international maritime organization e...new partnership for africa™s development (nepad-cosmar)...

I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION

IMO

E

TWENTY-SIXTH CONSULTATIVE MEETING OF CONTRACTING PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION OF MARINE POLLUTION BY DUMPING OF WASTES AND OTHER MATTER 1972 1 � 5 November 2004 Agenda item 7

LC 26/INF.6 11 October 2004 ENGLISH ONLY

TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION AND ASSISTANCE

Report of the Workshop on Marine Pollution Prevention and Environmental

Management in Ports in Southern and Eastern Africa

Note by the Secretariat

SUMMARY Executive summary:

The IMO/UNEP/NEPAD Workshop on Marine Pollution Prevention and Environmental Management in Ports in Eastern and Southern African was held in Mombasa, Kenya from 26 to 30 April 2004. Attached hereto is the full report of the Workshop, which contains the summary of presentations by experts, the discussions at plenary and in the working group sessions, as well as the recommendations of the Workshop for further actions. The executive summary of the Workshop was distributed as LC 26/7/1 A CD-ROM version of this report will be made available to the participants during the Consultative Meeting containing the annexes, which are the in-country presentations to this report.

Action to be taken:

To note the information

Related document:

LC 26/7/1

***

LC 26/INF.6

I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

ANNEX

United Nations Environment Programme

International Maritime Organization

REPORT

MOMBASA KENYA

26-30 APRIL 2004

WORKSHOP ON

MARINE POLLUTION PREVENTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT IN PORTS

IN SOUTHERN AND EASTERN AFRICA

LC 26/INF.6 ANNEX Page 2

I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION (IMO)

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME (UNEP)

NEW PARTNERSHIP FOR AFRICA�S DEVELOPMENT (NEPAD)

In collaboration with

THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS (KENYA)

THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (KENYA)

WORKSHOP ON

MARINE POLLUTION PREVENTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT IN PORTS

IN SOUTHERN AND EASTERN AFRICA

REPORT

MOMBASA KENYA

26-30 APRIL 2004

LC 26/INF.6 ANNEX

Page 3

I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

PREFACE

Technical co-operation and assistance is a primary tool to assist countries with

implementation of international agreements for the protection of the environment. It is essential for aiding countries with their commitment to incorporating these agreements into their national policies and has functioned with agreements and programmes ranging from the adoption of Agenda 21 to the adoption of the UNEP Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities in 1995 and Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002.

The London Convention 1972 and its planned successor the 1996 Protocol provide for the establishment of a scientific and technical support programme to further the objectives of these instruments. The key objectives for technical co-operation have been to: (1) strengthen national marine pollution prevention and management capacities to achieve compliance with the Convention and Protocol; (2) co-operate with other organizations and agencies to ensure a co-ordinated approach to technical co-operation and assistance, avoiding duplication of effort; and (3) promote membership of the Protocol. Additional objectives are the promotion of marine pollution management generally, and, more specifically, of alternatives to dumping, including alternative disposal mechanisms, recycling and the use of cleaner production technologies.

One activity through which these objectives are promoted is to hold meetings of the technical advisory body of the London Convention (the Scientific Group) outside of IMO Headquarters every other year. These meetings have been held in Brazil (1996), South Africa (1998), Australia (2000), and Jamaica (2002), which facilitated the participation of current Contracting Parties in each region and enabled the London Convention to reach out to other countries through technical workshops. One of the objectives of these workshops was to identify technical co-operation and assistance needs. From this identification, project proposals can be drawn up and the countries concerned can be matched with potential donors/partners. For example, during the workshop in Cape Town in 1998, one of the problem areas identified was the difficulty of communication between the stakeholders in the region. This resulted in the establishment of the SEA-WASTE Network for integrated waste-management in Southern and Eastern Africa, funded by the Netherlands Government.

It is in this context that the IMO/UNEP/NEPAD Workshop on Marine Pollution Prevention and Environmental Management in Ports in Southern and Eastern Africa was convened from 26 to 30 April 2004 in Mombasa, Kenya, in conjunction with the 27th meeting of the Scientific Group (3 to 7 May 2004) in the same location. This Workshop was held in English and French.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Workshop was hosted by the Ministry of Transport and Communications and the

National Environment Management Authority in Kenya and organized by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and New Partnership for Africa�s Development (NEPAD).

This Workshop was only possible with the financial contributions from the following organizations: • Environment Canada

• The Government of France

• The Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety in

Germany

• The Government of Japan

• The Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, North Sea Directorate in the Netherlands

• The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the United Kingdom

• The United States Environmental Protection Agency

• The International Maritime Organization (IMO)

• The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

LC 26/INF.6 ANNEX

Page 5

I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface ·········································································································································· 3 Acknowledgements······················································································································· 4 Table of Contents·························································································································· 5 Executive Summary ······················································································································ 6 Workshop Proceedings·················································································································· 8 Opening Ceremony ··········································································································· 8 Briefing on the Workshop ······························································································· 10 Legal Framework for Marine Pollution Management······················································ 11 Sustainable Development � Environmental Management in Ports ·································· 14 Sustainable Development � Waste Management in Eastern and Southern Africa ··········· 18 Introduction to Waste Assessment Guidance··································································· 22 Working Group Sessions································································································· 33 Presentation of National Reports (Priorities and Action Plans) ······································· 42 Closing Ceremony··········································································································· 48 Workshop conclusions and recommendations············································································· 50 ANNEXES: I. Programme of Workshop ································································································ 51 II. List of participants··········································································································· 59


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The IMO/UNEP/NEPAD Workshop on Marine Pollution Prevention and Environmental Management in Ports in Eastern Africa was held from 26 to 30 April 2004 in Mombasa, Kenya, and was sponsored by Contracting Parties to the London Convention, International Maritime Organization (IMO), United Nation Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Ministry of Transport and Communication in Kenya and organized under the London Convention Technical Co-operation and Assistance Programme, in collaboration with the Coastal and Marine Secretariat of the New Partnership for Africa�s Development (NEPAD). The Workshop was attended by 66 delegates from 12 countries in Africa; 10 delegates from non-African countries and 11 delegates representing international organizations. During the Opening Ceremony, Mr. A. Mohamed (Co-ordinator, NEPAD Coastal and Marine Secretariat); Professor C. Khamala (Chairman, National Environmental Management Authority, Kenya); Dr. E. Adler (Programme Co-ordinator, UNEP), Mr. R. Coenen (Head of IMO�s Office of the London Convention), Mr. B. Ondego (Managing Director, Kenya Ports Authority), Mr. G. Ikiara (Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Transport and Communication) and Mr. C. Vogt (Chairman of the London Convention Scientific Group) delivered the welcome and keynote addresses. National and Regional Marine Pollution and Environmental Management Issues The Workshop was organized around the following themes: the legal framework for marine pollution management; identification of issues for environmental management in ports; waste assessment guidance; and waste management. These themes were explored through technical presentations and regional case studies during plenary and working group sessions. The Workshop also included discussion of national and regional priorities in Eastern and Southern Africa. During an open discussion period, workshop participants had the opportunity to list their nation�s concerns for marine pollution prevention. Nine representatives from the African nations commented on their issues of greatest concern. Five non-African countries also discussed some of the problems that they face. The issues discussed fell into the following four categories: pollutants of concern, lack of capacity and enforcement, lack of funding, and the role of international conventions in national policy. In addition to this open discussion, each country presented a national report on its current marine pollution prevention activities. Representatives from each of the 12 African countries discussed actions that had been taken, listed areas where action was needed, identified technical assistance needs, and provided recommendations to regionally address marine pollution issues. The primary recommendations made during the Workshop centred on three themes:

.1 Regional concerns;

.2 Follow-up activities; and,

.3 Requirements for implementation of the 1996 Protocol. The major regional issues and concerns in Eastern Africa included the management of garbage and land-based sources of marine pollution (e.g., sewage), dumping, discharges from ships (e.g., oil, oily bilge water, ballast water), the lack of capacity, public awareness and of

LC 26/INF.6 ANNEX

Page 7

I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

co-ordination when addressing marine pollution issues and the limited capacity to ratify or implement international conventions including the London Convention and Protocol. Workshop Recommendations Regional concerns Regional concerns focused both on type of pollution and difficulties in addressing these pollutants. Marine- and land-based pollution were both discussed as challenges faced by the region. The region has difficulty addressing these issues. Lack of reception facilities and sewage treatment is a factor exacerbated by rapid population growth that is beyond infrastructure development. Many countries lack trained personnel for enforcement, as well as the capacity to implement national legislation. Difficulties also exist in the harmonization and co-ordination between international agreements and national legislation. Countries are seeking assistance to train personnel, set up facilities and create national legislation. Follow-up activities Several steps were recommended as follow-up to the Workshop. The SEAWASTE Network for integrated waste management in Southern and Eastern Africa, was identified as an excellent forum for regional networking. Increased co-ordination between IMO, UNEP and workshop participants was recommended. As many of the participating countries are parties to the 1985 Nairobi Convention, this agreement offered the most suitable platform to address marine pollution prevention issues and needs in the Eastern African region. Countries interested in joining the London Convention�s 1996 Protocol were urged to contact the IMO London Convention Office. Requirements for implementation of the 1996 Protocol Workshop participants recommended the creation of an information package detailing the minimum requirements to accede to the 1996 Protocol. Participants requested a clear description of benefits, costs and consequences a State should consider when becoming a Contracting Party to the this Protocol.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS Introduction The Workshop on Marine Pollution and Environmental Management in Ports in Eastern Africa was held from 26 to 30 April 2004 at the White Sands Hotel in Mombasa, Kenya in conjunction with the twenty-seventh meeting of the Scientific Group (3 to 7 May 2004). The Workshop was sponsored by Contracting Parties to the London Convention, International Maritime Organization (IMO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Ministry of Transport and Communication in Kenya and in collaboration with the Coastal and Marine Secretariat of the New Partnership for Africa�s Development (NEPAD-COSMAR) DAY 1 SESSION 1 Opening Ceremony A choir from the Kenya Port Authority welcomed attendees to the workshop followed by the opening remarks from Mr. Ali Mohamed, Co-ordinator of Coastal and Marine Secretariat of NEPAD. Other speakers gave the welcome and keynote addresses. Professor Canute Khamala, Chairman of Kenya�s National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA), welcomed participants to Mombasa on behalf of his organization. He remarked that it is Kenya�s responsibility to protect both the terrestrial and marine environments. The marine environment, rich with endemics, brings many tourists to Kenya so Mombasa is a fitting location for the workshop as the region�s economy is linked with marine resources and faces many marine- and land-based pollution issues. These problems extend beyond borders, as seen by the effects on Kenya of Somalia�s ocean dumping issues. He stressed that marine pollution prevention is a priority in Kenya and the East African region. Kenya boasts some of the earliest marine protection activities and he had informed an audience of the Nairobi Convention which puts in place sustainable use for the region. He was glad that the Nairobi Convention occurred in Kenya, moreover, he reminded participants that the New Partnership for Africa�s Development (NEPAD) is an historic opportunity to secure sustainable development on the continent and Kenya is honoured to lead these programmes. He also described NEMA, mandated to advise on international agreement, which was established for the general supervision of the environment and would be Kenya�s instrument for the environment. He stated that it is a principle that every person in Kenya has a right to a clean environment and encouraged attendees to participate fully in the African experience as symbolized by NEPAD. He hoped participants would �feel at home in Kenya and Mombasa� and welcomed. On behalf of Dr. Klaus Töpfer, the Executive Director of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Dr. Ellik Adler, Programme Co-ordinator for UNEP�s Regional Seas, welcomed all representatives. Dr. Adler stated that all participants should ask themselves, �What is it? Sustainable development?� for it is a mantra in the environmental world. This workshop reflects the true sense of sustainable development and international management because it brings all sectors together to talk and work. The topic of port management makes the workshop interesting and he believed that all participants would be richer on completing the workshop. He noted that we are all aware suddenly to see that the effects of ports going far into the sea and hoped the workshop will have an open dialogue and dynamic interaction. He welcomed

LC 26/INF.6 ANNEX

Page 9

I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

attendees on behalf of UNEP, the Regional Seas Programme and in conjunction with IMO and stated that participants roles as scientists, government representatives and policy makers would allow the workshop to address problems and reach solutions. Mr. René Coenen, Head of the IMO�s Office of the London Convention, welcomed participants on behalf of IMO and stated that IMO�s main mission is to work with its Member States regarding maritime issues. The IMO, which is the administrator of the London Convention, considered waste management a primary issue and the purpose of this workshop, therefore, is to promote the ratification and implementation of the London Convention, and the 1996 Protocol, and provide a forum for discussion of marine pollution issues and sharing of experiences. He stated that international agreements are important because, among other things, they are the basis and cornerstone of environmental programmes and believes that international agreements could be tools to address local issues. He remarked that the London Convention provides support to reduce and address pollution and that assistance can be provided with the help of other attending countries. Mr. Coenen challenged participants to:

• highlight international agreement relations; • identify proactive solutions; • get answers and give feedback; • share concerns and solutions; and • share co-operation opportunities

He thanked the Ministry of Transport, the National Environmental Management Authority, the Kenya Port Authorities, UNEP and all supporters for sponsoring the Workshop. Mr. Brown Ondego, Managing Director, Kenya Ports Authority (KPA), welcomed the participants to the friendly town of Mombasa and was pleased to note that representatives from 12 African countries were present. The Kenya Ports Authority has a standing committee for environmental protection in collaboration with oil companies and noted that Kenya intends to implement the international agreements and is working to meet the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code) requirements by July 2004. He wished all a successful meeting and concluded by stating that he believes the partnership with international organizations such as UNEP and the Indian Ocean Commission (IOC) will have far-reaching effects addressing marine pollution issues in the region. Dr. Gerishon Ikiara, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Transport and Communication also welcomed the participants and stated that the Kenya government was very proud to host the workshop and the Scientific Group meeting and that they pride themselves as regional leaders. He commented on the importance of marine issues and stated that the scientists will be happy to have this exchange and that the workshop comes at a time when Kenya is implementing the safety and security code, as required, by the end of June 2004. Kenya�s economy is dependent on ports for activities such as fishing and shipping and safety and security are taken very seriously. He believes it a very important theme and thanked the IMO for choosing Kenya as the workshop�s location. It is an honour that this workshop is being held in Africa for a second time and hopes to make a regional corridor that will be popular for business. He thanked the Kenya Ports Authority for working so hard on security of ports. He provided an overview of Kenya�s situation and stated that Kenya is working on an oil spill pollution plan to be completed by the end of 2004. The country is a party to the London Convention and several other international agreements on marine pollution prevention and noted


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

that Kenya is requesting international assistance on regional pollution. Challenges faced by Kenya include international tourism, exploitation of minerals and associated waste, and offshore exploration. Each of these, if not monitored, may lead to pollution and noted that fortunately, Kenya has a large number of NGOs to draw attention to problem situations. He concluded by stating that he hoped the workshop will come up with potential national, regional, and international strategies and declared the workshop officially open. Briefing on the Workshop Mr. Craig Vogt, Chair of the London Convention Scientific Group and Deputy Director of Oceans and Coastal Protection Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, outlined the workshop�s structure and objectives. Following general introductions by all participants to the plenary, he challenged the attendees to learn from each other and praised the exciting and diverse group for their participation. Following an overview of the London Convention and Protocol that emphasized technical assistance and co-operation, he stated that the workshop objectives, from the perspective of the Contracting Parties, are to:

• increase awareness of the London Convention and the 1996 Protocol and their relationship to other relevant international agreements and programmes;

• promote membership of the 1996 Protocol (which will replace the Convention

once it comes into force); • identify barriers to the implementation of the Convention in this region and to

make recommendations for overcoming these barriers; • promote the use of guidelines developed under the Convention for waste

assessment; • promote closer co-operation between the Office of the London Convention and

the UNEP Regional Seas Programme; • promote marine pollution and environmental management generally and, more

particularly, in ports by highlighting issues of current concern; • identify barriers to the implementation of MARPOL 73/78, especially the

management of ship-generated wastes in ports; • identify relevant issues of national concern and to take preliminary steps to

attempt to address these issues; and

• formulate a regional plan for addressing the issues of common concern. Mr. Vogt described the structure of the workshop, which included a field trip to the Port of Mombasa, as well as the following themes for plenary and working group sessions:

• legal framework for marine pollution management; • environmental management in ports; • waste management in Eastern and Southern Africa; and • introduction to the Waste Assessment Guidance (WAGs).


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

He also provided information on national reports that would be presented to the plenary and additional details for speakers. He then challenged participants to make a difference, reminding them that leadership and perseverance at home can make that difference. SESSION 2 Legal Framework for Marine Pollution Management Mr. Craig Vogt moderated the second session of the morning and this session focused on the Legal Framework for Marine Pollution Management. After providing background on the London Convention and 1996 Protocol, Mr. René Coenen discussed waste disposal in the ocean and what has been achieved since the London Convention came into effect:

• unregulated dumping has been halted and is controlled by regulatory programmes; • some waste disposal has been eliminated (industrial wastes, radioactive materials,

incineration of waste at sea); • waste assessment guidelines have been developed for the 1996 Protocol and

Reverse List; and • establishment of technical co-operation and regular meetings to allow for

information exchange. Mr. Coenen described current trends in dumping and stated that 150-400 million tonnes of dredged material are disposed annually in Convention waters and dredged material constituted 80-90% of all material dumped. He described the London Convention and Protocol relationship with other international agreements in that it provides global rules and standards as required under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as well as co-ordination with other agreements. He listed the following meeting priorities under the London Convention: improve compliance and scientific evaluation, and highlight technical assistance and co-operation. He addressed the main advantages of the Protocol stating that it is more modern, comprehensive and restrictive than the London Convention. The Protocol also has better linkages with other environmental agreements and is more pragmatic with its focus on waste categories rather than constituents. The existence of a provision for transitional periods recognizes the different backgrounds of the countries that become Contracting Parties. Potential benefits include better capability, access to meetings, linking of solutions to environmental problems, and the role of the Protocol as another tool in the kit. It also provides access to technical experts and knowledge. Potential costs may vary depending on funds and that although there are no fees, costs exist for national legislation, system administration, field and compliance monitoring activities, and attendance at annual Consultative Meetings and Scientific Groups sessions. He listed the following initial steps for those interested in joining the 1996 Protocol:

• request guidance on national implementation; • contact Parties to the London Convention and Protocol; • attend London Convention meetings as an observer; • access the London Convention Website and contact the Secretariat.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Ms. Geraldine Maingi, Undersecretary, Ministry of Transport and Communications, Kenya, discussed the Status of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973/1978 (MARPOL 73/78) in Kenya. She began by recognizing that the country has taken steps to control sewage, garbage, and other pollutants. In recognition of pollution prevention, the Government of Kenya has implemented a number of actions since 1983 and these included the presentation of Kenya�s Marine Pollution Draft Bill, the Maritime Authority Bill, and the construction of a reception facility that is, regionally, one of a kind. The government is also making headway with a draft maritime industry policy paper and addressing capacity building. Kenya has received some assistance but needs more, especially on capacity building. She stated that there are many challenges, one of which is the threat of pollution that result from the approximately 50 ships along route at any time and another is the lack of public awareness in reporting such threats, which could also be addressed through help from international organizations. A final challenge is the lack of public capacity that is needed for other pieces to be completed for MARPOL 73/78 implementation. Dr. Ellik Adler introduced the background to the Regional Seas Programme and stated that the programme addresses a large area with diverse environmental issues. After providing a list of global conventions relating to regional programmes, he stated that the main objectives of conventions and action plans are to serve as a platform for science-based policy making, development of administrative and legal measures at national and regional levels. The activities of the Regional Seas Programme are focused on land- and marine-based issues. It acts as a liaison with global initiatives, and establishes a platform to assist in integrated management and regulatory implementation of global conventions, programmes and initiatives. He mentioned six elements of the Regional Seas Programme that are needed for project success and viability:

• political will and commitment; • solid financial base; • solid institutional base; • solid legal base; • strong and efficient secretariat; and • access to external funding mechanisms.

Dr. Adler concluded by stating that the Regional Seas Programme is working closely with UNEP�s Global Programme of Action (GPA). Mr. Dixon Waruinge, Programme Officer, United Nations Environment Programme, discussed the Nairobi Convention and referred to the presentation on the Nairobi Convention at the workshop held in Cape Town where problems and concerns were discussed. This time he was going to discuss what should be done, that is, ratification by all parties. The programme objective is to build regional capacity, strengthen institutions, and secure sustainable use of resources. He stated that it is necessary to form partnerships because the Nairobi Convention cannot stand alone. He mentioned possible partnerships with the Global Programme of Action (GPA), Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association (WIOMSA), the World Conservation Union (IUCN), and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) as well as the co-ordination with the mission of the New Partnership for Africa�s Development (NEPAD). Mr. Waruinge discussed the operation of the Nairobi Convention by describing the conference of the parties, government roles, co-ordination with global programmes and agreements, and the establishment of task forces. Programmes under the Nairobi Convention are grounded in assessment, management through the identification of demonstration sites and co-ordination.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Activities examine shoreline changes and land-based sources of pollution, marine sources of pollution, and the strengthening of co-ordination structures. Crosscutting issues are information dissemination and the development of a Global Environment Facility (GEF) project. There is a minimal overlap currently exists among institutions, which does not broaden the picture of what is occurring with marine pollution prevention. He concluded with a discussion on the GEF project. Dr. Yazeed Petersen, Project Officer, International Ocean Institute of Southern Africa, discussed the Southern and East Africa Waste (SEAWASTE) Network, an initiative organized by the Indian Ocean Commission (IOC) and funded by the Netherlands. Dr. Petersen began with background on the Network and its objectives to promote communication and information exchange on pollution and water quality issues in Eastern and Southern Africa. He said that the scope would encompass marine- and land-based pollution prevention and activities included a website, development and implementation of projects, and a newsletter. He invited interested individuals to subscribe to the Network as well as to become, or nominate someone from their country, focal points. There are currently 78 memberships from 15 African countries and 8 non-African countries. SEAWASTE developed a fully functional website, which includes a database and bimonthly email newsletter. The Network identified focal points, and created co-operative links with other programmes and projects. He stated that as yet there are no representatives from Angola, Somalia, and La Réunion and invited representatives from these countries to join. The objective of the website is to provide a clearinghouse of relevant information and a collection of tools for information sharing. The SEAWASTE Network website address is http://seawaste.uwc.ac.za and includes a demonstration of facilities for site members, as well as personal email for efficient communication of announcements, articles and links. Dr. Petersen concluded by stating that the SEAWASTE Network should be membership driven with proactive participation. Dr. Melckzedeck Osore, Senior Research Scientist, Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute, described the Indian Ocean Commission�s (IOC) efforts to address scientific uncertainties in the management of the marine environment. He showed a map of IOC Western Indian Ocean activities and pointed out that there are 12 countries along the coast, from Eritrea to Tanzania, where these activities take place. Additionally, there are another 10 countries along the Atlantic coast of Africa where activities are underway. He discussed ocean data and information network systems, such as the coastal observation system and Global Sea Observing System (GLOSS Network) in Africa, showing locations for East and West Africa. Data and information management can further develop national ocean data analysis and management efforts. He discussed the emphasis put on product development and information exchange and stated that IOC is attempting to use a �training through research� approach and also developing a repository of electronic publications. This repository will provide digitized library materials to increase information access for all partners. He concluded by stating that UNESCO provides a portal to access crosscutting issues.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

SESSION 3 Sustainable Development � Environmental Management in Ports Dr. Chris Vivian, Topic Leader at the Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Sciences of the United Kingdom and Vice-Chair of the London Convention Scientific Group, moderated the third session, Sustainable Development: Environmental Management in Ports: Identification of Issues. Mr. Jim Osborne, consultant, discussed land- and marine-based discharges. He began by listing a range of challenges, which included habitat loss, nutrient pollution and invasive species. He stated that 80% of all pollution comes from land-based discharges but his presentation focused ship-based pollution sources. He discussed the following vessel discharges: sewage, bilge water, ballast water, other liquid waste streams, hazardous waste, and solid waste. Additional concerns are vessels with advanced pollution prevention technologies that are turned off because of the high expense of running them. Possible land-based discharges discussed by Mr. Osborne include shipyards and maintenance facilities. He described potential discharges, activities of concern, potential sources of contamination, and potential solutions, as well as some types of technology solutions and concluded with a brief discussion on oil spill response. Question: Are there alternatives to dispersants as a solution for oil spills? Answer: Oil spill responders often go against the use of dispersants due to their potential

toxicity. Newer dispersants have overcome some of the toxicity issues. Given the right conditions, dispersants can be an acceptable method, such as when oil is moving towards a sensitive area like mangroves.

Dr. Lynn Jackson, Acting Director, Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP), discussed management of ballast water discharge and the impact of invasive alien species. After referring to the impact of invasive alien species as one of the greatest threats to biodiversity, Dr. Jackson listed the three categories of impacts as ecological, economic, and health. She provided several examples of species including, the Chinese mitten crab and the comb jelly in the Black Sea and that the impact on human health may include toxic dinoflagellates and species carrying cholera or other diseases. Pathways for these invasive alien species may occur through introduction and ballast water exchange. Examples of how intentional and unintentional introductions can occur are: intentional introductions can include aquaculture and fishing, while unintentional introductions can occur through canal developments, marine debris, escape or release from aquaria or shipping. Turning the focus of her discussion to ballast water, Dr. Jackson stated that ballast water is a shipping related vector. There are 3-10 billion tonnes of ballast water transported per year and that over 7,000 species are in transit at any one time, however, there has been development of ballast water management measures. Shipboard measures include risk reduction and ballast water treatment and port/shore side measures also exist. She believes that ballast water exchange is not really viable as an effective means of control and went on to described standards of ballast water management and shipboard controls. Regarding the ballast water treaty, Dr. Jackson stated that her concerns had been that too much emphasis was put on the ships and not the coastal states but that this has now been addressed. She was referring to the port water management plans, the development of national and port ballast water management plans, and regional initiatives, such as the Mombasa Port Survey. Dr. Jackson gave a brief overview of the Global Invasive Species Programme.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Question: Consequences after introduction becomes the problem of Ministry of Environment, but the introduction is an issue for the Ministry of Transport. There is currently not a lot of overlap and this should be addressed.

Answer: GISP is attempting to develop a method to address this issue and institutionalize it.

Dr. Tom Fredette, Biologist, United States Army Corps of Engineers, discussed the environmental risks associated with dredging such as plume management and resources of concern, including sea grass beds, oyster beds, and spawning areas. Dr. Fredette provided an overview of potential dredging impact and effects that may occur during transport and at the disposal site. His description included a discussion on physical, chemical, and biological impacts. Potential impacts include circulation changes, entrainment, habitat modification/loss, fishery migration, blockage, and noise. He noted that potential effects at a disposal site may include increased suspended material, burial of species below, erosion, and sediment loss. He also discussed the potential impacts of disposal, such as habitat loss/modification, sediment resuspension, wave climate impacts, impacts on shipping, and obstacles to fishing. He went on to described potential chemical impacts, such as contaminated sediments, and the potential biological impact from contaminated sediments that may include loss of species productivity, biodiversity, loss of fish resources, bioaccumulation, and human health. Dr. Fredette concluded with a description of the following solutions: predredge assessment, disposal site selection, monitoring, technical alternatives and mitigation. Ms. Mandisa Mondi, Executive Manager Environment, Health and Safety, National Ports Authority of South Africa, described the integration of sustainability issues into port environmental management using Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) through a case study of the Port of Cape Town, South Africa. Ms. Mondi stated that challenges revolved around Cape Town port-city planning, but this is the reality and challenges must be addressed. The Port�s challenges are primarily marine ecology and economic issues. Ms. Mondi said that the Port needs to be sustainable and, in response to its growth, the development of a plan is essential. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is a process to develop a management plan and that the aim of SEA guidelines is to integrate the concept of sustainability into strategic decision-making. She went on to explain the legal framework and legislation of SEA by first stating that there is no legal requirement. The National Ports Authority approves the SEA report and sees it as a commitment to sustainable port management. The plan would be a link between the decision-making process and the port-planning process. Phase 1 encompasses scoping, Phase 2 addresses strategic assessment, and Phase 3 provides the sustainability framework for future port development. Ms. Mondi then described the emphasis on stakeholder engagement and the methods used to strengthen involvement. She discussed strategic issues such as marine ecosystems, marine archaeology, shoreline stability, and port accessibility, port-city land use planning, socio-economic/corporate social investment and economic impact of ports, including institutional arrangements that involve the following forums to facilitate implementation: port-city, port-users, and port-stakeholders. She briefly touched upon the sustainability framework (SEA Report) and discussed implementation efforts. In closing her presentation, Ms. Mondi summarized the SEA process by stating that there is a lot to be accomplished, but more so if the ports receive assistance. She reviewed the implementation guidelines, which include baseline research, consideration for port planning, consideration for port options and management, monitoring, and stakeholder engagement. She described the learning points, stating that SEA focused on


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

providing a framework to promote sustainable development and that many believe it essential to link SEA to existing decision-making processes, as the sustainability framework needs to be supported by information systems for economic, social and biophysical concerns. Ms. Mercy Wambugu, Operations Manager, Kenya Shell, described Kenya�s National Oil Spill Response Contingency Plan. While discussing the regulatory framework, Ms. Wambugu provided background on Kenya�s involvement with the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation 1990. The National Oil Spill Response Committee, formed in 1994, began OPRC implementation. There are three parts to the contingency planning and these are information gathering, strategy development and operational planning. The Kenya coast has risks related to oil activities. She also discussed the many resources threatened, including marine life, beaches, mangroves, coral, fisheries, the tourism industry, seawater intake and the Port of Mombasa. The third part of the operational plan developed in the contingency plan includes a 3-tiered response system. She provided a detailed description of the plans for Tier 1 (small operational spills), Tier 2 (medium spills) and Tier 3 (huge spill, call for international resources). The National Oil Spill Contingency Plan is currently in the draft stage. Ms. Wambugu stated that it does not assess spills from international vessels nor does it include inland waters. Steps forward for addressing oil spills include completion of the legal framework and establishment of a maritime agency. Ms. Wambugu discussed the location of response centres, outlined the organizational structure, and described the personnel and equipment required. She also listed current challenges such as an outdated merchant shipping act, proposed legislation that has not yet been passed, lack of enactment of international law, the low number of new market entrants and the lack of oil response equipment. Question: How does the plan deal with co-operation among neighbouring countries? Answer: So far there was nothing in the draft addressing this issue. Question: Does Kenya�s green lobby have �green people� that come and clean up? Answer: Yes, there are people who assist in the clean-up if an oil spill occurs. Question: Are copies of plan available? Answer: It is still in draft, but copies will be available when it is finished. Question: Could today�s oil spill response capacity deal with a spill as large as the one that

occurred at the Port of Mombasa in 1988? I am concerned about the major oil spills in Kenya that are destroying mangroves.

Answer: We have the capacity to deal with up to Tier 2 spills (medium) but need international assistance for Tier 3. We have capacity to accept 2,000 tonnes of oil at the Port.

Question: Regarding principle 6 of the OPRC Convention 1990, development is key to

economic well being. Principle 6 with long-term economic benefits is very good. How do we sell this?

Answer: It is a complex issue. The key is dialogue. We need to bring industry on board and understand their issue and how to address it.

Dr. Ellik Adler briefly described the Global Programme of Action (GPA), stating that co-ordination of the non-binding global action programme was adopted in Washington, DC in 1995. It was implemented by UN agencies, the private sector, NGOs, and regional organizations


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

for the purpose of controlling, reversing, and preventing the degradation of the marine environment. Emphasizing the importance of coasts and their resources, Dr. Adler discussed how the acceleration of social and economic development has increased the burden on waterfronts. He mentioned that the large areas, artificially altered dredging, and reclamation of ports and harbours have seriously impacted coasts. Referring back to the environmental management strategies for port management that he felt were so well presented by Ms. Mandisa Mondi earlier in the workshop, Dr. Adler said that the GPA was developed with ten key principles. After outlining the key principles, he concluded that these GPA principles focus on aspects of port development, minimization of physical alteration, and the destruction and modification of habitat. He noted that the guidelines are active and may be updated. Mr. Jim Osborne, Consultant, Canada, moderated the case studies portion of the Environmental Management in Ports: Identification of Issues. Mr. Shreenath Parahoo, Port Emergency and Environment Controller, Mauritius Ports Authority, discussed port development and port/environmental issues in industrial development and waste management. In Mauritius, the port�s area has expanded and activities have increased. To address issues at the port, Mauritius recently set up a port safety and environmental committee. The committee addresses the following key issues: the identification and regulation of major hazardous installations, the relocation of major hazardous installations, the establishment of a national policy to protect workers and the general public, establishment of a port disaster management system, and the creation of a port inspectorate. A review of port extension development projects studied the impact of spills and potentially polluting vessels, as well as waste disposal, wind during cargo handling, and climate change. The following factors were considered for port extension projects: water quality, air quality, traffic generators, marine ecology, and fisheries resources. After describing how each of these factors could be impacted by port extension projects, Mr. Parahoo indicated that the Mauritius Port Authority is establishing a port inspectorate to deal with these issues. The inspectorate will also address waste oil reception facilities and ship waste management. He believes the new integration of issues is an example of the good vision with which Mauritius is trying to manage its ports. Mr. Asiva Coopen, Nautical Surveyor, Ministry of Shipping, described the development of the port ballast water management plan for Mauritius. As required under the new ballast water treaty, Mauritius will establish a ballast water management plan. Mr. Coopen noted that prior to the development of a ballast-water plan, it is necessary to have national laws and regulations that follow IMO guidelines and this is currently under development for Mauritius. He emphasized the importance of contacting stakeholders during this process and also stressed that any plan must understand the shipping business, in particular, international shipping. While it is important to consider all issues in ballast water management, it is also important that the regulations being developed should not hinder trade. Mr. Coopen concluded with a discussion of the ballast water management plan which will include ship-port communication systems, requirements for intake and discharge of ballast water, availability of de-ballasting zones, and port facilities for sediments. Mr. Japhet Ombogo, Process Engineer, East Africa Marine Environmental Management Company Ltd, presented the topic entitled �Addressing the Realities in Providing Adequate Port Reception Facilities in Kenya.�. Following background on the rationale for port reception facilities, Mr. Ombogo briefly discussed the goals of these facilities. Noting that reception facilities are in line with MARPOL 73/78 and the Kenya Environmental Management Act, he


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

explained that a key benefit is retaining port compliance. He described the waste treatment facility and plant layout, as well as the treatment stages and also charted the monthly sludge treatment report and plant capacity utilization. Making the port facility operational has been very difficult, said Mr. Ombogo. The operational efficacy of the plant would benefit from legislative action. Mr. Ombogo concluded by stating that the community and country can benefit from the facility. Mr. Dominque Bucas, Navy Commander�s Deputy, Navy - in Charge of State Action for the Sea, La Réunion, discussed POLMAR, the French organization for maritime pollution, as well as the refuge zone concept in crisis response. He began with an explanation of how this organization differs from a coast guard system. The concept for POLMAR was a result of several wrecks, including the Amoco Cadiz and the Prestige. In this system, a central authority co-ordinates a flexible inter-administrative organization. Mr. Bucas provided an overview of the national organization, as well as the regional organization of the maritime prefecture. The main missions are search and rescue, anti-pollution, and law and order. The mission of POLMAR is to prevent, to prepare, to fight, and to inform in which the protection of a sensitive environment, as well as the port, is the primary consideration. Prevention is key and can occur through maritime approach, surveillance, and administrative police. The refuge zone concept, which is a formalized procedure, should also be addressed and accidents may still occur. To prepare to respond to these accidents, Mr. Bucas stressed the need to involve all departments and establish environmental, economic and social criteria to address the issues, as well as establish an inventory of spill response capacities. In the event of an accident, he listed four phases to fighting it: alert services to human salvage, intervention at sea, transition towards coast, and fight from land. The final step is to inform. Mr. Bucas concluded with a brief review of the refuge zone concept in crisis response. DAY 2 SESSION 4 Sustainable Development � Waste Management in Eastern and Southern Africa Mr. Ali Mohamed, of NEPAD-COSMAR Co-ordinator moderated the second day�s first session, Sustainable Development: Waste Management in Eastern and Southern Africa. This session was consisted of regional overviews and local case studies. Dr. Daniel Munga, Senior Research Scientist, Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute, provided an overview of waste management in Eastern and Southern Africa and began by discussing the biophysical characteristics of Kenya. In describing current pollution trends in the region, Dr. Munga noted the increase in population and pollution, as well as rapid urbanization. These trends, particularly rapid urbanization, result in lack of planning, inadequate housing, and problems with water supply and sanitation. These trends are also related to increased-waste generation and higher demand for facilities. He referred to the main wastes, which are sewage, wastewater, municipal storm water, and effluent. Emphasizing that coastal areas have inadequate facilities for treatment and disposal, Dr. Munga listed the regional trends in treatment of coastal areas. In the case of industrial wastewater management, no central treatment is the trend. Mauritius has some waste reception facilities but of limited capacities.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

In describing solid waste management, he noted that most disposal sites are inadequate and there are generally no provisions for safe disposal of industrial or hazardous wastes. The consequences of these trends are contamination of surface and ground water, pollution and destruction of critical habitats, and threats to public health. In his closing remarks, Dr. Munga referred to the strategies and options that exist in the region:

• policy and institutional framework; • infrastructure development for service delivery; • innovative methods of waste management research; • public awareness and participation; and • private sector involvement.

Mr. Akunga Momanyi, Lecturer, University of Nairobi Law Faculty, presented an overview of legal frameworks for marine pollution prevention in Eastern and Southern Africa. Mr. Momanyi described the idea of legal and institutional frameworks as well as global instruments such as the IMO conventions including MARPOL 73/78 and UNEP Regional Seas Programme, also such regional instruments as the Nairobi Convention and NEPAD. He referred to the Nairobi Convention�s Protocol Concerning Co-operation in Combating Marine Pollution in Cases of Emergency in the Eastern African Region, 1985, and stated that it is probably the closest the region has come to addressing marine pollution through legal procedures. He believes NEPAD could act as a continent-wide catalyst for the protection of marine and coastal environment, as well as the strengthening of pollution control and port management. Mr. Momanyi also presented a general overview of national instruments. In general, national laws are sectoral. Marine pollution control is administered under a range of ministries that varies for each country and may include the Ministries of Transport, of Environment, or the National Ports Authorities. He raised the issue of why implementation often does not occur and initiated this discussion through a series of questions:

• With regard to the global instruments, in particular the conventions and treaties, how many of the countries of the region have ratified or otherwise become States Parties?

• If States are parties, to what extent have they implemented those instruments in

their own countries?

• What are the difficulties, if any, towards full or even substantial implementation?

• Why have some countries failed, neglected or refused to become States Parties to conventions and treaties, some quite old and famous?

• While the Nairobi Convention and its protocols have been ratified by all Member

States, what is the state of individual country domestication and implementation? Do they need assistance to implement their obligations?

• What national legislations and institutions exist, and how appropriate and

effective are they to deal with marine pollution control and ports management? Mr. Momanyi concluded with the following proposals:


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

• detailed legal and institutional studies should be initiated to consolidate knowledge on the state of marine pollution control and ports management in the region;

• based on the outcomes of the studies, appropriate interventions should be initiated

to help the region and individual countries do better in marine pollution control and ports management; and

• the London Convention Secretariat should initiate a process of regionalizing some

of the provisions of the London Convention and the 1996 Protocol by, in particular, assisting the Nairobi Convention Secretariat to establish a Dumping Protocol to the Nairobi Convention.

Comment: Developing protocol is an unnecessary exercise when similar global instruments

already exist. A protocol is not necessary for the Nairobi Convention. The problem is not additional protocols. The problem is implementation. If countries would comply with the OPRC Convention 1990, an additional protocol would not be needed. It is necessary to encourage countries to implement existing legislation.

Comment: A new protocol may not be necessary, but may help a country with compliance. Comment: Some countries may be hesitant to sign international conventions that may

become too binding. An alternative could be to focus on operational facilities in order for marine pollution prevention efforts not to be tied up in diplomacy. The international instruments contain the overarching issues, but it is the regional instruments that have the structures to implement these ideas.

Mr. Brian Watt, Maritime and Pollution Consultant, Port Management Association of Eastern and Southern Africa (PMAESA), initially talked on the 2004 International Ballast Water Convention and its impact on port management. He outlined the work of PMAESA, describing its location and background. After a detailed description of ballast water and the international ballast water management certificate, Mr. Watt described the ballast water treaty. He discussed the general obligations for the treaty, as well as the applications of the Convention. Apart from providing a general overview of the Convention, he described a few of the articles in depth, in particular, he elaborated on the control and transfer of harmful aquatic organisms, as well as the development of national policies, strategies, or programmes for ballast water management. He believes that the port should ensure its countries are compliant. He addressed sediment reception facilities, stating that some ports should have these facilities but noted that small ships do not need to use them, however, this would require co-operation with environmental organizations for safe disposal near port. Mr. Watt discussed survey and certification, commenting that the port or port authority could carry this out for administrations and noted that it would require a close relationship. In describing the article referring to the inspection of ships, he noted that security officers receive increasing workloads due to heightened security concerns and felt that environmental representatives should be more involved. Referring to the portion of the Convention focused on technical assistance and co-operation, Mr. Watt said that he sees this as another opportunity for better port management in which information may be shared among other authorities and within national laws, parties may co-operate actively. In his final comments, Mr. Watts recommended


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

that states start using IMO ballast water forms, as the collection of these forms may better illustrate ballast water movement for the development of ballast water policies. Ms. Mirriam Tenyane, Environment, Health, and Safety Portfolio Manager, National Ports Authority of South Africa, discussed ballast water management in the Port of Saldanha, South Africa. After providing a description of the location, trade and vessel movements of Saldanha Bay Port, which is one of the 7 ports in South Africa and one of the largest, she further elaborated on trade. Iron ore composes 95% of exports, while petroleum is the largest import. There were 880 trade movements in the Port of Saldanha by the end of March 2004 and although traffic is decreasing, vessel size is increasing. This port was selected as a demonstration site due to its size, high volume of ballast water discharged, and its ecological sensitivity. In addition to a RAMSAR site near the port, mussel beds are also located in close proximity to the port. Of South African invasive species introductions, 41% have been introduced through ballast water and yet there has been no formal ballast water policy in place, said Ms. Tenyane. She commented that until now it has been voluntary compliance and stated that development of management policy and port management ballast water plans are underway. One ballast water management initiative was the Saldanha Port Survey, which was the first South African port baseline survey targeting alien species. Its purpose is the creation of a database of the port�s native population, as well as its known invasive species, in order to develop a catalogue of introduced species that will also track new species through subsequent monitoring. Ms. Tenyane described the survey structure and reviewed the standard protocols used for the survey. She noted that in the final results of the survey, 8 alien species were found, four of which were previously unrecognized. Ms. Tenyane introduced the Ballast Water Risk Assessment (BWRA), which is a South African draft policy providing a blanket-based approach and not a risk/selective-based approach. This approach perceives every vessel as a possible risk. For BWRA, a number of workshops were held the first of which was held in March 2002 and was very hands on. It identified critical information gaps and inputs to be completed for the second workshop, which was held in August 2002, and set �homework� goals prior to the workshop for the consultants and local teams involved. The results were discussed at the workshop and the final wrap-up meeting was held in March 2003 at which fine-tuning, system updates, and a user manual was provided. Ms. Tenyane described the BWRA methods and then presented the results which showed that ports with similar conditions (temperature, climate, chemistry, etc.) are more at risk ecologically to the introduction of non-native species. Ms. Tenyane concluded by outlining the ballast water management plan for the Port of Saldanha that resulted from the workshop attended by the major stakeholders. The workshop focused on developing a practicable management plan and the draft was to be finalized in May 2004. Mr. Andrianarison Aurelian, Co-ordinator of Maritime Transport, Madagascar Transport Ministry � Maritime, described current issues for ports in Madagascar. Mr. Aurelian noted that one key issue for Madagascar is the liberalization of ports. Madagascar is focusing on the improvement of its technical plan which encompasses economic, technical, commercial and environmental components. According Mr. Aurelian, its development is important for the co-ordination of environmental issues. The plan also includes the issue of cleaning ships and chemical/hazardous products they carry. Ballast water is an additional problem faced by Madagascar. Ballast water policies differ between locations, Mr. Aurelian noted, and it is important that national guidance be provided that conforms to the international agreements on ballast water and briefly described Madagascar�s


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

emergency plan. Construction and maintenance of ports are current environmental problems for Madagascar and he stated that there is funding with which to resolve these issues that were recognized by legislation enacted in 1999. He stated that waste treatment of used water is an additional concern and referred to efforts to ratify MARPOL 73/78. Madagascar, in co-operation with the World Bank, produced a study on technical assistance and identified needs and another study is underway on the effects of dredged material waste. Mr. Aurelian finished by stating that Madagascar is actively attempting to establish co-operative relationships with other countries in order to better address these issues. SESSION 5 Introduction to Waste Assessment Guidance Dr. Gi Hoon Hong, Senior Scientist, Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute, moderated the Introduction to Waste Assessment Guidance session. Mr. Craig Vogt introduced waste management principles. He emphasized the need for comprehensive strategies and co-ordination to prevent pollution due to increasing pressure on the sea. One method, Mr. Vogt stressed, is to minimize waste generation. Waste prevention audits, as well as minimizing production, are key to this reduction. Waste management principles use a tiered approach composed of a hierarchy of potential waste management options. The waste disposal principles are: avoid medium transfer, use scientifically based procedures, integrate waste management strategies, and manage general waste. He emphasized the need to use good science in application of the principle. The integrated waste management strategy uses a geographically focused watershed approach that is holistic and involves stakeholders and partnerships. In summarizing his points, Mr. Vogt stressed the need for a scientifically based, integrated watershed approach. He concluded with his favourite environmental message, �No wetlands, no seafood.� Question: A representative from South Africa stated that in 2000, foot and mouth disease

passed through ports and was classified as low hazard. Why does it seem that other Annexes of MARPOL 73/78 are given more strength than Annex 5? If we are serious about enforcing, how do we do that?

Answer: The main reason why garbage receives more attention than oil and hazardous waste is that it is more visible. Enforcement needs to be worked into day-to-day activities and requires that all ports have systems. If the structures are in place, enforcement is easier. An issue may be that the focus is on what went wrong when it should be on how enforcement should work.

Comment: US response is to provide a reward. If an individual witnesses a dumping

violation and reports it to the Department of Justice, the individual will receive a reward. This can be an effective enforcement tool. The US statutory provision (33 USC 1908(a)) referring to this reward can be viewed at www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/33/1908.html. The US offered to provide additional information to interested participants.

Comment: South Africa offered a final comment that could target Annex 5 of MARPOL 73/78

with the inspection of and co-operation among agencies in all countries.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Mr. Frans Tjallingii, Co-ordinator for International Affairs, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, North Sea Directorate, addressed key components of the Waste Assessment Guidance. He recognized there are many questions that develop when discussing the Waste Assessment Guidance (WAG) from the London Convention. What is it? How does it relate to dumping? What is its outline? He stated that the WAG includes a large body of knowledge to aid in the implementation of the London Convention and Protocol. It guides the user through whether a material can be dumped and includes proper care. It is a whole integrated set by which to implement waste management principles and is a platform to share knowledge. A training set is also available to explain how to use the WAG. Mr. Tjallingii noted that the five steps composing the key components of the WAG provide an approach to dumping. The London Convention provides a description of wastes considered for dumping while the 1996 Protocol offers the reverse list approach. Stating that implementation occurs through national legislation, which must be equal to the Protocol or more stringent, Mr. Tjallingii believes that the clarity of the reverse list approach means that the Protocol is easier to implement. He described the steps of the waste assessment but emphasized that the WAG is a tool for decision-making and is not prescriptive. Mr. Tjallingii described the five steps of the WAG:

• waste characterization; • waste management options; • dumpsite selection; • impact assessment and monitoring; and • permitting.

In conclusion, he stressed that the WAG is a framework for governments that reduces duplication of efforts but also leaves room for individual adaptation. Question: The London Convention waste guidance was developed by developed countries.

In your opinion, is the model and its structural logic as applicable to developing countries?

Answer: It is applicable but each country needs to individualize it to make it its own process from the framework. The framework allows room for interpretation. The simple answer is �yes,� the basis of the framework is applicable. The principles are simple and easy to apply.

Ms. Linda Porebski�s focus was not on MARPOL 73/78 waste but on materials that can be disposed of in accordance with the London Convention and Protocol. She began with an overview of legislation and the general obligations. Waste characterization is primarily hazard assessment. Ms. Porebski described the steps for dumping and noted that under the London Convention there is more latitude for what to dump while the Protocol is more stringent. She stressed that eligibility must be determined before waste assessment. The Protocol�s reverse list details the waste that can be dumped under the WAGs. The goal of characterization, Ms. Porebski remarked, is to assess the waste material�s potential impact on environmental and human health. It is necessary to consider, among other things, the following characterization factors: the origin, amount, properties, persistence, toxicity and bioaccumulation. Ms. Porebski described the specific considerations for each waste material on the reverse list. The main concerns for sewage/organic matter are organic enrichment, pathogens, parasites, cargo or packaging, as well as additives and preservatives. She said, the concern with fish waste is consumption, but aquaculture is not included. The difference in the language between the Convention and the Protocol for inert, inorganic geological material complicates this category. The assessment of this material�s impact on physical habitat, however, is the primary concern.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Physical impacts are also a concern for bulky waste, but disposal may only be considered by small island states. Noting that these materials are unlikely to do chemical or biological harm, she remarked that reduction of bulky waste materials is the primary issue for vessels and platforms. Stating that dredged material is a large category, Ms. Porebski focused on characterization issues, such as physical and chemical characterization. She stated that previous assessments may be used for characterizations, but emphasized that if there is not enough pre-existing information to characterize the waste, it is not recommended to proceed with the assessment. Impact questions must be addressed. A fixed obligation of the London Convention and Protocol, she said, is national action list levels. It is required that contracting parties set national action levels under the Protocol as a method for screening wastes. Describing these action levels, she stated that States must have an upper limit above which disposal will not be allowed. After showing examples of lower action levels, Ms. Porebski discussed bioassessment tools and stated that they should be done to assist in reaching a decision on whether to dispose waste material cannot be reached. Question: If fish waste volume for 50 permits a year is 200-300 tonnes, globally

5,000 tonnes/year, why does Canada issue permits for fish waste and not make fishmeal from it?

Answer: Fishmeal is created on Canada�s west coast. On the east coast, people are isolated from fishmeal plants. Permits are used to dump fish waste only if fishmeal plants are broken down or inaccessible.

Mr. John Lishman, Environmental Protection Specialist, US Environmental Protection Agency, described waste management options. Mr. Lishman focused his discussion on the Protocol, but remarked that his talk is accurate for the London Convention as well. He stated that the key elements are the reverse list, dumping alternatives, and management and control of the dumping list. Noting that the London Convention contains a ban on industrial waste, Mr. Lishman mentioned that the intentions and eligibility of the Protocol are similar. Dumping alternatives should be considered. This obligation exists in the Protocol�s Article 4(1).2, which is reinforced by Annex 2. It is important for permitting regimes to look to the future when dumping of a material may not be permitted. Waste prevention is another key component of waste management. In the waste management hierarchy, minimization of waste generation and reuse/recycle alternatives should be considered prior to dumping. He stressed the utility of the waste prevention audit. Waste characterization should help determine if land disposal is preferable or if waste can be reduced during the production process. Mr. Lishman noted that contaminant reduction methods for sewage sludge and dredged material differ from other waste materials. For those materials, it is necessary to examine what contaminants enter and where opportunities exist for better management practices. He described reuse/recycle options for organic wastes; inert, inorganic geological materials; bulky wastes; platforms and vessels; and dredged material. He emphasized that media transfer should be avoided when considering disposal alternatives as stated in Protocol Article 3(3). The impact of disposing a waste in the ocean should be compared with alternative disposal options in order to fully understand the disposal options. He remarked that comparative risk assessment is flexible because it does not have much guidance. Mr. Lishman concluded by listing the three guiding principles of waste management options:

• avoid ocean dumping; • obligated to look for environmentally sound alternatives to ocean; and • where there are no alternatives to dumping, need to keep an eye to the future.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Question: It might be difficult to find alternatives to dumping for damaged fishing vessels or

in vessel emergencies. Answer: First, if fishing vessels are placed for use as artificial reefs, these are not subject to

ocean dumping permits. Domestic laws should address. Second, in the case of emergency vessel disposal at sea, the Protocol has two provisions to override permit. Force majeure allows for disposal.

Comment: Madagascar noted that it could provide a document on vessel to reef use. Dr. Chris Vivian, Topic Leader, the United Kingdom�s Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Sciences (CEFAS), discussed identification of disposal sites. Dr. Vivian began by stating that although his presentation is a general overview, there is a focus on site selection for dredged material disposal. The presentation is also based on the assumption that materials have previously been characterized and assessed. The approach to site selection encompasses different levels of detail and provides flexibility to do what the site requires. There are no set guidelines. Site selection occurs through a sequential series of steps and described the eight steps of the site selection procedure: assessment of need for new site, identification of potentially suitable areas, identification of site requirements related to waste, selection of candidate sites, site examination for adverse impacts, comparison of candidate sites, assessment of acceptability, and site selection. He reminded participants that a needs assessment requires a forward-looking approach as well as an examination of existing capacity to determine necessity of dispose at sea. Dr. Vivian noted the need to recognize potentially incompatible uses, such as military exercise areas, protected areas, and recreation areas. Using a site selection process that occurred in Bath, UK, Dr. Vivian demonstrated how GIS could be used to exclude areas that did not meet criteria such as erosion depths, shipping use and fishing use. Although site requirements are waste specific, he stated the necessity to look at physical requirements, biological requirements, and size. Two sites should be selected for comparison. Recognizing waste characteristics and applicable disposal method, sites should be evaluated for potential impacts. These impact evaluations should include short- and long-term scope; proximity; and chemical, physical, biological and ecological impacts. Site comparison occurs through evaluation of potential impacts, how well the site meets criteria, and risk assessment. After results are examined of each site�s assessment, it is possible to determine if one of the sites is suitable. Dr. Vivian stressed the possibility of reconsidering site selection. It may also be necessary to accept adverse effects or to decide that dumping is not feasible. Question: What is the cost for site selection? Answer: In the UK, this process takes at least 18 months. If start from scratch, the cost is

on average about £100,000. Large sites can be £10-20 million. Question: Who pays? Answer: Applicant pays the port authority. Question: If a company would like a new dumping area, is a high cost for site selection

sufficient reason to require the company to continue dumping at its current location?

Answer: This can depend. Even if dumping continues at the same site, it may be necessary to re-evaluate dumping at that location. Some sites, such as those in estuaries, do not alter greatly over time, but may still require at least a minimum desk assessment of project.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Question: In identifying disposal sites, companies may select sites located near communities

that are unable to be involved in the process rather than more vocal communities. How do we ensure that all communities are involved in the process?

Answer: All stakeholders should be incorporated into the process. Stakeholders like environmental groups and local communities need to be involved. The site selection process must consult with all relevant stakeholders in order to have a complete picture with which to make the selection.

Mr. John Lishman, Environmental Protection Specialist, United States Environmental Protection Agency, moderated the afternoon portion of Session 5: Introduction to Waste Assessment Guidance. Ms. Linda Porebski discussed the permitting process. If a state signs on to the London Convention and Protocol, a permitting system must be established. The regulatory regime includes:

• prohibition of disposal of any wastes except by permit; • designation of a national authority; • development of adequate enforcement; and • establishment of consultation networks.

The authorities involved are usually federal, environmental, and navigation delegations from the regions and states. Ms. Porebski provided examples of authorities for a couple countries. Templates of laws are available to illustrate steps to be taken by regulatory authorities. Ms. Porebski noted the involvement of consultation networks, which include the stakeholders and experts in the field. The permit process is established by developing a standard list of questions for applicants. Noting that examples are available, she explained that application forms should provide a discussion of who, what, where, when, why, and how. Applications allow the regulatory body to see if there is compliance. Applicants are responsible for collecting and providing data, but she stressed that there needs to be a quality check. Ms. Porebski described application submission, types of permits and examples of approaches in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, South Africa and Japan. Ms. Porebski concluded with a discussion of terms and conditions, permit issuance, and follow-up. Question: Many sources are responsible (e.g. runoff from storm) for much of what is

dredged. What about contaminants for which no one claims responsibility? Answer: It is important to focus on source control until reduction of contaminants is

possible. The permitting process should include the cost of this contamination and should include an action plan to trigger action on source reduction. Currently, Canada�s permitting process is user pay as opposed to polluter pay.

Dr. Tom Fredette, Biologist, United States Army Corps of Engineers, described environmental impact assessment and monitoring. Impact assessment involves:

• characterizing the waste and the dumpsite; • predicting physical and chemical changes; • predicting and accepting biological response and risk to humans; and • issuance of permits.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Dr. Fredette stressed the need to examine different changes. First, he said, are ephemeral changes that have short-term impacts found to be acceptable and then noted that there might also be permanent physical and chemical changes. He described several aspects of impact assessment. It is necessary to ask tiered questions, he said, but monitoring programmes do not have to be complex. Good monitoring, stated Dr. Fredette, has good questions that provide answers for management and described an example of sewage sludge off New York, as well as a dredged material disposal area monitoring system in New England. Dr. Fredette discussed the Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS) and showed an example of this project in Rhode Island Sound and in describing the natural bowl-shaped basin used for disposal, Dr. Fredette explained that a berm was added to create a barrier and sediment was deposited by particle size, i.e. coarse particles in shallow areas and fine particles deposited in deeper regions. Dr. Fredette concluded with a description of several sediment monitoring techniques. Mr. Frans Tjallingii presented a case study on the Dutch experience with environmental impact assessment development, disposal and monitoring of dredged material. Mr. Tjallingii began with a description of the legal and policy framework for dredged material management in the Netherlands. Following an overview of the quantity and quality of dredged material in which he noted that quality is improving, he outlined the permitting procedure for dredged material in the Netherlands. There are 5 designated sites, only one of which required an environmental impact assessment and discussed the results of the ongoing general monitoring in which no toxicity has been found. Mr. Tjallingii discussed action levels as evaluation criteria. Lower action levels provide an idea of quality and background levels and upper action levels are policy decisions. While all levels in the ports are above the lower action levels, all materials found to be above the higher action level are disposed on land. He described parameters used for evaluation criteria. In the previous system, called UCT, if the chemical parameter was above the higher action level, the waste materials were disposed on land. A problem with this system is that there are a lot of different pollutants but it is difficult to know if the system was screening all pollutants, but necessary to make decisions. The new system, called CTT, attempted a practical change with the idea that the volume dumped at sea should be constant, but regions can vary in their amounts. This new system is an attempt to simplify chemical parameters. Mr. Tjallingii provided an overview of the new system. This included a discussion of bioassays. Noting that tests cost approximately 1500 � for one set of analyses of chemical and biological analysis, he mentioned that it may not be too expensive to perform if established commercial laboratories exist. To demonstrate how the new system works, he described several small ports. The new system was found to be a bit less stringent in some ports. Mr. Tjallingii stated that it is difficult to determine parameters and mentioned that a practical approach gives confidence to understanding the parameters. Issues may occur in choosing the parameters. Although fresh water issues may not be the same as marine issues, the government would like an integrated policy on all water issues. Environmental policies may also be affected by a shift in the political environment and such shifts are illustrated by the possibility that bioassays may be reversed. In his final comments, Mr. Tjallingii stated that it is a policy decision to dump only dredged material and noted that dredged material quality is the criterion for dumping (only 10% goes into landfills). He stated that they are still working on bioassay development. The policy is aimed at a national standard, but the current policy situation may affect new quality standards.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Question: First, wondered if the Netherlands should consider what dumping in ocean in future. Second, how do integrate into policy the non-biodegradable materials that end up in sea?

Answer: These materials are not in dumping legislation, but the Netherlands monitors all materials that end up on shores in order to better address this issue. The general policy is that sea is not dumping ground. Try to address with different methods and raise awareness through methods such as school clean up.

Question: How do reduce dredged material disposed each year? Answer: Can improve quality by addressing discharges from plants and agriculture and

increase dredged material that can be reused. Quite difficult, likely dredged material will increase because size of vessels is increasing.

Question: Does capital dredging occur? Answer: No capital dredging in the Netherlands. Ms. Molly Madden, ORISE Fellow, United States Environmental Protection Agency moderated the Waste Management Case Studies session. Dr. Melckzedeck Osore, Senior Research Scientist, Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute, described Kenya�s efforts to address ballast water management. He began by explaining the GloBallast Programme, which is a global programme on ballast water management. GloBallast milestones in Kenya are guided by the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act and he outlined the objectives of the programme. Planning is underway for a biological baseline survey on the Port of Mombasa, one of the largest ports in Eastern Africa. He said that the Port of Mombasa imports more products than it exports and the largest import is ballast water. After noting the existence of a database on zooplankton, the major group found in ballast water, Dr. Osore highlighted the major components of the proposed Mombasa Port Survey. While discussing the methodologies used, he requested input from participants on the proposed innovative sampling techniques. These sampling techniques will range from low- to high-level techniques and he highlighted areas where adequate research has been performed. Stressing that other areas still need better research, he invited experts from the region to fill in these gaps. He commented that pollution is the price Kenya will have to pay for development and it is taking a number of steps to demonstrate commitment to marine protection. Dr. Osore concluded by outlining institutions that will be involved in the survey at the national and international level. Mr. Peter Mbiriri, Pollution Control Master, Kenya Ports Authority, discussed dumping of condemned/spoilt cargo and dangerous goods in the Port of Mombasa, as well as the importance of proper procedures for the disposal of contaminated goods. Mr. Mbiriri outlined the procedures and institutions involved in the process of disposing spoilt and condemned cargo. The Kenya Ports Authority issues disposal permits and collaborates with the Health, Safety and Environment Office and the Office of the Harbour Master to identify suitable disposal sites. He acknowledged that Mombasa does not have a well-managed dumping site but stressed that efforts are being made to improve dumping site location and management. Disposal of dangerous goods is guided by the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code and the recommendations of the manufacturer. Mr. Mbiriri highlighted the relevant legislation that guides disposal. Question: How often does spoilt cargo occur? Answer: It is not a frequent occurrence. It occurs when there is mishandling of cargo.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Question: Are vessels moving between similar ports more likely to transport invasive species

than those moving between dissimilar ports? Answer: Data on the number of ships from similar ports is a joint venture between Kenya

Port Authority and Kenya Marine Fishers Research Institute with insight from South Africa. It is necessary to establish baseline data.

Mrs. Nashreen Soogun, Environment Officer, Mauritius Ministry of Environment, described industrial development and waste management at the industrial estate of Poudre d�or. After highlighting the occurrence of industrial wastewater and sedimentation in the lagoon, she outlined its impacts on the aquatic system. Due to the remote location of Poudre d�or, the textile industry had disposed effluent into the mangroves. Describing the effects of the effluent, she said that the mangroves are most affected at the discharge point. There is also an absence of fauna within the damaged mangrove ecosystem. A survey of the lagoon revealed these impacts and these results were so alarming that it was decided that action was needed. A treatment facility was established for remediation of the lagoon but high temperature and pH, however, rendered the treatment plant ineffective. The lagoon remediation occurred through a series of steps and the accumulated pumice stones in the lagoon were removed to assist in remediation. Chemical treatment was combined with biological treatment to make the effluent treatment more effective. Sediments were dredged and disposed. Remarking that the treated effluent led into a well-lined pond, Mrs. Soogun said that three options for were proposed to address it. These options were aimed at improving the quality of the discharged effluents. The options were:

• treatment system review; • wastewater discharge into artificial wetland prior to sea disposal; and • relocation of industrial estate.

Mrs. Soogun concluded by stating that monitoring is continuing at the lagoon. Question: How are other textile industries faring? Answer: Most of them are under sewer systems. Standards have to be met prior to

discharge. Environmental impact assessment is a requirement prior to any expansion.

Mr. John Kwayu, Director of Operations, Tanzania Harbour Authority, discussed the environmental aspects of Dar es Salaam�s port, providing general background on Tanzania and the Tanzania Harbour Authority. Mr. Kwayu also gave an overview of the Dar es Salaam Port which is underutilized because of competition from the ports of Mombasa and Durban. He stressed that the Port of Dar es Salaam is not congested and welcomed all to use it. Under institutional reform, said Mr. Kwayu, the port is being privatised for better performance. Noting that daily performance is 24 containers per hour for Dar es Salaam versus 16 for Durban and 70 for Mombasa, he remarked that the daily performance compares well with other Eastern African ports. There have been three dredgings since 1953 and the dredged material has either been re-used or, because it is not contaminated, dumped in open water. Tanzania has ratified several international conventions. Pollution prevention is primarily administered at the harbour. Question: How many ship merchants have been caught in an act of pollution? Answer: Only one. The penalty is very severe as stipulated by regulations.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Mr. Bakri Oumouri, Director of Maritime Transport, Comoros Ministry of Infrastructure Development, discussed maritime safety efforts in Comoros. Noting that four islands compose Comoros, Mr. Oumori stated that the economy is mostly subsistence farming, but also includes fishing and tourism. Describing the current situation, he stated that the functioning ports are found on the main island. These ports, however, are difficult to navigate and most of the installations are below international standards for safe navigation. Comoros currently has related legislation under review and is actively trying to conform to international laws and conventions. These bills await parliamentary enactment. Mr. Oumori stated that the maritime security efforts include direction of general transportation, port activities, and coast guard activities. Mr. Issa Abdillah Mohamdi, Head of Service, Comoros Direction nationale de l�environnement, des forêts et des strategies agricoles, addressed waste management in the Comoros Islands. He described the demographic makeup, urban infrastructure, and changes in social composition of the population. Rapid population growth and unplanned development has increased waste generation and poor waste management. There are problems with waste collection, transportation of waste, and treatment and he noted that poor waste management has resulted in health hazards from waterborne disease. With assistance from a donor, the government has put in place structural and institutional frameworks to address waste. Mr. Mohamdi stated that activities are being initiated by municipalities, non-governmental organizations, and private communities. Partnership with local communities and private sectors is encouraged and stressed the importance of public education in waste management. He remarked that constraints include insufficient financial resources, lack of qualified personnel, lack of materials and techniques, and the absence of regulation. Mr. Mohamdi listed the following proposed solutions: expand the regulatory body, construct discharge and treatment sites, install waste collection equipment, and put in place management and tax collection system for waste removal. Mr. Saleem Modak, Principal Officer � Cape Town, South African Maritime Safety Authority, discussed the South African Maritime Safety Authority (SAMSA) and described a case study of their emergency response activities. SAMSA chairs a joint response committee comprised of all port stakeholders including the media. Mr. Modak briefly described this committee. He then presented the case of the grounding and subsequent restoration of the Sealand Express. He stressed that dialogue and a responsible crew made restoration of the vessel possible. The Sealand Express carried a toxic cargo and response efforts were made more difficult by the occurrence of a storm. The response involved a number of people and experts to ensure that the hazardous waste was safely disposed of. Utilization of dredging as a response method emphasized the importance of collaboration in the operation and Mr. Modak noted that the presence and reporting of the media added to the challenges faced by the response team. Question: How much was the cost of the operation for removing the Sealand Express? Answer: $50-60 million but the delay cost may be much higher. DAY 3 FIELD TRIP A field trip was arranged for the programme�s third day. The day began with a tour of the Severin Sea Lodge sewage waste treatment facility. As participants toured the facility they were provided with an overview of what happens with the water, as well as what occurs during the


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

rainy season. The facility has paid back the cost of the system in electricity use. The next stop was a visit to Port Waste Reception Facility (EAM Environmental Management Company) where participants visited the plant and listened to a presentation on how the system works. The final stop was a tour of the Port of Mombasa. DAY 4 Plenary discussion � Regional Challenges for Marine Pollution Prevention The agenda for the fourth day was changed to allow time for a plenary discussion on regional challenges. The session was facilitated by Dixon Waruinge, Programme Officer, United Nations Environment Programme. The goal of this session was to enhance understanding on issues of concern for attending countries through an open discussion. Nine African countries commented on their issues of greatest concern in marine pollution prevention. Five non-African countries also discussed some of the problems that they face. The issues discussed fell into four categories:

• pollutants of concern � All countries discussed the pollutants they faced; • capacity and enforcement � seven countries referred to problems with capacity, or

the lack of capacity, and the lack of capacity for enforcement; • lack of funding � Two countries discussed lack of funding as a major concern, but

many countries with capacity problems alluded to possible funding problems; and • role of international conventions in national policy � eight countries stated that

there were issues with international conventions as well as national legislation. Co-ordination between the two was also a major discussion point.

Namibia stated that there is no proper port control and there is currently no enforcement. The country has ratified MARPOL 73/78, but so far there is no legislation. There are concerns about the fishing industry where pollution occurs, but there is no prosecution. Mozambique stated that MARPOL 73/78 has been instituted, but there is no national legislation. Key issues include implementing waste treatment, lack of reception facilities for vessels and pollution from oil dumping and other sources. Port Management Association of Eastern and Southern Africa (PMAESA) commented that with so much different legislation, it is difficult for seafarers. Also, the representative wondered what countries are doing to stop pollution from land runoff.

Eritrea stated that its coast is not affected by a lot of waste discharge, although it is affected by oil discharge from ships. Lack of reception facilities is a concern, as Eritrea would like to avoid illegal discharges. They are aware of MARPOL 73/78, but ratification is not possible at this time. There are 200,000 people living on the coast and in most municipalities waste is discharged into the sea without any treatment. Industrial waste does not have as large an effect, but there are a few factories discharging untreated effluent. Kenya has ratified most of the IMO conventions. Land based sources of pollution are the biggest issue of concern for Kenya. Tourism is affected by sewage discharge into water. It was noted that 15-20% of the population is urban. It was remarked that 17% of Mombasa is sewered


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

and discharged to the sea. Other concerns include: solid waste concerns, which finds its way into the sea; ship-based pollution, the litter of which is found on the coastline; oil paths from ships cleaning in the sea; and, dumping at sea, which is difficult to identify and causes complaints to be raised by neighbouring countries. Tanzania has concerns similar to Kenya. MARPOL 73/78 has been submitted for ratification, as has the London Convention. Compliance is a major concern. There is a lack of compliance, but Tanzania lacks the facilities/capacity to monitor this issue. Solid waste, particularly plastic, is an issue of concern. Freshwater protection is also a concern. International conventions do not address inland waters, but Tanzania has a local need for inland waters be addressed.

South Africa resolved its plastic bag problem. The �Plastic Minister� banned plastic bags and people were then required to buy bags. This resolved one solid waste issue. Land-based waste is a major problem, but it is not being addressed properly. It must be addressed, if not now, in the future. There are problems with unplanned settlements from which waste eventually reaches the sea. Currently, South Africa has a contingency plan and draft policy to address MARPOL 73/78. South Africa is giving attention to reception facilities; they are in the process of consultation and addressing the issue. There are some facilities. Mauritius is very concerned with ratifying applicable conventions. They are currently busy with the security policy, but are also very concerned with the ballast water problem. In response to MARPOL 73/78, Mauritius has reception facilities that are not yet operational. They are attempting to have facilities ready in the next few months. Mauritius noted that by ratifying a convention, it does not immediately become law as national legislation is needed. Mauritius remarked that if there is some new technology or requirement from acceding to IMO conventions, IMO should assist with training of Mauritius personnel and funding is a primary concern including for implementation. Mauritius has wastewater treatment and solid waste management to address land-based sources of pollution. The treatment plant, however, is over capacity; but it is expected to improve by 2010. The problem is lack of funding. Solid waste remains an issue and Mauritius is currently collecting waste but there is still littering. One solution is to require payment for throwing garbage and environmental enforcement officers fine for littering, but personal attitudes are not changing. Another concern is that the landfill is almost full and alternatives are necessary. Time is needed to consider alternatives one of such is incineration but this may not address concerns. Regulations are in place, but the largest problem is enforcement exacerbated by lack of personnel to enforce regulations. Comoros has ratified some conventions (SOLAS and MARPOL 73/78) and has reviewed national maritime legislation in order to develop new texts to incorporate into legislation. A primary issue is that there are not enough personnel. Another issue is the lack of reception facilities as currently, the port cannot receive large vessels. There are also many islands. In order to deal with dumping of oil, Comoros has developed local emergency plans. Madagascar�s major port receives 75% of all Madagascar port transportation. The major problems are similar to other islands and African nations. It is very difficult to conform to the quantity of conventions. The port is unable to solve its own issues, much less the variety of international conventions, and lack of funding is a major concern. Madagascar asked where they could obtain funding to conform to conventions. Madagascar has many other unimplemented priorities in addition to IMO conventions.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Question: Do non-African countries have any problems?

• Canada: Have wastewater treatment problems, sewage discharged into sea, as well as funding and co-operation problem with governments. For land-based problems, nutrients are a major concern.

• United States: The United States has addressed most point sources of pollution

including municipal and industrial waste waters. We are working to clean up hazardous waste sites and we still have problems with solid waste on beaches, as well as concern about land- and ship-based pollution, ballast water, and toxic releases. Land-based pollution remains a problem. Storm water runoff is a major problem and can release nutrients. Habitat loss is a major concern.

• Netherlands: Waste water levels are an issue. A political issue is that the

population feels that many problems have already been addressed and wonders why it is necessary to set new regulations. The Netherlands also has difficulties in ratifying conventions and currently has about a 5-year backlog.

• United Kingdom: Long-term habitat degradation is a concern, especially when

combined with climate change. • Republic of Korea: Has combination of developed and developing problems. A

primary issue is high concentration of the population. There is strong opposition to environmental facilities near homes. Solutions often go through political rather than environmental means.

Question: Can we identify regional resources that may be utilized by neighbouring

countries? • IMO: There is a lack of local legislation for implementation of conventions. The

IMO is in the process of assisting Mozambique especially in addressing legislation needs. IMO can assist with a needs assessment, which points out weak areas where the country needs assistance. It is the responsibility of the country to request assistance from IMO. A booklet is available, �Strategy for Protection of Environment in Eastern Africa.�

SESSION 6

Working Group Sessions

Session 6 was dedicated to Working Group Sessions. Four working groups were convened. The themes of these groups were:

• Dredged Material Management • Sewage Treatment and Management of Sewage Sludge/Biosolids • Environmental Management of Industrial Waste • The SEAWASTE Network

The session was planned in two parts. The morning session was composed of a series of lectures about the various aspects of Theme 1, dredged material management. In the afternoon session, the Dredged Material Management and Sewage Treatment sessions ran concurrently. These


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

sessions were followed by the Environmental Management of Industrial Waste and SEAWASTE Network, which also ran concurrently. Each participant attended two of the four working group sessions. These sessions included presentations of topic relevant case studies and discussion. Working Group 1: Dredged Material Management Mr. Neville Burt, Technical Director, World Organization of Dredging Associations (WODA), introduced the topic of dredged material management. He provided an overview of groups such as WODA and the Central Dredging Association (CEDA) and discussed the role of these organizations as disseminators of professional knowledge and forums for international issues and networking. Mr. Burt stated that conflicts are the main issue for dredging. He discussed a number of reasons for why dredged material is perceived as a problem. People can see the sediment and perceive it as a problem. Although it is not true, dredgers are sometimes considered dirty and smelly. Dredged material may also be thought to be a source of contamination due to a perception that all dredged material is contaminated. It may not be understood that the material is not contaminated just because it is dredged material. Another false perception is that turbidity is bad; which is not always true as it depends on the area. WODA and CEDA are resources for dredged material issues, said Mr. Burt. WODA�s environmental policy statement provides a dredged material assessment framework, which is also a good management framework. He noted that the CEDA guide on dredged material management is available. He concluded by stating that CEDA�s 7-book series, presents the idea that policy is currently looking at environment as a special problem but should perceive it as the normal way things are. These guidebooks were provided to the workshop participants. Further information about CEDA and WODA may be found at the following websites: www.dredging.org and www.woda.org. Dr. Tom Fredette discussed application of the London Convention and Protocol to dredged material. He began his talk by discussing the International Navigation Association (PIANC) and described it as a sister organization to WODA. Using the Waste Assessment Guidance as a discussion framework, Dr. Fredette described the steps of dredged material waste assessment guidance and its application to the London Convention. In the process of evaluating the need for dredging and disposal, he described capital dredging, maintenance dredging and cleanup dredging. He discussed waste prevention audits and provided an overview of management options. Dr. Fredette mentioned that dredged material characterization should include chemical and biological characterizations, although new chemical testing is not always needed. He then discussed action level lists. Noting that action lists are the more cost effective approach to dredged material management, Dr. Fredette briefly described their use. The importance of the action list is that it can save time and money in project evaluation. Test results found to be lower than the action list levels for the contaminant do not require further testing. If above the set levels, further testing is necessary. Dumpsite selection, he remarked, requires a focus on size, capacity and possible future developments. Dr. Fredette briefly described compliance and field monitoring, as well as permits and permit conditions. In his final comments, he described PIANC and provided background on the guidelines that the organization had developed. He believes that the guidelines are very good and include discussions on disposal, treatment, monitoring, and contaminated dredged material management. Dr. Fredette concluded by providing a brochure that discusses dredging environmental facts, as well as listing several information resources.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Following Dr. Fredette�s talk, Mr. Burt noted that land-based waste assessment was the most frequently mentioned concern during the morning�s discussion of regional challenges. Although PIANC does not focus on these issues, it does provide some information on land-based waste assessment. Further information on PIANC may be found at www.pianc-aipcn.org. Mr. Polite Laboyrie, Head, Environmental Department, Civil Engineering Division, the Netherlands Ministry of Transport and Public Works, presented a talk entitled, �Project Planning and Assessment: Investigation, Interpretation, and Impact.� Using Guide 3 of CEDA�s Environmental Aspects of Dredging series, Mr. Laboryie walked through investigation, interpretation and impact of dredging projects. He stated that the objectives of Guide 3 are to provide an overview of topics pertinent to pre-dredging investigations and material characterizations that may be considered when assessing the environmental aspects of dredging and placement operations. These are project planning, initial evaluation, field surveys, sampling and laboratory testing, interpretation of results, and perspectives on environmental assessment. Noting that the emphasis is on maintenance dredging and placement of dredged material at aquatic sites, Mr. Laboryie described initial evaluation, field surveys, and sampling and lab tests. He stated that statistical analysis is very important. Mr. Laboryie described analysis, land placement, and discussed how to interpret results. He concluded with a brief overview of environmental risk assessment. Mr. Neville Burt and HR Wallingford presented �Dredging: Machines, Methods, and Mitigation,� based on Guide 4 of the CEDA series. After introducing this guide, Mr. Burt discussed dredging works (capital, maintenance and remedial). Mr. Burt listed the criteria used to judge if a site is environmentally sensitive. He described four phases of dredging. Mr. Burt stated that environmental dredging is specialist dredging. It can often use normal equipment but this depends on how the dredging is performed. There is usually a lower output and a higher cost. Mr. Burt discussed the six standard types of dredges and rated the positive, neutral and negative aspects of each. In addition to standard types, Mr. Burt discussed alternatives to standard dredging types, which included hydrodynamic dredger, water injection dredger (WID), and under water plough (UWP). After reviewing new developments in dredging equipment, Mr. Burt discussed environmental dredges; their objectives; and how they rate in safety, accuracy, turbidity, mixing, spill, dilution, noise, and output rate. After providing an overview of four types of transport systems (pipeline transport, barge transport, road transport, and conveyor belt), he demonstrated several placement techniques. Mr. Burt discussed silt/scree mitigating measures in depth and provided more general methods of other mitigation measures. Mr. Burt finished with a discussion of monitoring. He described the objectives of monitoring, equipment used, and how monitoring is used for decision-making. Ms. Molly Madden, ORISE Fellow, US Environmental Protection Agency and Dr. Tom Fredette discussed the United States Army Corps of Engineers Education Center website. Ms. Madden walked through the website which is an outreach effort developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The website is intended to be a resource and an education tool for students, teachers, and the general public. Ms. Madden demonstrated how the website works and went through separate sections of the site. Following this demonstration, workshop attendees provided examples of their own outreach efforts. Mr. Noel Williams of South Africa described an effort in which 147 villages were involved with regional managers who set up community meetings to discuss fisheries resources, rehabilitation and conservation. Villages provided their own monitors for each location of the


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

fishing harvest. Mrs. Ann Tipis of Kenya described a personal outreach effort in which she painted a mural about marine pollution and prevention on her house. When people stop to look at the house, Mrs. Tipis discusses these issues with them until they understand. Photo of mural may be seen in the Annex 6 and on the London Convention website (www.londonconvention.org/main.htm). Mr. Polite Laboryie presented a talk on management of dredging activities and potential reuse/recycle options. He highlighted environmental impact assessment (EIA) and provided an overview of the decision-making procedure for disposal of dredged material, assessments of disposal alternatives, and use of the materials. Mr. Laboryie concluded with descriptions of Hamburg, Germany, where there is an upland disposal site, and Lake Ketelmeer, Netherlands, where there is a confined disposal facility. The discussion following Mr. Laboryie�s talk focused on the principle that dredged material can be used beneficially:

• Dredged materials should not be used as waste as these materials are a natural

resource that can be beneficially utilized. The London Convention encourages using dredged material beneficially and not as waste. The beneficial use of dredged materials has been discussed in the London Convention and raises the question: Can the material be used at a reasonable cost?

• Need to justify dumping dredged materials into sea. The London Convention

requires the dredgers to perform an assessment prior to the material�s disposal at sea.

• Sediment behaviours would guard the options for disposal/use of dredged

materials.

Mr. Dixon Waruinge, Programme Officer, United Nations Environment Programme, discussed dredging in coral reef areas. Mr. Waruinge began with a description of UNEP�s Coral Reef Unit and then provided facts on coral reefs, as well as the impact of dredging upon them. He noted the importance of coral reefs but remarked that it is inevitable that they will be affected by dredging for commerce, transport, and tourism. He stated that it is of primary importance to engage the best dredging option to minimize coral reef damage and stressed that dialogue between the dredging industries and the community protecting coral reef is key for collaborative decision-making. These dialogues are taking place among a number of organizations. Mr. Waruinge concluded by noting that the World Dredging Conference will take place in Hamburg, Germany in fall 2004 and that this conference will bring the coral reef community and dredging industries together for increased dialogue between UNEP and the dredging industry. Mr. Asanda Njobeni, Marine and Coastal Pollution Management, South Africa Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, discussed dredged material management in South Africa. He began with a description of South African ports and an overview of dredging activities. He described the Dredged Material Disposal Protocol, which provides guidelines for the management of dredged material. Mr. Njobeni sited the key issues as the need for marine dredging, disposal site selection, and monitoring and discussed the actions taken, which include introduction of a permit requirement and proposals for Action Levels. After describing sediment analysis used to determine Action Levels, Mr. Njobeni listed areas where South Africa requires technical assistance:


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

• capacity building; • legal support; • development of monitoring mechanisms; and • disposal site selection and continued survey of the existing disposal sites.

In his final comments, Mr. Njobeni reviewed South Africa�s future steps and they are to build capacity, review current permitting conditions, and ensure regular field monitoring of dumping activities. The discussion following Mr. Njobeni�s presentation focused on action levels:

• It was noted that South Africa�s action levels were set from review of existing data on waste material, particularly dredged material;

• Action level 1 was based on potential toxicity of the materials, e.g hydrocarbons,

PCBs. This action level is being reviewed; • Toxicity is the basis of action level 2; • It was observed that assessments from other regions could be adapted to suit local

conditions; • Prior to decision-making, disposal options, and physical and chemical analyses

should be assessed. Further, bio-assessment should be performed as a precautionary approach, particularly in cases where physical and chemical analyses indicate the monitored parameters are almost at the prohibitive levels; and

• Action levels and possible actions should be assessed prior to any

decision-making on disposal measures. The Dredged Material Management working group then held an open discussion.

• Tanzania: The idea of dredging at Dar es Salaam was good and intended to increase port capacity. The justification was that big ships could not sail at low tides. Two years after dredging, however, erosion has occurred on the riverbanks resulting in siltation to a depth of 10 -14 metres. A recent survey has shown that depth of water is about 9.3 m. Prior to dredging, the port was maintained by natural conditions. The Tanzania harbour is in the process of assessing what went wrong. Tanzania is seeking a solution to these harbour siltation and riverbank erosion problems.

• South Africa: South Africa asked if the guideline on dredging addresses

management of ballast water. The delegates were informed that the guidelines do not address ballast water.

• Eritrea: Eritrea has a natural harbour but rehabilitation works are underway to

accommodate large vessels. Dredging was performed in 2000, but Eritrea does not expect a lot of disposal material. Eritrea has many navy activities, which becomes a problem for sea traffic. The country is in the process of drafting a


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

master plan of the major ports that may need dredging. They appreciate that the strategies they learned from this workshop may prove useful for the development of this plan.

• Mauritius: Mauritius stated that they had experienced problems with the fishing

community dredging locations and the fishermen have to be compensated to allow dredging to go on.

• Seychelles: Dredging materials are used for land reclamation and for port

building. The country has not experienced problems in dredging. Plastics and garbage, however, have been the major problems in the port. It was observed that pollution from plastics is black-listed in the IMO Convention (i.e. no disposal of plastic in the sea).

• United Kingdom: Dredged material is used for construction. Information on

uses of dredged material is available.

• Mozambique: There are 3 main ports, which depend on dredging. Maputo experiences a high rate of siltation and dredging has to be done annually. Port management is private and remarkable improvement has been recorded. The country has not ratified the London Convention, but is in the process of ratifying and domesticating the Convention. Mozambique has a small dredger, but the high rate of siltation requires a larger dredger. No analysis on the sediments is done at the disposal site, therefore, no information is available on whether the sediments are contaminated or not. Based on the land-based activities on which international standards have been met, there could be limited pollution at the port. Pollution from sewage could be a problem. It might not be economically feasible to treat the dredged materials on a large scale but it is important to assess the quality of the material which will determine to what kind of use it may be put.

• Comoros: Siltation is a problem at the basin from a seasonal river. Three options

have been proposed to address this problem: carry out dredging every three years; build a sediment dyke/dam to trap the sediments; or divert the river course. The river serves quite a large area and it would be costly to divert it, though it seemed the better option. Rehabilitation of the river catchments could occur through planting appropriate trees to reduce river speed and stabilize sediments, as well as sediment removal at the specific location. This could be a cost effective method.

• United States: To protect the endangered whales, dredging seasons are changed,

and crews trained to divert their routes to avoid hitting the whale.

• United Kingdom: There is a liaison officer to monitor dredging activities. Electronic recording on the vessels record dredging activities. Disposal vessels are required to take specific routes to avoid sensitive sites and dredging contracts must comply with environmental management regulations

Working Group 2: Sewage Treatment and Management of Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Mr. Craig Vogt, Chair of the London Convention Scientific Group and Deputy Director of Oceans and Coastal Protection Division, US Environmental Protection, facilitated this session.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

He introduced the fundamentals of sewage treatment facilities with a focus on facilities and processes. Beginning with an overview of municipal wastewater treatment, Mr. Vogt provided an example of a treatment plant and discussed different treatment technologies. He provided greater detail on biological treatment/secondary treatment. Mr. Vogt also described sludge disposal, its treatment and associated technologies. Mr. Vogt then presented a case study on management of sewage sludge (biosolids) in the United States. He described what composes sludge and how it can be characterized. He also addressed the health concerns and the treatment it requires. Mr. Vogt described some of the technologies used before discussing the US sewage sludge regulations. Dr. Gi Hoon Hong, Senior Scientist, Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute, discussed management of sewage sludge disposal in Korea. Dr. Hong provided general background on the Republic of Korea and an overview of sewage treatment. Dr. Hong described Korea�s practice of disposal of sewage sludge at sea and illustrated recent trends in disposal. After discussing management options, Dr. Hong presented examples of sewage sludge reuse. Working Group 3: Environmental Management of Industrial Waste Mr. Jim Osborne, Consultant, facilitated the working group on environmental management of industrial waste. He presented a general overview of industrial waste and wastewater management in Canada. He began with a discussion of potential problems and management solutions. At bulk terminal storage, a sulphide truck wash at site may be a potential issue. Mr. Osborne noted the importance of draining runoff into a pit to correct any treatment and to analyze drainage. At Canadian mines, solutions are to dock in the shade for loading bulk into ships and to use a non-recovered conveyor system for dust. Conveyor shape can result in large contaminated areas, said Mr. Osborne. Changing the conveyor shape from flat to a curve may alleviate some contaminants, although problems may occur during rain. Mr. Osborne stated that Canada�s Fisheries Act includes a section preventing discharge of anything that kills a fish. Regulations, however, are specific to individual industries. Mining, pulp paper, refinery, and textile are all required to report monthly production and effluent. Chemical parameters on fisheries require bioassays on a regular basis. If industries exceed the limits, inspections are performed and the companies� reports are examined. Mr. Osborne described a few examples of how these companies deal with industrial waste management issues. Mr. Osborne noted that 30 companies in the pulp industry went out of business, as they were not complying with the EU standards. Because these companies were not environmentally friendly, they were unable to sell their paper to Europe. It took Canada five years to amend regulations. All pulp industries currently have biological treatment and business has been increasing. He stated that testing parameters for refineries include total suspended solids (TSS) and pH. In final production, application of biological treatment is more effective than physical treatment alone. Textile industry waste and agricultural runoff, said Mr. Osborne, also cause problems. Non-point source pollution may be difficult to manage. An example is fertiliser runs off into local streams. He stated that the best way to ensure a reduction of runoff is to have a proper zone of grass and trees before the stream, which would absorb excess nutrients. Describing methods used in Canada to address these issues, Mr. Osborne noted that wetlands have been used to treat heavy metals by using plants. The backwash absorbs metal and waste materials. He also stated that use of terraces and buffers of grass and trees between farm and streams is a good option.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Mr. Osborne concluded with a discussion of whether the principle of polluter pays could be applied. He noted that Canada attempts to implement this, but it is not always 100% effective. He stated that if you are polluting, you are responsible and it is your task to manage it. He believes that industry should be responsible for monitoring waste discharge. An example of user pay is the dredged material fee system in which fees are involved for the removal and dumping of material; this results in a few billion dollars cashed every year from the dredging industry. Working Group 4 � SEAWASTE Network Dr. Yazeed Petersen led a small group in a discussion of the SEAWASTE Network. A main focus of this discussion group was related to further development of the online database. The idea was to extend the database beyond a focus on members to also include various resources and information used in waste management in the region. An additional thought was to include the contact information for different organizations involved in marine pollution control. The group also discussed broadening the Network beyond its current emphasis on land-based pollution to also address marine-based pollution. The website is: http://seawaste.uwc.ac.za. SESSION 7: Working group results, national reports and closing Dr. Chris Vivian, Topic Leader, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Sciences (CEFAS), moderated as the working groups summarized results from their sessions. Dr. Neville Burt summarized the key points of discussion for the Dredged Material Management working group:

• effects of capital projects;

• environmental regulations � lack thereof or of guidelines, particularly for dredged material. Concerns about overzealous regulations; and

• technical needs for South Africa � capacity building, legal support, developing

monitoring. He also summarized the recommendations discussed during the working group:

• Build capacity. • Review conditions under which permits currently review. • Ensure regular monitoring.

Mr. Craig Vogt summarized the primary discussion points in the Sewage Treatment and Management of Sewage Sludge/Biosolids working group as follows, noting that discussion was not as in depth due to the number of presentations:

• steps to treat and manage include development of infrastructure for collection, screening, primary treatment (settling), secondary treatment to address organics in sewage, settling, and disinfection with chlorine or ozonation;

• sewage sludge can be used as fertilizer, landfill, or dumping; and

• assistance is available from the London Convention on aspects of sewage sludge disposal.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Mr. Jim Osborne summarized the discussion that occurred in the Environmental Management of Industrial Waste working group:

• Problems include metal mines, effluent and waste runoff. Waste mines need to be regulated and covered with water so do not get metal released in waste water. Regulation is needed to be sure it works;

• Bulk terminals and loading lead to problems with pH and runoff as well as

overflow and lack of maintenance. Lack of regulation is also an issue. Cover bulk material to reduce runoff. Significant dust is released with bulk loading operation; so it is useful to cover this. Curved conveyor can also help reduce;

• Pulp and paper mills are another problem; some still use chlorine bleach. It�s a

good idea to investigate potential dioxin production and sample sediments outside area. The pulp and paper industry has the ability to get serious in reduction of pollution and reduction of cost just through better identification and addressing of solid wastes. In addition to pollution reduction, this will lead to more profits;

• Sampling and user pay. In Canada, a user does sampling and analysis with

periodic surveys to ensure everything is fine. If industry gets off target on pollution problems, government enforces and this can be helpful for low profits;

• Discussed new industry setting up in an area. Engineers should look at waste

treatment of entire process that is being proposed with chemists and biologists to check that things are proceeding well. There needs to be follow up to see that management is occurring; and

• Industrial waste and London Convention. There were several questions about

whether industrial waste from pipeline into ocean is considered and banned by the London Convention: if loaded onto vessel and disposed at sea is banned; if it is piped all the way out like a boat, it is not covered by the London Convention. National regulations would need to address this. The GPA might be another venue for this.

Dr. Yazeed Petersen summarized the discussion held in the SEAWASTE Network group:

• Discussed ideas of network uses;

• Interesting idea is to further develop the online database. Network has member database. The plan was to extend database to include not only members but also various resources and information used in waste management in the region. It may be difficult but hope to do so;

• Also hoping to get contact information of different organizations involved in

marine pollution control;

• Could shift network towards issues discussed in this session. There is mostly a land-based focus now, but also workshop is giving indication of what could be discussed/emphasized on marine-based sources of pollution. One option would be to put the presentations from this workshop online; and


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

• Reminded attendees to keep in mind information and network sharing as well as

how the Network can assist people. Presentation of National Reports (Priorities and Action Plans) Madagascar representatives referred to their presentation in which priorities were listed. Being an island, the population is dependent on marine products. Madagascar has worked seriously to protect the marine environment, but this requires much effort from all. It is necessary to sensitize the population to take care of sea and use it rationally. Environmental protection in Madagascar is supported by the appropriate international conventions. The Madagascar representative stated, �Together in Africa we can unite and put together our efforts to protect the environment.� Activities to be undertaken include putting in place reception facilities, setting up waste treatment facilities, establishing an inspectorate, and addressing marine pollution whether ocean or land based. Madagascar needs to request assistance from the IMO and the need to strengthen co-operation between East African countries. Mauritius is surrounded by coral reefs and that problems affecting these reefs are of high priority to the country. The representative from Mauritius remarked that although the convention is ratified, it does not mean that it will be implemented directly. It is still necessary to set up national framework and legislation. There is also a lack of personnel and logistics for enforcement because of lack of capacity and funding and reception facilities are not yet operational. Mauritius is having difficulty with the release of ballast water into ports and land-based pollution is also a concern. Existing sewerage has not kept up with population growth. The funding is piecemeal and, therefore, environmental enforcement officers are unable to keep up with solid waste disposal and littering. Runoff from solid waste leads to frequent dredging. Their landfill is nearly full and that there is not a lot of space on Mauritius so alternatives must be considered. Mauritius is attempting to address these issues and are attempting to increase sewage. Dumping is being relocated from coral reefs. For solid waste, Mauritius is considering recycling, composting, and incineration of waste and a waste oil reception facilities project is underway. An environmental impact assessment has been submitted and it is planned to be operational in early 2005. Mauritius is carrying out awareness campaigns on the importance of a good quality of environment. The Mauritius representative identified technical needs, specifically ballast water control, invasive species control, dredging and regional issues. Actions are being carried out in a number of areas. These actions include focusing on ballast water and baseline biological monitoring so to understand risks of unwanted species. Also, it is necessary to develop waste plans for disposal of solid waste but political will is needed to identify environmental options, as well as appropriate expertise, personnel, and on-time funding for implementation. Mozambique representatives discussed ports in the south and north. After showing port locations, they indicated that, of their three ports, two of them rely on dredging activity. Byra has large problems because of the high rate of silting and its small dredging capacity. Regarding the legal framework, in 1994, parliament adopted a maritime act, which includes port activity. The 1996 government adopted a port policy allowing private intervention of port and leasing of the port. The Mozambique government ratified international conventions addressing pollution, such as MARPOL 73/78 and the Nairobi Convention. There are still problems because of lack of funding and expertise. Mozambique needs help with implementation even though marine pollution prevention is a part of the national legislation it is still required.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Key issues in Mozambique are pollution from ships, ballast water, and sewage treatment. During ship operations, there is leakage. Mozambique is not yet prepared to address ballast water. There is almost no treatment for sewage; which is mostly dumped directly into the sea. Additionally, there are workshops in the port area that are dumping oil into sea. In Byra, they are starting to address these issues. Workshops have plans to monitor and to address these environmental issues, as are the main ports. There is a lack of resources for implementation in Mozambique. Mozambique described their technical issues as primarily a need for assistance and the recognition that the IMO could assist in developing national legislation. Mozambique believes both these needs will be addressed. The Mozambique representatives gave the following recommendations: the government should ratify the London Convention and request assistance for training, implementation, and expertise from IMO and other international organizations. Namibia representative stated that the Namibia port authority is part government and part private and there are two large ports. A major issue is the implementation of the environmental management system which makes environmental impacts more serious. A RAMSAR lagoon is located next to the port. Key issues of concern in Namibia are pollution from vessels (oil slops, rubbish, ballast water) and pollution from fishing vessels on the landside. Namibia has signed some international conventions, such as MARPOL 73/78, but lacks implementation and enforcement. Namibia designated a site for dredging material that was identified through environmental impact assessment. Namibia has taken action to address these issues. It has established a pollution tariff within the port limits based on a polluter pays idea and there are now regular inspections. This has provided an example for the government because they now see that enforcement of environmental regulations is possible. It took sometime for the government to realize this approach and instead, sought to extend port limits. The Namibia representative recommended state control of ports and noted that it would be done if there is assistance to translate IMO conventions into law. The Namibia representative also recommended more workshops like this and that it is necessary to properly identify representatives to attend such workshops. There are a number of government ministries that should be involved and all these different ministries should be identified. He indicated that because workshops like these are for the improvement of policies, it is very important to include the right representatives. The SEAWASTE Network may be a good tool to involve all government representatives. It is also necessary to include all affected parties. The Namibia representative recommended a focus on incentives, as well as a focus on the benefits of environmental protection and related economic benefits. Eritrea is in the early stages of developing maritime and environmental legislation. Eritrea inherited the old maritime code from its previous colonizer and no amendment has been done. There is now a revision being made with IMO that will establish a new code. Eritrea has not ratified many international conventions. The environment of Eritrea has not been much affected, there have been cases of illegal discharge and oil discharge. Ships carrying oil and passenger ships visit the ports but there are no facilities which is the main concern. Most common environmental problems occur during loading and unloading. Additional key concerns listed by Eritrea include ballast water, sewage, and garbage from ships. This last is a great concern because there are no reception facilities. Eritrea is fully aware of MARPOL 73/78 and believes it is important, however, they have not yet acceded because implementation is not possible. Eritrea has a long seacoast with 350 islands, but there is no significant population along this coast so it is not yet polluted. There are just a few factories, but the waste from these factories is not


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

treated well. There is some tourism, but not enough to cause pollution. Eritrea has a maritime administration, which is responsible for ship safety at sea and for the prevention of marine pollution. It is clear that the maritime administration plays a major role in pollution prevention from ships. Eritrea faces some constraints. It has not developed an oil pollution contingency plan and it also lacks the ability to address emergency response. Other constraints include the lack of financing, control and enforcement mechanism; insufficient public awareness; lack of trained expertise; and minimal involvement in international meetings and conferences. The current coastal activities in Eritrea include a fishing programme and the construction of a container terminal. Technical assistance is underway for improving Eritrea�s general situation. Comoros� main port receives 70% of all trade. Ships up to 1,000 tonnes can be received. The port does not have good communication facilities and berth facilities are also difficult. Offloading is also slow and tiresome. Container ships are used, but they are very slow and with the minimum necessary for navigation. Security at the port is necessary to prevent dangers to cargo and people. Separation of international and local traffic is necessary and would assist in safety. Comoros carried out a study of port pollution. There is an oil route to the Gulf that goes through Comoros Islands and, therefore, poses a certain risk of pollution to the islands. The Comoros are ecologically very rich and biological diverse. These characteristics make it a good possibility for tourism. It is necessary, however, to protect this fragile environment. As a result, Comoros has established a number of measures to protect the environment from oil spills. Ratification of several international conventions is one plan. Another action is to establish national and international procedures for environmental protection. Comoros does have facilities for emergencies, including personnel and equipment. It is still necessary to establish measures for these emergencies under the charge of the ministry. Measures include a plan for early warning of oil spills and for monitoring modalities. Comoros requires ships for policing, including at least one larger ship and a central operation centre. Personnel with radio facilities are also needed to ensure protection of port. The Comoros representatives stated that the maritime police should be strengthened. The ports need to deal with catastrophes, but these needs cannot be filled because of lack of resources. The Comoros representatives believe that the original maritime plan should be put in place to increase maritime security. Kenya representatives began by stating their awareness of the economic and social value of coastal and maritime resources. They are looking to protect these resources for the future. Kenya has taken steps to address environmental issues. At the regional level, Kenya entered into a number of agreements, including NEPAD and the Nairobi Convention. Kenya hosts the maritime secretariat for NEPAD. At the national level, Kenya has established environmental regulations that address maritime resources. Dumping at sea is an ongoing problem. Dredging is underway at a world heritage site north of Mombasa (Lamu Town) where dredged material is used for land reclamation. The Kenya representatives noted that pristine coral rock is used, so it is not contaminated. Kenya has taken action on the implementation of appropriate conventions. Kenya has a draft maritime bill, as well as a draft inland waterway bill. There is a task force putting in the final touches to these bills. The Inland waterway bill will be merged with the maritime authority bill in order for both bills to come under one body. The London Convention will be ratified and implemented into national legislation. Kenya is ratifying the ballast water convention. Under the Environmental Management Act, the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) is


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

in the process of developing environmental regulations. The Kenyan Government has commenced development of a national oil spill contingency plan. Kenya is undertaking the following actions to address their issues of concern: publish a maritime bill, implement conventions, ratify the London Convention, and finalize the oil plan. Kenya is working on sensitivity maps for the oil plan and plans to carry out the global ballast water survey. The port survey will begin in August 2004. The company in charge of the waste facility reception will provide work a party to finish the rest of facility for reception of garbage, solid waste, and fuels. Kenya needs to address permitting for the 1996 Protocol, as well as to facilitate environmental management standards. It is necessary to fast track enactment of draft maritime bills. Kenya noted the need to enhance state control of ports while stating that they are currently shorthanded with personnel. Kenya also noted the need to complete domestication of the London Convention and the 1996 Protocol. Kenya recognizes the primary need to strengthen frameworks, build capacity and increase interests of relevant organizations. Kenya would like to address waste assessment facilities and the treatment of sewage and garbage this year. They would then focus on oil and other materials by next year. Kenya would like to aggressively promote regional co-operation. La Réunion currently has a number of projects with the result that the administration in charge is overburdened. The Departments of Environment and Public Works are dealing with these projects. Prevention and control of pollution has three related aspects: navigation monitoring, pollution prevention and general issues. La Réunion will soon sign texts regarding vessels carrying dangerous items. La Réunion is also strengthening monitoring in the Indian Ocean, especially where oil tankers move. The focus of monitoring of navigation is to strengthen control of ships to be certain that dangerous ships are avoided as much as possible. For pollution prevention, La Réunion is developing a guide to address issues that exist. The representative from La Réunion noted that lessons learned from this workshop would enable the environment agency in his country to test materials in an autonomous way and prevent pollution. One difficulty is the idea of refuge, which can be rationalized only with navigational co-operation. La Réunion recognizes that it requires stakeholders to buy-in. La Réunion plans to hold a seminar on rescue and pollution prevention with South Africa. A key point is to intervene as rapidly as possible. La Réunion also hopes to strengthen links with Madagascar on a number of issues. A current issue is environmental management and dumping as addressed by organizations. There are three major projects: extension of the port of La Réunion, treatment of waste, and management of waste materials from ships. The La Réunion representative stated that the ratification instrument for the 1996 Protocol would have to be submitted, but noted that ambiguities should be removed. These ambiguities include emergencies and the relationship with France and other parties. There is pressure on coastal lagoons, resulting in sedimentation and leaching. La Réunion authorities are addressing these pressures. It will be necessary to balance preservation of the environment with the economic needs of France. La Réunion is co-operating with Australia on training, education, and controls. La Réunion also hopes to strengthen links as far as fishing in the South is concerned. International co-operation in this field is important because counterparts are well informed and have good resources. Illegal fishing is also an issue that would benefit from international co-operation. La Réunion believes that there may be fishing in the channel of Mozambique. This is an issue against which South Africa and Mozambique are also fighting. It is important that the links between these countries are strengthened.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Seychelles� major port is Port Victoria. Seychelles has the Environmental Protection Act of 1994, which has sections on dumping polluting substances and wastes into territorial waters, control of entry of hazardous substances and waste, and waste on land. Seychelles participates in a number of activities to prevent marine pollution. Monitoring efforts include monitoring fishing, oil spills and waste. There is also monitoring of customs and warehouses, as well as on-land inspection of buildings and facilities. Seychelles marine pollution prevention is co-ordinated among a number of agencies including Seychelles Coast Guard, Port Marine and Services Division, Seychelles Fishing Authority, Seychelles police, and the Marine Parks Authority. These agencies are trying to integrate their activities. Some of the integrated activities are joint inspections; joint enforcement action; meetings for fishing port waste, oil spills and port cleaning; co-ordination and control of cleanup and waste collection; and training. Weaknesses have been identified. In addition to a lack of adequate equipment and financial resources, there is also a need for constant monitoring, increased enforcement co-ordination, increased technical knowledge, and sensitisation of crew and agents. Somalia�s representative provided a general background on the physical and ecological settings of the country, emphasizing the large and ecologically diverse marine ecosystem. The Somalia representative described the sources of marine pollution in the country. There are six major concerns for Somalia. Municipal runoff, solid waste, sewage, and slaughterhouses create problematic domestic waste. Agricultural and industrial wastes, oil pollution as well as coastal quarrying, are additional pollution concerns. There are four deepwater ports and numerous landing sites. Oil spill and leakages come from these local port operations. Oily ballast discharges from tankers and major oil spills from tankers add to the oil pollution. Fishing activities both at sea and on shore result in marine pollution. The Somalia representative stated that there is alleged dumping of hazardous waste such as radioactive waste and other toxic refuse in the region. After describing the current political situation, it was noted that there are no contingency plans or capability to deal with these issues in Somalia. Somalia does not have any legislation concerning pollution by ships. Although Somalia is a signatory to the Nairobi Convention and the Regional Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (PERSGA), it has ratified the SOLAS, MARPOL 73/78, or Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREG). The way forward for marine pollution prevention in Somalia is unclear. South Africa�s representatives listed their key points as capacity building, legislation, national co-ordination, and research and development. South Africa has a programme to address marine pollution, but capacity building is needed. A key issue is training personnel. South Africa would like to increase personnel by increasing available training as well as through forming partnerships to train people into positions. Mentoring in other locations of the world would also improve technical knowledge of personnel. Currently, research and development in South Africa is focused on fish with little emphasis on pollution. It is important to elevate the importance of pollution in order for more research to be performed on coastal pollution and other issues. Co-ordination in research is necessary as there are a number of departments that are responsible for marine issues. These individual research efforts should be brought together. In addition to information sharing and exchange, it is necessary to enhance research and development capacity. The SEAWASTE Network could assist in this effort. The South Africa representatives hoped that all workshop participants would become involved with the Network. Knowledge dissemination is important among the working communities. South Africa has contracted to have


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

a website developed and is hoping to identify marine research areas as this will be important for developing coastland protection. South Africa hopes to establish national committees to work in co-ordinated efforts. Co-ordination among the regions of Africa and within South Africa itself is important to advance marine pollution prevention. Regular activities should include consultation among interested parties. South Africa is developing a number of activities. They plan to finalize the national oil spill contingency plan. South Africa is hoping to conduct an audit of reception facilities, which they would like to finish by the end of the year. South Africa is still operating on legislation from 1943. They are hoping to review regulations and criteria for dumping, as well as to sort out the permitting process. In order to address ballast water, South Africa would like to conduct a marine fauna and flora survey in all ports and harbours and to strengthen relationships between the departments of environmental affairs and water affairs to create a much more integrated and holistic process. South Africa requires assistance to strengthen their marine pollution prevention efforts, particularly financial assistance. Tanzania has six major threats to its water bodies and ports. These are oil pollution, ship ballast water, land-based pollution, dredged material management, air pollution programme, and soil erosion along coastlines. Oil pollution occurs from ship handling and waste, as well as oil suppliers. Tanzania has a national oil contingency plan in draft phase. Technical assistance is needed for these issues. Tanzania requires reception facilities, as well as funds for research and development addressing oil issues. Tanzania would like to carry out studies on port reception facilities and on oil waste standards. Another pollution threat is waste generated from land-based sources such as fisheries, sewage, and industry. Tanzania is developing a project to tackle this problem. One proposed project is the beautification of the coast using seagrass, with funding from UNEP GPA. Another project is to establish a sewage system in Dar es Salaam, but this requires assistance on technical expertise and funding. Tanzania also needs to address ballast water. They hope to have a national port and resources awareness campaign that will include students and technical personnel. Dredging is another threat. There are three major ports. Tanzania will need to identify the dredging needs for each port. This will require identification of dredging technologies and facilities, as well as the operation. Another threat is air pollution. Climate change and global warming are problems that are already being experienced along Tanzania�s coasts and ports. It is leading to erosion. It is important for Tanzania to establish a database on air pollution and point sources. The Tanzania representative noted the importance of understanding nutrient loading through air pollution and other air pollution issues. Another threat is erosion. Tanzania has a programme for planting seagrass to prevent erosion. However, they need assistance to work on this programme, to identify future work, and to increase public awareness as well as funding. From a description of these threats, Tanzania�s representatives concluded that a joint effort from this workshop is needed to prevent marine pollution and to identify key institutions for implementation and evaluation of the meeting outcome. Mr. René Coenen concluded this session with a discussion of the national reports. He stated that he was really impressed by the national reports, noting the limited time available for preparation during the week. Mr. Coenen said that the countries clearly identified priorities and the next steps. He told the participants that the Scientific Group would look at the recommendations given during its session immediately following this workshop. He also indicated that there would be follow-up actions for those involved in the Nairobi Convention.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Mr. Coenen hoped to co-ordinate with marine pollution issues and determine areas for IMO to step in with concrete advice. Mr. Coenen was struck by fact that many countries stated they are working towards ratification of the London Convention. He made a strong plea, urging countries to aim instead at the 1996 Protocol. Noting that the London Convention will end and be replaced by the Protocol, he suggested countries aim for the Protocol to ease the burden and resources for preparing dumping issues in the international context. He asked participants to contact him or John Paul Muindi, Regional Co-ordinator for IMO, if they have any questions. He concluded with a reaction to the issue of capacity building. The IMO/PMAESA strategy plan is in place and waiting for implementation. He requested participants to contact John Paul Muindi to find out how these plans could fit into their national action plans and how to implement these strategies. Finally, he requested a round of applause for all the effort put into session. Closing Ceremony After certificates were distributed to all participants, Mr. Ali Mohamed moderated the closing session. Mr. Dixon Waruinge provided some closing remarks. On behalf of UNEP, Mr. Waruinge thanked the meeting organizers and, particularly noted IMO, Craig Vogt, and René Coenen. He also thanked Lynn Jackson for thinking of having the conference in Kenya. Finally, Mr. Waruinge thanked Ali Mohamed for taking on the challenge of organizing the meeting. Mr. Waruinge stated the need to work within conventions, noting that those within the Nairobi Convention should also work with IMO. He emphasized the need to work among agencies, remarking on the need to combine such ministries as transportation and environment. Mr. Waruinge thanked the participants for attending the meeting. He thanked the IMO for initiating a dialogue with at least dredging companies and the UNEP coral reef unit. He stated the utility of knowing that the GPA will work with countries on their priorities and recommendations. He believed partnerships would be developed through this meeting and knows that they would be fruitful. Municipal waste has been discussed and now the participants know that actions can be taken. Participants in this workshop, Mr. Waruinge stated, are aware any recommendations on municipal waste have ready solutions. He noted the importance of working closely with IMO to move towards solutions. He mentioned a couple projects in the Southwest Indian programme developed by the World Bank and IMO and plans to keep the participants informed on the progress of these two projects. In closing, Mr. Waruinge said that these had been five very intense days of learning and hoped everyone would return home with something fresh and new that to commit to their countries. Mr. Ali Mohamed noted East Africa�s strong history of unified work on marine environment. He thanked Mr. Waruinge and UNEP for their fine steering of the Nairobi Convention. Mr. René Coenen thanked the participants for their hard work and noted that the discussion had been very candid about the needs on which work should be focused. He hopes that the participants will continue to use the IMO and London Convention as a resource. He mentioned that the SEAWASTE Network would be continued for the next two years and hoped that everyone would use it.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Mr. Coenen stated that the IMO is ready to work with the workshop participants and UNEP. He noted that efforts would be concentrated on implementing the region�s issues and addressing their needs through the Nairobi Convention. He urged countries interested in joining the London Convention�s 1996 Protocol to contact the IMO office, which will assist countries where they can. Finally, Mr. Coenen thanked those who had been involved: Mr. Ali Mohamed with his thorough and great effort in organizing; Professor Khamala and the National Environmental Management Authority for bringing things together; the Ministry of Transportation for their work; and the Kenya Ports Authority for the field trip and wonderful reception the night before. Professor Canute Khamala stated that on behalf of the Government of Kenya, he is greatly honoured to have played host to this very important workshop. He believed that all participants learned a lot at the workshop, noting himself in particular. Professor Khamala thanked the IMO. Professor Khamala stated that during the country discussions it became clear that Eastern African countries face great challenges in marine pollution, particularly in coastal areas and ports. Countries have attempted to address these challenges through membership in international conventions. Several countries noted that they have ratified the London Convention and are working towards other IMO conventions. It emerged from the discussions that compliance and enforcement of international conventions have not been easy, due largely to lack of capacity and resources in the region. As ports are expanded, dredging is inevitable. Professor Khamala stated that dredging has to be performed in an environmentally friendly manner. The effects of dredging can have a great impact on marine life, noting that a dredger can be as large as 3 football fields, and asked participants to imagine this impact. He remarked on the importance of dredging to make causeways for ships, but stressed also the importance of sustainable management of the environment. Professor Khamala stated that what was lacking in the presentations was the extension of biological concerns and that these concerns should come into play for dredging and other issues. Professor Khamala stated that this workshop demonstrates what can be accomplished when regions and nations work together. He is very proud to have the Secretariat of the Coastal and Marine Programme of NEPAD in Kenya and believes that the same people who attended the workshop will work with the NEPAD Coastal and Marine Programme. He remarked that African countries are very good at working in organizations, but noted the need for funding and seeing how to organize initiatives to benefit from them. Professor Khamala concluded with thanks to the organizers, facilitators and participants and gave special thanks to the organizers of the two receptions, especially the event at which all learned more about Fort Jesus. Professor Khamala declared the workshop closed. Mr. Ali Mohamed offered a few final words. He noted how proud the Kenyan representatives were to have had the privilege of hosting the workshop and offered a very big asanti for coming to the workshop. Mr. Mohamed believed that active participation had allowed the workshop to be such a great success. Mr. Mohamed thanked all the organizers as well as the donors and contributors, which made the workshop possible and also thanked the interpreters, as well as those who worked behind the scenes.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

WORKSHOP CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The IMO/UNEP/NEPAD Workshop on Marine Pollution Prevention and Environmental Management in Ports in Southern and Eastern Africa informed the participants about the London Convention and Protocol in the context of other international agreements and programmes for the protection of the marine environment. The Workshop also provided a forum for representatives of national marine pollution prevention and management agencies to gain more information about relevant topics and to learn more about relevant resources in the region and from international organizations. Regional Concerns Discussion of regional concerns was divided between marine-based challenges and land-based challenges. The primary marine-based challenges discussed were oil spill contingency planning, the provision of reception facilities for ship-borne wastes, the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms through ballast water, ship-based pollution and litter on the coastline, and the difficulty of preventing and controlling dumping at sea. Land-based challenges focused on sources of pollution on land and sewage, solid waste management, e.g., litter and plastics, and industrial wastewater. Once the types of pollution faced by the region were identified, the discussion centred on the difficulties of addressing each of these. The lack of reception facilities and sewage treatment is a problem faced by many countries and is exacerbated by rapid population growth that is increasing beyond the building of infrastructure. Additionally, many of the countries mentioned the lack of trained personnel for enforcement and implementation of national legislation, while other countries were not sure how to co-ordinate international agreements with national legislation. Countries were seeking assistance to train personnel, setup facilities and create national legislation. Follow-up Projects The SEAWASTE Network on integrated waste management in Southern and Eastern Africa was identified as an excellent, additional platform for regional networking and giving a follow-up to discussions at this Workshop and sharing of experiences in solving regional concerns would be easier through this network. Participants were urged to take advantage of this resource. IMO stressed its readiness to work with workshop participants and UNEP on marine pollution prevention in the region. Efforts would be concentrated on utilizing the Nairobi Convention to address regional issues and needs. Countries interested in joining the London Protocol were urged to contact the IMO Office for the London Convention. Minimum requirements to implement the London Protocol Several countries recommended the creation of an information package detailing the minimum requirements to join the London Protocol. Participants requested a detailed list of the steps that a country should to take to join, as well as a clear description of the benefits, costs and consequences a State should consider when becoming a Contracting Party to this Protocol.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Annex I

IMO/UNEP WORKSHOP ON MARINE POLLUTION PREVENTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT IN PORTS IN EASTERN AFRICA:

Mombasa, Kenya (26 - 30 April 2004)

Sunday, 25 April Pre-registration Monday, 26 April 07:30 � 09:00 Registration of participants Session 1 09:00 � 10:10 Opening Ceremony

Welcome and Introduction: Professor Canute Khamala, Chairman, Board of Management, National Environment Management Authority

Dr. Ellik Adler, UNEP Mr. René Coenen, IMO-Office for the London Convention, IMO/London Convention Mr. Brown Ondego, Managing Director Kenya Port Authority

Official Opening of the Workshop Dr. Gerishon Ikiara, Ministry of Transport and Communications COFFEE & TEA BREAK

10:45 � 11:00 Workshop Objectives

Objectives and structure of the workshop: Chair of the London Convention Scientific Group: Mr. Craig Vogt

Session 2 11:00 � 12:30 Legal Framework for Marine Pollution Management (Moderator:

Mr. Craig Vogt, Chair of the LC Scientific Group)

Introduction to London Convention 1972 and its 1996 Protocol and Implications of Membership: Mr. René Coenen, IMO

MARPOL 73/78 Convention: Ms. Geraldine M. Maingi, Kenya Ministry of Transport and Communications


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Global Programme of Action (GPA) and Regional Sea Programme in Eastern and Southern Africa: Dr. Ellik Adler, UNEP Nairobi Convention: Dixon Waruinge, UNEP Southern and Eastern African Waste Management Network (SEAWASTE Network): Dr. Yazeed Petersen, International Oceans Institute, South Africa Intergovernmental Oceanographic Committee (IOC): Dr. Melckzedeck Osore, Kenya Marine Fisheries Research Institute Discussion: Opportunities for collaboration and integrated management

12:30 � 14:00 LUNCH BREAK

Session 3 14:00 � 16:00 Sustainable Development: Environmental Management in Ports:

Identification of Issues (Moderator: Dr. Chris Vivian, Vice Chair, LC Scientific Group, United Kingdom)

Land-Based and Sea-Based Discharges (sewage, industrial wastewater, storm water runoff, vessels: bilge water, black and gray water, anti-fouling systems, vessel-repair dry docking facilities): Mr. Jim Osborne, Canada Management of Ballast Water Discharges: Dr. Lynn Jackson, Global Invasive Species Program, South Africa

Dredging of Ports and Marinas: Dr. Tom Fredette, Army Corps of Engineers, United States

Integration of Sustainability Issues into Port Management Using Strategic Environmental Assessment: Capetown Case Study: Ms. Mandisa Mondi, National Port Authority, South Africa National Oil Spill Response Contingency Plan: Ms. Mercy Wambugu, Kenya Shell Global Programme of Action (GPA): Dr. Ellik Adler, UNEP Discussion

16:00 � 16:30 COFFEE & TEA BREAK 16:30 � 17:30 Sustainable Development: Environmental Management in Ports:

Identification of Issues (Moderator: Mr. Jim Osborne, Canada) (continued)


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Case studies: Port Development Programme and Industrial Development and Waste Management: Mr. Shreenath Parahoo, Ports Authority, Mauritius Development of Port Ballast Water Management Plan for Mauritius: Mr. Asiva Coopen, Ministry of Shipping, Mauritius Addressing the Realities in Providing Adequate Port Reception Facilities: Mr. Japhet Ombogo, East Africa Marine Environmental Management Company Ltd. French Organization for Pollution Prevention and Pollution Response (POLMAR): Mr. Dominque Bucas, Navy, La Réunion

Discussion

18:30 Reception Tuesday, April 27 Session 4 09:00 � 10:30 Sustainable Development: Waste Management in Eastern & Southern

Africa (Moderator: Mr. Ali Mohamed, Kenya) Overview of Waste Management in Eastern & Southern Africa:

Dr. Daniel Munga, Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute Overview of Legal Frameworks for Marine Pollution Prevention in

Eastern and Southern Africa: Mr. Akunga Momanyi, University of Nairobi

Case studies: The 2004 International Ballast Water Convention and its Impact on Port Management: Mr. Brian Watt, Port Management Association of Eastern and Southern Africa (PMAESA) Ballast Water Management in South African Ports: Ms. Mirriam Tenyane, National Ports Authority, South Africa Port Management in Madagascar: Mr. Andrianarison Aurelian, Transport Ministry, Madagascar

Discussion

10:30 � 11:00 COFFEE & TEA BREAK Session 5 11:00 � 13:00 Introduction to Waste Assessment Guidance (Moderator: Dr. Gi-Hoon Hong, Vice Chair LC Scientific Group, Korea)


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Introduction to Waste Management Principles: Mr. Craig Vogt, Chair LC Scientific Group

Key components of Waste Assessment Guidance: Mr. Frans Tjallingii,

Netherlands Waste Characterization: Ms. Linda Porebski, Canada Waste Management Options: Mr. John Lishman, United States Identification of Disposal Sites: Mr. Chris Vivian, United Kingdom Discussion

13:00 � 14:30 LUNCH BREAK

14:30 � 16:00 Introduction to Waste Assessment Guidance (Moderator: Mr. John Lishman, United States)

Permitting Process: Ms. Linda Porebski, Canada Environmental Impact Assessment and Monitoring: Dr. Tom Fredette,

United States Case Study: Dutch Experience � EIA Development, Disposal, and Monitoring of

Dredged Material: Mr. Frans Tjallingii, Netherlands

Discussion 16:00 � 16:30 COFFEE & TEA BREAK

16:30 - 17:30 Waste Management Case Studies (Moderator: Ms. Molly Madden,

United States) Case Studies: Efforts to Address Ballast Water Management in Kenya: Dr. Melckzedeck

Osore, Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute Dumping of Condemned/Spoilt Cargo and Dangerous Goods:

Mr. Peter Mbiriri, Kenya Ports Authority Industrial Development and Waste Management in the Industrial Estate of

Poudre d�or: Mrs. Nashreen Soogun, Ministry of Environment, Mauritius Status of Environmental Aspects at Dar Es Salaam Port: Mr. John Kwayu,

Harbour Authority, Tanzania


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Maritime Safety in Comoros: Mr. Bakri Oumouri, Ministry of Infrastructure Development, Comoros

Waste Management in the Comoros: Mr. Issa Abdillah Mohamdi,

Direction nationale d�environnement, de forêt et strategie agricole, Comoros

South African Maritime Safety Authority (SAMSA) and Emergency

Response Activities: Mr. Saleem Modak, South African Maritime Safety Authority

Wednesday, April 28 FIELD TRIP � PORT OF MOMBASA Thursday, April 29 Session 6 Working Group Sessions (Convening of Working Group 1, Dredged Material Management, and Working Group 4, SEAWASTE Network, is definite. Working Groups 2 and 3 are optional and these sessions will be determined on the basis of responses received from invited countries.) 9:00 � 17:30 Working Group 1: Dredged Material Management Facilitators: Mr. Neville Burt (WODA/HR Wallingford) Mr. Polite Laboyrie (Dutch Rijkswaterstaat) Dr. Tom Fredette (USACE) Ms. Molly Madden (USEPA) Mr. Dixon Waruinge (UNEP) The working group session is planned in two parts. The morning session will be a series of lectures about various aspects of dredged material management. For this, delegates will receive a free set of CEDA/IADC Guides � Environmental Aspects of Dredging. Opportunity will be given during and at the end of each lecture for questions. The afternoon will provide an opportunity for presentation of cases by delegates followed by a panel discussion led by the speakers and other invited experts. 09:00 � 09:10 Introduction to the dredged material management Working Group

Neville Burt (WODA/HR Wallingford) 09:10 � 09:45 Application of the LC to dredged material Tom Fredette

(U.S. Corps of Engineers)

• London Convention/Protocol: Specific Waste Assessment Guidelines for Dredged material

• The role of The International Navigation Association, PIANC; Dredged Material Management Guide,

• Management of Aquatic Disposal of Dredged Material, • Managing Contaminated Dredged material, • Dredging: The Environmental Facts - where to find what you

need to know.


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

09:45 � 10:30 Project Planning and Assessment: Investigation, Interpretation and

Impact Polite Laboyrie (WODA/ Rijkswaterstaat)

• Project planning • Initial evaluation • Field surveys, sampling and lab tests • Interpretation of results • Assessment

10:30 � 1100 COFFEE & TEA BREAK 11:00 � 12:00 Dredging: Machines, Methods, and Mitigation Neville Burt

(WODA/HR Wallingford)

• Types of project • Phases of a project • Dredging equipment • Recent developments • Transport and disposal equipment and techniques • Mitigating measures • Monitoring and Control

12:00 � 13:00 Management of Dredged Material: Re-use, Recycle or Relocate

Polite Laboyrie (WODA/Rijkswaterstaat)

Management alternatives Selection of best option Material properties Beneficial use Open water disposal Confined disposal Treatment

13:00 � 14:30 LUNCH BREAK 14:30 � 15:00 Dredging in Coral Reef Areas Mr. Dixon Waruinge (UNEP) 15:00 � 15:15 Environmental Education: Dredged Material Management�Web

Site Demonstration Ms. Molly Madden (U.S. EPA) and Dr. Tom Fredette (US Corps of Engineers)

15:15 � 16:15 Case studies

Dredged Material Management in South Africa, Mr. Asanda Njobeni, Department of Environment, South Africa

16:15 � 16:45 COFFEE & TEA BREAK 16:45 � 17:45 Panel discussion chaired by Neville Burt


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Panel members: Tom Fredette Polite Laboyrie Dixon Waruinge Chris Vivian

Working Groups 2, 3, and 4 operate concurrently in the afternoon with Working Group 1 (Working Groups 2 and 3 are optional and these sessions will be determined on the basis of responses received from invited countries.) 13:30- 15:15 Working Group 2 Sewage Treatment and Management of Biosolids

Facilitators: Mr. Craig Vogt (U.S.)

Fundamentals of Sewage Treatment-Facilities and Processes: Mr. Craig Vogt, United States Management of Sewage Sludge (Biosolids), Mr. Craig Vogt, United States Management of Sewage Sludge Disposal in Korea, Dr. Gi Hoon Hong, Korea

15:15-15:45 COFFEE & TEA BREAK 15:45-17:30 Working Group 3 Environmental Management of Industrial Waste

Facilitator: Mr. Jim Osborne, Canada

Industrial Waste and Waste Water Management Issues: Mr. Jim Osborne, Canada

Case Studies

15:45-17:30 Working Group 4 SEAWASTE Network Facilitator: Dr. Yazeed Petersen, University of South Africa

18:30-20:00 Prepare reports on national priorities & draft Action Plans

(Moderators, Working Group Chairs and Delegates).

This session is for delegates to prepare national reports to be presented to the Workshop

Friday, April 30 Session 7 08:30-9:00 Identification of funding opportunities for Environmental

Management/Partnerships, TBD 09:00-09.30 Summary Results from Working Groups (Moderator:

Dr. Chris Vivian)


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Dredged Material Management, Mr. Neville Burt, WODA/HR Wallingford Sewage Management, Mr. Craig Vogt, USA Industrial Waste and Waste Water Management, Mr. Jim Osborne, Canada SEAWASTE Network, Dr. Yazeed Petersen, International Oceans Institute

09.30-12:00 Presentation of National Reports (Priorities & Action Plans) 11:00-11:30 COFFEE & TEA BREAK 11:30-12:30 Presentation of National Reports (Priorities & Action Plans) -

Continued 12:30 Closing Ceremony

Closing Remarks Mr. René Coenen, IMO/London Convention Closing Remarks, Mr. Dixon Waruinge, UNEP Closing Remarks, Government of Kenya

13:00 Closure of Workshop

***


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Annex II

IMO/UNEP Workshop on Marine Pollution Prevention and

Environmental Management in Ports in Eastern Africa Mombasa, Kenya

26 � 30 April 2004

List of Participants

CANADA Linda Porebski Chief Marine Pollution Prevention Environment Canada 12th Fl., Gatineau, Quebec, K1A OH3 351 ST. Joseph Blvd, 12th Floor Gatineau, Quebec, KIAOH3 Phone: 819 953 4341 Fax: 819 953 0913 Email: [email protected] Jim Osborne Consultant 1030 Route 105 Chelsea, Quebec Phone: 819-827-3368 Mobile:613 614 3368 Email: [email protected] COMOROS Toimimon Youssouf Securite Maritime Autorite Portuaire des Comores P.O. Box 957 Moroni Phone: 269 730 008 Fax: 269733253 Email: [email protected] Bakri Oumouri Director Maritime Transport Ministere de development des Infrastructure Charge de Transport P.O. Box 97, Moroni Phone: (269) 734060 Fax: (269) 734241 Email: [email protected]

Ali Mohamed Assoumani Port Officer Autorite Portuaire des Comores P.O. Box 858, Moroni Phone: (269) 730008 /733253 Mobile: (269) 337272 Fax: (269) 733253 Email: [email protected] Issa Abdillah Mohamadi Chef de Service Communication et Education Environmentals Direction Nationale de l�Environment, Des forets et Strategies Agricoles P.O. Box 41 Moroni Phone: (269) 736388 / 799177 Fax: (269) 736388/736362 Email: [email protected] ERITREA Alem Tsehaye Director General, Department of Maritime Tranport Ministry of Transport and Communication P.O. Box 679 Asmara Phone: 00291-1-121317 Fax: 00291-1-121316 Email [email protected] Yishak Weldemariam Marine Engineer responsible for the Port environmental protection Massawa Port Administration P.O. Box 73, Massawa Phone: 291 1 552122 Fax: 291 1 552106 Email: [email protected]


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Amanuel Asmelash Ghebretensae Head, Standard & Regulations Department of Maritime Transport P.O. Box 679, Asmara Phone: 291-1-120555/121317 Fax: 291-1-121316 Email: [email protected] Tewolde Gebreyesus Director of Resources Assessment & Information Department of Environment Ministry of Land, Water & Environmental Resources P.O. Box 5713, Asmara Phone: 291-1-125887 Fax: Email: [email protected] KENYA Saeed M. Mwaguni Head, Environment and Department Coast Development Authority P.O. Box 1322, Mombasa Phone: 254-41-313382 Mobile: 254-733 600 910 Fax: 254 224411 Email: [email protected] Dr. Melchezedeck Osore Senior Research Scientist Kenya Marine & Fisheries Research Institute P.O. Box 81651, Mombasa Phone: 254-041-471129 Fax: 041-475157 Email: [email protected] Peter W. Kwinga Executive Officer Kenya Ships Agents Association P.O. Box 83908, Mombasa Phone: 041-230027/8 Fax: 041- 230001 Email: ksaa@africaonline George Sunguh Managing Editor African Shipping Review Box 45, Mombasa Phone: 254-41-315454 Fax: Email:

Daniel Nyassy Journalist East African Stardard Newspaper P.O. Box 90120, Mombasa Phone: 254 41 228605/313185 Fax: 254 41 312331 Email: [email protected] Jack Owuor Photo Journalist East African Stardard Newspaper P.O. Box 90120, Mombasa Phone: 254 41 228605/313185 Fax: 254 41 312331 Email [email protected] Mercy Wambugu Operations Manager Kenya Shell (OSMAG) P.O. Box 43561, 00100 Nairobi Phone: 3200 5163 Mobile: 254-722 512 395 Fax: 245 644 Email: [email protected] Prof. Canute P.M. Khamala Chairman National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) Box. 67839, 00200, Nairobi Phone: 020-609697 Mobile: 07433 779 Fax: 020-609697 Email: [email protected] Fatma Twahir Head, Research and Development Department E.A.M. Enviromental Management Co. Box 90302, Mombasa Phone: 041-228313 Mobile: 254-733 296782 Fax: 041-316583 Email: [email protected] John M. Kasina Plant Inspector Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services (KEPHIS) Box 80126, Mombasa Phone: 041 316002/3 Mobile: 254-722 283 193 Fax: Email: [email protected] [email protected]


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Boniface Musumba Security Officer Kenya Ports Authority P.O. Box 95009, Mombasa Phone: 041 312211 Mobile: 254-733 895920 Fax: 041 311867 Email: [email protected] Lt. Col. D.O. Edepi Squadron Commander Kenya Navy P.O. Box 95350, Mombasa Phone: 041-451201 Mobile: 0721 375 045 Fax: 041-451213 Email: [email protected] Godrick Mwashigadi Technical Co-ordinator Oil Spill Mutual Aid Group � Kenya P.O. Box 80394, Mombasa Phone: 041-495762 Mobile: 254-722 832661 Fax: 041-494515 Email:[email protected] Mickie M. Abkeah Revenue Officer Kenya Revenue Authority P.O. Box 95300 Mombasa Phone: Mobile: 254-722879961 Fax: Email: Fidelice O. Ongany Revenue Officer Kenya Revenue Authority Box 41304, Mombasa Phone: 225811 ext 140 Fax: 041- 2205389 Email: Ali Mohamed NEPAD Coastal and Marine Secretariat P.O. Box 67839, 00200, Nairobi Phone: 254-20-608997 Email: [email protected]

Salome Machua National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) P.O. Box 67839, 00200, Nairobi Phone: 254-20-608997 Email: [email protected] Ali Mwachui NEPAD Coastal and Marine Secretariat P.O. Box 67839, 00200, Nairobi Phone: 254-20-608997 Fax: Mobile: 254-722-370653 Email: [email protected] Eunice Chipinde Personal Secretary National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) P.O.Box 67839, 00200, Nairobi Phone: 254-20-608997 Mobile: 0721-361606 Fax: 254-02-608997 Email: [email protected] Akunga Momanyi Lecturer University of Nairobi, Faculty of Law P.O.Box 10324, 00100 G.P.O Nairobi Phone: 254-20-342149 Mobile: 254-733-873300/254-722-992979 Fax: 254-020-34249 Email: [email protected] Brown M.M. Ondego Managing Director Kenya Ports Authority P.O. Box 95009, Mombasa Phone: 254-41-312211 Mobile: Fax: 254-41-311867 Email: [email protected] Capt. T. A. Khamis Harbour Master Kenya Ports Authority P.O. Box 95009, Mombasa Phone: 254-41-312211 Fax: 254-41-311867 Email: [email protected]


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Peter Mbiriri Pollution Control Officer Kenya Ports Authority P.O. Box 95009, Mombasa Phone: 254-41-312211 ext 2583 Fax: 254-41-311867 Email: [email protected] Murithi Mugambi Environment and Safety Manager Kenya Ports Authority P.O. Box 95009, Mombasa Phone: Fax: Email: Capt. J. Nguyo Marine Pilot Kenya Ports Authority P.O. Box 95009, Mombasa Phone: Fax: Email: Peter K. Thuo Director/Shipping and Maritime Affairs Ministry of Transport and Communication, P.O. Box 52692, Ngong Road, Nairobi Phone: 254-2-7244553 Mobile:254-722-624538 Fax: 254-02-2724553 Email: Geraldine Maingi Under Secretary Ministry of Transport and Communications P.O. Box 52692, Ngong Road, Nairobi Phone: 254-2729200 Mobile: 254-733-924286 Fax: 254-2726362 Email: Annah Tipis Principal Merchant Shipping Supt.(Commercial) Kenya Ports Authority P.O. Box 95076 Mombasa Phone: 254-41-225955/6 Ext 4330 Mobile:254-722-867631 Fax: 254-41-220831 Email: [email protected]

Japhet Ombogo Process Engineer E.A.M. Environmental management co. Ltd P.O. Box 90302, Mombasa Phone: Mobile: 254-722-364332 Fax: Email:[email protected] Rebecca Muga Administrator E.A.M. Environmental Management Co. Ltd Box 90302, Mombasa Phone: 254-41-228313 / 226824 Mobile:254-733-732 Fax: 254-41-316583 Email:[email protected] Fatima Abdallah Ministry of Transport and Communications P.O. Box 52692, Ngong Road, Nairobi Phone: Fax:: Email: Dr. Daniel Munga Snr. Research Scientist Kenya Marine & Fisheries Research Institute P.O. B ox 81651, Mombasa Phone: 254-41-475152-4 Mobile:254-733-584729 Fax: 254-41-475157 Email: [email protected] MADAGASCAR Roland Rakotondrasata National Co-ordinator of Oil Spill Ministry of Environment, Water and Forests Ampefiloba, Antananarivo Phone: 261-20-2264081 Mobile: 03311-157-81 Fax: Email: [email protected] Andrianarison Aurelien Responsible of Maritime Transport Transport Ministry - Maritime P.O. Box 581, Antananarivo Phone:261 20 22258-60 Mobile: 03204546-92 Fax: 261 20 2225860 Email: [email protected]


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Avellin Christian Head of ShipsDepartment Toamusina Port BP 492 , Toamasina - 501 Phone: (261-20) 5332155 Mobile: 0320-461062 Fax: (261-20) 53335 58 Email:[email protected] MAURITIUS Nashreen Soogun Environment Officer Ministry of Environment Ken Lee Tower, Barracks Street, Port Louis Phone: (230) 2124385 Fax: (230) 2126671 Email: [email protected] Yajoshi Basant Rai Scientific Officer Ministry of Fisheries 4th Floor, LIC Building Port Louis Phone: (230) 238-4829/4100 Fax: (230) 238-4184 Email:[email protected]/[email protected]. mu Shreenath Parahoo Port Emergency & Environment Controller Maurituis Ports Authority Port Administration Bldg, Mer Rouge, Port Louis Phone: (230) 2403741/2065466 Mobile: 00230-2571599 Fax: (230) 2065465 Email: Capt.Asiva Coopen Nautical Surveyor, Shipping Shipping Office 4th Floor Quayd Port Louis Phone: (230) 2407016 Fax: (230) 2161612 Email: [email protected] MOZAMBIQUE Jardão Matimula Ministry of Health Av. Eduardo Mondlane/ Salvador Allende, P.O. Box 264, Maputo Phone: 258-1-310281 Mobile: 258-82-468992 Fax: 258-1-310281 Email: [email protected]

Select Mundlovo Ministry of Transport and Communications Box 336, Maputo Phone: 258-1-303480 Mobile:258-82-407826 Fax: 258-426853 Email: [email protected] NAMIBIA Jo Leitz ISO Consultant Namibian Ports Authority No. 17th 13th Road, Walvis Bay Phone: 264(0)64 208 2283 Fax: 264 (0) 64 208 2333 Email: [email protected] NETHERLANDS Frans J. Tjallingii Co-ordinator for International Affairs Ministry of Transport Public Works & Water Management North Sea Directorate P.O. Box 5807 2288 G K Rijswijk Phone: 31 703366846 Mobile: 316-53946430 Fax: 31 70 3900691 Email: [email protected] Hypolite. Laboyrie Head of Environmental Department Ministry of Transport, Public Works & Water Management Griffioenlaan 2 P.O. Box 20000 3502 LA Utrecht The Netherlands Phone: 31-30-285-7826 Mobile: 31-6-51313279 Fax: 31-30-285-8195 Email: [email protected] REPUBLIC OF KOREA Gi Hoon Hong Senior Scientist Korea Ocean Research & Development Institute Ansan P.O. Box 29 Kyonggi 425-600 Phone: 82-031-400-6180 Mobile: 82-(0)11-9066-3189 Fax: 82-31-408-4493 Email: [email protected]


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

REUNION (France) Dominique Bucas Navy Commander's Deputy Navy - In Charge of State Action on Sea Rond Point de la Glaciere, 97821, LE Port Cedex Phone: 262 �(0)-262-55-13 48 Mobile: 262 �(0)-692-60-04-54 Fax: 262-(0)-262-55-1208 Email: [email protected] SEYCHELLES Philip DeCommarmond Environment Inspector Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Victoria, Mahe Phone: 248-224644 Fax: Email:[email protected] Clement Julienne Snr. Tug Coxswain Port and Marine Division P.O.Box 1145, Botanical Garnes, Mahe Phone: 376147 Fax: Email: Clifford Toussaint Fishing Port Manager Seychelles Fishing Authority P.O.Box 449, Victoria, Mahe Phone: 248-241098 / 511441 Mobile: 248-511441 Fax: 248 241508 Email: [email protected] SOMALIA Abdirahman J. Kulmiye Director Somali Network for Resource Management Bosaso, Puntland, Somalia Phone: 252-523-3626/4521/6363 Fax: 252-523-4801 Email:[email protected]

SOUTH AFRICA Noel Williams Director Depart. of Environmental Affairs & Tourism 7 Doddington Street, Avondale, Atlantis 7349 Phone: 21-4023181 Mobile:0833066732 Fax: 21-4023181 Email: [email protected] Mirriam Tenyane Environment Health & Safety Portfolio Manager National Ports Authority of South Africa Private Bag x1, Saldahna 7395 Phone: 27-22-701-4338 Mobile:27-83-285-3397 Fax: 27-22-714-2285 Email: [email protected] Mandisa Mondi Executive Manager Environment, Health & Safety National Ports Authority of South Africa P.O. Box 32696, Braamfontein, 2017 Phone: 27-11-242-4105/4342 Mobile: 083-308-4670 Fax: 27-11-242-4260 Email: [email protected] Saleem Modak Principal Officer - Cape Town South African Maritime Safety Authority SAMSA, 19th Floor, 2 Long Street, Cape Town 8001 Private Bag X7025 Roggebaai Phone: 27-21-421-6170 Mobile:27-83-257-5931 Fax: 27-21-419-0730 Email: [email protected] Asanda Njobeni Oceanographer Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism Private Bag x2 Roggebaai 8012, Cape Town Phone: 272-1402-3347 Fax: 272-1402-3140 Email: [email protected]


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Yazeed Petersen Project Officer International Ocean Institute of Southern Africa c/o Dept. of Biodiversity & Conservation Biology, University of the Western Cape, Private Bag X17, Bellville 7535, Cape Town Phone: 27-21- 959-3408 Mobile:27-83-530-3129 Fax: 27- 21-9591213 Email: [email protected] Aurelia Nosipo Sobekwa South African Maritime and Safety Authority P.O. Box X 54309, Durban 4000 Phone: 31 306 8163 Mobile: 082 8590 117 Fax: 31 306 7558 Email: [email protected] Lynn Jackson Acting Director Global Invasive Species Programmes Private Bag X7, Claremont 7735, Cape Town Phone: 27 21 799 8837 Mobile: 27-83-406-7666 Fax: 27 21 797 1561 Email:[email protected] TANZANIA John K Kwayu Director of Operations Tanzania Harbour Authority P.O.Box 9184, Dar-es-salaam Phone: 255-22-211-7394 Mobile: 0744-787789 Fax: 255-22-211-3938 Email: [email protected] Melania Mary Sangeu Senior Environment Management Officer National Environment Management Council NEMC, P.O. Box 63154, Dar-es-salaam Phone: 255-022-134603 Mobile: 255-0744-753179 Fax: 255-022-111579 Email:[email protected]

Erasto Wapalila Maritime Transport Economist Ministry of Communications and Transport P.o. Box 9144, Dar-es-salaam Phone: 255-22-2122263 Mobile : 255-7744-490-800 Fax : 255-22-21-22268 Email: [email protected] UNITED KINGDOM Chris Vivian Topic Leader Centre for Environment Fisheries & Aquaculture Sciences (CEFAS) CEFAS Burnham Laboratory, Remembrance Avenue Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex, CM0 8HA Phone: 44-1621-787200 Fax: 44-1621-784989 Email: [email protected] UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Thomas J. Fredette Biologist US Corps of Engineers 696 Virginia RD Concord, MA Phone: 978-318-8291 Fax: 978-318-8303 Email:[email protected] John Lishman Environmental Protection Specialist US Environmental Protection Agency Marine Pollution Control Branch (4504T) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202-566-1364 Fax: 202-566-1546 Email: [email protected] Craig Vogt Deputy Director Oceans & Coastal Protection Division US Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202-566-1200 Fax: 202-566-1334 Email:[email protected]


I:\LC\26\INF-6.doc

Molly Madden ORISE fellow US Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202-566-1279 Fax: 202-566-1546 Email:[email protected] PORT MANAGEMENT ASSOCATION Olivier Hartmann Secretary General PMA Eastern and Southern Africa P.O. Box 99209, Mombasa, Kenya Phone: 254-41-223 245 Mobile: 254-733-804278 Fax: 254-41-228344 Email: [email protected] Mereille Backo Secretary General PMA West and Central Africa Box 12 Parklane, Lagos, Nigeria Phone: Mobile: 234 803 3650075 Fax: Email:[email protected]/secgen@pmawc aagpacc.org Brian Watt Maritime & Pollution Consultant PMA Eastern and Southern Africa P.O. Box 38128, Faerie Glen 0043 South Africa Phone: 27-12-9913947 Mobile:27-82-4453155 Fax: 27-12-9916253 Email: [email protected] WORLD ORGANIZATION OF DREDGING ASSOCIATIONS Neville Burt Technical Director WODA c/o H R Wallingford, Wallingford Oxon OX10 8BA, UK Phone: 44 1491 822 348 Mobile: 44 7889 169080 Fax: 44 1491 832 233 Email: [email protected]

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION René Coenen Head Office of the London Convention International Maritime Organization 4 Albert Embankment London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom Phone: 44-20-7507-3239 Fax: 44-20-7507-3210 Email: [email protected] James N. Paw Programme Co-ordination Officer International Maritime Organization 4 Albert Embankment London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom Phone: 44-20-7507-3238 Fax: 44-20-7507-3210 Email: [email protected] John Paul Muindi Regional Co-ordinator International Maritime Organization P.O. Box 30218, Nairobi, Kenya Phone: 254-20-624377 Fax: 254-20-624485 Email: [email protected] UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME Dr. Ellik Adler Programme Co-ordinator United Nations Environment Programme Regional Seas Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya Phone: (254) 20629033/544 Fax: (254) 20 624618 Email: [email protected] Dixon Waruinge Programme. Officer United Nations Environment Programme Box 63204, Nairobi, Kenya Phone: 020- 622025 Fax: Email: [email protected]

__________

international maritime organization e...new partnership for africa™s development (nepad-cosmar)...

Documents