Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION OF SEAPORTS 1.0 Definition of ports and harbours 2.0 The function of ports 3.0 The role of seaports 4.0 Factor influencing the shipowners’ choice of seaport 5.0 Relationship between ships and ports CHAPTER 2 : INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS 1.0 MARPOL 73/78 2.0 COLREG 1972 3.0 SOLAS 1974 4.0 SAR 1979 5.0 IMDG CODE 6.0 ISPS CODE CHAPTER 3 : OCEAN TERMINAL OPERATIONS SECTION I : TERMS AND FACTORS 1.0 Pre-stowage planning - introduction 2.0 Stowage planning factors 3.0 Stability / Stowage & Capacity Booklet 4.0 Vessel deadweight scale 5.0 Weight Distribution SECTION II : STEPS IN PRESTOW PLANNING 1.0 Overall cargo load planning 2.0 Delivering cargo to shipside SECTION III : CARGO STOWAGE PLAN 1.0 Conventional cargo vessel (* breakbulk vessel stowage plans) SECTION IV : DISCHARGE 1.0 Discharge planning 2.0 Discharge over wharves 3.0 Berth assignment 4.0 Cargo clearance transportation requirements CHAPTER 4 : NAVIGATION & NAVIGATIONAL AIDS 1.0 Lights 2.0 Sounds 3.0 Navigation Aids 4.0 Electronic Navigation Equipment CHAPTER 5 : NAVIGATIONAL WATCHKEEPER 1.0 Basic principles to be observed in keeping a navigational watch 2.0 Time watchkeeping 3.0 Duty of watchkeeping CHAPTER 6 : COMMUNICATION AT SEA 1.0 GMDSS 1.1 Background history 1.2 Basic concepts of GMDSS - functional requirement - application - equipment vs operational 2.0 GMDSS – Frequently Asked Questions | Pages |
CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION OF SEAPORTS
Many traditional ports around the world have developed in step with the communities they serve. Originally, in many cases it was the presence of a natural harbour which created the settlement in the first place and thereafter the two have expanded together. Many other ports owe their existence to the exploitation of an exportable commodity. Grain ports in North and South America are typical examples whilst, more recently, new terminals in otherwise uninhabited regions have been built in order to serve a deposit of minerals such as coal or ore.
The extent to which a port will develop, stagnate or even fail to survive depends on many factors such as :-
- Depth of water
- Protection from adverse weather
- Space for cargo storage
- Infrastructure (e.g. road/rail connections)
- Availability of labour
The very location may dictate the extent to which a port will expand or contact. Two examples are in the UK where otherwise excellent port facilities in Liverpool with its densely populated and industrialized hinterland are not expanding because modern container ships find it more economical to move cargo overland from South and East Coast rather than have the ship itself deviate from a voyage which will almost invariably include ports in North West Europe. At the opposite end of the scale, Felixstowe with virtually no industry and only an agricultural population behind it, is expanding rapidly because it is so conveniently located on a route which includes continental ports.
It is almost impossible to classify a port into a particular category, as generally ports have many facilities available for numerous traffic activities. However, as a generalization, it may be interesting to note some port categories :-
Entrepot
Places where goodds are transferred from one ship to another i.e. large ports such as Rotterdam, where cargo arrives in large vessels and is transferred to smaller or coastal vessels and/or barges for onward transit.
Naval Ports
Home ports for national Navies, such as Plymouth or Portsmouth, often chosen for strategic purposes.
Ferry Ports
Terminals for short sea routes connecting two countries e.g. Dover/Calais, Folkestone/Boulogne where ferries ply the English Channel between England and France.
Outports
Often old established ports on rivers which cannot accommodate the larger vessels so new ports are built nearer the sea e.g. Tilbury is rapidly becoming the major terminal on the River Thames, superseding London with its obsolete enclosed docks and further distance from the sea.
Fishing Ports
Smaller ports, which are the home ports of fishing fleets, usually located near the recognized fishing grounds and having good transport facilities inland for quick despatch of the catch.
Goods/Cargo Ports
All the above can be involved with several sides of industry and generally the large majority of ports will deal with cargo imports/exports. These cargoes will be very varied in nature. The larger ports will cover all aspects from bulk cargoes, such as grain, to container facilities, and oil terminals. Such as example would be Rotterdam but most of the major ports do have these facilities.
Free Zone/Freeports
A free zone is an area of land which is considered for customs purposes to be outside the territory of its host state. Goods may be brought into the zone without import duties being paid; duties are paid only if the goods are “imported” from the zone to the territory of the host state. Enterprises operating in the zone are thus able to hold stock without the duty element adding to their working capital.
Free zones located at or near ports are often called “freeports”. In addition to having a suspended duty custom regime, some free zones offer incentives such as tax concessions or grants designed to encourage business. Zones may also be exempt from the operation of certain laws or regulations which apply on the national territory proper. The variety of concessions offered by different countries makes it difficult to generalize about the potential of free zones. The opportunities for a particular zone will depend on the exact nature of the regulations applying in the zone, and how these compare with conditions in the host country and in neighbouring countries.
DEFINITION OF PORTS AND HARBOURS
These can be defined simply as :-
A HARBOUR can be classified as a haven for the protection of ships, a place where vessels can shelter from inclement weather and if required, undergo repairs and/or re-victualling. Harbours are of two distinct types, either natural or artificial. Natural harbours are those sufficiently protected by their situation not to require any artificial aid. They are physically protected or enclosed by the coastline. Prime examples of this type are Sydney Harbour, the bay at the Rio de Janeiro and Milford Haven.
Artificial Harbours are harbours which require the natural configuration of the coast to be supplemented to greater or lesser extent by breakwaters and the like. A harbour is formed by the natural structure but requires man-made breakwaters, piers or jetties to complete the task.
Prime examples of this are Dover Harbour in the United Kingdom, which is almost purely artificial, processing a length of breakwater of over 3km and Tema in Ghana is another example.
The majority of harbours are a combination of the two types. The latter, artificial harbour, is the most important from an economic cost point of view as it will generally be the most expensive form of harbour, using a large amount of factors of production particularly capital in its construction and maintenance.
A PORT is sometimes referred to as a commercial harbour since ports are primarily designed and organized for commercial use. They are often called gateways between land and sea or water as “ports” can refer to seaports, river ports or ports on canal or waterways.
The central function of a port is to be a point of transfer commodities and people from land to water and vice versa. It is place where land and water transport modes come into contact of the services are provided for the purpose of the interchange of cargoes and passengers as an essential feature of the whole national and international transport network.
THE FUNCTION OF PORTS
There are three general methods of examining a port’s function at a rather simple and obvious level. These functions are:-
(a) Traditional functions
(b) Transport or transit functions
(c) Industrial functions
(d) Network functions
It is necessary in any analysis to make clear the close inter-relationship between these functions.
(a) Traditional functions of ports.
These can be looked at from a broad perspective as,
§ Firstly, the seaport performs an important link in the total chain of transport.
§ Secondly seaports usually provide areas or facilities for the storage of goods until transported to their destination. The storage function can range from a simple parking area for road haulage vehicles to massive tanks holding millions of barrels of crude oil.
§ Thirdly seaports are often alternative locations for industry, particularly heavy industry and those associated with shipping.
(b) Transport functions of ports.
Not only do ports provide the essential link between the transport network, a further distinction has to be made in the area of trans-shipment of goods. Trans-shipment can be from seagoing vessels and another seagoing vessel. The transport function is characterized essentially by the transport mode used which in turn is a function of the type of goods carried and the length of journey to be made as well as the geographic and other conditions. The storage function of a seaport is directly related to its transport function. Seagoing vessels are several times larger than units of inland transport so for transport overland the total cargo carried in one trip by a seagoing vessel has to be split up into smaller consignments. These are consignments which are going to be conveyed along a route determined by factors other than those that influence the need to dispose of a ship’s total cargo as quickly as possible. The provision of storage space provides an obvious answer for perishable and non-perishable goods which do not depend on onward shipping by sea transport.
(c) The industrial functions of a port
This is the logical offspring of its two other functions. The consideration that trans-shipment always involves handling costs as well as onward shipping in smaller, generally more expensive, transport has induced many industries, notably those of processing raw materials to locate in seaports. For a port to fulfil these various functions facilities are needed for ships, waterways, harbour bases, berths for inland transport, canals, roads, railways and storage ad industrial land and buildings as well as the services they require. All these facilities call for a large investment with a very long life-time which will determine largely the physical and economic continuance of the region.
(d) Network functions: hub and spoke ports, or the load centre concept.
The increased use of containerization methods in shipping has led to a change in the way that ports are viewed. Because of the need to exploit scale economies, which require large cargo volumes, ports serving the liner trades have become increasingly specialized into one of two types, hub ports and feeder ports. A hub port, or load centre, as it is sometimes called, act as an important focus of container trading activities. It is served by many ships calling to load and discharge cargo on many different routes. It has become a centre of cargo distribution which is often of great regional geographic importance, rather than merely a national or local one. Singapore and Hong Kong both serve this function in the Far East. Rotterdam does the same in Europe. A feeder port, as its name implies, is of lesser significance, as cargo volumes are smaller. Economies of scale are not so easily exploited, so the routes it serves will be less busy, with smaller vessels engaged on them. A hub port will be at the centre of a local network of these smaller ports, a system which has been called ‘hub and spoke operations’, because of the fact that cargo is first moved to a hub port, and then radiated out along the spokes. This arrangement is also to be observed in the world of air transport, where it is used for the same reason; to exploit scale economies by using large aircraft to serve the hubs and smaller ones on the feeder routes.
The development of the hub port concept means that ports in the future may not necessarily need to have large industrial hinterlands close to them. An example is the important container port of Algeciras, which has little or no industrial development close by. But it is ideally located to act as transshipment terminal , where containers can be shifted from one vessel to another in order to minimize the liner companies’ overall costs of providing their shipping services. According to this viewpoint, port development will be closely tied in with its location, since this will determine its strategic importance the liner companies’ route networks.
THE ROLE OF SEAPORTS
As we progress through the 1990s, the role of seaports will change and the areas detailed below demonstrate such developments. Shippers are looking for dedicated schedules door-to-door with customs examination being undertaken at the consignor/consignee premises or at the nearby container freight station/dry port/freight village. Hence an increasing volume of business passing through the port will be customs examined outside the port environs thereby reducing congestion and infrastructure needs in terms of warehousing and so speeding up the transit. Moreover, it will intensify berth utilization and its infrastructure thereby increasing the throughput of the port. The elimination of customs examination will reduce substantially the size of the dock labour force, a development further accentuated by the provision of high-tech computerized cargo handling equipment.
An increasing number of major ports are becoming trade distribution centres, with such developments being concentrated in the port environment. Examples include the ports of Singapore and Rotterdam. The trading areas are called ‘distriparks’ and provide industrial companies with a central distribution location together with the major benefit of the nearby port infrastructure and a prosperous hinterland. Goods are imported and exported through the port and processed through the distripark warehouses and distribution centres. Companies lease the site and/or warehouses and import the products for assembly, processing, packaging and labelling to serve the nearby markets.
This provides enormous cost savings in terms of:
- Reduced customs duties;
- Often lower labour handling costs;
- Lower distribution costs to the local markets;
- Lower inventory costs as a result of better control and less inventory.
The central distribution location provided through the distripark also facilities:
The international distribution of cargo;
- The development of customized products to serve the local market;
- An integrated logistics approach to the flow of goods through ‘just in time’ deliveries;
- Centralized distribution;
- The stuffing and stripping of containerized general cargo;
- Continuous access to the port infrastructure.
The range of products processed through the distripark is large, including foodstuffs, garment, machinery, consume goods, industrial products and so on. Goods leave the distripark by sea, road, air and canal. An increasing number of exporters are now adopting a policy of purchasing the component parts of their products in different parts of the world and undertaking all the assembly work at a distripark, with each distripark reflecting and will develop especially in regions which have free trade agreements such as the EU, ASEAN, NAFTA and so on. Three such distriparks exist in Rotterdam port – that at Botlek covers an area of 86 ha, the second is at Eemhaven with a third under construction at Maasvlakte.
However, Singapore’s port is the market leader in the provision and development of the distripark concept. It stems from its being a trading centre, and over 500 multinationals and international trading companies use Singapore as their central physical distribution base and logistics centre for the Asia-Pacific region. Distriparks are provided at Alexandra and Pasir Panjang, and a distribelt covering a 3700-ha distribution zone runs alongside a 20 km stretch on the southern coast. This includes the Container Terminal, Deppel Terminal, Pasir Panjang Terminal, cargo consolidation, Alexandra Distripark and Pasir Panjang Distripark. With shipping infrastructure and support, multinational corporations and international freight forwarders operate from this base.
The Pasir Panjang Distripark has ten single-storey centres enclosing a 162 000 m2 space with purpose-built ceilings. Additionally, at Pasir Panjang Districentre a three-storey building is provided with 45 000 m2 including office space if 2 000 m2. These are ultra-modern warehouses, with each unit able to offer a customized service in consolidation, repacking, labelling and sorting. Round-the-clock security, fire services, fork lift accessibility to every floor, high ceilings, specialized facilities, CCTV security and PR Systems are provided. Overall, the Port of Singapore has 14 districentres within the distriparks; all have EDI and are fully computerized and automated.
A total of over 750 free trade zones (FTZs) now exist worldwide. The sites are usually situated in the port environs and are free of customs examination and duty until leaving the area. It enables companies to import products/components for assembly, processing, labelling and distribution to neighbouring markets or to despatch to more distant ones. Examples of FTZ are found in the ports of Liverpool, Southampton and Hamburg.
Dubai and Singapore are two major ports which have developed the fast-growing sea/air market to Europe and North America using the nearby airport. Singapore port is regarded as the major trading centre of the Far East and more recent facilities include a conference centre.
A new generation of container berths is emerging an example of which is the Brani terminal at the Port of Singapore. It has an area of 80 ha and a handling capacity of 3.8 million TEUs. It has 15 000 TEU ground slots and five main berths, together with four double-trolley quay cranes; some 96 rubber-tyred yard cranes are provided. Overall, 100 prime movers are available and likewise 100 double-stacked container trailers, it has 14 lanes. Brani terminal, situated on an island just across Tanjong Pagar terminal, is linked to Tanjong Pagar terminal and Keppel distripark by a four-lane causeway. It is equipped with the Computer Integrated Terminal Operations System (CITOS) which integrates and automates planning, control and documentation procedures at Brani.
The container freight station (CFS) is an inland depot handling containers. It is usually associated with one or more ports and has all the facilities to handle container imports/exports, stuffing/unstuffing, and servicing, cleaning, maintenance and repair. With customs facilities and served by road and rail, such stations are found in Australia and the Middle East and in other parts of the world where they are also known as container bases/container yards.
Finally, a major function of a seaport is to maintain high levels of cargo or passenger throughput. It involves extensive coordination and planning in the seaport operation. A number of seaports, particularly in less developed or developing countries., experience excessive delays in the acceptance of ships on the berth. This arises through cargo congestion and seasonal variation in cargo throughput. In order to help recover the additional costs involved – which may involve up to week’s waiting for a berth – shipowners/container operators raise a delay surcharge per container handled.
As multi-modalism develops in the current decade, the role of ports will change further. Greater emphasis will be placed on trading centre and the provision of a focal point in terms of resources, infrastructure and professional services for the market served. It will involve port authorities becoming more closely involved in the markets they serve, both local and international. Also an increasing number will become privatized as governments opt out of state ownership and investment of their ports.
FACTOR INFLUENCING THE SHIPOWNERS’ CHOICE OF SEAPORT.
As we progress through the next decade the strategy on which the shipowner determines the choice of seaport will become more complex. It will be viewed against an overall logistics plan which consider cost, transit time and the value added benefit which emerges from using a particular seaport. No longer do we live in an era when the international consignment is viewed simply on a port-to-port basis, but is now based on whole journey from point of origin to destination of which the sea legs froms a part. We are also seeing more innovation in international distribution, especially through the development of the land bridge and sea/air bridge concepts. Moreover, the shipper is constantly looking for rising standards and has a much greater influence over the shipowner than hitherto through demanding a continuing improvement in service quality. Hence, the international distribution infrastructure must be continuously improved to meet this objective and thus bringing markets closer together both in transit time and comparative cost. At the same time empathy must be developed between the shippers’ needs/aspirations and the service provision available from the shipowner. It is against this background that we examine below the factors influencing the shipowner’s choice of seaport.
(a) Ship specification will determine the range of ports a vessel may call on her schedule. This includes draught, beam, length, capacity and the facilities ashore required to handle the cargo or passengers.
(b) Location of the port is a key factor. A seaport situated on a shipping lane has distinct advantages in terms of being on a trade route thereby requiring, no detour to gain access to/from the port thus reducing voyage time.
(c) The level of traffic available from the port, including both import and export cargoes. This covers existing and potential levels of traffic and analysis of the traffic handled, which may be from transshipment, free trade zone, rail, road, inland waterway and so on. Rotterdam and Singapore are major trading and transshipment ports.
(d) The profitability the shipowner will generate from the port. This is a major factor to consider and the shipowner will usually favour the port with the greatest potential. Shipowners are tending to rationalize their ports of call and develop the ‘hub and spoke’ system, the spoke being the feeder service to the hub. A good example is again the Port of Singapore.
(e) The operating costs are a major factor: port and cargo/passenger dues, berth charges, virtualling, hire of handling equipment, pilotage, towage and passenger and cargo handling costs. Some ports adopt a policy of flag discrimination favouring national registered tonnage with lower port tariffs compared with foreign vessels. Additionally, they give priority to berth access.
(f) Numerous efficiency factors exist when undertaking a comparison of ports. These not only include port tariffs and any local taxes, but also operational efficiency factors such as tonnage handled per gang hour and the cost; the number of TEUs handled per hour, segregating the import and export cargoes; turn-round time in port per type of ship; custom’s clearance period and cost; breakdown periods and industrial dispute records; stacking area for containers and storage capacity for bulk cargoes and liquids cargoes such as tank farms; and finally whether the tariff is based on a local currency or a third currency such as the US dollar.
(g) Competition is a major factor and all the aspects discussed in this list require analysis and evaluation to seek out especially any trends and both short- and long-term prospects/developments.
(h) Peripheral resources within the port are significant and their pricing. This includes bunkering, victualling, ship repair facilities, container cleansing, servicing and repair facilities, medical facilities, maintenance of cargo handling equipment, security resources, tanker cleaning, and so on. On the commercial front one could also include the availability and cost of freight forwarders, hauliers, port agents, customs, shipbrokers, ship agents, liner cargo agents and so on.
(i) The quality of the port management is an important aspect, especially its calibre and the strategy and policies adopted. An important factors is the degree of understanding between port users and the management team. Continuous liaison between the trade and port management is essential in any well-run port to provide the flexibility to deal with emerging problems.
(j) Many ports still remain unionized and the discerning ship operator examines closely the industrial relations record and trends. Disruption to port operations has an adverse impact on planning schedules, places at the risk the shipper’s loyalty to the service and increases costs to the shipowner.
(k) The degree of technology employed in the port’s operation. This includes all areas of the business, such as berth planning, operation and allocation; the processing of cargo documentation; billing; the cargo handling operation; and communications. A good example of advance technology is found in the Port of Singapore.
(l) Allied to (k) is the computerized port operation. Most ports of the world have this facility. Many are called traffic management schemes which enable ships to enter and leave the seaport under a computerized radar network. This substantially improves ship safety and enables continuous access to and from the port in all weathers including dense fog. A modern traffic scheme exists in the Port of Rotterdam.
(m) The level of infrastructure serving the port is a major consideration, particularly in the new age of multi-modalism. This includes rail, road and inland waterway systems. Dunkerque and Rotterdam are connected to extensive inland waterway systems and dedicated services are provided to integrate these systems with the shipping schedules. In Port Klang and Southampton dedicated rails services are provided with customs clearance being undertaken at an inland rail depot. Such services are increasing globally. In other ports the land bridge has been developed. West and East Coast North American ports link the container rail services with the sea leg from the Far East to Europe (see pp. 376-8). In Dubai and Singapore a maritime/air service is provided form Japan/Far East to Frankfurt and/or the United States.
Another area is the trading port such as Singapore and Rotterdam. Goods are received and processed/assembled and subsequently sold and distributed. The area is usually a free trade zone and may be described as a distripark as in Rotterdam.
(n) The final factor is termed the value added benefit offered to the shipowner/shipper – in other words, what is the benefit to the shipper/shipowner from using a particular port? It may be potential for market growth, better infrastructure, greater profitability, less competition or a combination of factors.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHIPS AND PORTS.
The role of seaports is changing rapidly worldwide and more of the major ports are becoming trading centres incorporating free trade zones. Accordingly, their development is being driven by market research and port authorities and shipowners are changing rapidly to meet the changing market opportunities. Ports are thus fast becoming trading and distribution centres in order to exploit the economics of a well configured infrastructure of road/rail/inland waterway on which they rely. A good example is Rotterdam which is regarded by many shippers/shipowners as the gateway to Europe. It relies heavily on rail and inland waterway networks with some 70% of its business categorized as transhipment traffic. An increasing volume of its business passes through the distriparks.
As a result of their cost-effective global networks shipowners are bringing markets closer together through quicker voyage times and faster transshipment. Less and less cargo is being customs cleared at the port. The tendency is either to place it into a free trade zone for processing or assembly or convey it on a dedicated service such as rail to an inland depot (CFS) usually in an industrial area. It is against this background that progressive ports are developing by providing the infrastructure to meet such market opportunities. Overall it requires much planning and flexibility in operation. Computers play a major role in this operation as demonstrated in the Port of Singapore through CITOS.
Port authorities work closely with the shipowners they serve and trades in which they operate. Market trends are carefully analysed as are any changes in the international distribution trade. More and more countries are no longer shipping their indigenous products but are adding value to them. This increases the product value and provides more local employment with fresh skills. Moreover, the distribution infrastructure changes to meet the higher valued cargo and often attracts more disciplined schedules and higher quality service than before. The emerging markets in the sub-continent and Far East fall into this category.
Seaport operations are no longer labour intensive relying on casual workers for many of its stevedoring activities. Today, it is highly professional at all levels and more marketing focused and flexible in its work practice and attitudes. All activities of the business are being constantly evaluated with a view to improving cargo throughput, raising efficiency and developing the business. Computers and technology are playing a major role.
The shipper today no longer views international transit on a seaport-to-seaport basis. The entrepreneur views the international distribution network in its entirety and not as individual transport modes each with their own characteristic. Hence the seaport authorities and shipowners are only two elements in the distribution network. Both play an important role in co-ordinating the development of the overall network. The more integrated the overall transit becomes the more attractive to the market and cost effective the operation becomes, whether by sea/rail/sea, or by sea/rail/road. The role of electronic data interchange (EDI) enabling cargo to be tracked throughout the transit plays a decisive role.
Governments and international agencies also play an important role in framing port development. Governments regard ports as the gateway to trade and their efficiency and profile are both critical in attracting business and developing that trade. Continuous investment is essential to maintain standards and remain competitive. Continuous utilization of assets is also vital to ensure capital investments are funded. A modern container vessel today does the work of ten ‘tween deck ships two decades ago. Likewise a modern container berth can handle some eight times the freight the first-generation berth could a decade ago.
The interface between the ship and seaport is dependent not only on the compatibility between vessels and the port infrastructure on a cost-effective basis, but also on like-minded management teams with the same ideals, levels of professionalism and objectives.
To conclude this brief evaluation one must bear in mind that the shipowner and port operator are market driven in their objectives, and training, continuous investment, high technology plus overall professionalism will remain paramount. The mechanism of co-ordination must always remain.
It is significant that both Dubai and Singapore are the primary trading centres of their regions. Such ports are regarded as “one-stop ports” as shipowners rely on feeder services to generate cargo. Dubai is strategically placed at the crossroads of Asia, Europe and Africa. Singapore is regarded as the trading hub of the Far East market. Manufacturing and trading companies around the world increasingly recognize that efficient production and marketing must be matched by an equally efficient systems for shipping goods from the factory to the customer. Hence, Singapore and Dubai are the distribution hubs of their regions.
The development of sea/air transfers at Dubai and Singapore is a growth market in both ports. A range of established air freight consolidators serve the airports, offering daily services to a range of destinations. Cargo transfer from ship’s deck to aircraft take-off takes less than five hours, involving the minimum of customs formalities, with only one customs document for the entire transshipment. Cargo handling facilities and services are provided continuously. The sea/air connection is fast, cost-saving and a reliable mode of transshipment. Repacking services are also provided for goods in transit. Substantial savings can also be made in many of the subsidiary costs of sea freight, warehouses fees, handling, wharfage, haulage costs and insurance. Overall, the transit time of transshipment cargo is guaranteed and insured against delay.
Singapore’s port is served by 700 shipping lines and linked to 300 ports worldwide. The airport has 52 airlines serving 110 cities in 54 countries. Dubai’s international airport us served by 53 airlines serving over 100 destinations. Its new cargo complex is one of the most modern in the world, handling both FCL and LCL TEUs, with the latest technology including computer-controlled temperature warehouses and handling 250 000 tonnes annually. The seaport is essentially a transshipment point served by over 100 shipping lines, with over 60% of import cargo destined for export; it handles over 750 000 TEUs annually.
CHAPTER 2 : INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION
2.1 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78)
Amendments year by year
Introduction
History of MARPOL 73/78
OILPOL Convention
Torrey Canyon
1973 Convention
1978 Conference
Annex I: Prevention of pollution by oil
Annex II: Control of pollution by noxious liquid substances
Annex III: Prevention of pollution by harmful substances in packaged form
Annex IV: Prevention of pollution by sewage from ships
Annex V: Prevention of pollution by garbage from ships
Annex VI: Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships
Enforcement
Amendment Procedure
Amendments
The 1984 amendments
The 1985 (Annex II) amendments
The 1985 (Protocol I) amendments – incident reporting
The 1987 amendments - special area extension
The 1989 (March) amendments – Annex II
The October 1989 amendments – North Sea special area
The 1990 (HSSC) amendments
The 1990 (IBC Code) amendments
The 1990 (BCH) amendments
The 1990 (Annexes I and V) amendments – Antarctic as special area
The 1991 amendments – Wider Caribbean as special area
The 1992 amendments – Double hulls made mandatory
The 1994 amendments - Implementation
The 1995 amendments – Garbage records
The 1996 amendments
The 1997 amendments – North West European waters as special area
The Protocol of 1997 adoption of Annex VI - Regulations for the Prevention of Air
Pollution from Ships
The 1999 amendments – Persistent oil
The 2000 amendments – Deletion of tainting
The 2001 amendments - revised 13 G (double hulls)
The 2003 amendments - Double hulls
The 2004 (April) amendments - revised Annex IV (sewage)
The 2004 (October) amendments - revised Annexes I and II
The 2005 amendments - North Sea SECA, Annex VI amendments
The 2006 amendments - oil fuel tank protection
The 2006 (October) amendments - South Africa special area, revised Annex III
The 1984 amendments
The 1985 (Annex II) amendments
The 1985 (Protocol I) amendments – incident reporting
The 1987 amendments - special area extension
The 1989 (March) amendments – Annex II
The October 1989 amendments – North Sea special area
The 1990 (HSSC) amendments
The 1990 (IBC Code) amendments
The 1990 (BCH) amendments
The 1990 (Annexes I and V) amendments – Antarctic as special area
The 1991 amendments – Wider Caribbean as special area
The 1992 amendments – Double hulls made mandatory
The 1994 amendments - Implementation
The 1995 amendments – Garbage records
The 1996 amendments
The 1997 amendments – North West European waters as special area
The Protocol of 1997 adoption of Annex VI - Regulations for the Prevention of Air
Pollution from Ships
The 1999 amendments – Persistent oil
The 2000 amendments – Deletion of tainting
The 2001 amendments - revised 13 G (double hulls)
The 2003 amendments - Double hulls
The 2004 (April) amendments - revised Annex IV (sewage)
The 2004 (October) amendments - revised Annexes I and II
The 2005 amendments - North Sea SECA, Annex VI amendments
The 2006 amendments - oil fuel tank protection
The 2006 (October) amendments - South Africa special area, revised Annex III
The MARPOL Convention is the main international convention covering prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships from operational or accidental causes. It is a combination of two treaties adopted in 1973 and 1978 respectively and updated by amendments through the years.
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) was adopted on 2 November 1973 at IMO and covered pollution by oil, chemicals, harmful substances in packaged form, sewage and garbage. The Protocol of 1978 relating to the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (1978 MARPOL Protocol) was adopted at a Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention in February 1978 held in response to a spate of tanker accidents in 1976-1977. (Measures relating to tanker design and operation were also incorporated into a Protocol of 1978 relating to the 1974 Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974).
As the 1973 MARPOL Convention had not yet entered into force, the 1978 MARPOL Protocol absorbed the parent Convention. The combined instrument is referred to as the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78), and it entered into force on 2 October 1983 (Annexes I and II).
The Convention includes regulations aimed at preventing and minimizing pollution from ships - both accidental pollution and that from routine operations - and currently includes six technical Annexes:
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) was adopted on 2 November 1973 at IMO and covered pollution by oil, chemicals, harmful substances in packaged form, sewage and garbage. The Protocol of 1978 relating to the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (1978 MARPOL Protocol) was adopted at a Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention in February 1978 held in response to a spate of tanker accidents in 1976-1977. (Measures relating to tanker design and operation were also incorporated into a Protocol of 1978 relating to the 1974 Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974).
As the 1973 MARPOL Convention had not yet entered into force, the 1978 MARPOL Protocol absorbed the parent Convention. The combined instrument is referred to as the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78), and it entered into force on 2 October 1983 (Annexes I and II).
The Convention includes regulations aimed at preventing and minimizing pollution from ships - both accidental pollution and that from routine operations - and currently includes six technical Annexes:
Annex I | Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Oil |
Annex II | Regulations for the Control of Pollution by Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk |
Annex III | Prevention of Pollution by Harmful Substances Carried by Sea in Packaged Form |
Annex IV | Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships |
Annex V | Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships |
Annex VI | Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships (entry into force 19 May 2005) |
States Parties must accept Annexes I and II, but the other Annexes are voluntary.
Oil pollution of the seas was recognized as a problem in the first half of the 20th century and various countries introduced national regulations to control discharges of oil within their territorial waters. In 1954, the United Kingdom organized a conference on oil pollution which resulted in the adoption of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil (OILPOL), 1954. Following entry into force of the IMO Convention in 1958, the depository and Secretariat functions in relation to the Convention were transferred from the United Kingdom Government to IMO.
The 1954 Convention, which was amended in 1962, 1969 and 1971, primarily addressed pollution resulting from routine tanker operations and from the discharge of oily wastes from machinery spaces - regarded as the major causes of oil pollution from ships.
The 1954 OILPOL Convention, which entered into force on 26 July 1958, attempted to tackle the problem of pollution of the seas by oil - defined as crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil and lubricating oil in two main ways:
The 1954 OILPOL Convention, which entered into force on 26 July 1958, attempted to tackle the problem of pollution of the seas by oil - defined as crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil and lubricating oil in two main ways:
- it established "prohibited zones" extending at least 50 miles from the nearest land in which the discharge of oil or of mixtures containing more than 100 parts of oil per million was forbidden; and
- it required Contracting Parties to take all appropriate steps to promote the provision of facilities for the reception of oily water and residues.
In 1962, IMO adopted amendments to the Convention which extended its application to ships of a lower tonnage and also extended the "prohibited zones". Amendments adopted in 1969 contained regulations to further restrict operational discharge of oil from oil tankers and from machinery spaces of all ships.
Although the 1954 OILPOL Convention went some way in dealing with oil pollution, growth in oil trade and developments in industrial practices were beginning to make it clear that further action, was required. Nonetheless, pollution control was at the time still a minor concern for IMO, and indeed the world was only beginning to wake up to the environmental consequences of an increasingly industrialised society.
Although the 1954 OILPOL Convention went some way in dealing with oil pollution, growth in oil trade and developments in industrial practices were beginning to make it clear that further action, was required. Nonetheless, pollution control was at the time still a minor concern for IMO, and indeed the world was only beginning to wake up to the environmental consequences of an increasingly industrialised society.
In 1967, the tanker Torrey Canyon ran aground while entering the English Channel and spilled her entire cargo of 120,000 tons of crude oil into the sea. This resulted in the biggest oil pollution incident ever recorded up to that time. The incident raised questions about measures then in place to prevent oil pollution from ships and also exposed deficiencies in the existing system for providing compensation following accidents at sea.
First, IMO called an Extraordinary session of its Council, which drew up a plan of action on technical and legal aspects of the Torrey Canyon incident. Then, the IMO Assembly decided in 1969 to convene an international conference in 1973 to prepare a suitable international agreement for placing restraints on the contamination of the sea, land and air by ships.
In the meantime, in 1971, IMO adopted further amendments to OILPOL 1954 to afford additional protection to the Great Barrier Reef of Australia and also to limit the size of tanks on oil tankers, thereby minimizing the amount of oil which could escape in the event of a collision or stranding.
First, IMO called an Extraordinary session of its Council, which drew up a plan of action on technical and legal aspects of the Torrey Canyon incident. Then, the IMO Assembly decided in 1969 to convene an international conference in 1973 to prepare a suitable international agreement for placing restraints on the contamination of the sea, land and air by ships.
In the meantime, in 1971, IMO adopted further amendments to OILPOL 1954 to afford additional protection to the Great Barrier Reef of Australia and also to limit the size of tanks on oil tankers, thereby minimizing the amount of oil which could escape in the event of a collision or stranding.
1973 Convention
Finally, an international Conference in 1973 adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. While it was recognized that accidental pollution was spectacular, the Conference considered that operational pollution was still the bigger threat. As a result, the 1973 Convention incorporated much of OILPOL 1954 and its amendments into Annex I, covering oil.
But the Convention was also intended to address other forms of pollution from ships and therefore other annexes covered chemicals, harmful substances carried in packaged form, sewage and garbage. The 1973 Convention also included two Protocols dealing with Reports on Incidents involving Harmful Substances and Arbitration.
The 1973 Convention required ratification by 15 States, with a combined merchant fleet of not less than 50 percent of world shipping by gross tonnage, to enter into force. By 1976, it had only received three ratifications - Jordan, Kenya and Tunisia - representing less than one percent of the world's merchant shipping fleet. This was despite the fact that States could become Party to the Convention by only ratifying Annexes I (oil) and II (chemicals). Annexes III to V, covering harmful goods in packaged form, sewage and garbage, were optional.
It began to look as though the 1973 Convention might never enter into force, despite its importance.
But the Convention was also intended to address other forms of pollution from ships and therefore other annexes covered chemicals, harmful substances carried in packaged form, sewage and garbage. The 1973 Convention also included two Protocols dealing with Reports on Incidents involving Harmful Substances and Arbitration.
The 1973 Convention required ratification by 15 States, with a combined merchant fleet of not less than 50 percent of world shipping by gross tonnage, to enter into force. By 1976, it had only received three ratifications - Jordan, Kenya and Tunisia - representing less than one percent of the world's merchant shipping fleet. This was despite the fact that States could become Party to the Convention by only ratifying Annexes I (oil) and II (chemicals). Annexes III to V, covering harmful goods in packaged form, sewage and garbage, were optional.
It began to look as though the 1973 Convention might never enter into force, despite its importance.
1978 Conference
In 1978, in response to a spate of tanker accidents in 1976-1977, IMO held a Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention in February 1978. The conference adopted measures affecting tanker design and operation, which were incorporated into both the Protocol of 1978 relating to the 1974 Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea (1978 SOLAS Protocol) and the Protocol of 1978 relating to the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (1978 MARPOL Protocol) - adopted on 17 February 1978.
More importantly in terms of achieving the entry into force of MARPOL, the 1978 MARPOL Protocol allowed States to become Party to the Convention by first implementing Annex I (oil), as it was decided that Annex II (chemicals) would not become binding until three years after the Protocol entered into force.
This gave States time to overcome technical problems in Annex II, which for some had been a major obstacle in ratifying the Convention.
As the 1973 Convention had not yet entered into force, the 1978 MARPOL Protocol absorbed the parent Convention. The combined instrument - the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78) - finally entered into force on 2 October 1983 (for Annexes I and II).
Annex V, covering garbage, achieved sufficient ratifications to enter into force on 31 December 1988, while Annex III, covering harmful substances carried in packaged form, entered into force on 1 July 1992. Annex IV, covering sewage, enters into force on 27 September 2003. Annex VI, covering air pollution, was adopted in September 1997 and enters into force on 19 May 2005.
More importantly in terms of achieving the entry into force of MARPOL, the 1978 MARPOL Protocol allowed States to become Party to the Convention by first implementing Annex I (oil), as it was decided that Annex II (chemicals) would not become binding until three years after the Protocol entered into force.
This gave States time to overcome technical problems in Annex II, which for some had been a major obstacle in ratifying the Convention.
As the 1973 Convention had not yet entered into force, the 1978 MARPOL Protocol absorbed the parent Convention. The combined instrument - the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78) - finally entered into force on 2 October 1983 (for Annexes I and II).
Annex V, covering garbage, achieved sufficient ratifications to enter into force on 31 December 1988, while Annex III, covering harmful substances carried in packaged form, entered into force on 1 July 1992. Annex IV, covering sewage, enters into force on 27 September 2003. Annex VI, covering air pollution, was adopted in September 1997 and enters into force on 19 May 2005.
Annex I: Prevention of pollution by oil
Entry into force: 2 October 1983
(Revised Annex I enters into force 1 January 2007)
Entry into force: 2 October 1983
(Revised Annex I enters into force 1 January 2007)
The 1973 Convention maintained the oil discharge criteria prescribed in the 1969 amendments to the 1954 Oil Pollution Convention, without substantial changes, namely, that operational discharges of oil from tankers are allowed only when all of the following conditions are met:
- the total quantity of oil which a tanker may discharge in any ballast voyage whilst under way must not exceed 1/15,000 of the total cargo carrying capacity of the vessel;
- the rate at which oil may be discharged must not exceed 60 litres per mile travelled by the ship; and
- no discharge of any oil whatsoever must be made from the cargo spaces of a tanker within 50 miles of the nearest land.
An oil record book is required, in which is recorded the movement of cargo oil and its residues from loading to discharging on a tank-to-tank basis.
In addition, in the 1973 Convention, the maximum quantity of oil permitted to be discharged on a ballast voyage of new oil tankers was reduced from 1/15,000 of the cargo capacity to 1/30,000 of the amount of cargo carried. These criteria applied equally both to persistent (black) and non‑persistent (white) oils.
As with the 1969 OILPOL amendments, the 1973 Convention recognized the "load on top" (LOT) system which had been developed by the oil industry in the 1960s. On a ballast voyage the tanker takes on ballast water (departure ballast) in dirty cargo tanks. Other tanks are washed to take on clean ballast. The tank washings are pumped into a special slop tank. After a few days, the departure ballast settles and oil flows to the top. Clean water beneath is then decanted while new arrival ballast water is taken on. The upper layer of the departure ballast is transferred to the slop tanks. After further settling and decanting, the next cargo is loaded on top of the remaining oil in the slop tank, hence the term load on top.
A new and important feature of the 1973 Convention was the concept of "special areas" which are considered to be so vulnerable to pollution by oil that oil discharges within them have been completely prohibited, with minor and well‑defined exceptions. The 1973 Convention identified the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, and the Baltic Sea, the Red Sea and the Gulfs area as special areas. All oil‑carrying ships are required to be capable of operating the method of retaining oily wastes on board through the "load on top" system or for discharge to shore reception facilities.
This involves the fitting of appropriate equipment, including an oil‑discharge monitoring and control system, oily‑water separating equipment and a filtering system, slop tanks, sludge tanks, piping and pumping arrangements.
New oil tankers (i.e. those for which the building contract was placed after 31 December 1975) of 70,000 tons deadweight and above, must be fitted with segregated ballast tanks large enough to provide adequate operating draught without the need to carry ballast water in cargo oil tanks.
Secondly, new oil tankers are required to meet certain subdivision and damage stability requirements so that, in any loading conditions, they can survive after damage by collision or stranding.
The Protocol of 1978 made a number of changes to Annex I of the parent convention. Segregated ballast tanks (SBT) are required on all new tankers of 20,000 dwt and above (in the parent convention SBTs were only required on new tankers of 70,000 dwt and above). The Protocol also required SBTs to be protectively located ‑ that is, they must be positioned in such a way that they will help protect the cargo tanks in the event of a collision or grounding.
Another important innovation concerned crude oil washing (COW), which had been developed by the oil industry in the 1970s and offered major benefits. Under COW, tanks are washed not with water but with crude oil ‑ the cargo itself. COW was accepted as an alternative to SBTs on existing tankers and is an additional requirement on new tankers.
For existing crude oil tankers (built before entry into force of the Protocol) a third alternative was permissible for a period of two to four years after entry into force of MARPOL 73/78. The dedicated clean ballast tanks (CBT) system meant that certain tanks are dedicated solely to the carriage of ballast water. This was cheaper than a full SBT system since it utilized existing pumping and piping, but when the period of grace has expired other systems must be used.
Drainage and discharge arrangements were also altered in the Protocol, regulations for improved stripping systems were introduced.
Some oil tankers operate solely in specific trades between ports which are provided with adequate reception facilities. Some others do not use water as ballast. The TSPP Conference recognized that such ships should not be subject to all MARPOL requirements and they were consequently exempted from the SBT, COW and CBT requirements. It is generally recognized that the effectiveness of international conventions depends upon the degree to which they are obeyed and this in turn depends largely upon the extent to which they are enforced. The 1978 Protocol to MARPOL therefore introduced stricter regulations for the survey and certification of ships.
The 1992 amendments to Annex I made it mandatory for new oil tankers to have double hulls – and it brought in a phase-in schedule for existing tankers to fit double hulls, which was subsequently revised in 2001 and 2003.
See also Oil Pollution
In addition, in the 1973 Convention, the maximum quantity of oil permitted to be discharged on a ballast voyage of new oil tankers was reduced from 1/15,000 of the cargo capacity to 1/30,000 of the amount of cargo carried. These criteria applied equally both to persistent (black) and non‑persistent (white) oils.
As with the 1969 OILPOL amendments, the 1973 Convention recognized the "load on top" (LOT) system which had been developed by the oil industry in the 1960s. On a ballast voyage the tanker takes on ballast water (departure ballast) in dirty cargo tanks. Other tanks are washed to take on clean ballast. The tank washings are pumped into a special slop tank. After a few days, the departure ballast settles and oil flows to the top. Clean water beneath is then decanted while new arrival ballast water is taken on. The upper layer of the departure ballast is transferred to the slop tanks. After further settling and decanting, the next cargo is loaded on top of the remaining oil in the slop tank, hence the term load on top.
A new and important feature of the 1973 Convention was the concept of "special areas" which are considered to be so vulnerable to pollution by oil that oil discharges within them have been completely prohibited, with minor and well‑defined exceptions. The 1973 Convention identified the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, and the Baltic Sea, the Red Sea and the Gulfs area as special areas. All oil‑carrying ships are required to be capable of operating the method of retaining oily wastes on board through the "load on top" system or for discharge to shore reception facilities.
This involves the fitting of appropriate equipment, including an oil‑discharge monitoring and control system, oily‑water separating equipment and a filtering system, slop tanks, sludge tanks, piping and pumping arrangements.
New oil tankers (i.e. those for which the building contract was placed after 31 December 1975) of 70,000 tons deadweight and above, must be fitted with segregated ballast tanks large enough to provide adequate operating draught without the need to carry ballast water in cargo oil tanks.
Secondly, new oil tankers are required to meet certain subdivision and damage stability requirements so that, in any loading conditions, they can survive after damage by collision or stranding.
The Protocol of 1978 made a number of changes to Annex I of the parent convention. Segregated ballast tanks (SBT) are required on all new tankers of 20,000 dwt and above (in the parent convention SBTs were only required on new tankers of 70,000 dwt and above). The Protocol also required SBTs to be protectively located ‑ that is, they must be positioned in such a way that they will help protect the cargo tanks in the event of a collision or grounding.
Another important innovation concerned crude oil washing (COW), which had been developed by the oil industry in the 1970s and offered major benefits. Under COW, tanks are washed not with water but with crude oil ‑ the cargo itself. COW was accepted as an alternative to SBTs on existing tankers and is an additional requirement on new tankers.
For existing crude oil tankers (built before entry into force of the Protocol) a third alternative was permissible for a period of two to four years after entry into force of MARPOL 73/78. The dedicated clean ballast tanks (CBT) system meant that certain tanks are dedicated solely to the carriage of ballast water. This was cheaper than a full SBT system since it utilized existing pumping and piping, but when the period of grace has expired other systems must be used.
Drainage and discharge arrangements were also altered in the Protocol, regulations for improved stripping systems were introduced.
Some oil tankers operate solely in specific trades between ports which are provided with adequate reception facilities. Some others do not use water as ballast. The TSPP Conference recognized that such ships should not be subject to all MARPOL requirements and they were consequently exempted from the SBT, COW and CBT requirements. It is generally recognized that the effectiveness of international conventions depends upon the degree to which they are obeyed and this in turn depends largely upon the extent to which they are enforced. The 1978 Protocol to MARPOL therefore introduced stricter regulations for the survey and certification of ships.
The 1992 amendments to Annex I made it mandatory for new oil tankers to have double hulls – and it brought in a phase-in schedule for existing tankers to fit double hulls, which was subsequently revised in 2001 and 2003.
See also Oil Pollution
Annex II: Control of pollution by noxious liquid substances
Entry into force: 6 April 1987
(Revised Annex II enters into force 1 January 2007)
Annex II details the discharge criteria and measures for the control of pollution by noxious liquid substances carried in bulk.
Some 250 substances were evaluated and included in the list appended to the Convention. The discharge of their residues is allowed only to reception facilities until certain concentrations and conditions (which vary with the category of substances) are complied with.
In any case, no discharge of residues containing noxious substances is permitted within 12 miles of the nearest land. More stringent restrictions applied to the Baltic and Black Sea areas.
See also Chemical Pollution
Entry into force: 6 April 1987
(Revised Annex II enters into force 1 January 2007)
Annex II details the discharge criteria and measures for the control of pollution by noxious liquid substances carried in bulk.
Some 250 substances were evaluated and included in the list appended to the Convention. The discharge of their residues is allowed only to reception facilities until certain concentrations and conditions (which vary with the category of substances) are complied with.
In any case, no discharge of residues containing noxious substances is permitted within 12 miles of the nearest land. More stringent restrictions applied to the Baltic and Black Sea areas.
See also Chemical Pollution
Annex III: Prevention of pollution by harmful substances in packaged form
Entry into force: 1 July 1992
The first of the convention's optional annexes. States ratifying the Convention must accept Annexes I and II but can choose not to accept the other three - hence they have taken much longer to enter into force.
Annex III contains general requirements for the issuing of detailed standards on packing, marking, labelling, documentation, stowage, quantity limitations, exceptions and notifications for preventing pollution by harmful substances.
The International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code has, since 1991, included marine pollutants.
See also Harmful Substances in Packaged Form
Annex IV: Prevention of pollution by sewage from ships
Entry into force: 27 September 2003
The second of the optional Annexes, Annex IV contains requirements to control pollution of the sea by sewage. A revised Annex was adopted in 2004.
See also Sewage
Entry into force: 1 July 1992
The first of the convention's optional annexes. States ratifying the Convention must accept Annexes I and II but can choose not to accept the other three - hence they have taken much longer to enter into force.
Annex III contains general requirements for the issuing of detailed standards on packing, marking, labelling, documentation, stowage, quantity limitations, exceptions and notifications for preventing pollution by harmful substances.
The International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code has, since 1991, included marine pollutants.
See also Harmful Substances in Packaged Form
Annex IV: Prevention of pollution by sewage from ships
Entry into force: 27 September 2003
The second of the optional Annexes, Annex IV contains requirements to control pollution of the sea by sewage. A revised Annex was adopted in 2004.
See also Sewage
Annex V: Prevention of pollution by garbage from ships
Entry into force: 31 December 1988
This deals with different types of garbage and specifies the distances from land and the manner in which they may be disposed of. The requirements are much stricter in a number of "special areas" but perhaps the most important feature of the Annex is the complete ban imposed on the dumping into the sea of all forms of plastic.
See also Garbage
Entry into force: 31 December 1988
This deals with different types of garbage and specifies the distances from land and the manner in which they may be disposed of. The requirements are much stricter in a number of "special areas" but perhaps the most important feature of the Annex is the complete ban imposed on the dumping into the sea of all forms of plastic.
See also Garbage
Annex VI: Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships
Adoption: September 1997
Entry into force: 19 May 2005
The regulations in this annex set limits on sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts and prohibit deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances.
See 1997 amendments
See also Air Pollution
Adoption: September 1997
Entry into force: 19 May 2005
The regulations in this annex set limits on sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts and prohibit deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances.
See 1997 amendments
See also Air Pollution
