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)
Sunday, September 9, 2007
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)
