- For the past week delegates, industry representatives, NGOs and others with interest in the maritime environment have been meeting here at headquarters of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Air pollution from ships, ship's sewage, particularly sensitive sea areas, oil pollution response, and waste disposal at ports and at sea, are just a few of the many items on the agenda. CQD Journal has been at IMO to give the industry an inside look at the critical environmental topics facing shipping.
Monday's opening session adopted a somber tone as Secretary General
William O'Neil reminded delegates of the added pressures focused upon IMO following the sinking of the tanker "Erika." O'Neil admitted, "The safety net which has been developed over the years has failed in this
case." His words stressed to the representatives their responsibility for the safety of the marine environment.
However, O'Neil made IMO's opposition very clear regarding any
adoption of regional or national laws pertaining to international ships. "IMO should always and without exception, be regarded as the only forum where safety and pollution prevention standards affecting
international shipping should be considered and adopted," he said.
Following the opening session, representatives broke into separate working and discussion groups. Shippers will likely center their
attention on the proceedings in three groups in particular: the working group on Harmful Aquatic Organisms in Ballast Water, the working group on Harmful Effects of the Use of Antifouling Paints
for Ships, and the discussions surrounding a new topic at IMO, Recycling of Ships.
Antifouling Paints:
This working group is beset with the ambitious task of producing a workable legal document by
2001. For the first time, members had a chance to debate draft copies of two legal schemes, one proposed by the U.S. and the other by Japan.
Delegates expressed frustration at times during the week, but by Friday most felt progress had been made in debating many points outlined in the drafts. Compromises between the two schemes
have been proposed and some agreement was reached. One delegate felt, however, that the most critical issues were tabled under the title "agreed to talk about it" or "working out in committee."
Contentious issues in the Antifouling working group seemed to be:
- System of review for future anti-fouling alternatives – Delegates needed to decide between a two-tier or a one tier approach. This debate brought forth the question of how effective are
current non-tributyltin based alternatives and their availability.
- Port state versus flag state control – This issue arose in discussions over inspection certificates proving a ship owner had painted his hull with an IMO approved substance.
Should a port state inspect a ship's hull regardless of whether a Master presents it with a valid flag state inspection certificate?
- Removal of non-approved paint – Ship owners will need to know whether all traces of the banned tributyltin (TBT) biocide must be removed from hulls by the ban date of
01/01/2008. An alternative proposal is to seal the hull with a substance to stop TBT exposure.
- Entry into force – Currently IMO conventions are considered ratified or "entered into force" when a set number of nations states sign their approval (usually 15) AND/OR 50% of
the world's tonnage has approved the convention as represented by their flag states. The Antifouling working group has been presented with a new system of "entry into force" that
one delegate called a sliding scale. Under this procedure, the more port states that approve the convention, the less percentage of tonnage will be required before ratification.
Results of these issues and others will be reported in CQD's follow-up after the summary report of the working group ispresented on Monday March 13th.
Recycling of Ships:
Originally proposed as "scrapping of ships", "Recycling of
Ships" seems a more environmentally minded euphemism. First introduced at the last MEPC, this topic brought up the debate as to what is IMO's jurisdiction when it comes to shipping related land based industries.
Norway and the Netherlands appear to be spearheading the efforts to increase awareness of the environmental concerns of ship scrapping. They point out ships contain environmentally hazardous substances that may be
present at time of scrapping. They express concern over working conditions in the yards and the lack of disposal facilities to handle such substances.
India, on the other hand, questioned whether IMO should be involved and in particular the marine environment protection area. They pointed out other internationally recognized entities
are already reviewing the ship recycling issue such as the Basel Convention program. Others suggested the issue may be one of marine safety for workers who dismantle the ships. In such
issues the Maritime Safety Committee should govern rather then the MEPC.
Netherlands representatives suggest ship recycling should be considered and integral part of
shipping. Ship owners have a responsibility for the way ships are delivered for recycling, they state and IMO must encourage responsible recycling practices. Netherlands and Norway
delegations requested IMO to develop a code of conduct with guidance to owners on how to reduce the quantity of potentially hazardous components upon delivery.
It is expected Monday that the MEPC will propose a correspondence group to look in the matter fully.
Ballast Water Management Working Group:
Increasing numbers of non-IMO regulations are coming out by ports and by states including
Michigan, California, Chile and others. In the face of this, IMO has continued to stress to governing authorities to let the working group devise universally acceptable ballast water
legislation. Thankfully, for the first time in a long time, delegates believe the ballast water group is making "good progress."
Invasive species in ballast water has been a contentious worldwide problem since the 1980's. Voluntary measures were issued and adopted suggesting the use of open ocean ballast water
exchange as a temporary technological 
answer. Unfortunately, this procedure does not have any
means to measure success, nor is it safely feasible in all cases. Coming into MEPC 44, the delegation of Norway stated the working group had thus far been unable to come to general agreement on basic principles.
Mr. Alec Bilney of the International Chamber of Shipping in London attended the meetings. He explained said ship owners need answers in two key areas, (1) whether and where to perform ballast water
management and (2) what ballast water management technologies should owners use.
Whether and where to perform ballast water management -
(1) Global vs. zonal concept – Member nations have been at odds over either a global concept of ballast water management or a concept of management zones. The global concept takes the
premise that all ships must perform ballast water treatment every voyage. The ballast water management zones concept establishes regions within which requirements for treatment are
determined by the coastal states in each geographical area.
(2) Port vs. Flag State control - In addition, Bilney points out the ballast water group is trying to
decide whether flag state nations should require their ships to perform ballast water management irrespective of the ports where ballast would be taken or discharged.
What ballast water management technologies should owners use -
Experts agree that open ocean exchange of ballast is only a temporary procedure. Mr. Bilney
states that "finally" new technologies are being invented for centrifuging, heating, filtering and other types of ballast treatment. He believes the shippers also need to know what the
performance factor for treatment technologies is, how will they measure this and who is the authority to decide
