+ All Categories
Transcript
Page 1: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION

IMO

E

SCIENTIFIC GROUP OF THE LONDON CONVENTION – 31st Meeting; and SCIENTIFIC GROUP OF THE LONDON PROTOCOL – 2nd Meeting 19 – 23 May 2008 Agenda item 16

LC/SG 31/16 7 July 2008 Original: ENGLISH

REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FIRST MEETING OF THE SCIENTIFIC GROUP OF THE LONDON CONVENTION AND THE SECOND MEETING OF THE

SCIENTIFIC GROUP OF THE LONDON PROTOCOL

Table of contents Section

Paragraph Nos. Page Nos.

1 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………….…..

1.1 – 1.14 4 – 6

2 OCEAN FERTILIZATION .…………………………….…..

2.1 – 2.30 6 – 12

3 WASTE ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE ....……………...……

3.1 – 3.53 12 – 20

4 CO2 SEQUESTRATION IN SUB-SEABED GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS ........................................……………...……

4.1 – 4.18

20 – 23

5 DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDANCE FOR THE PLACEMENT OF ARTIFICIAL REEFS ..........................….

5.1 – 5.15

23 – 26

6 REPORTING ON DUMPING ACTIVITIES ................….…

6.1 – 6.23 26 – 29

7 TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION AND ASSISTANCE .……

7.1 – 7.71 29 – 40

8 MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT .…………………………………………..

8.1 – 8.38

40 – 46

9 COASTAL MANAGEMENT ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH ACTIVITIES TO PREVENT MARINE POLLUTION ..................................................................……

9.1 – 9.24

47 – 50

10 HABITAT MODIFICATION AND ENHANCEMENT …… 10.1 – 10.12 50 – 52

11 OUTCOME OF “SCIENCE DAY” ..……………………….. 11.1 – 11.4 52 – 53

Page 2: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 2 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

Section

Paragraph Nos. Page Nos.

12 GUIDELINES, MANUALS, BIBLIOGRAPHIES AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE ……………………………..

12.1 – 12.7 53 – 54

13 REVIEW OF THE JOINT WORK PROGRAMME ………..

13.1 – 13.6 54 – 55

14 ANY OTHER BUSINESS…………………………………...

14.1 – 14.17 56 – 58

15 ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR BOTH SCIENTIFIC GROUPS ............................…………………........................

15.1 – 15.2

58

16 CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF THE REPORT... 16 58

LIST OF ANNEXES

ANNEX 1 AGENDA FOR THE 31ST MEETING OF THE SCIENTIFIC GROUP UNDER THE LONDON CONVENTION AND THE 2ND MEETING OF THE SCIENTIFIC GROUP UNDER THE LONDON PROTOCOL

ANNEX 2 OUTCOME OF THE WORKING GROUP ON OCEAN FERTILIZATION ANNEX 3 PROPOSED WEBSITE NAMES FOR THE GENERIC GUIDELINES AND

THE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES ANNEX 4 DRAFT REVISED GUIDELINES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF WASTES OR

OTHER MATTER THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR DUMPING ANNEX 5 DRAFT REVISED SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF

INERT, INORGANIC GEOLOGICAL MATERIAL ANNEX 6 WORK PLAN ON REVIEW OF THE BULKY ITEMS GUIDELINES ANNEX 7 FINAL SURVEY REPORT ON USABILITY AND COMMUNICATION OF

THE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR WASTE ASSESSMENT UNDER THE LONDON CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL INCORPORATING A RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED

ANNEX 8 DRAFT FORMAT FOR REPORTING ON CO2 SEQUESTRATION IN

SUB-SEABED GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS UNDER THE LONDON PROTOCOL (WORK IN PROGRESS)

ANNEX 9 DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN OF THE “BARRIERS TO

COMPLIANCE” PROJECT ANNEX 10 DRAFT GUIDANCE ON MANAGING SPOILT CARGOES

Page 3: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 3 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

ANNEX 11 DRAFT GUIDANCE ON BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OF REMOVAL OF TBT PAINTS FROM SHIPS (WORK IN PROGRESS)

ANNEX 12 JOINT WORK PROGRAMME OF THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS

(THIRTY-SECOND, THIRTY-THIRD and THIRTY-FOURTH MEETINGS) NOTE: PARAGRAPHS STATING SUBSTANTIVE DECISIONS OF THE MEETINGS

ARE SHOWN IN BOLD.

Page 4: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 4 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

INTRODUCTION 1.1 The 31st meeting of the Scientific Group under the London Convention and the 2nd meeting of the Scientific Group under the London Protocol were convened at the Simon Bolivar Conference Centre, Guayaquil, Ecuador, from 19 to 23 May 2008 under the Chairmanship of Dr. Chris Vivian (United Kingdom). 1.2 The meetings were attended by delegations from the following 18 Contracting Parties to the London Convention 1972:

AUSTRALIA BELGIUM CANADA CHINA FRANCE GERMANY IRELAND ITALY JAPAN

MEXICO NETHERLANDS NORWAY PERU REPUBLIC OF KOREA SOUTH AFRICA SPAIN UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES

1.3 The meetings were attended by delegations from the following 14 Contracting Parties to the London Protocol 1996:

AUSTRALIA BELGIUM CANADA CHINA FRANCE GERMANY IRELAND

ITALY JAPAN NORWAY SAUDI ARABIA SOUTH AFRICA SPAIN UNITED KINGDOM

1.4 Observers from the following State that is neither a Contracting Party to the London Convention 1972 nor to the London Protocol 1996 also attended:

ECUADOR 1.5 Representatives from the following United Nations organizations attended the meetings:

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION – INTERGOVERNMENTAL OCEANIC COMMITTEE (UNESCO-IOC)

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME (UNEP) 1.6 Observers from the following intergovernmental organizations attended the meetings:

PERMANENT COMMISSION FOR THE SOUTH PACIFIC (CPPS) NORTH PACIFIC MARINE SCIENCE ORGANIZATION (PICES)

Page 5: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 5 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

1.7 The meetings were also attended by observers from the following international non-governmental organizations:

GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL WORLD ORGANISATION OF DREDGING ASSOCIATIONS (WODA)

OPENING OF THE MEETINGS 1.8 The Chairman opened the proceedings by welcoming all participants to this second joint session of the Scientific Groups. ADDRESS OF WELCOME 1.9 The Ecuadorian Minister for Environment, Ms Marcela Aguiñaga, welcomed all delegates to Guayaquil. She emphasized the importance of Ecuador’s membership to international agreements to protect the marine environment as a foundation for its environmental policies and the value of scientific and technical meetings to evaluate the implications of threats to the marine environment, including those of ocean iron fertilization. This had resulted in the clear message which Ecuador and neighbouring States had given jointly in November 2007 that large-scale ocean iron fertilization activities would not be acceptable. She thanked all who had supported this position. 1.10 Admiral Luis Jaramillo Arias, Director of the Directorate-General of Merchant Marine in Ecuador, DIGMER, also welcomed all delegates to Guayaquil. He expressed his appreciation for the IMO/CPPS Regional Workshop to promote the London Protocol, which had been held in Guayaquil from 10 to 12 October 2007. This Workshop had been instrumental in preparing Ecuador’s position on ocean iron fertilization. He informed the meetings of the importance of Ecuador’s membership to several IMO conventions, including MARPOL 73/78, SOLAS, OPRC, Intervention Convention, and FUND 1992, as well as the status of the Galapagos Islands as a “Particularly Sensitive Sea Area” with a number of associated protective measures, such as “ships routeing” and “areas to be avoided”. He indicated that Ecuador’s preparation to accede to the London Protocol was progressing well. 1.11 Dr. Fernando Pardo, Under Secretary, Permanent Commission for the South Pacific (CPPS) also welcomed the delegates to the meetings and informed the meetings of the scope and objectives of the CPPS and the “Action Plan for the Protection of the Marine Environment and Coastal Area of the South-east Pacific”, as well as of the good relationship which the CPPS had established with the LC/LP Parties and with the Office for the London Convention and Protocol for the benefit of both constituencies. 1.12 Mr. René Coenen, Head of the Office for the London Convention and Protocol, also welcomed the delegates on behalf of IMO and drew attention to the wide variety of more traditional as well as new items for discussion by the Scientific Groups at this session, which demonstrated the continuous relevance of the London Convention and Protocol for the protection of the marine environment. 1.13 In response, the Chairman commended Ecuador for the active role it played in matters to protect the marine environment and mentioned that the concerns about ocean iron fertilization, initially by the Action Plan countries, had since been shared by London Convention and Protocol Parties and other countries. These concerns had resulted in the wide attention which this issue would receive in the agenda of the Scientific Groups at this session. He also thanked the

Page 6: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 6 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

Minister, the Ecuadorian Government and the CPPS Secretariat for the excellent arrangements they had made to receive the Scientific Groups in the city of Guayaquil. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1.14 The provisional agenda (LC/SG 31/1) was adopted and is shown in annex 1 to this report. This annex includes a list of documents submitted under each agenda item. The Scientific Groups also adopted a timetable for the meetings, as amended (LC/SG 31/1/1, annex 2). 2 OCEAN FERTILIZATION 2.1 The Chairman recalled that in 2007, the Scientific Groups considered several submissions relating to large-scale iron fertilization of the oceans to sequester CO2 and developed a “Statement of Concern”, taking the view that knowledge on the effectiveness and potential environmental impacts of ocean iron fertilization currently was insufficient to justify large-scale operations and that this could have negative impacts on the marine environment and human health. Specific scientific issues were identified which needed further attention as listed in the Scientific Groups’ report (LC/SG 30/14, paragraphs 2.23 to 2.26). 2.2 It was also recalled that the Scientific Groups had requested the governing bodies to consider the issue of large-scale ocean iron fertilization operations with a view to ensuring adequate regulation of such operations. In particular, they requested that the following issues be addressed by the Contracting Parties:

.1 the purposes and circumstances of proposed large-scale ocean iron fertilization

operations and whether these are compatible with the aims of the Convention and Protocol;

.2 the need, and potential mechanisms, for regulation of such operations; and .3 the desirability of bringing proposals for such operations to the attention of other

international instruments and institutions (LC/SG 30/14, paragraph 2.27).

2.3 In November 2007, the governing bodies endorsed the “Statement of Concern”, and agreed that the scope of work of the London Convention and Protocol included ocean fertilization, as well as iron fertilization. They also agreed to study further the issue from the scientific and legal perspectives with a view to its regulation under the Convention and Protocol and established the Legal Intersessional Correspondence Group on Ocean Fertilization (LICG) under the lead of the United Kingdom to carry out the tasks as described in the process of future work between the LICG and the Scientific Groups (LC 29/17, paragraphs 4.14 to 4.28). 2.4 The Secretariat informed the meetings that it had invited organizations which have specific expertise in this field or which had expressed a specific interest in becoming involved in the planned scientific and technical discussions, including UNESCO-IOC; the North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES); the Surface Ocean Lower Atmospheric Study (SOLAS); the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR); and GESAMP. 2.5 The Scientific Groups were invited to address at this session the issues requested by the governing bodies to understand better the implications of ocean fertilization on the marine environment and to provide the scientific/technical basis for evaluating such activities, inter alia, by responding to the queries of a scientific or technical nature from the LICG (LC 29/17,

Page 7: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 7 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

paragraph 4.27 and annex 6). The specific terms of reference given were also shown in annex 3 to the annotated agenda (LC/SG 31/1/1). 2.6 The delegation of Canada, in introducing its document LC/SG 31/2 entitled: “Background and Literature Review Addressing Main Elements in the LC/LP Scientific Groups Statement of Concern on Ocean Fertilization”, outlined the potential benefits and impacts of fertilizing the open ocean with iron, nitrogen or phosphorous, or of “ocean pumping” to fertilize surface waters with deep-ocean nutrients for the purpose of sequestering atmospheric carbon. The document also addressed the criteria that should be considered in assessing these activities as climate change mitigation measures, namely: the duration of likely sequestration, the sustainability of the practice employed, and the method of verifying and measuring carbon sequestration. 2.7 The delegation of the United Kingdom introduced both the interim report of the Legal Intersessional Correspondence Group on Ocean Fertilization and the two supporting documents (LC/SG 31/2/1; LC/SG 31/INF.16 and LC/SG 31/INF.17). The first document contained the summary to the questionnaire distributed to Contracting Parties on 11 February 2008 that addressed the legal issues associated with ocean fertilization to assist the Scientific Groups in their deliberations. The following three scenarios were identified in the questionnaire:

Scenario 1: Ocean fertilization with the addition of iron, a micro nutrient; Scenario 2: Ocean fertilization with the addition of nitrogen or phosphorus compounds;

and Scenario 3: Ocean fertilization by bringing water up from the depth using physical

devices introduced into the ocean, e.g., pipes.

2.8 The Scientific Groups were invited to review the findings of the LICG and address the specific technical/scientific questions raised in this document. Particular focus and comment were requested for each scenario on:

.1 the nature of source material used for fertilization and, in particular for iron fertilization, its source;

.2 the quantity of material to be used and the scale; .3 the likely impacts of the material on the marine environment both due to the

nature and scale of use; .4 the likelihood of the activity achieving its stated purpose; .5 a technical view of the applicability of Annex I to the Convention and Annexes 1

and 2 to the Protocol; and .6 further details on Scenario 3, with particular regard to the nature, volume and

impact of material moving in the pipes.

2.9 The representative of UNESCO-IOC introduced the statement of the IOC ad hoc Consultative Group on Ocean Fertilization (LC/SG 31/2/2). The representative mentioned that

Page 8: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 8 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

this Consultative Group had provided general comments, as well as responses to the following specific questions by the Scientific Groups in relation to ocean fertilization:

.1 what constitutes “large scale” in the ocean?;

.2 a clear justification of the need for experiments at scales of order (200 km by 200 km); and

.3 an assessment of the impacts on oceans of experiments at such scales. 2.10 The representative mentioned that the scientific knowledge needed to write a set of regulations that would separate damaging ocean fertilization activities from benign fertilization activities, was still lacking. Spatial scale was not a sufficient determinant, whereas duration, amounts, location, etc., would matter. A possible response might be to allow “legitimate” scientific experimentation to proceed while disallowing other ocean-fertilization activities. 2.11 In terms of possible ways forward, he mentioned two options, while stressing that the IOC ad hoc Consultative Group on Ocean Fertilization had not achieved full consensus on these options:

.1 Option 1: Allow scientific experiments to proceed, and disallow commercial activities until such time that the science existed to develop science-based regulations. If an ocean fertilization activity would generate revenue based on the results of the activity, then it should not be considered legitimate science; and

.2 Option 2: Develop a panel that would approve or disapprove each fertilization

activity on a case-by-case basis. 2.12 The Secretariat introduced the press release on the position of SCOR and GESAMP on the deliberate nutrient additions to the Ocean (LC/SG 31/INF.2). It was highlighted that SCOR and GESAMP expressed their concerns about the recent attention of the commercial sector for deliberate fertilization of the ocean while so many scientific uncertainties are yet to be resolved. SCOR and GESAMP agreed that any deliberate large-scale addition of nutrients to the ocean must be conducted in such a way that the outcomes of these experiments are statistically quantified and independently verified with respect to but not limited to:

.1 changes in new primary production and total community respiration rates at the fertilization site and “downstream” of the site;

.2 assimilative capacity of selected ocean regions; .3 changes in the drawdown of carbon dioxide from the overlying atmosphere, and

carbon dioxide and essential macro-nutrients (P, N, and Si) from the surface waters;

.4 changes in the production of carbon dioxide and other gases relevant to climate

change (e.g., nitrous oxide, methane, and dimethyl sulfide) in surface and mesopelagic waters;

.5 changes in denitrification rates within the oxygen minimum zone;

Page 9: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 9 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.6 changes in the production of toxins that might be detrimental to other organisms, for example, by harmful algal blooms;

.7 changes in the export of carbon to a depth where sequestration for at

least 100 years is likely; .8 changes in pH and oxygen concentrations in the water column; .9 changes in biomass, composition, and biodiversity of phytoplankton, bacteria, and

zooplankton, and recruitment of fish and shellfish; and .10 changes in food web structure.

2.13 The Secretariat informed the meetings that GESAMP, at its 35th Session held in Accra, Ghana, from 12 to 16 May 2008, considered whether further action was needed in addition to the above-mentioned statement. 2.14 GESAMP had agreed to carry on the discussion intersessionally by correspondence and to develop a “scoping document” for GESAMP 36 in 2009. Discussion of this document should enable GESAMP to decide on what action to take on this issue within its mandate. 2.15 The Scientific Groups noted the useful listing by the United Kingdom of sources of information available on the Internet on ocean fertilization and related matters for now and to follow the issue in the future (LC/SG 31/INF.15). 2.16 The Scientific Groups also noted that in UN General Assembly Resolution 62/215 concerning “Oceans and the Law of the Sea” (2007)1, reference was made to the action the governing bodies had taken in November 2007 on ocean fertilization and that further work on this issue would be followed with interest by the United Nations community. 2.17 The Scientific Groups further noted that the Biodiversity Convention’s Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBTTA) had made draft recommendations on ocean fertilization to the 9th Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 9/CBD) convened in Bonn, Germany, from 19 to 30 May 2008. The draft recommendations, inter alia, requested increased collaboration on this issue including with IMO, in particular, on the compilation of scientific information on potential impacts on marine biodiversity and urged CBD Parties to act in accordance with the decision taken by the London Convention and Protocol governing bodies in November 2007. 2.18 The observer from the North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES) informed the Scientific Groups that PICES was an intergovernmental scientific organization established in 1992 with Canada, China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States as its members. The scientists within PICES had been involved in six out of 12 iron fertilization experiments during the past 15 years and PICES had provided a platform to facilitate research activities on ocean iron fertilization in the North Pacific. An Advisory Panel on Iron fertilization experiments in the sub-arctic Pacific Ocean had been established which had coordinated three experiments so far. The Advisory Panel not only helped coordinate the field experiments but also facilitated data synthesizing and publications.

1 Chapter IX on the marine environment and marine resources, paragraphs 97 and 98 refer.

Page 10: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 10 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

2.19 The Scientific Groups noted that the newly-established PICES Working Group (WG 22), Iron supply and its impact on biogeochemistry and ecosystems in the North Pacific Ocean, co-chaired by Dr. Shigenobu Takeda (Japan) and Dr. Fei Chai (United States), would focus on two primary goals over the next three years:

.1 to promote better understanding of natural and anthropogenic iron supplies to the North Pacific and their impact on biogeochemistry and ecosystems; and

.2 to facilitate closer ties among various research communities (aerosol, physical

oceanography, biology, chemistry and modelling) to better integrate new findings and provide needed feedback to help coordinate research activities.

2.20 Regarding future ocean iron fertilization experiments it was noted that, PICES could act as an independent scientific organization, not only providing scientific expertise on such experiments in the Pacific Ocean, but also independent evaluation and assessments. The review process would contribute to advancing scientific knowledge on this issue and to a better understanding of the potential impact on marine ecosystems in the North Pacific. 2.21 The Scientific Groups also noted the concerns of the Surface Ocean Lower Atmosphere Study (SOLAS) about the possibility of commercial exploitation of iron fertilization as a means to sequester CO2 in the deep ocean. The position of SOLAS is that the state of present knowledge is insufficient to propose iron fertilization as an effective sequestration option and that “it is critical and essential that robust and independent scientific evaluation and assessment are undertaken before large-scale fertilization is considered”. 2.22 SOLAS is an international research body which has been closely involved in supporting and synthesizing non-commercial studies of both natural and artificial iron fertilization. As such, SOLAS provided an international context for evaluation and communication of scientific results that are obtained from field experiments. Independent expert review, through an open process, was essential to ensure that there is an adequate critical scientific evaluation of the results of the future purposeful iron addition experiments. Such a review must be both independent and international, and is in the interests of advancing scientific knowledge and understanding relevant to sustainable use of the surface ocean. 2.23 The Scientific Groups, being aware of the fact that the terms of reference it had received on this issue might be too much to complete in one session (LC/SG 31/1/1, annex 3), prioritized the tasks of the Working Group as follows:

.1 respond to queries of a scientific or technical nature from the LICG (item 7); .2 consider how the phrase “contrary to the aims of the London

Convention/Protocol” could be addressed from a scientific and technical perspective in the context of ocean fertilization (item 6);

.3 consider the concepts of scale (spatial and temporal) and clarify what is meant by

“large-scale” in the Statement of Concern (item 5); and .4 further develop the issues requiring evaluation in the Statement of Concern and

forward these to the next session of the governing bodies for endorsement (items 2 and 3).

If time allowed the remaining issues should be addressed.

Page 11: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 11 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

2.24 In view of the fact that at least five United Nations entities (UN, UNESCO-IOC, CBD, GESAMP and the London Convention/Protocol) were now involved in the issue of ocean fertilization, good coordination within the United Nations system would become important. 2.25 Having noted the comments and suggestions received from the floor, the Scientific Groups established the Working Group on Ocean Fertilization, under the lead of Dr. Gi-Hoon Hong (Republic of Korea), which was charged with the tasks mentioned in document LC/SG 31/1/1, annex 3, as prioritized in paragraph 2.23 above. OUTCOME OF THE WORKING GROUP 2.26 The Working Group on Ocean Fertilization met from 19 to 22 May 2008 under the chairmanship of Dr. Gi-Hoon Hong (Republic of Korea) and was attended by delegations from Australia, Canada, China, Ecuador, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Peru, the Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, the United States, UNESCO-IOC, PICES/SOLAS and Greenpeace International. Ms Celeste Powell (Australia) served as the Group’s rapporteur. 2.27 The Working Group addressed all substantive issues in its terms of reference as shown in its report (LC/SG 31/WP.3/Rev.1), except for – due to lack of time – the issue of what research may be needed to address those issues requiring evaluation to better understand the potential for impacts and the effectiveness (depending on purpose) of ocean fertilization and thus reduce uncertainties (item 4 of the terms of reference). RECOMMENDATIONS 2.28 In light of its discussions, the Working Group recommended the Scientific Groups to:

.1 request advice from the Legal Intersessional Correspondence Group (LICG) regarding the appropriateness or otherwise of provisions identified in paragraph 4 of its report2 to the phrase “contrary to the aims of the Convention/Protocol”;

.2 request that Contracting Parties and the Secretariat consolidate new information

on scientific research on ocean fertilization as it becomes available and make it available to other Contracting Parties for use in assessing proposals; and

.3 use appendix 3 to the Working Group report as the list of considerations for

evaluating ocean fertilization activities (as applicable). ACTION BY THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS 2.29 The Scientific Groups adopted the report of the Working Group on Ocean Fertilization as shown in annex 2 to this report and, in particular:

.1 endorsed all three recommendations of the Working Group;

2 The relevant provisions of the London Protocol on this issue are Article 1.10 (Definition of “Pollution”),

Article 2 (Objectives), Article 3.3 (transfer of pollution), and Article 3.1 (precautionary approach). Similarly, the relevant provisions of the London Convention on this issue are: Articles I, II, VII.1, VII.2, VII.3 and XII.

Page 12: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 12 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.2 acknowledged that although the valuable advice by the Working Group at this session and relevant developments in other fora since November 2007 were an indication of progress, the “Statement of Concern” of 2007 on large-scale fertilization by the Scientific Groups remained valid;

.3 requested the Secretariat to liaise with the United Kingdom as the

lead-country for the LICG, so that the LICG could use the technical information from this session in its report to the next meeting of the governing bodies (LC 29/17, paragraph 4.28.3);

.4 stressed the importance that technical/scientific expertise is included in

delegations when the issue of ocean fertilization is discussed further at the next meeting of the governing bodies; and

.5 requested the Secretariat to liaise with other United Nations entities (UN,

UNESCO-IOC, CBD, GESAMP) and other relevant organizations involved in the discussion of ocean fertilization, as good coordination would be important.

2.30 Finally, the Scientific Groups expressed their great appreciation for the achievements of Dr. Gi-Hoon Hong and the members of his Working Group at this session. 3 WASTE ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE

.1 REVIEW OF THE “GENERIC GUIDELINES” (WAG/1997) 3.1 The Chairman recalled that in 2003, the Scientific Group had started its review of the “Generic Guidelines” adopted in 1997. Substantial progress was made and, in 2006, an intersessional Correspondence Group was established, under the lead of the Republic of Korea, with the following terms of reference:

.1 seek user-friendly names for the Generic and Specific Guidelines displayed at the London Convention/London Protocol website;

.2 clarify paragraph 2.1 of the Generic Guidelines, (Waste Prevention Audit); and

.3 prepare changes for accommodating the state of the art in knowledge and

technology.

3.2 It was also recalled that in 2007, the Scientific Groups considered draft amendments to the Generic Guidelines and agreed to use, in the interim, the “official” names of the Generic and Specific Guidelines for display at the London Convention website. The Groups were invited to finalize the review at this session. 3.3 The Chairman of the intersessional Correspondence Group, Dr. Gi-Hoon Hong (Republic of Korea) introduced the report of his Group, as shown in document LC/SG 31/3/2, and stated that it included the amendments to the “Generic Guidelines” (WAG/1977) as proposed by the Group. The Correspondence Group consisting of Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, the United States and the International Energy Agency (OECD/IEA) had achieved substantial progress intersessionally.

Page 13: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 13 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

3.4 The Scientific Groups, having noted that while some issues remained to be resolved and that the user-friendly names for the Specific Guidelines could be finalized, re-established the Working Group on the Review of the Generic Guidelines, under the lead of Mr. Matt Johnston (Australia) and charged it to:

.1 continue and finalize the review of the “Generic Guidelines”, in light of the comments received in plenary; and

.2 present a written report to plenary showing the changes made to document LC/SG 31/3/2, with recommendations as appropriate, for adoption by the governing bodies in October 2008.

OUTCOME OF THE WORKING GROUP 3.5 The “Working Group on the Review of the Generic Guidelines”, convened under the lead of Mr. Matt Johnston (Australia), met on 22 May 2008 to finalize the review. It was attended by delegations from Australia, Germany, Japan and the United States. The Working Group agreed on a revised text of the Generic Guidelines as shown in annex 2 to its report (LC/SG 31/WP.14). The annexes annotate also the changes to the text previously agreed at the 28th Session of the Scientific Group, as shown in document LC/SG 29/2/1. 3.6 The key proposed changes to annex 1 to the report (Proposed website names) were the following: (1) the addition of the article “the” to the “official names” used under the Convention/Protocol; (2) the harmonization of the names to be used on the London Convention website; and (3) the addition of the name of the Carbon Dioxide Streams Assessment Guidelines. 3.7 The key proposed changes to annex 2 to the report (Generic Guidelines) were an update of the language and concepts to reflect recent LC/LP publications and guidance, in particular, the Carbon Dioxide Streams Assessment Guidelines, as well as a revised assessment “Figure” or schematic diagram (annex 1 of annex 2 to the report). The Working Group developed three options for the assessment “Figure” for consideration by the Scientific Groups: .1 the existing diagram;

.2 an adaptation of the existing diagram (Option A); and .3 a more conceptual diagram (Option B).

ACTION BY THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS 3.8 The Scientific Groups adopted the report of the Working Group (LC/SG 31/WP.14) and, in particular:

.1 agreed to forward the revised titles for the Specific and Generic Guidelines to be displayed on the London Convention website, as shown in annex 3 to this report, to the next session of the governing bodies, with a view to their adoption;

.2 agreed to forward the draft Revised Generic Waste Assessment Guidelines as

shown in annex 4 to this report to the next session of the governing bodies, with a view to their adoption;

Page 14: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 14 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.3 based on the Groups’ preference for an adaptation of the existing diagram (Option A), agreed that further work should be carried out on this diagram, under the lead of Australia, to be included in the final draft of the Generic Waste Assessment Guidelines and for decision by the governing bodies in October 2008; and

.4 agreed to recommend that a consistency check should be carried out between

the Generic and the Specific Guidelines now that both sets of guidelines had been updated.

3.9 The Scientific Groups expressed their appreciation to all delegations who had contributed to the review both in the Correspondence Group and during this session and, in particular, to Dr. Gi-Hoon Hong for the leadership shown in the past few years on this matter and to Mr. Matt Johnston who had led the review at this session.

.2 REVIEW OF THE “SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSMENT OF INERT, INORGANIC GEOLOGICAL MATERIAL”

3.10 It was recalled that in 2007, the Scientific Groups commenced the review of the “Specific Guidelines for Assessment of Inert, Inorganic Geological Material” taking into account the “Eligibility Criteria for Inert, Inorganic Geological Material” which were adopted in 2006 (LC 28/15, annex 8). The Scientific Groups were invited to review work undertaken by the intersessional Correspondence Group, and taking into account comments received, finalize the review at this session as a high-priority item. 3.11 Dr. Elizabeth Kim (United States), Chairman of the Correspondence Group, introduced the proposed revisions and annotated comments to these Specific Guidelines, as suggested by the members of the intersessional Correspondence Group (LC/SG 31/3/Rev.1). The Correspondence Group consisted of Canada, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, the United States and Greenpeace International. 3.12 On advice of Dr. Kim, the Scientific Groups reconvened the Working Group on these Specific Guidelines and charged it to continue the review, according to its terms of reference and submit a final draft for approval by the Groups. OUTCOME OF THE WORKING GROUP 3.13 The Working Group on the Review of the Specific Guidelines for Assessment of Inert, Inorganic Geological Material convened under the lead of Dr. Elizabeth Kim (United States) on 20 May 2008 to finalize the review. It was attended by delegations from Canada, Ireland, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Spain and Greenpeace International. The Working Group considered all comments and agreed the revised text as shown in the annex to its report (LC/SG 31/WP.1). 3.14 The primary changes proposed for the Guidelines involve updating language to correspond to the “Eligibility Criteria for Inert, Inorganic Geological Material”, including appending these Eligibility Criteria as an annex to these Guidelines.

Page 15: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 15 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

ACTION BY THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS 3.15 The Scientific Groups adopted the report of the Working Group (LC/SG 31/WP.1) and, in particular:

.1 approved the Revised Specific Guidelines for the Assessment of Inert, Inorganic Geological Material, as set out in annex 5 to this report; and

.2 agreed to forward these Guidelines to the governing bodies for their

consideration and adoption in October 2008. 3.16 The Chairman thanked all delegations who had contributed to the review both in the Correspondence Group and during this session and, in particular, Dr. Elizabeth Kim for the efficient leadership shown on this urgent matter.

.3 REVIEW OF THE “SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSMENT OF BULKY ITEMS” 3.17 The Chairman recalled that in 2003, the 25th Consultative Meeting requested the LC Scientific Group to consider revisions to the “Specific Guidelines for Assessment of Bulky Items”, primarily comprising iron, steel, concrete, etc., and that if policy interpretations emerged, these should be referred back to the Consultative Meeting. The Scientific Groups commenced this review in 2007 and established an intersessional Correspondence Group under the lead of China. It was also agreed to involve the small island developing States (SIDS) among the Contracting Parties in this review, as these Specific Guidelines were aimed at addressing the waste management issues experienced by such States. 3.18 The Scientific Groups were invited to consider progress of work conducted by the Correspondence Group during the intersessional period and continue the review of these guidelines. This activity was assigned a medium priority in the Joint Work Programme and is due for completion in 2009. 3.19 The delegation of China gave a progress report and stated that no correspondence had been conducted as yet. The delegation hoped to present a work plan with timelines to this session. Communications with the SIDS would be undertaken following advice from the Secretariat, as many of these States are not usually represented at London Convention meetings. 3.20 Taking into account the various comments and suggestions, the Scientific Groups invited Mr. Chuanlin Huo (China), together with interested delegations, to prepare a draft work plan with recommendations on the way forward. ACTION BY THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS 3.21 The Scientific Groups, having noted the draft Work Plan on Review of the Bulky Items Guidelines, as prepared by Mr. Chuanlin Huo (China) (LC/SG 31/WP.13), agreed to re-establish the Correspondence Group on the Review of the Specific Guidelines for the Assessment of Bulky Items, under his lead, with a view to undertake work as set out in annex 6 to this report and with the aim of completion of this activity in 2009. 3.22 The delegations from Australia, China, Germany, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, the United States and Greenpeace International indicated their interest to participate in this review.

Page 16: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 16 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.4 USABILITY AND COMMUNICATION OF THE “SPECIFIC GUIDELINES” 3.23 It was recalled that at the 29th Session of the Scientific Group in 2006, an intersessional Correspondence Group was established under the lead of South Africa to conduct a survey mainly with developing countries aimed at gathering views on the clarity, utility and accessibility of all Specific Guidelines developed under the London Convention and Protocol. The survey followed concerns raised about the Specific Guidelines at the IMO/UNEP/NEPAD Regional Workshop held in Mombasa, Kenya (April 2004). 3.24 It was also recalled that in 2007, the Scientific Groups considered the outcome of the survey and instructed that Correspondence Group to further clarify, where necessary, the comments received from specific countries. The governing bodies, in November 2007, noted that an interim response summarizing the main survey results had been communicated to all respondents to it, in anticipation of a final analysis for consideration and approval at the next meeting of the governing bodies in 2008. 3.25 The Scientific Groups were invited to comment on the draft final survey report at this session, noting that there was also a linkage with a proposed extension of the WAG Tutorial project concerning the application of non- or low-technology techniques (see also chapter 7 of this report). 3.26 The Chairman of the Correspondence Group, Dr. Yazeed Petersen (South Africa), introduced the draft final survey report on usability and communication of the Specific Guidelines as prepared by that Group (LC/SG 31/3/3). He highlighted that the report incorporated the Scientific Groups response or clarification to comments raised by the survey participants. The main conclusion of the report was that, in terms of practical implementation, the Specific Guidelines were considered to have substantial value, although some countries could benefit from additional technical information on case studies, analytical procedures and methods, criteria and procedures for setting limits, monitoring parameters and methods, etc. The development of an online catalogue of links to further information resources was recommended in this regard (section 5.2 of document LC/SG 31/3/3). 3.27 Delegations that spoke were satisfied with the report and it was suggested that a single response by the Scientific Groups to all comments raised might be the best way forward. Links to the Joint Work Programme, as contained in document LC/SG 31/13, could also be used for this purpose. 3.28 In the ensuing discussion, the Scientific Groups agreed to reconvene the Working Group informally, under the lead of South Africa, to finalize the Scientific Groups’ response to the survey results and suggest ways of making improvements to the London Convention website to address the identified need for additional technical information. OUTCOME OF THE WORKING GROUP 3.29 The Working Group on the Usability and Communication of the Specific Guidelines met under the lead of Dr. Yazeed Petersen (South Africa) on 21 May 2008 and was attended by delegations from the Netherlands, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States. It agreed the final survey report including the response to comments submitted, as set out in the annex to its report (LC/SG 31/WP.7).

Page 17: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 17 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

Action by the Scientific Groups 3.30 The Scientific Groups adopted the report of the Working Group (LC/SG 31/WP.7) and:

.1 approved the final survey report on the usability and communication of the

Specific Guidelines, including the appended response to comments submitted, as set out in annex 7 to this report;

.2 agreed to issue the report to survey participants prior to the next meeting of

the governing bodies scheduled for October 2008; .3 agreed to submit the survey report to the next meeting of the governing

bodies, for endorsement; and .4 agreed to take into account the results of the survey when planning further

technical co-operation and review activities under the Joint Work Programme (2008 – 2010) of the Scientific Groups.

3.31 The Chairman thanked all delegations who had contributed to the outcome of this important issue and, in particular, Dr. Petersen for the leadership and determination shown since he started this assignment at the 29th Session of the Scientific Group.

.5 GUIDANCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ACTION LISTS AND ACTION LEVELS FOR DREDGED MATERIAL

3.32 It was recalled that in 2002, the LC Scientific Group agreed to prepare technical guidance on the development of an Action List under the Generic Guidelines that would assist Contracting Parties in developing their own National Action Lists and address the potential effects on human health and the marine environment. It was agreed to focus, initially, on Action Lists for dredged material. In June 2007, the Scientific Groups continued their work in accordance with the Terms of Reference on “Guidance for the Development of Action Lists and Action Levels for Dredged Material” and re-established the intersessional Correspondence Group under the lead of Canada to finalize this task. 3.33 The Scientific Groups were invited to consider the final draft text, submitted by the lead country, with a view to completing this high priority activity at this session. 3.34 The Chairman of the Correspondence Group, Ms Linda Porebski (Canada), introduced her report (LC/SG 31/3/1) and updated the Scientific Groups on developments since that report was submitted. It was noted that comments and revisions to the submitted document were provided by Australia, Canada, Iran, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, the United States, Greenpeace International and OECD/IEA. 3.35 An informal meeting of the Correspondence Group was held on 16 May 2008 to enhance the text and revise the appendices. Text was provided by Australia, Belgium and the United States and the meeting was attended by Canada, Ireland and Greenpeace International. Further work would focus on the executive summary and the main text, a decision on additional appendices, complete references and glossary and the conduct of a final edit.

Page 18: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 18 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

3.36 The Scientific Groups reconvened the Working Group, under the lead of Ms Linda Porebski (Canada), and charged it to finalize the draft Guidance and present the final draft text for approval by the Groups. OUTCOME OF THE WORKING GROUP 3.37 The Working Group on Guidance for the Development of Action Lists and Action Levels met under the lead of Ms Linda Porebski (Canada) on 20 May 2008 to finalize the Guidance. It was attended by delegations from Belgium, Canada, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, the United States, Greenpeace International and WODA. The Working Group had rearranged the appendices, removed the flow charts contained in the initial draft and reached consensus on the final draft text, as shown in the annex to its report (LC/SG 31/WP.2). ACTION BY THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS 3.38 The Scientific Groups adopted the report of the Working Group (LC/SG 31/WP.2) and approved the final draft text shown in that report. The Groups also agreed that a verification of the references and the specific country examples used in the Guidelines would be carried out after the meeting by the countries concerned. Subsequently, the final draft text of the Guidelines would be forwarded to the governing bodies for their consideration and approval in October 2008. 3.39 The Scientific Groups also recommended that the Guidelines, after their adoption by the governing bodies, be published by IMO in 2009 following a sound technical edit by the IMO Publishing Service. 3.40 The Chairman thanked all delegations who had contributed to the outcome of this Working Group and, in particular, Ms Porebski for the leadership and determination she had shown when she took over this assignment at the 29th Session of the Scientific Group in 2006.

.6 NATIONAL ACTION LEVELS AND THEIR APPLICATION 3.41 As no documents had been received under this item of the agenda, Contracting Parties were urged to report their experience with the guidance just completed to future sessions of the Scientific Groups.

.7 EXPERIENCE WITH PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF ALL “SPECIFIC

GUIDELINES” 3.42 It was recalled that in 2007, the Scientific Group had reviewed two interesting documents under this item of the agenda, one from the United Kingdom on the application of the de minimis concept under the London Convention and one from Canada on results of a workshop hosted by Environment Canada in November 2006 on decision-making for contaminated dredged material management. 3.43 Contracting Parties were invited to indicate their experiences with practical implementation of all Specific Guidelines to the next joint session of the Scientific Groups.

Page 19: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 19 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.8 APPLICATION OF BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES 3.44 The Chairman recalled that at previous meetings the Scientific Groups had reviewed several informative reports on biological assessment techniques and testing approaches/results and that the issue had also been the focus of the “Science Day” discussions held at the 25th session of the LC Scientific Group in Jamaica in 2002. 3.45 As no documents were received under this item of the agenda, Contracting Parties were urged to provide documents to the next joint meeting of the Groups.

.9 ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS 3.46 It was recalled that Contracting Parties were invited to report on the development of alternative waste management options, e.g., in the form of case studies, or resulting from the application of the waste prevention audit under the Waste Assessment Guidance. 3.47 The delegation of the United States introduced a published report documenting the results of a Workshop sponsored by the EPA/USACE on the 4 Rs of dredging contaminated sediment: Resuspension, Residuals, Release, and Risk (LC/SG 31/INF.8). The Workshop, held in 2006, discussed the relationships among the 4 Rs of environmental dredging and a series of recommendations for reducing the uncertainty associated with environmental dredging of contaminated sediment. Delegations could contact for further information: Dr. Todd S. Bridges, United States Army Engineer Research & Development Centre, e-mail: [email protected]. 3.48 The delegation of the United States also announced that it is currently developing technical engineering guidance on environmental dredging, i.e. the dredging of contaminated sediments for the purpose of accomplishing environmental remediation/restoration (LC/SG 31/INF.13). Environmental dredging in this context was the removal of contaminated sediments from a water body for the purposes of remediation and risk reduction. Environmental dredging can assist in minimizing material to be disposed at sea and contribute to better management of contaminated sediments. This was considered a different approach to the one used for navigational dredging for the purposes of improving navigability. It was highlighted that the guidance would address a range of topics, including: evaluating site conditions and sediment characteristics; project goals and performance standards; equipment capabilities and selection; evaluation of production, project duration, and transport; methods for predicting resuspension, residuals and release; control measures; operating methods and strategies; and monitoring. 3.49 It was noted that the document was currently undergoing a peer review and is expected to be released in October 2008. Delegations could contact for further information: Dr. Paul Schroeder, United States Army Engineer Research & Development Center, e-mail: [email protected]. 3.50 The Scientific Groups thanked the United States for their very informative presentations and invited further announcements and case studies to be presented to the next session of the Scientific Groups.

Page 20: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 20 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.10 DISPOSAL MANAGEMENT MEASURES (E.G., CAPPING) 3.51 It was recalled that in June 2007, the Scientific Groups agreed to include this issue as an ongoing item of medium priority on the agenda, having noted a case study by the United Kingdom on its experiences with capping of contaminated dredged material, and the observation that monitoring of the cap was important as a feedback mechanism to adaptive management (LC/SG 30/14, paragraph 3.64 and annex 7). 3.52 The Scientific Groups noted that the United States was updating its technical guidance on this issue as existing guidance was more than 10 years old. It was also noted that the United Kingdom would submit a report on monitoring of a capped site in the Tyne estuary to a future session of the Groups. 3.53 The Chairman urged Contracting Parties to present submissions addressing the capping of dredged material to the next session of the Scientific Groups. 4 CO2 SEQUESTRATION IN SUB-SEABED GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS:

.1 DEVELOPMENT OF A REPORTING FORMAT FOR CO2 SEQUESTRATION PERMITS; AND

.2 REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE LEGAL AND TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP ON

TRANSBOUNDARY CO2 SEQUESTRATION ISSUES. 4.1 The Chairman recalled that in June 2007, the LP Scientific Group recommended the development of a specific reporting format, listing the items that Contracting Parties would have to include when reporting on their carbon dioxide sequestration activities in sub-seabed geological formations (LC/SG 30/14, paragraphs 2.6 and 2.7). In November 2007, the Meeting of Contracting Parties endorsed this recommendation and instructed the LP Scientific Group to:

.1 develop a specific reporting format for CO2 sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations;

.2 liaise in this regard with other organizations recording CO2 sequestration

(OSPAR) and carbon credits; .3 identify who should do the recording; and .4 present a proposal to the next Meeting of Contracting Parties in 2008

(LC 29/17, paragraphs 4.10 and 4.11). 4.2 The delegation of Norway introduced a draft reporting format and stated that it had developed this format based on the one used in the framework of the OSPAR Convention (LC/SG 31/4/1). 4.3 The LP Scientific Group noted that the discussion should not only address what exactly should be reported about in the LP format, but also any recommendations how reporting under the Protocol should fit in with the other requirements countries have to comply with under the UNFCCC, existing carbon credit schemes, etc.

Page 21: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 21 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

4.4 The Secretariat introduced the report of the Legal and Technical Working Group on Transboundary CO2 Sequestration Issues which had met in Bonn, Germany, from 25 to 27 February 2008 (documents LP/CO2 1/8 and LC/SG 31/4). 4.5 The LP Scientific Group noted that this intersessional Working Group had addressed all relevant transboundary CO2 sequestration issues and, in particular, had:

.1 analysed all aspects in relation to the general prohibition under Article 6 of the London Protocol to export wastes or other matter to other countries for dumping purposes;

.2 developed a possible amendment to Article 6 using the principles enshrined in the

Basel Convention with regard to prior informed consent between an exporting and an importing State; and

.3 developed also explanatory texts for the 2007 CO2 Sequestration Guidelines3.

4.6 The LP Scientific Group also noted that the 6-month deadline for submission of proposals to amend the Protocol pursuant to its Article 21.1 had passed on 25 April 2008 without such a formal proposal being tabled and requiring a decision by the Meeting of Contracting Parties to the Protocol in October 2008. 4.7 The Scientific Groups took note of the report of the intersessional Working Group and of the views expressed by several Contracting Parties that it was too early to aim at amending Article 6 of the London Protocol. 4.8 Consequently, the Scientific Groups agreed to:

.1 concentrate on the current requirements under the Protocol when developing the reporting format. A decision on inclusion in the format of a specific reference to possible transboundary sub-seabed geological formations for sequestration purposes could be taken once this issue had been resolved; and

.2 recommend the preparation of a justification document for a requirement to

amend Article 6 of the Protocol. This document could include scientific and technical aspects.

4.9 The suggestion was noted that the governing bodies might wish to ensure that the possible amendment to Article 6 as developed by the Intersessional Working Group was consistent with the requirements of the Basel Convention. 4.10 The LP Scientific Group established a small working group under the lead of Norway, which was instructed to:

.1 review the proposed draft reporting format in light of the comments made in plenary;

3 The Working Group developed specific language for inclusion into these Guidelines in connection with a

possible amendment to Article 6. Other proposed language, regarding the duty to co-operate between Parties in case of transboundary movement (see paragraph 3.23 of document LP/CO2 1/8) could be included in the Guidelines regardless of whether Article 6 is amended or not.

Page 22: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 22 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.2 prepare recommendations for the 3rd Meeting of Contracting Parties on:

.1 the use of the format by Contracting Parties to the Protocol; .2 the recording of formats received by the Secretariat; and .3 how other fora (e.g., UNFCCC, Emission Trading Schemes, etc.) should

be informed of the reports received from Contracting Parties. OUTCOME OF THE WORKING GROUP 4.11 The Working Group on the CO2 Sequestration Reporting Format convened under the lead of Mr. Oyvind Christophersen (Norway) on 21 and 22 May 2008 and was attended by delegations from Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Norway, Spain and the United States (LC/SG 31/WP.11). 4.12 With regard to record keeping of storage sites and CO2 injected, the Working Group recommended that the Secretariat should keep a record of reports it received from the Contracting Parties. 4.13 It was noted that the IPCC 2006 guidelines specified the following information to be obtained and archived by the national greenhouse gas inventory compiler where CO2 storage takes place: .1 report on the methods and results of the site characterization; .2 report on the methods and results of modelling;

.3 a description of the proposed monitoring programme including appropriate background measurements;

.4 the year in which CO2 storage began or will begin; and .5 the proposed sources of the CO2 and the infrastructure involved in the whole chain

of carbon dioxide transport, injection and geological storage between source and storage reservoir.

4.14 The Working Group developed the draft Format for Reporting on CO2 Sequestration in Sub-seabed Geological Formations under the London Protocol, as shown in its report. ACTION BY THE LP SCIENTIFIC GROUP 4.15 In discussing the draft Format, it was noted that whereas the permitting issues had been adequately addressed, the monitoring issues had not yet been adequately covered. 4.16 Consequently, the Scientific Group:

.1 accepted the draft Format developed by the Working Group, as shown in annex 8 to this report, as “work in progress”;

Page 23: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 23 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.2 established an intersessional Correspondence Group under the lead of Norway, and instructed it to:

.1 identify the monitoring aspects of CO2 Sequestration in Sub-seabed

geological formations; .2 develop appropriate language to be included in the draft Format; .3 submit a further developed draft Format to the 3rd Meeting of

Contracting Parties in October 2008, for its consideration, with a view to its adoption; and

.3 invited all delegations that had provided an input into the draft Format thus

far to submit specific comments to Norway4 by 1 July 2008.

.3 INFORMATION FROM CONTRACTING PARTIES ON CO2 SEQUESTRATION PROJECTS 4.17 The Chairman recalled that the governing bodies, in November 2007, acknowledged that it would be important for Contracting Parties to be kept informed on a regular basis of their experiences with CO2 sequestration technologies and their application (LC 29/17, paragraphs 4.30 to 4.37). 4.18 No information was provided on CO2 sequestration projects or technologies at this session and Contracting Parties were invited to submit any new information to the next session of the Scientific Groups. 5 DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDANCE FOR THE PLACEMENT OF ARTIFICIAL

REEFS 5.1 The Chairman recalled that while the Consultative Meeting in the period 2000 to 2004 could not reach agreement on guidance concerning “placement of matter for a purpose other than the mere disposal thereof” (Article III(1)(b)(ii) of the Convention and Article 1.4.2.2 of the Protocol) or on the issue as to whether the London Convention and Protocol covered “placement” activities, several elements of policy guidance were developed as outlined in its reports. 5.2 It was also recalled, that in 2005, the 27th Consultative Meeting agreed to include the issue on the work programme of the Scientific Group, having noted the outcome of the “Science Day” discussions on “placement activities” during the 28th Session of the Scientific Group, and the recognition that placement activities were being conducted in many parts of the world and that several delegations indicated that they would benefit from a global perspective on existing regional guidelines. 5.3 It was further recalled that in 2006, the 29th Session of the Scientific Group prepared a work plan and established an intersessional Correspondence Group on Artificial Reefs (CGAR), under the lead of Spain, to develop a draft guidance document. The governing bodies adopted this work plan aimed at completion in 2007. In June 2007, the Scientific Groups considered a first draft of the Guidance and agreed to reconvene the CGAR to finalize the draft Guidance by

4 Comments should be sent to Mr. Oyvind Christophersen at: [email protected]

Page 24: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 24 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

the next joint session. This approach and amended timetable was endorsed by the governing bodies in November 2007. 5.4 The Chairman of CGAR, Mr. José Buceta (Spain), introduced document LC/SG 31/5 and reported on progress towards the development of guidance for the placement of artificial reefs. He stated that intersessional work had been carried out in accordance with the terms of reference agreed by the Scientific Group in 2007 and the amended timetable endorsed by the governing bodies in November 2007. 5.5 He also stated that the revised draft guidance had been largely prepared by the UNEP/IMO technical reviewer, who had reviewed the previous text as was submitted to the governing bodies in 2007. It included amendments and suggestions offered by the members of CGAR during the intersessional period. 5.6 Before the Scientific Groups could finalize the guidance document with a view to forwarding the final draft to the governing bodies, Mr. Buceta indicated that the following elements needed to be resolved:

.1 a definition of “artificial reefs” and a list of structures to be included in the guidance document;

.2 should a section on aquaculture be included? This was particularly relevant for

artificial structures designed for bio-filtration, which are quite different from the other artificial reefs considered in the guidance document;

.3 level of detail required in annex 5.4 on “Guidance on environmental studies and

impact assessment for artificial reefs”;

.4 inclusion of case studies. To cover this lack of information a template including a brief description of the main projects carried out by Contracting Parties could be developed so that they are similar in content/approach; and

.5 copyright issues. Some of the pictures included in the final draft could be subject

to copyright. It was therefore suggested that alternative graphic material be provided by Contracting Parties.

5.7 It was noted that the Guidance would be non-binding advice on placement of artificial reefs consistent with the aims of the Convention and Protocol and that it could greatly assist countries (developing and developed) currently undertaking such activities. All delegations that spoke agreed that further work should be undertaken to finalize the draft text along the lines suggested by Mr. Buceta. 5.8 The representative from WODA provided a PowerPoint presentation on a CEDA Environment Commission document entitled “Development and guidance for the placement of artificial reefs – artificial reefs and dredging”. He indicated that the document gave an overview of artificial reefs with a special focus on the possible use of dredged sediments for the construction of artificial reefs. The representative stressed that good regulations were needed and that this document provided good references in this regard. Delegations could contact for further information Dr. Valeri Penchev, Black Sea Coastal Association at: [email protected].

Page 25: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 25 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

5.9 The Scientific Groups noted that a number of Parties used soft and hard sediments to enhance the biological function of particular sites, thereby increasing habitat for selected species. The Scientific Groups also noted that the presentation by WODA was in line with the current draft guidance under development. 5.10 The Scientific Groups thanked WODA for its informative presentation. 5.11 The Scientific Groups, having considered the comments made, agreed to convene a Drafting Group on Artificial Reefs under chairmanship of Mr. Buceta, to finalize the guidance for approval by the Groups. OUTCOME OF THE DRAFTING GROUP 5.12 The Drafting Group on Artificial Reefs met from 19 to 21 May 2008 under the Chairmanship of Mr. José Buceta (Spain) and was attended by delegations from Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom, the United States, UNEP, Greenpeace International and WODA. 5.13 The Drafting Group addressed the tasks it had been given, as shown in its report (LC/SG 31/WP.4), and recommended that the Scientific Groups:

.1 approve the new definition as set out in paragraph 6 of its report; .2 endorse that the material in the current annex 5.4 on “Guidance on environmental

studies and impact evaluation for artificial reefs” be reduced by instructing the UNEP/IMO technical reviewer to develop a summary of the current content following the indications produced by the Drafting Group during this meeting;

.3 delete the annex on “Case Studies” as sufficient material was available from other

sources; .4 include text on the use of dredged material for artificial reefs; .5 request the Secretariat to carry out a legal review of section 2 of the draft

document; and .6 endorse all amendments as included in the draft text.

ACTION BY THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS 5.14 The Scientific Groups adopted the report of the Drafting Group (LC/SG 31/WP.4) and, in particular, agreed:

.1 to the recommendations of the Drafting Group, as set out in paragraph 5.13 above;

.2 to invite the UNEP/IMO technical reviewer to undertake a full review of the

draft text, limiting this work exclusively to editorial amendments with the exception of the new annex 4 and the necessary amendments derived from a legal review by the Secretariat of section 2 on the Regulatory Framework;

Page 26: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 26 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.3 that the CGAR, under the lead of Mr. Buceta (Spain), undertake a final brief editorial review of the draft text and limit this review to a period of two weeks;

.4 that a final review be undertaken by the Secretariat and UNEP prior to

submission to the governing bodies for their consideration in October 2008; and

.5 that once the guidance was adopted by the governing bodies, the guidance

would be published and distributed as a joint UNEP/IMO document. 5.15 The Chairman thanked the Chairman of the Drafting Group, Mr. José Buceta, and all who had contributed to the guidance for all the work they had done so far. 6 REPORTING ON DUMPING ACTIVITIES 6.1 The Chairman recalled that since 2004, the Consultative Meeting has sought to improve the notification of dumping permits issued under the Convention, through a range of actions contained in the “Strategy to improve reporting under the London Convention and Protocol”. Key elements of this Strategy included:

.1 the development of an electronic form for Parties to report their dumping activities;

.2 the Chairman of the Consultative Meeting to write to Government Ministers of all

Contracting Parties that had not reported in the last five years urging them to fulfil this reporting requirement of the Convention;

.3 non-reporting countries to be listed at all future meetings; and .4 renewed Secretariat efforts to obtain information on dumping activities reported

directly to relevant regional conventions and mechanisms. 6.2 He also recalled that in 2007, the governing bodies, following a review of the Strategy:

.1 agreed to extend the trial with the “Electronic Reporting Form” (E-Form) for

another year and invited Contracting Parties to report to the Scientific Groups on their experiences using the E-Form;

.2 urged all Contracting Parties, if they had not done so, to provide the Secretariat

with the reports on their dumping activities in 2005, as soon as convenient;

.3 instructed the Secretariat to:

.1 publish the summary report on permits issued in 2004 in January 2008; .2 submit a draft summary report on permits issued in 2005 to the

Correspondence Group on Assessment of Dumping Reports for its review;

Page 27: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 27 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.3 write to appropriate political decision makers, or heads of departments responsible for dumping issues, to solicit dumping reports from States that had not reported in the last five years; and

.4 invited the Correspondence Group on Assessment of Dumping Reports to report

on its review of the draft 2005 compilation report to this session of the Scientific Groups.

.1 REVIEW OF DUMPING REPORTS AND EFFORTS TO IMPROVE REPORTING

6.3 It was recalled that at the 29th meeting of the Scientific Group, the Group reviewed the preliminary assessment of dumping reports for the 1995-2002 period, prepared by the Correspondence Group, on Assessment of Dumping Reports giving particular attention to their value, consistency and format and also for that Group to advise on the development of a database on dumping reports. A more elaborate report would be prepared for consideration at a future date. 6.4 The Chairman of the Correspondence Group, Ms Brigitte Lauwaert (Belgium), informed the meetings that no progress had been made during the intersessional period on the assessment of dumping reports for the said period, but highlighted that work had commenced to review the reporting format for several regional conventions (OSPAR, HELCOM and BARCOM), and that this may impact on the reporting format for the London Convention and Protocol. In this regard she invited interested Parties to participate in this review and that she would facilitate that relevant information would be distributed to them. 6.5 The representative of UNEP-MAP informed the Groups about the development of an online information system for dumping reports. The system used existing reporting formats (for example, from HELCOM), where relevant, and was intended to improve reporting amongst the Parties to the Barcelona Convention. It was noted that this system would be completed by the end of 2008.

.2 DRAFT COMPILATION REPORT OF PERMITS ISSUED IN 2005 AND 2006 6.6 The Secretariat introduced a draft summary report of dumping activities as reported by Contracting Parties for 2005 (LC/SG 31/6) and a list of the dumping reports received over the year 2006. 6.7 The draft summary report had been compiled on the basis of submissions received from Contracting Parties, directly or through regional bodies, and covered only permits issued in 2005. 6.8 The Scientific Groups noted that in 2005, 82 States were registered as Contracting Parties to the London Convention and 22 States as Contracting Parties to the London Protocol, which was not yet in force in that year. It was also noted that 37 Contracting Parties had provided a report on their dumping activities for 2005, which was less than in previous years. The Secretariat announced that it planned to submit the final draft report for 2005, after consultation with the Chairman of the Correspondence Group, to the governing bodies in October 2008. 6.9 The Scientific Groups also noted the latest list of reports provided to the Secretariat on dumping activities in 2006. By the end of 2006, there were 30 Parties to the Protocol, yet many had not reported their activities. It was further noted that the invitation for reports over 2006 was issued in July 2007 (with a deadline of 1 October 2007) and that the Secretariat was working

Page 28: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 28 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

towards presenting a first draft report on 2006 to the meeting of the governing bodies in October 2008. In this regard, Contracting Parties that have not yet done so were reminded to submit reports to the Secretariat, as soon as possible, but not later than 1 September 2008. This would be most welcome on the E-Form, which is currently available on the LC website (www.londonconvention.org). 6.10 The delegation of Spain indicated that some minor errors had occurred in the allocation of its data and provided the Secretariat with the correct data. The delegation also asked that the Maps, which appeared in the final report, be included for consideration at future meetings. 6.11 In response to a request by the delegation of Italy about the explosives reported by Japan in 2005, the Scientific Groups noted that Japan had not dumped this type of material since April 2007, as it was now prohibited. 6.12 The delegation of Belgium stated that it was aware of several countries that had not reported during 2005 and 2006 because no dumping had occurred during that period in those countries. 6.13 Having noted the information provided, the Secretariat was instructed to:

.1 prepare a final draft report on permits issued in 2005 and a first draft report on permits issued in 2006 for review by the governing bodies in October 2008; and

.2 issue an annual invitation to Contracting Parties for reports on dumping

activities over the year 2007 by 31 July 2008.

.3 EXPERIENCE WITH PILOT ELECTRONIC REPORTING 6.14 The Chairman recalled that in June 2007, the Scientific Groups noted that progress in the uptake of the use of the E-Form had been slow and recommended extending the trial period for another year to enable more Parties to use the E-Form and provide comments to the Secretariat. The governing bodies endorsed this arrangement and extended the trial until 2008. The Scientific Groups were invited to review the experiences with the E-Form, as reported by Contracting Parties, and recommend further action, as appropriate. This activity was assigned a high priority in the Joint Work Programme and is due for completion in 2008. 6.15 Having noted that all delegations that spoke were satisfied with the E-Form in its current form and that no new substantive issues had been raised since the previous joint session, the Scientific Groups approved the E-Form and recommended that the trial period be ended. 6.16 The Scientific Groups also agreed to recommend a review of the E-Form once OSPAR had completed a review of its reporting format or earlier if and when deemed necessary.

.4 DEVELOPMENT OF A DATABASE ON DUMPING REPORTS 6.17 It was recalled that in June 2007 the Chairman of the Correspondence Group on Assessment of Dumping Reports, Ms Brigitte Lauwaert (Belgium), demonstrated a prototype online database on dumping reports. The Scientific Groups agreed to a further phased

Page 29: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 29 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

development of the database and the inclusion of information on obsolete ammunition and of dumping activities not covered by the London Convention and Protocol. The Scientific Groups were invited to review further progress in the development of the database as an ongoing high-priority activity. 6.18 Ms Lauwaert gave a progress report on the development of the database on dumping reports and stated that work on the database had been held up due to changes in personnel, but that once this had been resolved, the database would be finalized in the near future. 6.19 The Scientific Groups thanked Ms Lauwaert for her perseverance on this complex matter and invited a further progress report at the next session of the governing bodies in October 2008.

.5 COLLABORATION WITH UNEP AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS ON REPORTING OF DUMPING ACTIVITIES

6.20 The Chairman recalled that Contracting Parties have the choice under Article VI(4) of the London Convention and the equivalent article 9.4 under the Protocol, to report either directly to IMO on their dumping activities, or through a Secretariat established under a regional agreement. In June 2007, the Scientific Groups considered, as part of the recommendation to strengthen the collaboration between the Secretariats of UNEP-MAP and the London Convention/Protocol, the possible harmonization of the reporting format of dumping activities. The Scientific Groups were invited to review progress on collaboration with UNEP and other organizations concerning reporting of dumping activities as a medium priority issue, due for completion in 2009. 6.21 The representative of UNEP-MAP informed the meetings that since the Nicosia (Cyprus) meeting of 2005, it had worked towards the development of a “common system” for data exchange and data formats. Several national workshops had been organized in Mediterranean countries to address problems relating to reporting of dumping activities. These workshops had targeted port authorities, local authorities, as well as relevant ministries in these countries. 6.22 The Scientific Groups noted that UNEP-MAP had developed a map of sites where obsolete ordnance had been dumped in the Mediterranean Sea and that a copy would be forwarded to their next session in 2009. 6.23 The Chairman thanked the representative of UNEP-MAP for his overview. 7 TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION AND ASSISTANCE

.1 “BARRIERS TO COMPLIANCE” PROJECT – CONTRIBUTION TO THE EXECUTION OF THE STRATEGIC APPROACH

7.1 It was recalled that in June 2007, the Scientific Groups reviewed the final report of the “Barriers to Compliance” Project and agreed that the report was an important document and could be presented to donors accompanied with a summary or work plan on implementation pathways. 7.2 In November 2007, the governing bodies reviewed several technical co-operation and assistance activities contained within the final report and adopted a Strategic Approach to Implementation of the “Barriers to Compliance” Project and established a steering group to oversee and guide the further planning and implementation of the project. The governing bodies

Page 30: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 30 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

also appreciated the substantial contributions pledged to execute this approach (LC 29/17, paragraphs 6.25 to 6.38 and annex 8). 7.3 The Secretariat introduced document LC/SG 31/7 on a draft implementation plan of the “Barriers to Compliance” Project. It was noted that the draft plan included a number of activities that matched initial funding and in-kind pledges already received. It also contained several proposed activities that were as yet unfunded, or had not yet been fully specified, as well as background information and justification for the choice of activities. 7.4 The Scientific Groups also noted that the draft plan could be used by Parties to identify activities that may be of particular interest, whether as a donor and/or offering a particular skill or as a (future) recipient. 7.5 The Scientific Groups further noted that the implementation plan would form the basis for reporting to future sessions of the Scientific Groups and the governing bodies, and form a benchmark for analysing the effectiveness of the overall “Barriers to Compliance” Project. It is envisaged that as additional funding became available this plan would be revised and updated accordingly. At this stage, the draft implementation plan required finalization before being submitted to the governing bodies in October 2008 for approval. In particular, the Scientific Groups were invited to give consideration to the content, audience and suggested timelines. Furthermore, members were invited to nominate for membership to a Steering Group guiding the implementation plan and to provide names and CVs of suitable experts that may be willing to avail themselves for possible consultancy work during the implementation period. 7.6 The representative of UNEP reminded the Groups of the importance of this Project, in particular for developing countries, and stated that it would continue to support the Project, directly through financial means (as it had already done in the past) and through its Regional Seas Programmes which could be used as platforms to deliver projects. It would also aim to provide additional resources for work planned for West Africa. 7.7 The Secretariat informed the Scientific Groups of progress with incorporating the substantive contribution from the French Government into the planning for the “Barriers to Compliance” Project. An application was in preparation for the period 2009 to 2012 to access the pledged funds under the Fonds Français pour l’Environnement Mondial (FFEM) for selected projects in developing countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea. The conditions were that:

.1 the threshold size of any project would be US$400,000; and .2 co-funding from other sources should be confirmed as part of the application,

ranging from 50% to 66% of the overall project.

In other words, to make full use of the French contribution the total project should have a size between US$800,000 and US$1,200,000. In-kind contributions could be included in these calculations. 7.8 The Secretariat had already informally contacted the Governments of Spain, Italy and Greece, as well as UNEP-MAP in Athens, CEDA, REMPEC, and IAPH, enquiring if they were aware of any environmental management projects for the period 2009 – 2012 for instance in ports in Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Egypt or Tunisia, that could be accepted as co-funding contributions for the draft application to FFEM. The Secretariat requested assistance from delegations in identifying such projects in these countries, as soon as possible.

Page 31: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 31 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

7.9 The representative of UNEP-MAP stated that it would provide details of all its activities relating to the implementation of the Dumping Protocol under the Barcelona Convention so that this could be used in any co-funding requests. 7.10 The delegations of Italy, Republic of Korea and the United States and the representative from UNEP offered to participate in the Steering Group. 7.11 The Scientific Groups, having considered the comments made, established an informal Working Group under the lead of Italy to review and amend the draft implementation plan, as appropriate. OUTCOME OF THE WORKING GROUP 7.12 The Working Group on the “Barriers to Compliance” Project Implementation Plan met on 21 May 2008 under the lead of Dr. Ezio Amato (Italy) and was attended by delegations from Italy, Republic of Korea, the United States and UNEP. 7.13 The Working Group reviewed the draft plan and agreed the revised text as shown in the annex to its report (LC/SG 31/WP.8). Additional text regarding the project management of the Project had also been included. ACTION BY THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS 7.14 The Scientific Groups adopted the report of the Working Group (LC/SG 31/WP.8), approved the Draft Implementation Plan, as set out in annex 9 to this report, as a living document, and agreed to forward it to the governing bodies in October 2008 for their consideration. .2 WAG TUTORIAL – PREPARATION OF THE INSTRUCTORS MANUAL AND SLIDES 7.15 The Chairman recalled that in June 2007, the Scientific Groups had completed the Participants’ Manual of what was now called the Waste Assessment Guidance Tutorial and developed a communication plan for distribution of the Participants’ Manual. The Scientific Groups also agreed that the review of the draft Instructors’ Manual and Electronic Slide Set be undertaken by a Correspondence Group (led by the United States) during the intersessional period. The Scientific Groups were invited to review the Instructors’ Manual and Slides, with a view to finalizing this work at this session. 7.16 The Chairman of the Correspondence Group, Dr. Thomas Fredette (United States), reported that the draft Instructors’ Manual, prepared by a contractor, had been reviewed during the intersessional period, whereas the Electronic Slide Set, was yet to be reviewed (LC/SG 31/7/2). While the Correspondence Group had supported the completion of these products, areas were identified where additional drafting and revision would be needed to complete them. All draft materials and review comments distributed to the Correspondence Group were available in electronic format for delegations for consideration. Dr. Fredette suggested that the Correspondence Group be reconvened at this session to discuss steps for finalization of the materials with the aim of completing the review by the next meeting of the governing bodies in October 2008. He also thanked all who had contributed to the current review.

Page 32: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 32 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

7.17 In response to a question by the representative of UNEP on whether, after completion of the Instructors’ Manual, it was envisaged to apply the “train-the-trainer” approach developed in the United Nations system, Dr. Fredette agreed that this could be further explored when developing the communication strategy. The WAG Tutorial provided an overall picture of the scope and application of the Waste Assessment Guidance and whilst most of the WAG Tutorial was developed by a consultant, the review had been carried out as a voluntary project by delegates and supporting administrations. 7.18 On advice of Dr. Fredette, the Scientific Groups reconvened the Working Group to:

.1 review and amend the draft Instructors’ Manual and Electronic Slide Set in line with comments from Plenary;

.2 discuss steps for finalization of the materials at the next meeting of the governing

bodies; and .3 report back to plenary.

OUTCOME OF THE WORKING GROUP 7.19 The Working Group on the WAG Tutorial was convened under the Chairmanship of Dr. Tom Fredette (United States) on 21 May 2008, and was attended by delegations from the United Kingdom, the United States and WODA (LC/SG 31/WP.5). 7.20 The Working Group agreed that the Electronic Slide Set and Instructors’ Manual would be revised to create an overview presentation product on the Waste Assessment Guidance that could be provided as take-away materials to attendees at National and Regional Workshops. The aim was to create an Electronic Slide Set and Manual that those Workshop attendees could then use to provide follow-on briefings within their own agencies and organizations to further the basic knowledge of the London Convention and Protocol and the Waste assessment Guidance. This product would help to respond to the question raised by UNEP on mechanisms to “train the trainer” as one element for the communication strategy. 7.21 Contracting Parties were invited to review the Electronic Slide Set (available from the Working Group Chairman5) and provide comments to him by 6 July 2008. Dr. Fredette would use those comments to revise the Electronic Slide Set and the Instructors’ Manual. The revised products would be reviewed intersessionally with the aim of providing a final product for presentation to the governing bodies in October 2008. 7.22 The Electronic Slide Set and Instructors’ Manual should also be made available on the London Convention website. It was further discussed that they could be used to provide presentations at various technical meetings such as those sponsored by WODA (i.e. WODCON). The Working Group agreed that its members would seek opportunities to give presentations at these meetings, as part of the communication strategy. Other delegates were invited to provide information on venues where they would be willing to make similar presentations.

5 The Chairman of the Working Group, Dr. Tom Fredette, can be contacted at [email protected].

Page 33: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 33 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

7.23 The Working Group regarded the above-mentioned actions and upcoming National and Regional Workshops being coordinated by the Secretariat, as part of the implementation plan of the “Barriers to Compliance Project” (see annex 9 to this report), as reasonable short-term components of the communication strategy. At the longer-term, the Working Group suggested that the Secretariat should continue coordination efforts with other United Nations bodies, such as UNEP, to identify other outreach opportunities. ACTION BY THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS 7.24 The Scientific Groups adopted the report of the Working Group (LC/SG 31/WP.5) and approved the actions proposed by the Working Group as outlined in paragraphs 7.20 to 7.23 above. 7.25 The Scientific Groups thanked the delegation of the United States and, in particular, Dr. Fredette for their continued commitment to complete this important outreach project.

.3 WAG TUTORIAL EXTENSION FOR LOW-TECHNOLOGY TECHNIQUES FOR ASSESSING DREDGED MATERIAL AND DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMUNICATIONS PLAN

7.26 It was recalled that in June 2007, the Scientific Groups had welcomed a proposal by WODA to develop a WAG Tutorial extension for application of low-technology techniques when assessing dredged material in countries where only minimal technical capabilities were available (LC/SG 30/14, paragraphs 6.12 to 6.17). 7.27 In November 2007, the governing bodies reviewed this proposal and noted with appreciation IAPH’s contribution to this project, which taken together with the contribution from the United States and the in-kind contribution from CEDA resulted in a fully funded $20,000-project. The governing bodies requested that:

.1 WODA present a further developed project outline to this session, and once the outline had been approved, that the project be commissioned during the period of June 2008 to June 2009;

.2 WODA and the Scientific Groups consider developing a communications plan for how the materials could be used effectively, in the context of dredged material management training in ports of developing countries, using the networks of the organizations sponsoring the project (IAPH and WODA); and

.3 the progress with the project’s development be reported to their next session in

October 2008 (LC 29/14, paragraphs 6.18 to 6.24). This activity was assigned a medium priority, due for completion in 2009. 7.28 In introducing document LC/SG 31/7/3 the observer from WODA informed the meeting that the proposed WAG Tutorial extension would cover:

.1 guidance on the WAG approach and its application in a low technical environment;

Page 34: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 34 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.2 information on low-cost sampling, testing, information gathering and documenting consistent with this approach, to allow characterization of the dredged material and selection of suitable disposal sites;

.3 guidance on simple and low-cost monitoring of disposal activities, and feedback

surveys to improve decision-making; .4 case study examples; and .5 further references and links to the WAG.

7.29 The deliverables would be:

.1 a document comprising the items listed in the outline presented in the document; .2 the same document on CD-Rom; .3 a “Power-point” type presentation for use by trainers; and .4 a short separate document describing a suggested distribution strategy.

7.30 The WAG Tutorial extension would follow the format of the WAG Tutorial, as far as possible and, specifically, be based on the “Specific Guidelines for the Assessment of Dredged Material”. 7.31 The following structure for the project was confirmed:

.1 CEDA, being an independent, non-profit, non-governmental, professional society, which represented WODA as an observer at the LC/LP meetings would supervise the consultant, guide the development and review the materials prepared and would act as the project manager in a contract with IMO. The supervision costs CEDA would incur should be seen as in-kind support to the project;

.2 the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) in the

United Kingdom, which is a multidisciplinary scientific research and consultancy centre providing a comprehensive range of services in fisheries management, environmental monitoring and assessment, and aquaculture, would be contracted to CEDA to produce the WAG Tutorial extension drawing on the expertise of individual consultants as necessary;

.3 the necessary funding of $20,000 was provided by the Government of the United

States and IAPH and had been transferred to IMO for this purpose; and .4 the final draft materials would be reviewed by the Scientific Groups at their next

session in the spring of 2009 and be submitted for approval by the governing bodies in the fall of 2009.

7.32 The observer from WODA also confirmed that all relevant recommendations from the Working Group on the Usability and Communication of the Specific Guidelines (see chapter 3 of this report) would be used when developing these materials.

Page 35: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 35 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

7.33 The delegations that spoke supported this proposal. In discussion it was confirmed that, although a different audience would be targeted with the WAG Tutorial extension, it should be consistent with the WAG Tutorial itself. 7.34 The Working Group on the WAG Tutorial also welcomed the proposal by WODA and offered to work co-operatively on reviews at various stages of the WAG Tutorial extension during the intersessional period. The Working Group recommended to WODA that sections of the document relating to the background on the WAG and the WAG Tutorial avoid duplication with those documents and that references should be made wherever possible. ACTION BY THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS 7.35 In conclusion, the Scientific Groups:

.1 approved the proposal of WODA;

.2 instructed the Secretariat to prepare a contract with CEDA as soon as possible so that the project could be started as planned; and

.3 accepted the offer of the Working Group on the WAG Tutorial to assist and

ensure consistency between the materials to be developed and the existing WAG Tutorial.

.4A NATIONAL WORKSHOPS CONCERNING THE LONDON CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL

7.36 The Scientific Groups recalled that the convening of a National Workshop concerning the London Convention/Protocol was recommended as an option when the “Practical guidance on the preparation of TC Workshops” was discussed at the 27th Consultative Meeting in 2005. A National Workshop could support the process of a State preparing to join the London Protocol, for instance to gain political momentum at the start of such a process, or as a check nearer the end, to see if all the requirements under the Protocol have been fulfilled. 7.37 The Secretariat informed the Groups about a National Workshop on the London Protocol that would be held in Guayaquil on 24 and 26 May, 2008, at the invitation of Directorate-General for the Merchant Marine in Ecuador, for Ecuadorian officials and that this was a follow-up to the Regional IMO-CPPS Workshop held in Ecuador in October 2007. The results of that Workshop are provided in section 7.5.2 of this report. 7.38 The delegation of Ecuador stated that the National Workshop would provide important information regarding action needed for ratification of the Protocol and technical information for key staff involved in this process. 7.39 The Scientific Groups noted that a number of other national workshops had been scheduled for the period 2008-2009 (LC/SG 31/7), including in Thailand and in the Philippines (as a follow-up to the Regional Workshop held in Dalian, China in 2006) and one in Oman (as a follow-up to the ROPME Workshop in Bahrain in 2007). These Workshops aimed, inter alia, to sensitize countries to the need for and implications of ratifying the London Protocol. 7.40 The delegation of Italy indicated that it had participated in a national workshop on the Barcelona Dumping Protocol in Turkey in November 2007. Further information about this workshop would be provided to the Secretariat.

Page 36: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 36 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.4B REGIONAL WORKSHOPS CONCERNING THE LONDON CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL 7.41 It was noted that since 1998, Regional Workshops have been convened biennially in conjunction with regular meetings of the Scientific Group: in South Africa (1998), Australia (2000), Jamaica (2002), Kenya (2004), and China (2006). Generally these workshops promoted the London Convention and Protocol and provided information on the overall legal framework for marine pollution management. 7.42 It was also noted that in 1999, a Regional London Convention Workshop on coastal zone management was held in Viña del Mar, Chile, and that in 2007 two further successful “stand-alone” Regional Workshops were held:

.1 one in the ROPME region from 4 to 6 February 2007, held in Bahrain raising the

awareness of the London Protocol in countries of the ROPME Regional Sea area; and

.2 the IMO/CPPS Workshop held in Guayaquil from 10 to 12 October 2007, attended by delegations from the CPPS Countries: Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama and Peru.

7.43 The Chairman informed the Groups, that in 2007 the governing bodies noted with appreciation the announcement by the Italian Government that it would be willing to host the 32nd session of the LC Scientific Group and the 3rd session of the LP Scientific Group in Rome, Italy, possibly together with a Regional Workshop on the London Protocol for countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea. 7.44 The delegation of Italy informed the meeting that it had tentatively reserved 15 to 17 April 2009 for holding a Regional LP Workshop for Mediterranean countries and 20 to 24 April 20096 for holding the next session of the Scientific Groups. Interested Parties were invited to further develop a draft Workshop Programme to ensure the best outcome for Mediterranean countries. The delegation indicated that the low technology module, being developed by WODA, would be included in this Programme. 7.45 The Secretariat informed the Scientific Groups that a number of Regional Workshops had been scheduled in the period 2008/2009 (LC/SG 31/7) including: Ghana in July 2008 for the Anglophone West African countries; Côte d’Ivoire in early 2009 for the Francophone West African countries; and Azerbaijan for the countries bordering the Caspian Sea. The Groups noted that Nigeria, which had asked to receive advice on the London Convention and Protocol at the last meeting of the governing bodies, would be invited to the Regional Workshop to be held in Ghana. A Workshop, as yet unfunded, was being planned for Argentina in late 2009. Depending on the funding made available, this may develop into a national workshop only.

.5 REVIEW OF TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION PROJECTS 7.46 The Scientific Groups noted that this item concerned the review of status reports by Contracting Parties or the Secretariat, as appropriate, of current projects being carried out, or planned, under the LC/LP-Technical Co-operation and Assistance Programme, including the status of their funding and implementation.

6 The definitive dates have yet to be confirmed.

Page 37: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 37 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.5.1 THE FUTURE OF THE SEA-WASTE NETWORKING PROJECT IN SOUTHERN AND EASTERN AFRICA

7.47 In considering document LC/SG 31/7/4 by the Secretariat on the SEAWASTE II development Project, it was noted that both the Scientific Groups and the governing bodies reviewed in 2007 the future of the SEAWASTE Network in Southern and Eastern Africa, which had been in operation since July 2002. They were advised of the two options developed at that time:

Option 1: The Network to merge with an existing dedicated centre of waste management activity in Southern or Eastern Africa; or

Option 2: Explore retaining the Network independently with a renewed website

offering better interactivity and on the basis of some corporate advertising.

7.48 Based on the instructions from the governing bodies in 2007, the Secretariat assisted the current coordinator, the International Ocean Institute Southern Africa (IOI-SA) and its newly-appointed Director with the development of a strategy. The IOI-SA indicated its preference for Option 2 in a partnership set-up and the resulting proposal was presented in the document. 7.49 It was also noted that the overall objective of this proposal was to identify new partners and support that is sustainable in the long term, such that SEAWASTE II could continue the momentum developed in the first phase. The detailed objectives of the project were to develop:

.1 a comprehensive project proposal for the SEAWASTE II initiative; .2 a proposal that expanded the network of partnerships associated with

SEAWASTE throughout the region;

.3 a proposal that would seek to update technologies associated with SEAWASTE to modern applications that were useful and applicable in the African context of the terminal users; and

.4 a proposal that would expand the network of support and funding to the

SEAWASTE II initiative, to decrease the reliance on individual stakeholders and to increase the sustainability of the network.

7.50 It was further noted that the timing of all these activities, which would be carried out in the period of June to August 2008, was based on the assumption that this proposal would be accepted by the Scientific Groups at this session and that the budget for execution of this strategy was based on the final instalment of US$9,400 still available under the contract between IMO and IOI-SA as the coordinator of the SEAWASTE Network. ACTION BY THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS 7.51 The Scientific Groups approved the proposal by IOI-SA and instructed the Secretariat to:

Page 38: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 38 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.1 keep interested delegations informed of the project, notably the delegations of Angola, South Africa, Kenya, the Netherlands and others that had shown an interest in it; and

.2 report on the outcome of this project to the next meeting of the governing bodies in October 2008.

7.52 The Scientific Groups noted that an audit had recently been completed for the overall Networking Project in Eastern and Southern Africa, of which SEAWASTE had been a part. This audit, conducted by the external auditors of IMO, as required in the contract between the Government of the Netherlands and IMO for this $155,000 project covering the activities in the period 2000 to 2007 would soon be sent to the Netherlands.

.5.2 THE OUTCOME OF THE IMO/CPPS REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON THE LONDON CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL (GUAYAQUIL, ECUADOR: 10 TO 12 OCTOBER 2007)

7.53 The Secretariat informed the meetings that the IMO/CPPS Workshop on the London Protocol, held from 10 to 12 October 2007, in Guayaquil, Ecuador was organized in co-operation with the Permanent Commission of the South Pacific (CPPS) and was hosted by the Plan of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment and Coastal Areas of the South-East Pacific. The Workshop was attended by more than 20 delegates from the CPPS countries: Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama and Peru; and three representatives from the CPPS Secretariat. It was pointed out that Chile, Peru and Panama are Parties to the Convention, but none is Party to the Protocol. 7.54 The Groups noted that the Workshop was also a very positive exercise, opening up for the first time in Latin America since a London Convention Workshop was held in Viña del Mar (Chile) in 1999, opportunities for future co-operation and likely accessions to the LP. 7.55 The Secretariat particularly thanked the efforts of the CPPS Secretariat, the Chairman, and of Mr. Victor Escobar (Spain), who made the Workshop so effective and a pleasure to organize and conduct. Appreciation was also extended to the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom, for their considerable financial and in-kind support to make this Workshop successful.

.5.3 BILATERAL PROJECTS BETWEEN COUNTRIES 7.56 It was recalled that this item was included in the agenda to encourage countries to report on bilateral projects they had established for capacity-building in the field of protection of the marine environment and promotion of sound waste management. 7.57 The Chairman invited Contracting Parties to keep the Scientific Groups informed about bilateral projects which are relevant for the Groups’ work.

.5.4 “STATE OF SEA DUMPING” REPORT

7.58 The delegation of the United Kingdom informed the meetings that the Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (Cefas) in the United Kingdom had been contracted to develop the global inventory of dumping activities in the period 2000-2005 (“State of Sea Dumping” Report – SSDR) which would underpin and inform other activities being considered and planned under the overall “Barriers to Compliance” Project (LC/SG 31/INF.3).

Page 39: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 39 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

7.59 The Scientific Groups noted that the SSDR would be finalized by 31 March 2009 and would provide a better understanding of what is being dumped where, including, especially, reports outside of the LC/LP reporting system. The data would include quantities of material dumped, types of wastes dumped, frequency of dumping activities if possible, and the period over which the dumping occurred.

.6 IMPROVEMENT AND UPDATE OF THE LONDON CONVENTION WEBSITE 7.60 The Chairman recalled that in June 2007, the Scientific Groups expressed concern about various aspects of the improved LC website following its migration to the IMO website. In 2007, the Secretariat presented a number of solutions to the governing bodies, resulting in the agreement that all documents on the LC website should be freely accessible to all users, without the use of passwords, and located at a higher, clearly-visible level to allow quicker access and with improved downloading speeds. The Scientific Groups were invited to review progress towards improving the LC website, as an ongoing activity of medium priority. 7.61 In introducing document LC/SG 31/7/1, the Secretariat informed the Groups that, as instructed, it had carried out a number of improvements to issues raised by Contracting Parties. In particular, it had commenced improving access to documents, and the website now contained all recent meeting documents and reports, accessible without the use of passwords. This was an ongoing process and regular improvements would continually be made. The Groups noted that a new layout for meeting documents had been placed on the site in March 2008, as a trial page for evaluation. The Secretariat would keep emailing all new documents to delegations and LC/LP National Focal Points and place them on the LC website, until further notice. 7.62 With regard to improving download speeds and downloading of multiple documents, the Groups noted that this was not possible because the IMO website is configured as an information sharing site rather than a document distribution server. However, this functionality is embedded in a purpose built site – IMODOCS – which had recently undergone a complete overhaul and became operational in March 2008. The main features of this new site (http://docs.imo.org) were set out at the annex of document LC/SG 31/7/1. While the IMODOCS website is password-protected, giving only restricted access to the general public, its versatility is beyond comparison and can be accessed by all Member governments of IMO, and by IGOs and NGOs in consultative status to IMO. 7.63 The Groups noted that Parties, who wished to access the multilingual IMODOCS website, should obtain passwords to this site from the IMO National Focal Points in their respective countries. Observers should obtain them from the parent organizations in consultative status with IMO. The Secretariat was ready to assist in this matter if so required. 7.64 The delegations that spoke indicated the LC website had been much approved but that a more user friendly layout and terminology would greatly enhance it. In this context access to technical information or case studies should be made available as was recommended by the Working Group on the Usability and Communication of the Specific Guidelines (see chapter 3.4 above).

.7 DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH PLAN 7.65 It was recalled that several reports had been made to previous meetings on outreach activities undertaken in the intersessional periods at other forums where delegations had had an opportunity to raise the profile of the London Protocol.

Page 40: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 40 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

7.66 No documents had been received and it was decided to address this issue at the next session of the Scientific Groups.

.8 ESTABLISHMENT OF A MULTI-YEAR TC FUND 7.67 The Secretariat informed the Groups that, regretfully, it had not had the time to prepare a revised proposal towards developing a multi-year Trust Fund arrangement for technical co-operation activities under the London Convention and Protocol, based on the comments of the Scientific Groups in 2007 on an initial proposal by the Secretariat under document LC/SG 30/6 as reflected in their report (LC/SG 30/14, paragraphs 6.72 to 6.75). 7.68 The delegation of Spain stated that a TC Trust Fund arrangement could help provide a stable basis for funding of technical co-operation activities under the Convention and Protocol by potentially accessing regular budgets of national administrations, rather than incidental operational budgets. The delegation requested the Secretariat to timely submit a revised proposal to the forthcoming meeting of the governing bodies so that the necessary interdepartmental consultations could be held in national administrations. ACTION BY THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS 7.69 The Scientific Groups instructed the Secretariat to submit a revised proposal for a multi-year TC Trust Fund arrangement by 30 June 2008 for review by the governing bodies, with a view to their approval.

.9 UPDATE OF THE LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION AND ASSISTANCE UNDER THE LONDON CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL

7.70 The Scientific Groups noted that the Long-term Strategy for Technical Co-operation and Assistance under the London Convention and Protocol was last reviewed at the 29th Session of the Scientific Groups and, subsequently, adopted by the governing bodies in 2006 (LC 28/15, annex 10). The review of the TC Strategy was an ongoing and medium priority item and Contracting Parties were therefore annually invited to submit proposals for such a review at the project level and the Scientific Groups would then review such proposals. 7.71 No documents had been received and the Scientific Groups concluded that the Long-term Strategy for Technical Co-operation and Assistance was still up to date. Contracting Parties were invited to submit their proposals for a review of the TC Strategy to the next session of the Scientific Groups. 8 MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

.1 REPORTS AND ASSESSMENT OF MONITORING 8.1 The Chairman recalled that one of the key tasks of the Scientific Groups is to review reports submitted by Contracting Parties on monitoring activities related to dumping operations, in particular those related to research and assessment, in accordance with Article VI(1)(d) of the London Convention and the equivalent Article 9.1.3 under the Protocol, and that this ongoing activity was assigned a high priority in the Joint Work Programme.

Page 41: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 41 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

8.2 The delegation of the United Kingdom introduced its document LC/SG 31/INF.7 entitled “Monitoring the quality of the marine environment” for the years 2005-2006. This report was prepared in support of monitoring and surveillance duties in the United Kingdom and contained information on both environmental surveillance at offshore and coastal sites and site-specific work carried out in support of risk assessments and regulatory work. The delegation had presented similar reports over the past few years and each contained useful examples of monitoring and assessment of the marine environment. 8.3 The Scientific Groups were informed on a variety of topics of interest, in particular: section 6 on licensing of deposits in the sea; section 7 on radionuclide concentrations in dredged sediments; section 9 on the comparison of methods used for trace metal analyses and the monitoring programme at Rame Head (2005); and section 10 on the Swanage Bay dredged material disposal ground over 2006. This and earlier reports in the series were available in downloadable format from the CEFAS website at http://www.cefas.co.uk. The report itself could be found at: http://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/scientific-series/aquatic-environment-reports.aspx. 8.4 In the ensuing discussion it was noted that this report served as a good and thorough reference document on marine monitoring issues, the methodologies used, and containing various topical issues of interest. 8.5 The delegation of the United States introduced its document LC/SG 31/INF.9 containing a fact sheet describing the National Estuary Program Coastal Condition Report, which was the third in a series of coastal assessments issued by the United States. Like the previous two reports (National Coastal Condition Reports I and II), this report served as a continuing foundation for the United States Government’s efforts to protect, manage, and restore coastal ecosystems. Unlike the previous reports which covered all United States coastal waters, this report included assessments of the 28 National Estuary Programs in the United States. More information on the National Estuary Program Coastal Condition Report and the previous reports could be found at http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/. 8.6 In discussion it was noted that this and the previous reports succeeded in making complex information on the environmental status of coastal ecosystems accessible for policy-makers and the public at large. 8.7 The delegation of the United States also introduced its document LC/SG 31/INF.11 which described the National Marine Debris Monitoring Program (NMDMP), conducted by Ocean Conservancy, a United States-based non-profit organization, and funded entirely by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Program is a scientifically-based, 5-year monitoring study of marine debris on United States’ beaches that was designed to determine composition, trends, and likely sources (land-based, vessel-based, or undetermined) of the identified debris. The information obtained from the NMDMP study provided a scientific basis for developing marine debris prevention efforts. EPA intended to use these data to develop debris prevention programs working within EPA and with other federal agencies and local partners, such as the National Estuary Programs. 8.8 More information on the National Marine Debris Monitoring Program can be found at: http://www.oceanconservancy.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mdm_debris, while additional information on marine debris can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/debris/.

Page 42: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 42 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

8.9 The delegation of Canada introduced its document LC/SG 31/INF.19 entitled “Compendium of Monitoring Activities at Disposal at Sea Sites in 2006-2007” which provided an overview of the results of monitoring activities conducted in 2006 at a total of six disposal sites, and which became available in March 2008. One such monitoring activity investigated the stability and the possible effects of dredging and disposal activities on nearby fish habitat and other uses of the sea (in the Atlantic Region near Prince Edward Island) while another study in the Pacific and Yukon Region investigated possible dredged material slope failures that had the potential to create tsunami-type waves. Further stability monitoring activities were carried out in the Quebec Region to confirm modelling predictions that had been made in relation to the effects of dispersal on important aquatic species. 8.10 Each year, as required by law, Environment Canada conducted representative monitoring at disposal sites and a compendium is produced to meet national and international reporting obligations. The Scientific groups noted that Canada had provided similar compendia to earlier sessions of the Scientific Groups since 2002 as reflected in their reports. Canada was prepared to make available, on request, reports concerning monitoring carried out on individual sites. 8.11 The delegation of Belgium announced the publication of a synthesis report on the effects of dredged material disposal on the marine environment as prepared by Belgium for the licensing period 2006-2008 (LC/SG 31/INF.20). The full synthesis report was available on a CD-ROM that could be obtained by contacting Ms Brigitte Lauwaert at: [email protected]. 8.12 The Chairman thanked Belgium, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States for their informative submissions and he encouraged Contracting Parties to submit monitoring reports to future meetings of the Scientific Group and to include monitoring reports submitted under regional conventions to protect the marine environment. MONITORING OF MARINE LITTER AND ABANDONED/LOST FISHING GEAR 8.13 The representative from UNEP reported on the latest developments with UNEP’s global marine litter initiative and stated that UNEP, in partnership with UNESCO-IOC, had initiated a process of developing global, harmonized guidelines for the monitoring of marine litter. 8.14 The representative explained that one of the significant barriers to addressing marine litter was the absence of adequate science-based monitoring and assessment programmes that will provide useful information, from which the most critical impacts of marine litter can be determined, on national, regional and global scales. Changes in accumulation rates and composition, trends over time and the effectiveness of management systems were also hard to assess without good monitoring methodologies. Although monitoring of marine litter is currently carried out within a number of countries around the world, the methods of survey and monitoring used tend to be very different, thereby preventing comparisons and harmonization of data across regions or time-scales. In order to confront this problem, UNEP, and UNESCO-IOC (in co-operation with and supported by the Government of Australia) had initiated the development of global and harmonized guidelines for the ‘standardization’ of survey and monitoring of marine litter worldwide. 8.15 He also pointed out that a global group of experts, comprised of scientists from Australia, India, Jamaica, Japan, Mozambique, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, the United States, UNEP and IOC had been convened recently in Thailand to examine and finalize the draft global guidelines, which were expected to be published at the end of 2008.

Page 43: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 43 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

8.16 The representative from UNEP also stated that one of the most harmful aspects of the global marine litter issue was the abandoned and lost fishing gear, as it was not only causing serious damage to ecosystems and marine biodiversity, through “ghost fishing” but also posed a threat and damage to the safety of vessels and navigation. The dramatic negative effects of abandoned fishing gear on the marine environment in some regions were becoming an issue of global concern. The UN General Assembly had adopted three solutions on this issue, one of which was calling directly for interagency co-operation to address marine litter and abandoned fishing gear. 8.17 In order to address this issue, UNEP and FAO had launched a global study and assessment on Marine Litter and Abandoned/Lost Fishing Gear based on a comprehensive review of available information related to this subject. 8.18 UNEP had also initiated and developed 11 regional actions plans (or strategies) to address marine litter in the following Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans areas: Black Sea; Caspian Sea; East Asian Seas; Mediterranean Sea; Nairobi Convention and East Africa; Northwest Pacific (NOWPAP); Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (PERSGA); South Asia Seas (SACEP); South East Pacific (CPPS); and Wider Caribbean. 8.19 Each of the regions had developed a tailor-made Marine Litter Action Plan based on the same concept and activities, aimed at assisting the countries of the regions in the protection of the marine and coastal environment. The first step of each of these regional strategies was to conduct a regional assessment of the legal, institutional, technical “situation” related to Marine Litter. These regional assessments and the regional action plans would be published during 2008 and a global assessment (probably the most elaborate attempt ever) based on these regional projects was underway and would be published around November 2008. 8.20 In further discussion, the Scientific Groups noted that the public attention for the marine litter problems and possible solutions for it were increasing. A recent example was an item focusing on the marine litter problems on the shores of the island of Midway (United States) in the Pacific Ocean shown for three consecutive days on prime-time TV News (BBC) in the United Kingdom. 8.21 The observer from Greenpeace International offered to provide a full report of his organization’s research into marine debris and in particular on plastic debris, to the next session of the Scientific Groups.

.2 CONTRIBUTION TO THE GLOBAL REPORTING AND ASSESSMENT OF THE STATE OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT (UN REGULAR PROCESS)

8.22 The Chairman recalled that in 2007, the governing bodies discussed progress towards the establishment of the “UN Regular Process for Global Reporting and Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment, including Socio-economic Aspects”, in short the UN Regular Process, and endorsed the conclusions which the Scientific Groups reached in June 2007, in particular, that the Bureau should develop, as a high priority item, a plan for a substantial contribution from the London Convention/Protocol perspective for discussion at this session (LC/SG 30/14, paragraphs 7.18 to 7.30 and LC 29/17, paragraphs 11.5 to 11.9). 8.23 The Secretariat, in introducing document LC/SG 31/8 on the outcome of the second session of the UN Group of Experts (GoE), referred to the earlier discussion by the Scientific Groups in 2007 of the outcome of the first meeting of the GoE (LC/SG 30/INF.13). The second

Page 44: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 44 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

meeting of the GoE was held in Paris, France, in November 2007. Its objective was to discuss and review progress made on part I of the “Assessment of Assessments” (AoA); and the state of the assessment landscape for oceans and coasts in 21 selected regions. The GoE also discussed how to proceed with other parts of the AoA outline and how to identify best practices from the existing assessments in the regions. It was also agreed to commission additional studies on global assessments and on supranational issues such as climate change, marine pollution, coastal development and fisheries. Only a limited number of reviews of regional assessments had at this point been completed and the GoE agreed on a strict schedule for the finalization of the first draft of Parts I and II in time for its third meeting. 8.24 The third meeting of the GoE was convened from 15 to 17 April 2008 in Copenhagen, Denmark, and focused on putting together the first draft of the AoA. The GoE assigned responsibilities to individual members and agreed that substantive parts of the GoE report would be sent out for peer-review by the end of May 2008. Two further sessions of the GoE were foreseen following which the final report of the AoA would be presented to the 64th session of the UN General Assembly in October 2009. 8.25 The Secretariat also introduced a discussion document prepared by the Bureau on a proposal for the substantive contribution from the LC/LP perspective (LC/SG 31/8/1), building on the initial ideas developed since 2003 in the Scientific Groups and the Correspondence Group established on this issue whilst the UN Regular Process itself gradually took shape. It was agreed in 2007 that the extended Bureau of the London Convention and Protocol and the Correspondence Group should develop a draft strategy, on how best to obtain and utilize monitoring reports that had been provided to the Scientific Groups over the years. This strategy would need to take into account the limited time available and resources of the Secretariat. Country contributions to this Strategy would be welcome. Meanwhile the lead agencies for the UN Regular Process (UNEP and UNESCO-IOC) had also welcomed the intention to prepare a contribution but gave no specific instructions on the direction it should take. 8.26 The ideas for a contribution collected over these years were summarized in the document under paragraph 5. The three remaining issues for discussion were:

.1 an identification of the correct parameters for selecting the most valuable field monitoring reports, or characterization of the data which would be of value for the UN Regular Process;

.2 the reporting and assessment methodologies used by Contracting Parties should be

described, as this would give valuable information; and .3 the UN Regular Process included also “socio-economic aspects” and a London

Convention/Protocol contribution should address this aspect, where available.

8.27 The Bureau proposed to contract a consultant for a 20-day assignment @ US$400 per day = US$8,000, provided a donor would be found. Delivery of an LC/LP contribution in the summer of 2008 might be too late in view of the schedule developed by the GoE as explained in document LC/SG 31/8. However, based on the assumption that the UN Regular Process would continue after the AoA phase was completed, such a contribution would still be valuable. The next proposed steps would therefore be that:

.1 the Scientific Groups review and approve this proposal and the timeline for its delivery at this session;

Page 45: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 45 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.2 a donor is confirmed as soon as possible; .3 a consultant is contracted in November/December 2008, or earlier, to deliver a

first draft document by February 2009 for review by the Scientific Groups in May 2009;

.4 Contracting Parties commit themselves to select the relevant reports they have and

respond to queries from the consultant; .5 the consultant should incorporate the comments from the Scientific Groups and

provide a final report by the end of June 2009; and .6 for the duration of this project, the Secretariat should liaise with the extended

Bureau to provide updates and keep the lead agencies for the AoA-phase (UNEP and UNESCO-IOC) informed.

8.28 The delegation of the Republic of Korea announced that it was prepared to provide the US$8,000 necessary for contracting a consultant to prepare the LC/LP contribution and the Scientific Groups accepted this kind offer with appreciation. 8.29 The representative from UNEP stated that the LC/LP contribution would be valuable for the AoA-phase, would provide the Convention and Protocol another incentive to raise its profile and should consist of the following two components: .1 the full contribution in 2009 as outlined above; and

.2 a 4-5 page outline for the LC/LP contribution as it would in all likelihood be included in the following AoA category: Supra-Regional Perspectives: issue 7 (Coastal development, urban development, tourism and coastal zone management). The point of this outline would be to indicate who is working on assessments of each topic/issue at a global scale more than what is done in these assessments. The outline should be provided, as soon as possible, to UNEP and UNESCO-IOC, using a provided template.

ACTION BY THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS 8.30 With the funding now secured for the LC/LP contribution, the Scientific Groups instructed the Secretariat to:

.1 select a consultant and issue a contract as soon as possible for preparation of the full LC/LP contribution to the AoA-phase of the UN Regular Process;

.2 prepare with the assistance of delegations volunteering, the 4-5 page outline

of the contribution; .3 inform UNESCO–IOC and UNEP, as the coordinators of the UN Regular

Process, of this plan; and .4 keep the Bureau informed of developments.

Page 46: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 46 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

8.31 The Chairman thanked the delegations supporting this project and in particular the Republic of Korea.

.3 ANTI-FOULING PAINT COMPOUNDS AND ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS IN MATERIALS DISPOSED AT SEA

8.32 The Chairman recalled that the Scientific Groups, at their last session, were invited to review reports by Contracting Parties and share experiences regarding monitoring and assessment of waste materials containing anti-fouling paint compounds and other compounds of concern (e.g., PBDEs) in the context of the London Convention and Protocol. 8.33 The delegation of the United Kingdom introduced its document LC/SG 31/INF.4 entitled “Macro-faunal recovery following TBT ban – Long-term recovery of sub-tidal macro-faunal communities in relation to declining levels of TBT contamination”. This previously published article provided information about the recovery of macro-infaunal communities along the Crouch Estuary, United Kingdom, in relation to the declining TBT concentrations between 1987 and 2007. The use of TBT based anti-fouling paints on small vessels was banned in the United Kingdom from 1987, and a biological study of the Crouch Estuary, a yachting centre on the south-eastern coast of the United Kingdom, was conducted in order to determine the ecological improvements resulting from this legislation. The authors presented the changes in the macro-infaunal communities along the estuary in relation to declining TBT concentrations between 1987 and 2005. Although the major changes in response to the ban were observed within the first three years (primarily an increase in the number of crustacean taxa and a shift in community structure), with changes still apparent between three and five years, the temporal duration of this study allowed the rapidity of the response to be truly determined. 8.34 The Chairman thanked the United Kingdom for their interesting report.

.4 NEW TECHNIQUES IN ASSESSING IMPACTS OF SEA DISPOSAL ON THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

8.35 The Chairman recalled that under this agenda item, Contracting Parties were normally invited to present case studies on the application of new techniques in assessing impacts on the marine environment, including impacts of disposal at sea, such as the use of biomarkers, the development of sampling and analytical methods and oceanographic survey procedures. 8.36 As no documents were received under this item of the agenda, Contracting Parties were urged to submit such reports to the next session of the Scientific Groups.

.5 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL STRATEGIES

8.37 The Chairman recalled that the review of national and regional monitoring strategies had been assigned a low priority in the Joint Work Programme in recent years. He also recalled that in 2007 the Groups reviewed two major national strategies presented by the United States: One submission reported on the Ocean Action Policy and the other on the National Status and Trends Program. 8.38 As no documents were received under this item of the agenda, Contracting Parties were urged to submit documents on their national and regional strategies to the next session of the Scientific Groups.

Page 47: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 47 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

9 COASTAL MANAGEMENT ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH ACTIVITIES TO PREVENT MARINE POLLUTION

.1 CO-OPERATION WITH MEPC (WORKING GROUP ON BOUNDARY ISSUES)

.1.1 GUIDANCE ON MANAGEMENT OF SPOILT CARGOES

9.1 It was recalled that in 2007 the “Working Group on Boundary Issues” met during the first joint session of the Scientific Groups, under the lead of Canada, and reviewed draft guidance which Canada had developed for managing spoilt cargoes. The Working Group noted several aspects for further work on the guidance, as listed in the report of the Scientific Groups. It was also recalled that the lead-country, taking into account further comments by Contracting Parties and the maritime community, would develop a final draft for consideration and approval by the Groups at this session. 9.2 The delegation of Canada introduced the further developed draft guidance as contained in document LC/SG 31/9/1 and highlighted that the draft guidance was ‘work in progress’ and needed additional attention in order to address the issues identified in square brackets and to organize the document hierarchically to account for preferred management options for spoilt cargoes. Comments had been received from the United States. The Correspondence Group comprised of Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Iran, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States, IAPH and IUCN. 9.3 The Scientific Groups, having considered the document and comments provided, reconvened the Working Group on Boundary Issues to finalize the draft guidance with a view to forward it to MEPC 58 and to the next session of the governing bodies in October 2008 for approval. OUTCOME OF THE WORKING GROUP 9.4 The Working Group on Boundary Issues convened on 21 and 22 May 2008, under the lead of Mr. David Taillefer (Canada) to finalize the draft guidance on the management of spoilt cargoes and was attended by delegations from Belgium, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands and the United States. 9.5 The Working Group reviewed all comments and finalized the draft guidance, as shown in the annex to its report (LC/SG 31/WP.9). ACTION BY THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS 9.6 The Scientific Groups adopted the report of the Working Group (LC/SG 31/WP.9) and approved the Draft Guidance on Managing Spoilt Cargoes, as set out in annex 10 to this report. It was agreed to:

.1 forward the draft guidance to MEPC 58 for noting and to the governing bodies for its adoption; and

.2 recommend that a joint LC/MEPC Circular letter be prepared to replace the

existing Circular letter No.2074.

Page 48: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 48 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

9.7 The Scientific Groups expressed their appreciation to Canada for the leadership shown thus far and all delegations that had contributed to this effort.

.1.2 DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDANCE ON BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OF REMOVAL OF TBT PAINTS FROM SHIPS

9.8 The Chairman recalled that the Scientific Group at its 29th Session, having noted the efforts of the MEPC to provide countries with practical guidance on implementation of article 5 of the Anti-Fouling Systems (AFS) Convention, which refers to the environmentally-sound management of wastes from the application or removal of an anti-fouling system controlled in Annex 1 to that Convention, established an intersessional Correspondence Group, under the lead of the United Kingdom, to develop guidance on “Best Management Practices” (BMPs) on this subject. This work was particularly relevant given Annex 2 of the Protocol, for dredged material, states that the goal of waste management should be to identify and control the sources of contamination. This should be achieved through implementation of waste prevention strategies and required collaboration between the relevant local and national agencies involved with the control of point and non-point sources of pollution. 9.9 The Chairman also recalled that in November 2007, the governing bodies, having noted that this issue had now become very urgent as the AFS Convention would enter into force on 17 September 2008, agreed to inform the next session of MEPC, by way of interim advice, of the current information collected in the Scientific Groups on environmentally-sound removal methods of anti-fouling systems from ships. This interim advice was provided to MEPC in December 2007 (MEPC 57/INF.2), by summarizing the findings of the initial report by the United Kingdom and discussed at the last session of the Scientific Groups in June 2007. 9.10 He further recalled that the governing bodies had also agreed that the Scientific Groups should continue their work as planned at this session, to finalize the BMP advice for submission both to MEPC 58 and the governing bodies in October 2008. 9.11 The Chairman of the Correspondence Group, Mr. Frank Thomsen (United Kingdom), introduced document LC/SG 31/9 entitled “Draft guidance on best management practices of removal of TBT paints from ships”. He indicated that the draft guidance included material contained in the 2007 draft, supplemented by additional sources that the Correspondence Group had received during the intersessional period. 9.12 In the ensuing discussion, the Scientific Groups agreed to reconvene the Working Group on the management of TBT waste streams, under the lead of the United Kingdom, and charged it to finalize the draft Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the removal and disposal of anti-fouling paints from ships, taking into account the discussions in plenary and amending the draft text in document LC/SG 31/9, as appropriate. OUTCOME OF THE WORKING GROUP 9.13 The Working Group on the management of TBT waste streams convened on 21 May 2008 under the lead of Mr. Frank Thomsen (United Kingdom) to finalize the draft guidance and was attended by delegations from Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Page 49: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 49 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

9.14 The Working Group, in recognizing the limited mandate of the London Convention and Protocol with respect to the control of sources of pollution to and activities occurring within internal waters, acknowledged that under the London Protocol, Annex 2, paragraph 4, and in the Generic Guidelines, the goal of waste management for dredged material should be to identify and control the sources of contamination through the implementation of waste prevention strategies. Taking these considerations into account and the written comments received from the United States and Canada, the Working Group revised the draft guidance as shown in the annex to its report (LC/SG 31/WP.6), noting that it required further review. ACTION BY THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS 9.15 The Scientific Groups adopted the report of the Working Group (LC/SG 31/WP.6) and in particular:

.1 approved the Draft Guidance on Best Management Practices of Removal of TBT Paints from Ships as shown in annex 11 to this report as “work in progress” (in English only); and

.2 established an Intersessional Correspondence Group under the lead of

Mr. Frank Thomsen7, to finalize the draft Guidance in the intersessional period for submission to the governing bodies for their consideration in October 2008, with a view to forwarding the document to MEPC for appropriate action8.

9.16 The Scientific Groups thanked the Chairman of the Working Group, Mr. Frank Thomsen, and all who had contributed so far to the draft guidance for their excellent work.

.1.3 VESSEL GENERATED SEWAGE SLUDGE 9.17 The Chairman recalled that in June 2007, the Scientific Groups were informed that the disposal of cruise ships’ sewage sludge might be a “grey area”, which was not covered under MARPOL Annex IV, governing the discharge of sewage waste under strict arrangements. It was agreed to place this topic on the Joint Work Programme as an ongoing item of low priority. 9.18 The delegation of the United States introduced its document LC/SG 31/INF.12 entitled “Draft Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report” that discussed the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Draft Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report which was released in December 2007 for public comment. The Draft Report assesses five waste streams from cruise ships: sewage, grey water, oily bilge water, solid waste and hazardous waste. The EPA intends to use public input to help identify a range of options and alternatives to address these waste streams in the completed Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report and to complete the Report by the end of 2008. The Draft Report can be found at http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/cruise_ships/disch_assess.html. Information on EPA’s other cruise ship efforts can be found at http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/cruise_ships/. 9.19 The Chairman thanked the United States for their informative document.

7 Mr. Thomsen can be contacted at: [email protected] 8 A further developed version of the draft guidance was distributed to MEPC 58 for its information.

Page 50: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 50 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

9.20 The Secretariat informed the Scientific Groups that the management of all sewage and sewage sludge on ships falls under MARPOL Annex IV. The delegations that spoke agreed with this view. 9.21 Consequently, the Scientific Groups agreed to remove this item from their Joint Work Programme.

.2 SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES AND SEWAGE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT 9.22 The Chairman recalled that under this agenda item the Scientific Groups normally reviewed case studies as presented by Contracting Parties and lessons learned to share experiences on sewage treatment facilities and sewage sludge management. As no documents had been received under this item of the agenda delegations were invited to present their views or case studies on these issues to future meetings of the Scientific Groups.

.3 PREVENTION OF MARINE POLLUTION: WASTE PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT 9.23 The Chairman recalled that as the item of “Industrial Process and Waste Management” was not discussed at several previous sessions of the Scientific Groups due to lack of submissions, it was agreed to rename this item of the agenda as “Prevention of marine pollution: waste prevention and management”. This ongoing activity was assigned a low priority in the Joint Work Programme. 9.24 As no documents had been received under this item of the agenda Contracting Parties were urged to provide case studies on this topic for future meetings of the Scientific Groups. 10 HABITAT MODIFICATION AND ENHANCEMENT 10.1 The Chairman reminded the Scientific Groups that several submissions on beneficial use of dredged material had been considered in recent years and that, in 2003, “Science Day” had been devoted to scientific and technical aspects of beneficial use of dredged material. This ongoing activity was assigned a medium priority in the Joint Work Programme. 10.2 The delegation of the United Kingdom introduced its document LC/SG 31/INF.5 entitled “Wallasea Island – Restoring the wild coast of Essex” which described a new project that, as part of the Wallasea Island Project on the Crouch Estuary in mid Essex, United Kingdom, aimed to transform 736 hectares of arable farmland into inter-tidal salt marshes with distinctive habitats. It constituted the largest project of its kind in Europe, would cost about US$24,000,000 and would be managed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). It lay adjacent to the 115 hectares Wallasea Wetlands Recreation area, a managed realignment scheme set up by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2006, and which was also managed by the RSPB. 10.3 In the ensuing discussion, the following issues were raised:

.1 funding of projects of this size would be a challenge, not least to ensure that such projects were a sustainable investment;

.2 modelling for the long-term of these projects would be advisable also in view of

the challenge of sea-level rise;

Page 51: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 51 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.3 the quality of the excavated materials from two huge tunnelling projects in the Greater London Area to be used for the project would be checked for contaminants; and

.4 beneficial use of dredged materials has gained more prominence.

10.4 The delegation of the United Kingdom introduced its document LC/SG 31/INF.6 concerning a previously published article on the “Modelling of effects and economics of managed realignment on the cycling and storage of nutrients, carbon and sediments in the Blackwater estuary (United Kingdom)”. 10.5 In discussion, it was noted that the methodology described could be readily transferred to other coastal areas and that the document did not address the issue of wetlands as a potential means to protect against sea-level rise. 10.6 The delegation of the United States introduced its document LC/SG 31/INF.10 and informed the meetings about the EPA/USACE joint document, “Beneficial Use Planning Manual: Identifying, Planning, and Financing Beneficial Use Projects Using Dredged Material”. The Manual provides a framework for identifying, planning, and financing beneficial use projects and summarizes beneficial use authorities and processes. It was written for dredging organizations, permitting authorities, environmental resource agencies, ports, and other organizations that can use or encourage the use of dredged material for beneficial purposes. The EPA and USACE, as co-chairs of the United States National Dredging Team, developed the Manual to help strengthen understanding of dredged material as a resource and to promote coordination among potential beneficial use stakeholders. 10.7 The “Beneficial Use Planning Manual” can be found at: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/budm/pdf/PlanningManual.pdf, and http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/ndt/. 10.8 Additional information on beneficial uses of dredged material can be found at: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/budm/pdf/PlanningManual.pdf. 10.9 It was noted that the “Beneficial Use Planning Manual” could be useful for other Contracting Parties. 10.10 The delegation of Japan gave a detailed presentation on environmental restoration activities in Japan as beneficial use of dredged material. The delegation highlighted two typical examples of the beneficial use of dredged material in Japan. Both were categorized in environmental enhancement: one was a traditional approach and addressed restoration of the coastal environment, such as the construction of tidal flats and shallows; the other was a rather new approach to re-contour or fill depressions, called “sub-aqueous borrow pits” resulting from sand extraction activities, with dredged material. 10.11 In discussion, it was suggested:

.1 to establish an agenda item for the beneficial use of dredged material for habitat restoration; and

.2 it was confirmed that Japan would, step-by-step, translate the relevant

documentation and reports on environmental restorations into English.

Page 52: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 52 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

10.12 The Chairman thanked all delegations for their informative submissions and presentations under this item, and in particular, Japan for its excellent overview of environmental restoration activities. The Chairman invited delegations to present their case studies on beneficial use of waste materials and on experiences with habitat enhancement activities to the next session of the Scientific Groups. 11 OUTCOME OF “SCIENCE DAY” 11.1 The 2nd Vice-Chairman of the Scientific Groups, Ms Linda Porebski (Canada), presented a brief résumé of the “Science Day” session on “Impact of Climate Change and Acidification of the Oceans” that had been held on Thursday afternoon, 22 May 2008. The Scientific Groups were fortunate with the attendance of distinguished scientists who provided the following presentations:

.1 “In Dead Water: Merging of Climate Change with Pollution, Over-Harvest and Infestations in the World’s Fishing Grounds” by Dr. Ellik Adler (Senior Programme Officer, Marine Ecosystems Programme Coordinator, UNEP);

.2 “Progress Report: The Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Marine Organisms and

Ecosystems” by Dr. Yoshihisa Shirayama, (Seto Marine Biological Laboratory, Field Science Education and Research Center, Kyoto University, Japan);

.3 “An Overview of Ocean Carbon Storage Options: Risk and Benefits” by

Dr. Ken Caldeira (Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution, Stanford University, United States); and

.4 “Modelling the Ecosystem Responses and Carbon Cycle to Iron Fertilization” in

the Equatorial Pacific, by Professor Fei Chai (School of Marine Sciences and Climate Change Institute, University of Maine, United States).

11.2 A number of delegations indicated that the half-day allocated for this activity was found to be insufficient in view of the number and importance of presentations and discussions held. PLANNING OF “SCIENCE DAY” 2009 11.3 The Scientific Group noted the interest to discuss the following possible topics at the Science Day in 2009:

.1 practical applications of Action Levels/Lists (United States); .2 data management in the application of the Convention and Protocol (Canada); .3 application of integrated approaches to marine management (former Chairman of

the LC Scientific Group – Mr. Vogt (United States); .4 a selection of general classes of compounds, e.g., fire-retardants or pharmaceutical

residues in waste materials (United States); .5 reducing wastes or other matter directly arising from, or related to the exploration,

exploitation and associated offshore processing of sea-bed mineral resources (Greenpeace International);

Page 53: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 53 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.6 monitoring of CO2 in the oceans: what techniques are available? (United Kingdom);

.7 dredged material disposal management techniques, including ‘capping’ (United

States); or .8 the use of dredged material for coastal restoration and other beneficial uses

(United States).

11.4 The Scientific Groups agreed that the topic for “Science Day” 2009 would be selected at the next session of the governing bodies in October 2008, based on outlines received from the proponents for each suggestion. Delegations were encouraged to forward such outlines by 15 September 2008 to both Vice-Chairmen of the Scientific Groups ([email protected] and [email protected]). 12 GUIDELINES, MANUALS, BIBLIOGRAPHIES AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE 12.1 The Scientific Groups considered an update of current and proposed LC/LP publications by the Secretariat (LC/SG 31/12) and noted that a revised London Convention and Protocol Brochure had been placed on the LC website in all UN Languages and that printed copies could be obtained from the Secretariat. The Scientific Groups also noted the planned publication of a number of products that they are currently preparing and the reports of projects being implemented under the “Barriers to Compliance” Project. 12.2 Having noted comments and suggestions, in particular on the suggested outline for an LC/LP publication on CO2 sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations, the Scientific Groups:

.1 approved the list of proposed publications; .2 approved the outline, as amended, for a planned publication in 2009 on CO2

sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations; and .3 requested the Secretariat to forward a revised update of current and

proposed LC/LP publications to the next meeting of the governing bodies in October 2008 for its consideration.

12.3 In considering document LG/SG 31/INF.13 (United States), the Scientific Groups noted the announcement that the United States was currently developing a technical engineering guidance on environmental dredging, i.e. the dredging of contaminated sediments for the purpose of accomplishing environmental remediation/restoration. Delegations could contact for further advice: Dr. Paul Schroeder, United States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, e-mail: [email protected]. 12.4 The Scientific Groups also noted the announcement by the observer from WODA (LC/SG 31/INF.18) that a completely revised edition of the publication “Environmental Aspects of Dredging” was now available. Delegations could contact for further information: Dr. Anna Csiti, CEDA Secretariat, at e-mail: [email protected].

Page 54: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 54 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

12.5 The observer from WODA indicated that the following PIANC publications might also be of interest to the Scientific Groups:

.1 Climate change and navigation. This report which would be officially presented during the International Navigation Seminar on 26 May 2008 in Beijing, China, to be held in association with the PIANC Annual General Assembly, gave a review of climate change drivers, impacts, responses and mitigations;

.2 Best Management Practices applied to dredging and dredged material disposal

projects for protection of the environment. This concerned a review of the various operational and management practices that can be utilized to manage impacts associated with dredging and dredged material placement operations;

.3 Dredged Material beneficial use options and constraints. This document defined

what constitutes a beneficial use and illustrated obstacles to and solutions for integration of beneficial use objectives into the planning and construction phases of navigation projects. The document served as a template that would encourage expanded international consideration of beneficial use alternatives; and

.4 Environmental aspects of dredging and port construction around Coral Reefs.

This document provided available scientific and grey literature including case studies on dredging and port construction activities around coral reefs and their associated communities with an emphasis on shallow warm-water ecosystems. It identified knowledge gaps, the environmental issues and practical constraints associated with implementation of dredging and port construction activities on corals reefs.

12.6 The Scientific Groups, in considering document LC/SG 31/INF.21 by Italy, noted the information about the national clean up campaign in Italy concerning the practice of discarding exhausted lead batteries at sea from recreational and fishing craft. The campaign was recognized as a useful tool to reduce pollution of waters in and around harbours that were mainly used by recreational and fishing craft. It was also noted that in many ports recycling facilities for such batteries were in place but that small craft avoided using these facilities. It was hoped that in the long term, education and awareness-raising would contribute to improving this situation. 12.7 The Scientific Groups thanked the United States, Italy and WODA for their presentations and invited delegations to announce other relevant activities, symposia, seminars, etc., at future sessions of the Scientific Groups. 13 REVIEW OF THE JOINT WORK PROGRAMME 13.1 The Chairman recalled that in 2007, the Scientific Groups adopted the new format of the “Joint Work Programme of the Scientific Groups (2008-2010)” which was endorsed, as amended, by the governing bodies in November 2007. 13.2 The Secretariat informed the Scientific Groups that the Updated Joint Work Programme of the Scientific Groups 2008-2010, as shown at the annex to document LC/SG 31/13, took into account relevant issues listed in the new Joint Long-term Programme for the London Convention and the Promotion of the London Protocol (2007-209) (LC 28/15/Add.1). The appendix to this document contained the Joint Work Programme of the Scientific Groups for the same period in table format.

Page 55: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 55 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

13.3 In light of the progress made on various issues during this session, the Scientific Groups also reviewed the table format of its Joint Work Programme (LC/SG 31/WP.10) covering the period 2009-2011 and adopted it as amended, as set out in annex 12 to this report, while noting that the highest priority should be given at the next session of the Scientific Groups to the following issues:

.1 Waste Assessment Guidance:

.1 preparation of guidance on the development of Action Lists and Action Levels for Annex 1 wastes (excluding dredged material and CO2); and

.2 development of a communication plan for the WAG Tutorial extension for

application of low-technology techniques for assessing dredged material; .2 Monitoring and assessment of the marine environment, including the preparation

of a contribution to the UN Regular Process; .3 Ocean Fertilization;

.4 Technical Co-operation and Assistance:

.1 WAG Tutorial extension for low-technology techniques; .2 preparation of regional and national workshops; .3 establishment of a TC-Trust Fund; and .4 development of the London Protocol Manual;

.5 Review and improvement of reporting; and .6 Co-operation with MEPC on the proper management of vessel generated wastes,

including ship hulls scraping. 13.4 The Secretariat was instructed to update the Joint Work Programme (2009 – 2011) for the next session of the Scientific Groups. DATES FOR THE NEXT SESSION OF THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS 13.5 The Secretariat informed the meeting that following the kind offer by the Government of Italy, the joint session of the 32nd LC Scientific Group and the 3rd LP Scientific Group would be held in 2009 in Rome, Italy. The dates and venue for these meetings have yet to be confirmed. 13.6 The Scientific Groups instructed the Secretariat to consult with the delegation of Italy and with the Bureau to confirm the dates and venue and to communicate these as soon as possible directly to delegations.

Page 56: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 56 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

14 ANY OTHER BUSINESS RIVERINE AND SUB-SEA DISPOSAL OF TAILINGS AND ASSOCIATED WASTES FROM MINING OPERATIONS 14.1 The Groups considered document LC/SG 31/INF.14 (Greenpeace International) describing the nature of sub-sea (submarine) and riverine tailings disposal (STD) operations from a number of mines located around the world. The document, which had been prepared for Greenpeace International by Dr. Robert Moran of Michael-Moran Associates (Colorado, USA), served to illustrate the scale of such discharges, including the likely order of contaminant inputs which may be expected to occur as a result. While recognizing that pipeline discharges and other land-based sources of marine pollution fall beyond the regulatory scope of the London Convention and Protocol, the observer from Greenpeace International highlighted that, as a result, tailings discharges may frequently fall beyond the scope of any effective international regulatory oversight and control, despite their clear potential to act as major contributors to coastal marine environments of contaminants of concern to the Convention and Protocol. 14.2 The Scientific Groups noted that large quantities of waste material were generated annually by mines globally, initially disposed to impoundments. Thereafter these materials were frequently disposed of to sea, either directly by pipeline or to rivers near the coast. Such tailings can be rich in metals and other naturally occurring and man-made contaminants, some of which are known to be chemically reactive and to act as a source of bio-available metals. 14.3 In noting the general obligation under the Convention and Protocol to address all sources of marine pollution, the observer expressed the hope that the need for detailed assessment and effective control of sub-sea tailings discharges may be considered and, as appropriate, communicated to other relevant fora, including, for example, UNEP’s Global Programme of Action for Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities (GPA). 14.4 In response to a request by the delegation of the United States, the observer from Greenpeace International confirmed that no analysis of the effectiveness of existing controls (legal or otherwise) had so far been undertaken by the consultant in the stated countries but that this could be carried out in the future. 14.5 The delegation of Spain indicated that it too was aware that such activities had occurred in Spain and in many parts of the world. These activities should be regarded as land-based sources of pollution. Nevertheless, given article 2 of the Protocol required Contracting Parties to, inter alia, protect and preserve the marine environment from all sources of pollution, it considered that a closer collaboration with the GPA to pursue the common interests on this issue, would be beneficial. This could be explored through the Partnership Agreement established at the second Intergovernmental Review of the UNEP/GPA, held in Beijing, China, in October 2006, between the Office for the London Convention and Protocol, the GPA Office and the UNEP Regional Seas Programme. 14.6 Several delegations that spoke supported Spain’s suggestion for greater collaboration in the work of the Scientific Groups with UNEP on this issue. 14.7 On advice from the representative from UNEP, the Scientific Groups agreed that the Secretariat should write to the GPA Office suggesting possible topics of co-operation on this issue.

Page 57: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

- 57 - LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

14.8 The Chairman thanked Greenpeace International for its informative submission. WASTE DISPOSAL FROM OFFSHORE LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG) RE-GASIFICATION PLANTS 14.9 In response to a request by the observer from Greenpeace International regarding significant industrial developments, off the coast of Italy, relating to the handling and re-gasification of liquefied natural gas (LNG) made at the last meeting of the governing bodies (LC 29/17, paragraphs 15.1 and 15.2), the delegation of Italy stated that two LNG re-gasification plants had been approved. The plants would operate within Italian marine waters at the following locations:

.1 North Adriatic Sea at the “Isola di Porto Levante”. This would be a Gravity Based Structure (GBS) to be located on the seabed at 28 m depth about 7 nm offshore of Porto Levante (Rovigo) with a re-gasification capacity of 8 Gm3/year; and

.2 Tyrrhenian Sea, about 12 nm offshore Leghorn. This Offshore LNG Toscana unit,

a FSRU (Floating Storage Re-gasification Unit), would be placed to operate at a capacity of 4 Gm3/year of LNG.

14.10 Other re-gasification plants to be located offshore were currently going through the technical and administrative environmental assessment procedures. 14.11 The effluent produced by the re-gasification processes operated by the approved plants has been considered to be within the acceptable limits for the surrounding marine environment. PREPARATION FOR THE 1ST MEETING OF THE LONDON PROTOCOL COMPLIANCE GROUP 14.12 The delegation of Japan informed the LP Scientific Group that it would nominate Professor Hisakazu Kato as a member of the LP Compliance Group. The first meeting of the LP Compliance Group would be held in parallel with the next meeting of the governing bodies in October 2008. The delegation requested the Secretariat to remind Parties to make their nominations by a certain deadline so that the elections for membership to this Compliance Group could be completed successfully. 14.13 The Secretariat confirmed that it would make the necessary preparations. REPORT ON ACTIVITIES UNDER GESAMP 14.14 The Secretariat informed the Scientific Groups of the outcome of GESAMP 35, which was held from 13 to 16 May 2008, in Accra, Ghana and which had demonstrated GESAMP’s9 revitalization (see also chapter 2 of this report). The full report of GESAMP 35 would be circulated in due course to London Convention and Protocol focal points in national administrations. Further information on GESAMP activities could be obtained by visiting http://www.gesamp.org. 14.15 The Scientific Groups agreed to keep liaising with GESAMP on issues of mutual interest, including ocean fertilization issues.

9 IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of

Marine Environmental Protection.

Page 58: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 - 58 -

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

OTHER ISSUES 14.16 The delegation of the Netherlands informed the meeting that the Act to approve the London Protocol and the amendments to the law implementing the Protocol had been published in the State Gazette. The delegation expected a completion of the ratification process of the Protocol before the next meeting of the governing bodies in October 2008. 14.17 The Secretariat announced that in future it would print and dispatch far fewer copies of the meeting documents when LC/LP meetings were held outside London in order to save document and costs and assuming that copies could always be printed on location, as the need arose. 15 ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR BOTH SCIENTIFIC GROUPS 15.1 The LC Scientific Group unanimously re-elected Dr. Chris Vivian (United Kingdom) as Chairman, Dr. Gi-Hoon Hong (Republic of Korea) as the 1st Vice-Chairman, and Ms. Linda Porebski (Canada) as the 2nd Vice-Chairman for the intersessional period and for the 32nd session of the LC Scientific Group. 15.2 The LP Scientific Group also unanimously re-elected Dr. Chris Vivian (United Kingdom) as Chairman, Dr. Gi-Hoon Hong (Republic of Korea) as the 1st Vice-Chairman, and Ms Linda Porebski (Canada) as the 2nd Vice-Chairman for the intersessional period and for the 3rd session of the LP Scientific Group. 16 CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF THE REPORT

The joint report of the 31st Scientific Group under the London Convention and the 2nd Meeting of the Scientific Group under the London Protocol was adopted on the final day of the Meeting, Friday, 23 May 2008.

***

Page 59: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

ANNEX 1

AGENDA FOR THE 31ST MEETING OF THE SCIENTIFIC GROUP UNDER THE LONDON CONVENTION AND THE 2ND MEETING OF THE SCIENTIFIC GROUP

UNDER THE LONDON PROTOCOL (19 – 23 May 2008)

1 Adoption of the agenda:

LC/SG 31/1 - Secretariat LC/SG 31/1/1 - Secretariat

2 Ocean fertilization:

LC/SG 31/2 - Canada LC/SG 31/2/1 - United Kingdom LC/SG 31/2/2 - IOC LC/SG 31/INF.2 - Secretariat LC/SG 31/INF.15 - United Kingdom LC/SG 31/INF.16 - United Kingdom LC/SG 31/INF.17 - United Kingdom LC/SG 31/WP.3/Rev.1 - Working Group

3 Waste assessment guidance:

LC/SG 31/3/Rev.1 - United States LC/SG 31/3/1 - Chairman Correspondence Group LC/SG 31/3/2 - Chairman Correspondence Group LC/SG 31/3/3 - Chairman Correspondence Group LC/SG 31/INF.8 - United States LC/SG 31/INF.13 - United States LC/SG 31/WP.1 - United States LC/SG 31/WP.2 - Working Group LC/SG 31/WP.7 - Working Group LC/SG 31/WP.13 - Correspondence Group LC/SG 31/WP.14 - Working Group

4 CO2 Sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations:

LC/SG 31/4 - Secretariat LC/SG 31/4/1 - Norway LC/SG 31/WP.11 - Working Group

5 Development of guidance for the placement of artificial reefs:

LC/SG 31/5 - Chairman Correspondence Group LC/SG 31/WP.4 - Drafting Group

Page 60: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 1 Page 2

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

6 Reporting on dumping activities:

LC/SG 31/6 - Secretariat 7 Technical co-operation and assistance:

LC/SG 31/7 - Secretariat LC/SG 31/7/1 - Secretariat LC/SG 31/7/2 - United States LC/SG 31/7/3 - WODA LC/SG 31/7/4 - Secretariat LC/SG 31/INF.3 - Secretariat LC/SG 31/WP.5 - Working Group LC/SG 31/WP.8 - Working Group

8 Monitoring and assessment of the marine environment:

LC/SG 31/8 - Secretariat LC/SG 31/8/1 - Bureau LC/SG 31/INF.4 - United Kingdom LC/SG 31/INF.7 - United Kingdom LC/SG 31/INF.9 - United States

LC/SG 31/INF.11 - United States LC/SG 31/INF.19 - Canada LC/SG 31/INF.20 - Belgium LC/SG 31/WP.6 - Working Group

9 Coastal management issues associated with activities to prevent marine pollution:

LC/SG 31/9 - Chairman Correspondence Group LC/SG 31/9/1 - Canada LC/SG 31/INF.12 - United States LC/SG 31/WP.9 - Working Group

10 Habitat modification and enhancement:

LC/SG 31/INF.5 - United Kingdom LC/SG 31/INF.6 - United Kingdom LC/SG 31/INF.10 - United States

11 Outcome of Science Day: “Impact of climate change and acidification of the oceans”: No documents issued under this item 12 Guidelines, manuals, bibliographies and information exchange:

LC/SG 31/12 - Secretariat LC/SG 31/INF.13 - United States LC/SG 31/INF.18 - WODA LC/SG 31/INF.21 - Italy

Page 61: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 1

Page 3

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

13 Review of the Joint Work Programme:

LC/SG 31/13 - Secretariat LC/SG 31/WP.10 - Chairman Scientific Groups

14 Any other business:

LC/SG 31/INF.14 - Greenpeace International 15 Elections of officers for both Scientific Groups: No documents issued under this item 16 Consideration and adoption of the report: LC/SG 31/16 - Report LC/SG 31/INF.1 - Secretariat LC/SG 31/WP.12 - Secretariat

***

Page 62: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not
Page 63: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

ANNEX 2

OUTCOME OF THE WORKING GROUP ON OCEAN FERTILIZATION

General statements 1 The Working Group on Ocean Fertilization reviewed the issues in the “Terms of Reference for the Scientific Groups to Address Ocean Fertilization” (LC/SG 31/1/1, annex 3), in the priority order given by the Plenary for the sake of allocating the meeting time. However, the outcomes from the Working Group are presented in logical order in this report. Ocean fertilization is reviewed: (1) regarding whether it is contrary to the aims of the London Convention and Protocol; (2) the issues associated with scale; (3) important elements to be considered for evaluating scientific field research proposals; and (4) the Working Group responded to the queries of the Legal Intersessional Correspondence Group. The Working Group noted the Terms of Reference do not include conventional aquaculture/mariculture, as currently practiced around the world. 2 The Working Group noted the uncertainties identified here for assessing the impacts of ocean fertilization activities represent fundamental uncertainties in our understanding of ecosystem dynamics, and the role of the oceans in the global carbon cycle. Advances in both of these basic research areas are critical to understanding climate change, and should be fostered regardless of whether or not ocean fertilization activities contribute to mitigating climate change. Discussion on the phrase “contrary to the aims of the London Convention/Protocol” 3 Term of Reference 6 was identified as the second priority for the Working Group and concerns the consideration of how the phrase “contrary to the aims of the Convention/Protocol” could be addressed from a scientific and technical perspective in the context of ocean fertilization. 4 The Working Group noted that the relevant provisions of the London Protocol on this issue are Article 1.10 (Definition of “Pollution”), Article 2 (Objectives), Article 3.3 (transfer of pollution), and Article 3.1 (precautionary approach). Similarly, the relevant provisions of the London Convention on this issue are: Articles I, II, VII.1, VII.2, VII.3 and XII. 5 The Working Group recommended to request advice from the Legal Intersessional Correspondence Group regarding the appropriateness or otherwise of these provisions to the phrase “contrary to the aims of the Convention/Protocol”. 6 The Working Group did not evaluate whether ocean fertilization was “dumping” or “placement”. It took the view that in general, an activity which can be regarded as a “placement of matter for a purpose other than the mere disposal thereof” should be carefully evaluated to determine whether it is contrary to the aims of the London Convention or Protocol. Neither the London Convention nor Protocol contains explicit definitions of “contrary to the aims”. Nevertheless, the Working Group took the view that an activity is contrary to the aims of the London Convention and Protocol if it is likely to result in such deleterious effects as harm to living resources and marine ecosystems, hazards to human health, and harm to other legitimate uses of the ocean.

Page 64: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 2 Page 2

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

7 Such an evaluation of whether an ocean fertilization activity is contrary to the aims of the London Convention and Protocol should be conducted by Contracting Parties, and based, inter alia, on the evaluation guidelines described in paragraphs 13 to 19 below and appendix 3 to this report. 8 Based on the in situ ocean fertilization and associated modelling studies conducted thus far, there is insufficient scientific evidence to determine whether ocean fertilization activities would or would not pose significant risks of harm to the marine environment. However, based on scientific projections, there is the potential for significant risks of harm to the marine environment. There is still scientific and technical uncertainty regarding direct and indirect effects of ocean fertilization, including the effects of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the water column that might result in adverse side impacts such as increased ocean acidification. 9 The Working Group concluded that given the current scientific uncertainty and lack of data on potential environmental impacts, a precautionary approach should be applied when evaluating proposals for ocean fertilization activities. Discussion on the concepts of “scale” 10 Term of Reference 5 was identified as the third priority for the Working Group and concerns the consideration of the concepts of scale (spatial and temporal) and a clarification of what is meant by “large-scale” in the Statement of Concern by the Scientific Groups in 2007. 11 The Working Group noted that the term “large-scale” was used to describe several iron fertilization activities discussed in documents submitted to the Scientific Groups meeting in June 2007 (LC/SG/30/14) and the governing bodies in November 2007 (LC 29/17). Generally, “large-scale” ocean fertilization is difficult to define and is subject to multiple interpretations. The use of the term “large-scale” in the “Statement of Concern” was related to activities that were large relative to the scale of iron fertilization experiments to that date. Several iron fertilization experiments are summarized in appendix 2 to this report. 12 The Working Group noted that its Term of Reference 2 includes the need to further develop the ocean fertilization issues requiring evaluation which includes consideration of more than just iron fertilization. A broader view is now applied to the concept of scale when considering the issue. Given the spatial and temporal variability of the marine environment, the potential for deleterious impacts depends not only on the spatial scale or amounts of nutrients, but also on the other parameters discussed in paragraphs 13 to 19 below and outlined in appendix 3 to this report. Discussion on considerations for evaluation 13 Term of Reference 2 was identified as the fourth priority for the Working Group and concerns a further development of the issues requiring evaluation in the Scientific Groups’ “Statement of Concern” (LC/SG 30/14, paragraphs 2.6.1 to 2.26.7) in the light of, inter alia:

the need to cover more than just ocean iron fertilization;

an examination of the scientific literature on ocean fertilization;

Page 65: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 2

Page 3

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

consideration for evaluating scientific field research proposals on ocean fertilization in terms of the potential impacts to the marine environment, potential benefits of increasing scientific knowledge and other factors as appropriate; and

the comments made on those issues at the recent Symposium on Iron Fertilization held at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (United States) from 26 to 27 September 2007.

14 The Working Group noted that the “Statement of Concern” identified that evaluation of large-scale iron fertilization operations should include, among other things, consideration of:

.1 the estimated amounts and potential impacts of iron and other materials that may be released with the iron;

.2 the potential impacts of gases that may be produced by the expected

phytoplankton blooms or by bacteria decomposing the dead phytoplankton; .3 the estimated extent and potential impacts of bacterial decay of the expected

phytoplankton blooms, including reduced oxygen concentrations; .4 the types of phytoplankton that are expected to bloom and the potential impacts of

any harmful algal blooms that may develop; .5 the nature and extent of potential impacts on the marine ecosystem including

naturally occurring marine species and communities; .6 the estimated amounts and timescales of carbon sequestration, taking account of

partitioning between sediments and water; and .7 the estimated carbon mass balance for the operation (LC/SG 30/14,

paragraph 2.26). 15 The Working Group noted that these specific considerations were further developed at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution from 26 to 27 September 2007 (LC/SG 31/INF.15). 16 The Working Group noted the requirement that the advice would need to cover more than just iron ocean fertilization. This necessitated the need to provide more general advice on considerations for evaluation. It also noted that work by Contracting Parties intersessionally further progressed the development of potential evaluation considerations. Therefore, the Working Group revised a list of specific considerations for evaluating proposals which expands upon the work described in paragraphs 14 and 15 above. These considerations are described in appendix 3 to this report. 17 The Working Group noted that the considerations for evaluation in appendix 3 to this report do not include assessments of any potential impacts that do not relate directly to the marine environment. The considerations for evaluation also do include assessment of whether the activity is likely to be effective in achieving its purpose. The Working Group noted that in the case of ocean fertilization activities whose purpose is to mitigate climate change, other competent international organizations and institutions may also have a role in evaluating the likelihood of the activity achieving its purpose.

Page 66: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 2 Page 4

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

18 The Working Group requested that the London Convention and Protocol consolidate new information on scientific research on ocean fertilization from Contracting Parties as it becomes available and make it available to other Contracting Parties for use in assessing proposals. 19 The Working Group recommended that appendix 3 to this report be used as the list of considerations for evaluating ocean fertilization activities (as applicable). However, it noted that this list will need to be revised as necessary. Response to the queries of the Legal Intersessional Correspondence Group 20 Term of Reference 7 was identified as the first priority for the Working Group and requests a response to queries of a scientific or technical nature from the Legal Intersessional Correspondence Group (LICG) on ocean fertilization for carbon sequestration. 21 The Working Group reviewed the findings of the LICG. As requested by the LICG, it applied particular focus and comment on the six points identified in paragraph 21 of document LC/SG 31/2/1, for each of the following three scenarios: iron fertilization, phosphorus or nitrogen fertilization and artificial upwelling. 22 The LICG requested that the Scientific Groups provide focus and comment on “the nature of source material used for fertilization and, in particular for iron fertilization, its source”:

.1 The Working Group identified potential sources of iron, nitrogen, phosphorus and sea water that could be used in ocean fertilization proposals. This information is compiled in three tables in appendix 1 to this report, and includes the nutrients; chemical compounds; sources; physical forms; impurities other than nutrient elements; and ancillary input materials for verification and monitoring;

.2 Scenario 1 (iron fertilization)

The sources of material may be found in the form of ferrous sulphate, iron-chelate, iron sulphide, hematite and proprietary iron nutrient with other supplements. The material is injected as a form of liquid, slurry, or nano-particles. These source materials and carrying acids could include other trace metals and organics as impurities. However, detailed information is not readily available;

.3 Scenario 2 (nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization)

The materials for nitrogen nutrient could be urea, ammonia or nitrates and they are manufactured specifically for the purpose of fertilization. The materials for phosphorus nutrient are not well known. The impurities of trace metals may be present, however, information is not readily available at this stage; and

.4 Scenario 3 (artificial upwelling)

Deep sea water used in artificial upwelling contains higher levels of total dissolved inorganic carbon, trace metals and nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus and iron than the surface water. The deep sea water is also colder than the surface water in tropical and temperate oceans. The physical devices to be placed into the sea also need to be examined for their environmental impacts in

Page 67: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 2

Page 5

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

terms of materials used, the physical shape of the structures, the alteration of the sea water temperature, and perturbation of the marine environment in situ.

23 The LICG requested that the Scientific Groups provide focus and comment on “the quantity of material to be used and the scale”:

.1 The Working Group noted that due to the range of potential operations it is very difficult to define or predict the magnitude of future proposals in terms of nutrient quantities, the three-dimensional extent of impact areas, and the duration of operations. Future ocean fertilization activities with the aim of climate change mitigation have been envisioned that would use and impact a substantial fraction of the world’s oceans. The issue of defining scale for ocean fertilization activities is discussed in paragraphs 10 to 12 above. The Working Group noted that micro-nutrient activities (iron fertilization) require significantly smaller volumes of additions compared to macro-nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus);

.2 Scenario 1 (iron fertilization)

Due to the range of potential operations that could be conducted in an iron fertilization activity, it is difficult to define or accurately predict the scale of future proposals, in terms of area size. However, the Working Group is aware of more than one future proposal that is substantially larger than previous activities. To date, twelve iron enrichment experiments have been conducted in “high nutrient, low chlorophyll” (HNLC) regions, and a few more studies have been conducted in non-HNLC regions;

.3 Additionally, it is also difficult to predict or define the quantity of iron (micronutrient) material of future iron fertilization proposals. The quantity used previously in scientific studies applied 350-1,712 kg of iron per experiment. However, the total amount of iron carrying material was greater than the iron itself, which is another important consideration. As with the issue of scale discussed above, previous research indicates that oceanographic conditions, location and season were important factors. Specifically, the utility of applied iron to the phytoplankton appeared to vary widely depending upon these factors;

.4 Scenario 2 (nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization)

The quantity of material and the scale for this scenario is generally unknown, however it is anticipated that the magnitude of future proposals in terms of nutrient quantities would be greater than Scenario 1. Specifically, the chemical elemental composition of phytoplankton material suggests that the amount of phosphorus and nitrogen (macronutrients) required would be at least 3 and 5 orders of magnitude, respectively, greater than iron (micronutrient); and

.5 Scenario 3 (artificial upwelling)

One enterprise is proposing to enhance the natural upwelling of nutrient rich deep-sea water in a few hundred meters depth using physical devices. This enterprise proposes an array of pipes mounted with wave-powered pumps would be spaced about 2 km apart and positioned across 80% of the world’s oceans.

Page 68: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 2 Page 6

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

24 The LICG requested that the Scientific Groups provide comment and focus on “the likely impacts of the material on the marine environment both due to the nature and scale of use”:

.1 The Working Group considered the potential impacts of the material on the marine environment and noted that, while the LICG requested comment on the “likely” impacts, the impacts identified in this advice should be considered as “potential” impacts rather than “likely” impacts. Too much uncertainty remains at this time for the Working Group to ascertain how likely or unlikely such impacts would be;

.2 Scenario 1 (iron fertilization)

Several uncertainties exist regarding the impacts of iron fertilization. Potential impacts include, but are not limited to, human health considerations; changes to marine ecosystem structure and dynamics of fisheries and deep sea habitats; ocean acidification; generation of harmful algal blooms and hypoxic zones; and increased amounts of more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide (such as nitrous oxide or methane) as a result of bacterial decay of phytoplankton blooms. The nature and scale of use of iron and carrying materials in the ocean can vary the potential impacts;

.3 Scenario 2 (nitrogen and phosphorus)

It is anticipated that the potential impacts of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization would be similar to those addressed under Scenario 1; and

.4 Scenario 3 (artificial upwelling)

While this scenario is a very different technology, many of the potential impacts would be similar to those addressed under Scenario 1. There is the additional risk of releasing carbon dioxide from the deep ocean into the atmosphere.

25 The LICG requested that the Scientific Groups provide comment and focus on “the likelihood of the activity achieving its stated purpose”:

.1 The Working Group has limited its comments on this point in recognition of the fact that the likelihood of each scenario in achieving its stated purpose is largely unknown. A useful assessment could be made by independent scientific organizations or institutions, mechanisms, or networks associated with carbon markets;

.2 Scenario 1 (iron fertilization)

Several uncertainties exist regarding the efficacy of iron fertilization as a climate change mitigation strategy. While previous experiments indicate varying degrees of carbon export, questions remain regarding the efficiencies of carbon export to the deep sea; a timeframe for export and factors that influence the timeframe; and the amount of carbon exported, among other concerns. As such, it is premature to assess the likelihood of iron fertilization activities in achieving the stated purpose of carbon export as a climate change mitigation strategy;

Page 69: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 2

Page 7

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.3 Scenario 2 (nitrogen and phosphorus) Several uncertainties exist regarding the efficacy of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization as a carbon change mitigation strategy. Few experiments have been conducted to date. Therefore the remaining questions and conclusions are the same as for iron fertilization; and

.4 Scenario 3 (artificial upwelling)

There is little information to support the efficacy of this approach. One enterprise claims that 2 billion tonnes of carbon per year could be sequestered using their technique. However, these claims have not been substantiated by any peer-reviewed scientific literature.

26 The LICG requested that the Scientific Group provide comment and focus on “a technical view of the applicability of Annex I to the Convention and Annexes 1 and 2 to the Protocol”:

.1 The Working Group considered the technical application of ocean fertilization under Annex I to the Convention and Annexes 1 and 2 of the Protocol. The Working Group did not consider whether or not ocean fertilization using the materials listed in appendix 1 to this report would be considered “dumping” or “placement” under the London Convention or London Protocol, as this is a legal issue;

.2 The Working Group noted that Annex 2 to the London Protocol concerns the

assessment of wastes or other matter that may be considered for dumping. Therefore, while the general provisions would apply to any assessment of ocean fertilization activity, there are no specifically relevant provisions;

.3 The Working Group has outlined potential methods of ocean fertilization in

appendix 1 to this report;

.4 Scenario 1 (iron fertilization) Iron and carrying materials used in fertilization are not likely to fall under the exemptions from the definition of “industrial waste” under paragraph 11 of Annex I to the London Convention, specifically, “uncontaminated organic materials of natural origin”. It is noted that organic matter is generally defined as having carbon in it, which is not the case with iron. Chelated iron contains some carbon; however this is unlikely to be of natural origin;

.5 Iron and carrying materials outlined in appendix 1 to this report do not fit within

any of the definitions of wastes or other matter that may be considered for dumping in Annex 1 of the London Protocol. Such material cannot be considered “inert inorganic geological material” because it is chemically and biologically active and will stimulate growth;

.6 Scenario 2 (nitrogen and phosphorus)

Nitrogen and Phosphorus for ocean fertilization most likely do not fall under the exemptions from the definition of “industrial waste” under Annex I to the London Convention, specifically, “uncontaminated organic materials of natural origin”. Phosphorus is not organic however phosphorus compounds can be organic. Nitrogen could be organic or inorganic, however organic nitrogen will most likely

Page 70: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 2 Page 8

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

be man-made and not of natural origin. However, while phosphorus and nitrogen exist in forms that could be considered “uncontaminated organic materials of natural origin” these would not be economically and/or operationally feasible for use in ocean fertilization activities;

.7 Nitrogen and phosphorus as outlined in appendix 1 to this report do not fit within

any of the definitions of wastes or other matter that may be considered for dumping in Annex 1 to the London Protocol. Such material cannot be considered “inert inorganic geological material” because it is chemically and biologically active and will stimulate growth;

.8 Scenario 3 (artificial upwelling)

The Working Group considered that there is not enough information about potential activities of this nature to advise on the technical application of Annex I to the London Convention or Annex 1 to the London Protocol; and

.9 The Working Group therefore concluded that the materials outlined in appendix 1

to this report are not likely to fit within any of the definitions of wastes or other matter that may be considered for dumping in Annex 1 to the London Protocol, or the exemptions to the definition of “industrial waste” of Annex I to the London Convention, paragraph 11. Specifically, it should not be considered as “inert inorganic geological material” or as “uncontaminated organic materials of natural origin”. The Working Group did not express any views on whether or not there is a need to introduce the materials outlined in appendix 1 to this report in Annex 1 to the London Protocol or Annex I to the London Convention.

27 The LICG requested that the Scientific Group provide comment and focus on “further details on Scenario 3, with particular regard to the nature, volume and impact of material moving in the pipes”. In response, it can be stated that artificial upwelling has been discussed in paragraphs 22.4, 23.5, 24.4, 25.4, and 26.8 of this report. Recommendations 28 The Working Group requests advice from the Legal Intersessional Correspondence Group regarding the appropriateness or otherwise of provisions identified in paragraph 4 above to the phrase “contrary to the aims of the Convention/Protocol”. 29 The Working Group requests that the London Convention and Protocol consolidate new information on scientific research on ocean fertilization as it becomes available and make it available to other Contracting Parties for use in assessing proposals. 30 The Working Group recommends that appendix 3 to this report be used as the list of considerations for evaluating ocean fertilization activities (as applicable).

Page 71: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 2

Page 9

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

APPENDIX 1

Table 1 – Potential list of materials for ocean fertilization Scenario 1 – Iron fertilization Typical Sources Typical

Physical Forms

Typical Impurities Typical Ancillary input materials for verification or monitoring

Ferrous sulphate Manufactured Fe-chelate (Organically complexed)

Manufactured

Iron sulphide Manufactured

Powder

Hematite dust (i) From a manufacturing process

(ii) Naturally occurring

Fine powder or nano-particle

Propriety nutrient supplements, Fe+?

not readily known

- doped with phosphate

- trace elements - trace organics

SF6

Scenario 2 – Ocean fertilization with the addition of nitrogen or phosphorus compounds Typical

Chemical Compounds

Typical Sources Typical Physical Forms

Typical Impurities

Typical Ancillary input materials for verification or monitoring

Nitrogen Urea Ammonia Nitrate

Manufactured commercially

Solid, liquid or dissolved in solution

Phosphorus unknown unknown Solid, liquid or dissolved in solution

- Mixed with other limiting nutrients (nutrient mix)

- Trace metals and organics

SF6

Scenario 3 – Artificial upwelling Typical Chemical

compounds Typical Sources Typical

Physical forms Typical Impurities

Typical additional consideration

Deep water

Relatively high nutrient, total inorganic carbon, certain trace metals

Deep water from between 100 and 1,000 metres depth.

Liquid, dissolved

Trace metals Sources and materials of physical devices, e.g., pipes

Page 72: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 2 Page 10

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

APPENDIX 2

Table 1 – Summary of the amounts and scales of previous ocean fertilization activities The description of some proposed activities is considered here for the purpose of comparison. However, it is difficult to extrapolate the current knowledge to the proposed activities. Initial size of

dispersal area Amount of Fe applied

Temporal nature

Injection frequency or time interval in between operations

Duration of monitoring

Past activities

64-1,000 km2 350-1,712 kg Days-weeks Mostly one time injection but some projects were carried out 3 times of application (0, 3, 7 days) injections

A few tens of days

Some proposed activities*

>> 1,000 km2

Will be project specific

* Among the proposed activities, the science community proposes to deliver iron to the phytoplankton

in more frequent applications with smaller quantities per application than previously employed. The science community also wants to monitor the marine environment for several months after injection of iron nutrients.

Page 73: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 2

Page 11

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

APPENDIX 3

CONSIDERATIONS FOR EVALUATING OCEAN FERTILIZATION PROPOSALS 1) Description of Project

a) What will be added?

i) Chemical composition of all substances (e.g., solvents, carrier, tracer) ii) Purity iii) Impurities (list & amounts)

b) How will it be added?

i) Form (e.g., solid, particle size, liquid solution (concentration)) ii) Mode of application iii) Area and depth of addition iv) Rate of application (amount per metre squared per time)

c) How much will be added? (e.g., total amount, volume)

d) When will it be added?

i) Date(s)

e) Where will it be added? (site characterization)

i) Physical characterization, for example:

(1) Location of addition (2) Depth of water (3) Temperature (4) Circulation

ii) Chemical characterization, for example:

(1) pH (2) Dissolved oxygen (3) Nutrient concentrations

iii) Biological characterization, for example:

(1) Species expected in water column (2) Species expected on bottom (3) Predicted spread of advection and diffusion of additives and the

phytoplankton patches, e.g., chlorophyll aA (response)

Page 74: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 2 Page 12

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

iv) Proximity to “marine protected/reserve area” and/or “areas of special concern”

including other sensitivities (e.g., fisheries, spawning grounds, ecologically sensitive areas).

f) Purpose

2) Impacts

a) The Proponent should address the following potential impacts to the marine environment:

i) Direct effects of added substances (including pH) ii) Species of phytoplankton and their diversity

(1) With consideration of species that might be harmful to the environment

iii) Species microzooplankton and their diversity

iv) Species of zooplankton and their diversity v) As or where appropriate: other marine organisms including mesopelagic, benthic

organisms, fish, marine mammals, other invertebrates and vertebrates, spawning areas

vi) Biogeochemical transformations and substances that may be produced or

consumed as a result of the substance added, for example:

(1) Gases produced and consumed (2) Particulate carbon produced (3) Any change in pH (4) Toxins produced

vii) Bacterial diversity and biomass

3) Contributions to Scientific Knowledge 4) Monitoring of substance addition:

a) Must be appropriate to the scale of experiment b) Data must be made publicly available as soon as possible c) Impact Hypotheses should form the basis of the monitoring

***

Page 75: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

ANNEX 3

PROPOSED WEBSITE NAMES FOR THE GENERIC GUIDELINES AND THE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES

***

“Official” names used under the Convention/Protocol

Proposed names for display on the website

Guidelines for the Assessment of Wastes or Other Matter That May be Considered for Dumping (Generic Guidelines)

Generic Waste Assessment Guidelines

Specific Guidelines for the Assessment of Dredged Material

Dredged Material Assessment Guidelines

Specific Guidelines for the Assessment of Sewage Sludge

Sewage Sludge Assessment Guidelines

Specific Guidelines for the Assessment of Inert, Inorganic Geological Material

Inert, Inorganic Geological Material Assessment Guidelines

Specific Guidelines for the Assessment of Organic Material of Natural Origin

Organic Material of Natural Origin Assessment Guidelines

Specific Guidelines for the Assessment of Fish Waste, or Material Resulting From Industrial Fishing Processing Operations

Fish Waste Assessment Guidelines

Specific Guidelines for the Assessment of Vessels

Vessel Assessment Guidelines

Specific Guidelines for the Assessment of Platforms or Other Man-Made Structures at Sea

Platforms and Structures Assessment Guidelines

Specific Guidelines for the Assessment of Bulky Items primarily comprising iron, steel, concrete and similarly unharmful materials for which the concern is physical impact, and limited to those circumstances where such wastes are generated at locations, such as small islands with isolated communities, having no practicable access to disposal options other than dumping

Bulky Items Assessment Guidelines

Specific Guidelines for the Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Streams for Disposal into Sub-Seabed Geological Formations

Carbon Dioxide Streams Assessment Guidelines

Page 76: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not
Page 77: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

ANNEX 4

DRAFT REVISED GUIDELINES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF WASTES OR OTHER MATTER THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR DUMPING

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Guidelines for the Assessment of Wastes or Other Matter that May be Considered for Dumping are intended for use by national authorities responsible for regulating dumping of wastes. They guide national authorities in evaluating applications for dumping of wastes in a manner consistent with the provisions of the London Convention 1972 (London Convention) or the 1996 Protocol thereto (London Protocol)1. Annex 2 to the London Protocol places emphasis on progressively reducing the need to use the sea for dumping of wastes. Furthermore, it recognizes that avoidance of pollution demands rigorous controls on the emission and dispersion of contaminating substances and the use of scientifically-based procedures for selecting appropriate options for waste disposal. When applying these Guidelines uncertainties in relation to assessments of impacts on the marine environment will need to be considered and a precautionary approach applied in addressing these uncertainties. They should be applied with a view that acceptance of dumping under certain circumstances does not remove the obligation to make further attempts to reduce the necessity for dumping. 1.2 The London Protocol follows an approach under which dumping of wastes or other matter is prohibited except for those materials specifically identified in Annex 1. Therefore, and in the context of that Protocol, these Guidelines would apply only to the materials listed in Annex 1. The London Convention prohibits the dumping of certain wastes or other matter specified therein and in the context of that Convention these Guidelines meet the requirements of its Annexes for wastes not prohibited for dumping at sea. When applying these Guidelines under the London Convention, they should not be viewed as a tool for the reconsideration of dumping of wastes or other matter in contravention of Annex I to the London Convention. 1.3 The schematic shown at the appendix to this document provides a clear indication of the stages in the application of the Guidelines where important decisions should be made and is not designed as a conventional “decision tree”. In general, national authorities should use the schematic in an iterative manner ensuring that all steps receive consideration before a decision is made to issue a permit. The national authority should strive to update knowledge in science and technology related to each stage of the application of the Guidelines according to its national scientific, technical and economic capabilities, bearing in mind the rapid advancement in relevant science and technology. The diagram in the appendix to this document illustrates the relationship between the operational components of Annex 2 to the London Protocol and contains the following elements:

.1 Waste Characterization (Chapter 4 – Chemical, Physical and Biological

Properties)

1 The “Waste Assessment Guidelines Tutorial” (WAG Tutorial) provides additional information. The WAG

Tutorial was published in 2007 and is available from the LC/LP Secretariat and the London Convention website (www.londonconvention.org). The WAG Tutorial was intended to make the Waste Assessment Guidance more accessible to national administrators, apply this Guidance as part of national evaluation procedures, and give administrations access to experiences gained elsewhere, thereby assisting states in effective implementation of the London Convention and Protocol.

Page 78: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 4 Page 2

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.2 Waste Prevention Audit and Waste Management Options (Chapters 2 and 3) .3 Action List (Chapter 5) .4 Identify and Characterize Dump-site (Chapter 6 – Dump-site Selection) .5 Determine Potential Impacts and Prepare Impact Hypothesis(es) (Chapter 7 –

Assessment of Potential Effects) .6 Issue Permit (Chapter 9 – Permit and Permit Conditions) .7 Implement Project and Monitor Compliance (Chapter 8 – Monitoring) .8 Field Monitoring and Assessment (Chapter 8 – Monitoring).

1.4 These Generic Guidelines are complemented by further specific guidance developed for each waste category listed in Annex 1 to the London Protocol. 2 WASTE PREVENTION AUDIT 2.1 The initial stages in assessing alternatives to dumping of wastes or other matter that may be considered for dumping under the London Convention or London Protocol should, as appropriate, include an evaluation of:

.1 types, amounts and relative hazards of wastes generated; .2 details of the production process and the sources of wastes within that process; and .3 feasibility of the following waste reduction/prevention techniques:

.1 product reformulation; .2 clean production technologies; .3 process modification; .4 input substitution; and .5 on-site, closed-loop recycling. The techniques mentioned in paragraph 2.1.3 do not imply that wastes or other matter prohibited from disposal under the London Convention and London Protocol could, after application of these techniques, then be considered for dumping at sea. 2.2 In general terms, if the required audit reveals that opportunities exist for waste prevention at source, an applicant is expected to formulate and implement a waste prevention strategy in collaboration with relevant local and national agencies that include specific waste reduction targets and provision for further waste prevention audits to ensure that these targets are being met. Permit issuance or renewal decisions shall assure compliance with any resulting waste reduction and prevention requirements.

Page 79: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 4

Page 3

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

2.3 For dredged material and sewage sludge, the goal of waste management should be to identify and control the sources of contamination. This should be achieved through implementation of waste prevention strategies and requires collaboration between the local and national agencies involved with the control of point and non-point sources of pollution. These considerations may also be relevant to other categories of wastes or other matter. Until this objective is met, the problems of contaminated dredged material may be addressed by using disposal management techniques at sea or on land. 3 CONSIDERATION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS 3.1 Applications to dump wastes or other matter shall demonstrate that appropriate consideration has been given to the following hierarchy of waste management options, which implies an order of increasing environmental impact: .1 re-use; .2 off-site recycling; .3 destruction of hazardous constituents; .4 treatment to reduce or remove the hazardous constituents; and .5 disposal on land, into air and into water. 3.2 A permit to dump wastes or other matter shall be refused if the permitting authority determines that appropriate opportunities exist to re-use, recycle or treat the waste without undue risks to human health or the environment or disproportionate costs. The practical availability of other means of disposal should be considered in the light of a comparative risk assessment involving both dumping and the alternatives, taking into account the general obligation to apply a precautionary approach to dumping and the objective of protecting the marine environment from all sources of pollution. 4 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION, i.e. CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL

PROPERTIES 4.1 A detailed description and characterization of the waste is an essential precondition for the consideration of alternatives and the basis for a decision as to whether a waste may be dumped. If a waste is so poorly characterized that proper assessment cannot be made of its potential impacts on human health and the environment, that waste shall not be dumped. 4.2 Characterization of the wastes and their constituents shall take into account:

.1 origin, total amount, form and average composition; .2 properties: physical, chemical, biochemical and biological; .3 toxicity, including, where appropriate, additive, synergistic or antagonistic effects

among constituents of the waste; .4 persistence: physical, chemical and biological; and .5 accumulation and biotransformation in biological materials or sediments.

Page 80: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 4 Page 4

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

5 ACTION LIST 5.1 The Action List provides a screening mechanism for determining whether a material is considered acceptable for dumping. It constitutes a crucial part of Annex 2 to the London Protocol and the Scientific Groups will continuously review all aspects of it to assist Contracting Parties with its application. It may also be used in meeting the requirements of Annexes I and II to the London Convention. 5.2 Each Contracting Party shall develop a national Action List to provide a mechanism for screening candidate wastes and their constituents on the basis of their potential effects on human health and the marine environment. In selecting substances for consideration in an Action List, priority shall be given to toxic, persistent and bio-accumulative substances from anthropogenic sources (e.g., cadmium, mercury, organohalogens, petroleum hydrocarbons and, whenever relevant, arsenic, lead, copper, zinc, beryllium, chromium, nickel and vanadium, organosilicon compounds, cyanides, fluorides and pesticides or their by-products other than organohalogens). The Action List may also cover other characteristics of the waste material under consideration, such as physical properties, pathogen levels, toxicity, and bioaccumulation. An Action List can also be used as a trigger mechanism for further waste prevention considerations. 5.3 An Action List shall specify an upper level and may also specify a lower level. The upper level should be set so as to avoid acute or chronic effects on human health or on sensitive marine organisms representative of the marine ecosystem. Application of an Action List will result in three possible categories of waste:

.1 wastes which contain specified substances, or which cause biological responses, exceeding the relevant upper level shall not be dumped, unless made acceptable for dumping through the use of management techniques or processes;

.2 wastes which contain specified substances, or which cause biological responses,

below the relevant lower levels should be considered to be of little environmental concern in relation to dumping; and

.3 wastes that contain specified substances, or which cause biological responses,

below the upper level but above the lower level require more detailed assessment before their suitability for dumping can be determined.

5.4 The Contracting Parties may provide guidance on Action Lists and upper and lower levels. See, for example, the Guidance for the Development of Action Lists and Action Levels for Dredged Material. 6 DUMP-SITE SELECTION Site selection considerations 6.1 Proper selection of a dump-site at sea for the reception of waste is of paramount importance.

Page 81: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 4

Page 5

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

6.2 Information required to select a dump-site shall include:

.1 physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the water-column, the seabed and, as appropriate, the sub-seabed;

.2 location of amenities, values and other uses of the sea in the area under

consideration; .3 assessment of the constituent fluxes associated with dumping in relation to

existing fluxes of substances in the marine environment; and .4 economic and operational feasibility.

6.3 Guidance for procedures to be followed in dump-site selection can be found in a report of the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP Reports and Studies No.16 – Scientific Criteria for the Selection of Waste Disposal Sites at Sea), as well as in the recently published WAG Tutorial. Prior to selecting a dump-site, it is essential that data be available on the oceanographic characteristics of the general area in which the site is to be located. This information can be obtained from the literature but fieldwork should be undertaken to fill the gaps. Relevant information may include:

.1 the nature of the seabed and, as appropriate, the sub-seabed, including its topography, geochemical and geological characteristics, its biological composition and activity, and prior dumping activities affecting the area;

.2 the physical nature of the water column, including temperature, depth, possible

existence of a thermocline/pycnocline and how it varies in depth with season and weather conditions, tidal period and orientation of the tidal ellipse, mean direction and velocity of the surface and bottom drifts, velocities of storm-wave induced bottom currents, general wind and wave characteristics, and the average number of storm days per year, suspended matter; and

.3 the chemical and biological nature of the water column, including pH, salinity,

dissolved oxygen at surface and bottom, chemical and biochemical oxygen demand, nutrients and their various forms and primary productivity.

6.4 Some of the important amenities, biological features and uses of the sea to be considered in determining the specific location of the dump-site are:

.1 the shoreline and bathing beaches;

.2 areas of beauty or significant cultural or historical importance;

.3 areas of special scientific or biological importance, such as sanctuaries;

.4 fishing areas;

.5 spawning, nursery and recruitment areas;

.6 migration routes;

.7 seasonal and critical habitats;

.8 shipping lanes;

Page 82: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 4 Page 6

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.9 military exclusion zones; and

.10 engineering uses of the seafloor, including mining, undersea cables, desalination or energy conversion sites.

Size of the dump-site 6.5 Size of the dump-site is an important consideration for the following reasons:

.1 it should be large enough, unless it is an approved dispersion site, to have the bulk of the material remain either within the site limits or within a predicted area of impact after dumping;

.2 it should be large enough to accommodate anticipated volumes of solid waste

and/or liquid wastes to be diluted to near background levels before or upon reaching site boundaries;

.3 it should be large enough in relation to anticipated volumes for dumping so that it

would serve its function for many years; and

.4 it should not be so large that monitoring would require undue expenditure of time and money.

Site capacity 6.6 In order to assess the capacity of a site, especially for solid wastes, the following should be taken into consideration:

.1 the anticipated loading rates per day, week, month or year; .2 whether or not it is a dispersive site; and .3 the allowable reduction in water depth over the site because of mounding of

material. In the case of sub-seabed geological formations, both the feasibility of the carbon-dioxide stream injection site and the integrity of the site will need to be established. Evaluation of potential impacts 6.7 An important consideration in determining the suitability of a waste for dumping at a specific site is the degree to which this results in increased exposures of organisms to substances that may cause adverse effects. In this respect, ambient water quality standards/guidelines as established by national authorities provide useful benchmarks to make judgements about acceptable perturbations of water quality resulting from disposal activities. 6.8 The physical impacts of many of the wastes permitted to be disposed of at sea can be significant and may be dominant for some wastes such as inert, inorganic geological material and dredged material. While physical impacts within a disposal site may be acceptable, licensing

Page 83: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 4

Page 7

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

authorities will usually seek to minimize or prevent physical impacts outside the boundaries of disposal sites. Particular attention needs to be paid to the degree to which deposition of and subsequent transport of material outside the disposal site may result in physical effects on marine benthos (e.g., smothering, changes in benthos diversity, habitat modification), on sediment transport fluxes and processes and on other uses of the sea such as those listed in paragraph 6.4 above. 6.9 The extent of adverse effects of a substance depends in part on the exposures of organisms (including humans). Exposure, in turn, is a function, inter alia, of input flux and the physical, chemical and biological processes that control the transport, behaviour, fate and distribution of a substance. 6.10 The presence of natural substances and the ubiquitous occurrence of contaminants mean that there will always be some pre-existing exposures of organisms to all substances contained in any waste that might be dumped. Concerns about exposures to hazardous substances thus relate to additional exposures as a consequence of dumping. This, in turn, can be translated back to the relative magnitude of the input fluxes of substances from dumping compared with existing input fluxes from other sources. 6.11 Accordingly, due consideration needs to be given to the relative magnitude of the substance fluxes associated with dumping in the local and regional area surrounding the dump-site. In cases where it is predicted that dumping will substantially augment existing fluxes associated with natural processes, dumping at the site under consideration should be deemed inadvisable. 6.12 In the case of synthetic substances, the relationship between fluxes associated with dumping and pre-existing fluxes in the vicinity of the site may not provide a suitable basis for decisions. 6.13 Temporal characteristics should be considered to identify potentially critical times of the year (e.g., for marine life) when dumping should not take place. This consideration leaves periods when it is expected that dumping operations will have less impact than at other times. If these restrictions become too burdensome and costly, there should be some opportunity for compromise in which priorities may have to be established concerning species to be left wholly undisturbed. Examples of such biological considerations are:

.1 periods when marine organisms and birds are migrating from one part of the ecosystem to another (e.g., from an estuary to open sea or vice versa) and growing and breeding periods;

.2 periods when marine organisms are hibernating on or are buried in the sediments; and

.3 periods when particularly sensitive and possibly endangered species are exposed.

Contaminant mobility 6.14 Contaminant mobility is dependent upon several factors, among which are:

Page 84: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 4 Page 8

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.1 type of matrix;

.2 form of contaminant;

.3 contaminant partitioning;

.4 physical state of the system, e.g., temperature, water flow, suspended matter;

.5 physico-chemical state of the system;

.6 length of diffusion and advection pathways; and

.7 biological activities, e.g., bioturbation. 7 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS 7.1 Assessment of potential effects should lead to a concise statement of the expected consequences of the sea or land disposal options, i.e. the “Impact Hypothesis.” It provides a basis for deciding whether to approve or reject the proposed disposal option and for defining environmental monitoring requirements. As far as possible, waste management options causing dispersion and dilution of contaminants in the environment should be avoided and preference given to techniques that prevent the input of the contaminants to the environment. 7.2 The assessment for dumping should integrate information on waste characteristics, conditions at the proposed dump-site(s), fluxes and proposed disposal techniques and specify the potential effects on human health, living resources, amenities and other legitimate uses of the sea. It should define the nature, temporal and spatial scales and duration of expected impacts based on reasonably conservative assumptions. 7.3 The assessment should be as comprehensive as possible. Alterations to the physical environment, risks to human health, devaluation of marine resources and interference with other legitimate uses of the sea are often seen as primary concerns in this regard. Additionally, long-term and indirect potential impacts should, as appropriate, be assessed and addressed in permitting and monitoring requirements. 7.4 In constructing an impact hypothesis, particular attention should be given to, but not limited to, potential impacts on amenities (e.g., presence of floatables), sensitive areas (e.g., spawning, nursery or feeding areas), habitat (e.g., biological, chemical and physical modification), migratory patterns and marketability of resources. Consideration should also be given to potential impacts on other uses of the sea including: fishing, navigation, engineering uses, areas of special concern and value, and traditional uses of the sea. 7.5 Even the least complex and most innocuous wastes may have a variety of physical, chemical and biological effects. Impact hypotheses cannot attempt to reflect them all. It must be recognized that even the most comprehensive impact hypotheses may not address all possible scenarios such as unanticipated impacts. It is therefore imperative that the monitoring programme be linked directly to the hypotheses and serve as a feedback mechanism to verify the predictions and review the adequacy of management measures applied to the dumping operation and at the dump-site. It is important to identify the sources and consequences of uncertainty.

Page 85: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 4

Page 9

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

7.6 The expected consequences of dumping should be described in terms of affected habitats, processes, species, communities and uses. The precise nature of the predicted effect (e.g., change, response, or interference) should be described. The effect should be quantified in sufficient detail so that there would be no doubt as to the variables to be measured during field monitoring. In the latter context, it would be essential to determine “where” and “when” the impacts can be expected. 7.7 Emphasis should be placed on biological effects and habitat modification as well as physical and chemical change. However, if the potential effect is due to substances, the following factors should be addressed:

.1 estimates of statistically significant increases of the substance in seawater, sediments, or biota in relation to existing conditions and associated effects; and

.2 estimate of the contribution made by the substance to local and regional fluxes

and the degree to which existing fluxes pose threats or adverse effects on the marine environment or human health.

7.8 In the case of repeated or multiple dumping operations, impact hypotheses should take into account the cumulative effects of such operations. It will also be important to consider the possible interactions with other waste dumping practices in the area, existing or planned. 7.9 An analysis of each disposal option should be considered in light of a comparative assessment of the following concerns: human health risks, environmental costs, hazards (including accidents), economics and exclusion of future uses. If this assessment reveals that adequate information is not available to determine the likely effects of the proposed disposal option, including potential long-term harmful consequences, then this option should not be considered further. In addition, if the interpretation of the comparative assessment shows the dumping option to be less preferable, a permit for dumping should not be given. 7.10 Each assessment should conclude with a statement supporting a decision to issue or refuse a permit for dumping. 7.11 Where monitoring is required, the potentially adverse effects and variables considered in the hypotheses should help to guide field and analytical work so that relevant information can be obtained in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. 8 MONITORING 8.1 Monitoring is used to verify that permit conditions are met – compliance monitoring – and that the assumptions made during the permit review and site selection process were correct and sufficient to protect the environment and human health – field monitoring. It is essential that such monitoring programmes have clearly defined objectives. 8.2 The Impact Hypothesis forms the basis for defining field monitoring. The measurement programme should be designed to ascertain that changes in the receiving environment are within those predicted. The following questions must be answered:

Page 86: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 4 Page 10

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.1 What testable hypotheses can be derived from the Impact Hypothesis? .2 What measurements (type, location, frequency, performance requirements) are

required to test these hypotheses? .3 How should the data be managed and interpreted?

8.3 It may usually be assumed that suitable specifications of existing (pre-disposal) conditions in the receiving area are already contained in the application for dumping. If the specification of such conditions is inadequate to permit the formulation of an Impact Hypothesis, additional information will be required by the licensing authority before any final decision on the permit application is made. 8.4 The permitting authority is encouraged to take account of relevant research information in the design and modification of monitoring programmes. The measurements can be divided into two types – those within the zone of predicted impact and those outside. 8.5 Measurements should be designed to determine whether the zone of impact and the extent of change outside the zone of impact differ from those predicted. The former can be answered by designing a sequence of measurements in space and time that ensures that the projected spatial scale of change is not exceeded. The latter can be answered by the acquisition of measurements that provide information on the extent of change that occurs outside the zone of impact as a result of the dumping operation. The extent of change shall be evaluated relative to the baseline state of the environment. This baseline state should be either based on the newly selected dump-site prior to its use in the case of a new dump-site, or on a nearby zone where historical dumping has not induced changes to the environment. Frequently, these measurements will be based on a null hypothesis – that no significant change can be detected. Measurements should also take into account those physical, chemical and biological characteristics identified during the waste characterization phase. 8.6 The results of monitoring (or other related research) should be reviewed at regular intervals in relation to the objectives and can provide a basis to:

.1 modify or terminate the field-monitoring programme; .2 modify or revoke the permit; .3 redefine or close the dump-site or take other appropriate remediation or mitigation

measures; and .4 modify the basis on which applications to dump wastes are assessed.

9 PERMIT AND PERMIT CONDITIONS 9.1 A decision to issue a permit should only be made if all impact evaluations are completed and the monitoring requirements are determined. The provisions of the permit shall ensure, as far as practicable, that environmental disturbance and detriment are minimized and the benefits maximized. Any permit issued shall contain data and information specifying:

Page 87: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 4

Page 11

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.1 the types, amounts and sources of materials to be dumped; .2 the location of the dump-site(s); .3 the method of dumping; and .4 monitoring and reporting requirements.

In cases where a rapid response could be required to address adverse impacts, the need for a mitigation plan should also be considered. 9.2 If dumping is the selected option, then a permit authorizing dumping must be issued in advance. It is recommended that opportunities are provided for public review and participation in the permitting process. In granting a permit, the hypothesized impact occurring within the boundaries of the dump-site, such as alterations to the physical, chemical and biological compartments of the local environment is accepted by the permitting authority. If the information provided is inadequate to determine whether a project would pose a significant risk to human health or the environment, the permitting authority should request additional information before taking a decision on issuing a permit. If it becomes evident that a project would pose significant risks to human health or the marine environment, or the information provided is still inadequate to make a decision, a permit shall not be issued. 9.3 Regulators should strive at all times to enforce procedures that will result in environmental changes as far below the limits of allowable environmental change as practicable, taking into account technological capabilities as well as economic, social and political concerns. 9.4 Permits should be reviewed at regular intervals, taking into account the results of monitoring and the objectives of monitoring programmes. Review of monitoring results will indicate whether field programmes need to be continued, revised or terminated, and will contribute to informed decisions regarding the continuance, modification or revocation of permits. This provides an important feedback mechanism for the protection of human health and the marine environment. 9.5 The duration of potential impacts should be considered in determining the appropriate periods of time for retaining permits and other supporting documentation.

Page 88: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 4 Page 12

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

Appendix

The relationship among important operational components of Annex 2 of the London Protocol and Annexes I and II of the London Convention is drawn as a schematic diagram in this appendix. The Arabic numerals in parenthesis correspond to the pertinent section in the text. This schematic is intended to assist national authorities to consider all regulatory aspects including reviewing the application received, issuing a permit(s), managing the project site, reporting and keeping the records. This schematic provides a clear indication of the stages in the application of this guidance where important decisions should be made. In general, national authorities should use this schematic in an iterative manner ensuring that all steps receive consideration before a decision is made to issue a permit.

Page 89: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 4

Page 13

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

APPENDIX

Applicant files application

Characterize Waste (4)

Audit Waste Prevention (2)

Arethere practical

opportunities for waste preventionor reduction at

source?

Applicant formulates and implements a waste prevention strategyyes

no

Consider Waste Management Options (3)

Are therepractical opportunities to re-use,

recycle or treatwaste?

yes

Re-evaluate the application

noApply Action List (5)

Is material acceptable or can be made

acceptable?

no Reject the application

yes

Identify and Characterize Dumping Site/s (6)

Determine Potential Impacts and Prepare Impact Hypothesis (7)

Are thepotential Impacts

acceptable?

no Reject the application

yes

Specify Permit Conditions and Issue Permit (9)

Project Implemented

Monitor Compliance, Conduct Field Monitoring and Assessment (8)

Suitable dumpingsite/s available?

Record & Report toLC/LP Secretariat

***

Page 90: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not
Page 91: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

ANNEX 5

DRAFT REVISED SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF INERT, INORGANIC GEOLOGICAL MATERIAL

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Guidelines for the Assessment of Wastes or Other Matter that May be Considered for Dumping1, referred to in short as the “Generic Guidelines”, as well as the Specific Guidelines for the Assessment of Inert, Inorganic Geological Material addressed in this document are intended for use by national authorities responsible for regulating dumping of wastes and embody a mechanism to guide national authorities in evaluating applications for dumping of wastes in a manner consistent with the provisions of the London Convention 1972 (London Convention) or the 1996 Protocol thereto (London Protocol). Annex 2 to the London Protocol places emphasis on progressively reducing the need to use the sea for dumping of wastes. Furthermore, it recognizes that avoidance of pollution demands rigorous controls on the emission and dispersion of contaminating substances and the use of scientifically based procedures for selecting appropriate options for waste disposal. When applying these Guidelines uncertainties in relation to assessments of impacts on the marine environment will need to be considered and a precautionary approach applied in addressing these uncertainties. They should be applied with a view that acceptance of dumping under certain circumstances does not remove the obligation to make further attempts to reduce the necessity for dumping. 1.2 The London Protocol follows an approach under which dumping of wastes or other matter is prohibited except for those materials specifically enumerated in Annex 1, and in the context of that Protocol, these Guidelines would apply to the materials listed in that Annex. The London Convention prohibits the dumping of certain wastes and other matter specified therein and in the context of that Convention these Guidelines meet the requirements of its Annexes for wastes not prohibited for dumping at sea. When applying these Guidelines under the London Convention, they should not be viewed as a tool for the reconsideration of dumping of wastes or other matter in contravention of Annex I to the London Convention. 1.3 The schematic shown in Figure 1 provides a clear indication of the stages in the application of the Guidelines where important decisions should be made and is not designed as a conventional “decision tree”. In general, national authorities should use the schematic in an iterative manner ensuring that all steps receive consideration before a decision is made to issue a permit. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between the operational components of Annex 2 of the London Protocol and contains the following elements:

.1 Waste Characterization (Chapter 4) (Chemical, Physical and Biological Properties);

.2 Waste Prevention Audit and Waste Management Options (Chapters 2 and 3); .3 Action List (Chapter 5); .4 Identify and Characterize Dump-site (Chapter 6) (Dump-site Selection);

1 The first version of these Guidelines was adopted in 1997 and their revision was completed [by the governing

bodies under the London Convention and Protocol in 2008].

Page 92: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 5 Page 2

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.5 Determine Potential Impacts and Prepare Impact Hypothesis(es) (Chapter 7) (Assessment of Potential Effects);

.6 Issue Permit (Chapter 9) (Permit and Permit Conditions); .7 Implement Project and Monitor Compliance (Chapter 8) (Monitoring); and .8 Field Monitoring and Assessment (Chapter 8) (Monitoring).

Figure 1

W a s te C h a ra c te r iz a tio nC o n s id e r

W a s te P re v e n tio n A u d ita n d W a ste M a n a g m e n t O p tio n s

A reth e re p ra c tic a b le

o p p o r tu n itie s to re -u se ,re c y c le o r t re a t th e

w a s te ?

Id e n tify a n d c h a ra c te r iz eD u m p in g S ite

D e te rm in e p o te n tia lim p a c ts a n d p re p a re

Im p a c t H y p o th e s (i /e )s

Im p le m e n t p ro je c t a n dm o n ito r c o m p lia n c e

F ie ld M o n ito r in ga n d A ss e s sm e n t

Is m a te r ia la c c e p ta b le ?

C a nm a te r ia l b e m a d e

a c c e p ta b le ?

Is s u e P e rm it?

re je c t

re je c t

y e s

y e s y e s

y e s

n o

n o n o

n o

re je c t

A c tio n L is t

Page 93: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 5

Page 3

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

1.4 These Guidelines are specific to inert, inorganic geological material2, i.e. wastes or other matter which have been determined, through an initial qualitative characterization, to have met the Eligibility Criteria for Inert, Inorganic Geological Material (appendix). Adherence to the following represents neither a more restrictive nor a less restrictive regime than that of the Generic Guidelines of 1997. 2 WASTE PREVENTION AUDIT 2.1 The initial stages in assessing alternatives to dumping should, as appropriate, include an evaluation of:

.1 types, amounts and relative hazards of wastes generated. As the material is inert, the relative hazards are confined to those resulting from the physical properties of the material;

.2 details of the production process and the sources of wastes within that process;

and .3 feasibility of the following waste reduction/prevention techniques:

.1 clean production technologies; .2 process modification; .3 input substitution; and .4 on-site, closed-loop recycling.

2.2 In general terms, if the required audit reveals that opportunities exist for waste prevention at source, an applicant is expected to formulate and implement a waste prevention strategy in collaboration with relevant local and national agencies which includes specific waste reduction targets and provision for further waste prevention audits to ensure that these targets are being met. Permit issuance or renewal decisions shall assure compliance with any resulting waste reduction and prevention requirements. 2.3 For this category of material the most pertinent issue will be waste minimization. 3 CONSIDERATION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS 3.1 Applications to dump wastes or other matter shall demonstrate that appropriate consideration has been given to the following hierarchy of waste management options, which implies an order of increasing environmental impact:

.1 re-use, such as refilling of mines;

.2 recycling such as road construction and building materials; and

.3 disposal on land, and into water.

2 The Twenty-second Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties to the London Convention 1972 adopted these

specific Guidelines in 2000.

Page 94: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 5 Page 4

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

3.2 A permit to dump wastes or other matter shall be refused if the permitting authority determines that appropriate opportunities exist to re-use, recycle or treat the waste without undue risks to human health or the environment or disproportionate costs. The practical availability of other means of disposal should be considered in the light of a comparative risk assessment involving both dumping and the alternatives. 4 CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL PROPERTIES 4.1 The character and form of the material and the basis on which it is characterized as geological and inert in the marine environment should be specified. From this specification, it should be demonstrated that the chemical nature of the material (including uptake of any elements or substances from the material by biota) is such that the only effects will be due to its physical properties. Thus, the assessment of the environmental impacts will be based solely upon origin, mineralogy, and the total amount and physical nature of the material. 4.2 Characterization of the material and its constituents shall take into account:

.1 origin, including mineralogy, total amount, and the form in which it is intended to be dumped; and

.2 physical persistence.

5 ACTION LIST 5.1 The Action List provides a screening mechanism for determining whether a material is considered acceptable for dumping. It constitutes a crucial part of Annex 2 to the London Protocol and the Scientific Groups will continuously review all aspects of it to assist Contracting Parties with its application. It may also be used in meeting the requirements of Annexes I and II to the London Convention. As inert materials should not interact with biological systems other than through physical processes, Action List considerations generally do not require detailed consideration for this waste category. However, the Action List screening mechanism should be used to demonstrate that the material is inert and uncontaminated. 6 DUMP-SITE SELECTION Site selection considerations 6.1 Proper selection of a dump-site at sea for the reception of waste is of paramount importance. 6.2 Information required to select a dump-site shall include:

.1 physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the water-column and the seabed;

.2 location of amenities, values and other uses of the sea in the area under

consideration;

Page 95: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 5

Page 5

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.3 assessment of the constituent fluxes associated with dumping, particularly in relation to existing sediment fluxes; and

.4 economic and operational feasibility.

6.3 Guidance for procedures to be followed in dump-site selection can be found in a report of the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP Reports and Studies No.16 – Scientific Criteria for the Selection of Waste Disposal Sites at Sea), as well as in the WAG tutorial set. Prior to selecting a dump-site, it is essential that data be available on the oceanographic characteristics of the general area in which the site is to be located. Relevant information may include the physical, chemical and biological nature of the seabed and the water column. This information can be obtained from the literature but fieldwork should be undertaken to fill the gaps. In terms of chemical and biological characteristics, only those aspects likely to be sensitive to physical effects such as smothering or to changes in turbidity, particle size distributions or sediment transport require detailed consideration. 6.4 Some of the important amenities, biological features and uses of the sea to be considered in determining the specific location of the dump-site are:

.1 the shoreline and bathing beaches;

.2 areas of beauty or significant cultural or historical importance;

.3 areas of special scientific or biological importance, such as sanctuaries;

.4 fishing areas;

.5 spawning, nursery and recruitment areas;

.6 migration routes;

.7 seasonal and critical habitats;

.8 shipping lanes;

.9 military exclusion zones;

.10 engineering uses of the seafloor, including mining, undersea cables, desalination or energy conversion sites.

Size of the dump-site 6.5 Size of the dump-site is an important consideration for the following reasons:

.1 it should be large enough, unless it is an approved dispersion site, to have the bulk of the material remain either within the site limits or within a predicted area of impact after dumping;

.2 it should be large enough to accommodate anticipated volumes of solid waste

and/or liquid wastes to be diluted to near background levels before or upon reaching site boundaries;

Page 96: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 5 Page 6

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.3 it should be large enough in relation to anticipated volumes for dumping so that it would serve its function for many years; and

.4 it should not be so large that monitoring would require undue expenditure of time

and money. Site capacity 6.6 In order to assess the capacity of a site, especially for solid wastes, the following should be taken into consideration:

.1 the anticipated loading rates per day, week, month or year; .2 whether or not it is a dispersive site; and .3 the allowable reduction in water depth over the site because of mounding of

material. Evaluation of potential impacts 6.7 Due consideration needs to be given to the relative magnitude of the substance fluxes associated with dumping in the local and regional area surrounding the dump-site. In cases where it is predicted that dumping will substantially augment existing fluxes associated with natural processes, dumping at the site under consideration should be deemed inadvisable. The only fluxes that are relevant to inert, inorganic geological material are sediment transport fluxes in the water column and at the sediment-water interface. Particular attention needs to be paid to the degree to which deposition of material may result in effects on marine benthos (e.g., smothering, changes in benthos diversity, habitat modification). 6.8 Temporal characteristics should be considered to identify potentially critical times of the year (e.g., for marine life) when dumping should not take place. This consideration leaves periods when it is expected that dumping operations will have less impact than at other times. If these restrictions become too burdensome and costly, there should be some opportunity for compromise in which priorities may have to be established concerning species to be left wholly undisturbed. Examples of such biological considerations are:

.1 periods when marine organisms are migrating from one part of the ecosystem to another (e.g., from an estuary to open sea or vice versa) and growing and breeding periods;

.2 periods when marine organisms are hibernating on or are buried in the sediments;

and .3 periods when particularly sensitive and possibly endangered species are exposed.

The primary considerations relevant to these provisions are the physical effects of inert, inorganic geological materials on biota in the water column and benthos, including those which arise as a result of habitat modification.

Page 97: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 5

Page 7

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

Contaminant mobility 6.9 Contaminant mobility is dependent upon several factors, among which are:

.1 type of matrix;

.2 form of contaminant;

.3 physical state of the system, e.g., temperature, water flow, suspended matter; and

.4 biological activities, e.g., bioturbation. These issues should not be relevant for an inert, inorganic geological material that passes the Eligibility Criteria and for the reasons given in paragraphs 4.1 and 5.1 above. 7 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS 7.1 Assessment of potential effects should lead to a concise statement of the expected consequences of the sea or land disposal options, i.e., the “Impact Hypothesis”. It provides a basis for deciding whether to approve or reject the proposed disposal option and for defining environmental monitoring requirements. As far as possible, waste management options causing dispersion and dilution of contaminants in the environment should be avoided and preference given to techniques that prevent the input of the contaminants to the environment. 7.2 The assessment for dumping should integrate information on waste characteristics, conditions at the proposed dump-site(s), fluxes and proposed disposal techniques and specify the potential effects on human health, living resources, amenities and other legitimate uses of the sea. It should define the nature, temporal and spatial scales and duration of expected impacts based on reasonably conservative assumptions. 7.3 The assessment should be as comprehensive as possible. The primary potential impacts should be identified during the dump-site selection process. These are considered to pose the most serious threats to human health and the environment. Alterations to the physical environment are the primary concern for inert, inorganic geological material, and thus impacts on habitats and human health, the devaluation of marine resources and interference with other legitimate uses of the sea are likely to be seen as the main concerns. 7.4 In constructing an impact hypothesis, particular attention should be given to, but not limited to, potential impacts on amenities (e.g., presence of floatables), sensitive areas (e.g., spawning, nursery or feeding areas), habitat (e.g., biological, chemical and physical modification), migratory patterns and marketability of resources. Consideration should also be given to potential impacts on other uses of the sea including: fishing, navigation, engineering uses, areas of special concern and value, and traditional uses of the sea. 7.5 Even the least complex and most innocuous wastes may have a variety of physical, chemical and biological effects. Impact hypotheses cannot attempt to reflect them all. It must be recognized that even the most comprehensive impact hypotheses may not address all possible scenarios such as unanticipated impacts. It is therefore imperative that the monitoring programme be linked directly to the hypotheses and serve as a feedback mechanism to verify the predictions and review the adequacy of management measures applied to the dumping operation and at the dump-site. It is important to identify the sources and consequences of uncertainty. The only effects requiring detailed consideration in this context are physical impacts on habitats and marine resources and interference with other legitimate uses of the sea.

Page 98: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 5 Page 8

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

7.6 The expected consequences of dumping should be described in terms of affected habitats, processes, species, communities and uses. The precise nature of the predicted effect (e.g., change, response or interference) should be described. The effect should be quantified in sufficient detail so that there would be no doubt as to the variables to be measured during field monitoring. In the latter context, it would be essential to determine “where” and “when” the impacts can be expected. 7.7 Emphasis should be placed on biological effects and habitat modification, as well as physical and chemical changes, including:

.1 physical changes and physical effects on biota; and .2 effects on sediment transport.

7.8 In the case of repeated or multiple dumping operations, impact hypotheses should take into account the cumulative effects of such operations. It will also be important to consider the possible interactions with other waste dumping practices in the area, both existing or planned. 7.9 An analysis of each disposal option should be considered in light of a comparative assessment of the following concerns: human health risks, environmental costs, hazards (including accidents), economics and exclusion of future uses. If this assessment reveals that adequate information is not available to determine the likely effects of the proposed disposal option, including potential long-term harmful consequences, then this option should not be considered further. In addition, if the interpretation of the comparative assessment shows the dumping option to be less preferable, a permit for dumping should not be given. 7.10 Each assessment should conclude with a statement supporting a decision to issue or refuse a permit for dumping. 7.11 Where monitoring is required, the effects and parameters described in the hypotheses should help to guide field and analytical work so that relevant information can be obtained in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. 8 MONITORING 8.1 Monitoring is used to verify that permit conditions are met – compliance monitoring – and that the assumptions made during the permit review and site selection process were correct and sufficient to protect the environment and human health – field monitoring. It is essential that such monitoring programmes have clearly defined objectives. 8.2 The Impact Hypothesis forms the basis for defining field monitoring. The measurement programme should be designed to ascertain that changes in the receiving environment are within those predicted. The following questions must be answered:

.1 What testable hypotheses can be derived from the Impact Hypothesis? .2 What measurements (type, location, frequency, performance requirements) are

required to test these hypotheses? .3 How should the data be managed and interpreted?

Page 99: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 5

Page 9

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

8.3 It may usually be assumed that suitable specifications of existing (pre-disposal) conditions in the receiving area are already contained in the application for dumping. If the specification of such conditions is inadequate to permit the formulation of an Impact Hypothesis, the licensing authority will require additional information before any final decision on the permit application is made. 8.4 The permitting authority is encouraged to take account of relevant research information in the design and modification of monitoring programmes. The measurements can be divided into two types - those within the zone of predicted impact and those outside. 8.5 Measurements should be designed to determine whether the zone of impact and the extent of change outside the zone of impact differ from those predicted. The former can be answered by designing a sequence of measurements in space and time that ensures that the projected spatial scale of change is not exceeded. The latter can be answered by the acquisition of measurements that provide information on the extent of change that occurs outside the zone of impact as a result of the dumping operation. Frequently, these measurements will be based on a null hypothesis – that no significant change can be detected. 8.6 The results of monitoring (or other related research) should be reviewed at regular intervals in relation to the objectives and can provide a basis to:

.1 modify or terminate the field-monitoring programme; .2 modify or revoke the permit; .3 redefine or close the dump-site; and .4 modify the basis on which applications to dump wastes are assessed.

9 PERMIT AND PERMIT CONDITIONS 9.1 A decision to issue a permit should only be made if all impact evaluations are completed and the monitoring requirements are determined. The provisions of the permit shall ensure, as far as practicable, that environmental disturbance and detriment are minimized and the benefits maximized. Any permit issued shall contain data and information specifying:

.1 the types, amounts and sources of materials to be dumped; .2 the location of the dump-site(s); .3 the method of dumping; and .4 monitoring and reporting requirements.

9.2 If dumping is the selected option, then a permit authorizing dumping must be issued in advance. It is recommended that opportunities are provided for public review and participation in the permitting process. In granting a permit, the hypothesized impact occurring within the boundaries of the dump-site, such as alterations to the physical, chemical and biological compartments of the local environment is accepted by the permitting authority.

Page 100: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 5 Page 10

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

9.3 Regulators should strive at all times to enforce procedures that will result in environmental changes as far below the limits of allowable environmental change as practicable, taking into account technological capabilities as well as economic, social and political concerns. 9.4 Permits should be reviewed at regular intervals, taking into account the results of monitoring and the objectives of monitoring programmes. Review of monitoring results will indicate whether field programmes need to be continued, revised or terminated, and will contribute to informed decisions regarding the continuance, modification or revocation of permits. This provides an important feedback mechanism for the protection of human health and the marine environment.

Page 101: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 5

Page 11

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

APPENDIX

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR INERT, INORGANIC GEOLOGICAL MATERIAL

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 1 The London Convention 1972 (LC), as amended in 1993, prohibits the dumping of industrial waste after 1 January 1996. It further provides in Annex I that the term “industrial waste means waste materials generated by manufacturing or processing operations and does not apply to”, among other things, “uncontaminated inert geological materials the chemical constituents of which are unlikely to be released into the marine environment”. 2 The 1996 Protocol to the London Convention 1972 (LP) follows an approach under which the dumping of all wastes or other matter is prohibited except for those materials specifically enumerated in Annex 1 to the 1996 Protocol. The Protocol states that “the following wastes or other matter are those that may be considered for dumping being mindful of the objectives and general obligations set out in Articles 2 and 3”, including, “inert, inorganic geological material”. 3 Both LC and LP prohibit dumping of waste with more than de minimis radioactivity. Separate guidance on how to make that determination can be found in the “Guidelines for the Application of the De Minimis Concept under the London Convention 1972” and will not be further addressed in this document. 4 This document provides guidance for determining whether candidate materials can initially be considered as inert, inorganic geological material eligible for further consideration for dumping under LC or LP. If the proposed materials are found eligible for consideration under this category, this does not mean they should necessarily receive a permit for dumping at sea. The decision on whether to issue such a permit can only be made after carefully taking into account the “Specific Guidelines for Assessment of Inert, Inorganic Geological Material” (IIGM Guidelines). The IIGM Guidelines are used to evaluate applications for dumping of eligible waste under LC or LP, and include waste prevention audits, consideration of alternatives to dumping, characterization of the potential dump site, rigorous assessment for potential impacts, and monitoring. 5 The wording regarding geological materials differs slightly between LC and LP3. This document provides narrative criteria for use in determining whether material is:

“uncontaminated inert geological materials the chemical constituents of which are unlikely to be released into the marine environment” (LC – terminology); and

“inert, inorganic geological material” (LP – terminology).

3 For example, the IIGM Guidelines apply to LC and designed to apply to LP upon entry into force.

Page 102: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 5 Page 12

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

6 If, after considering these criteria, the material is deemed to fall outside the scope of the relevant category, it is either (1) ineligible for consideration for dumping or (2) may constitute a different category of waste or other matter eligible for consideration under other material-specific guidance.4 7 In order to apply this guidance, it will be necessary to perform an initial qualitative characterization of the waste or other matter to be considered for dumping. 8 The applicable criteria in the following guidance will need to be satisfied if the material can initially be considered as “uncontaminated inert geological material” (LC) or “inert, inorganic geological material” (LP). GUIDANCE STEP 1: TYPE OF MATERIAL – “GEOLOGICAL”

Discussion 9 Both under LC and LP proposed materials must be geological in nature. To be a geological material it should only comprise materials from the solid portion of the Earth such as rock or mineral. In addition, the geological material should not be altered from its original state by physical or chemical processing in a way that would result in different or additional impacts to the marine environment compared with those expected from the unaltered material.

Decision Criteria 10 Questions to determine whether the candidate material is geological:

.1 does the candidate material only comprise materials from the solid mineral portion of the Earth; and

.2 has the material been altered from its original state by physical or chemical processing in a way that would result in different or additional impacts to the marine environment compared with those expected from the unaltered material?

11 If the answer to 10.1 above is YES and the answer to 10.2 is NO, the material is geological in nature. 12 If the answer to 10.1 is NO or the answer to 10.2 is YES, the material is not geological and cannot be considered for dumping as IIGM.

4 Other guidance documents address the other types of material eligible for consideration for dumping

(i.e. dredged material, sewage sludge, fish waste, vessels and platforms, organic material of natural origin, certain bulky items).

Page 103: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 5

Page 13

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

STEP 2: TYPE OF MATERIAL – “INERT” Discussion 13 Under both LC and LP the geologic material must be “inert” in order to be considered for dumping5. In order to be inert, the candidate material and its constituents must be essentially of a chemically non-reactive nature and the chemical constituents of the material are unlikely to be released into the marine environment. The primary issue in determining whether a material is inert for the purposes of the Convention is to ensure that the only impacts of concern following dumping are restricted to physical effects6. In making such a determination, consideration must be given not only to pre-disposal characteristics of the material but also to whether it may undergo significant physical, chemical, or biological transformations when deposited in a marine system. 14 Key factors in determining if a proposed material is inert are knowledge of the material’s constituents, including any potential contaminants, and what, if any, reactions might occur following the material’s exposure to physical, chemical, or biological processes in the marine environment. Material that may result in acute or chronic toxicity, or in bioaccumulation of any of its constituents, should not be considered inert. Decision Criteria 15 Considering both the pre-disposal nature of the material and any alterations to it that may result from physical, chemical, or biological processes in the sea, are the only effects of concern those resulting from the physical properties of the material?

16 If the answer to the above is YES, the material is inert. 17 If the answer is NO, the material is not inert and may not be considered for dumping as IIGM. STEP 3: TYPE OF MATERIAL – “INORGANIC” (LP only)7 Discussion 18 Under LP, candidate geologic materials must be inorganic materials. These materials are usually of mineral origin. Materials such as sand, salt, iron, calcium salts and other mineral materials are examples. If a material does not contain more than incidental and trivial amounts of compounds with carbon chemically bound to hydrogen, it is also considered inorganic.

5 Under LC it is also specified that its chemical constituents must be unlikely to be released into the marine environment. A determination that the material is “inert” undertaken in accordance with this guidance document will also satisfy that aspect of LC. 6 In paragraph 5.1 of the IIGM Guidelines eligible materials are described as those “inert materials [that] will not interact with biological systems other than through physical processes.” 7 The term “inorganic” is used in LP, but not in LC. As a result, this criterion is only relevant in the LP context.

Page 104: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 5 Page 14

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

Decision Criteria 19 Inorganic materials are usually of mineral origin. Other materials may be deemed inorganic if they contain only incidental and trivial amounts of compounds with carbon chemically bound to hydrogen. Questions to determine whether candidate geological materials are inorganic:

.1 are the materials of inorganic mineral origin; and

.2 does the material contain no more than incidental and trivial amounts of compounds with carbon chemically bound to hydrogen?

20 If the answer to both (1) and (2) is YES, the material is inorganic. 21 If the answer to either (1) or (2) is NO, it is not inorganic and cannot be considered for dumping as IIGM. STEP 4: TYPE OF MATERIAL – “UNCONTAMINATED” (LC only)8 Discussion 22 As stated in Annex I of LC, candidate geological material must be uncontaminated. 23 Contaminants are constituents that are potentially harmful to the marine environment and are:

.1 introduced to the material through anthropogenic activities; or

.2 concentrated in the material to a magnitude greater than naturally found in geologically similar material.

24 Material exposed only to ambient, widely dispersed, contamination (e.g. typically through atmospheric deposition or precipitation) should not be deemed “contaminated”. Decision Criteria 25 Questions to determine whether candidate geological materials are uncontaminated:

.1 have contaminants been introduced at the material’s source? (e.g., has the material been exposed to spills or other sources of contamination or subject to inadequate pollution controls); and

.2 have contaminants been introduced or concentrated beyond a magnitude greater

than naturally found in geologically similar material during any subsequent processing or modification of the material?

8 The term “uncontaminated” is only used under LC. As a result, this criterion is only relevant in the LC context.

Page 105: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 5

Page 15

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

26 If the answer to both of the above questions is NO, the material can be considered uncontaminated. 27 If the answer to either of the questions above is YES, the material is contaminated and, therefore, may not be considered for dumping as uncontaminated IIGM unless it can be verified that all necessary steps have been taken to remove the contaminants.

***

Page 106: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not
Page 107: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

ANNEX 6

WORK PLAN ON REVIEW OF THE BULKY ITEMS GUIDELINES

No. Work items Deadlines

1 Secretariat to contact small island developing States (SIDS).

Progress sent to Chairman preferably by 1st July 2008

2 Chairman to prepare announcement to Correspondence Group explaining the purpose of the review with the current text and advice from SIDS attached. This announcement will also be copied to national focal points in the administration of Parties to LC/LP.

By 1st August 2008

3 Correspondence Group to provide comments to Chairman.

Preferably by 1st September 2008

4 Chairman to prepare first draft version based on comments received and distribute it to Correspondence Group for their review.

By 1st November 2008

5 Correspondence group to provide comments on first draft.

Preferably by 1st December 2008

6 Chairman to compile any additional or new comments received.

By 15th January 2009

7 Chairman to submit 2nd revision to joint session of the Scientific Groups.

[By 14th March 2009]

Chairman – Contact Details (e-mail address)

Mr. Chuanlin Huo (China) [email protected]

Correspondence Group – Contact Details (e-mail address)

Mr. Matthew Johnston (Australia) [email protected] Dr. Frank Thomsen (United Kingdom) [email protected] Dr. Elizabeth Kim (United States) [email protected] Dr. Gi-Hoon Hoog (Republic of Korea) [email protected] Mr. Uli Claussen (Germany) [email protected] Mr. David Santillo (Greenpeace) [email protected]

***

Page 108: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not
Page 109: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

ANNEX 7

FINAL SURVEY REPORT ON USABILITY AND COMMUNICATION OF THE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR WASTE ASSESSMENT UNDER

THE LONDON CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL INCORPORATING A RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 During the period 1997-2001, a set of eight Specific Guidelines were developed and adopted under the London Convention to support evaluation of the various classes of wastes or other matter that may be considered for marine disposal. These Guidelines, which also apply to the London Protocol, as confirmed in November 2006 by the Protocol Parties, contain step-by-step procedures for waste prevention, assessment of alternatives, waste characterization, assessment of potential adverse environmental effects, disposal site selection, monitoring and licensing procedures. 1.2 The survey reported herein was prompted by concerns raised about the Guidelines at the IMO/UNEP/NEPAD Regional Workshop convened in Mombasa, Kenya, in the spring of 2004. The survey was designed to solicit views on the usefulness and accessibility of the Guidelines with a specific focus on developing countries. It was expected that the results obtained would assist the Scientific Groups under the Convention and Protocol to clarify the Guidelines where necessary, and to consider ways of improving access to the Guidelines. 1.3 The report is structured as follows: Section 2 briefly describes how the survey was administered and how the results were obtained. The results are presented and discussed in sections 3 and 4. Section 5 presents the overall conclusions reached. Finally, the report includes an appendix containing a response from the Scientific Groups to a number of the issues raised by participants. 2 THE SURVEY PROCESS 2.1 A brief questionnaire was developed by an intersessional Correspondence Group between July-December 2006, under the lead of South Africa, and was distributed by the Secretariat in January 2007. Questionnaires were forwarded to countries that may or may not be Parties to the London Convention and its Protocol and that attended the Ocho Rios Workshop (Jamaica, 2002), the Mombasa Workshop (Kenya, 2004) and the Dalian Workshop (China, 2006), organized by IMO. These workshops covered the regions of the Cartagena and Nairobi Conventions, and the NOWPAP (Northwest Pacific Action Plan) and COBSEA (East Asian Seas Action Plan) areas. 2.2 To increase the geographical coverage of the survey, and with the assistance of UNEP, the questionnaires were also sent to the secretariats of various Regional Seas Conventions for forwarding to member countries. 2.3 Once the responses were received and analysed, the Correspondence Group prepared the following documents for the Scientific Groups and the Secretariat:

.1 an updated document to the joint session of the Scientific Groups in June 2007, summarizing the main results obtained;

Page 110: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 7 Page 2

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.2 a report of further analysis carried out by the Correspondence Group at that session;

.3 an interim report to all survey respondents issued in September 2007; .4 a final survey report incorporating clarification of the Guidelines in response to

comments raised by participants, i.e., the present document. 3 RESULTS OBTAINED FROM THE SURVEY 3.1 Sources of returned questionnaires 3.1.1 A total of 25 questionnaires were returned from 17 countries and two regional organizations. The following table lists the sources of the completed questionnaires and their membership status in relation to Convention and Protocol:

Table 1: Sources of completed questionnaires

Source Party to LC Party to LP Number returned Bolivia Yes No 1 Brazil Yes No 1 Chile Yes No 1 Ecuador No No 1 Eritrea No No 2 Hong Kong, China China, Yes

China, Yes

2

Indonesia No No 1 Jamaica Yes No 2 Kenya Yes Yes 1 Mauritius No No 1 Philippines Yes No 1 Republic of Korea Yes No 1 Singapore No No 1 South Africa Yes Yes 1 Spain Yes Yes 1 Thailand No No 3 Trinidad and Tobago No Yes 2 Black Sea Commission – – 1 MEDPOL – – 1

10 5 25 3.1.2 As the table indicates, questionnaires were completed by six countries that are parties to neither the Convention nor the Protocol. This is considered to be a positive outcome and illustrates a broad interest in marine dumping issues, regardless of official membership status. However, in the case of official Parties, the number of responses received was fairly low and could have been improved. A further observation is that although most questionnaires were completed by national administrations responsible for environment and maritime transport affairs, some were also completed by scientific agencies, port authorities and institutions responsible for waste management.

Page 111: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 7

Page 3

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

3.1.3 In spite of the inherent weaknesses of questionnaires as an information gathering tool, the Correspondence Group drew the conclusion that, in general, the survey had received good regional coverage, as responses were received from fairly widely-distributed developing countries. 3.2 Usability of the Specific Guidelines 3.2.1 Section A of the questionnaire (“Content and Application of the Specific Guidelines”) was designed to gather views on the clarity and usefulness of the Guidelines as tools for the evaluation and management of marine disposal activities. In general, respondents were asked whether the technical content of the Guidelines are clear and whether they assist in solving problems related to the disposal of wastes and other matter at sea. 3.2.2 The results obtained indicate that the Guidelines are strongly supported. All respondents believed that the technical content of the Guidelines are easy to understand, and 21 out of 25 respondents believed that the level of guidance provided enables them to make the correct assessment for their situations. 3.2.3 A breakdown of the responses to Section A of the questionnaire is provided below.

Table 2: Response breakdown to questions on usability of the Guidelines

Response 1 Question posed Yes No Total

1. Is the technical content of the Guidelines for each class of waste easy to understand?

24 0 24

2. Does the level of advice given in the Guidelines help you to make the right assessment of waste that works for your situation?

21 2 23

3. Do the Guidelines draw a clear distinction between the responsibilities of the permitting authority and that of permit applicant when assessing materials for disposal?

14 9 23

4. Is it easy for your organization to apply the Guidelines fully at an operational level?

9 8 17

5. Are the Guidelines useful in assisting with the implementation of compliance and field monitoring programmes?

18 2 20

6. Are the Guidelines adequate in assisting you to solve problems at a national level, related to disposal of waste at sea?

17 3 20

7. Have the Guidelines been useful in informing the development of other management approaches to wastes or of waste minimization programmes?

17 3 20

8. Were there any obstacles/barriers or specific issues that you encountered when applying, or attempting to apply, the Guidelines in your country?

8 7 15

9. Are there any ways in which the Guidelines can be improved to increase their application in your country?

12 5 17

10. Are there any additional comments you wish to raise on any of the Specific Guidelines?

6 16 22

1 Some questions received a “not applicable” response from participants. For the purpose of making clear

comparisons between the Yes-No categories, those responses are not included in the table. A number of responses from one participant were also treated as invalid due to contradictory information provided.

Page 112: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 7 Page 4

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

3.2.4 The relatively even scores obtained for Questions 4 and 8 suggest that there was a strong difference in opinion with regard to practical implementation of the Guidelines. However, it must be noted that in both cases nearly a third of the participants did not respond to the Yes/No boxes. These participants indicated that national guidelines are being applied instead, or that the responsibility for applying the Specific Guidelines rests with other national institutions. This may have contributed to the more or less even result obtained for the two questions. To consider whether the even split was either coincidental or suggestive of an important criticism of the Guidelines, specific comments submitted were reviewed. The comments submitted suggest that the apparent difference in opinion could be attributed to institutional and contextual constraints to implementation at a national level, rather than the content of the Guidelines. 3.2.5 During the analysis, specific comments to the survey questions were examined. The comments generally fell into two categories, namely:

(i) comments confirming the value and strengths of the Guidelines, and (ii) comments highlighting substantive issues related to the Guidelines, constraints to

implementation and further suggestions. 3.2.6 In terms of category (i) above, some of the typical responses provided were that the Guidelines are “fairly explicit”, that the “level of advice is extremely helpful”, that they serve as “good reference material” and that they “provide clarity on important issues to consider…”. 3.2.7 In relation to the category (ii) responses, participants raised a number of substantive issues and suggestions. These are listed in Table 3 below. (Please note that the table does not capture all comments submitted, but rather serves to highlight the typical and major issues raised.)

Table 3: Substantive issues and suggestions raised during the survey

A. Content of the Guidelines – It should be desirable to complement the actual contents with study cases in order to achieve a better

advice. – The advice given is general and no benchmarking is set to make a proper assessment. – It will be better if more detailed and certified technique references can be offered. – The Guidelines require individual countries to determine or set the criteria and limits set for dredged

materials to be dumped. It would be beneficial if the Guidelines have a specific set of criteria and limit for countries to adopt or reference against.

– Quantitative aspects have not been included. – Details on the parameters that should be monitored and against what guidelines limits are missing. – Regarding the monitoring programmes it should be desirable (to provide) a more detailed

description, including the technical methods recommended. – More technical references on the appropriate and available technology equipped with economic

analysis could be added as annexes, it will help the developing country for decision-making. Technical references on the methods of dumping are also required.

– The Guidelines mention what must be done but do not clarify the responsibilities of the permitting authority and permit applicant.

Page 113: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 7

Page 5

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

B. Constraints to implementation – The costs of monitoring can be high especially if authorities have to do it. It is also not easy to apply

the polluter-pays principle or cost recovery approaches to dumping and site monitoring. – Though the Guidelines are comprehensive, the countries are facing serious problems when it comes

to the details mainly due to national institutional set ups. – Solving problems at a national level still depends on the national standards and regulations in

accordance with the Guidelines. – It is not an easy task to evaluate all impacts as, in most cases, monitoring at sea is very expensive. – Use of the Guidelines depends on technical competency of the individual or responsible agency. C. Suggestions to improve application of the Guidelines – Specific training programs should be considered. – They may be improved if Assessment is supplemented with appropriate Checklists. Provision of

additional specific guidance on monitoring, waste management, etc. – (They could be improved) by harmonizing the commitments with the others international

agreements. – (They could be improved) by inclusion of quantitative measures to facilitate assessment and

comparison. – It would be advisable to extend the explanatory matters of characterization and dump site selection

using cases and examples. – Field training on monitoring implementation could also enhance the capability of the country to

implement the London Convention and Protocol. – Documents referred to in the Guidelines should be made available through internet links to facilitate

cross referencing and assessment.

3.2.8 As Table 3 indicates, a number of respondents felt that the content of the Guidelines should contain additional technical information for it to be of further practical value in the assessment and control of dumping at a national level. Some respondents alluded to the generic nature of the Guidelines and stressed that effective control over marine disposal still depends on the preparation of more detailed national-level guidelines. Respondents also highlighted the existence of concrete constraints to the application of the Guidelines, namely cost, institutional capacity and the lack of national standards and legislation. Suggestions were raised to improve the utility of the Guidelines, such as the use of case studies to illustrate specific issues and the provision of an online catalogue of references to further technical resources. 3.2.9 In the course of the analysis, it was determined that most of the comments raised could perhaps be addressed by highlighting ongoing activities under the Convention and Protocol, which should ultimately provide some of the additional guidance requested by countries (see paragraph 3.2.8 above). This observation was consistent with the original objective of the survey, that is, to clarify the Guidelines where necessary. This aspect of the survey is addressed in Sections 4 and 5 further below. 3.3 Communication and accessibility of the Specific Guidelines 3.3.1 Section B of the questionnaire (“Communication and distribution”) was designed to gather information on how the Guidelines are being accessed, how participants view the Internet as a medium for accessing the Guidelines, and other mechanisms considered to useful.

Page 114: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 7 Page 6

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

3.3.2 The results indicate that the Guidelines are being obtained through a variety of sources, both in hardcopy and electronic format. Some sources include the Secretariat of the Convention and Protocol, meetings of the subsidiary bodies, the Convention’s website, and various regional and national networks. The majority of respondents (17) indicated that they first received the Guidelines in electronic format. All respondents considered e-mail and web-based distribution to be useful mechanisms for further distribution of the Guidelines. 3.3.3 A total of 21 respondents believed that the language of the Guidelines is easy to understand. However, three respondents indicated that the language could be simplified further for countries where English is not a native language. 3.3.4 When respondents were asked what they considered to be the best way of distributing the Guidelines, the responses were fairly diverse and no dominant mechanism was discernable. Respondents identified the Internet, e-mail, print distribution, regional organizations, seminars or workshops, stakeholder forums and training workshops as key methods for distribution. 4 DISCUSSION 4.1 An overwhelming majority of the respondents considered the Guidelines to be easily understandable and useful as a source of guidance for waste assessment and problem-solving at a national level. Although a number of comments were raised regarding the level of technical detail provided by the Guidelines, no major weaknesses were identified and conveyed. Based on the responses submitted, the following major points warrant discussion:

.1 Technical detail of the Guidelines: A number of participants suggested that the Guidelines could be refined to include further technical information on case studies, analytical procedures and methods, criteria and procedures for setting limits, monitoring parameters and methods, etc. The Guidelines, however, were intended to be generic to allow users to apply the advice within ecological, institutional, regulatory and other procedural contexts at a national level. The suggestions raised cover a fairly wide field of expertise. Amending the Guidelines to incorporate a deeper level of technical guidance could prove to be time-consuming, potentially costly and cumbersome.

It is possible to meet the needs expressed by participants by providing an easily-updatable web page of links to technical information, at the Convention’s website (http://www.londonconvention.org). Furthermore, the Participants’ Manual developed by the Scientific Groups as part of the Waste Assessment Guidance Tutorial also provides useful technical information and illustrations. Copies of the manuals were distributed to the survey participants in September 2007.

.2 Constraints to implementation: The survey identified monitoring costs, technical

competency of agencies, and a lack of national standards and legislation as key factors constraining implementation of the Guidelines. Quite similar factors were identified under the Barriers to Compliance survey carried out under the Convention in 2007. At the 29th Consultative Meeting of the Convention and 2nd Meeting of Contracting Parties to the Protocol (November 2007), Parties agreed to a strategic approach to implement the Barriers to Compliance Project and a steering group was formed to compile an implementation plan for addressing priority barriers.

Page 115: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 7

Page 7

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.3 Communication and access: The information gathered from the survey suggests that the language of the Guidelines (i.e. the simplicity of terminology used) is potentially a greater issue to be considered in future than the question of access and distribution.

4.2 The Scientific Groups at their last joint session in May 2008 reviewed the comments submitted by survey participants and prepared a brief response to the issues raised, which is appended to this report. The purpose of the response document is to clarify the content of the Guidelines and to offer additional information to participants, where necessary. 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Conclusions 5.1.1 As a general conclusion, although a relatively small number of countries participated in the survey, it served as a useful mechanism to solicit feedback on the content, communication and implementation of the Specific Guidelines. Through the survey, participating countries and regional organizations (in particular UNEP’s Regional Seas Programme), assisted the Scientific Groups to gain a deeper appreciation of the current use and value of the Specific Guidelines. 5.1.2 The following specific conclusions can be drawn from the survey results and comments submitted:

.1 The participating countries consider the Guidelines to be very useful as tools to assist in the control of marine dumping. At least one respondent considered the Guidelines to be useful as a source of guidance for other waste management and waste minimization programmes;

.2 The survey highlighted the keenness of countries to implement the Guidelines,

despite the existence of financial, legal, technical and institutional constraints. Providing countries with additional technical information (such as case studies, information on monitoring methods, etc.) could complement the current Guidelines and assist in building technical capacity;

.3 The Guidelines are considered to be especially useful when used in conjunction

with national regulations, standards and guidelines; and .4 The Guidelines are being accessed in both electronic and print formats and

through a variety of forums. The results do not suggest that there is a dominant preference for receiving the Guidelines in either format. The responses also suggest that there is further potential to harness national and regional institutional networks as mechanisms to promote access to the Guidelines.

5.2 Recommendations 5.2.1 As many participants requested additional guidance or further technical information (see again Table 3), it is recommended that an online catalogue be developed at the London Convention website providing links to useful resources, on a topic by topic basis. A Reference page already exists at the website and could be expanded to include, among others, quick links to:

Page 116: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 7 Page 8

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.1 information documents submitted to meetings under the Convention and Protocol containing technical information (e.g., reports on monitoring programmes and guidance under development); and

.2 links to Contracting Parties’ websites and technical information resources

available elsewhere on the Internet. 5.2.2 In addition, the Convention’s web pages containing links to the Specific Guidelines and Waste Assessment Guidance Tutorial could be enhanced by including more descriptive information on how such resources can be useful to administrations. 5.2.3 In addition to the above, the following further actions are recommended as a follow-up to the survey:

.1 inform the Barriers to Compliance steering group of the key barriers identified in the survey to assist in the prioritization of projects aimed at removing the barriers;

.2 contact respondent countries and discuss the potential for holding national

workshops on implementation of the Specific Guidelines; .3 compile a distribution list of countries who responded to the survey and countries

who attended previous LC/LP workshops, to whom technical information from the sessions of the governing bodies and the Scientific Groups and any Barriers to Compliance efforts could be sent; and

.4 should any of the above be implemented, a follow-up survey could be conducted

in a few years to determine if the activities implemented have addressed participants’ needs.

Page 117: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 7

Page 9

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

APPENDIX

CLARIFICATION OF THE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RAISED DURING THE SURVEY

The London Convention and Protocol survey on usability and communication of the Waste Assessment Guidelines (WAGs) was designed to solicit feedback from mainly developing countries on the clarity, utility and accessibility of the Specific Guidelines for waste assessment. This document was prepared in response to specific comments raised by the survey participants and serves to clarify certain aspects of the Guidelines. It lists all comments submitted, presents the overall observations made, and highlights how current and planned activities under the London Convention and Protocol addresses key issues raised. SECTION A: CONTENT AND APPLICATION OF THE WAGs 1. Is the technical content of the Guidelines for each class of waste easy to understand?

Result: Yes (24 from 24 responses) Overall observations: Based on the results obtained, it can be concluded that the Specific Guidelines are well understood and supported by the survey group. It was noted that the Sewage Sludge Guidelines were not easy to understand. These guidelines are envisaged to be reviewed in terms of the Joint Work Programme of the Scientific Group (2008 – 2010) and the comments will be included in the review. Additionally, all the Specific Guidelines have been translated and are available in Spanish and French at the Convention’s website: http://www.londonconvention.org/. Comment 1: The only disadvantage is that a Spanish version of the Guidelines is not available in the website, which makes its distribution and promotion difficult. Comment 2: The Sewage Sludge guidelines are not easy to understand. Comment 3: (It is) Dependent on (the) technical competency of the individual / agency. Comment 4: The Guidelines are not being formally applied. Comment 5: For some guidelines on the materials that have been considered for dumping, they are easy to understand. For others new, such as Sewage Sludge, they are not. Comment 6: The Guidelines are fairly explicit. Comment 7: Our office is responsible for the implementation of policy relative to the management of toxic substances, hazardous waste in response to the Basel Convention relative to the transboundary movement of hazardous waste. As such all “word” and terms used are basically the same as that we are using in our existing policy which cover on-shore sources vis-à-vis industrial sources.

Page 118: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 7 Page 10

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

2. Does the level of advice given in the Guidelines help you to make the right

assessment of waste that works for your situation? Result: Yes (21) and No (2). Overall observations: As the comments indicate, a number of participants called for additional information on technical resources and experiences gained in other countries, to assist in the application of the Specific Guidelines. Some participants suggested that the Guidelines should be refined to include more specific technical information. However, the Guidelines are intended to serve only as a starting point in the development of national guidelines, norms and standards taking into account that the ecological, legal, policy and institutional situations will vary from country to country. Other resources developed under the Convention that may offer further technical guidance, case studies and advice to countries, include the Waste Assessment Guidance Tutorial (copies of which were supplied to survey participants in September 2007), and the Guidelines on Dredged Material Sampling and Analysis adopted in 2004. In regard to the relationship between the London Convention and MARPOL Annex V, a Working Group on Boundary Issues was established in 2006 under the London Convention Scientific Group to develop practical guidance for mariners and regulators to manage spoilt cargoes, in close co-operation with the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC). This activity had been assigned a high priority in the Future Work Programme of the Scientific Groups, and the final guidance is envisaged to be adopted at the next meeting of the governing bodies in October 2008. The Scientific Groups are currently completing a number of additional technical guidance documents that may be useful to countries. These include the Guidance for the development of Action Lists and Action Levels for Dredged Material, and Guidance for the Placement of Artificial Reefs. Comment 1: The use of the word “advice” does not make it clear that the Guidelines are of a recommendatory nature. It would be important that this is clearly stated in the text. Comment 2: The Specific Guideline for Assessment of Dredged Material is the most useful reference for us. Comment 3: It becomes even more practical when you learn strategies from other countries. Comment 4: Yes, it helps. It will be better if more detailed and certified technique references can be offered. Comment 5: It should be desirable to complement the actual contents with study cases in order to achieve a better advice. Comment 6: Clarification is needed between the LC and MARPOL Annex V. Comment 7: The level of advice is extremely helpful; however … the Guidelines are not being applied on a regular basis.

Page 119: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 7

Page 11

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

Comment 8: The Guidelines requires individual country to determine/set the criteria and limit set for dredged materials to be dumped. It would be beneficial if the Guideline have a specific set of criteria and limit for countries to adopt or reference against. Comment 9: The advice given is general and no benchmarking is set to make a proper assessment. Comment 10: In my opinion, it is useful and helps a lot, and I might apply these Guidelines for permission of artificial reef installation in (country name). 3. Do the Guidelines draw a clear distinction between the responsibilities of permitting

authority and that of the permit applicant when assessing materials for disposal? Result: Yes (14) and No (9)

Overall observation: The comments provided indicate that there is some uncertainty as to which agencies, at a national level, should carry out specific activities referred to in the Specific Guidelines. However, some respondents have indicated that the lack of clarity is not problematic. The responsibilities and actual norms with regard to waste characterization, site selection, monitoring and so forth will vary from country to country due to prevailing policy, institutional and regulatory arrangements. Again, it is reiterated that the Specific Guidelines are intended to serve as a starting point for the development of national guidelines and States are encouraged to adapt the guidance to their national contexts. In regard to comments on respective responsibilities for carrying out each step in the permitting process, it is up to the individual countries to determine who bears the responsibility for the waste prevention audit, waste characterization, monitoring, and so forth. Comment 1: I could not find whether monitoring, assessment, etc., are responsibility of the permit applicant. Comment 2: Although the distinction between the responsibilities does not seem clear enough, it serves the purpose. Comment 3: It is not clear as to who should select the new dump-site between the authority and the applicant and what role should the authorities play with regards to monitoring of dump-sites. Comment 4: The Guidelines mention what must be done but do not clarify the responsibilities of the permitting authority and permit applicant. Comment 5: The Guidelines should clarify who carries out Waste Prevention Audits. Comment 6: No clear distinction is drawn, however, an inference that the burden is on the applicant can be drawn from the conditions of the application. Comment 7: It is not clear who is responsible for testing properties of the materials for disposal and monitoring? Comment 8: It is not mentioned who should carry out the characterization of the wastes.

Page 120: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 7 Page 12

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

Comment 9: Yes, it clearly specifies the role of each stakeholder in the permit processes, such as prior to the issuance of the permit, and after the issuance of the permit. Comment 10: It should state clearly perhaps in Figure 1 or in the following chapters that who has responsibility to do specific job such as who provides information, who makes decision, who monitors, etc. 4. Is it easy for your organization to apply the Guidelines fully at an operational level?

Result: Yes (9) and No (8) Overall observation: The responses provided were spilt relatively equally, implying that the views were more or less equally opposed. The conclusion was drawn that the apparent difference in opinion could be attributed to institutional and technical constraints to implementation at a national level, rather than the content of the Guidelines. The comments submitted highlight the importance of having ongoing capacity-building initiatives and coordination among relevant institutions at a national level. Cost constraints were highlighted as a factor constraining effective application of the Guidelines. In this regard, the World Organisation of Dredging Associations (WODA) has embarked on a project to develop low-technology guidelines for dredged material assessment for developing countries where only minimal technical capabilities are available. In addition, the Scientific Groups established a Steering Group in 2007, to implement a project aimed at assisting countries to overcome legislative, institutional, technical and socio-economic barriers to attaining full compliance with the London Protocol (i.e. the Barriers to Compliance Project). Some of the activities envisaged under this project include the provision of advice to regulators on developing cost recovery mechanisms and polluter pays systems, and the provision of technical assistance to targeted countries based on needs identified. Comment 1: We do not apply, we can only recommend the Guidelines for application. Comment 2: It is not an easy task to evaluate all impacts as, in most cases, monitoring at sea is very expensive. Comment 3: If the Guidelines had an index of the different matters that it rules it may be simpler to apply them. Comment 4: The answer for this question is “N/A”. A technical circular “Management of Dredged/Excavated Sediment” has been developed for specific use in (country name). This circular sets out the procedure for seeking approval to dredged/excavated sediment and the management framework for marine disposal of such sediment. When we developed the technical circular, we had also made reference to Specific Guideline for Assessment of Dredged Material. Presently, the Specific Guidelines are for our general reference only. Comment 5: (Region name) adopted similar set of Guidelines under the provision of Article 4.2 of the Dumping Protocol. Though the Guidelines are comprehensive, the countries are facing serious problems when it comes to the details mainly due to national institutional set ups. Comment 6: Not entirely because it appears to be more generic in focus and is less procedural; however, the use of the national guidelines add some value in the process as it caters more of the country-specific issues and clarifies specific procedures to be followed.

Page 121: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 7

Page 13

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

Comment 7: To some extent, Yes. But it is far from “Fully”. Comment 8: More technical references on the appropriate and available technology equipped with economic analysis could be added as annexes, it will help the developing country for decision-making. Technical references on the methods of dumping are also required. Comment 9: Responsibilities are not clearly defined. Comment 10: In terms of transboundary movement of hazardous waste, this has already been implemented by our organization as we are given the task to do so. 5. Are the Guidelines useful in assisting with the implementation of compliance and

field monitoring programmes? Result: Yes (18) and No (2) Overall observation: An overwhelming majority of respondents believed that the Specific Guidelines are useful in supporting monitoring activities. Further technical information was also requested by respondents, such as existing monitoring programmes and monitoring parameters. These could possibly be provided as part of an online catalogue (or web page) of links to resources available at websites of Contracting Parties and relevant organizations. The Barriers to Compliance Project highlighted under the previous question, will also consider possible seminars to address the scientific aspects of dumping, such as field monitoring. Comment 1: Yes, it is generally useful for assisting with field monitoring by providing clarity on the important issues to consider under a monitoring programme. The sections of the Guidelines dealing with “assessment of potential effects” are valuable and important in considering the above question, since monitoring needs to be guided by prior assessments made. The information provided on compliance monitoring is also general in nature, but not problematic. Comment 2: Regarding the monitoring programmes, it should be desirable a more detailed descriptions, including the technical methods recommended. Comment 3: It helps, but the national standards and regulations in accordance with the Guidelines would be more useful to do that. Comment 4: Yes, field training on monitoring implementation could also enhance the capability of the country to implement the LDC 1972 and 1996 Protocol. Comment 5: Details on the parameters that should be monitored and against what guidelines limits are missing. 6. Are the Guidelines adequate in assisting you to solve problems at a national level,

related to disposal of waste at sea? Result: Yes (17) and No (3) Overall observation: In general, the response to the above question was very positive. A number of the comments alluded to the importance of having national guidelines and norms in place. Some comments also highlight the importance of effective coordination among relevant institutions at a national level. Comment 1: It is a good reference material.

Page 122: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 7 Page 14

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

Comment 2: (Region name) adopted similar set of Guidelines under the provision of Article 4.2 of the Dumping Protocol. The Guidelines are not (detailed enough). There is a need to provide additional guidance. Comment 3: Yes, especially when the Guidelines are used in conjunction with more detailed guidelines developed at a national level. Comment 4: Yes, mainly in the cases occasions when the country has not a specific normative. Comment 5: Agency overlap, guidance is also needed on limiting amount of permits. Comment 6: They help. But solving problems at a national level still depends on the national standards and regulations in accordance with the Guidelines. Comment 7: No, because quantitative aspects have not been included. Comment 8: Yes, it can give proper guidance to our organization before coordination with the (country name) Coast Guard on the selection of the disposal site and to decide whether to allow the disposal into the sea or not. 7. Have the Guidelines been useful in informing the development of other management

approaches to wastes or of waste minimization programmes? Result: Yes (17) and No (3)

Overall observation: The overall response is considered to be very positive and demonstrates a further interest expressed by countries in pollution management issues generally. The Scientific Groups under the Convention and Protocol promote the exchange of information and experiences on marine pollution prevention and management, in line with the Long-term Strategy for Technical Co-operation and Assistance. Further information regarding the Convention’s Technical Co-operation and Assistance Programme can be obtained from the Secretariat. Comment 1: It would be simpler if the Guidelines are separated into two major matters, e.g., dredge activities and dumping vessels. Comment 2: They are good references to develop other waste management and minimization programmes. Comment 3: Yes, the sections dealing with waste prevention audits and waste management options are useful. They have helped to discourage marine disposal in some instances. Comment 4: This is the basis for shipping (Marine Pollution) bill currently debated by parliament. Comment 5: Examples of pollution prevention plan that have been implemented by the parties could be also promoted to other countries. Comment 6: Yes, since the prepared Guidelines can even be used in the onshore sources such as industries. We are always advocating waste minimization/pollution prevention/cleaner production to all industry sources. If it can be done on the onshore sources it could also be done to offshore sources such as vessels.

Page 123: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 7

Page 15

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

8. Were there any obstacles/barriers or specific issues that you encountered when applying, or attempting to apply, the Guidelines in your country? Result: Yes (8) and No (7)

Overall observation: Some participants identified financial constrains and a lack of cost recovery mechanisms as important factors constraining effective implementation of the Specific Guidelines, especially with regard to site monitoring. WODA intends to develop an extension to the existing Waste Assessment Guidance Tutorial, focussing on the application of low-technology techniques for dredged material assessment and site monitoring. This activity is scheduled for completion in 2009. See also the Scientific Groups’ response to comments submitted under Question 4, regarding cost recovery. Comment 1: The cost may be very high and the waste owner may prefer to dump in land as the requirements are very demanding. Comment 2: It would be better if the technical content is adapted to the national specific administrative procedure. Comment 3: (Name of port authority) has adopted a Port Waste Management Plan having a more or less, similar approach to waste assessment and prevention as the Guidelines, and has not encountered with any barriers in applying it, so far. Comment 4: The costs of monitoring can be high especially if authorities have to do it. It is also not easy to apply the polluter-pays principle or cost recovery approaches to dumping and site monitoring. Comment 5: Sometimes, due to competences transferred to the Autonomous Governments and no coherence with other international agreements (OSPAR and BARCON in the [country name] case) – i.e., with dumping of vessels. Comment 6: We do not foresee any barriers to applying the Guidelines. Comment 7: For some materials that may be considered for dumping, there are still no national guidelines, standards or regulation in (country name). Comment 8: (Country name) has yet not ratified both LDC 1972 and 1996 Protocol, and there is no national legislation that could be the basis for the implementation of the Guidelines. 9. Are there any ways in which the Guidelines can be improved to increase their

application in your country? Result: Yes (12) and No (5) Overall observation: The comments submitted were not specific as to how the guidelines can be improved, but provided useful examples of how countries could enhance implementation of ocean dumping programmes. Capacity-building activities such as national workshops are important to ensure that the Guidelines are applied on an ongoing basis at a national level. Comment 1: Specific training programme should be considered.

Page 124: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 7 Page 16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

Comment 2: They may be improved if Assessment is supplemented with appropriate Checklists. Provision of additional specific guidance on monitoring, waste management, etc. Comment 3: If possible, clarity should be provided on the trends in the comparative responsibilities of authorities and users of dump sites, especially with regard to site selection and monitoring (i.e., who should chiefly be responsible for conducting these activities? Under what scenarios would an authority be responsible for selection and monitoring?). Comment 4: Harmonizing the commitments with the other international agreements. Comment 5: Improving the public awareness by workshop or training course, developing relevant standards or regulations will be helpful to increase their application in (country name). Comment 6: By inclusion of quantitative measures to facilitate assessment and comparison. 10. Are there any additional comments you wish to raise on any of the Specific

Guidelines? Result: Yes (6) and No (16) Overall observation: The additional information requested can possibly be provided as part of an online catalogue (or web page) of links to resources available at websites of Contracting Parties and relevant organizations. This information, together with the Guidelines themselves, can be used as tools by countries that are not Contracting Parties to the London Convention or 1996 Protocol. Comment 1: It would be advisable if you could extend the explanatory matters of characterization and dump site selection using cases and examples. Comment 2: Make it simpler to be easily understandable by ordinary people. Comment 3: With regards to fish waste, the Guidelines should be extended to by catch. Comment 4: The Convention has not been formally incorporated into [country name] law which accounts for the lack of application of the Guidelines. Comment 5: Documents referred to in the Guidelines should be made available through internet links to facilitate cross-referencing and assessment. SECTION B: COMMUNICATION AND DISTRIBUTION 11. How did you first find out about the Specific Guidelines? Overall observation: The Guidelines are being obtained from a variety of sources both in hardcopy and electronic format, such as the London Convention Secretariat, meetings of the subsidiary bodies, the Convention’s website, and various regional and national networks. No additional comments were raised by respondents.

Page 125: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 7

Page 17

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

12. In what format (e.g., electronic, hardcopy) did you first receive the Guidelines? Overall observation: The majority of respondents (17) indicated that they first received the Guidelines in electronic format and all respondents considered e-mail and web-based distribution to be useful mechanisms for further distribution of the Guidelines. No additional comments were raised by respondents. 13. Is the text or language of the Guidelines easy to read and understand?

Result: Yes (20) and No (3) Overall observation: Up to 3 respondents believed that the language could be further simplified for countries where English is not a native language. Readers should note that the guidelines are available in Spanish, French and English at the Convention’s website: http://www.londonconvention.org/. Comment 1: No, it would be simpler to access a Spanish version in the website. Comment 2: But for a countries like ours, English is a secondary language, it could be advisable to be more simplified. Comment 3: Case study information can be used to illustrate application of the Guidelines. The Guidelines should be made more “user friendly” for permit applications. Comment 4: Considering the native languages of many parties are not English, the wording or language of the Guidelines should be much easier to understand. 14. Do you consider Internet (i.e. e-mail and web) distribution to be a useful means

through which to distribute and promote the Guidelines? Result: Yes (24) and No (0) Overall observation: Overwhelmingly, respondents indicated that the Internet is useful tool. However, it is recognized that all the respondents were able to access the Internet during the survey. This may not necessarily be representative of the situation as a whole, and some States may still prefer to receive the Guidelines in hardcopy form. A combination of various distribution methods is encouraged, to take into account possible problems with Internet access. Comment 1: Though there may be areas which do not have access to the Internet, which would need other means to receive the information. Comment 2: It facilitates wider distribution of the Guidelines to relevant agencies. Comment 3: The information on the Internet is useful for someone who is interested in the topic, but for the public you might need other means of distribution, e.g., a newsletter, organization’s poster or the use of NGO’s to take some bad incidents to court and make it appear in the newspaper.

Page 126: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 7 Page 18

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

15. What do you consider to be the best way in which to distribute and promote the Guidelines to relevant organizations in your country? Results were not enumerated.

Overall observation: Participants generally suggested similar distribution and promotion mechanisms in response to Questions 15 – 17. Based on the information supplied, it was not possible to ascertain whether there was a preference for using specific mechanisms at a national and regional scale, respectively. The mechanisms mentioned include: the Internet, workshops, stakeholder forums, gatherings such as conferences, distribution by national focal point institutions responsible for maritime affairs, and submission of the Guidelines to Ministers for formal endorsement. 16. What do you consider to be the best way in which to distribute and promote the

Guidelines to relevant organizations in your region? Results were not enumerated. Overall observation: Mechanisms identified at a regional scale include international organizations, regional maritime networks, regional seminars or workshops, stakeholder forums and training workshops. 17. Aside from the mechanisms you have identified in 15 and 16 above, what other

distribution mechanisms should be used to improve access to the Guidelines? Results were not enumerated.

Overall observation: Not many participants responded to this question. Suggestions that were provided were very similar to those mentioned under Question 16.

***

Page 127: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

ANNEX 8

DRAFT FORMAT FOR REPORTING ON CO2 SEQUESTRATION IN SUB-SEABED GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS UNDER THE LONDON PROTOCOL

(WORK IN PROGRESS)

Note that this format should be used to the extent possible in implementation reports. Please state the reasons, if data and information requested under the Implementation Report on Effectiveness cannot be provided. I. Implementation Report on Compliance Country:

Means of Implementation: by legislation by administrative action by negotiated agreement Yes/no yes/no yes/no description Description description Please provide information on any special difficulties encountered, such as practical or legal problems, in the implementation of this measure. ...........................................................................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................................................................

II. Reporting about permits issued and storage sites Contracting Parties should report, annually, the following information to the IMO Secretariat. A cumulative national summary about all storage – sites* Issue: Response: Year of reporting Number of storage sites for which permits have been issued Number of permits issued Total amount of CO2 injected (tonnes) for all storage sites in the year concerned Net amount (accounting for leakage) of CO2 stored (tonnes) for all sites in the year concerned Cumulative amount (accounting for leakage) of CO2 stored (tonnes) for all sites

Page 128: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 8 Page 2

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

List of storage sites Site Name: Site ID Number:

− −

Reporting for each storage site/permit Issue: Response: Are you reporting by site or permit? Name, location, geographic extent and depth of geological formation, coordinates of the storage site Year in which CO2 storage began Site in operation or closed and if closed year of closure Annual amount of CO2 (tonnes) injected Annual amount of CO2 (tonnes) stored (taking into account any leakage) Cumulative amount in storage (taking into account any leakage) Chemical composition of the CO2 stream Type of storage formation (e.g., aquifer, petroleum reservoir, etc.) Any observed leakage rates/volumes and exposure pathways Any mitigative measures taken to control this leakage or reduce the impacts of this leakage Any observed impacts from this leakage on the marine environment and other legitimate uses of the sea during and/or after the implementation of these measures

* “Storage site” in this document means: “CO2 sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations” in

the terms of the London Protocol; “Storage of carbon dioxide streams in geological formations” in the terms of the OSPAR Convention; and “Carbon dioxide transport, injection and geological storage” in the terms of the IPCC 2006 Guidelines.

***

Page 129: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

ANNEX 9

DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN OF THE “BARRIERS TO COMPLIANCE” PROJECT

Table of contents 1 Background and introduction ···················································································· 2 2 Project budget ············································································································· 2 3 Project responsibility and management ···································································· 3 4 Overview of activities ·································································································· 3 5 Project reporting and review ····················································································· 5 6 Project work plan ········································································································ 5 APPENDIX DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES ························································································ 6 BARRIERS PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CHART ···················································· 12

Page 130: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 9 Page 2

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

1 Background and introduction 1.1 In 2006/2007, the governing bodies of the London Convention and Protocol undertook a global review to identify barriers to accession to, implementation of and compliance with international sea dumping controls (in “developing” countries) with a view to expand their membership to the Protocol and improve implementation (compliance ) with these agreements to better protect the marine environment. The global review proposed a “set of recommendations for follow-up projects” or ‘activities’ aimed at capacity-building to remove known barriers, impediments to compliance with the London Convention and Protocol and recommend ways to overcome these (refer Final Report of the Barriers to Compliance Project – annex to document LC 29/INF.2). 1.2 The governing bodies reviewed several technical co-operation and assistance activities contained within the Final Report and adopted a strategic approach to implement these (annex 8 to document LC 29/17). This approach would help to prioritize support for States to overcome the legislative, institutional, technical and socio-economic barriers that have been identified towards full compliance with the London Protocol. 1.3 This document sets out an implementation plan for a number of activities that match initial funding and in-kind pledges that have already been received. Activities set out in this document are based on the recommendations found in the Final Report of the Barriers to Compliance Project. The implementation plan can be used by Parties to identify activities that may be of particular interest, whether as a donor and/or offering a particular skill or as a (future) recipient. It is envisaged that as additional funding becomes available this document will be revised and updated accordingly. 2 Project budget 2.1 The following pledges were made for contributions to execute this project:

NO: COUNTRY/ORGANIZATION: CONTRIBUTION/PLEDGES IN US$:1 Canada (CS$25,000) for 2008 26,0002 France1 ~250,0003 Italy (€10,000) for 2008 15,0004 Spain (~€30,000) for 2008 ~45,0005 United States for 2008 – 2009 79,200 6 Greenpeace International In kind support 7 UNEP for 2008 19,0008 IMO-ITCP ~250,000 TOTAL 684,200

2.2 IMO-ITCP funding for this project focuses on countries in Eastern Europe and the CIS States, Mediterranean Sea, Asia-Pacific, the Gulfs area and West Africa for the period 2008 to 2009.

1 An application is being prepared to the “Fonds Français pour l’Environnement Mondial (FFEM)”, for the

period 2009 – 2011/2012, aimed at access to these funds and focussing on support for selected countries in the Mediterranean Sea Area. An important precondition for awarding an FFEM-grant is co-funding for between 50% and 66% from other sources.

Page 131: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 9

Page 3

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

2.3 Funds that were pledged to the LC&P TC-Activities in previous years and that have remained unspent may, subject to donor confirmation, also be redirected towards this project (it is estimated that this amount is approximately $17,300). As these funds become available, a revision of this document will be prepared. 3 Project responsibility and management 3.1 A Steering Group was established at the meeting of governing bodies in November 2007 to oversee and guide the further planning and implementation of the project. China, Italy, the Republic of Korea, the United States, UNEP and UNEP/MAP offered to be included in the Steering Group. The approach agreed by the governing bodies is set out in annex 8 to document LC 29/17 – entitled a Strategic approach to implementation of the “Barriers to Compliance” Project. 3.2 The present members of the Steering Group will be assisted by the Bureau (Secretariat and Chairpersons and Vice-chairpersons of the Consultative Meeting/Meeting of Contracting Parties and Scientific Groups). Noting the size of the project and the work involved in its implementation, due consideration should be given to the possibility of assistance given to the Secretariat in terms of human resources for the management of the project. 4 Overview of activities 4.1 The Barriers to Compliance Project will include a number of activities, each of which are introduced below. More detailed descriptions of the activities in terms of key dates, inputs and outputs are set out in the appendix to this document. Note that at this early stage of programming, some flexibility is needed to guarantee the maximum benefit to recipient countries, hence precise timing, host countries, some recipients and outputs may differ during the delivery phases. 4.1.1 Generic Activities

Rationale: work that could produce benefit for a number of countries, or the whole programme, and should be conducted as a priority, mostly at the “global” level:

.1 Develop and promulgate awareness raising and outreach packages addressed to

various possible target groups such as pilot countries2 other recipient countries, donors and regional programmes and organizations; and

.2 Develop a global inventory of dumping activities in recent years, to provide a

better understanding of what is being dumped where – including outside of LC/LP reporting system. Please note: a contract has been agreed with CEFAS (UK) to prepare this report in the period 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009.

2 Pilot countries must be a developing country or economy in transition and be representative of the 15 Regional

Seas of the world. They should have a certain level of base institutional capacity to ensure a high chance of success as well as a willingness to commit national resources. (See LC 29/INF.2, table 5).

Page 132: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 9 Page 4

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

.3 Develop and promulgate the Guidance on National Implementation of LP (including in all UN languages); The guidance would serve countries that wish to develop their administrative, institutional, legal and technical frameworks and systems to access, implement and comply with the LC/LP system; and

.4 Develop and promulgate model national legislation in all UN languages (possibly

different versions – e.g., catering for British, French and US style legal systems). 4.1.2 Regional Workshops

Rationale: A small number of regional workshops would be held to inform countries on the need to and the benefits of ratifying the London Protocol. One or two countries will then be invited to participate as pilot countries: .1 Regional Workshop in the Caspian Sea – Azerbaijan; .2 Regional Workshop in West Africa – Anglophone countries; .3 Regional Workshop in West Africa – Francophone countries; .4 Regional Workshop for Mediterranean countries in collaboration with

UNEP/MAP and the Government of Italy; .5 Regional Workshop in South American countries – tbd; and .6 Additional regions should be considered – South East Asia (COBSEA); Pacific

(SPREP); South Asia (SACEP); Caribbean.

4.1.3 National consultancies and/or targeted seminars Rationale: National consultancies will be carried out, following or in conjunction with a needs assessment in a pilot country: .1 Needs assessment followed by in-depth assistance to Turkey; .2 Needs assessment followed by in-depth assistance to Thailand; .3 Needs assessment followed by in-depth assistance to Oman (follow-up to ROPME

Regional Workshop in February 2007); .4 Needs assessment followed by in-depth assistance to Egypt; .5 Needs assessment followed by in-depth assistance to Iran (follow-up to ROPME

regional Workshop in February 2007); and .6 Additional countries should be considered.

Page 133: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 9

Page 5

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

4.1.4 Specific legal or scientific type activities:

.1 Technical and scientific activities that could be tasked to the Scientific Groups (in the form of guiding workshops or seminars, provision of experts, etc.) or through regional bodies’ activities; and

.2 Capacity-building in legal aspects could be provided by various legal training

bodies, such as IOI, IDC or UNEP to assist with the development of national laws.

4.1.5 Strategies to engage pilot countries (Parties and non-Parties):

.1 The Secretariat, in co-operation with a donor country/partner organization, should write to potential pilot countries (Parties and non-Parties) and determine whether they would be interested to be part of the project;

.2 Develop collaborative arrangements and activities with regional bodies (such as

the Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans) with a view to long-term support for London Protocol outreach and capacity-building activities;

.3 Assist pilot countries in developing targeted national communication and

awareness campaigns to inform legislators and stimulate political will to act (include highlighting the value of joining the global regime (LP) as opposed to remaining or joining in regional regimes); and

.4 Provide guidance and support pilot countries to develop and implement economic

incentives to encourage waste reduction practices and cost recovery mechanisms (including “user pays” and “polluter pays” approaches and penalties for illegal dumping).

5 Project reporting and review It is envisaged that an annual report will be produced by the secretariat and the Steering Group and made available to the Scientific Groups for comment/review and/or to the governing bodies for consideration/approval. This will enable Parties to monitor and evaluate progress towards implementing the activities and their effectiveness. If needed, the governing bodies may modify activities or withdraw them if they have not yet commenced and are considered not suitable any longer. New activities may also be proposed and added to the project. 6 Project work plan A draft GANNT chart is set out at the final page of the appendix. This will be enhanced with resource allocation and milestones in a final version.

Page 134: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 9 Page 6

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

APPENDIX

DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES A Funded activities Activity No.1 Title Implementation of the “Barriers to Compliance” Project in CIS and Eastern Europe Duration: 3 Days Time Line: 06/04/2009 – 08/04/2009 Region: CIS/EE Sub region: BLACK SEA COUNTRIES Donor: TC Fund $19,000 Host Country: Turkey Subject Matter: Dumping of wastes at sea (LC) Discipline: Marine Environment Protection Recipient Countries: Turkey Brief Description: Work towards identification of barriers to compliance with the London Protocol to the

London Convention in Turkey and subsequently the removal of (some of) the barriers thus identified

Inputs: Needs assessment mission by consultant (-s) (fees, travel and DSA), and IMO Staff (travel and DSA), followed by legal, technical and administrative advice, possible via a focussed National Workshop. In-kind support by host to cover the costs of participants at National Workshop(s). Provision of publications/course materials.

Outputs: Up to 20 participants trained in all matters (legal, technical, administrative) of the London Protocol and subsequent ratification of the London Protocol

Implementation Officer: Edward Kleverlaan Schedule of Activities Indicators Milestones Agreement of venue by host State 05/01/2009 Identify consultant(s) and submit to Panel 02/02/2009 Submission of report 08/05/2009 Clearance of report 22/05/2009 Activity No.2 Activity no Title: London Protocol Regional Workshop Duration: 3 DAYS Time Line: 03/11/2008 – 05/11/2008 Region: CIS/Eastern Europe Sub region: REGION-WIDE Donor: TC Fund $35,000 Host Country: Azerbaijan Subject Matter: Dumping of Wastes at Sea (LC) Discipline: Marine Environment Protection Recipient Countries: Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Romania, Russian Federation, Iran, Kazakhstan,

Georgia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria Brief Description: This Regional Workshop, involving senior officials from the recipient countries, will

sensitize countries to the need to and benefits of ratifying the London Protocol Inputs: The consultant to act as a resource person at the Workshop, together with IMO staff.

Host-ship facilities to be covered by host country. Outputs: Up to 20 participants from the recipient countries sensitized in all matters (legal,

technical, administrative) of the LP. Implementation Officer: Edward Kleverlaan

Page 135: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 9

Page 7

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

Schedule of Activities Indicators Milestones Agree requirements by host State 04/08/2008 Identify consultant(s) and submit to Panel 01/09/2008 Order Publications 06/10/2008 Submission of Report to CM 12/12/2008 Clearance of Report 12/01/2009 Activity No.3 Title: LONDON CONVENTION: FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITIES TO THE 2007 ROPME

WORKSHOP ON THE LONDON CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL Duration: 5 Days Dates: 09/02/2009 –

13/02/2009 Region: ARAB

STATES/MEDITERRANEAN Sub region: ARAB COUNTRIES

Donor: TC Fund $52,500 Host Country: Oman Subject Matter: DUMPING OF WASTES AT SEA (LC) Discipline: MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION Recipient Countries: Brief Description: As a follow-up to the 2007 ROMPE workshop, work towards identification and removal

of barriers to comply with the 1996 Protocol leading to subsequent accession by Oman. Inputs: Needs assessment mission by a consultant(s) (fees, travel and DSA) and IMO staff

(travel and DSA) followed by legal, technical and administrative advice delivered via focused workshop(s) in key departments. In-kind support by host country to cover the cost of participants at the national workshop(s) is expected. Provision of publications.

Outputs: Up to 20 participants trained in legal, technical and administrative matters of the 1996 Protocol to the London Convention with the expectation of subsequent ratification of the 1996 Protocol.

Implementation Officer: Edward Kleverlaan Schedule of Activities Indicators Milestones Agreement of project by host State 04/08/2008 Consultant approved by Panel 01/09/2008 Consultant approved by Panel 01/09/2008 Order publications 06/10/2008 Host country has confirmed dates 15/11/2008 Send invitations with nomination forms 20/11/2008 (Send faxes to UNDP) 30/12/2008 Seminar/ Workshop commences 09/02/2009 Input feedback into roster 04/04/2009 Clearance of report 30/06/2009 Request payment of consultant 30/08/2009 Input actual date & attach report in SAP 30/10/2009 Activity No.4 Title: CÔTE D’IVOIRE – NATIONAL WORKSHOP ON RATIFICATION AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LONDON PROTOCOL Duration: 5 Days Dates: 07/09/2009 – 11/09/2009 Region: AFRICA Sub region: WEST & CENTRAL

AFRICA Donor: TC Fund $42,000 Host Country: Côte d’Ivoire Subject Matter: DUMPING OF WASTES AT SEA (LC)

Page 136: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 9 Page 8

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

Discipline: MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION Recipient Countries: Côte d’Ivoire, Senegal, Gabon, Democratic Republic of the Congo Brief Description: Work towards identification of barriers to the ratification, implementation and

compliance with the 1996 Protocol of the London Convention in Côte d’Ivoire and subsequently the removal of (or some of) the barriers thus identified with a view to ratification of the 1996 Protocol.

Inputs: One consultant travel (travel and DSA) and an IMO Officer (travel and DSA), will deliver a regional workshop to sensitize the participating countries to the need to ratify the Protocol. It is anticipated that we will able to obtain a consultant free of charge (no fees). The host country will be expected to contribute in the form of in-kind support by meeting the cost of the workshop/seminar venue and facilities. Further group training costs will be covered by additional funds from the Office for the London Convention and Protocol. Provision of publications/course materials.

Outputs: Up to 20 participants trained in all matters (legal, technical, administrative) of the 1996 Protocol to the London Convention, and leading to possible ratification of the 1996 Protocol.

Implementation Officer: Edward Kleverlaan Schedule of Activities Indicators Milestones Host country has confirmed dates 20/07/2009 Send invitations with nomination forms 17/08/2009 Consultant approved by Panel 31/08/2009 Send faxes to UNDP 14/09/2009 Seminar/ Workshop commences 12/10/2009 Clearance of report 13/11/2009 Request payment of consultant 27/11/2009 Input feedback into roster 27/11/2009 Input actual date & attach report in SAP 04/12/2009 Activity No.5 Title: THAILAND – REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON RATIFICATION AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LONDON PROTOCOL (FOLLOW-UP TO DALIAN WORKSHOP IN 2006)

Duration: 5 Days Dates: 10/08/2009 – 14/08/2009 Region: ASIA & PACIFIC ISLANDS Sub region: EAST ASIA Donor: TC Fund $62,490 Host Country: Thailand Subject Matter: DUMPING OF WASTES AT SEA (LC) Discipline: MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION Recipient Countries: Vietnam Thailand, Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Cambodia, Indonesia, China Brief Description: As a follow-up to the Dalian 2006 Workshop, work towards identification/removal of

barriers to compliance with the 1996 Protocol of the London Convention. Inputs: One consultant travel (travel and DSA) and one IMO Officer (travel and DSA) and 14

participants, as well publications. This activity will be co-ordinated with COBSEA and NOWPAP as appropriate.

Outputs: Up to 16 participants trained in legal, technical, administrative matters of the 1996 Protocol to the London Convention, with the expectation of subsequent ratification of the 1996 Protocol.

Implementation Officer:

Edward Kleverlaan

Page 137: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 9

Page 9

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

Schedule of Activities Indicators Milestones Host country has confirmed dates 20/05/2009 Send invitations with nomination forms 17/06/2009 Consultant approved by Panel 30/06/2009 Send faxes to UNDP 14/07/2009 Seminar/ Workshop commences 10/08/2009 Clearance of report 13/10/2009 Request payment of consultant 27/10/2009 Input feedback into roster 27/11/2009 Input actual date & attach report in SAP 04/12/2009 Activity No.6 Title: DEVELOPMENT OF A GLOBAL INVENTORY OF SEA DUMPING ACTIVITIES

IN THE PERIOD 2000-2005 Duration: 3 months (in net terms) Dates: 1/04/2008 – 31/03/2009 Region: GLOBAL Sub region: NA Donor: CANADA, ITALY, UNITED STATES $35,000 Host Country: Subject Matter: DUMPING OF WASTES AT SEA (LC) Discipline: MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION Recipient Countries: Global Brief Description: Global inventory of dumping activities in the period 2000-2005 (State of Sea dumping

report), to provide a better understanding of what is being dumped where – including (especially) outside of LC/LP reporting system

Inputs: Funds from donor countries, IMO project management and IMO Publications service Outputs: State of Sea dumping report Implementation Officer: Edward Kleverlaan Schedule of Activities Indicators Milestones Commence Contract 01/04/2008 Interim Report 01/10/2008 Final Report 31/03/2009 Publication 01/03/2010 B Proposed activities (as yet unfunded) Activity No.7 Title: DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLICATIONS TO ENHANCE COMMUNICATIONS

AND AWARENESS OF THE PROJECT Duration: 3 months Dates: TBD Region: GLOBAL Sub region: NA Donor: TC Fund, UNEP, CANADA Host Country: Subject Matter: DUMPING OF WASTES AT SEA (LC) Discipline: MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION Recipient Countries: Global Brief Description: Develop and promulgate a comprehensive (marketing) package for potential donors,

pilot countries or recipient countries Inputs: Funds from donor countries, IMO project management and IMO Publications service Outputs: Marketing Package Implementation Officer: Edward Kleverlaan

Page 138: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 9 Page 10

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

Schedule of Activities Indicators Milestones Activity No.8 Title: DEVELOP AND PROMULGATE A PUBLICATION OF THE GUIDANCE ON

NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROTOCOL IN ALL UN LANGUAGES

Duration: 3 months Dates: TBD Region: GLOBAL Sub region: NA Donor: TC Fund, UNEP, CANADA, ITALY Host Country: Subject Matter: DUMPING OF WASTES AT SEA (LC) Discipline: MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION Recipient Countries: Global Brief Description: Develop and promulgate the Guidance on National Implementation of LP (including in

all UN languages) to be made available to recipient countries Inputs: Donor country funds, IMO project Management and Publications Service Outputs: Publication Implementation Officer: Edward Kleverlaan Schedule of Activities Indicators Milestones No indicators provided Activity No.9 Title: DEVELOP AND PROMULGATE MODEL NATIONAL LEGISLATION IN ALL

UN LANGUAGES Duration: 3 months Dates: TBD Region: GLOBAL Sub region: NA Donor: TC Fund, UNEP, CANADA, ITALY Host Country: Subject Matter: DUMPING OF WASTES AT SEA (LC) Discipline: MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION Recipient Countries: Global Brief Description: Develop and promulgate model national legislation in all UN languages (possibly

different versions – e.g., catering for British, French and US style legal systems); and Inputs: Outputs: Implementation Officer: Edward Kleverlaan Schedule of Activities Indicators Milestones No indicators provided

Page 139: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 9

Page 11

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

Activity No.10 Title: DEVELOP GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT PILOT COUNTRIES TO DEVELOP AND

IMPLEMENT ECONOMIC INCENTIVES Duration: 3 months Dates: TBD Region: GLOBAL Sub region: NA Donor: United States Host Country: Subject Matter: DUMPING OF WASTES AT SEA (LC) Discipline: MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION Recipient Countries: Global Brief Description: Develop guidance and support pilot countries to develop and implement economic

incentives to encourage waste reduction practices and cost recovery mechanisms (including “user” and/or “polluter pays” systems, penalties for illegal dumping)

Inputs: Outputs: Implementation Officer: Edward Kleverlaan Schedule of Activities Indicators Milestones No indicators provided

Page 140: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 9 Page 12

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

BARRIERS PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CHART

***

Page 141: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

ANNEX 10

DRAFT GUIDANCE ON MANAGING SPOILT CARGOES Introduction 1 Occasionally during a voyage, cargo may spoil and mariners are faced with the need to manage the problem. These Guidelines are intended for those individuals with the responsibility to take decisions for a given ship or cargo; they can be officers or the Master (who would be trained mariners) or shore-side representatives such as agents or company officials (who may not be trained mariners). 2 The ideal way to manage cargo that spoils during a voyage would be to offload it from the ship to be managed on land; either to sell for an alternate use, recycle salvageable materials, or be disposed of in an environmentally safe manner. Dumping spoilt cargo at sea should only be considered when: there is a marked degree of urgency, facilities on land are unavailable, and it will not cause harm to the environment or human health. Applicability of the London Convention and London Protocol (LC/LP) and MARPOL 73/78 Annex V to the management of spoilt cargoes 3 The London Convention and Protocol regulate the dumping of wastes or other matter at sea. Annex V of MARPOL 73/78 regulates the prevention of pollution by garbage from ships. 4 Annex V of the MARPOL 73/78 sets conditions for discharge of garbage from a ship. Under this Convention, wastes meeting the definition of “garbage” could be discharged at sea at least 12 nautical miles from land. Annex V defines garbage as “all kinds of victuals, domestic and operational waste excluding fresh fish and parts thereof, generated during the normal operation of the ship and liable to be disposed of continuously or periodically…” 5 The Guidelines for the Implementation of Annex V of MARPOL 73/78 provide additional definitions which are useful in determining if spoilt cargoes can be classified as garbage under Annex V (as numbered in the Guidelines):

1.7.7 “Operational waste means all cargo-associated waste and maintenance-associated waste, and cargo residues defined as garbage in 1.7.10”

1.7.5 “Cargo-associated waste means all materials which have become wastes as a

result of use on board a ship for cargo stowage and handling …” 1.7.6 “Maintenance waste means materials collected by the engine department and the

deck department while maintaining and operating the vessel, such as soot, machinery deposits, scraped paint, deck sweeping, wiping wastes, and rags, etc.”

1.7.10 “Cargo residues for the purposes of these Guidelines are defined as the remnants

of any cargo material on board that cannot be placed in proper cargo holds (loading excess and spillage) or which remains in cargo holds and elsewhere after unloading procedures are completed (unloading residual and spillage). However, cargo residues are expected to be in small quantities.”

Page 142: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 10 Page 2

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

6 While determining whether a spoilt cargo meets the definition of “garbage” under Annex V is done on a case-by-case basis, it is unlikely that most spoilt cargo will meet this definition of “garbage”. 7 Unless a spoilt cargo meets the above definitions covering “garbage” under Annex V, it will be subject to the control of dumping under the London Convention and Protocol. The London Convention and Protocol regulate ocean dumping of wastes or other matter. They set out a system requiring a permit be obtained in advance of dumping. Thus, a permit needs to be obtained from either the State in whose jurisdiction the dumping would occur, or from the flag State if the dumping is planned for waters outside of national jurisdiction. Only those materials found to be acceptable under the London Convention or Protocol may be considered for dumping at sea. Contingency plans for the management of spoilt cargo 8 The shipowner or their representative may consider developing contingency plans to facilitate timely decision-making by regulatory authorities in the port State or flag State and minimize delays to a ship. 9 It would be useful for ships, especially those carrying the same cargo type over time, to have contingency plans established for dealing with their specific type of cargo should it spoil. Ships engaged in spot contract services could have general contingency plans in the event of cargo spoilage. Contingency plans should consider:

.1 an assessment the potential for cargo spoilage to occur over a given route, including the risks, potential quantities and measures available to reduce spoilage;

.2 notifying the cargo owner, port authorities and regulatory authorities of the port

State or the ship’s flag State; .3 a process to decide if the spoilt cargo is to be managed as waste for disposal on

land or sold for an alternative use; .4 a process to determine available land-based facilities that are authorized to receive

the spoilt cargo, and make arrangements; .5 if land-based options are not available, or practicable, a communications process

setting out who will be contacted for a permit for dumping at sea; and .6 if dumping is selected, a process and the information needed to obtain a permit.

Considerations for documenting spoilt cargo 10 Existing documents that ships carry can provide much of the information needed for managing spoilt cargo. Key documents include bills of lading, cargo manifests, ship’s logs, and the Garbage Record Book under regulation 9 of Annex V.

Page 143: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 10

Page 3

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

11 In rare cases where spoilt cargoes could be defined as “garbage” under Annex V, discharges of spoilt cargo should be recorded in the Garbage Record Book. Spoilt cargo should also be recorded in the Garbage Record Book if it is offloaded in port for management on land as ships’ wastes. 12 Otherwise, documentation should include information necessary to obtain a dumping permit under the London Convention or Protocol, including descriptions of:

.1 the quantities and properties of the waste or other matter; .2 how the cargo was spoiled; .3 how the spoilt cargo is packaged and how it would be released; .4 the proposed dumping site including geographical position (latitude and

longitude), depth of water and distance from nearest coast; and .5 the potential effects and expected environmental consequences of the disposal of

the spoilt cargo. 13 The Master or ship’s owner should consult with the cargo owner to ensure information on the nature of the cargo is complete. A local shipping agent may be able to obtain advice on selecting a suitable dump site. Dump-site selection is part of the permitting process and, therefore, it is necessary to consult the Government issuing the permit on the selection of a suitable dump-site. Applying for a permit 14 The London Convention requires consideration of the practical availability of alternative land-based methods of treating, disposal or elimination. The London Protocol states that ocean dumping permits shall be refused if the permitting authority determines that appropriate opportunities exist to re-use, recycle or treat the waste without undue risk to human health or the environment or disproportionate costs. Therefore, options to manage spoilt cargo other than ocean dumping need to be considered. Such options may include resale for alternate use, recycling, landfill, secure landfill, incineration, composting and treatment for use or landfill. 15 The ship’s owner, Master, or a designated officer in consultation with the owner of the cargo should prepare the permit application. The owner of the cargo may prefer to apply for the permit. It should be submitted to the Government of the State in whose jurisdiction the dumping is planned to occur. Contacts for the appropriate State Government can be obtained from the Office for the London Convention and Protocol at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) at [email protected]. If the dumping is planned to take place in waters outside of national jurisdiction, the permit application should be submitted to the flag State Administration. Emergency Permits 16 In emergencies posing an unacceptable threat to human health, safety or the marine environment and admitting no other feasible solution, an emergency permit may be issued. Disposal at sea under an emergency permit would need to be conducted in a manner that minimizes the impact on the marine environment.

Page 144: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 10 Page 4

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

Measures for temporary storage 17 A disposal at sea permit requires a detailed assessment of the waste and other requirements and can take a significant amount of time to obtain. Contingency measures should be in place to temporarily allow for storage of the material to be disposed of while a permit is obtained, allowing the transporting vessel to proceed with its normal activities. 18 Another aspect to consider, if disposal at sea is the preferred option to manage a spoilt cargo, is that the configuration of the ship where the cargo spoiled may not be amenable to dumping it at sea. In such a case, contingency plans could consider arrangements for temporary storage either on land or another vessel, and subsequent loading onto suitable equipment for dumping. 19 Plans for temporary storage would need to be considered in any permit application review and should include location, logistics for transportation and handling, expected timeframes, containment measures, emergency response (if needed), and contingencies. Mitigation for invasive species and pathogens in some spoilt cargoes 20 Some spoilt cargoes pose concerns for transferring invasive species or harmful pathogens; notably from living organisms present in the cargo, or if they are the cargo. Invasive species of concern could be terrestrial species potentially transferred from port to port or marine species introduced through contamination of the cargo with sea water, a concern if the material is dumped at sea. Measures may include special considerations for disposal or storage site selection, containment if storage is required, and containment at the disposal site including capping or other confined disposal. Treatment could also be considered depending on facilities and type of organism suspected, but could include comminution or incineration. 21 Mariners engaged in the transport of cargo that presents risks for transferring invasive species should include measures in their management plans to manage spoilt cargo. Advice may be available from regulatory authorities in the importing country. 22 Mortalities of live animal cargoes such as certain shellfish and livestock can be a key concern, notably for countries that rely on maritime shipping for trading livestock. In case of livestock, advice of the Food and Agriculture Organization is that livestock mortalities should be stored for landing ashore and incineration. On board storage of mortalities should be segregated to prevent pathogen transmission among the other animals on board. 23 Managing risks of disease transmission on land may also need some specific considerations. In some cases, land-based disposal options may present a higher risk to human health and the environment. The comparative risks between land disposal and sea disposal should be assessed as related to the specific circumstances and potential impacts posed to human health and the environment. Local regulatory authorities in the port State receiving the mortalities should be contacted for advice. Shipping agents, prior to arrival, should facilitate contact with the port State. 24 Other measures may include mechanical handling to avoid worker exposure (seafarers and dockside workers), site selection considerations (avoiding potential conflicts with other users of the sea), containment if storage is required, and containment on-site including capping or other confined disposal. If the pathogen is known, measures may be set for monitoring worker health

Page 145: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 10

Page 5

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

(for human health risks) or for monitoring the local environment (if material presents a risk to wildlife). Treatment could also be considered depending on the facilities and type of organism suspected. Alternative options when dumping at sea is not allowed 25 Even in cases where practical or appropriate land-based options are not available, dumping at sea may not be allowed based on the type of spoilt cargo or a sensitivity of the receiving environment. 26 Where a dumping permit would not be allowed for a type of spoilt cargo, plans should be made for offloading in port. If there are no available facilities at a given port, as part of the contingency planning process, ports and local authorities should be consulted either on:

.1 the potential to establish facilities; .2 options for the potential spoilt cargo to be used in local industry; or .3 feasibility of transport to an authorized facility within the jurisdiction.

27 If no facilities are available within a port State, contingency plans should consider retention of the spoilt cargo on board and sailing to either the nearest port with facilities for offloading either on a direct route or on the planned route for other cargo shipments. To manage costs, these plans should be developed in consultation with insurance organizations and cargo owners.

***

Page 146: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not
Page 147: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

ANNEX 11

DRAFT GUIDANCE ON BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OF REMOVAL OF TBT PAINTS FROM SHIPS

(WORK IN PROGRESS: in English only) 1 Background and introduction 1.1 Anti-fouling systems are used on ships’ hulls to limit the effect fouling can have on drag, fuel consumption, and the emission of combustion products. They may contain pesticides or be pesticide-free. The pesticides tributyltin (TBT) and copper are the most common anti-fouling biocides, although the shipping industry is moving away from TBT systems. The most effective biocidal anti-fouling systems are formulated as self-polishing polymer coatings that wear away as the ship is propelled through the water, to expose a fresh layer of biocide. Biocides that leach into water from ship hulls may adversely affect non-target organisms. Anti-fouling coating removal activities can be another major source for the release of TBT to the environment. The choice of anti-fouling system, methods of hull cleaning, and collection, treatment, and disposal of spent coatings have an impact on the release of biocides into the environment, and may result in high concentrations of biocides in the marine sediments in areas close to where application and removal activities are conducted. The adoption of sound management practices for the application and removal of anti-fouling systems can reduce the release of biocides into the natural environment. 1.2 By their nature, all anti-fouling biocides are toxic and can affect a broad range of organisms beyond those that cause fouling. TBT causes reproductive anomalies and population effects in certain species of marine snails at concentrations in the parts-per-trillion range, and has been implicated in endocrine effects on other organisms. Oysters exposed to low levels of TBT can develop shell deformities that reduce their value as seafood. TBT is associated with immune suppression and other adverse effects in other marine species, is slow to degrade, and is very persistent in sediments, where many affected species live and feed. 1.3 The International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships (AFS convention), which will enter into force on 17 September 2008, will prohibit the use of harmful organotins in harmful anti-fouling paints used on ships. As a consequence, ships will have to either replace or overcoat their existing organotin based anti-fouling systems in the near future. If the TBT-containing waste streams from shipyards, docking facilities and marinas are not properly managed and controlled, such wastes might affect the quality of sediments in harbours. 1.4 As stated in Annex 2, paragraph 4, to the London Protocol the goal of waste management for dredged material should be to identify and control the sources of contamination. This should be achieved through implementation of waste prevention strategies and requires collaboration between the relevant local and national agencies involved with the control of point and non-point sources of pollution. 1.5 For these reasons the Scientific Groups established under the London Convention and Protocol began in 2006 to develop guidance on “Best Management Practices” (BMPs) for removal of anti-fouling coatings from ships. The Scientific Groups discussed an initial report of BMPs in June 2007 (LC/SG 30/8 and LC/SG 30/14).

Page 148: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 11 Page 2

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

1.6 In November 2007, the governing bodies under the London Convention and Protocol noted that this issue had now become very urgent as the AFS Convention would enter into force on 17 September 2008. It was agreed to inform the next session of MEPC, by way of interim advice, of the current information collected in the Scientific Groups on environmentally-sound removal methods of anti-fouling systems from ships. This interim advice was provided in December 2007 (MEPC 57/INF.2). It was also noted that the Scientific Groups would continue their work and complete the BMP advice for submission to MEPC 58 and the governing bodies in October 2008 (LC 29/17). 1.7 Recognizing the limited mandate of the London Convention and Protocol with respect to the control of sources of pollution to and activities occurring within internal waters, these BMPs were nevertheless developed to provide a tool in the handling/management of AFS substances. 1.8 Recommended further reading and references are set out in the annex to this document. 2 General overview 2.1 BMPs fall into two general groups:

.1 source-control (e.g., vessel shrouding, sweeping, covering waste piles, and bermed storage for wastes and paints); and

.2 collection, filtration and treatment methods (e.g., hull wash water settling tanks

and filters).

These BMPs depend on some basic requirements for different types of ship building and maintenance facilities. 2.2 Activities in which AFS waste may be generated include:

.1 Hull cleaning, whereby the hull surface is scrubbed or scraped to remove the accumulated growth of fouling organisms. Some degree of fouling is expected even when a functional AFS is present, and some operators view hull cleaning between applications of AFS as necessary to ship operations; and

.2 AFS coating removal, in which hull coating layers are removed in preparation for

application of a new coating.

AFS waste may also be generated during application of hull coatings, but this process is not discussed here. 2.3 This guidance document provides information on methods of hull cleaning and AFS removal techniques. Environmentally protective steps for hull cleaning and AFS removal waste chains are described. A bibliography of recommended sources for BMPs and related information is included.

Page 149: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 11

Page 3

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

3 Basic facility requirements 3.1 All facilities in which hulls are cleaned or AFS coatings removed should follow good housekeeping practices: Everyday hull maintenance activities should be conducted in a manner that is safe and keeps pollutants out of surface waters, ground waters, and the air.

[NOTE: The term “facilities” should be defined as shipyards, dry-docks, boatyards, vessel construction or renovation yards, ports, harbours, marinas or other related locations where AFS might be removed.]

3.2 Whatever the type of a facility, management is responsible for establishing a clear framework for safe operation and a recognized responsibility that are paramount for the support of sound environmental and safety practices. Management should communicate a clear code of practice to all personnel. This code of practice should include a description of emergency procedures in response to mishandling or release of waste materials through human error, flooding, fire, and other circumstances. The best practices for emergency response will vary based on facility and the specific circumstances of the event, and are not explicitly addressed in this document. 3.3 Facilities can be characterized as:

.1 improvised facilities: facilities that are not fully equipped and are temporarily established at a location not specifically designed for ship maintenance and repair work; or

[IMPORTANT NOTE: The BMPs for AFS removal should not include removing AFS from an incompletely equipped facility where it is likely that the AFS material will wash into the water. A slipway or ramp where vessels are removed from the water does not have the proper retention properties compared to other vessel maintenance locations. The BMPs should not encourage facilities to remove AFS on slipways or other such areas because serious contamination of local water and/or sediments could result from the discharge of improperly contained wastes.]

.2 fully equipped facilities: utilizing structures dedicated to hull-cleaning activities,

e.g., dry-docks. 3.4 Facility design: At a minimum, all facilities should have an impermeable floor or work surface with a water collection and containment system for waste water generated during AFS removal or hull cleaning. The floor should be clean at the start of work and should be thoroughly cleaned after completion of the work. If an impermeable floor is not present, a temporary impermeable surface (e.g., a waterproof tarp) should be installed that guarantees containment of waste materials and safe collection of waste water. Other necessary environmental and safety provisions shall be undertaken before the work starts, including instalment of marked waste containers and the use of personal protective equipment.

[NOTE: A discussion about the need for suitable air cleaning systems should be included here covering removal AFS and recovery of dust, waste materials, and sandblasting debris from the air.]

Page 150: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 11 Page 4

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

[NOTE: The facilities have been described in section 3.3. See IMPORTANT NOTE, above, for concerns about using slipways, ramps or other facilities that might promote contamination of water bodies or sediments at the removal site. Perhaps the information about prevention of wastewater from entering the environment or prevention of leaks from the dry-dock facility can be incorporated into section 3.3.]

[NOTE: If 3.5 is incorporated into other sections, the following sections of Part 3 will have to be renumbered.]

3.6 Facility staff: The facility should have designated staff with responsibility for hull-coating waste and waste water management. 3.7 Collection of particulate waste and its handling at the facility: Different types of particulate waste from AFS removal and other operations should be stored separately while awaiting treatment and disposal. Storage containers should be clearly marked, and all personnel working at the facility should be familiar with the waste handling code of practice. Contents of the waste containers should be removed for treatment and/or disposal at an appropriate waste management facility. 3.8 Safe waste water collection: Water contaminated with hull coating waste should be held separately from other liquid materials in storage at the facility until it can be treated. Waste water should be collected in a closed holding tank or container. Waste water contaminated with an AFS during hull coating removal should be left standing so that suspended particles can settle and be separated from the water. A deposition system should provide removal of the contaminated waste that adheres to the sediment. The supernatant wastewater collected at the AFS removal site should be treated and discharged under an appropriate permit to prevent the introduction of invasive species from fouling organisms that may be present in the wastewater. 3.9 Discharge water requirements: The amount of water to be discharged at a certain date should be reported to relevant authorities. A certain particle load – a general rule might be 100 mg/l – shall not be exceeded for discharged water. The pH of discharged water shall be within certain limits (e.g., between 6.5 and 9).

[NOTE: Point source discharges of wastewater to water bodies or the wastewater collection system may be subject to a pre-treatment program and/or a wastewater discharge permit issued by the country’s environmental regulatory agency or state/province. For example, in the United States a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit may be issued under Section 402 of the United States Clean Water Act by one of the states or territories in the United States that have specific discharge limits and requirements (http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/). Effluent limits, monitoring requirements, and reporting requirements would be included in an NPDES permit. Some states in the United States have waste discharge requirements that may be applied to discharges from AFS facilities. If the waste water is considered as an industrial discharge, the waste stream may be subject to pre-treatment requirements (http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=3; or http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=14).]

3.10 Handling of waste water: The settled suspended particles should be separated from the supernatant water and transported to a licensed facility for treatment and disposal. Methods are available for removing organotins dissolved in waste water, although they are expensive and not

Page 151: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 11

Page 5

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

widely available. If possible, waste water should be treated to remove dissolved components of the anti-fouling coating. Special requirements might apply if the hull paint removal is conducted within a sensitive marine area.

[NOTE: The preceding section is unclear. If waste water contaminated with anti-fouling agent is proposed for discharging into coastal areas or the marine environment, the discharge should be properly permitted with specific limits on the concentration of anti-fouling agent or its breakdown products. Discharges of this AFS contaminated material into sensitive marine areas should be avoided.]

4 General methods for hull cleaning 4.1 Hull cleaning is intended to remove accumulated fouling growth while keeping the underlying anti-fouling coating mostly intact and operational. Hull cleaning is likely to remove some amount of anti-fouling coating along with the fouling organisms. There are principally two ways of hull cleaning: .1 in water; and

.2 on land. 4.2 The practice of cleaning vessels hulls bearing biocidal AFS coatings in water poses risks to the environment since containing wastes (both the fouling material itself and any incidentally removed AFS) is impossible. The method of in-water hull cleaning is, therefore, not recommended. If no option for hull cleaning on land exists, the waste in its entirety should be brought to the surface where it can be collected and contained. Cleaning should only be done using personal protective equipment. A soft brush should be adequate to remove fouling in the early stages, and is less likely than a stiff brush to release paint waste into the water. 4.3 The hull cleaning on land shall follow the basic facility requirements as outlined in Section 3, above. 5 Removal of anti-fouling systems on land 5.1 There are principally two methods for the removal of anti-fouling systems: .1 scraping: scraping by hand or equipment to scrape off the paint; and

.2 grit blasting: dry blasting, wet blasting or high pressure [water?] blasting. Due to the use of high pressure air or water involved and the potential spread of paint over considerable areas, grit blasting is only recommended for an enclosed area or in a dry-dock or floating dock with features allowing the collection of aerosol particles, solids and liquids containing AFS coating residue, including an impermeable work surface and containment system.

[NOTE: AFS can be removed by sanding or grinding the material off the hull. A discussion about procedures and precautions required for these mechanical procedures should be presented to prevent contamination outside the work area and protection of workers.]

Page 152: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 11 Page 6

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

5.2 Preparatory assessment and action for removal of AFS: If possible, prior to starting the anti-fouling coating removal operation, the facility shall ascertain the type of AFS on the hull. This information may be available on the ship’s documentation as required by the AFS treaty. When the type of AFS is known, appropriate measures can be taken during removal, handling, treatment, and disposal. For example, waste from a non-biocidal coating may be disposed of differently than waste from a biocidal coating. Chemical treatment of waste materials may differ depending on the nature of the biocide. 5.3 Requirements for removal of AFS: As with all facilities for hull cleaning and coating removal, basic requirements for the facility are an impermeable floor or work surface and a means for capturing and containing AFS waste, fouling materials, dust, and, if water is used for removal, water contaminated with waste. As noted in section 3.4 above the floor or work surface should be clean at the start of the operation. Structures and materials within the work space that are not needed during blasting should be removed from the work area. Persons involved in the removal of AFS coatings should wear personal protective equipment (such as, fluid impermeable gloves, face mask, safety glasses, protective suit; respiratory protection is advisable if waste material is likely to become airborne). 5.4 Grit blasting is the most common practice for AFS removal. Some rules-of-thumb for media selection in grit blasting are:

.1 choose the least aggressive media, this will result in less wear and lower equipment maintenance expense;

.2 use the smallest media particle size, which is more effective as more impacts per

second will yield a faster process; and

.3 find the lowest blast pressure; this offers the benefits of energy savings in reduced compressed air requirements, as well as less wear and lower maintenance costs.

5.5 Operation and waste collection by grit blasting: Airborne particles from dry blasting can be contained by working in a cabin with an air filtering system, by fine-mesh netting around the facility or by a water screen that catches the particles and allows them to settle on the work floor. These measures are not expected by themselves to reduce inhalation exposure for workers. Grit blasting accomplished with the use of water should only be undertaken in a facility that has a system to catch and remove air-borne particles and waste water. 6 The anti-fouling waste chain 6.1 AFS may contain toxic material that should be prevented from entering the environment as waste. Steps should be taken to limit exposure for workers and others. A preventive approach in AFS waste collection is advocated. 6.2 AFS waste collection: Different types of waste should be kept in separate containers only intended for that specific type of waste. After completion of the work, the waste containers should be removed for further waste treatment at a specialized facility. Waste should not be removed by washing with water or brushing it into the environment; the waste should also never be buried, incinerated or permanently stored at the facility.

Page 153: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 11

Page 7

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

6.3 AFS waste water collection: Waste water should be collected in a container that is protected from the environment and is closed by a lid. The container should only hold waster water from the removal of AFS. The waste water should be left standing to allow suspended particles to settle. 6.4 AFS waste water handling and treatment: The waste water collected should be subjected to a system to remove the contaminated waste so as to meet a TSS content of <100 mg/l in the waste water. If the cleaned water is to be discharged through sanitary sewer system, local sewer authorities should be advised beforehand. The contaminated sediment from the container should be removed and transported to a licensed facility for treatment or safe disposal. 6.5 AFS waste chain for grit blasting: Materials to be used in grit blasting vary; materials can be steel, blasting grit, copper cinder, corundum, aluminium, glass beads and others. Contaminated grit may be re-used after sieving of the broken grit particles and may be recycled or cleaned. If the facility is not able to recycle or clean the grit, the contaminated grit and/or sieving waste should be removed and transferred to a facility licensed to clean blasting grit. Apart from that the AFS removal waste chain should follow those steps outlined in paragraphs 5.1 - 5.4 above. 6.6 Grit blasting waste handling: Waste water from wet grit blasting should be caught, removed and contained. The grit that remains on the floor should be collected and removed for re-use, recycling, cleaning or safe deposit. 6.7 Grit-blasting waste treatment: Contaminated grit should be analysed for being suitable for, sieving for re-use, thermal cleaning, or disposal at a licensed facility. Cleaned and contaminated grit should always be kept separate from each other. Contaminated grit that cannot be treated or cleaned may be deposited in a specific licensed deposal facility. Comments as appear in the text 1 These terms are not used again in this document – should they be referred to when individual management practices are discussed? 2 Not sure of the meaning – is this an explicit chain of responsibility at the facility? 3 These terms are not used again in this document – should they be referred to when individual management practices are discussed? 4 I suggest that the three types of structures be defined or described; the different caveats cited for the three types of structures are not exclusive for only one type, e.g., all three should have an impermeable floor. Maybe it would be better to describe the design requirements in more detail instead. 5 Add a section on what counts as waste? Like rags wet with paint, empty paint containers, water used to wash out dry-dock after paint removal, contaminated grit.

Page 154: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 11 Page 8

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

6 Already noted in 3.2 7 Not sure what this means – should this statement be moved to 3.9? 8 Suggest paragraphs 3.8 & 3.9 be switched in order. Should treatment of water be another paragraph? 9 What is the reasoning behind the suggested particle load? I would suggest that a survey be made of legal limits for specific components of AFS, for example, Virginia has established water quality criteria that are used for determining permitted levels of TBT discharge in specific locations. Then a target concentration for TBT could be placed in context of these and other regulated values. 10 Not sure of the relationship. 11 Don’t think this is feasible. 12 Can these last two methods be differentiated? 13 Switch order of paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 – it applies to scraping and blasting both. 14 Can the characteristics of “least aggressive media” be defined? This text will some day be translated into languages other than English, and the meaning might be lost without further description. Otherwise, I cannot comment on these aspects of grit blasting – I think this is a place where comments should be solicited in the next steps. 15 Can an example or two of preventive measures be provided? 16 For consistency, I recommend the use of language similar to that in section 3.6 above. 17 Use consistent language here and in section 3.7. 18 Please define and cite basis for value. 19 These should be cited when grit blasting is introduced in 5.1.2. 20 Explain difference between re-using it and recycling it. 21 How is cleaning accomplished and does the cleaning process create waste materials? 22 Are there such facilities, and if this document is to provide guidance world-wide, might it be better to describe the necessary capabilities of the facility, since licensing of this sort is probably not universal. Another pathway is if the girt is not cleaned but is disposed of, and parameters for disposal could be articulated separately in 6.7. 23 These paragraphs don’t really outline steps – perhaps the document should be reorganized to discuss each category of waste separately from beginning to end, one after the other – also suggest you define “waste chain” up front.

Page 155: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 11

Page 9

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

24 Is this disposal? 25 Suggest facility capabilities be cited, rather than relying on “licensed” 7 Recommended further reading and references Best Management Practices (BMPs) ANZECC – Marine Accidents and Pollution Implementation Group (2000) Code of practice for

anti-fouling and in-water hull cleaning and maintenance, 12 pp. Auckland Regional Council (2005). Auckland guideline for the management of environmental

risks from boat maintenance activities, 34-52. British Maritime Federation (2005). Environmental Code of Practice, 84 pp. Connor, J. and Drociak, J. (2001). Best Management Practices for New Hampshire Marinas. New

Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Concord, NH, 79pp. Environmental Alliance – Environment Agency (UK), Scottish Environment Protection Agency,

Environment and Heritage Service (Wales) (2004). Pollution Prevention Guidelines – Marinas and Craft PPG14, 8pp.

Environment Canada (1995). Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Marinas and small

Boatyards in British Columbia. Report by PCA Consultants Ltd., Richmond, BC, 18pp (www.pyr.ec.gc.ca/boatyards).

Environmental Protection Agency – EPA – (2005). Shipyard Stormwater Best Management

Practice #3: Removal of Hull Biofoulants, 5 pp. Environmental Protection Authority (2004). Stormwater Management for Marinas, Boat Sheds

and Slipways. Report of EPA for the Government of Southern Australia, 4pp. Regional Council (2003). Stormwater Management Devices: Design guidelines manual.

Technical Publication No. 10. Ten Hallers-Tjabbes, C.C. (2007). Environmental sound and safe removal of harmful anti-fouling

systems and of cleaning of ships' hulls. SAFEMED Project Task 3.8 O Final report. IMO/ EC, 98 pp.

Other sources Champ, M.A., Fox, T. and Mearns, A.J. (1999). Treatment of regulated discharges from

shipyards and dry-docks. Proceedings of the special session held at Oceans ’99, Seattle, Washington, Sep 13-16, 1999. Marine Technology Society, Washington, DC, 230 pp.

Champ, M.A. (2000). A review of organotin regulatory strategies, pending actions, related costs

and benefits. The Science of the Total Environment 258, 21-71.

Page 156: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 11 Page 10

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

Stichnothe, H., Thoeming, J and Calmano, W. (2001). Detoxification of tributyltin contaminated sediments by an electrochemical process. The Science of the Total Environment 266, 265-271.

TBT Clean (2005). Life02 ENV/B/000341 – Screening of technologies 08/04/2003. Report for

Life by Port of Antwerp, APEC, DEC, Envisan and ERC, 60pp. Tam, N.F.Y., Chong,, A. and Wong, Y.S (2002). Removal of tributyltin (TBT) by live and dead

microalgae cells. Mar. Poll. Bull. 45, 362-371. Tam, N.F.Y., Chong, A. and Wong, Y.S (2003). Removal of tributyltin (TBT) from wastewater

by microalgae. Water Pollution VII, 261-273. Recommended document downloads ANZECC BMPs 2000 http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/pollution/anti-fouling/code/pubs/code.pdf Auckland Regional Council Report 2005 http://www.arc.govt.nz/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=17D07C6C-BCD4-1A24-94E1-9AC905A416CB&siteName=arc TBT-Clean Screening Report – Port of Antwerp –2003 – various reports to download http://www.portofantwerp.be/tbtclean/index.html Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Hull Maintenance at Boatyards and Marinas – several BMPs, Canada and USA http://www.pyr.ec.gc.ca/boatyards/index_e.htm Environmental Protection Agency Shipyard Stormwater Best Management Practice #3 – 2005 http://cms-shipbuilders.advancedlegal.com/pdfs/8112005113526A.pdf

***

Page 157: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

ANNEX 12

JOINT WORK PROGRAMME OF THE SCIENTIFIC GROUPS (THIRTY-SECOND, THIRTY-THIRD AND THIRTY-FOURTH MEETINGS)

2009

2010

2011

TARGET COMPLETION

DATE 1

WASTE ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE:

- Review of the Specific Guidelines for “bulky” items

XX

XXX

2010

- Guidance for the development of Action Lists and

Action Levels for Annex 1 wastes (except for dredged material and CO2)

XXX

XXX

2010

- Development of a communications plan in

co-operation with WODA for the WAG Tutorial extension for application of low-technology techniques for assessing dredged material

XXX 2009

- National Action Levels and their application - Experience with practical implementation of the

WAGs - Application of biological assessment techniques - Alternative waste management options - Disposal management measures (e.g., capping)

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

ONGOING

ONGOING

ONGOING

ONGOING

ONGOING

2

MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT: - Reports and assessment of monitoring - Contribution to the UN Regular Process - New techniques - National and regional strategies - Anti-fouling paint compounds and other compounds of

concern (e.g., PBDEs) in material disposed at sea

XXX

XXX

X

X

XX

XXX

XXX

X

X

XX

XXX

X

X

XX

ONGOING

2010

ONGOING

ONGOING

ONGOING

3

CO2 SEQUESTRATION: - Experience with application of the CO2 guidelines

XX

XX

X

ONGOING

Page 158: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 12 Page 2

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

2009

2010

2011

TARGET COMPLETION

DATE 4 OCEAN FERTILIZATION:

- Prepare responses to any further questions of the LICG

XXX

XXX

XXX

ONGOING

5

TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION: - WAG Tutorial – Extension for non- and low-

technological techniques when assessing dredged material

- Regional Workshops - National Workshops - Technical advice to specific countries - Update TC-Strategy and Action Plan - Development of a London Protocol Manual - Development of a communication and outreach Plan - Improvement/Update of the LC Website - Establishment of a TC-Trust Fund - “Barriers to Compliance” project – Contribute to the

Implementation Plan

XXX

XXX

XXX

XX

XX

XXX

XX

XX

XXX

XX

XXX

XX

XX

XXX

XXX

XX

XX

XXX

XXX

XX

XX

XX

XX

2009

BIENNIAL

ANNUAL

ONGOING

ONGOING

2010

2010

ONGOING

2009

ONGOING

6

HABITAT MODIFICATION/ENHANCEMENT: - Beneficial use of waste materials - Experience with habitat enhancement

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

ONGOING

ONGOING

7

DUMPING REPORTS: - Review and improvement of reporting - Database development - Collaboration with UNEP Regional Seas on reporting

XXX

XX

XX

XXX

XXX

XX

XXX

XX

ONGOING

2010

ONGOING

Page 159: INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION E · For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not

LC/SG 31/16 ANNEX 12

Page 3

I:\LC\SG\31\16.doc

2009

2010

2011

TARGET COMPLETIONDATE

8

COASTAL MANAGEMENT AND PREVENTION OF MARINE POLLUTION:

- Co-operation with MEPC:

.1 Development of guidance on best management practices of removal of TBT paints from ships (AFS Convention)

.2 Ship hulls’ scraping (wider issue)

- Co-operation with the UNEP Global Programme of Action with regards to the discharge of mine tailings into coastal and oceanic waters

- Sewage treatment/sludge disposal - Prevention of marine pollution: Waste

prevention and management

XXX

XXX

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

X

2010

ONGOING

2011

ONGOING

ONGOING

9

SCIENCE/TECHNICAL SESSION: ISSUE FOCUSED DAY

XX

XX

XX

ONGOING

10 REVIEW OF JOINT WORK PROGRAMME

XX

XX

XX

Update annually

Legend: XXX high-priority item XX medium-priority item X low-priority item

____________


Top Related