Marine Log - December 2007 - (Page 51)

Opinion Is MARPOL Dead? continued from p. 52 economic zone of an EU member state. It limits MARPOL defenses, and inserts the phrase “serious negligence” without defining what that means. It prescribes criminal liability for discharges resulting from serious negligence. So, when I ask the rhetorical question, “Is MARPOL dead?” this is another example of why an international consensus might seem to be lacking. Impatience with the international or “MARPOL” process may be understandable. For example, mandatory oily water separating equipment was one of the major features of the 1973 MARPOL convention. However, a report last year from GESAMP, the joint United Nations group of experts on the scientific aspects of marine pollution, estimates that operational discharges of oil from ships make up about 45% of the estimated vesselsource input of 457,000 tons per year. Last October, an article appeared in Lloyd’s List, entitled “MARPOL, you are the weakest link,” by a special correspondent, otherwise unidentified. If MARPOL is a metaphor for the international treaty-making process as a means of eliminating vessel-source pollution, this article, describing the sad saga of oily water separators, offers another example of how the process can lead to seemingly interminable delay. If I told you that the original IMCO recommendation on international performance specifications for oily-water separating equipment and oil content meters [resolution a.233 (vii)] dates from 1971, would you believe me? Well, it’s true. And it is, of course, a core essential of MARPOL Annex I requirements. But here we are: It’s 2007, and just this month, a tanker management company was convicted for its role in the dumping of waste oil from a vessel in its fleet into international waters, and for its efforts to impede the U.S. Coast Guard’s investigation. The company was convicted of falsifying records with respect to the discharge of oil-contaminated waste, and of presenting false oil record books and other documents to the Coast Guard in ports in Connecticut, Florida, New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands. It was also convicted of conspiracy and obstruction of justice, in that it destroyed www.marinelog.com December 2007 Vol. 112 No. 12 the rubber hose used to dump waste overboard. The Marine Environment Protection committee of the IMO has this year instructed its subcommittee on ship design and equipment to conduct a thorough review, “in a holistic manner” of both the technical and implementation problems, by the year 2008. So we are talking about a span of 37 years in wrestling with a fundamental technical problem. We also are now speaking of ways and means to train seafarers in the proper use of oily water separator equipment. We are concerned about whether adequate shore facilities exist for the discharge of sludge/oil waste, and whether proper facilities exist for onboard burning, if there are no shore facilities available, or if no discharge can be made. We are still testing, after all these years. It is therefore not surprising that there is some impatience with the international regulatory process. Tor Svensen of Det Norske Veritas (DNV), who is the current chairman of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS), expressed my own views better than I, when he said: is in fact a “living” body of rules and standards subject to amendment and improvement, as MARPOL has been from time to time. We would also lose legitimacy and international consent. Articles 217-220 of UNCLOS deal with enforcement by flag states, port states and coastal states of measures to protect and preserve the marine environment. While progress has surely been in fits and starts, and sometimes apparently lacking, this commitment in MARPOL, UNCLOS and other conventions is the world’s best and only hope in making technology work, in adopting global standards that work and in achieving measurable results in the protection of our seas. How effective is the system of negotiation? IS MARPOL IN DANGER? CAN IT BE SAVED? As Yogi Berra said, “it’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future.” The “MARPOL system,” which includes governments, non-governmental organizations and a large but ill-defined group known as “experts,” is an effective means of solving the technical, legal and political problems that surround the issues of climate change, global warming and oceanic ecosystem management. This year, the theme of world maritime day is “IMO’s response to current environmental challenges.” The process of change is constant, and sometimes seemingly chaotic. I do share Tor Svensen’s optimism. Ship owners, flag state administrations and commercial stakeholders share the broader concerns of society that the maritime industry adopt and enforce “green and clean” practices. MARPOL is not “dead.” However, a successful approach to controlling vesselsource pollution will require effective technical and scientific inputs. This is not an effort in wishful thinking. The process of setting standards must result in standards that actually work. Training those that will apply those standards is of critical importance. Rules and standards must be technically feasible, practical and effective. We are not engaged in an adversarial struggle between opposing forces. For success, the human factor —the crews and those ashore—must be placed in front of other considerations. The oily water separator saga is an admonition to all of us, of the penalties for declaring a problem solved, when it is not solved. ML “The regulators are well aware of what the industry is doing, and if they see that the shipping industry is taking action, they will back off a little bit. We will still get unilateral action, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. I don’t like it, but proactive governments and local governments like California are putting it on the agenda, and they are making the rest of the world react. There is balance in that those that are trying to do things locally are also driving the agenda. In principle, I believe in international regulations, but in some cases you need a certain amount of push, and they contribute to that push.” I think that Tor has hit the nail on the head. To deal effectively with vessel-source pollution, we need local legislation to push the agenda along. We also need local law enforcement, however, unpopular Richard Udell and his colleagues may occasionally be with a small number of us. We also need MARPOL. Without MARPOL, I believe that we would lose an effective basis for port state control in most parts of the world. We will also lose a document in force globally—with its annexes and confusing provisions—that DECEMBER 2007 MARINE LOG 51 http://www.marinelog.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Marine Log - December 2007

Marine Log - December 2007 Contents Editorial Second Thoughts Update Inside Washington Warning: Shipbuilding Over-Supply by 2011 Steely Resolve: Cutting Injuries What’s on Your Mind? Newsmakers Tech News Contracts Events InfoDirect Website Directory ML Marketplace Last Word

Marine Log - December 2007

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.