Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
7.3.1 Enforcement of Pollution Control and Equipment
Standards
Although the last three decades have seen a considerable advancement in and
consequent compliance with equipment standards, compliance in respect of dis-
charge standards has not been as encouraging. For example available statistics show
that in 1991, after relevant amendments of the MARPOL 73/78 Convention, 94 %
of older tankers had installed SBT or COW and almost 100 % of post-1982 tankers
had installed the same. This is undoubtedly a major achievement when compared to
the 1981 statistics, in which only 26 % of pre-1976 tankers had SBT or COW and
only 45 % of tankers built between 1976 and 1981 had the same. 23 The requirement
of double-hull standards also shows the same type of encouraging compliance. In
contrast, as oil exporting OPEC countries and independent oil tanker owners do not
find any incentive for compliance, the LOT and oil discharge requirements do not
seem to have had a significant impact on compliance behaviour. Industry compli-
ance, in the views of some scholars, was basically induced by external factors like
the oil price and public relations pressure, and not by the treaty rules or their
enforcement by the States. 24
The port State control mechanism of the MARPOL 73/78 Convention has not
been very successful. Since 1990, very few States have provided to IMO annual
information regarding port State control. Most developing countries (non-OECD)
have not sent a single report to IMO on port State control. Only 20 % of MARPOL
parties have ever sent a report to IMO on port State control. 25 On the other hand, the
records of secretariats of various Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) on Port
State Control seem to be more reliable sources for obtaining a clear picture of
enforcement by States and compliance by the industry. 26 Port State control author-
ities are now using a method of targeting ships for inspection, based on the average
performance record of the flags they fly, as well as the record of classification
societies they employ. 27 To ensure compliance, and to assist port State control
authorities target for ships for inspections, MOU secretariat employ a
three-year
'
method to make black, grey and white lists. 28 As seen in Tables 7.1
rolling-average
'
23 Tan ( 2006 ), p. 238.
24 Ibid, p. 239.
25
Ibid, p. 246.
26
Major Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) are: West and Central Africa Memorandum of
Understanding on Port State Control (Abuja MoU); Memorandum of Understanding on Port State
Control in the Black Sea Region (BS MoU); Caribbean Memorandum of Understanding on Port
State Control (CMoU); Indian Ocean Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control
(IOMoU); Mediterranean Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (Med MoU);
Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (Paris MoU); Riyadh Memorandum of
Understanding on Port State Control (Riyadh MoU).
27 Tan ( 2006 ), p. 247.
28 “The “White, Grey and Black (WGB) List” presents the full spectrum, from quality flags to flags
with a poor performance that are considered high or very high risk. It is based on the total number
Search WWH ::




Custom Search