|
 The National Paint and Coatings Association – International Marine and Offshore Coatings Conference: Virginia Beach, VA. June 5 to June 7, 2000Negotiation of Global Anti-fouling Treaty – Bryan Wood-Thomas, Senior
Advisor on Marine Policy – USEPA, Chair - Working Group on the Harmful Effects of the use of Antifouling Paints for Ships Virginia Beach, VA, June 7 – Bryan Wood-Thomas Senior Advisor on Marine P olicy – USEPA explained the Global Antifouling Treaty currently under
debate at the International Maritime Organization. Acting Chair of the working group, Wood-Thomas outlined the direction the debates in anti-foulants are currently taking in London. He described what
issues seem to have some general agreement, what issues are currently hotly contested and what lies behind some of the positions being taken by delegates in the debates.
During his discussions, Bryan Wood-Thomas urged the members of the convention, specialists in paint and coatings, to make reviews known to him. He asked for NPCA
members' opinions to help the United States in further treaty negotiations. The first item discussed was the working group's coming agenda. Two full meetings
should be completed before the diplomatic conference, October 2-6, 2000 and April 2001. The final negotiable session will be at a Diplomatic Conference in October/December 2001.
Wood-Thomas said basic agreement has been reached on items such as:
- The Treaty applies to all countries that ratify the agreement, as well as ANY country that trades with a member country.
- The Treaty seeks to establish a framework for future review of other anti-foulants. He said IMO will not create a list of approved systems or review all
anti-foulants. Hence for an antifoulant to be banned under the treaty, a party country must introduce a proposal to restrict that anti-foulant (i.e. innocent until proven guilty).
- Such a proposal must be supported by rational and scientific data requirements and then evaluated by an experts group appointed by IMO.
According to Wood-Thomas a number of key issues remain under contention. These include:
 Removal vs. Overcoating
- Entry into Force Provisions
– How shall the Treaty enter into force or otherwise be considered ratified? The working group must decide what
percentage of signing countries, tonnage, port states and flag states, or hybrid combination of these factors, will determine approval and ratification.
Wood-Thomas said the final decision on this provision could have huge political and precedence issues for future IMO agreements.
- Dates of the Treaty
– If the Antifouling Treaty has not be entered into force by January 1, 2003, how will the proposed ban dates be affected? After 2003, it
is being debated whether states should set-up a retroactive agreement that punishes Owners who did not comply with the 1/1/03 prohibition of TBT.
- How to Consider Actions for Future Anti-foulants
– Should criteria in a proposal to ban an anti-foulant be general or scientific? Should a proposal be
forced to adopt mandatory data requirements or should IMO adopt a "body of evidence approach?"
- Enforcement of the Ban
– Delegates are debating whether or not port states can rely on a certificate produced by Flag States stating a vessel is free from TBT.
Wood-Thomas makes the point that there is a delicate balance between port state mechanisms for real-time testing and flag state certification.
Wood-Thomas explained the working group's theory is to make penalties for TBT presence severe enough to create a huge economic disadvantage to black market TBT.
|
|
