Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
regarding the Convention. 121 The ship breakers from developing countries
surprisingly did not play any vital role in the negotiation process. 122
The present Convention is a symbol of compromise by these four groups.
This inevitable reality is reflected in every article of the Convention. Due to
this critical situation, the United States predicted that some countries may not
become parties to this Convention. 123 In the second meeting of the inter-
sessional working group, at the request of some delegations, two new para-
graphs were included to make room for bilateral, multilateral, or regional
agreements or arrangements, regarding the recycling of ships with Parties and
non-Parties. 124 Although the proposed paragraphs ensure that such arrange-
ments will not derogate from the principle of the safe and environmentally-
sound recycling of ships as required by the Convention, the question of who
will control the implementation and enforcement involving agreements or
arrangements with non-parties remains highly debatable. Ultimately, the
MEPC 57 decided to maintain only party-to-party transactions under the
Convention. 125
(continued)
121 See Recycling of Ships: Comments on the Report of the Correspondence Group, paras. 4, 5,
IMO Doc. MEPC 55/3/16 (16 August 2006); Ready for Recycling Criteria, paras. 6, 12, 14, 17,
IMO Doc. MEPC 56/3/9 (4 May 2007); Proposals for Ship Recycling Plan, Ready for Recycling
and Final Surveys, para. 3, IMO Doc. MEPC 57/3/18 (8 February 2008).
122 The list of participants demonstrates their small role. See Second ISRWG Report, para. 2;
Report of the MEPC Fifty-Seventh Session, para. 1.2; Report of the Correspondence Group, para.
2.1.
123 The United States proposed that the Convention should have some mechanisms for the
recycling of ships in the environmentally compliant recycling facilities of non-party countries.
IMO, MEPC, 56th Session, Recycling of Ships: Proposal for Recycling of Ships at Safe and
Environmentally Sound Ship Recycling Facilities in States that are not Parties to the Convention,
paras. 13-14, IMO Doc. MEPC 56/3/18 (18 May 2007); Comments on the Proposal for Recycling
of Ships at Safe, Environmentally Sound Ship Recycling Facilities in States that are not Parties to
the Convention, paras. 4-6, IMO Doc. MEPC 57/3/10 (8 February 2008).
124
Second ISRWG Report, at Annex 2, Regulation 8.3. The draft Regulation 8.3 provides:
“Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1.1 Parties may enter into bilateral, multilateral,
or regional agreements or arrangements regarding the recycling of ships with Parties or non-Parties
provided that such agreements or arrangements do not derogate from the safe and environmentally
sound recycling of ships as required by this Convention. These agreements or arrangements shall
stipulate provisions which are not less protective of human health and the environment than are
those provided by the Convention, in particular taking into account the interests of developing
countries.” Ibid.
125 Report of the MEPC Fifty-Seventh Session, para. 3.22. However, the United States seriously
opposed this decision. The United States made a statement that has been supported by Bangladesh,
the Marshall Islands, and the Russian Federation. The statement provides: “The delegation of the
United States appreciated the attention of the Committee to the issue of recycling in non-Party
facilities under the convention. The United States, however, did not concur with the decision not to
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search