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.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Rough seas
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Do You Need a Permit to Land on the Moon?
"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!"
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!"
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Hawaii Superferry may be dead in the water
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."
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."
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Former Haleakala head urged Superferry EIS
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.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
No-anchoring areas 'marked'
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)
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)
Monday, September 3, 2007
Perdock's failure to assume responsibility part of issue
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
Advertisement
--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.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Tunisian sailors arrested for saving illegal immigrants
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.
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.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Capitola's foam ban slow to get off ground
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"
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"
Sunday, July 15, 2007
WWF film calls for Marine Act
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
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
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
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.
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.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Other IMO Conventions
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.
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.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Convention on the International Maritime Organization
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
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
Monday, April 2, 2007
Liability and Compensation Conventions
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.
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.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
latest ratifications
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*
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*
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Other IMO Conventions
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.
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.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
anti-fouling systems
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
SAR
International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979
Adoption: 27 April 1979
Entry into force: 22 June 1985
Introduction
Amendment ProcedureIMO search and rescue areas
Revision of SAR ConventionThe 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
Adoption: 27 April 1979
Entry into force: 22 June 1985
Introduction
Amendment ProcedureIMO search and rescue areas
Revision of SAR ConventionThe 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
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
COLREG
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
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
Sunday, March 25, 2007
STCW
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"
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"
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
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
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
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
SUA
Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 1988
Adoption: 10 March 1988
Entry into force: 1 March 1992
Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, 1988
Adoption: 10 March 1988
Entry into force: 1 March 1992
The Protocol extends the requirements of the Convention to fixed platforms such as those engaged in the exploitation of offshore oil and gas.
Introduction
Resolution A.584(14) Measures to prevent unlawful acts
MSC Circular Measures to prevent unlawful acts
Convention aims
Amendment procedure
2005 Protocols
Adoption: 10 March 1988
Entry into force: 1 March 1992
Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, 1988
Adoption: 10 March 1988
Entry into force: 1 March 1992
The Protocol extends the requirements of the Convention to fixed platforms such as those engaged in the exploitation of offshore oil and gas.
Introduction
Resolution A.584(14) Measures to prevent unlawful acts
MSC Circular Measures to prevent unlawful acts
Convention aims
Amendment procedure
2005 Protocols
Sunday, March 18, 2007
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974
Adoption: 1 November 1974
Entry into force: 25 May 1980
Introduction and history
Amendment procedure
Technical provisions
Chapter I - General Provisions
Chapter II-1 - Construction - Subdivision and stability, machinery and electrical installations
Chapter II-2 - Fire protection, fire detection and fire extinction
Chapter III - Life-saving appliances and arrangements
Chapter IV - Radiocommunications
Chapter V - Safety of navigation
Chapter VI - Carriage of Cargoes
Chapter VII - Carriage of dangerous goods
Chapter VIII - Nuclear ships
Chapter IX - Management for the Safe Operation of Ships
Chapter X - Safety measures for high-speed craft
Chapter XI-1 - Special measures to enhance maritime safety
Chapter XI-2 - Special measures to enhance maritime security
Chapter XII - Additional safety measures for bulk carriers
Entry into force: 25 May 1980
Introduction and history
Amendment procedure
Technical provisions
Chapter I - General Provisions
Chapter II-1 - Construction - Subdivision and stability, machinery and electrical installations
Chapter II-2 - Fire protection, fire detection and fire extinction
Chapter III - Life-saving appliances and arrangements
Chapter IV - Radiocommunications
Chapter V - Safety of navigation
Chapter VI - Carriage of Cargoes
Chapter VII - Carriage of dangerous goods
Chapter VIII - Nuclear ships
Chapter IX - Management for the Safe Operation of Ships
Chapter X - Safety measures for high-speed craft
Chapter XI-1 - Special measures to enhance maritime safety
Chapter XI-2 - Special measures to enhance maritime security
Chapter XII - Additional safety measures for bulk carriers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
