Problems faced by the International Maritime Organisation - Essay Example

Problems faced by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Introduction: The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is a specialised agency of the United Nations Organisation that is primarily engaged in the enhancement of Maritime security and safety, protection of the oceanic environment, undersea life and preservation of living species nourished in the bowels of the sea. It also aims at preventing the occurrences of air and sea pollution from passing oil tankers, ships and merchant vessels, whose actions of dumping of crude, chemicals or wastes, garbage, crude sediments and other marine wastes into the ocean bed has seriously endangered marine life. Through a process of closely coordinated efforts of its designated committees and subcommittees, it is responsible for rendering professionalized services in all safety aspects of maritime This also applies to the context of technical consultations and special problem solving, where the necessity of expert consultations are also required. Due to administrative and procedural delays, there are many aspects of marine endangerment which continue to plague international sea trade. These problems are difficult to contain even for a multinational agency under the aegis of United Nations Organisation. One underlying aspect that needs to be understood is that while the IMO is a regulatory body that adopts law making, it is for the individual countries to implement the proposed laws by changing their respective legislatures to accommodate the IMO directives. If this is not forthcoming, the very purpose of initiating laws would seem to be an exercise in futility. “The problem is that some countries lack the expertise, experience and resources necessary to do this properly. Others perhaps put enforcement fairly low down their list of priorities.” (International Maritime Organization, Frequently asked questions) The IMO was operationalized in 1959, within a minimum of 21 member states, but as of now, there are 167 Member States and 3 Associate Members. (IMO Member States 2002).Several governmental and non-governmental agencies (NGOs) also contribute immensely to the overall functioning of the IMO. It is constantly endeavouring for enhancing the safety and security aspects of movements on the high seas, especially in the modern era of international terrorism and oceanic piracy. The responsible role it now plays in world oceanic trade as an independent institution is very commendable, and it is now believed to be one of the most useful, effective and progressive agencies of the United Nations Organisation. Background of the problems: The importance of the performance of IMO is gaining more momentum. This is because the need for regulating shipping activities have become very much necessary. This is more so specifically necessary to avoid recurrence of the spate of accidents, incidents and sea borne disasters which have left deep imprints on the environmental surroundings of the seas and endangered the living of marine life in, and around these locations. Titanic disaster and its aftermath: After the Titanic disaster in 1912, it was decided to introduce stricter security measures as far as marine trade and travel goes, and several committees were formed in order to gain better control and to channelise the dealings of world trade on desired and internationally accepted lines. The IMO was set into motion in 1959 and several Committees and sub-Committees were also instituted such as: 1. Facilitation Committee 2. Marine environment protection Committee 3. Maritime Safety Committee 4. Legal Committee. Besides the above committee, there are several sub-committees like Standard of training and watch keeping, fire protection, etc depending upon the nature of the crisis and the need for executing remedial action. “IMO has six main bodies concerned with the adoption or implementation of conventions. The Assembly and Council are the main organs, and the committees involved are the Maritime Safety Committee, Marine Environment Protection Committee, Legal Committee and the Facilitation Committee.” (Conventions 2002). Modus Operandi of IMO The new proposal need to be tabled to the concerned committee of the IMO. The proposals would be deliberated upon by the sub-committees or working groups. The deliberations would concur about the adoption or non-adoption of resolutions, depending upon the majority consensus on the issues in hand. The IMO does not make implementations, rather it would be make recommendations to be implemented by member countries by invoking changes or amendments in their respective laws to align with the new directives issued by the world body. (International Maritime Organization) Frequently asked questions) The Torrey Canyon disaster in the year 1967, served as a revelation for the authorities concerning themselves with sea pollution. In this particular incident, an oil tanker carrying 120,000 Tonnes of crude oil capsized near the English Channel. This precipitated the birth of an international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships as MANPOL 73/78. (1973) It was in the year 1970 that the international mobile satellite organization (IMSO) was launched, through the use of satellite tracking, and in 1992, the global maritime distress safety system was launched. (GMDSS).A main challenge faced by the IMO is to respond to distressed vessels and ships. This system based on the satellite tracking devices, helps even distressed ships be noticed for guaranteed succor on the high seas, even though the seamen may not be in a position to radio for help. The anti-fouling system was introduced in 2001 and ballast water management systems in the year 2004. However, these laws are yet to be fully operationalised. However, the main aspects that acts as a barrier for introduction of effective legislature is to get the majority concurrence for its implementation. The ratification of even the present conventions took a long time, Marpol (Annex VII) 2004. (International Convention on Control of Harmful Anti-fouling System on ship.) Dangers posed by oceanic activities and movement of oceanic traffic One of the main aspects regarding the IMO is the prevention of pollution and ensuring that the seas are kept clean and anti-pollutive as far as is possible. The pollution aspect is a major challenge for the IMO, since, in the context of vessels and, especially oil tankers, which undertake vessel-to-vessel transfers of crude and other items, there is a very high probability that leakages or effluents may take place, which could endanger marine life and eco-systems of the seas. There are different Annexures to the Convention which seeks to control the different difficulties faced by the IMO and they are: Major problem for the IMO – Shipwrecks: Another very significant aspect of great concern to the IMO is with regard to the problems arising out of, and because of shipwrecks lying in the oceans. The incidence of accidents, incidents, and collusions between ships have reduced considerably in recent years, thanks to the efforts of the IMO and its constituent bodies and agencies. They work in close co-operation and co-ordination in order to fulfill the long-term objectives and goals of the IMO. The problems that arise due to shipwrecks and the remains of ships and colluded vessels remains to be seen. There is an estimated 1300 shipwrecks in the international waters and this could pose a major threat to ships that pass through these areas. These ships pose three problems: (1) as a potential threat to naval movement in these areas (2) can be a source of damage and detriment to the marine and coastal surroundings and natural habitat of the seas (3) The cost factor involved in implementing programmes for the removal and elimination of oceanic shipwrecks could be very large and substantial, and large investments need to be made in order to sustain these programmes. Therefore, practically speaking, it may not be within the economic capacity of small countries, to undertake rescue and salvage operations pertaining to these shipwrecks, even though the wrecks may be within their territorial waters and they need to seek the assistance of IMO and its designated agencies to conduct necessary salvage and clearance operations to clear the water of debris.This being the case, it become very imperative for implementation of a sound policy, under the aegis of the premier oceanic body, the International Maritime Organization, to set forth a legal system by which coastal states should eliminate hazards, or try to reduce hazards. Wrecks, which could pose a potential threat to passing vessels, could also pose harm to the environment in which it is currently situated, and this could seriously hamper the safety and security of the high seas. Carriage of dangerous and toxic goods: Another major threat which is assuming growing proportions is with regard to the transportation of dangerous goods which has become a challenging proposition for the IMO. This relates mainly to transporting radioactive materials through the Caribbean Seas. The international community needs to waken up to the entry of toxic substances into the high seas and effect alternative methods to tackle such situations having multi dimensional impact. It is noted the internationally recognized right to freedom of navigation, however cessation of the transport of radioactive materials through our Region is imperative. (Wolfe, 2006). TACIT ACCEPTANCE V EXPLICIT ACCEPTANCE It is often said that the IMO lacks teeth and is slow to take decisions and implementing them. However, it needs to be said that IMO serves only as a recommendatory body and the implementation have to be carried out by the member countries. Further, the IMO cannot advise decisions based just on the concerns of one country but has to seek consensus from all affected countries. This process may be a time consuming process. However, it has been seen that the IMO has moved with alacrity during 11/9 crisis. Way back in 1994, in the case of the Estonia disaster, a ferry yo-yo ship carrying more than 900 people sank without a trace. A special panel of experts were commissioned, and based upon their recommendations, in 1995; necessary amendments in the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certificate, and Watch-keeping for Seafarers were constituted (International Maritime Organization : Frequently asked questions) All this goes to prove beyond doubt that the IMO is as effective as it is allowed to be by the international Mari trade community. Another very significant aspect is with regard to explicit acceptance, which predominated the working of the IMO recommendations until the early 1970’s. Under explicit acceptance, the policies needed ratification from member countries, which would take a long time for implementation, but under the present system, tacit acceptance, the acceptance of new treaties and its ratification, by member countries could be achieved within a short spell of time. Single Hull becoming non-operational? Through the international convention for the prevention of pollution to ships 1973 (Marpol 73/78) it has been decided to bring in rules for the ultimate phasing out of oil tankers. The law states that either the oil tankers should be phased out, or they should be converted into double hull. The main reason for conversion into double hull is to obviate the risk of seepages or leakages into the ocean, in the event of collusions or accidents which could spell disaster to local environment and cause untold damage and detriment to oceanic life and ecosystems. Under the Category I single hull oil tankers would not be able to operate with effect from April 5, 2005 and they also include oil tankers of 20, 000 Tonnes Dwt. carrying crude, fuel oils diesel and other lubricating oils. This could be 30, 000 tonnes dwt in the case of oil tankers carrying other others than the ones mentioned above, which does not have compartmentalized separate ballast tanks. Coming to the Category II, that relates to oil tankers conforming to the requirements would be phased out in the year 2010. In this class are included, oil tankers which have 20, 000 tonnes dwt and above, which carry crude, fuel oils diesel oils and lubricants. It also pertains to oil tankers having 30, 000 dwt and above, carrying other forms of oils except mentioned above. In the next category, we have oil tankers of 5000 tonnes dwt. and above, but less than the required tonnage as mentioned in Categories 1 and 2. (Revised phase-out schedule for single hull tankers enter into force. 2005). Implementation of CAS (Conditional Assessment Scheme) which became enforceable from 2001 pertains to the control aspects of certain types of oil tankers of 5000 tonnes DWT or more, which have served 15 years or more. More than dealing with policy aspects, the CAS is designed to take care of the operational aspects and the physical inspection of these tankers. It is also to oversee that correct documentation is carried out on regular basis, and that strict adherence to inspection and documentation norms are carried out with respect to the ships. Exceptions to the Double Hull Regulations: There have been conditional relaxations to the 13 G rules and regulations while facilitate the phasing out date of the ships beyond the phase out in accordance with the Schedule (Attached below). But this relaxation should not, under any circumstances go beyond “the anniversary of the date of delivery of the ship in 2015, or the date in which the ship reaches 25 years of age, after the date of the delivery of the ship, whichever is earlier.” This relaxation is also applicable in the Category 2 and 3, on the completion of certain conditionalities, but this relaxation would not go “beyond the date on which the ship reaches 25 years of age after the date of its delivery”. (International Convention for the prevention of pollution from ships: 1973 as modified by the protocol of 1978, relating thereto (March 73/78). Revised phase-out schedule for single hull tankers enter into force (2005) Further, in the categories mentioned above, it is also necessary that the government may allow the ships in question to continue operations beyond 5.4.2005, until it reaches the 25th year of its life or after the date of its delivery. Regulation 13 H also allows a relaxation in the case of tankers of 5000 dwt. and above, single hold oil tankers of 600 dwt to 5000 dwt and these also included oil tankers. In this context, it is also significant to mention that these Amendments to Marpol 73/78 have already been concurred by 130 countries, which a fair 97.7 % of the world’s commercial trading tonnage. Revised phase-out schedule: Category of oil tanker Date or year for phase-out Category 1 - oil tankers of 20, 000 tonnes deadweight and above carrying crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil or lubricating oil as cargo, and of 30, 000 tonnes deadweight and above carrying other oils, which do not comply with the requirements for protectively located segregated ballast tanks (commonly known as Pre-MARPOL tankers) 5 April 2005 for ships delivered on 5 April 1982 or earlier  Anniversary date in 2005 for ships delivered after 5 April 1982 Category 2 - oil tankers of 20, 000 tonnes deadweight and above carrying crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil or lubricating oil as cargo, and of 30, 000 tonnes deadweight and above carrying other oils, which do comply with the protectively located segregated ballast tank requirements (MARPOL tankers), and   Category 3 - oil tankers of 5, 000 tonnes deadweight and above but less than the tonnage specified for Category 1 and 2 tankers 5 April 2005 for ships delivered on 5 April 1977 or earlier  Anniversary date in 2005 for ships delivered after 5 April 1977 but before 1 January 1978  Anniversary date in 2006 for ships delivered in 1978 and 1979  Anniversary date in 2007 for ships delivered in 1980 and 1981 Anniversary date in 2008 for ships delivered in 1982  Anniversary date in 2009 for ships delivered in 1983  Anniversary date in 2010 for ships delivered in 1984 or later (Revised phase-out schedule for single hull tankers enter into force. 2005). After the occurrence of the Erika incident, the resultant Commission blamed the poor fitness condition of the vessel as the main cause of the disaster. The IMO effected strict rules and conditional ties for vessel navigation. (Frequently asked questions. International Maritime Organization) Effective 01st of August, 2007, Section 12 A in the Marpol was adapted by MEPC. It determines the location of oil fuel tankers in all ships have a total fuel capacity of more than 600metres3.. This law also becomes applicable to ships for which the building contracts have been placed on or after August 1, 2007, or in the non-event of any contract, its keel has been laid on or after February 2, 2007. This new rule states that, henceforth, the oil tankers shall be located in double Hull to reduce the impact of environmental damages in the event of grounding or collusion of the ship. Therefore, the effect of the fate of MARPOL has resulted in the strict hull restrictions for oil tankers of 600 T. Although this problem regarding oil tankers have been addressed to, it does not taken into consideration the fact that often big ships which carry more than 5000 meters cubic of oil fuel which is more than the fuel carried by small oil tankers. Therefore, there is an ambiguity as far as this rule is concerned which speaks of oil tankers but not about large Ships. (Amendments to MARPOL Annex I enter into force on 1 August 2007. 2007). It is seen that the IMO has made rapid strides in enforcing recommendations designed to reduce the impact of adverse elements in the oceanic environment. This is despite being severally compromised due to internal functionalities and the need to take an overall view of the problems besieging member states. In the very words of the present Secretary-General of the IMO, Mr. Ethimios E. Mitropoulos, to mark the occasion of the World Maritime Day, 2007. He said “IMO’s work in this respect must be part of a broad-based effort in which everyone has a responsibility and everyone has a role to play, a concept precisely reflected in the well-known environmental call to action .think globally. act locally. And, in the long term, society will need to address its own priorities and understand that nothing comes for nothing and that therewill be prices and sacrifices that we must be prepared to pay and make, for the greater good of all.” (Mitropoulos 2007). Works cited Frequently asked questions (FAQ). [online]. International Maritime Organization Last accessed 8 September 2007 at: http://www.imo.org/ Amendments to MARPOL Annex I enter into force on 1 August 2007. (2007). [online]. International maritime organization. Last accessed 6 September 2007 at: http://www.imo.org/  Conventions. (2002). [online]. IMO. Last accessed 6 September 2007 at: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=148#intro IMO member States. (2002). [online]. International Maritime Organization. Last accessed 6 September 2007 at: http://www.imo.org Revised phase-out schedule for single hull tankers enter into force. (2005). [online]. IMO. Last accessed 6 September 2007 at: http://www.imo.org/Safety/mainframe.asp?topic_id=1018&doc_id=4801 WOLFE, Raymond O (2006). Jamaican Ambassador to UN, 61st Session of the UN General Assembly Agenda Item # 71 “Ocean and law of the sea.” Last accessed 6 September 2007 at: http://www.un.int/jamaica/61agendaitem71unclos.htm   Mitropoulos, Efthimios E (2007) World Maritime Day 2007: IMO.s response to current environmental Challenges: A message from the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization. [online]. Last accessed 8 September 2007 at: http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D19507/9535.pdf Read More