 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
CQD Journal for the Maritime Environment Industry |
||||
 |
||||
Contents: MEPC 48 - New Leadership and Old Issues Maritime Security - Shippers on Edge Upcoming Symposia
IMO Maritime Security Diplomatic Conference - London, Dec. 9-13, 2002
Are ground-breaking changes in store for the international shipping trade? What effects will this new era of heightened maritime security have on the shipping industry?
This December, CQD Journal will be in London to find answers to many of these questions at the IMO Conference on Maritime Security.
Other events: ENSUS 2002
- December16, 17, & 18, 2002 Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. ENSUS always puts together a worthwhile agenda See: The next time IMO's Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) will meet
they will have a new leader. Andreas Chrysostomou of Cyprus was elected chairman after the current committee head, Michael Julian of Australia, retired.
Chrysostomou has a reputation as an expert at drafting legislation, often called upon to insure a particular committee's intent has been properly expressed in the final
document. Supporters believe he will represent a good balance between shipping and environmental concerns at MEPC. The Maritime Environmental Protection Committee met for the 48th time from
October 7 to 11, 2002. During the session, the Secretary General highlighted:
as significantly important issues.
Ballast Water - Working Towards Standards
One of the toughest issues facing the Ballast Water Working Group is the topic of "standards." Outside of exchanging ballast water in the open ocean, the shipping
industry does not have definitive alternatives for keeping ballast water clean. The industry will not be able to decide on new technologies until a clear definition has been
made regarding acceptable standards or measures. Is a 95% kill ratio acceptable in ballast water? A scientifically defined standard is sorely needed.
The hold-up appears to be the traditional environmental battle over "How clean is clean?" Environmental groups are insisting on 100% inactivation of all living
organisms in ballast water. They have a lot of political pressure to bear and are pushing IMO for an extremely high removal rate. Shippers understand the near impossibility of 100% inactivation and need
operationally reasonable treatment standards to work with. To resolve this debate, IMO has put out a request for additional scientific input with the hope that the standards debate will be better resolved by the next MEPC. MEPC 48's working group did put together a dual option short-term system. Option one is based on an effectiveness percentage. Ballast water must kill, remove or make
harmless a certain percentage of the organisms in the water. The second option is based on size, for instance nothing living above a certain size will be permitted to be
discharged. The debate currently centers upon an acceptable percentage limit and an acceptable particle size limit. MEPC 49 (July 2003) will have to make real progress on
these numbers if IMO is to meet its goal of a Diplomatic Conference by early 2004.
Its' Not Scrapping...its' Re-cycling!
In March of 2000, concerns were voiced regarding the health of the environment and the workers during the process of scrapping ships. Following the MEPC 44 session, an
IMO committee began evaluating the practices around this industry. The committee's first order of business was to quickly re-name the task of ship dismantling from
"scrapping" to "recycling." IMO notes that virtually everything from the old vessel gets re-used, from steel to batteries, and thus ship "re-cycling" makes a positive
contribution to the environment. Since ship recycling involves issues such as safety and land management, MEPC has been working closely with other IMO and non-IMO organizations. MEPC 48's working
group debated guidelines that encourage shippers to minimize the potential for dangerous conditions in the yard. The draft guidelines seek to reduce or eliminate the most hazardous materials before
the vessel is delivered to re-cycling yards. Life-of-ship records for all hazardous material used in construction or shipped in cargoes are to be kept and passed to new
owners whenever the vessel is sold. Such "Green Passports" may help re-cycling yards identify potentially risky work situations and take necessary precautions.
The guidelines are far from complete, and more debate is expected in joint committee sessions. Optimistically, MEPC hopes a final set of guidelines will be available to be voted upon by IMO's General Assembly in late 2003.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions IMO has set a priority upon helping shippers reduce harmful greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions such as carbon dioxide. MEPC 48 approved a draft document that resolves to identify and develop ways to reduce GHG emissions.
A critical focus of the draft document is the establishment of a baseline efficiency index or GHG emission index for each ship. A GHG emission index would allow ship owners
to determine an ideal air pollution efficiency standard for their vessels. It would also help them to evaluate different mechanisms to meet that standard. MEPC has noted
that such an index must take into account economic considerations including cost benefit evaluations. MEPC 48 agreed upon a plan to finalize the GHG emission index by 2005.
The draft resolution will be presented for approval at the next IMO General Assembly (Nov. 2003). The resolution promotes voluntary measures to limit or reduce
greenhouse gases. The potential for mandatory measures will remain should voluntary actions prove unsuccessful at reducing GHG emissions.
Maritime Security - Shippers on Edge In the post 9/11 environment huge resources are going into the protection of the free
world. Shipping is the most international business and hence an enormous focus has fallen upon the ship trade that enters our ports and harbors.
As can be expected, this focus has not pleased everyone. Restrictions, burdens and limitations have been enacted in areas where previously they did not exist. Already
economically depressed due to the international recession, the ship industry is not well prepared to take on additional security responsibilities.
One of the loudest complaints expressed has been over the detaining of crew. A number of cases have been reported where crews have been refused access to U.S.
ports. Armed private security guards have been hired, at Owners' expense, to detain crew on board their vessels. Shipper's frustrations were voiced at a BIMCO conference in September. Doug
Stevenson, Dir. of the Center for Seafarer's Rights said in almost all cases, the crew members were denied shore leave because they did not hold a visa. However, he said
they did fulfill the requirements according to customary Seafarer's credentials. Ole Skaarup, Chairman of Skaarup Shipping Corp. expressed his anger that ship owners
had to pay for port security. He said it was not up to shipping to provide protection, but up to the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) since U.S. ports are the ones benefiting from security.
Jame Zok of the Maritime Administration said the situation with Seafarer's credentials is a complex one and that IMO and others are working on providing positive and
verifiable identification. In response to Skaarup's comments, USCG Capt.(ret.) Tony Regalbuto the Acting Director of port security, said it is ludicrous to expect the USCG to provide security on every ship.
A delegation from BIMCO met with U.S. officials in Customs, the State department, Immigration and Naturalization, and other officials to voice their concerns over radical changes in maritime security.
The International Maritime Organization will be holding a conference in December to unveil a new convention on worldwide maritime security. |
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
This page last updated by Miller Associates: Thursday, June 05, 2003 |
|
|
|