imo news b · marine pollution by dumping of wastes and other matter, 1972 (known as the london...

IMO NEWSBTHE MAGAZINE OF THE INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION NUMBER 1: 1999

The complete GMDSS

Front cover: the global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS) entered fully into force on 1 February 1999.The new system is the culmination of nearly thirty years of work by IMO, other United Nations bodies, MemberStates and the shipping industry. A full report on the new system appears elsewhere in this issue. The photographshows Inmarsat-C equipment in operation. (Inmarsat)

PROGRAMME OF MEETINGS FOR 199911±15 January SUB-COMMITTEE ON FIRE PROTECTION (FP) ± 43rd session

25±29 January SUB-COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF TRAINING AND WATCHKEEPING (STW) ± 30th session

1±5 February IOPC FUNDS ± 92 FUND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, 71 FUND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

8±12 February SUB-COMMITTEE ON STABILITY AND LOAD LINES AND ON FISHING VESSELS SAFETY (SLF) ±42nd session

22±26 February SUB-COMMITTEE ON DANGEROUS GOODS, SOLID CARGOES AND CONTAINERS (DSC) ±4th session

8±12 March SUB-COMMITTEE ON SHIP DESIGN AND EQUIPMENT (DE) ± 42nd session

22±26 March SUB-COMMITTEE ON FLAG STATE IMPLEMENTATION (FSI) ± 7th session

12±16 April SUB-COMMITTEE ON BULK LIQUIDS AND GASES (BLG) ± 4th session

19±23 April LEGAL COMMITTEE ± 79th session

26±30 April IOPC FUNDS ± 92 FUND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, 71 FUND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE,92 FUND WORKING GROUP

19±28 May MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE ± 71st session

14±18 June COUNCIL ± 82nd session

17 June TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION COMMITTEE ± 47th session

28 June to 2 July MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE ± 43rd session

12±16 July SUB-COMMITTEE ON RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS AND SEARCH AND RESCUE (COMSAR) ±4th session

6±10 September FACILITATION COMMITTEE ± 27th session

20±24 September SUB-COMMITTEE ON SAFETY OF NAVIGATION (NAV) ± 45th session

4±8 October TWENTY-FIRST CONSULTATIVE MEETING OF CONTRACTING PARTIES TO THE LONDONCONVENTION 1972

11±15 October LEGAL COMMITTEE ± 80th session

18±22 October IOPC FUNDS ± 92 FUND ASSEMBLY, 71 FUND ASSEMBLY, 92 FUND EXECUTIVECOMMITTEE, 71 FUND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

12 November* COUNCIL ± 20th extraordinary session

15±26 November* ASSEMBLY ± 21st session

26 November* COUNCIL ± 83rd session

INTERSESSIONAL MEETINGS AS APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL

4±8 January Working Group on Revision of Fire Safety Aspects of the HSC Code

18±22 January Joint FAO/ILO/IMO Working Group on Revision of the Document for Guidance on Fishermen'sTraining and Certification

1±5 March DSC Sub-Committee Editorial and Technical Group

INTERSESSIONAL MEETING CONVENED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE LONDON CONVENTION 1972

10±14 May London Convention 1972 Scientific Group

In addition to the meetings listed above, the IMO/UNCTAD Conference on Arrest of Ships will take place from 1 to 12March 1999 in Geneva.

__________* Tentative

2

West and Central African States agreedraft regional port State control regime

Eighteen West and Central AfricanStates have agreed a draft Memoran-dum of Understanding (MOU) on portState control (PSC), at a meeting inConakry (Guinea) which ended on 22January 1999. The meeting was jointlyorganized by the Guinean Governmentand IMO and was supported by theMinisterial Conference of West andCentral African States on MaritimeTransport (MINCONMAR).

The aim is to hold a further meetingto adopt the MOU in Nigeria duringOctober 1999.

The countries participating in themeeting were Angola, Benin, CapeVerde, Congo, CoÃ te d'Ivoire, Gabon,Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia,Mali, Mauritania, Namibia, Nigeria,Sao TomeÂ & Principe, SeÂ neÂ gal, SouthAfrica and Togo.

The Conakry meeting was alsoattended by representatives of IMO,the United Nations Development Pro-gramme (UNDP), the Economic Com-m i s s i o n f o r A f r i c a ( ECA ) ,MINCONMAR, the CommunauteÂeconomique et moneÂ taire de l'Afriquecentrale (CEMAC) and other regionalorganizations. Funding for the meetingwas generously provided by the Gui-nean and Nigerian Governments.

The meeting at Conakry followed aninitial preparatory meeting of the Statesin Accra, Ghana, in February 1998.

Participants continued work ondeveloping a set of training measuresto improve the maritime Administra-tion infrastructure and human resourcecapability of the participating States.The aim is to develop a regionaltraining programme for flag Statesurveyors and PSC inspectors for theWest and Central African region.

The meeting agreed, in principle,that the Regional Secretariat would beestablished in Nigeria while a regionalInformation Centre would be set up atMINCONMAR Headquarters in CoÃ ted'Ivoire.

The draft MOU that was agreed inConakry is similar to other regionalPSC agreements already establishedaround the world. All countries havethe right to inspect ships visiting theirports to ensure they meet IMO require-ments regarding safety and marine

pollution-prevention standards, andexperience has shown that PSC worksbest when it is organized on a regionalbasis.

However, the West and CentralAfrican MOU will also be expected tocover PSC inspections on smaller ships(below 500 gross tonnage) which arenot generally covered by most IMOregulations. These ships tend to tradeinter-regionally.

The first regional PSC agreement,covering Europe and the North Atlan-tic, was signed in 1982 and is known asthe Paris Memorandum of Understand-ing (Paris MOU). The Latin-AmericanAgreement (Acuerdo de VinÄ a del Mar)was signed in 1992; the Tokyo Memor-andum of Understanding (TokyoMOU), covering Asia and the Pacific,in 1993; the Caribbean Memorandumof Understanding (Caribbean MOU) in1996; the Mediterranean Memorandumof Understanding (MediterraneanMOU) in 1997; and the Indian Ocean

Memorandum of Understanding (In-dian Ocean MOU) in 1998.

Like the other agreements, the draftWest and Central African MOU re-quires each maritime authority which isa signatory to the agreement to estab-lish and maintain an effective system ofPSC and sets for the region's maritimeAdministrations an annual requiredtotal of inspections of at least 15% ofthe estimated total number of foreignmerchant ships entering the region'sports during the year, within a periodof three years after the MOU becomeseffective.

The MOU encourages exchange ofinformation so that substandard shipscan be identified and targeted. On theother hand, ships which have beeninspected by one port State and foundto be complying with all safety andmarine pollution-prevention rules willnot be subject to too frequent inspec-tions.

3

When is radioactive materialnot radioactive?

The dumping of radioactive waste intothe sea is prohibited under the Interna-tional Convention on the Prevention ofMarine Pollution by Dumping ofWastes and Other Matter, 1972 (knownas the London Convention or LC).However, virtually all materials areintrinsically ``radioactive'' since theycontain radionuclides, and this has ledto the problem of how to define when amaterial can be considered non-radio-active for the purpose of applying theregulations contained in the LondonConvention.

The 1993 amendments to the Lon-don Convention, which entered intoforce on 20 February 1994, prohibit thedumping of ``radioactive waste andother radioactive matter'' ± but this``does not apply to wastes or othermaterials (e.g. sewage sludges anddredged material) containing de mini-mis (exempt) levels of radioactivity asdefined by the IAEA [InternationalAtomic Energy Agency]''.

The Twentieth Consultative Meet-ing reviewed a report by the IEAE onthe application of the de minimisconcept and agreed to establish an AdHoc Group of Experts on the Defini-tion and Application of the de minimisConcept under the London Conven-tion (London Convention de minimisGroup). The Group is scheduled tomeet in May 1999 and will consider thefollowing issues in relation to the deminimis concept:

.1 ensuring that the de minimis con-cept applies only to those wastesnot otherwise prohibited fromdisposal under the Convention;

.2 the protection of the marine en-vironment, including humanhealth, flora and fauna of themarine environment as well aslegitimate uses of the sea; and

.3 the need for practical and uniformguidance to national authoritiesresponsible for authorizing seadisposal activities.

The de minimis concept

According to the IAEA report sub-mitted to the LC Meeting, the term ``deminimis'', in the context of the LondonConvention 1972, subsumes two dis-tinct concepts:

. Exclusion ± equivalent to theexpression de minimis non curatlex ± covering a situation that isoutside the regulation because it isunamenable to control by theregulation irrespective of themagnitude of the dose;

. Exemption ± equivalent to theexpression de minimis non curatpraetor ± covering a situation ofno concern to the regulatorbecause of its triviality, eventhough it is of relevance to theregulation.

The IAEA report notes that ``allmaterials, including natural and inertmaterials, contain natural radionu-clides and are frequently contaminatedwith artificial radionuclides''. How-ever, Contracting Parties to the Lon-don Convention do not intend toconsider all such materials as radio-active in implementing the provisionsof the Convention and therefore needto address the question of how todiscriminate between ``radioactive''and ``non-radioactive'' materials forthe purposes of the Convention.

Materials defined as ``non-radioac-tive'' could then be considered fordumping at sea without any considera-tion of their radioactive constituents orthe radiological consequences asso-ciated with their disposal.

The IAEA study concludes that, forthe purposes of the London Conven-tion, certain materials can be exemptedfrom the prohibition on dumping. Ingeneral terms, this may be because theradiation is unamenable to control dueto its being of natural origin or becausethe risk of harm to individuals isextremely low.

Radioactive wastesea dumping controls

The dumping into the sea of high-levelradioactive waste was prohibited underthe 1972 London Convention, andamendments adopted in 1993 (which

TWENTIETH CONSULTATIVE MEETING OF CONTRACTING PARTIESTO THE LONDON CONVENTION 1972: 14±18 DECEMBER 1998

4

entered into force on 20 February1994) extended the ban to low-levelradioactive wastes. As a result of the1993 amendments, the London Con-vention currently bans the dumpinginto the sea of ``radioactive wastes orother radioactive matter'' (Annex 1,paragraph 6). As part of the 1993amendments, the Contracting Partiesintroduced the de minimis concept,adding a new paragraph stating thatthe ban on dumping into the sea ofthese materials ``does not apply towastes or other materials (e.g. sewagesludge and dredged material) contain-ing de minimis (exempt) levels of radio-activity as defined by the IAEA andadopted by the Contracting Parties''(Annex 1, paragraph 9).

The current IAEA study stems fromprogress in the field of radiationprotection and discussions betweenContracting Parties to the LondonConvention. At the 19th ConsultativeMeeting of Contracting Parties to theLondon Convention 1972, in Decem-ber 1997, it was agreed that the IAEAshould be requested to provide gui-dance on whether materials planned tobe dumped could be exempted orwhether a specific assessment wasneeded.

The 1996 Protocol to the LondonConvention, which is not yet in force,also contains reference to ``de minimis(exempt) concentrations as defined byIAEA and adopted by ContractingParties.''

Status of the 1996 Protocol

Four countries have now ratified the1996 Protocol to the London Conven-tion (up to 31 December 1998), whileseven Contracting Parties to the 1972Convention informed the meeting theywere expecting to complete ratificationduring 1999.

The 1996 Protocol, which wasadopted in November 1996, will enterinto force 30 days after ratification by26 countries, 15 of whom must beContracting Parties to the 1972 treaty.

Whereas the current London Con-vention 1972 allows dumping of wastesat sea, providing certain conditions aremet, the 1996 Protocol prohibits dump-ing of wastes or other matter with theexception of certain materials that arelisted in an annex and adopts the

``polluter pays'' principle. It alsoapplies the ``precautionary approach'',requiring preventative measures whenthere is reason to believe that wastes orother matter introduced into the mar-ine environment are likely to causeharm, even when there is no conclusiveevidence to prove a causal relationbetween inputs and their effects.

Relationship between 1996Protocol and 1972 Convention

The Meeting convened an ad hocworking group to discuss the relation-ship between the 1996 Protocol and the1972 Convention, and agreed that theissue required further discussion at itsnext session, including the need toresolve administrative arrangementsfor future meetings once the 1996Protocol has come into force.

Article 23 of the 1996 Protocol doesnot provide for the automatic with-drawal of States from the Conventionon joining the Protocol, although thead hoc working group considered thatimplementation of the provisions of the

Protocol by a Party to the Conventionwould fulfil that Party's obligationsunder the Convention in full.

There will be five categories ofrelationships between States when the1996 Protocol enters into force:

.1 the Protocol will apply betweentwo States which are party toboth the Convention and theProtocol;

.2 the Protocol will apply betweena State which is party to bothinstruments and a State which isparty to the Protocol only;

.3 the Convention will apply be-tween a State which is party toboth instruments and a Statewhich is party to the Conventiononly;

.4 the Convention will apply be-tween States which are parties toit and not to the Protocol;

.5 there will be no treaty relationsbetween a State which is party tothe Protocol only and a Statewhich is party to the Conventiononly.

TWENTIETH CONSULTATIVE MEETING OF CONTRACTING PARTIESTO THE LONDON CONVENTION 1972: 14±18 DECEMBER 1998

5

Asbestos on board shipsshould be prohibited,says Sub-Committee

The Sub-Committee agreed that the useof asbestos on new ships should beprohibited and that new installations ofmaterials containing asbestos in existingships should also be prohibited. The aimis to develop regulations on asbestosaboard ships to be adopted in 2000.

The proposed ban on the use ofasbestos aboard new ships was initiallysubmitted by France to the MaritimeSafety Committee (MSC) and referredto the Sub-Committees on Fire Protec-tion and Ship Design and Equipment,with a view to eventually adoptingappropriate amendments to SOLAS.

The Sub-Committee recommendedthat a draft requirement in SOLASwould prohibit, on all ships, newinstallation of materials which containasbestos, except for:

.1 friction products for compres-sors and vacuum vane pumps;

.2 watertight joints and liningsused for the circulation of fluidswhen, at high temperature orpressure, there is a risk of fire,corrosion or toxicity; and

.3 supply and flexible thermal iso-lation assemblies used for tem-peratures above 10008C.

The Sub-Committee discussedsafety issues regarding the removal orreplacement of asbestos on existingships and agreed further considerationwas needed, in order to developmeasures relating to the evaluation ofthe condition of asbestos on ships aswell as the safety issues relating torepairs, alterations and modificationsto ships and spaces containing materi-als with asbestos. National and localregulations on shipyard safety alreadycover the treatment of asbestos underrepair or alteration, according to non-governmental organizations represent-ing the shipping industry.

Review of SOLAS chapter II-2continues

The Sub-Committee continued its re-view of chapter II-2 (Construction ±

Fire protection, fire detection and fireextinction) of the International Con-vention for the Safety of Life at Sea(SOLAS), 1974. The comprehensivereview is aimed at developing a clear,concise and user-friendly new chapter,to be in force by the year 2002,incorporating the substantial changesintroduced in recent years following anumber of serious fire casualties.

The Sub-Committee agreed to es-tablish a correspondence group, co-ordinated by the United States, to lookat a number of issues prior to the nextsession, including:

.1 reviewing unified interpretationsof regulations in chapter II-2(currently contained in a 50-page MSC circular) and decid-ing whether they should beincluded in the new revisedchapter, in the new draft FireSafety Systems (FSS) Code, orin a separate set of unifiedinterpretations, such as in acircular;

.2 further developing the draftrevised SOLAS chapter II-2;

.3 further developing the draft FSSCode;

.4 preparing draft guidelines forevaluating alternative designs.

The current chapter II-2 of SOLASis divided into four parts: A ± General;B ± Fire safety measures for passengerships; C ± Fire safety measures forcargo ships; D ± Fire safety measuresfor tankers. The proposed format forthe revised chapter includes sevenparts, each of which would includecomprehensive requirements applicableto all or to specified ship types:

A ± General: including application,general fire safety objectives

B ± Prevention of fire and explosion:including preventive measures to betaken to avoid the risk of fire andexplosion

C ± Suppression of fire and explo-sion: including fire detection and alarm

systems, fire-fighting equipment re-quirements

D ± Escape: including requirementsfor provision of public address systems,escape routes, additional requirementsfor ro±ro passenger ships

E ± Operational requirements: in-cluding maintenance, testing and in-spections, training and drills

F ± Alternative design and arrange-ments: aimed at providing verificationmethods for alternative designs andarrangements for fire safety

G ± Special requirements: includinghelicopter facility, carriage of danger-ous goods, protection of vehicle spacesand ro±ro cargo spaces.

In addition, there will be a manda-tory Fire Safety Systems (FSS) Code.

Interim evacuation analysisguidelines agreed

The Sub-Committee agreed a draftMSC circular on interim guidelinesfor a simplified evacuation analysis ofro±ro passenger ships, for submissionto the next MSC session in May 1999.

The draft interim guidelines areaimed at helping the implementationof SOLAS regulation II-2/28-1.3,which requires ro±ro passenger shipsto undergo an evacuation analysis atan early stage of design.

The draft interim guidelines showhow to execute a simplified evacuationanalysis and use its results to:

.1 identify and eliminate, as far aspracticable, congestion whichmay develop during an aban-donment due to normal move-ment of passengers and crewalong escape routes, includingthe possibility that crew mayneed to move along theseroutes in a direction oppositeto the movement of passengers;and

.2 demonstrate that escape ar-rangements are sufficiently flex-ible to provide for the possibilitythat certain escape routes,

6

SUB-COMMITTEE ON FIRE PROTECTION (FP) ± 43RD SESSION: 11±15 JANUARY 1999

assembly stations, embarkationstations or survival craft may beunavailable as a result of acasualty.

The draft interim guidelines also callon Member Governments to collectany information and data resultingfrom research and development activ-ities, full-scale tests, and findings onhuman behaviour which may be rele-vant for the necessary future upgradingof the guidelines.

Extension of evacuationanalysis to other passengerships

The Sub-Committee agreed to recom-mend to the MSC that the requirementfor evacuation analysis at the designstage should also be applied to passen-ger ships other than ro±ro ferries.

This would include high-speed pas-senger craft as well as large passengerships. IMO Secretary-General Mr.William A. O'Neil has questionedwhether, in view of the increasingnumber of large passenger ships beingput into service these days, it would beprudent to examine the adequacy ofevacuation procedures.

SOLAS regulation II-2/28-1.3 cov-ers escape routes on ro±ro passengerships constructed after 1 July 1999. Itrequires escape routes to be evaluatedby an evacuation analysis early in thedesign process, aimed at identifyingand eliminating congestion whichmay develop if a ship has to beevacuated. The analysis should alsodemonstrate that escape arrange-ments are sufficiently flexible to allowfor the possibility that certain escaperoutes may not be available due to acasualty.

The requirement was adopted by theNovember 1995 SOLAS Conferencethat was held in the wake of theEstonia ro±ro ferry disaster in whichmore than 850 people were killed.

The Sub-Committee anticipates thatit would take three sessions to developa single set of guidelines on evacuationanalysis suitable for all types ofpassenger ships, and proposed that acorrespondence group be set up tostudy the issue.

Fire safety aspects ofhigh-speed craft

The Sub-Committee agreed draftamendments to the High-Speed Craft(HSC) Code related to special provi-

sions for small high-speed craft. TheHSC Code, originally adopted in 1994along with a new chapter X of SOLAS(Safety Measures for High-SpeedCraft), is undergoing complete revi-sion, with a target completion date of1999.

The Sub-Committee also approved:

. a draft MSC circular on interpreta-tions of fire-protection-relatedaspects of the HSC Code; and

. a draft MSC circular on interpreta-tions of resolution MSC.44(65) ±Standards for fixed sprinklersystems for high-speed craft.

Fire-fighting systems inmachinery and other spaces

The Sub-Committee agreed a draft newparagraph 7 to regulation 7 (Fire-extinguishing arrangements in machin-ery spaces) of SOLAS chapter II-2. Thenew draft paragraph, to be passed toMSC for approval, covers fixed localapplication fire-fighting systems. TheSub-Committee also agreed draftguidelines for the approval of fixedwater-based local application fire-fighting systems and its appendix,``Test method for fixed water-basedlocal application fire-fighting systems''.

Other issues for approvalby MSC

The Sub-Committee also agreed to:

. draft amendments to resolutionMSC.40(64), Standard for quali-fying marine materials for high-speed craft as fire-restrictingmaterials

. draft interpretation of the Inter-national Code for Application ofFire Test Procedures (FTP Code)

. draft interpretations of vagueexpressions and other vaguewording in SOLAS chapter II-2relating to regulation 23 ± Struc-ture ± 23.2.1 Insulation of alu-minium decks and interpretationof ``load-bearing divisions''

. draft interpretations of the FTPCode and fire test proceduresreferred to in the Code relating toPart 2 ± Smoke and Toxicity Testand Part 3 ± Test for ``A'', ``B'',and ``F'' class divisions

. draft MSC circular on guidelineson fire safety constructions inaccommodation areas.

7

SUB-COMMITTEE ON FIRE PROTECTION (FP) ± 43RD SESSION: 11±15 JANUARY 1999

The GMDSS is fully implemented

Maritime distress and safetycommunications enter new era

Ship distress and safety communica-tions entered a new era on 1 Februarywith the full implementation of theglobal maritime distress and safetysystem (GMDSS) ± an integratedcommunications system using satelliteand terrestrial radiocommunications toensure that no matter where a ship is indistress, aid can be dispatched to it.

The GMDSS was developed byIMO in close co-operation with theInternational Mobile Satellite Organi-zation (Inmarsat), the InternationalTelecommunication Union (ITU) andother international organizations, no-tably the World Meteorological Orga-nization (WMO), the InternationalHydrographic Organization (IHO)and the COSPAS±SARSAT* partners.

Under the GMDSS, all passengerships and all cargo ships over 300 grosstonnage on international voyages haveto carry specified satellite and radio-communications equipment, for send-ing and receiving distress alerts andmaritime safety information and forgeneral communications. The regula-tions governing the GMDSS are con-tained in the International Conventionfor the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS),1974, which has been ratified by 138countries, covering 98.36% of theworld merchant shipping fleet by ton-nage.

The GMDSS requirements are con-tained in chapter IV of SOLAS onRadiocommunications and wereadopted in 1988. The requirementsentered into force on 1 February 1992but provided for a phase-in perioduntil 1 February 1999.

IMO Secretary-General Mr. Wil-liam A. O'Neil said that the fullimplementation of the GMDSS is an

important date in maritime history,coming as it does almost exactly 100years after the first use of wirelesstechnology to aid a ship in distress.

I ta l i an eng ineer Gug l i e lmoMarconi* invented radio in 1895, andthe first use of wireless in communicat-ing the need for assistance came on 3March 1899 when a freighter rammed

the East Goodwin Lightship, whichwas anchored ten miles offshore fromDeal in the Strait of Dover off thesouth-east coast of England. A distresscall was transmitted by wireless to ashore station at South Foreland andhelp was dispatched.

Mr. O'Neil said: ``A century ago,Marconi was demonstrating his newwireless telegraphy system, and it wassoon clear how valuable wireless wouldbe in saving lives at sea. But wirelesshad its limitations, notably in terms ofthe distance that could be covered.

``In the 1960s, IMO recognized thatsatellites would play an important rolein search and rescue operations at sea,and in 1976 the Organization estab-lished the International Maritime Sa-tellite Organization, which laterchanged its name to the International

* COSPAS±SARSAT is an international satel-lite-based search and rescue system, establishedby Canada, France, the U.S.A. and Russia.These four countries jointly helped develop a406 MHz satellite emergency position-indicatingradiobeacon (EPIRB), an element of theGMDSS designed to operate with theCOSPAS±SARSAT system. These automaticallyactivated EPIRBs are designed to transmit to arescue co-ordination centre a vessel identificationand an accurate location of the vessel fromanywhere in the world.

A GMDSS console fitted with digital selective calling (DSC) equipment. (ICSElectronics)

* Marconi, Guglielmo (1874±1937), Italian elec-trical engineer, famous for inventions in radio-signalling. In 1895 he developed an apparatusthat sent signals to a point a few kilometres away.In 1899 he established communication across theEnglish Channel between England and France,and on the 11th of December 1901 he commu-nicated signals across the Atlantic Ocean betweenEngland and Newfoundland. For his work inwireless telegraphy, Marconi shared the 1909Nobel Prize in physics with German physicistKarl Ferdinand Braun.

9

Mobile Satellite Organization (Inmar-sat), to provide emergency maritimecommunications. In 1988, IMO'sMember States adopted the basicrequirements of the global maritimedistress and safety system or GMDSSas part of SOLAS.

``Now, as we approach the 21stcentury, we have in place an integratedcommunications system which shouldensure that no ship in distress candisappear without trace, and that morelives can be saved at sea.''

Under the GMDSS requirements,all ships were required to be equippedwith NAVTEX* receivers, to automa-tically receive shipping safety informa-tion, and satellite emergency position-indicating radiobeacons (EPIRBs)

* NAVTEX is an international, automatedsystem for instantly distributing maritime navi-gational warnings, weather forecastss and warn-ings, search and rescue notices and similarinformation to ships.

This photograph, taken in 1922, shows the radio room of the trawler King's Grey. The equipment includes a type 11B direction-finder, a radio transmitter, a double-crystal radio receiver and note magnifier. (The Marconi Company Limited)

Modern Marconi Marine equipment designed for the GMDSS.

10

GLOBAL MARITIME DISTRESS AND SAFETY SYSTEM

from 1 August 1993. Ships built on orafter 1 February 1995 have beenrequired to be fitted with all applicableGMDSS equipment. Ships builtbefore that date were given until1 February 1999 to comply fully withall GMDSS requirements.

The GMDSS communications sys-tem under SOLAS complements theInternational Convention on MaritimeSearch and Rescue (SAR), 1979, whichwas adopted to develop a global SARplan, so that no matter where anincident occurs, the rescue of personsin distress will be co-ordinated by aSAR organization and, where neces-sary, by co-ordination between neigh-bouring SAR countries.

IMO's senior technical body, theMaritime Safety Committee (MSC),has divided the world's oceans into 13search and rescue areas, in each ofwhich the countries concerned havedelimited search and rescue regions forwhich they are responsible. Provisionalsearch and rescue plans for all of theseareas have been completed, with thosefor the final area, the Indian Ocean,finalized at a conference held inFremantle, Western Australia inSeptember 1998.

Mr. O'Neil said that, with thecompletion of the SAR plans and the

With GMDSS equipment, the occupant of this liferaft stands a good chance of being rescued soon. The search andrescue radar transponder (SART), on the right, can be identified on a ship's radar while the floating satelliteemergency position-indicating radiobeacon (EPIRB), bottom centre of picture, can transmit to a rescue co-ordination centre a vessel identification and an accurate location. (McMurdo Limited/Pains-Wessex Safety Systems)

11


full implementation of the GMDSS,seafarers and ships' passengers couldfeel safer and more secure at sea.

``In a sense, we have the hardwarein place. From today all ships re-quired to do so must comply with theGMDSS, and for that we can thankthe pioneers who, three decades ago,first saw the possibilities offered bysatellite communications to save livesat sea, and then had the vision andimagination to develop a cohesive andcoherent global maritime distress andsafety system.

``But we should also think about thesoftware ± the people who operate theships, and the people onshore who willmonitor and act on distress calls. Wemust ensure that the people who will beresponsible for operating GMDSSequipment are adequately trained, toavoid false distress alerts. Having allthe correct equipment on board ship inan emergency situation may be of littleuse if people on board the ship havenot been through the required emer-gency drills.

``A little more than a century ago,before the advent of wireless commu-

nication, ships were cut off at sea,dependent on passing vessels for helpin the event of an emergency. Now wecan communicate with a ship anywherein the world ± but this does not meanwe can be complacent. We should doour utmost to prevent emergenciesfrom happening in the first place, bydeveloping a safety culture and ensur-ing all maritime safety and pollution-prevention regulations are fully imple-mented. And we should be trained andprepared for dealing with any eventualemergency.''

The GMDSS on the InternetThere are a number of sites on the Internet which contain information about the GMDSS and communications at sea.A good starting point is IMO's own web site at http://www.imo.org. The Focus on IMO section includes a detaileddescription of the new system entitled Shipping emergencies ± Search and Rescue and the GMDSS. The IMOLibrary has also prepared a useful Bibliography on the GMDSS which gives guidance concerning further reading.

Other sites include the following:

USCG GMDSS overview http://www.navcen.uscg.mil/marcomms/gmdss/

The GMDSS examination page http://members.aol.com/ab0di/

Australian AMSA GMDSS policy http://www.amsa.gov.au/aussar/nswdvg.htm

US Federal Communications Commission on GMDSS http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/aviation&marine/

GMDSS acronyms http://www.navcen.uscg.mil/marcomms/gmdss/gmdssacr.txt

USCG GMDSS bibliography http://www.navcen.uscg.mil/marcomms/gmdss/biblio.htm

USCG GMDSS files http://206.65.196.30/marcomms/gmdss/document.htm

USCG FAQs on GMDSS http://www.navcen.uscg.mil/marcomms/gmdss/gmdssfaq.htm

Maritime Distress & Safety Telecommunication Data Elements http://www.navcen.uscg.mil/marcomms/gmdss/data.htm

USCG GMDSS inspection checklist http://www.navcen.uscg.mil/marcomms/gmdss/checklst.htm

USCG GMDSS regulations http://www.navcen.uscg.mil/marcomms/gmdss/gmdssreg.txt

Global Maritime Distress and Safety System Sea Areas http://www.navcen.uscg.mil/marcomms/gmdss/area.htm

GMDSS documents http://www.navcen.uscg.mil/marcomms/imo/document.htm

Maritime mobile Access & Retrieval System http://gold.itu.int/MARS/

Maritime Mobile Service Identity (MMSI) http://www.navcen.uscg.mil/marcomms/gmdss/mmsi.htm

Maritime Safety Information broadcasts http://www.navcen.uscg.mil/marcomms/gmdss/msi.htm

COSPAS±SARSAT http://www.worldserver.pipex.com/cospas-sarsat

GPS information on the net http://www.apparent-wind.com/gps.html

GPS World Online http://www.gpsworld.com

Inmarsat http://www.inmarsat.org

International Telecommunication Union (ITU) http://www.itu.ch

Lifeboat services around the world http://members.xoom.com/lrzetzsche/

NAVSTAR Global Positioning System http://www.starlinkdgps.com/start.htm

Rescue Co-ordination Centre NETwork http://www.rcc-net.org/

Marconi history http://ftp.bbc.co.uk/making_waves/history.htm

More Marconi history http://www.gec.com/marconi/cen3.htm

Morse code in UK http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rdixon/crs/500close.htmand http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rdixon/crs/specialevent/begin-end.htm

First recorded use of wireless distress call http://www.king.igs.net/~karc/1stdistress.html

SOS, CQD and the history of maritime distress calls http://metronet.com/~nmcewen/arc_current.htmlt

12


13


14


15


16


Implementing the SAR ConventionThe International Convention on Maritime Search andRescue (SAR) was adopted in 1979 and entered into forcein 1985. To facilitate the preparation of a global search andrescue plan, which is the ultimate objective of the Conven-tion, the Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation established13 maritime SAR areas and invited Member Governments toco-ordinate with other littoral States in the same maritimearea for the purpose of accepting national areas of SARresponsibility and collecting pertinent information in accor-dance with the provisions of the Convention.

Since the Convention was adopted, IMO has been workingwith Member States and other organizations to help imple-ment the Convention. It has organized a series of seminarsand conferences in order to prepare and agree SAR plans for

the oceans' search and rescue areas, including the delimitationof individual countries' search and rescue regions, for whichthey are responsible. This process ± which began in 1981 ± wasconcluded in September 1998 when an integrated SAR planfor the Indian Ocean was agreed at a conference held inFremantle, Western Australia, based on regional plansadopted earlier at conferences in Tokyo and Cape Town.

The conferences and seminars have also provided thecountries concerned with the opportunity to addresstraining needs for SAR and the GMDSS and to considerthe adequacy of shore-based GMDSS facilities in theparticular region.

The table below shows the seminars and conferences thathave been held.

Venue and Year SAR Area Type of Meeting Result

Barbados 1981

Caracas 1984

Caribbean Sea

Caribbean Sea

Seminar

Conference

Preparation of provisional SAR plan

Agreement on a provisional SAR plan

Jakarta 1984

Tokyo 1986

Asia and Pacific

Asia and Pacific

Seminar

Conference



Lagos 1984

Lagos 1991

Eastern South Atlantic

Eastern South Atlantic

Seminar

Conference



Sharjah 1992

Mombasa 1992

Cape Town 1996

North-West Indian Ocean

South-West Indian Ocean

West Indian Ocean

Seminar

Seminar

Conference




Lisbon 1994 Atlantic Ocean Conference Agreement on an integratedprovisional SAR plan

Varna 1994

Istanbul 1996

Valencia 1997

Ankara 1998

Black Sea

Black Sea

Black Sea

Black Sea

Seminar

Conference

Conference

Conference



General agreement on a provisionalSAR plan

Signing of an Agreement on co-operation regarding maritime SARservices

Toulon 1995

Valencia 1997

Mediterranean Sea

Mediterranean Sea

Seminar

Conference


General agreement on a provisionalSAR plan

Seoul 1997 Pacific Ocean Conference Agreement on an integratedprovisional SAR plan

Fremantle 1998 Indian Ocean Conference Agreement on an integratedprovisional SAR plan

IMO adopted a revised annex to the SAR Convention inMay 1998. The revised SAR Convention, which will enter intoforce on 1 January 2000, clarifies the responsibilities ofGovernments and puts greater emphasis on the regionalapproach and co-ordination between maritime and aeronautical

SAR operations. It is hoped the revised Convention will be moreacceptable to those States which have not yet ratified the 1979SAR Convention ± as of 1 February 1999, the SAR Conventionhad been ratified by only 60 countries, whose combinedmerchant fleets represent less than 50% of world tonnage.

17


GMDSS ±Frequently Asked Questions

What is the GMDSS?The global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS) isan international system which uses terrestrial and satellitetechnology and ship-board radio systems to ensure rapid,automated alerting of shore-based communication andrescue authorities, in addition to ships in the immediatevicinity, in the event of a marine distress.

Under the GMDSS, all ocean-going passenger ships andcargo ships of 300 gross tonnage and upwards engaged oninternational voyages must be equipped with radio equip-ment that conforms to international standards as set out inthe system. The basic concept is that search and rescueauthorities ashore, as well as shipping in the immediatevicinity of the ship in distress, will be rapidly alerted throughsatellite and terrestrial communication techniques so thatthey can assist in a co-ordinated search and rescue operationwith the minimum of delay.

How does the GMDSS help in distresssituations?Ships fitted with GMDSS equipment are safer at sea ± andmore likely to receive assistance in the event of a distress ±because the GMDSS provides for automatic distress alertingand locating when a radio operator does not have time tosend out a distress call. The GMDSS also requires ships toreceive broadcasts of maritime safety information whichcould prevent a distress from happening, and requires shipsto carry satellite emergency position-indicating radio bea-cons (EPIRBs), which float free from a sinking ship andalert rescue authorities with the ship's identity and location.

Who adopted the GMDSS?The GMDSS was adopted by IMO. It was adopted bymeans of amendments to the International Convention forthe Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974. The amendments,which are contained in chapter IV of SOLAS, on Radio-communications, were adopted in 1988 and entered intoforce on 1 February 1992 but provided for a phase-in perioduntil 1 February 1999.

Who is implementing the GMDSS?Implementation of the GMDSS requirements is the respon-sibility of Contracting Governments to SOLAS. This meansthe Administrations of individual countries that haveratified the GMDSS requirements into their national law.In practice, it also means that individual shipowners areresponsible for ensuring their ships meet GMDSS require-ments, since they must obtain certificates from their flagState certifying conformity with all relevant internationalregulations.

When does the GMDSS take effect?The global implementation of GMDSS services became fullyeffective on 1 February 1999. By that date, all applicableships had to comply with the GMDSS requirements inSOLAS.

GMDSS Countdown

Between 1 February 1992 and 1 February 1999existing ships could comply with the version ofchapter IV of SOLAS in force prior to 1 February1992 or the GMDSS

All ships have been required to carry a NAVTEX(transmission of maritime safety information) receiverand satellite EPIRBs (emergency position-indicatingradio beacons) since 1 August 1993

Ships built on or after 1 February 1995 must complywith all applicable GMDSS requirements

From 1 February 1999 all passenger ships and allcargo ships of 300 gross tonnage and upwards oninternational voyages must comply with the GMDSS

Who has to comply with the GMDSS?All ships subject to SOLAS chapter IV have to fit GMDSSequipment; generally, this is all passenger vessels and allcargo ships over 300 gross tonnage on internationalvoyages.*

What do ships have to do to comply withGMDSS?

Under SOLAS, every ship, while at sea, must have thefacilities for essential communications, namely:

± transmitting ship-to-shore distress alerts by at least twoseparate and independent means;

± receiving shore-to-ship distress alerts;± transmitting and receiving ship-to-ship distress alerts;± transmitting and receiving search and rescue co-ordinating communications;

± transmitting and receiving on-scene communications;± transmitting and (as required) receiving signals forlocating;

± transmitting and receiving maritime safety informa-tion;

± transmitting and receiving general radiocommunica-tions to and from shore-based radio systems ornetworks; and

± transmitting and receiving bridge-to-bridge commu-nications.

* The GMDSS applies to all ships engaged on international voyages except:cargo ships less than 300 gross tonnage,ships of war and troopships,ships not propelled by mechanical means,wooden ships of primitive build,pleasure yachts not engaged in trade,fishing vessels, andships being navigated within the Great Lakes of North America.

Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODUs) have to fit GMDSS equipment ifthey are self-propelled, or if they are required to meet the InternationalMaritime Organization's MODU Code.

18


Specific equipment requirements for ships vary accordingto the sea area (or areas) in which the ship operates. TheGMDSS combines various subsystems ± which all havedifferent limitations with respect to coverage ± into oneoverall system, and the oceans are divided into four seaareas:

Area A1 ± Within range of VHF coast stations withcontinuous DSC alerting available (about20±30 miles)

Area A2 ± Beyond area A1, but within range of MFcoastal stations with continuous DSC alert-ing available (about 100 miles)

Area A3 ± Beyond the first two areas, but withincoverage of geostationary maritime commu-nication satellites (in practice this meansInmarsat). This covers the area betweenroughly 708 N and 708 S.

Area A4 ± The remaining sea areas. The most impor-tant of these is the sea around the NorthPole (the area around the South Pole ismostly land). Geostationary satellites, whichare positioned above the equator, cannotreach this far.

Coastal vessels, for example, only have to carry minimalequipment if they do not operate beyond the range of shore-based VHF radio stations, but they may carry satelliteequipment. However, some coasts do not have shore-basedfacilities, so although the ship is close to shore, the areacounts as area A2 or A3. Ships which do go beyond sea areaA1 have to carry MF equipment as well as VHF ± orInmarsat satellite equipment. Ships which operate beyondthe range of MF radio stations have to carry Inmarsatsatellite equipment in addition to VHF and MF. Shipswhich operate in area A4 have to carry HF, MF and VHFequipment.

What about Morse code?The invention of radio by Guglielmo Marconi and the use ofMorse code was a significant development in saving lives atsea after an incident. However, Morse telegraphy requiredmany years of training and practice. If something happenedto the radio operator, it was unlikely that anyone else onboard would be able to use the telegraphy equipment.GMDSS equipment still requires training ± but systems canautomatically send a ship's position, speed and call signwhen a distress button is pressed, and advances intechnology mean that normal voice communication can beused, for example to speak to a rescue co-ordination centre.

Morse code is therefore not a mandatory requirementunder the GMDSS and many Governments are phasing outMorse code listening services, if they have not already doneso.

Do all ships have to have satellitecommunications?No. If ships are travelling only in coastal areas served byVHF coast stations with continuous digital selective calling(DSC) available, they need only carry VHF equipment.However, they may use satellite communication in additionto or instead of terrestrial radio links.

What about the problem of false alerts?One of the main reasons for false distress alerts is improperuse of GMDSS equipment by untrained personnel. They areprobably also caused by the lack of practical experience ofGMDSS equipment on board ships by trained personnel.IMO has issued guidelines* on avoidance of false alerts andhas introduced a standard button design, which means thatthe distress button has to be protected and must be helddown for 3 seconds to be activated. There are problems withequipment design and poor training. EPIRBs have to besensitive, because they have to be able to float free, and thissensitivity can lead to false alerts.

But information from manufacturers and coastal Statesindicates that, on average, there is only one false alert every50 years from each of the alarms now available.

At the same time, the GMDSS system makes it possiblefor the ship in distress to be contacted, to check whether thealert is real or false, before search and rescue operationsbegin.

What proportion of ships will comply withGMDSS after the deadline of 1 February 1999?Flag States have been requested to provide IMO withinformation on compliance, but IMO has not receivedenough information to provide a detailed overview ofcompliance figures. Ships built since 1995 have beenrequired to be equipped with GMDSS radio equipment.Older ships must comply by 1 February 1999, and it is likelythat port State control inspectors will target these ships tomake sure they are GMDSS-compliant. If not, they run therisk of being detained in foreign ports.

Ships that are not covered by SOLAS, such as smallervessels or those not undertaking international voyages, willhave to comply with requirements set out by their maritimeAdministration. Many Administrations encourage thesenon-SOLAS ships to fit relevant GMDSS equipment tohelp in an emergency situation.

What do coastal States have to do to ensurethe GMDSS will work?Under regulation 5 of chapter IV of SOLAS, ``EachContracting Government [to SOLAS] undertakes to makeavailable, as it deems practical and necessary eitherindividually or in co-operation with other ContractingGovernments, appropriate shore-based facilities for spaceand terrestrial radiocommunication services ...''

What is the difference between GMDSS andexisting radiocommunications?The GMDSS includes the regulations for radiocommunica-tions aboard merchant ships contained in SOLAS chapterIV. It includes some of the traditional maritime radiosystems, but many have been upgraded to provide forautomated listening and calling. The GMDSS utilisestraditional radiocommunications, but integrates them intoa co-ordinated system, adding satellite communications.

* IMO resolution A.814(19) (adopted 23 November 1995) contains Guide-lines for the avoidance of false distress alerts. IMO Circular MSC/Circ.861(issued 22 May 1998) includes Measures to reduce the number of falsedistress alerts.

19


What is DSC?Digital selective calling (DSC) has been introduced on VHF,MF and HF maritime radios as part of the GMDSS. DSC isprimarily intended to initiate ship/ship, ship/shore, andshore/ship radiotelephone and MF/HF radiotelex calls.DSC calls can also be made to individual ships or groupsof ships. DSC distress alerts, which consist of a preformatteddistress message, are used to initiate emergency communica-tions with ships and rescue co-ordination centres.*

Fully implemented, DSC eliminates the need for personson a ship's bridge or on shore to continuously guard radioreceivers on voice radio channels used for distress, safetyand calling, including VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and2182 kHz. A listening watch on 2182 kHz aboard GMDSS-equipped ships is scheduled to end on 1 February 1999, andon VHF channel 16 on 1 February 2005.

Can GMDSS equipment be used for routineradiocommunications?Yes. GMDSS telecommunications equipment should not bereserved for emergency use only. IMO encourages mariners touse it for routine as well as for safety radiocommunications.{

What is COSPAS±SARSAT?COSPAS±SARSAT is an international satellite-based searchand rescue system, established by Canada, France, the U.S.A.and Russia. These four countries jointly helped develop a 406MHz satellite emergency position-indicating radiobeacon(EPIRB), an element of the GMDSS that is designed tooperate with the COSPAS±SARSAT system. These auto-matically activated EPIRBs are designed to transmit a vessel'sidentification and an accurate location of the vessel to arescue co-ordination centre from anywhere in the world.

What is NAVTEX?NAVTEX is an international, automated system forinstantly distributing maritime navigational warnings,weather forecasts and warnings, search and rescue noticesand similar information to ships. A small, low-cost and self-contained ``smart'' printing radio receiver installed in thepilot house of a ship or boat checks each incoming messageto see if it has been received during an earlier transmission,or if it is of a category of no interest to the ship's master. If itis a new and wanted message, it is printed on a roll ofadding-machine-size paper; if not, the message is ignored. Anew ship coming into the area will receive many previouslybroadcast messages for the first time; ships already in thearea which had already received the message won't receive itagain. No person needs to be present during a broadcast toreceive vital information.

What is Inmarsat?The International Mobile Satellite Organization (Inmarsat),previously the International Maritime Satellite Organiza-

tion, was established by IMO in 1976 to operate satellitemaritime communication systems and is in the process ofbecoming a privately owned company, while retaining itspublic sector obligations to the maritime distress and safetysystem. Three types of Inmarsat ship earth station terminalsare recognized by the GMDSS: the Inmarsat-A, -B and -C.The Inmarsat-A and -B (an updated version of Inmarsat-A)stations provide ship/shore, ship/ship and shore/ship tele-phone, telex and high-speed data services, including adistress priority telephone and telex service to and fromrescue co-ordination centres. The Inmarsat-C stationprovides ship/shore, shore/ship and ship/ship store-and-forward data and telex messaging, the capability for sendingpreformatted distress messages to a rescue co-ordinationcentre, and the SafetyNET service. The Inmarsat-C Safe-tyNET service is a satellite-based worldwide maritime safetyinformation broadcast service of high-seas weather warn-ings, navigational warnings, radionavigation warnings, icereports and warnings generated by the International IcePatrol, and other similar information not provided byNAVTEX. SafetyNET works similarly to NAVTEX inareas outside NAVTEX coverage.

What are Search and Rescue RadarTransponders (SARTs)?The GMDSS installation on ships includes one or moresearch and rescue radar transponders, devices which areused to locate survival craft or distressed vessels by creatinga series of dots on the display of a rescuing ship's 3 cmradar. The detection range between these devices and ships,dependent upon the height of the ship's radar mast and theheight of the SART, is normally less than about ten miles.

What about fishing vessels and smallrecreational vessels, such as yachts?At the moment, most fishing vessels and recreationalboaters are not required to participate in the GMDSS. Butthey will find many of the services available useful and maywant to acquire equipment such as EPIRBs, which must beregistered with the appropriate authorities.

Small vessels are also recommended to fit DSC equip-ment since, once the GMDSS is fully implemented, vesselswithout DSC will have difficulty contacting ships which aremonitoring the DSC calling channel only. However, in avessel traffic service zone, ships will still be required tomaintain a listening watch on the appropriate frequency.

Most fishers and recreational boaters are already carry-ing VHF marine radios; however, these are not generallyDSC-compatible.

Can cellular telephones/mobile phones beused instead of VHF radio?Larger vessels must have the radio equipment specified inthe GMDSS regulations. For smaller vessels, not covered bythe GMDSS, most coastal authorities do not recommendcellular telephones as a substitute for the marine radiodistress and safety systems in the VHF maritime radio band.

A VHF radio is more advantageous in that it can alsohelp ensure that storm warnings and other urgent marineinformation broadcasts are received. Furthermore, VHFradio can be used worldwide.

* In VHF radio, and on MF radio in the 2187.5 kHz band as well as HFradio (frequencies in the 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 MHz bands), DSC enables shipsto maintain the required continuous listening watch on channel 70 (the DSCcalling channel) with automatic equipment. A ship's DSC receiver will onlyrespond to a call to the ship's individual Maritime Mobile Service Identitynumber (``MMSI'') or to an ``All Ships'' DSC call. After establishingcontact on channel 70, both parties can change to an agreed voice channelto communicate.{ IMO Circular COMSAR/Circ.17 (issued 9 March 1998) containsRecommendation on use of GMDSS equipment for non-safety commu-nications.

20


MARPOL 73/78 ± The future of Annex IIJohn V. Crayford

Senior Technical Officer, Sub-division for Pollution Prevention,Marine Environment Division, IMO

IMO is currently undertaking a major revision of Annex II of MARPOL, covering noxious liquid substances or chemicals,which will likely have a significant impact for Administrations, ship operators and the chemicals industry. This paper looks atthe background to the adoption of MARPOL and the changes that have been, and are being, made. The paper concentrates onAnnex II ± the most complex of the chapters due to the nature of the products it covers.

Background

Oil pollution of the sea, especiallyaround ports and harbours, has beenrecognized since the 1900s, and the firstattempts to minimize pollution by oilfrom ships came in the form of bans onillegal discharges of oil by the UnitedKingdom and the United States in theearly 1920s. The United Kingdom wasthe first to adopt national rules on theprevention of marine pollution in 1922(Oil in Navigable Waters Act) while theUnited States adopted its own regula-tions on oil pollution prevention in1924 (Oil Pollution Act).

It was soon recognized that oilpollution was an international problemthat could only be tackled effectively ifthe shipping nations and those coun-tries most interested in importing andexporting oil agreed on the jointmeasures.

In 1926, the United States convenedan international conference on oilpollution control, attended by 13countries, but the draft convention thatwas prepared was never adopted.Another draft convention, prepared atthe League of Nations in 1935, alsofailed to move beyond the draftformat.

It was not until 1954, when theUnited Kingdom organized a confer-ence on oil pollution, that the countriesattending adopted the InternationalConvention for the Prevention ofPollution of the Sea by Oil (OILPOL).

The OILPOL Convention addressedthe problem of pollution of the seascaused by routine tanker operationssuch as the washing of cargo tanks andthe dumping of resultant oily waterinto the sea. It imposed restrictions onthe amount of oil that could be put intothe sea as well as the places that itcould be dumped whilst requiringContracting Parties to promote theprovision of reception facilities for theoily-water mixtures resulting from tankcleaning operations.

The OILPOL Convention was takenover by IMO when the Organizationcame into being with the first session ofits Assembly in 1959.

But it became clear that, despitebeing amended in 1962, the OILPOLConvention was inadequate. Followingthe Torrey Canyon disaster of 1967, theIMO Assembly convened an interna-tional conference to adopt a completelynew convention addressing marinepollution.

The International Convention forthe Prevention of Pollution from Ships(MARPOL) was created with theobjective of preventing the pollutionof the marine environment by thedischarge of harmful substances, whichwere defined as:

Any substance which, if introducedinto the sea, is liable to createhazards to human health, to harmliving resources and marine life, todamage amenities or to interfere withother legitimate uses of the sea, andincludes any substance subject tocontrol by the present Convention.MARPOL addressed not only pol-

lution by oil, but also pollution bychemicals, sewage and garbage. An-nexes were developed covering differ-ent categories of harmful substances

and most recently, in 1997, a newAnnex on air pollution was added.

MARPOL Annex I ±Regulations for the

Prevention ofPollution by Oil

Based on the OILPOL Convention, theconcept behind Annex I to MARPOL73/78 is to prohibit any discharge intothe sea of oil or oily mixtures fromships. However, recognizing that thisideal presents considerable practicaldifficulties, certain exceptions are al-lowed.

These include allowing a smallquantity (1/15,000 or 1/30,000 of thetotal quantity of the cargo for existingships and for new ships, respectively) tobe put into the sea provided that thetanker is not in a Special Area, thetanker is more than 50 nautical milesfrom the nearest land, the tanker isproceeding en route and the instanta-neous discharge of oil does not exceed30 litres per nautical mile.

Similar restrictions are imposed forthe oil from machinery-space bilges ofall ships of 400 tons gross tonnage.

Being the oldest part of MARPOL 73/78, with its roots stemming from

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships(MARPOL 73/78)

Annex Subject Entry into forcedate

I Oil 2 October 1983

II Noxious liquid substances carried in bulk(chemicals)

6 April 1987

III Harmful substances carried in packaged form 1 July 1992

IV Sewage Not yet in force

V Garbage 31 December 1988

VI Air pollution (added in 1997) Not yet in force

21

OILPOL, Annex I has been the subjectof many amendments which, when in-troduced, set standards for the new shipsof the time whilst allowing some relaxa-tion for the existing ships of the time.

Changes to Annex I

Because Annex I has become verydifficult to follow due to the differingrequirements for various generations oftankers, it was agreed in 1993 that amajor review of this Annex should takeplace in order to simplify it. However,agreement has not yet been reachedover the most appropriate way to makethe revisions necessary to make it easierto follow in the future. The two optionsunder consideration are:

1 To rewrite Annex I for new shipsonly and require existing ships tobe subject to the existing AnnexI. This would be much simplerfor new ships initially but wouldgradually suffer the same fate asthe existing Annex I as newamendments are introduced.

2 To structure Annex I so thatthere is a complete version foreach generation of tanker. Thiswould be much simpler for aship operator, who would justtake the version applicable to hisship, but more complicated forflag and port States, whichwould require several versions.

MARPOL Annex II ±Regulations for the Controlof Pollution by Noxious

Liquid Substances in BulkUnder the definition of harmful sub-stances, Annex I to MARPOL 73/78treats all oils in the same way, whetherthey are heavy crude oils or refined,volatile distillation fractions.

However, when attention was fo-cused on Annex II (Noxious LiquidSubstances (NLS) or chemicals, trans-ported in bulk), it was recognized thatthis approach was too simple forchemicals, due to their wide diversityin biological and physical propertiesthat have an effect on their ability to bedescribed as harmful.

As a result, when Annex II cameinto force in 1987 it included adifferentiation mechanism based onthe best scientific knowledge availableat the time. This system dividedproducts into five categories defining

the amount of product allowed to bedischarged into the sea from any onetank, as shown in Table 1.

Pollution category A products aredeemed to be so harmful to the marineenvironment that their routine opera-tional discharge has been stopped,whereas Appendix III products areconsidered to present no harm to themarine environment when dischargedinto the sea from tank cleaning ordeballasting operations.

For the past twelve years,1 productshave been allocated to various pollu-tion categories on the basis of thefollowing biological properties whichwere considered to be relevant:

1 bioaccumulation with associatedhazards;

2 tainting of fish;

3 acute toxicity to marine organ-isms (fish and/or crustacea);

4 acute and long-term toxicity tohumans via all routes of expo-sure; and

5 reduction of amenities.

The procedure that is used toallocate one of the five pollutioncategories to a product takes place intwo stages:

1 The Joint Group of Expertson the Scientific Aspects ofEnv i ronmenta l Protec t ion(GESAMP)2 set up a special

Working Group on the Evalua-tion of Hazards of HarmfulSubstances (EHS) to evaluateeach of the above properties andgenerate a GESAMP HazardProfile (GHP) for each product.

2 The Evaluation of Safety andPollution Hazards (ESPH)Working Group of IMO thenuses this GHP to assign theappropriate pollution categoryand ship type for each productwhen they are transported underAnnex II of MARPOL 73/78.

The Sub-Committee on Bulk Li-quids and Gases (BLG) deals with thetechnical matters of safety and envir-onmental protection and reports di-rectly to the two policy-makingCommittees of IMO, the Marine En-vironment Protection Committee(MEPC) and the Maritime SafetyCommittee (MSC). Reporting to BLGis a semi-permanent Working Groupon the Evaluation of Safety andPollution Hazards (ESPH) whichdeals, primarily, with the assignmentof pollution categories and carriagerequirements for products in order toensure their safe carriage and protec-tion of the marine environment. Therelationship between these bodies isshown in Figure 1.

Table 1: Pollution categories and associated discharge volumes

Pollutioncategory

Maximum discharge quantity Are conditions of dischargeregulated? (Yes/No)

Existing ships New ships

A None None Not applicable

B 300 litres 100 litres Yes

C 900 litres 300 litres Yes

D Unrestricted Unrestricted Yes

Appendix III Unrestricted Unrestricted No

1 When MARPOL Annex II was drawn up,experts from various IMO Member States agreedon the categories to which products should beallocated. In 1972, the Joint Group of Experts onthe Scientific Aspects of Environmental Protec-tion (GESAMP) set up a special Working Groupon the Evaluation of Harmful Substances (EHS)to evaluate substances according to a range ofproperties.2 GESAMP includes experts from various UnitedNations agencies, including IMO, FAO,UNESCO-IOC, WMO, WHO, IAEA, UN andUNEP.

22

Recent developments affectingthe pollution categorizationof products under Annex II

Although the system described abovehas been employed effectively fortwelve years, several recent develop-ments have taken place which havemade it necessary for IMO to reconsi-der the criteria used to assign bothpollution category and ship type. Themost important of these are:

1 improvements in ship technology;

2 a greater appreciation of therelationship between the proper-ties of chemicals and their impacton the marine environment;

3 the 1992 UN Conference on En-vironment and Development(UNCED) which took place inRio de Janeiro;

4 the new GESAMP Hazard Eva-luation Procedure for evaluatingproducts; and

5 the review of Annexes I and II ofMARPOL 73/78.

Improvements inship technologyOne of the most important features ofAnnex II to MARPOL 73/78 was theintroduction of efficient stripping sys-tems1 which ensured that only rela-tively small amounts (as shown inTable 1) of cargoes could be dischargedinto the sea with tank washings.

However, in the past ten years therehave been advances in technologywhich allow efficient stripping levels aslow as 10 to 20 litres (of product left inthe cargo tank) to be achieved. Clearly,as the quantity of product that isexpected to enter the marine environ-ment is reduced, so the type of productdeemed to be acceptable to be put intothe environment may be reconsidered.

Factors affecting the marineenvironmentThe MARPOL Convention was thefirst global legislation designed to

protect the marine environment and,with hindsight, took a simplistic viewon the definition of marine pollu-tants.

Annex I treats all oil products,from heavy crude oil to refinedvolatile solvents, in exactly the sameway, even though their effects on themarine environment are completelydifferent.

Annex II, however, introduced adegree of differentiation using a fewsimple biological properties, with thegreatest influence being placed onacute aquatic toxicity, tainting of fishand bioaccumulation with associatedharmful effects.

Since then there has been recogni-tion of the fact that other properties,not previously considered, are equallyimportant whilst the importance ofsome other properties may have beenover-emphasized. This conclusion hasbeen reached independently withinIMO's BLG Sub-Committee, GE-SAMP's EHS Working Group andthe OECD discussions on global har-monizat ion result ing from theUNCED Rio Conference.

The 1992 UNCED Conferencein Rio de Janeiro

The United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development in Riode Janeiro, which took place from 3 to14 June 1992, adopted, inter alia,Agenda 21, chapter 19 of which in-cluded a programme for the Harmoni-zation of hazard classification andlabelling of chemicals.

This resulted in a considerableamount of activity, and the UnitedNations Committee of Experts on theTransport of Dangerous Goods and theOrganization for Economic Co-opera-tion and Development (OECD) havebeen acting as clearing houses for thedevelopment of harmonized hazard-clas-sification systems covering physical andbiological properties that affect safetyand protection of the environment.

The importance of this work onharmonization for future legislationand regulation on the production, useand transportation of chemicals cannotbe underestimated.

Currently, the classification andlabelling of chemicals is not harmo-nized worldwide, and this has implica-tions for shippers.

1 When a cargo tank is ``emptied'' by pumping outthe contents through pipes, it is inevitable that smallamounts of the product will remain ± which may bewashed out afterwards. Efficient stripping systemsuse small deep-well pumps with a small-borediameter pipe to get as much of the tank emptiedas possible. Furthermore, the tank is designed toencourage the product to go into the deep well(where the pump sits) by having the bottom slopingin that direction and very smooth surfaces. In somecases, people may enter the tanks to sweep theproduct towards the pump to ensure that as muchproduct is taken from the tank as possible.

23

For example, a product is defined asbeing toxic to mammals under theIMO International Maritime Danger-ous Goods (IMDG) Code if the oralLD50

1 is less than or equal to 500 mg/kg; while EU Dangerous Substanceslegislation defines a product as beingtoxic if the oral LD50 is less than orequal to 2000 mg/kg.

Similarly, EU legislation defines asubstance as flammable if it has aflashpoint of less than 558C, whilstunder the IMDG Code, a product isclassified as flammable if the flashpointis less than or equal to 618C.

Hence there is a clear need forharmonization at a global level.

Hazards to the aquaticenvironment

Under the auspices of the OECD, therehas been general agreement that thefollowing properties represent a hazardto the aquatic environment:

1 acute toxicity2 to fish, crustaceaand algae; and

2 chronic toxicity3 to fish, crusta-cea and algae.

In addition to these obvious ha-zards, there has also been agreementthat the following properties mayexacerbate or ameliorate these hazards:

1 biodegradation;4 and

2 bioaccumulation.5

Agreement was reached on thedefinitions and cut-off points for theseproperties, which are recognized asbeing essential building blocks for alllegislation designed to protect the aqua-tic environment. The definition of thesebuilding blocks is recognized as beingan important level of harmonization.

At the same time, it was recognizedthat whilst all schemes should considerthese building blocks, some legislationmay need to take account of otherfactors not considered within theOECD scheme. This is particularlyimportant for the discussions on thenew criteria for the definition of pollu-tion categories under Annex II toMARPOL 73/78.

The original philosophy behind theOECD scheme was based on theconcept that chronic toxicity is the mostimportant parameter for defining aproduct as hazardous to the aquaticenvironment. But, recognizing thatchronic toxicity data are not widelyavailable, it was agreed that biodegrad-ability and bioaccumulation potentialmay be used as surrogate data for thisparameter.

1 Lethal Dose 50: the quantity that will kill 50%of a population.

2 Acute toxicity: the ability of a substance tocause poisonous effects resulting in severe biolo-gical harm or death soon after a single exposureor dose. Also, any severe poisonous effectresulting from a short-term exposure to a toxicsubstance.3 Chronic toxicity: toxicity resulting from pro-longed exposure.4 Biodegradation: decomposition of a substanceinto more elementary compounds by the actionof micro-organisms such as bacteria. Biodegrad-able: subject to degradation (breakdown) intosimpler substances by biological action. Thebreakdown of detergents, sewage wastes, or otherorganic matter by bacteria are all examples ofbiodegradation.5 Bioaccumulation: the retention and concentra-tion of a substance by an organism. This isparticularly important if the substance has otheradverse effects and is passed through the foodchain.

IAMSAR Manual(International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue Manual)

A publication to assist States in meeting their Search and Rescue needs. Each of the three volumes of the IAMSARManual is written with specific SAR system duties in mind and can be used as a stand-alone document or, inconjunction with the other two volumes, as a means to attain a full view of the SAR system.

. Organization and Management (volume I)discusses the global SAR system concept,establishment and improvement of nationaland regional SAR systems and co-operationwith neighbouring States to provide effec-tive and economical SAR services;

. Mission Co-ordination (volume II) assistspersonnel who plan and co-ordinate SARoperations and exercises; and

. Mobile Facilities (volume III) is intended tobe carried aboard rescue units, aircraft andvessels to help with performance of asearch, rescue or on-scene co-ordinatorfunction, and with aspects of SAR thatpertain to their own emergencies.

Each volume is available in loose-leaf form (binder included) in English, French, Spanish and Russian.

Sales numbers/prices:Volume I IMO-960E/F/S/R £18 (airmail: + £12)Volume II IMO-961E/F/S/R £45 (airmail: + £20)Volume III IMO-962E/F/S/R £20 (airmail: + £10)

Available from: IMO, Publications Section, 4 Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7SR, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)171-735 7611 Fax: +44 (0)171-587 3241 E-mail: [email protected]

24

However, it was finally agreed thatboth acute and chronic toxicity areimportant factors that may be em-ployed in different ways according tothe aspect of pollution preventionbeing addressed by a given piece oflegislation. This is particularly impor-tant when considering Annex II ofMARPOL 73/78, which addresses theoperational discharge of small quanti-ties of products as well as the potentialsudden release of large quantities ofproduct resulting from accidental da-mage to a chemical tanker.

The new GESAMP HazardEvaluation Procedure

On request from the MEPC, theGESAMP Evaluation of the Hazardsof Harmful Substances Carried inShips Working Group developed anew procedure for evaluating the ha-zards of chemicals with regard tomarine pollution, taking into accountthe OECD global harmonization ex-ercise and improved awareness of thefactors considered important in termsof marine pollution, including thefollowing:

1 bioaccumulation (identified byLog Pow

1 or BioConcentrationFactor (BCF));

2 biodegradation;

3 acute aquatic toxicity (to fish,crustacea and algae);

4 chronic aquatic toxicity (to fish,crustacea and algae);

5 acute mammalian toxicity byswallowing;

6 acute mammalian toxicity byskin penetration;

7 acute mammalian toxicity byinhalation;

8 skin irritation/corrosivity;

9 eye irritation/corrosivity;

10 other specific health concerns;

11 tainting potential;

12 potential impact on beaches andamenities; and

13 effect on wildlife and the sea-bed(as measured by its physicalproperties causing it to sink orfloat persistently on the surface).

GESAMP selected these propertiesin line with the United Nations Con-vention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) definition of harmful sub-stance (marine pollutant) but, in re-cognition of the fact that theirapplication would vary with the situa-tion, made no attempt to combinethem.

This is an important factor, as it isconsidered likely that differing empha-sis will be placed on those propertiesused to define operational dischargecategories from those used to defineship types.

Relevance of differentproperties

The significance of the propertiesidentified by the EHS Working Groupwill vary according to the location,quantity and manner in which aproduct is released into the marineenvironment.

For example, an accidental spill orlarge discharge of a vegetable oil mayscore low in terms of acute or chronictoxicity. But it could have a highpotential to damage beaches andamenities (such as tourism) if it iswashed up on beaches, and its physicalproperties (floating on the surface) mayadversely affect wildlife and the sea-bed.

Sulphuric acid may score highly interms of toxicity and skin corrosion ±but a spill on the high seas would be sorapidly diluted in seawater that itseffects may be minor.

Review of Annexes I and IIof MARPOL

In 1992, the Sub-Committee on BulkChemicals (BCH), now known as the

Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids andGases (BLG), agreed that it wasappropriate to review Annex II toMARPOL 73/78 because the regula-tions and requirements as well as theProcedures and Arrangements are toocomplex, and should be simplified inorder to encourage their implementa-tion.

Such simplification should includethe categorization of noxious liquidsubstances whilst taking account ofimprovements in technology that nowmake ships capable of reducing theircargo residues to less than 100 litrescompared with the 1000 litres or 3000litres obtainable when Annex II wasoriginally drafted in the early 1970s.

In July 1995 the ESPH WorkingGroup indicated that the existing five-category system for defining pollutioncategories could be simplified into athree-category system whilst takingaccount of improvements in efficientstripping arrangements on chemicaltankers and advancements in theunderstanding of those properties of aproduct that are likely to have anadverse effect on the marine environ-ment.

The ESPH Working Group agreedthat, in general, no product should bepermitted to enter the sea in unlimitedquantities, as is the case with theexisting pollution category D andappendix III products.

As a result, the Group consideredthat the environment would be appro-priately protected by combining thesetwo categories into one, which wouldhave limited restrictions associatedwith it.

In addition, the Group consideredthat it is no longer necessary todistinguish between pollution cate-gories B and C (which permit residuesof 100 litres and 300 litres, respectively,to be discharged into the sea). As aresult of advances in technology, it isrecognized that 100 litres, and as low as10±20 litres (of product left remainingin the tank after discharge), is easilyachievable for the new ships being builttoday, which effectively removes theneed for pollution category C.

Whilst reducing the number ofpollution categories, the ESPH Work-ing Group recognized the advances inenvironmental sciences that have beenmade in the 25 years since the originalcriteria for defining hazardous sub-stances had been developed. As aresult, after considerable deliberation,

1 Log Pow: A product's ability to bioaccumulatethrough the food chain is measured by its BCF(BioConcentration Factor). However, this istime-consuming and expensive to measure. It isrecognized that a simple physicochemical prop-erty can be used to indicate a product's potentialto bioaccumulate. This property is the Log Pow ±defined as the ratio of the equilibrium concentra-tions of a dissolved substance in a two-phasesystem comprising two largely immiscible sol-vents, n-octanol and water. This methodologyhas since been replaced largely by High-PressureLiquid Chromatography (HPLC), which is amuch quicker (a few minutes) method ofdetermining the Log Pow.It is generally accepted that a product with a

Log Pow greater than 3 has a moderate potentialto bioaccumulate and a value of 4±7 indicates avery high potential to bioaccumulate. However,some products that have a high Log Pow may bemetabilized quickly in reality, and so do notactually bioaccumulate. Others, such as long-chain alkanes, are rapidly metabolized intonatural body compounds (fatty acids) andbecome incorporated into other natural com-pounds (triglycerides). Although these are uti-lized and may be stored in the body, they are notregarded as having been bioaccumulated.

25

a preliminary set of criteria weredeveloped to produce three pollutioncategories, based on an improvedunderstanding of those properties thatmay have a significant impact on themarine environment.

These criteria, which will be basedon the new GESAMP Hazard ProfileProcedure, will be refined over the nexttwo years but are expected to containthe following features that differ fromthe existing criteria:

1 the removal of Tainting (T) as asignificant pollutant propertyfor applying to operational dis-charges;

2 the consideration of physicalproperties used to define persis-tent sinkers and floaters as aharmful property that shouldbe taken into account;

3 the consideration of (bio)degra-dation as a property that canameliorate other harmful effectsby removing the product fromthe environment; and

4 the reduction in the emphasis onacute aquatic toxicity as a prop-erty used to define pollutioncategories.

Rationale for a three-categorysystem

While alternative categorization sys-tems continue to be explored, supportis growing for the three-category sys-tem that was originally proposed bythe ESPH Working Group, based onsubmissions made by the Netherlandsand the UK. The three categoriesproposed under this system are:

Pollution category Maximum dischargequantity proposed

X None

Y 100 litres

Z 900 litres

The following concepts were con-sidered in developing this three-cate-gory system:

1 There are some products thatshould not be routinely disposedof at sea at all, and these shouldgo in category X.

2 Products associated with cate-gory Y can be routinely dis-charged to the sea in 100 litrequantities under carefully con-trolled conditions without caus-ing any environmental damage.

3 Under normal circumstances itis environmentally irresponsibleto discharge unlimited quantitiesto the sea. Products falling out-side the criteria of categories Xor Y are assigned to category Z,and ships' tanks containingthese products should be emp-tied as much as their existingequipment will allow. A level of900 litres of residue has beenconsidered to be achievable byall ships today.

Chemical tankers may carry a number of different products on any one voyage, each in separate tanks. The complex design ofchemical tankers can be easily seen in this photograph. (Courtesy Stolt-Nielsen S.A.)

26

4 Products assigned to pollutioncategories X or Y are consideredto have sufficient pollution po-tential to require them to becarried in chemical tankerswhilst it is expected that onlysome products assigned to cate-gory Z will require this.

Summary of changesto Annex II

The development of a new pollutioncategorization system for Annex II toMARPOL 73/78 is benefiting from aseries of positive factors:

1 improvements in ship technol-ogy, such as efficient strippingtechniques, mean that lowerlevels for permitted dischargelevels of certain products canbe incorporated into Annex II;

2 scientific knowledge is at a stagewhere there is a greater appre-ciation of the relationship be-tween the prope r t i e s o fchemicals and their impact onthe marine environment;

3 the 1992 UN Conference onEnvironment and Development(UNCED) gave an impetus tothe process of harmonization ofthe classification and labelling ofchemicals, which will make itmore likely that regulations inAnnex II of MARPOL arecompatible with those governingchemicals outside of the ship-ping industry; and

4 the new GESAMP Hazard Eva-luation Procedure for evaluatingproducts should make categor-ization more accurate and ob-jective.

This has produced a unique oppor-tunity to create a system that willafford a high degree of protection tothe marine environment whilst being assimple as is practically possible toimplement and based on meaningfultransparent criteria that are easy toapply.

MARPOL Annex III ±Prevention of Pollution byHarmful Substances Carriedby Sea in Packaged Form

In order to identify packaged goodsthat are deemed to be marine pollu-tants, Annex III to MARPOL 73/78uses criteria based on the GESAMPHazard Profile of a product. Since

these criteria were developed, otherlegislative systems, with differing setsof criteria, have also been developed todefine products as hazardous to theaquatic environment.

Informal discussions with industryand Administrations indicate a desireto develop a harmonized classificationand labelling system for productsdeemed to be hazardous to the aquaticenvironment (including marine pollu-tants) as a result of the 1992 UNCEDConference. It is anticipated that boththe criteria and the labelling for suchproducts will be harmonized within allmodes of transport as well as varioususer classification systems.

Such measures may result in acomplete change in the criteria usedto define marine pollutants underAnnex III to MARPOL 73/78. It maybe argued that this will make suchcriteria more meaningful, as they arecurrently based on the operationaldischarge (pollution categories) of An-nex II to MARPOL 73/78, which havelittle bearing on packaged products.

MARPOL Annex IV ±Prevention of Pollution by

Sewage from ShipsThough adopted in 1973, Annex IV toMARPOL 73/78 has not yet enteredinto force; a considerable number ofMember Governments have indicatedthat they have no intention of ratifyingit in its current form, mainly due to thedifficulties in providing reception facil-ities for sewage from ships.

The MEPC is attempting to ascer-tain the necessary amendments thatwould enable Annex IV to becomesufficiently acceptable to allow it toenter into force whilst remaining an

effective mechanism for combattingmarine pollution from ship-based sew-age.

MARPOL Annex V ±Prevention of Pollution byGarbage from Ships, andAnnex VI ± Prevention ofAir Pollution from Ships

As Annex V has only recently enteredinto force and Annex VI has only justbeen adopted, there have not been anysuggestions that these annexes shouldbe modified in any way yet.

Summary

Considerable experience has beengained since the adoption of MARPOLin 1973, enabling changes to be madeto various Annexes in order to makethem either easier to understand and tofollow or more meaningful following agreater awareness of those aspects thatare important.

Such changes should lead to legisla-tion that will improve the environmentwhilst being easier to implement, andtherefore making it more attractive toGovernments to ratify the Convention.MARPOL 73/78 has been ratified by106 countries (as of 31 December1998), representing 93.88% of worldmerchant shipping tonnage.

This is based on a paper presented atthe Twenty-Third Annual Conference onCurrent Maritime Issues and the Work ofthe International Maritime Organization,co-sponsored by Center for Oceans Lawand Policy, University of Virginia Schoolof Law, and IMO, held at IMO Head-quarters in London, 6±8 January 1999.

The views represent those of theauthor.

Modern bulk chemical tankers transport bulk liquid chemicals, edible oils, acids, andother speciality liquids. (Courtesy Stolt-Nielsen S.A.)

27

Seafarers Memorial Trust Fundreaches first US$1 million

Donations and pledges to the SeafarersMemorial Trust Fund reached theUS$1 million mark in mid-January.

The Secretary-General of IMO, Mr.William A. O'Neil, said: ``The purposeof the Trust Fund is to pay tribute tothe seafarers on whom the shippingindustry relies ± and especially torecognize those seafarers who have losttheir lives in what has always been oneof the world's most dangerous profes-sions. The response of the shippingindustry has been extremely generousand we are now well on the waytowards achieving our target ofUS$10 million.''

The Trust Fund was established lastyear by the IMO Council to mark the50th anniversary of the adoption of theinternational treaty which led to theestablishment of IMO. The aim of theFund is to provide for:

. the erection of an InternationalMemorial to Seafarers, at IMOheadquarters by the RiverThames;

. the establishment of a Chair inmaritime safety and pollutionprevention at the World Mar-itime University in MalmoÈ , Swe-den;

. the provision of fellowships tostudents at certain maritimeinstitutes around the world; and

. any other activity related to thetraining of seafarers, as might bedetermined by the administratorsof the Fund.

The biggest donation to the Fund sofar has come from the InternationalTransport Workers Federation (ITF),which has contributed US$500,000.The Secretary-General said: ``The factthat the ITF, which represents so manyof the world's seafarers, has made sucha generous donation to the Fund ismost encouraging. In the past the ITFhas made generous contributions to theWorld Maritime University and var-ious other IMO activities and we haveworked closely together in many ways.This latest donation shows that we

have the backing of the seafaringcommunity and I would like to expressmy great appreciation to the ITF for itssupport.''

Since the Fund was announced on24 September last year ± WorldMaritime Day ± progress has also beenmade in establishing a Board ofTrustees from eminent members ofthe shipping community.

IMO News is the magazine of the InternationalMaritime Organization. The opinions expressed arenot necessarily those of IMO and the inclusion of anadvertisement implies no endorsement of any kindby IMO of the product or service advertised. Thecontents may be reproduced free of charge oncondition that acknowledgement is given toIMO News. Editorial correspondence should beaddressed to: The Editor, IMO News, InternationalMaritime Organization, 4 Albert Embankment,London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom.(E-mail: [email protected]).Advertising correspondence should be addressedto the Advertising Department at the same address(tel: 0171-735 7611, fax: 0171-587 3241). Please allowat least ten weeks from receipt at IMO for additionsto, deletions from or changes in the mailing list.Visit IMO's website: http://www.imo.org.

Printed in the United Kingdom by IMO.Copyright # IMO 1999. Pub. 404/99.

The shipping industry relies on seafarers to transport commodities across the globe's oceans in one of the world's mostdangerous professions. (Photograph courtesy NUMAST)

28

imo news b · marine pollution by dumping of wastes and other matter, 1972 (known as the london...

Documents