annex comes into force. The Baltic Sea was designated such an area in the course of the Air Pollution diplomatic conference in September 1997.
Progress at recent meetings of MEPC in developing an international legal instrument to regulate the management of ballast water on ships has been slower than would have been preferred. Consequently it was agreed at the meeting of MEPC held in July 1999 that the likelihood of holding a successful diplomatic conference in the biennium 2000/2001 could not be assured. The Committee agreed Ballast Water Management is a high priority item and it will aim to complete the legal instrument in order to hold the diplomatic conference early in 2002.
At this stage the preferred option is for a stand alone convention rather than an additional Annex to MARPOL 73/78, mainly to provide flexibility in entry into force and amendment procedures.
At the March MEPC meeting, the Ballast Water Working Group made better progress on several issues, particularly in the likely application of the instrument which had been a stumbling block for some time. The Working Group agreed on a two-tier approach where in the first tier all ships throughout the world will be required to have a ballast water management plan and record book and an ability to handle ballast water sediments. In the second tier contracting parties could designate ballast water management areas in their waters either as ballast water discharge control or ballast water loading control areas. Parties would be required to submit requests for such areas to be approved by MEPC against specified criteria for the designation of a ballast water control area.
Progress on other issues included:
• developing ‘best management practices’ for uptake and discharge of ballast water;
• management of sediments;
• adopting a new approach to standard setting by referring to the overall efficacy of inactivation of organisms, and targeting species representative of a taxonomic category rather than the 95% volumetric removal of ballast water;
• development of criteria for approving ballast water treatment options;
• standardisation of sampling techniques;
• responsibilities of port, flag and coastal States;
• responsibility of IMO;
• contents of the Ballast Water Management Plan and record book.
Some redrafting of the draft legal text was accomplished taking into account the agreement regarding application and in some other areas.
The most significant item on the agenda for MEPC over the next two meetings will be the development of a legally binding instrument for anti-fouling paint systems for ships. At its November 1999 meeting the IMO Assembly approved the holding of a diplomatic conference in 2001 to address this issue. The Assembly also approved a Resolution agreeing that the instrument should ensure a global prohibition of the application of organotin compounds, which act as biocides in antifouling systems on ships, by 1 January 2003, and a complete prohibition of the presence of organotin compounds on ships by 1 January 2008.
To achieve these dates will require some very skilful and difficult negotiations on the part of the MEPC and its Anti-Fouling Paint Working Group. Good progress towards this goal was achieved at MEPC 44 in March 2000.
A full draft text of the proposed legal instrument was reviewed by the Working Group (apart from the two articles which deal with entry into force and amendment procedures). It is now ready for an article by article review by plenary at the next MEPC meeting in October 2000.
The following are the key features of the draft legal instrument:
• stand alone convention;
• application to all ships entitled to fly the flag of a Party to the Convention;
• controls will be placed on specific harmful anti-fouling systems which will be listed in an annex to the convention;
• Parties may propose amendments to the anti-fouling systems against agreed criteria, such proposals will be viewed by a panel of MEPC experts;
• scientific and technical research and monitoring of the effects of anti-fouling systems will be promoted;
• ships will be subject to survey by the flag State and be required to carry an International Anti-fouling certificate;
• Ships will be subject to port State control. Violations will be prohibited and sanctions established under the law of the Administration of the ship concerned wherever the violation occurs;
• some countries support limiting application of the Convention to ships on international voyages.
With the proposed ban on the use of TBT in anti-fouling paint systems there has been considerable research in recent years by paint manufacturers and potential users. Australia’s Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) has been evaluating anti-fouling systems for seven or eight years and have had some promising results.
Copper-based products are seen as the primary alternative but, until recently, the long term performance of these did not match that of TBT copolymer systems. However, the use of copper and other biocides is also under scrutiny and non-toxic fouling prevention technologies are being sought. Low surface energy, fouling-release or minimally adhesive coatings are perhaps the most environmentally acceptable prospect for fouling control in the future.[3]
A significant problem being experienced by shipping worldwide is inadequate ship waste reception facilities in some ports. MEPC is particularly concerned with this situation and has agreed to investigate means to improve the situation. The major concern is that because of inadequate shore reception facilities, waste oil it is being discharged at sea, sometimes requiring some form of response activity such as aerial dispersant spraying.
Under the provisions of MARPOL 73/78 parties to the convention, that is, governments that have ratified the convention, have signified their agreement to provide adequate ship waste facilities in their ports. It seems incongruous that governments, which legislate requirements for ships to protect the marine environment, do not meet their own obligations to ensure the provision of adequate waste reception facilities in their ports.
There are several kinds of ship generated waste; oily water from a ship’s bilge, oil cargo slops from washed tanks and general ‘household’ garbage.
The petroleum industry is seen as being primarily responsible for providing facilities for oil cargo slops, as this is part of doing business in oil transportation. Generally speaking adequate facilities are provided at most oil terminals.
The issue of most concern is the lack of facilities at normal trading ports for oily bilge water from all ship types; the resulting consequence is that ships illegally discharge their oily water into the sea. Clearly this is a challenge not only for MEPC but also for the governments in those countries where the port facilities are inadequate.
MEPC at its March meeting adopted new guidelines for ensuring the adequacy of port waste reception facilities, these will shortly be published by IMO free of charge and placed on the IMO website.
Recognising the increase in the carriage by sea of chemicals both in package form and in bulk the MEPC has been preparing a protocol to the Oil Pollution Response & Cooperation Convention (OPRC Convention) to cover response arrangements to spills of chemicals.
The new Protocol was adopted at a diplomatic conference held in London in March 2000. Under the Protocol member governments are required to provide response arrangements to spills of hazardous and noxious substances in a similar way to their provision of response arrangements for oil spills. The Protocol will enter into force twelve months after fifteen States have formally ratified or accepted the Protocol.
Essentially the contents of the Protocol are as follows:
• Parties to the Protocol either individually or jointly have to make necessary arrangements and establish the capability to prepare for and respond to a pollution incident by hazardous and noxious substances.
• Parties shall require their flag ships to have a pollution incident emergency plan.
• Port authorities and operators will be required to have appropriate HNS pollution emergency plans.
• National and Regional systems for preparedness and response will have to be established, including having a national contingency plan, access to a minimum level of pre-positioned response equipment, adequate and trained resources.
• Parties agree to cooperate and provide assistance within the capability of their resources to international requests in severe incidents.
This will be a significant challenge to governments and that part of the shipping industry involved in the carriage of HNS cargoes. However, it is not a task to be undertaken in isolation from existing arrangements. A sensible approach would be to combine the response arrangements for oil and chemicals into one national contingency plan as has been done in Australia.
It is of particular concern that after some twenty-one years the voluntary MARPOL Sewage Annex has not yet come into force. Even though seventy-five countries have ratified the Annex this only constitutes about 43% of the gross tonnage of the world’s merchant shipping. As mentioned with the Air Pollution Annex, 50% of the gross tonnage is required.
As a result of responses received to a questionnaire sent to those Member Governments that had not accepted Annex IV, to solicit information on reasons for not having accepted the Annex, a number of amendments to Annex IV were made by an MEPC correspondence group. The more significant concerns related to the requirement for shore reception facilities. This has been reduced to only being required in those countries that wish to enforce the prohibition of the discharge of sewage off their coast. Advances in shipboard treatment equipment has made sewage treatment less costly and less problematical enabling less onerous requirements than in the original text.
MEPC at its March meeting considered the proposed amendments and agreed a revised Annex IV. It will now be up to those countries which had difficulties with the existing Annex to now ratify it on the basis that as soon as the existing Annex enters into force it will be immediately amended as agreed at MEPC 44.
One of the newest challenges for MEPC is to address the question how the matter of ship scrapping – retitled ship recycling – should be handled by IMO, particularly the use of beach demolition procedures evident in many locations in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and China. The issues of concern are the environmental as well as the safety aspects which arise from scrapping ships containing hazardous substances such as asbestos, PCBs, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, ozone-depleting substances and others. These environmentally hazardous substances are located both in the operative systems of ships and as waste and residues.
After initial discussion on this matter at the 43rd session of the MEPC in July 1999 and again at MEPC 44 in March 2000, the Committee agreed to place this matter on the long term work plan of the committee. Noting that IMO’s role is to focus on the design, operation and preparation for recycling of ships a correspondence group has been tasked to examine the following issues and report to MEPC 46 in July 2001:
• gather information on current practices concerning recycling of ships;
• identify relevant issues from previously presented documents to IMO;
• identify the safety and environmental risks associated with current practices;
• collect information on procedures to minimise risks associated with recycling of ships;
• collate information from ILO, Basel Convention, and the London Convention secretariats, and the industry on their activities and perceived responsibilities;
• gather views on how IMO may usefully contribute to the reduction of safety and environmental risks.
It has been suggested that this matter would be a good opportunity for the shipping industry to demonstrate its ability at industry self-regulation. The International Chamber of Shipping has recognised this opportunity and has established a number of working groups to address this issue.
A lot has been mentioned of IMO but exactly who or what is IMO?
Quite simply IMO is the 158 Member States, which having accepted the Convention on the International Maritime Organization, these countries are collectively ‘the IMO’. It is not the IMO Secretary General or his 300 secretariat staff at the IMO headquarters building in London.
In making decisions on maritime safety it comes down to the 138 Member States that have ratified the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS 74) and its Protocol of 1978 and which attend meetings of the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC). With regard to decision-making on marine environment protection matters it is the 106 Member States that have ratified MARPOL 73/78 and which attend the meetings of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC).
Considerable value is given to the decision making process of the above committees by a large number of international non-government organisations (NGOs) who have consultative status to attend IMO meetings. NGOs represent the various groups that make up the shipping industry and include a number of environmental and other professional organisations. Without their support and assistance with technical issues the decision-making process would be seriously affected.
Because of the progress made in recent years introducing many new safety and marine environment protection regulations there is a general consensus, in the international maritime community, particularly with shipmasters and shipowners, that sufficient rules and regulations are now in place and far greater effort should be made in implementing and enforcing existing regulations.
This is now the approach being adopted by IMO and one which has been frequently espoused by the Secretary-General during the opening sessions of IMO Committees and at various international conferences.
Clearly for IMO to continue to develop new international conventions and to be continually revising existing legislation at a fast rate, will in the short-term, only act against the overall objective of safer ships and cleaner oceans. This is mainly because many nations experience great difficulties trying to keep up with the pace of introducing new legislation and amending existing regulations.
Some sections of the industry have suggested that a moratorium on IMO rule-making should be considered. From a shipowner’s, ship manager and shipmaster’s viewpoint as well as those flag States experiencing problems keeping abreast of new requirements, there is some merit in such a suggestion.
However, here lies the dichotomy. Where clear grounds are demonstrated that either harm to the marine environment is being caused by shipping or on the safety side where an issue is threatening the safety of life of ship’s crews, then IMO needs to quickly address the problem and take appropriate ‘rule’ making action. Such action should be on a clear needs and priority basis.
Whilst acknowledging the need to limit new regulations there has to be acceptance that new issues will arise and these will have to be dealt with, we simply cannot say ‘no’ where there is serious threat to the environment and take no action whatsoever.
IMO has adopted the ‘precautionary approach’ in all its activities, this means it should not be necessary to wait for scientific proof that harm to the environment is likely to result before taking appropriate action.
All too often governments as well NGOs come to IMO seeking a strong regulatory approach to solve their marine environmental as well as safety concerns.
One of the challenges for us in this new millennium is to explore possible ‘preventative’ alternatives to international regulations, such as to allow industry to demonstrate its ability to introduce elements of self-regulation where this is appropriate. Of course there will continue to be a requirement for some form of regulation, however in some areas we should be looking for innovative as well as alternative means of preventing pollution.
At the IMO twenty-first Assembly held in London in November 1999 the Assembly adopted an important resolution setting out the objectives of the organization for the 2000s. These are:
• more actively promote IMO’s pro-active policy so that adverse trends in maritime safety and environment protection are identified early and action taken to avoid or mitigate the effects;
• to focus attention on the following:
− shifting emphasis onto people;
− ensuring the effective uniform implementation of the revised Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW) Convention and the ISM Code, putting in place the necessary infrastructure for the implementation of the Global Search and Rescue Plan, and the MARPOL requirements concerning reception facilities for ship generated waste;
− addressing safety and environmental protection issues, to the extent feasible, by ship types;
− ensuring the wide early acceptance of those Annexes to the MARPOL Convention which have not yet entered into force;
− developing a safety culture and environmental conscience in all activities undertaken by IMO;
− avoiding excessive regulation; and
− strengthening the Organization’s technical cooperation programs;
• to promote the intensification by Governments and industry of efforts to prevent and suppress unlawful acts which not only threaten the security of ships, the safety of those on board and but also those that threaten the environment.
Concern is developing about two particular issues within the Marine Environment Protection Committee at IMO, firstly the increased number of issues to be dealt with by the Committee and secondly, the administrative mechanisms used for a new legal instrument to enter into force.
Because of the need to avoid excessive regulation and concentrate more on implementation of existing regulations, as mentioned earlier in the paper, there is need for more discipline to be exercised by member governments and NGOs in proposing and agreeing to new work items being considered. Means need to be identified for MEPC to refer more work to the sub-committees rather than attempting to do the work itself through working groups and correspondence groups.
The second issue of concern is the emerging problem of the ‘traditional’ MARPOL 73/78 entry-into-force provisions (which require 15 countries owning 50% of world tonnage to ratify an instrument) not being reached in future new instruments.
This provision was suitable when it was introduced 25 years ago when world tonnage was distributed evenly across a number of ‘like-minded’ European countries and each new legal instrument was virtually ensured of its entry into force.
The advent of ‘flagging out’ and the concentration of some 60% of the world tonnage in a smaller number of countries gives rise to the need to evaluate carefully how international legal instruments should enter into force in the future.
Current thinking for the proposed new instruments for anti-fouling paints and ballast water management is new stand-alone conventions for each or a new marine environment convention with two annexes. As these requirements are essentially port State requirements for protection of the marine environment the key entry-into-force provision should be acceptance by a number of port States. Accordingly there should be no need for any tonnage formula.
Clearly the marine environmental challenges for IMO and the MEPC in particular are wide and varied, shifting emphasis onto people will assist IMO delegates to focus their attention on the outcomes of their rule-making and its effect on humanity and the environment.
Governments and NGOs can reduce the demand on new IMO regulations and work towards industry self-regulation particularly in ship recycling.
In the response side of the equation education and increased capacity is required in the capability to respond to spills of HNS. Also national and regional contingency plans including shared arrangements for HNS spills need to be drawn up.
Finally IMO member governments need to note the objectives established by the Assembly and address means of improving the effectiveness of the organisation particularly with regard to ensuring that new conventions enter into force within a reasonable timeframe.
For more information on IMO visit the IMO web page: www.imo.org.
[1] Paper presented at the Prevention of Marine Pollution in the Asia-Pacific Regional Workshop, Townsville, 7-12 May 2000.
[2] Chairman, Marine Environment Protection Committee, International Maritime Organization.
[3] Lewis, J. A. 2000, ‘Antifouling Protection for Vessels: New Technology for the New Millennium’, Sea Australia Conference, Sydney.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MarStudies/2000/18.html