No rest in anti-pollution drive
By Aline De Bievre
Friday 4 April 2008
AS THE International Maritime Organization concludes its highly-charged MEPC 57 meeting today, there is to be no rest for the wicked. A huge amount of follow-up work must be done in the next six months if the marine environment protection committee’s next session is to be successful as well.
The October meeting marks the final deadline for the adoption of new global measures to reduce ships’ emissions of SOx and NOx and particulate matter and for the completion of a carbon dioxide emission indexing scheme and the update of the IMO’s 2000 CO2 emissions baseline study. It will also be the last preparatory session prior to the planned diplomatic conference on ship recycling in May 2009.
IMO secretary-general Efthimios Mitropoulos sees the completion, nine months ahead of the original schedule, of the two CO2 projects as essential to the ongoing debate about the future of the Kyoto Protocol. The IMO is committed to the aims and objectives of the planned Copenhagen Conference of December 2009, which is expected to develop and adopt a new global agreement within the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Entry into force is anticipated for 2012.
The finalisation at MEPC 58 of the new “International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships” will be equally urgent, within the context of the IMO’s pursuit of its own green agenda. This draft convention breaks new ground in that the organisation for the first time is seeking to set occupational health and safety standards, as well as environmental standards, for land-based facilities (recycling yards).
Another novelty of the new convention concerns the establishment of a goal-based approach embracing the entire lifetime of a ship. In accordance with the ‘cradle-to-grave’ principle, ships must carry a mandatory inventory of all hazardous materials that are present on board, whether as part of their operational environment or embedded in their structure.
A consolidated draft text of the new convention was subjected to intense scrutiny over the past week. The working group charged with the detailed reading of each article and regulation had also met in January but still faced some fifty items of text posing drafting problems and undecided or divisive issues.
Furthermore, heated debate took place in plenary about two issues with the potential of preventing widespread acceptance of the new instrument or undermining its integrity. One issue concerned the compliance mechanism. Mandatory third party auditing of recycling facilities was rejected by a wide margin, although it was agreed to develop text addressing voluntary auditing.
The other issue was whether to permit the recycling of ships flying the flag of a contracting party in facilities located in a non-party state. It would have to be left to the flag administration to check that the non-party recycling yard adheres to the convention’s standards.
There was however confusion over the implications, under current free trade rules, of prohibiting arrangements between parties and non-parties. On the other hand, concerns were raised that such arrangements might be needed to ensure sufficient availability of recycling capacity.
The overall majority was adamant, however, that the prime focus should be to encourage all states to become parties to the new convention as soon as possible.
There were also encouraging signs that a sensible approach to the new convention’s entry-into-force conditions will eventually prevail. It is crucial that early ratifications are forthcoming from recycling states, as well as from flag states, so that authorised recycling capacity is sufficiently available upon the convention’s entry-into-force.
The draft convention already includes a mandatory provision for non-party ships going for scrap in facilities in party states to adhere to the required standards. Port state control should see to it that ships that do not adhere are given short shrift.
MEPC 58 will also have to settle the outstanding controversy concerning the last set of guidelines that remain to be adopted in support of the Ballast Water Management Convention. For many states the guidelines, which concern ballast water sampling, are an essential prerequisite for their ratification of the convention, which is still a long way off fulfilling its entry-into-force conditions.
Final approval of existing draft guidelines has so far foundered on concerns over the robustness of sampling methodologies to test for compliance. Accurate sampling being key to effective port state control as well as to the confidence of ship owners and flag administrations, it is imperative that scientifically validated sampling protocols are developed for inclusion in the guidelines.
Comments (2)
Comment by
Dr. Chandran Peechulli
- Saturday 5 April 2008
SHIPS are not the major pollutants, pollution is more circumstantial to various unavoidable reasons on board. However, shipping should take all measures to reduce ship-source pollution. Only captains of ships who do not comply with regulations intentionally need to be penalised. Who will be responsible if fuel used for the engines isn’t of low sulphur? Will chief engineers be provided with necessary testing facilities onboard?. We need to have a realistical approach on the subject for practical reasons rather than merely preaching about deficiencies.
Comment by
Captain Doctor Ivica Tijardovic, PhD
- Friday 4 April 2008
If the World Health Organization states that a few million people die each year from causes directly attributable to air pollution, then IMO's efforts through the Marine Environment Protection Committee in reducing ships' emissions of SOx, NOx, etc. is very welcome. It is important to say that ships are not the major pollutants, but maritime shipping should do everything possible to reduce ship-source air pollution.
I’m not sure what will happen to captains of ships that do not comply with the regulations or if the fuel used for the engines isn’t the one what should be used (low sulphur). Will captains be held responsible for such deficiencies?
Post your comment
Comments are limited to 2000 characters and will be approved before display.
