maritime mate

Shipwrecked

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Mon, 12 May 2008 05:14:00 +0000

By Karen Nadder Lago
While climate change and overpopulation contribute to what the United Nation's 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment calls the "globalization of nature," commercial ships navigating the world in the service of global trade are primarily responsible for transporting non-native species of plants and animals to areas where they did not exist before. The oceans are no longer the protective barriers they once were, as many large ships make trips to too many places, leaving in their wake pollution formed from living organisms that is effectively displacing and killing native species in every region of the globe.

Take as an example what is happening to the watershed that contains one-fifth of the world's and 95 percent of U.S. surface fresh water where a 2006 U.S. Fish and Wildlife survey found that fishing has decreased 30 percent over the past 5 years. The St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes' highly sought native trophy fish have suffered severe die-offs as a result of a new invasive virus, just one of over 186 invasive species now living in these waters, one-third of which are native to the Baltic Sea, which contains over 100 creatures from outside its region, a third of which are native to the North American Great Lakes. Similar scenarios are being played out worldwide as global trade escalates.

Biodiversity sustains the world that sustains our life. If a region's biologically diverse spectrum of native plants and animals fails to remain reasonably intact, ecosystems collapse. Biodiversity, so essential for life, is now a casualty of globalization. Those suffering the most severe consequences of global commerce are not participants in trade, but are the earth's poorest citizens, living close to and off the land. Those producing the traffic and reaping the profits of global trade are apparently estranged from the immediacy of our shared plight.

World exports have grown on average 6 percent annually since the 1950s and transportation forecasts anticipate that the global shipping industry will more than double by the year 2020. A comparable increase in the spread of invasive species and loss of biodiversity will unquestionably follow unless stringent safeguards are adopted and enforced.

Draw back slightly from the fast-track mindset of the last decades and it is clear that trade has been far from free. Transnational corporations (TNCs), those corporations that operate in more than one country simultaneously, have been exploiting the world's environment and thriving in the process. These business entities have grown in number from about 7,000 parent TNCs in 1970 to 77,000 parent companies operating today, responsible for spawning over 770,000 foreign subsidiaries—and roughly 70 percent of world trade.

The Swiss electrical engineering giant ABB has facilities in 140 countries. Royal Dutch/Shell explores for oil in 50 countries, refines in 34, with markets in 100. America's largest grain company, Cargill, has operations in 54 countries. On average, the largest TNCs have foreign affiliates in 40 countries and according to a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) 2005 Working Paper, almost half of all U.S. trade is intra-company— trade occurring between units of the same TNC. Two-thirds of global trade, according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), is a direct outcome of foreign direct investment (FDI) decisions that influence where TNC facilities are established, adding more stops to a seemingly limitless number of ports-of-call in the segmented production of globally traded goods.

The goods transported in TNC trade, by and large shipments of components and parts, the bits and pieces of products that are eventually assembled and finally distributed to the consumer market, now account for the largest share of international trade. Piecemealing the manufacturing process over an expansive geographic area and multiple political boundaries allows TNCs to shift costs, slash tax burdens, and increase profits—but fragmented production places a greater burden on the environment by requiring an increase in the maritime transportation sector, generally seen as the most economical and reliable mode of transportation over long distances. As UNCTAD puts it, shipping "utilizes nature's free highway, the sea; unlike road and rail, this does not require infrastructure investments along the entire journey." At the beginning of 2007, and for the first time in history, the world shipping fleet broke the 1 billion deadweight tons mark, representing an over 8 percent increase in the utilization of "nature's free highway."

In preparing for its 12th Ministerial Conference (UNCTAD XII) held in Accra, Ghana from April 20-25, UNCTAD organized a December pre-event in Switzerland on the globalization of port logistics to create, as they put it, an "enabling environment for transport, logistics and trade facilitation."

TNCs continue to dictate terms while world governments and the international organizations created to oversee trade policy willingly consent to their every whim. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is one of globalization's best enablers and operates as if environmental protection, health and food safety, and democratic transparency are inconsequential nuisances necessitating little if any attention. As stated in the agreement that created it, the WTO requires that "all countries shall ensure conformity of their domestic laws, regulations, and administrative procedures" to facilitate the seamless and speedy shipment of goods worldwide.

Until the 1870s the material used as ballast to stabilize a ship when it was not carrying cargo was usually stone or dirt. Today's steel-hulled ships pump water in and out of internal tanks to add and discharge ballast as needed. Any plant or creature small enough to pass through the ships' intake valves and pumps will end up as stowaways, their unscheduled trip taking them to ports unknown. The use of water is a quick and cheap fix for the shipping industry, but a long-term and expensive problem for the earth.

The use of water for ballast coupled with the development of larger and faster ships completing their voyages in ever-shorter times has improved the odds for greater numbers of species surviving the voyage from one port to another. Ships manufactured over the last 20 years have incrementally increased speeds by 7 to 9 knots. Korea recently unveiled a ship they boast can cut two days off the transit time from Asia to Europe. A start-up company, Fastship, Inc., is looking for investors to begin an express freight service for "high-value, time-sensitive goods" between Europe and the U.S. that will see vessel speeds of 38 to 40 knots and cut one half the time off the fastest ships sailing today.

At present, the standard best practice for vessels to rid their ballast of unwanted species before they reach land is to conduct a mid-ocean ballast water exchange, commonly called "swish and spit." The U.S. Coast Guard acknowledges that "the effectiveness of this practice varies and not all vessels are able to conduct exchange." With the exception of a few shippers who cling to the unsubstantiated claim that swishing and spitting is highly efficient, it is generally agreed that more needs to be done. Recent research even calls into question the basic premise of this management option, that the organisms in the fresh ocean water will not be more of a problem than those present in the original ballast water. Genetic research by the U.S. Geological Survey suggests that the invasive virus responsible for killing thousands of fish in the Great Lakes appears to be genetically linked to a strain of the virus found off the North Atlantic coast near New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

It took the 167 members of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the United Nations agency "responsible for improving maritime safety and preventing pollution from ships," 15 years to agree to the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments. The convention was adopted on February 13, 2004, but, according to IMO rules, the convention cannot take effect until 12 months after ratification by 30 states representing 35 percent of world merchant shipping tonnage. As of February 29, 2008 only 12 countries representing a mere 3.46 percent of the world's tonnage had ratified the agreement, causing the IMO to delay the enforcement of the convention's requirement that would have required ships built after 2009 to have effective ballast water treatment equipment installed. While the delay is the direct result of the international community's failure to ratify the convention, the underlying cause for postponement is a lack of type-approved equipment that can effectively purge ballast water of organic pollution.

It may take another 15 years for the IMO convention to reap benefits, but the agreement is not worth the wait. Although tougher than the predominantly voluntary, commercially driven standards currently in place in the United States and most regions around the world, the standards set by the IMO convention on ballast water are weak. While the IMO convention would require all ships, new and old, to undertake ballast water management through various methods ("mechanical, physical, chemical, and biological"), the numeric standards it would impose are too low to catch the concentrations of organisms found, on average, in realistic ballast water samples. Considering that 10 billion tons of ballast water is discharged annually worldwide from approximately 40,000 ships, the IMO's negligible limits on life forms will not reduce the risk of invasion. Additionally, the convention does not adequately address the problem of sediments that collect in the bottom of ships that provide a suitable environment for many species. The discharge of ballast water alone is not sufficient for the removal of creatures that may be living within the sediments, not to mention those species living on a ships' outer hull, anchor, or deck.

The failure of the IMO convention to effectively purge living organisms from ships, while in itself a serious setback, could also efface national efforts meant to eliminate invasive species. The IMO's minimal standards on ballast water are also fodder for the WTO, which has consistently utilized the low bar in establishing trade rules, and will only serve to further enable its penchant for downwardly harmonized, internationally agreed-upon standards.

The WTO, with guiding principles that err on the side of development and unfettered trade, does not endorse the precautionary principle and considers actions taken to raise a country's level of protection as excessive and "disguised restrictions on international trade." Nations need to prove to a biased WTO panel, in closed session, that their laws are a "necessity" as defined by the WTO. What the WTO considers "sufficient scientific evidence" and an "acceptable level of risk" are subjective assessments that have, nearly every time, favored trade over caution.
In the case of non-native species, the science and risks are complicated and more difficult to calculate and therefore not easily evaluated to the satisfaction of the WTO. It is difficult to anticipate with certainty, for example, exactly when a specific species will be introduced to a new region. Non-native species are neither easily observable nor possessing particular,
predetermined consequences. Since some non-native species are purposely imported, claims of unwanted pests become diluted, especially when some species do no ostensible harm. Even when a species represents a clear danger, there is usually a sizeable lag between its arrival and its assessed ramifications. Further, since measures employed to prevent the entry of invasives have yet to pass the test of time and therefore come with no guarantees or with precise calculations of their cost effectiveness, the WTO wages arguments against these preventative measures. Nevertheless countries are compelled to provide them because once invasives are established in their new habitats, they are not easily controlled or eliminated. Additionally, the WTO recognizes that non-native species are just as likely to have a negative impact when transported within a nation's boundaries from one region to another and, as such, would require oversight of domestic trade. If a country fails to exercise domestic oversight, the WTO could then claim any ban on global trade would be discriminatory. Using WTO reasoning, a country's need for higher standards is difficult to prove and has yet to be successfully argued.

There is one hopeful exception. The highly politicized Canadian challenge to France's complete ban on uses of all types of asbestos may provide a way out of the Catch 22 that constrains a solution to the problem of invasive species. In the 1990s mounting concern for safety in the face of real and immediate dangers created a worldview that asbestos was a killer. Canada argued, on behalf of its Quebec-based asbestos industry, that France's ban was not based on adequate science and that asbestos use could be made harmless through regulation. This challenge, however, did not succeed in eclipsing the overriding public perception that asbestos was a dangerous substance. The WTO ruled in favor of France's right to maintain its ban for the protection of public health, acknowledging that, in this instance, the will of the people was paramount.

If the real and immediate dangers of trafficking in "biological pollutants" were to provoke an audible outcry, equal to that once raised against asbestos, then the WTO may be forced to defer to the voice of the people and refrain from its condemnation of national laws in support of biodiversity. It is long past time to turn the tide on trade. A biodiverse planet capable of providing the essentials of life is a good place to take a stand, while we still can.

Bills dealing with ballast water management currently in committees of the 110th Congress—and there are almost a dozen this session—set compliance standards for ballast water 100 times more protective than the IMO's, which is a good and necessary step, but they also set in place measures that would repeatedly and indefinitely postpone the date by which the new, stronger standards would come into effect. They also go as far as to assure the maritime industry that they will not be overburdened with requirements to install expensive new technology to meet the standards when current estimates put the cost to outfit each vessel at $300,000, well beyond what shippers say they will pay. Moreover, the bills are weak on the treatment of tank sediments, ignore hull fouling, and are mute on domestic trade and short sea shipping that contribute to the transportation of non-native species from region to region within the country.
Most importantly, as currently written, a number of these bills would undercut one of the cornerstones of environmental legislation, the Clean Water Act (CWA), which provides for citizen oversight, empowering the public with the right to judicial review and enforcement, and which also protects a state's ability to act on its own behalf. Under CWA, states can implement their own regulations as long as they are consistent with the Act. Laws in California and Michigan are already more stringent than the proposed legislation before Congress and recent U.S. District Court decisions have found in favor of their regulations and the CWA—determining that the two acting in concert can effectively control the problem of invasive species. It is unclear why certain legislators, in their efforts to achieve a nationally binding standard for ballast water, would entertain weakening the CWA just as it has been validated by the federal judiciary.

Invasive zebra clam attacking native species and spreadingThe pending ballast management bills in the House and the Senate have moved further than previous bills in previous sessions, but are still without the sense of urgency or resolve necessary to achieve a sea-change in global commerce. Decisions that would improve their effectiveness are being compromised and delayed through efforts more likely to protect the existing trading agenda than rally the public's passion for restoring the planet's biodiversity. Congress is moving at the glacial pace that created the Great Lakes. These lakes, and all other at-risk ecosystems around the globe, do not have that kind of time.

One new, established aquatic invasive species is discovered every six months in the Great Lakes and the cumulative impact from these exotics mutually assisting each other, which they have been shown to do, is what Dr. Anthony Ricciardi of Montreal's McGill University tellingly terms "invasional meltdown."

New Pollution Regulations Will Affect Shipping Industry

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:04:00 +0000

Tough new limits on pollutants are likely to cost the oil and ship industry billions of dollars, according to a Reuters report.
The United Nation's International Maritime Organisation (IMO) agreed to targets last week that would drastically cut sulphur emissions from ship fuel by 2015.
According to the report, the revision of existing marine pollution laws will take place in two phases. The first will require cleaner burning distillate fuels in Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECA) by 2015--followed by a reduction of sulphur content in all fuels from 2020-2025.

Shipping given emissions 'wake up' call

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:20:00 +0000

By Justin Stares, Brussels - Friday 14 March 2008

Emissions trading will eventually have to apply to shipping.

THE maritime industry must “wake up” and do something about its emissions before ships are denied entry into European ports, according to Jacques Barrot’s cabinet chief. Industry executives are “dreaming” if they think they will escape new legislation designed to cut emissions such as sulphur and carbon dioxide, said cabinet chief Benoit Le Bret.

Talking to Lloyd’s List, the commissioner’s closest collaborator said some executives were “not intelligent enough” to accept that ship fuel is highly polluting. The maritime industry was “not as mature” as the aviation industry, which had accepted the need to include it in Europe’s trading scheme. “The trading scheme will eventually have to apply to shipping, that is my personal opinion,” said Mr Le Bret. “It will come one day. But the maritime world is less mature than aviation.

They do not consider, as aviation does, the risk that if they don’t come up with a solution for polluting less, they are at risk of having worse scenarios being imposed.” The climate change debate has changed the face of politics, said Mr Le Bret. “The maritime industry will not be able to escape,” he said. Some executives were “not intelligent enough.

They have to consider that they product they put in their engine is not one of the cleanest. They are dreaming if they think they will escape. One day a ship will arrive in a harbour and be told ‘go back home.’ The maritime sector has to be more aware. It has to wake up.” Global solutions were better than regional, the cabinet chief admitted.

One solution would be a regional trading scheme for shipping which recognised equivalent schemes elsewhere in the world, he said, thereby overcoming fears of retaliation. The commission is examining solutions for shipping emissions, including a trading scheme, and is at the same time pushing for action in the International Maritime Organization. “We will have to say something about shipping in June,” Mr Le Bret said, adding however that this would probably be too early for a definitive solution.

On the package of maritime safety legislation now working its way through the EU institutions, he warned that time was running out if laws were to reach the statue books in the current legislative cycle. “We need an intelligent compromise. The package is not set in stone,” he said, referring to the two controversial proposals — on flag state control and civil liability — that have until now held up the other five draft laws. On the maritime space without frontiers initiative, now being drawn up, Mr Le Bret said its was “proving difficult” because it was likely to interfere with other polices in areas such as immigration, tax and Customs.

* The International Chamber of Commerce’s Committee on Maritime Transport has added to the pressure on the IMO, urging it to adopt new emissions control standards when it meets in April and October this year, writes Neville Smith. “Stricter global standards are urgently needed” on SOx, NOx and particulate emission levels, it said. It also said that measures to address greenhouse gas emissions from ships are also necessary. But the ICC urged its member states to “wait until the IMO makes its amendments to the treaty, which ICC expects will set strict enough standards so that no further action will be required”.

British Virgin Islands' territorial sea extended

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 07:16:00 +0000

The United Kingdom government has enacted an order which extends the British Virgin Islands� territorial sea from 3 to 12 nautical miles from the shoreline.

Deputy Governor Elton Georges said that the BVI has been pursuing such an extension of its territorial waters since 1991, when Executive Council first requested the 12-mile limit.

Before the waters could be extended, however, the BVI was required to agree on its maritime boundaries with the United States Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Anguilla. The U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico boundary was agreed in 1995, but it took a further 10 years until the boundary with Anguilla was settled.

Mr. Georges explained that a territorial sea is that part of the waters surrounding a country where its laws are deemed to apply.

�There is particular relevance for customs and immigration enforcement, anti-narcotics activity, marine environmental protection and shipping,� he said, noting that a country generally has certain safety and rescue responsibilities inside its territorial waters.

Since 1977 the BVI has also had an Exclusive Fisheries Zone, which gives the Territory exclusive rights, under international law, to the fishery resource within 200 nautical miles of the BVI�s territorial boundary.

The Deputy Governor said that the extension of the territorial sea now clears the way for establishment of a 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone around the BVI. Such a zone would give the Territory exclusive rights to a broader array of economic and natural resources, including oil and mineral resources on the seabed.

The Virgin Islands (Territorial Sea) Order 2007, which came into effect on August 15, was made in accordance with the UK�s Colonial Boundaries Act of 1895. It was published in the Virgin Islands Official Gazette in September.

Notes:

1. A nautical mile is 1,852 meters, or 1.15 geographical miles. It is equal to one minute of latitude along any meridian.

2. The Virgin Islands (Territorial Sea) Order 2007 was made on July 25, 2007; came into force on August 15, 2007; and was published in the Virgin Islands Official Gazette on September 20, 2007. It may be downloaded in its entirety at www.bvigazette.org.

3. In December 1991, Executive Council agreed to request that the United Kingdom extend the BVI�s territorial sea 12 nautical miles from the low-water of the coast.

4. On November 5, 1993 the boundary between Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands and the British Virgin Islands was agreed upon via Treaty between the U.S. and U.K., which was ratified on June 1, 1995.

5. In 2002, a compromise boundary between Anguilla and the British Virgin Islands was agreed upon. The main sticking point in the protracted negotiations was the weight to be given to the island of Sombrero which is accepted as belonging to Anguilla, but formerly had been named as part of the Virgin Islands.

6. On July 11, 2005, in Royal Prerogative No. 49 of 2005, the boundary between Anguilla and the British Virgin Islands was formally established.

7. The international law referred to in the fifth paragraph of this news release is primarily the United Nations Law of the Sea.

Rough seas

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 11:13:00 +0000

After Victor Blanco disappeared at sea, his wife turned their dining room into a shrine. She didn’t go to her job at a machine shop. Instead, she placed a framed picture of Victor on a table in their two-story home in Providence’s Mount Pleasant neighborhood. She lit a candle next to a glass of holy water. At the base of her husband’s photograph, she placed two small wooden figures, a fisherman and a boat.

“Always there is the fear that something can happen,” says Alba Chavez-Blanco, her dark eyes wet with grief.

As a young man in El Salvador, Victor had worked on shrimp boats in the waters off Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Alba lived nearby, with six siblings, in a house on a hill overlooking the sea.

The two fell in love, came to America in 1993, raised three daughters and bought a house on a crowded street in Providence.

After doing odd jobs, and fishing out of New Bedford, Mass., Victor got work aboard the Barbara Ann, one of the biggest lobster boats in Point Judith. The 86-foot boat, owned by Robert and Roy Campanale, had never lost a man, and the two brothers over the years had landed millions of dollars in lobsters, helping establish Point Judith as a key New England port.

But on the evening of May 15, the Barbara Ann encountered a strong wind and 10-foot-high waves. Blanco, working in the stern, was hit by a lobster trap and fell overboard 95 miles south of Montauk, N.Y.

A crewman threw Victor a life ring, but he couldn’t grab it and slipped beneath the water. Like most fishermen, he wasn’t wearing a life jacket or survival suit. After a day of searching, the Barbara Ann, a sister ship and a Coast Guard helicopter and jet failed to find the 37-year-old fisherman.

The day the Barbara Ann returned to Point Judith without their father, Blanco’s three daughters — Kenia, 11, Maria, 14, and Zuleyma, 17 — climbed aboard to see their father’s other home for a last time.

Alba could not.

SINCE JANUARY, seven New England fishermen have been killed at sea, despite efforts by Congress and the U.S. Coast Guard to make the job safer.

Beset by rough seas, equipment failure and pilot error, 14 boats capsized or sank during the first nine months of this year, according to Coast Guard officials. There were more than 60 injuries, fires, floodings and other mishaps.Those killed worked on boats with hopeful names.

On Jan. 26, the New Bedford dragger Lady of Grace sank in Nantucket Sound, about 12 miles off Hyannis. State police divers recovered the bodies of two of the four crewmen. They found the 50-year-old captain, Antonio Barroqueiro, in the wheelhouse under 54 feet of water.

Six days later, a New Hampshire crewman and a Massachusetts captain sent a distress signal from the Lady Luck, a 52-foot groundfishing boat. Coast Guard crews later spotted wood debris and the boat’s beacon floating off the shoals of Cape Elizabeth, Maine. No bodies were found.

Prompted by a surge of deaths in the late 1990s, a Coast Guard task force recommended new ways to improve the safety of commercial fishing. Last year, more Northeast captains volunteered for inspections than in any other region. Life rafts, flares, homing beacons and survival suits are now required by federal law on most boats, but fishermen aren’t required to use them.

But safety training remains voluntary on state-registered boats and, unlike charter boat owners, commercial fishing captains do not need a license to pilot a boat.According to the U.S. Labor Department, commercial fishing last year was more dangerous than any other occupation, including flying a plane, logging, fighting fires or stringing electric power lines.

About 142 of every 100,000 fishermen and women are killed on the job, a fatality rate 36 times higher than the national average.

“By its very nature it’s a dangerous job,” says Thomas Bond, a Boston-based lawyer who specializes in maritime law. “You have people working on a surface that’s never static” on a boat jammed with heavy equipment. “You’re always being thrown about.”

According to Coast Guard statistics, most fishermen killed on the job drown or die from hypothermia after a boat capsizes or sinks, or after they fall overboard.

Boats flip or sink for various reasons, including storms, rough seas, flooding, fire, mechanical problems, poor maintenance or navigational error. On cold days icy masts can change a boat’s center of gravity, making it easier to flip.

Richard Winter, who stopped fishing four years ago after his health worsened, was sleeping on the Point Judith-based Princess when a wave flipped it on its side near Block Island.

“I fell out of my bunk under water,” says Winter, who could see nothing in the watery gloom. Luckily, the ship righted before he drowned.

“No matter how often you prepare, you panic in those situations,” says Winter, who lost a father, an uncle and a friend to the sea.

Even in good weather, fishermen scramble on decks slick with water, ice and fish oil. They squat in pens filled with flopping fish and toss out refuse with a sharp pick. They operate power winches and handle knives and duck nets and ropes and chains, which can grab a man by the arm or leg and snatch him overboard.

And once the fishing starts, crews get little sleep. They grab meals and naps between landings.

“You don’t get a little bit hurt out here,” says 55-year-old Craig Huntley, who lost a friend when a broken pulley smashed his skull.

To seal small wounds, Huntley keeps a tube of Super Glue aboard his boat, the Miss Trudy. But small wounds aren’t the problem, he says. “When you get hurt on a boat, a Band-Aid won’t help.”

LAWMAKERS AND safety experts are pushing for more training programs and tougher regulations.

In Maine, new lobstermen must complete a safety course. State officials also want to upgrade safety laws in local waters. “This is done by fishermen and safety experts working together,” says Col. Joseph Fessenden, with Maine’s Marine Patrol.

In New Bedford, officials responded to the loss of the Northern Edge in 2004 by sponsoring more safety programs.

The boat, with an experienced captain and crew, ran into a bad storm while searching for scallops off Nantucket. When a dredge got caught on the sea floor, the vessel suddenly tipped over and 10-foot-high waves crashed over the deck. Five men drowned.

Afterward, the Coast Guard, the City of New Bedford and the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth joined to offer more workshops, including one this month. “It gives fishermen a chance to get into life rafts, light flares, put on survival suits and deal with simulated leaks,” says Kevin Cole, a Coast Guard safety coordinator for Southeastern New England.

Before the 2004 accident, few fishermen attended such courses. But since then, more than 1,600 have participated, says Ted R. Harrington, another fishing vessel safety coordinator for the Coast Guard.

In Point Judith, the Point Club last year offered safety equipment to its members at a deep discount. The club, one of largest fishing vessel mutual insurance clubs on the East Coast, got help from local retailers, who sold some of the equipment at cost. The club relied on a fundraiser, and other money, to further reduce the cost of the floats, defibrillators and collision-warning systems. Members also have their boats inspected annually.

Still, making safety a top concern isn’t easy, experts acknowledge. Fishermen live with scars, bad backs and even missing fingers. They accept their lot with salty stoicism.

“We have to get rid of this ‘It won’t happen to me’ attitude,” says Fred Mattera, a Point Judith fisherman and safety trainer. “Safety has to become commonplace. Twenty years ago, we didn’t wear seat belts either.”

Mattera keeps about $10,000 worth of safety equipment — some of it mandatory, some of it optional — aboard his 84-foot freezer trawler, the Travis & Natalie. A $5,000 six-man life raft includes a canopy, flares, water, food, and a first aid kit among its provisions.

Also onboard are life jackets, life rings, fire extinguishers, a flood kit and an Emergency Positioning Indicating Radio Beacon — a so-called “black box” that transmits a signal to a satellite, which bounces it back to a station on land. “When this goes off,” says Mattera, “they know it’s from the Travis & Natalie. This is the thing that’s going to bring the cavalry to you.”

Mattera also owns six survival suits, which keep crew members warm and afloat if they’re forced into the sea.

When a boat takes on too much water, fishermen have 3 to 5 minutes before it sinks. That’s why they must practice donning survival suits, says Mattera. The ideal suit-up time? Sixty seconds.

Mattera knows firsthand how quickly cold water can disable someone. On a cold February day in 1997, he fell into the water at Point Judith. His heart rate and blood pressure spiked and the freezing water hit him like a fist.

“Cold water shocks the body,” he says. “You start gasping and your heart starts to shut down. I couldn’t yell. I couldn’t scream.”

Even as officials try to make the job safer for fishermen, other forces are working against them.

Facing weak profits and declining catches, many captains are cutting back on maintenance and equipment. Some are waiting longer to haul out boats that need sandblasting, painting and repairs.

That’s a bad idea, says Bond, whose firm, The Kaplan Group, is representing the Blanco family. “When your boat and equipment are exposed to the elements — to wind and salt and sand — they deteriorate a lot faster.”

Aging fleets are another problem. At Point Judith, the average age of a boat is around 30 years. According to the Coast Guard, older boats are more likely to sink. “After 25 or 30 years, you should be building a new boat,” says Mattera.

Because profits are often shared, more boats are fishing with smaller crews. Captains are spending more time on deck and less time steering the boat. “People are working when they’re tired, and they’re cramming a lot of fishing into a few days,” says Bond. “That’s a recipe for disaster.”

Also, the establishment of quotas for various species forces fishermen to go out in bad weather and to work around the clock to guarantee they won’t lose out if the predetermined catch limit is reached quickly. “There’s this race for fish and it’s very unsafe,” says Mattera. Other laws tempt fishermen to stay out, even in bad weather, to maximize their catches. If they have exceeded their daily quotas, they have two options: dump the excess overboard and go home, or stay out another day. If they come in early with too much fish, they’re fined.

“It’s legislative death,” says David Preble, a member of the New England Fishery Management Council. “And it’s unforgivable.”

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., whose district includes New Bedford, is seeking $3 million for more safety training and research.. Last year, he convinced federal regulators to make safety their top priority as they write new rules for conserving fish. “The jury is still out” if the effort will make a difference, says Peter Kovar, a spokesman for Frank. With seven deaths in New England this year, the highest since 2005, fishermen are gearing up for the important winter season. October and December are two of the most dangerous months at sea.

SOMETIMES IT’S HARD to anticipate what can go wrong.

Six years ago, Leo Croteau was working in the fish hold of the Katrina Lee, a Point Judith dragger fishing near Nantucket.

Croteau, a gaunt man with the words Harley and Davidson tattooed on his arms, complained about “slimy” fish in the hold. At 4:30 p.m., about 125 miles southeast of Cape Cod, Croteau suddenly felt sick. “I was getting dizzy. I felt like I was having a heart attack,” he says.

He pitched face first into the ice. Crewman Greg Verdon called out but Croteau didn’t answer.

Alarmed, Verdon and Captain James Byrne went down to rescue Croteau. But before they could do so, Byrne was overcome and collapsed. Deck hand Steven Follett helped Verdon pull Croteau onto the deck and returned to help Byrne.

Croteau, who lost feelings in his legs and arms, still remembers looking down and seeing Byrne’s and Follett’s eyes go white and foam bubble from their mouths.

Verdon sent a distress signal that was answered by two nearby boats, the Northern Lynn and Mattera’s boat, the Travis & Natalie. Crew members clambered down into the hold and pulled out Follett and Byrne. Croteau, Byrne and Follett were flown by a Coast Guard helicopter to Cape Cod Hospital.

Coast Guard officials later said the men were overcome by the noxious fumes of hydrogen sulfide created by fish that had gone bad.

Follett, of South Kingstown, died in the hospital. The 22-year-old fisherman had considered going to college, but decided to follow the family tradition. His father, two uncles and a grandfather were all fishermen.

Byrne came out of a coma and spent weeks in rehabilitation. He quit fishing. He’s now studying architecture and construction management at the New England Institute of Technology. Croteau, who could not remember his phone number after the accident, returned to fishing. But last winter he quit, and started painting houses. He made nearly $10,000 in just a few months.

Follett was cremated and his ashes thrown into the sea.

Rough seas

Day One

Four days aboard the Miss Trudy with Captain Craig Huntley and his crew, as they travel more than 200 miles from Point Judith to trawl for fish in Munson Canyon.

Today

Commercial fishing last year was the most dangerous occupation in the United States. Since January, seven New England fishermen have lost their lives.

Day Three

Rhode Island lobstermen are in court fighting a state regulation that they contend restricts their ability to make a living from the sea.

Day Four

How fishermen overfished the ocean, and how the government, through complex and ever-changing regulations, alternately helped and hindered them.

Day Five

At a time when others are bailing out of the industry, seeing no future in it, Newport’s Brent Bowen hopes to spend his life as a fisherman.

Do You Need a Permit to Land on the Moon?

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:31:00 +0000

"With the recent announcement of Google's X-prize for a successful private landing of a robot on the Moon, someone has asked the Explainer at Slate.com if permission is required to land something on the Moon? Turns out that while there is no authority that regulates landing objects on another world, getting there does require the permission of the national government from where the launch takes place. This is in accordance with the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, signed by 91 nations, which regulates the uses of outer space by the nations of Earth.

Specifically, Article VI enjoins: 'The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty.' Start your paperwork!"

Hawaii Superferry may be dead in the water

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:06:00 +0000

Hawaii Superferry aimed to transform how residents and tourists travel and conduct business among the islands. But after being rocked by a storm of protests and legal challenges, the company says it may be forced to shut down after investing $300 million and hiring 300 employees.

John Garibaldi, president and chief executive of the Superferry, said he needs to have "actionable information" within four to six weeks in order to determine whether to continue operations of Hawaii's first regular car-passenger ferry service. He declined to elaborate.

He also would not comment on a possible backup plan or how much money his company is losing while its high-speed, luxury catamaran remains idle in bustling Honolulu Harbor. A second ferry is currently under construction in Alabama and is scheduled for service in 2009.

"Our current efforts are focused on the resumption of services," Garibaldi said in an e-mail.
Despite fulfilling all of the state's requirements and getting the green light from the Legislature, the Superferry has run into more turbulence than just the rough Pacific seas that have discouraged previous efforts to establish such a service.

The ferry's Maui route has been suspended as state Judge Joseph E. Cardoza determines if it will be allowed to operate while an environmental assessment is conducted.

A state judge on Kauai on Monday will consider a request for a permanent injunction to keep the ferry from using that island's Nawiliwili Harbor.

The state Supreme Court last month unanimously ruled that the state should have required an environmental review before the Superferry started service. Environmentalists worry that the sleek, four-story vessel could collide with whales and spread invasive species.

The Superferry voluntarily suspended its Oahu-Kauai service Aug. 28 after two days of demonstrations at the harbor, where dozens of defiant protesters on surfboards, canoes and kayaks blocked the $95 million ferry.

The 350-foot ferry plans to resume Kauai service Sept. 26 with heightened security and a revised daytime schedule.

Jeff Mikulina, director of the Sierra Club's Hawaii chapter, said the group's goal was never to sink the Superferry but to get an environmental review completed.

"This is a brand-new sort of operation, unlike anything we've had previously. It comes with a certain amount of risk and we just want to understand that risk," he said.

Mikulina said his group requested an environmental review three years ago, so the Superferry's present challenges could have been avoided.

Gov. Linda Lingle, a strong supporter of the ferry, has maintained that the state followed the law. The state determined in 2005 that an environmental review was not necessary because the project fell under an exemption. Judge Cardoza on Maui agreed with the state.

"It was only recently that the Supreme Court came out with its own interpretation of the law, which was different than everyone in the state had interpreted," she said.

University of Hawaii law professor Jon Van Dyke, an expert on environmental and maritime law, said environmental reviews have been required in the U.S. since 1969 and are needed to protect Hawaii's fragile environment.

"This is a well established procedure that's now done all over the world," he said. "So the idea that you would try to leapfrog over this logical and important requirement is to me a little bizarre."

Despite only being required for Maui, the state plans to conduct an environmental assessment on the potential impact on harbors statewide. The review is expected to take at least eight months and possibly longer if it is challenged.

Superferry said it will be forced to cease operations if it is not allowed to sail while the review is being conducted.

"We are unable to sustain operations for that length of period without revenue," Garibaldi said.
The governor said there is no doubt the Superferry would be out of business by then.

"I don't think the majority of the people in the state want to see that happen," she said.

If the Superferry folds, the state and the federal government could wind up losing millions. The state has provided $40 million worth of harbor upgrades and equipment, and the federal government has approved $140 million in loan guarantees for the ferry.

The Superferry is a privately held company. The largest investor is New York-based private equity firm J.F. Lehman & Co., which has an $80 million stake in the venture.

Despite the state having a major role in the Superferry's troubles, it cannot be sued for damages.
Van Dyke said the contract between the state and Superferry stipulates that the company cannot seek damages if an environmental review is required.

"The state was very careful. They negotiated very carefully and they wrote a good contract and they protected themselves from being sued," he said.

Meanwhile, the Superferry had stirred strong emotions in this laid-back state. Many people were eager to use the Superferry, which offers the only alternative to air travel. Supporters point to Superferry's obstacles and possible shutdown as feeding the idea that Hawaii is an unfriendly place to do business and setting a dangerous precedent.

"We share the business community's concern about the message this sends to the outside world about investing in Hawaii or undertaking a viable business venture here," Garibaldi said.

The Sierra Club's Mikulina said it's the companies and government officials who are creating bad business practices by trying to "cut corners" and ignore laws.

"We have clear rules to play by," he said. "If you come here and abide by the rules, we'll get along just fine."

Former Haleakala head urged Superferry EIS

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:33:00 +0000

WAILUKU, Maui — The former head of Haleakala National Park urged federal officials in March 2005 to request that Hawai'i conduct an environmental impact statement of the Hawaii Superferry to examine ways to prevent the spread of fire ants, stinging nettle caterpillars, Himalayan raspberry and other invasive species that could threaten the park's delicate ecosystems.

Donald Reeser, who retired in July 2005 after 18 years at Haleakala, told the chief of the Maritime Administration that he was most concerned about "the obvious deficiency" in the number of state Department of Agriculture inspectors, who already were struggling to keep pests from arriving via international, national and interisland air and sea routes.

"It is certainly true the Superferry would not be the only means of transport for such interisland invasions via vehicles," Reeser's letter said. "The point is that the Superferry would increase vehicular transport and that all forms of both trans-Pacific and interisland transportation are in serious need of better measures for prevention of transport of invasive species."

Maritime Administration acting Chief Counsel J. Patrick Wiese responded in a July 15, 2005, letter that the agency was not supplying direct funding or a loan to the Hawaii Superferry, but a $140 million loan guarantee for construction of the company's two 350-foot catamarans.

Wiese said an environmental review was not necessary for the loan guarantee. "However, recognizing the importance of the environmental issues, the Letter Commitment (to Hawaii Superferry) provides that the closing is preconditioned on the State of Hawaii having given all governmental and environmental clearances."

Wiese also said the agency understood that a Maui court case to force the state Department of Transportation to conduct an assessment of ferry-related improvements at Kahului Harbor had been dismissed and that the company had taken "significant steps to address many of the concerns you have raised. ..."

The DOT granted the harbor projects an exemption from environmental review laws a month after Hawaii Superferry was told by the Maritime Administration that the loan guarantee was conditional on a confirmation that no environmental assessment was required.

No-anchoring areas 'marked'

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 11:45:00 +0000

Barbados has designated two areas off its coast as "No Anchoring Areas (NAAs)" in a bid to preserve its marine environment, particularly the coral reefs.

This was revealed by marine biologist at the Coastal Zone Management Unit, Angelique Brathwaithe, who said the decision was expected to be rubber-stamped by the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) of the International Maritime Organisation in about six months.

Long Shoal Reef on the West Coast and Sharks Bank, situated about one mile off the Harbour Wall, will be established as NAAs.

Brathwaite explained that there was a history of damage to both reefs, primarily from the anchors of commercial vessels, and this process was part of an effort to stop the degradation of the island's valuable marine environment.

She said this process began in 2006 with the development of the NAA proposal and culminated with the submission of the document to the Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation at its annual meeting in London, England, from July 23 to 27.

Barbados was supported in its proposal by The Bahamas and the United States of America and a plenary session approved the designation on July 27.

This will be forwarded to the MSC for final adoption and will come into force no earlier than six months after acceptance.

After the designation, all international charts will have these two areas marked as NAAs.
The "No Anchoring Areas" will protect reefs from cargo vessels only. However, Barbados already has domestic laws in place to protect coral reefs from damage from other vessels.
In addition, Government has placed 42 moorings around the island so that dive boats could be tied to them properly instead of dropping anchor. (BGIS)

Perdock's failure to assume responsibility part of issue

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 04:44:00 +0000

By Letters to the Editor

Article Last Updated: 09/01/2007 02:48:49 AM PDT

The op-ed piece in Thursday's Record-Bee by former highway patrol officer Steve Davis demands response. Davis freely admits that during his career he had never been called upon to investigate a boating accident, and this is obvious from his conclusions.

Had he been more experienced he would have known that the laws, rules and customs of the U.S. Coast Guard are not catch-all boating laws his phrase but are well-established maritime laws designed to reduce accidents.

From responses to the television reports on the tragedy involving Deputy Perdock and sailor Dinius, it is apparent that many Clear Lake boaters need to brush up on these rules.

A good place for everyone to start might be the book Chapman's Piloting, Seamanship and Small Boat Handling which is the boater's bible. This would make it clear that in at least three basic areas, Deputy Perdock violated these rules:

--Speed. He admits to running at 40 knots or more on a moonless night, with limited visibility. This is the equivalent of driving 80 MPH in a school zone, and is an absolute invitation to disaster.

--Failure to yield right-of-way. The law clearly states that in virtually ALL cases a boat under power MUST give way to a boat under sail. Clearly

deputy Perdock failed to do so.

--The overtaking vessel is the burdened vessel, meaning that its operator must assume responsibility not to overtake the lead boat and, in fact, must come to a complete stop if there is evidence that the lead boat operator either doesn't see him, or is uncertain as to actions either party might take.

The fact that Deputy Perdock's boat crashed into the stern of the sailboat, killing a passenger, demonstrates pretty clearly that this rule was violated.

Lieutenant Davis asks if it is reasonable to expect a powerboat operator to drive 15 miles and hour on the lake just because there might be a log or something else in the water.

Actually, 15 miles an hour is probably excessive on a dark night, because that something in the water might be a human head. In fact one of your readers stated in an earlier letter to the editor, that she enjoyed water skiing at night. What if she'd been out there skiing that night?

Davis also states flatly that Perdock had not been drinking, but apparently the Deputy may not have been tested until the next day, which would make that argument moot.

Whether or not the sailboat had its running lights on is also beside the point, even though many credible witnesses had said they were. If a driver whips around a corner at 45 MPH and crashes into a parked car, is he any less liable because the car had the lights off?

Finally, the Lieutenant makes a major point that the sailboat operators were intoxicated. Well, obviously nobody should operate any vehicle if they've had too much to drink, but the reason sailors seldom face charges if they are a point or two above California's low alcohol standard, is that the law generally concedes that anything traveling at four or five knots is probably not going to pose much of a threat.

Adding to the tragedy in this whole dismal affair, is Deputy Perdock's failure to assume responsibility for his actions. I understand that he is a fine law officer and an upstanding citizen and this was, after all, an accident. Had he only faced up to the problem, we would probably not be embroiled in the present controversy.

Tunisian sailors arrested for saving illegal immigrants

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 02:07:00 +0000

Seven Tunisian fishermen have been held in an Agrigento jail for a week for rescuing 44 asylum seekers who were drowning.

Italian website meltingpot, which raised the alarm in a long article by Fulvio Vassallo Paleologo, of the Association of Juridical Studies on Immigration at Palermo University, said it was clear that these Tunisian fishermen are being treated very differently from the way a Maltese fishermen, who did the same, was treated.

The marine laws of any country state that one must help and show solidarity to anybody who is in danger at sea. But it seems that many governments prefer to leave women, children and men die in the sea rather than helping them.

On 28 June, the Icelandic fishing vessel Eyborg, belonging to the Maltese company Ta’ Mattew Fish Farms, was in Libyan waters when its crew saved 23 immigrants who were holding on to a tuna pen being pulled by the Eyborg.

The Eyborg sailed towards Malta but the government of Malta told its captain, Raymond Bugeja, to take the illegal immigrants to the Libyan port of Misurata. This, Dr Vassallo Paleologo said, is in defiance of international maritime law, which states that people helped at sea must be taken to the nearest safe harbour, not just the nearest harbour. It is known that at Misurata there are hundreds of imprisoned Eritrean refugees who, despite all international conventions, Libya refuses to admit to and who are periodically sent back to the country from which they have escaped.

The Libyan government had already given its consent for the vessel pulling the tuna pen to enter Misurata harbour, but Mr Bugeja still resisted pressures by the Maltese authorities that threatened to arrest and charge him with illegal immigrant trafficking. Most of the illegal immigrants were Eritreans.

In the end, the Maltese government, itself under pressure from many European States, promised the asylum seekers would be redistributed among many European states, sent a ship to take the illegal immigrants in. And Mr Bugeja was not charged.

But a different fate has taken place at Lampedusa.

On 8 August, seven Tunisian fishermen were arrested at Lampedusa and charged with having saved the lives of 44 migrants from rough seas 40 miles south of Lampedusa. The seven have been charged with having helped illegal immigrant trafficking, the same charge that was to be made against Raymond Bugeja. The seven are the two captains of two fishing boats from Monastir and their five-man crew.

The immigrants that included 11 women and two children had launched an SOS on a satellite phone.

While the Italian agency ADN Kronos claimed the two fishing vessels were the much discussed “mother ships” which are said to bring the illegal immigrants to just below the horizon of either Malta or Lampedusa and from there launch the small boats the asylum seekers come in, other Italian sources dispute this: they argue the two fishing vessels were easily identifiable as being mother ships. Besides, no trace of any small boat was found. It also seems there were some language difficulties as the Tunisian ships entered Italian waters when they had been ordered to stay out.

The end result was that the seven were arrested and kept in prison and their boats seized by the Agrigento authorities, the simple reason being that they had just helped people who were drowning.

Capitola's foam ban slow to get off ground

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 06:31:00 +0000

By ISABELLE ROUGHOL
sentinel correspondent

CAPITOLA — Almost two weeks after Capitola's foam ban went into effect, many restaurants have not changed their packaging.

Confusion about the ordinance among vendors and lack of communication between the city, the restaurants and corporate offices that provide local supplies mean the prohibited polystyrene cups and plates still find their way to the consumers.

But the food vendors using polystyrene and other banned plastics, which environmentalists say kills marine life and is a public health threat, will not face consequences. The ordinance went into effect July 1, but it will not be enforced for at least three months.

Many restaurant managers last week said they were unaware of the ban or confused about it. The city sent out a letter to food vendors last fall when the ordinance was first discussed at two public hearings, but the city hasn't sent any correspondence since, according to the city's Commission on the Environment.

Since then, the ban has been discussed, passed, contested and amended, leading to a confusing situation for all parties involved.

"What was clear is that the work we've put in over the last year ... was not appreciated," said Barbara Graves, vice chair of the Commission on the Environment. "The rest of it is unclear"
In recent weeks, the city organized a subcommittee comprised of two staff members — City Manager Rich Hill and Councilman Sam Storey and Ron Graves — to prepare an informational packet and survey, but that will not be sent out to restaurateurs for another month, Capitola Mayor Mike Termini said.

"My impression is that most restaurateurs want to do the right thing," Barbara Graves said. "I think most of them don't know"

For owners and managers of restaurants affiliated with national chains, the miscommunication is not just with the city. Local stores and national headquarters seem confused about whose responsibility it is to abide by local mandates.

Local franchises typically receive their packaging through the national company and don't always get to decide what material their cups and plates are made of.

"It's up to them," said Mariano Serriteno, manager of Sbarro's Pizzeria in the Capitola Mall, which uses plastic plates and silverware, now banned. "I just order forks and they come"
Chains, however, can have a hard time keeping up with the local laws of every town where they're present and rely on local franchisees and managers to inform them.

"For the most part, we tell the franchisees that it is their business they're running," said Les Winograd, a spokesman for Subway, which uses polystyrene soup bowls in its Capitola Mall location. "We tell them 'be familiar with the laws that are relevant to your business.' "
Jamba Juice, too, is still using polystyrene in Capitola, but in San Francisco, where a foam ban took effect June 1, the chain had entirely switched to paper on the first day of the requirement.
"Maybe there was some confusion about the law [in Capitola]," said Anne Baker, a spokeswoman for Jamba Juice. "We definitely intend to comply. It's not just an enforcement thing"

Representatives for Subway, Jamba Juice and Chinese Gourmet Express said they would change their packaging in Capitola immediately. Subway and Jamba Juice are working to do away with polystyrene in all restaurants nationwide, their representatives said.

Carl's Jr., Sbarro's, Chili's and Dairy Queen headquarters were unavailable for comment last week.

The Capitola City Council passed the plastic ban last fall. The ordinance requires food vendors within Capitola city limits to use biodegradable or compostable food packaging, unless they can prove that moving away from plastic poses a financial burden. But after receiving complaints from the local chapter of the California Restaurant Association, the council agreed to reconsider the ordinance at a meeting in June. The ban was maintained but its enforcement was delayed.

Capitola is the only city in the county and one of more than 100 in the country to have such a ban. Volunteers for the Commission on the Environment estimated that about 80 percent of Capitola food vendors had stopped using polystyrene before the ban, but there are no official numbers on plastic use in the city.

The city is not accepting complaints at this time or taking any action against businesses using the banned plastics, Termini said.

"Although technically I suppose they're in violation of the ordinance until they get a financial exemption, " Termini said, "there's nothing that's going to happen to them"

WWF film calls for Marine Act

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 06:01:00 +0000

STAKEHOLDERS including a sea angler from Hartlepool and an oyster fisherman from Essex have added their voice to 'A Fair Share of the Sea', a new film produced by WWF as the latest step in its Marine Act Campaign.

In a series of interviews, WWF talked to a diverse group of people living and working on the coastlines around the UK to gauge their views on the challenges facing the marine environment. Each has differing viewpoints based on their own personal experiences, but the one thing they all share in common is a dependence upon UK seas, and a passion for protecting the environment that they depend upon - whether that be for renewable energy, tourism, or fishing.
The problems facing our marine environment are highly visible to each of those interviewed. According to recreational sea angler David Moreton from Hartlepool: “The fish are sadly all gone and the fishing is not a patch on what it used to be.”

In Scotland, the Firth of Forth, home to one of the UK’s largest grey seal breeding populations and tens of thousands of nesting seabirds, is under threat from ship to ship oil transfers, according to WWF.

Tom Brock, CEO of the Scottish Seabird Centre is concerned: “This proposal to transfer huge amounts of oil in the Firth of Forth with no real benefit to the local economy but a huge threat to our wildlife and our tourism industry is just remarkable. It highlights the fact that there are gaps in the current legislation.”

According to WWF, this is a particularly crucial time to look to UK seas, as they are facing the global environmental challenge of climate change as well as the continuing pressures of human activities. It says the UK has the best wind, tidal and wave energy resources in Europe.

"We urgently need a proper planning system to ensure we get the right renewable energy technology in the right place and protect biodiversity from the effects of climate change," a statement issued today said.

"Currently, there is a complicated mish-mash of laws that fail to manage the growing pressures of man's activities in UK seas. A new Marine Act would update the management of our activities at sea and protect the marine ecosystem."

In June 2007, WWF submitted its response to the Government’s consultation on the Marine Bill. This urged the Government to introduce a Marine Bill in the next Queen’s Speech. WWF says Gordon Brown now has a "once-in-a-lifetime" opportunity to provide legislation for the UK’s vast area of sea, which, it claims, is currently lacking any proper protection

International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 11:32:00 +0000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) is the most important treaty protecting the safety of merchant ships. The first version of the treaty was passed in 1914 in response to the sinking of the RMS Titanic. It prescribed numbers of lifeboats and other emergency equipment along with safety procedures, including continuous radio watches.

Newer versions were adopted in 1929, 1948, 1960 and 1974. The 1960 Convention - which was activated in 1965 - was the first major achievement for International Maritime Organization (IMO) after its creation and represented a massive advance in updating commercial shipping regulations and in staying up-to-date with new technology and procedures in the industry. The 1974 version simplified the process for amending the treaty. A number of amendments have been adopted since. In particular, amendments in 1988 based on amendments of International Radio Regulations in 1987 replaced Morse code with the Global Maritime Distress Safety System (GMDSS) and came into force beginning 1 February 1992.

The intention had been to keep the convention up to date by periodic amendments, but the procedure to incorporate the amendments proved to be very slow: it could take several years for the amendments to be put into action since countries had to give notice of acceptance to IMO and there was a minimum threshold of countries and tonnage. The latest Convention in 1974 therefore included the "tacit acceptance" procedure whereby amendments enter into force by default unless nations file objections that meet a certain number or tonnage.

Other IMO Conventions

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 06:16:00 +0000

International Convention on Salvage, 1989 - 14/7/1996
The Convention replaced a convention on the law of salvage adopted in Brussels in 1910 which incorporated the "'no cure, no pay" principle under which a salvor is only rewarded for services if the operation is successful.

Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 1988 - 1/3/1992
The main purpose of the convention is to ensure that appropriate action is taken against persons committing unlawful acts against ships. These include the seizure of ships by force; acts of violence against persons on board ships; and the placing of devices on board a ship which are likely to destroy or damage it. The convention obliges Contracting Governments either to extradite or prosecute alleged offenders.

International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969 - 18/7/1982
The Convention, adopted by IMO in 1969, was the first successful attempt to introduce a universal tonnage measurement system.

Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic, 1965 - 5/3/1967
The Convention's main objectives are to prevent unnecessary delays in maritime traffic, to aid co-operation between Governments, and to secure the highest practicable degree of uniformity in formalities and other procedures. In particular, the Convention reduces to just eight the number of declarations which can be required by public authorities.

International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:16:00 +0000

Adoption: 13 February 2004
Entry into force: 12 months after ratification by 30 States, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. See Status of Conventions

The Convention is divided into Articles; and an Annex which includes technical standards and requirements in the Regulations for the control and management of ships' ballast water and sediments.

The main features of the Convention are outlined below.

Entry into force
The Convention will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 States, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage (Article 18 Entry into force).

The Convention is divided into Articles; and an Annex which includes technical standards and requirements in the Regulations for the control and management of ships' ballast water and sediments.

The main features of the Convention are outlined below.

Entry into force
The Convention will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 States, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage (Article 18 Entry into force).

General Obligations
Under Article 2 General Obligations Parties undertake to give full and complete effect to the provisions of the Convention and the Annex in order to prevent, minimize and ultimately eliminate the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens through the control and management of ships' ballast water and sediments.

Parties are given the right to take, individually or jointly with other Parties, more stringent measures with respect to the prevention, reduction or elimination of the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens through the control and management of ships' ballast water and sediments, consistent with international law. Parties should ensure that ballast water management practices do not cause greater harm than they prevent to their environment, human health, property or resources, or those of other States.

Reception facilitiesUnder Article 5 Sediment Reception Facilities Parties undertake to ensure that ports and terminals where cleaning or repair of ballast tanks occurs, have adequate reception facilities for the reception of sediments.

Research and monitoring
Article 6 Scientific and Technical Research and Monitoring calls for Parties individually or jointly to promote and facilitate scientific and technical research on ballast water management; and monitor the effects of ballast water management in waters under their jurisdiction.

Survey, certification and inspectionShips are required to be surveyed and certified (Article 7 Survey and certification) and may be inspected by port State control officers (Article 9 Inspection of Ships) who can verify that the ship has a valid certificate; inspect the Ballast Water Record Book; and/or sample the ballast water. If there are concerns, then a detailed inspection may be carried out and "the Party carrying out the inspection shall take such steps as will ensure that the ship shall not discharge Ballast Water until it can do so without presenting a threat of harm to the environment, human health, property or resources."

All possible efforts shall be made to avoid a ship being unduly detained or delayed (Article 12 Undue Delay to Ships).

Technical assistance
Under Article 13 Technical Assistance, Co-operation and Regional Co-operation, Parties undertake, directly or through the Organization and other international bodies, as appropriate, in respect of the control and management of ships' ballast water and sediments, to provide support for those Parties which request technical assistance to train personnel; to ensure the availability of relevant technology, equipment and facilities; to initiate joint research and development programmes; and to undertake other action aimed at the effective implementation of this Convention and of guidance developed by the Organization related thereto.

Annex - Section B Management and Control Requirements for Ships
Ships are required to have on board and implement a Ballast Water Management Plan approved by the Administration (Regulation B-1). The Ballast Water Management Plan is specific to each ship and includes a detailed description of the actions to be taken to implement the Ballast Water Management requirements and supplemental Ballast Water Management practices.

Ships must have a Ballast Water Record Book (Regulation B-2) to record when ballast water is taken on board; circulated or treated for Ballast Water Management purposes; and discharged into the sea. It should also record when Ballast Water is discharged to a reception facility and accidental or other exceptional discharges of Ballast Water.

The specific requirements for ballast water management are contained in regulation B-3 Ballast Water Management for Ships:

-Ships constructed before 2009 with a ballast water capacity of between 1500 and 5000 cubic metres must conduct ballast water management that at least meets the ballast water exchange standards or the ballast water performance standards until 2014, after which time it shall at least meet the ballast water performance standard.

-Ships constructed before 2009 with a ballast water capacity of less than 1500 or greater than 5000 cubic metres must conduct ballast water management that at least meets the ballast water exchange standards or the ballast water performance standards until 2016, after which time it shall at least meet the ballast water performance standard.

-Ships constructed in or after 2009 with a ballast water capacity of less than 5000 cubic metres must conduct ballast water management that at least meets the ballast water performance standard.

-Ships constructed in or after 2009 but before 2012, with a ballast water capacity of 5000 cubic metres or more shall conduct ballast water management that at least meets the standard described in regulation D-1 or D-2 until 2016 and at least the ballast water performance standard after 2016.

-Ships constructed in or after 2012, with a ballast water capacity of 5000 cubic metres or more shall conduct ballast water management that at least meets the ballast water performance standard.

Other methods of ballast water management may also be accepted as alternatives to the ballast water exchange standard and ballast water performance standard, provided that such methods ensure at least the same level of protection to the environment, human health, property or resources, and are approved in principle by IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC).

Under Regulation B-4 Ballast Water Exchange, all ships using ballast water exchange should:

-whenever possible, conduct ballast water exchange at least 200 nautical miles from the nearest land and in water at least 200 metres in depth, taking into account Guidelines developed by IMO;

-in cases where the ship is unable to conduct ballast water exchange as above, this should be as far from the nearest land as possible, and in all cases at least 50 nautical miles from the nearest land and in water at least 200 metres in depth.

When these requirements cannot be met areas may be designated where ships can conduct ballast water exchange. All ships shall remove and dispose of sediments from spaces designated to carry ballast water in accordance with the provisions of the ships' ballast water management plan (Regulation B-4).

Annex - Section C Additional measures
A Party, individually or jointly with other Parties, may impose on ships additional measures to prevent, reduce, or eliminate the transfer of Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens through ships' Ballast Water and Sediments. In these cases, the Party or Parties should consult with adjoining or nearby States that may be affected by such standards or requirements and should communicate their intention to establish additional measure(s) to the Organization at least 6 months, except in emergency or epidemic situations, prior to the projected date of implementation of the measure(s). When appropriate, Parties will have to obtain the approval of IMO.

Annex - Section D Standards for Ballast Water Management
There is a ballast water exchange standard and a ballast water performance standard. Ballast water exchange could be used to meet the performance standard:

Regulation D-1 Ballast Water Exchange Standard - Ships performing Ballast Water exchange shall do so with an efficiency of 95 per cent volumetric exchange of Ballast Water. For ships exchanging ballast water by the pumping-through method, pumping through three times the volume of each ballast water tank shall be considered to meet the standard described. Pumping through less than three times the volume may be accepted provided the ship can demonstrate that at least 95 percent volumetric exchange is met.

Regulation D-2 Ballast Water Performance Standard - Ships conducting ballast water management shall discharge less than 10 viable organisms per cubic metre greater than or equal to 50 micrometres in minimum dimension and less than 10 viable organisms per milliliter less than 50 micrometres in minimum dimension and greater than or equal to 10 micrometres in minimum dimension; and discharge of the indicator microbes shall not exceed the specified concentrations.

The indicator microbes, as a human health standard, include, but are not be limited to:

a. Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (O1 and O139) with less than 1 colony forming unit (cfu) per 100 milliliters or less than 1 cfu per 1 gram (wet weight) zooplankton samples ;

b. Escherichia coli less than 250 cfu per 100 milliliters;

c. Intestinal Enterococci less than 100 cfu per 100 milliliters.

Ballast Water Management systems must be approved by the Administration in accordance with IMO Guidelines (Regulation D-3 Approval requirements for Ballast Water Management systems). These include systems which make use of chemicals or biocides; make use of organisms or biological mechanisms; or which alter the chemical or physical characteristics of the Ballast Water.

Prototype technologies
Regulation D-4 covers Prototype Ballast Water Treatment Technologies. It allows for ships participating in a programme approved by the Administration to test and evaluate promising Ballast Water treatment technologies to have a leeway of five years before having to comply with the requirements.

Review of standards
Under regulation D-5 Review of Standards by the Organization, IMO is required to review the Ballast Water Performance Standard, taking into account a number of criteria including safety considerations; environmental acceptability, i.e., not causing more or greater environmental impacts than it solves; practicability, i.e., compatibility with ship design and operations; cost effectiveness; and biological effectiveness in terms of removing, or otherwise rendering inactive harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens in ballast water. The review should include a determination of whether appropriate technologies are available to achieve the standard, an assessment of the above mentioned criteria, and an assessment of the socio-economic effect(s) specifically in relation to the developmental needs of developing countries, particularly small island developing States.

Annex- Section E Survey and Certification Requirements for Ballast Water Management
Gives requirements for initial renewal, annual, intermediate and renewal surveys and certification requirements. Appendices give form of Ballast Water Management Certificate and Form of Ballast Water Record Book.

Resolutions adopted by the Conference
The Conference also adopted four resolutions:

-Conference resolution 1: Future work by the Organization pertaining to the International
-Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments
-Conference resolution 2: The use of decision-making tools when reviewing the standards pursuant to Regulation D-5
-Conference resolution 3: Promotion of technical co-operation and assistance
-Conference resolution 4: Review of the Annex to the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments

Background

The problem of invasive species is largely due to the expanded trade and traffic volume over the last few decades. The effects in many areas of the world have been devastating. Quantitative data show the rate of bio-invasions is continuing to increase at an alarming rate, in many cases exponentially, and new areas are being invaded all the time. Volumes of seaborne trade continue overall to increase and the problem may not yet have reached its peak.

Specific examples include the introduction of the European zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in the Great Lakes between Canada and the United States, resulting in expenses of billions of dollars for pollution control and cleaning of fouled underwater structures and waterpipes; and the introduction of the American comb jelly (Mnemiopsis leidyi) to the Black and Azov Seas, causing the near extinction of anchovy and sprat fisheries.

The problem of harmful aquatic organisms in ballast water was first raised at IMO in 1988 and since then IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), together with the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) and technical sub-committees, have been dealing with the issue, focusing in the past decade first on guidelines and then on developing the new convention.

Going further into history, scientists first recognized the signs of an alien species introduction after a mass occurrence of the Asian phytoplankton algae Odontella (Biddulphia sinensis) in the North Sea in 1903.

But it was not until the 1970s that the scientific community began reviewing the problem in detail. In the late 1980s, Canada and Australia were among countries experiencing particular problems with unwanted species, and they brought their concerns to the attention of IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC).

In 1991 the MEPC adopted MEPC resolution 50(31) - Guidelines for Preventing the Introduction of Unwanted Organisms and Pathogens from Ships' Ballast Water and Sediment Discharges; while the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, recognized the issue as a major international concern.

In November 1993, the IMO Assembly adopted resolution A.774(18) - Guidelines for Preventing the Introduction of Unwanted Organisms and Pathogens from Ships' Ballast Water and Sediment Discharges, based on the Guidelines adopted in 1991. The resolution requested the MEPC and the MSC to keep the Guidelines under review with a view to developing internationally applicable, legally-binding provisions.

The 20th Assembly of IMO in November 1997 adopted resolution A.868(20) - Guidelines for the control and management of ships' ballast water to minimize the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens.

The development of the draft mandatory instrument has been continuing since then until this week's adoption of the new instrument.

Convention on the International Maritime Organization

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 03:24:00 +0000

Adoption: 6 March 1948
Entry in force: 17 March 1958

Background
The Geneva Conference 1948
Long process to entry into force
Entry into force of IMCO Convention 1958
The 1964 amendments -
englargement of Council to 18 Members
The 1965 amendments -
membership of Maritime Safety Committee increased to 16
The 1974 amendments -
enlargement of Council to 24, MSC to consist of all Members
The 1977 amendments -
Article 1 amended, institutionalisation of Technical Co-operation Committee
The 1979 amendments -
enlargement of Council to 32
The 1991 amendments -
institutionalisation of Facilitation Committee
The 1993 amendments -
enlargement of Council to 40 Members
Articles of the Convention
summary

The importance of international co-operation

Liability and Compensation Conventions

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:31:00 +0000

International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001 - 23/3/2001
The Convention was adopted to ensure that adequate, prompt, and effective compensation is available to persons who suffer damage caused by spills of oil, when carried as fuel in ships' bunkers.

International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (HNS), 1996 - 3/5/1996
The Convention will make it possible for up to 250 million SDR (about US$320 million) to be paid out in compensation to victims of accidents involving HNS, such as chemicals.

Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea (PAL), 1974 - 28/4/1987
The Convention is designed to consolidate and harmonize two earlier Brussels conventions dealing with passengers and luggage and adopted in 1961 and 1967 respectively.

Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC), 1976 - 1/12/1986
The Convention The Convention covers liability of ships for two types of claims - claims for loss of life or personal injury, and property claims (such as damage to other ships, property or harbour works).

International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (FUND), 1971 - 16/10/1978
The Convention establishes a Fund for providing compensaton for oil pollution incidents beyond that provided for by the CLC Convention.

Convention relating to Civil Liability in the Field of Maritime Carriage of Nuclear Material (NUCLEAR), 1971 - 15/7/1975
In 1971 IMO, in association with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the European Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), convened a Conference which adopted a Convention to regulate liability in respect of damage arising from the maritime carriage of nuclear substances.

International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC), 1969 - 29/11/1969
The Civil Liability Convention covers those who suffer oil pollution damage resulting from maritime casualties involving oil-carrying ships. The Convention places the liability for such damage on the owner of the ship from which the polluting oil escaped or was discharged.

latest ratifications

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:11:00 +0000

During the month of January 2007, the following instruments were deposited with the Secretary-General:

MARPOL 73/78 (including acceptance of Optional Annexes III, IV and V)
Accession by Albania on 9 January 2007
Date of entry into force for Albania: 9 April 2007
Accession by United Arab Emirates on 15 January 2007
Date of entry into force for United Arab Emirates: 15 April 2007

2001 AFS Convention
Ratification by Australia on 9 January 2007
Accession by Lithuania on 29 January 2007
This Convention has not yet entered into force

1989 SALVAGE Convention
Approval by Finland on 12 January 2007
Date of entry into force for Finland: 12 January 2008

1997 MARPOL Protocol (MARPOL Annex VI)
Accession by Benin on 18 January 2007
Date of entry into force for Benin: 18 April 2007
Accession by Romania on 25 January 2007
Date of entry into force for Romania: 25 April 2007
* * *
Acceptance of the 1991 amendments to the IMO Convention:
Benin on 18 January 2007*

Other IMO Conventions

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 14:53:00 +0000

anti-fouling systems

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 05:55:00 +0000

International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships

Adoption: 5 October 2001

Entry into force: The convention will enter into force 12 months after 25 States representing 25% of the world's merchant shipping tonnage have ratified it. See status on conventions

The International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships will prohibit the use of harmful organotins in anti-fouling paints used on ships and will establish a mechanism to prevent the potential future use of other harmful substances in anti-fouling systems.

Under the terms of the new Convention, Parties to the Convention are required to prohibit and/or restrict the use of harmful anti-fouling systems on ships flying their flag, as well as ships not entitled to fly their flag but which operate under their authority and all ships that enter a port, shipyard or offshore terminal of a Party.

Ships of above 400 gross tonnage and above engaged in international voyages (excluding fixed or floating platforms, FSUs and FPSOs) will be required to undergo an initial survey before the ship is put into service or before the International Anti-fouling System Certificate is issued for the first time; and a survey when the anti-fouling systems are changed or replaced.

Ships of 24 metres or more in length but less than 400 gross tonnage engaged in international voyages (excluding fixed or floating platforms, FSUs and FPSOs) will have to carry a Declaration on Anti-fouling Systems signed by the owner or authorized agent. The Declaration will have to be accompanied by appropriate documentation such as a paint receipt or contractor invoice.
Anti-fouling systems to be prohibited or controlled will be listed in an annex (Annex 1) to the Convention, which will be updated as and when necessary.

The harmful environmental effects of organotin compounds were recognized by IMO in 1989. In 1990 IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) adopted a resolution which recommended that Governments adopt measures to eliminate the use of anti-fouling paint containing TBT on non-aluminium hulled vessels of less than 25 metres in length and eliminate the use of anti-fouling paints with a leaching rate of more than four microgrammes of TBT per day.
In November 1999, IMO adopted an Assembly resolution that called on the MEPC to develop an instrument, legally binding throughout the world, to address the harmful effects of anti-fouling systems used on ships. The resolution called for a global prohibition on the application of organotin compounds which act as biocides in anti-fouling systems on ships by 1 January 2003, and a complete prohibition by 1 January 2008.

Annex I attached to the Convention and adopted by the Conference states that by an effective date of 1 January 2003, all ships shall not apply or re-apply organotins compounds which act as biocides in anti-fouling systems.

Given that this date has already passed, IMO has been urging States to ratify the convention as soon as possible in order to achieve entry into force conditions. In November 2001, the IMO Assembly adopted Resolution A.928(22) Resolution on early and effective application of the international convention on the control of harmful anti-fouling systems on ships.

In the case of the reference to a requirement being effective on 1 January 2003, if the convention comes into force at a later date, then the legal effect is the requirements are moved forward to that date. In other words, the legal effect of the 1 January 2003 date is suspended until the entry into force date. During such time before the entry into force of the convention, port States cannot apply any requirements of the convention to foreign ships calling into your ports. HOwever, flag States may apply the requirements of the convention to their national fleet, depending on their national legal system and decisions of that country, but they may not expect the International Certificates to be recognized as effective until the date of entry into force.By 1 January 2008 (effective date), ships either:

(a) shall not bear such compounds on their hulls or external parts or surfaces; or

(b) shall bear a coating that forms a barrier to such compounds leaching from the underlying non-compliant anti-fouling systems.

This applies to all ships (except fixed and floating platforms, floating storage units (FSUs), and floating production storage and off-loading units (FPSOs) that have been constructed prior to 1 January 2003 and that have not been in dry-dock on or after 1 January 2003. font>

The Convention includes a clause in Article 12 which states that a ship shall be entitled to compensation if it is unduly detained or delayed while undergoing inspection for possible violations of the Convention.

The Convention provides for the establishment of a “technical group”, to include people with relevant expertise, to review proposals for other substances used in anti-fouling systems to be prohibited or restricted. Article 6 on Process for Proposing Amendments to controls on Anti-fouling systems sets out how the evaluation of an anti-fouling system should be carried out.
Resolutions adopted by the Conference

The Conference adopted four resolutions:

Resolution 1 Early and Effective Application of the Convention – The resolution invites Member States of the Organization to do its utmost to prepare for implementing the Convention as a matter of urgency. It also urges the relevant industries to refrain from marketing, sale and application of the substances controlled by the Convention.

Resolution 2 Future work of the Organization pertaining to the Convention – The resolution invites IMO to develop guidelines for brief sampling of anti-fouling systems; guidelines for inspection of ships; and guidelines for surveys of ships. The guidelines are needed in order to ensure global and uniform application of the articles of the Convention which require sampling, inspection and surveys.

The following have been developed and adopted:

Guidelines for survey and certification of anti-fouling systems on ships - adopted by resolution MEPC.102(48);

Guidelines for brief sampling of anti-fouling systems on ships - adopted by resolution MEPC.104(49); and

Guidelines for inspection of anti-fouling systems on ships - adopted by resolution MEPC.105(49).

Resolution 3 Approval and Test Methodologies for Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships – This resolution invites States to approve, register or license anti-fouling systems applied in their territories. It also urges States to continue the work, in appropriate international fora, for the harmonization of test methods and performance standards for anti-fouling systems containing biocides.

Resolution 4 Promotion of Technical Co-operation – The resolution requests IMO Member States, in co-operation with IMO, other interested States, competent international or regional organizations and industry programmes, to promote and provide directly, or through IMO, support to States in particular developing States that request technical assistance for:

(a) the assessment of the implications of ratifying, accepting, approving, or acceding to and complying with the Convention;

(b) the development of national legislation to give effect to the Convention; and

(c) the introduction of other measures, including the training of personnel, for the effective implementation and enforcement of the Convention.

It also requests Member States, in co-operation with IMO, other interested States, competent international and regional organisation and industry programmes, to promote co‑operation for scientific and technical research on the effects of anti-fouling systems as well as monitoring these effects.

Background

Anti-fouling paints are used to coat the bottoms of ships to prevent sealife such as algae and molluscs attaching themselves to the hull – thereby slowing down the ship and increasing fuel consumption.

The new Convention defines “anti-fouling systems” as “a coating, paint, surface treatment, surface or device that is used on a ship to control or prevent attachment of unwanted organisms”.

In the early days of sailing ships, lime and later arsenic were used to coat ships' hulls, until the modern chemicals industry developed effective anti-fouling paints using metallic compounds.

These compounds slowly "leach" into the sea water, killing barnacles and other marine life that have attached to the ship. But the studies have shown that these compounds persist in the water, killing sealife, harming the environment and possibly entering the food chain. One of the most effective anti-fouling paints, developed in the 1960s, contains the organotin tributylin (TBT), which has been proven to cause deformations in oysters and sex changes in whelks.

SAR

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 06:52:00 +0000

International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979

Adoption: 27 April 1979
Entry into force: 22 June 1985

Introduction

Amendment Procedure IMO search and rescue areas

Revision of SAR Convention The 1998 amendments - Entry into force: 1 January 2000

Chapter 1 - Terms and Definitions

Chapter 2 - Organization and Co-ordination

Chapter 3 - Co-operation between States

Chapter 4 - Operating Procedures

Chapter 5 - Ship reporting systems

International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue

(IAMSAR) Manual

2004 amendments - persons in distress at sea

COLREG

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:17:00 +0000

Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGs)

Adoption: 20 October 1972
Entry into force: 15 July 1977

Introduction

Amendment procedure

Technical provisions

Part A - General (Rules 1-3)

Part B - Steering and Sailing (Rules 4-19)

Section 1 - Conduct of vessels in any condition of visibility (Rules 4-10)

Rule 6 - safe speed

Rule 10 - vessels in or near traffic separation schemes

Section II - Conduct of vessels in sight of one another (Rules 11-18)

Rule 13 - overtaking

Rule 14 - head-on situations

Section III - conduct of vessels in restricted visibility (Rule 19)

Part C Lights and Shapes (Rules 20-31)

Part D - Sound and Light Signals (Rules 32-37)

Part E - Exemptions (Rule 38)

Annexes

The 1981 amendments - rule 10 amended

The 1987 amendments - crossing traffic lanes

The 1989 amendments - inshore traffic zone

The 1993 amendments - positioning of lights

The 2001 amendments - WIG craft

STCW

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:05:00 +0000

International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978

Adoption: 7 July 1978
Entry into force: 28 April 1984

The 1995 amendments – major revision

Ensuring compliance with the Convention

Port State control

1995 amendments – chapters II, III, IV

1995 amendments - Chapter V: Special training requirements for personnel on certain types of ships

1995 amendments - Chapter VI: Emergency, occupational safety, medical care and survival functions

1995 amendments - Chapter VII: Alternative certification

1995 amendments - Chapter VIII: Watchkeeping

The STCW Code

The 1997 Amendments – training for crew on passenger ships

The 1998 Amendments – training for crew on bulk carriers

The 2006 amendments - ship security officers, fast rescue boatsThe "White List"

International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979

noreply@blogger.com (willy lacuna cheng) — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:53:00 +0000

Adoption: 27 April 1979
Entry into force: 22 June 1985

Introduction

Amendment Procedure

IMO search and rescue areas

Revision of SAR Convention

The 1998 amendments - Entry into force: 1 January 2000

Chapter 1 - Terms and Definitions

Chapter 2 - Organization and Co-ordination

Chapter 3 - Co-operation between States

Chapter 4 - Operating Procedures

Chapter 5 - Ship reporting systems

International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue

(IAMSAR) Manual

2004 amendments - persons in distress at sea