IMO: LONDON CONVENTION REPORT ON MARINE

UNCLAS LONDON 003181

SIPDIS

STATE PLEASE PASS TO IO/IOC FOR M. MORRISSEY

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EWWT PHSA SENV KGHG KRAD UK
SUBJECT: IMO: LONDON CONVENTION REPORT ON MARINE
ENVIRONMENT ISSUES


1. SUMMARY: The International Maritime
Organization's (IMO) annual meetings for both the
1972 London Convention on the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter
(the "London Convention") and the 1996 Protocol to
the London Convention (the "London Protocol") made
progress on several marine environment issues.
They achieved a strong (but non-binding) resolution
on the controversial issue of ocean fertilization
for climate change that will allow scientific
research while restricting commercial ventures. The
meetings made progress on new guidelines for
placement of artificial reefs, a reporting format
for sub-seabed carbon sequestration projects, and
establishing a technical cooperation trust fund.
The meetings also adopted guidance on managing
spoilt cargo and removal of anti-fouling coatings,
and agreed to forward these to the IMO's Marine
Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) for
consideration and adoption. Other parties were
pleased to hear that the London Protocol is
currently before the U.S. Senate, awaiting the
Senate's advice and consent to ratification. END
SUMMARY

--------------
Introduction and Background
--------------


2. The annual meetings for both the 1972 London
Convention and the 1996 London Protocol were held
concurrently October 27-31 at the headquarters of
the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in
London. The U.S. delegation consisted of
representatives of Department of State, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of
Engineers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Organization, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Coast Guard
and the Department of Energy.


3. The Convention on the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter,
1972 (the London Convention) established a global
regime for the protection of the marine environment
from pollution caused by ocean dumping and
incineration at sea. It now has eighty-five
Parties. The United States became a Party in 1975.
The 1996 Protocol to the London Convention (the
London Protocol) is a free-standing treaty that
updates and improves the Convention, and will
eventually supersede it. Unlike the London
Convention, which lists substances that may not be
dumped in the ocean, the Protocol prohibits ocean
dumping of any waste or other matter except for
those specifically allowed to be considered for
dumping (a "reverse list"). The Protocol was
adopted in 1996, and the United States signed it in

1998. The Protocol entered into force March 24,

2006. The Protocol currently has 36 Parties, with
many more (including the United States) actively
working towards accession.

--------------
Scientific Group Report
--------------


4. The London Convention has a Scientific Group
that meets each spring and works intersessionally
on the technical issues of ocean dumping. The
London Protocol Scientific Group meets concurrently
with the London Convention's Scientific Group,
through an agreed arrangement that the offices of
Chair and Vice-Chair would consist of members
representing Parties to both the Protocol and to
the Convention.


5. The Chair of the London Convention and London
Protocol Scientific Groups provided an overview of
the 31st session of the Scientific Groups (held in
May 2008 in Guayaquil, Ecuador). The meeting
endorsed the recommendations of the 31st Scientific
Group session, including the adoption of the

revised "Generic Waste Assessment Guidelines," the
revised titles for the Specific and Generic
Guidelines to be displayed on the London Convention
website, the "Specific Guidelines for Assessment of
Inert, Inorganic Geological material," and the
"Guidance for the Placement of Artificial Reefs."
Additionally, the meetings adopted the "Draft
Guidance on Best Management Practices for Removal
of Anti-Fouling Coatings from Ships, including TBT
Hull Paints," and the "Draft Guidance on Managing
Spoilt Cargoes," with the agreement to forward both
to the 59th session of the International Maritime
Organization's Marine Environment Protection
Committee (MEPC) for consideration and adoption.
The Contracting Parties endorsed the Joint Work
Programme of the Scientific Groups and agreed to
merge the LC/LP Consultative Meetings' Joint Long-
term Programme with the Joint Work Programme of the
Scientific Groups.


6. The Scientific Groups will hold their next
meeting from May 25 - 29, 2009, in Rome, Italy.

--------------
Ocean Fertilization
--------------


7. Ocean fertilization is a potential greenhouse
gas mitigation technique that works, in theory, by
adding iron or other substances to high nutrient
regions of the ocean in order to stimulate
phytoplankton blooms that sequester carbon dioxide.
In dealing with this topic, the United States has
consistently tried to balance the concerns about
the uncertain efficacy and potential adverse side
effects of ocean fertilization with the need for
further scientific investigations to explore, among
other things, the potential of ocean fertilization
as a climate change mitigation strategy. The London
Convention and Protocol have emerged as the primary
international mechanisms dealing with this issue,
at least in terms of impacts on the ocean
environment. The fall 2007 annual London Convention
and Protocol meetings agreed to a statement that
"urged States to use the utmost caution when
considering proposals for large-scale ocean
fertilization operations" and "took the view that,
given the present state of knowledge regarding
ocean fertilization, such large-scale operations
were currently not justified." The London
Convention and Protocol Scientific Groups meeting
(Guayaquil, Ecuador, May 19-23, 2008) considered
the issue further, and developed a revised set of
assessment criteria (initially developed at the
June 2007 Scientific Groups meeting) for states to
use in evaluating and regulating any potential
ocean fertilization proposals. Ocean fertilization
was also discussed at meetings of other
international organizations and conventions over
the past year, including the annual meetings of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),the
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC),
and negotiations of the UN General Assembly's of
its 2008 Resolution on Oceans and the law of the
sea. The CBD meeting issued a statement which,
while legally non-binding, was widely viewed as a
de-facto moratorium on ocean fertilization. Among
the criticisms of the CBD decision was the
complaint by some oceanographers and other
interested scientists that it could effectively
restrict scientific research on ocean
fertilization.


8. This year again ocean fertilization was the most
controversial and time-consuming topic on the
London Convention/Protocol annual meeting agenda. A
working group on the topic, led by the Chair of the
Scientific Groups, Dr. Chris Vivian of the United
Kingdom, worked throughout the week to develop an
agreement on appropriate action for the London
Convention and Protocol parties to take. On October
31, Convention and Protocol parties approved a

strong, non-binding resolution on ocean
fertilization that will allow scientific research
while restricting other ocean fertilization
activities (including commercial ocean
fertilization activities). The resolution calls for
the Convention and Protocol Scientific Groups to
develop a comprehensive assessment framework for
parties planning to permit legitimate scientific
research. Work on this assessment framework will
continue this spring through an intersessional
working group (currently proposed for February 9-13
in London). The resolution also notes that the
restriction on other ocean fertilization activities
should be reviewed periodically as scientific
knowledge about ocean fertilization is further
established. Some countries, led by Australia and
joined by some Europeans, advocated either amending
the London Protocol, or pursuing some other legally
binding option, in order to strengthen the degree
of regulation on ocean fertilization. Parties
agreed to continue working on this concept and
further consider and develop it.


9. Climos, one of the U.S. firms hoping to pursue
ocean fertilization as a commercial climate
mitigation technique, attended the meetings as the
representative of the International Emissions
Trading Association (IETA),an international
organization that was recently granted temporary
accreditation by the IMO to attend London
Convention/Protocol meetings as a "non-governmental
organization observer." Although Climos generally
kept a low-profile, and only spoke up publicly to
read a general statement about their work and
goals, their presence created additional
controversy on the topic, as some parties
questioned the legitimacy of a single company
representing a non-profit business association as
an observer. After some discussion in a smaller
"heads of delegation" meeting, Parties agreed to
invite IETA to continue as a NGO observer on an
interim basis for one additional year, with the
request that IETA better explain how their
attendance helps to further the objectives of the
London Convention and Protocol.

-------------- --------------
-
Carbon Sequestration Ongoing Research and Reporting
Format
-------------- --------------
-


10. At the previous annual meetings, the Scientific
Groups were asked to develop an appropriate uniform
format for the reporting of data on sub-seabed
carbon sequestration activities, and to present
this format at the October 2008 annual meeting.
During the May Scientific Groups meeting in
Guayaquil, a working group led by Norway (and
including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, UK,
Japan, Korea, USA and Denmark) further developed a
draft format, and worked intersessionally to
further revise it. The major issue appeared to be
one of resolving issues of consistency and
differences among national reporting frameworks;
that is, whether to use mass or volume for
constituents of the carbon dioxide stream. Another
issue (though not a stumbling block) was that of
consistency across units to be reported and the
precise definition of "depth of injection" -
whether this refers to the depth of the water
column, or whether it also take into account the
thickness of the overlying marine sediment. The
United States took the position that all units
should be consistent (all flows should either be
mass or volume and not be mixed) and all volumes
should be reported as standard cubic meters as
opposed to a collection of mass units; however the
consensus was not to adopt this approach. Next was
the issue of whether to use ppm or ppv (parts-per-
million by mass or volume). This issue was left for

the next Scientific Groups meeting to determine.
The general appearance of the tables and layout is
almost, although not completely, finalized.


11. Parties were asked to describe ongoing carbon
sequestration research and activities, both marine
and terrestrial. Australia described its Otway
Basin project, and the European Union described the
"CO2SINK" project in Germany and the "In Salah"
industrial-scale CO2 storage project in Algeria.
The United States outlined ongoing work by the
Department of Energy's (DOE) Regional Carbon
Sequestration Partnerships (a joint
government/industry effort) for determining the
most suitable geological sequestration
technologies, regulations, and infrastructure needs
for carbon capture, storage, and sequestration in
different areas of the country. The United States
also mentioned the Weyburn-Midale CO2 Monitoring and
Storage Project in the oilfields of Alberta, which
is co-funded with the Government of Canada.

--------------
Transboundary Carbon Sequestration Issues
--------------


12. After the London Protocol was amended in 2007
to allow sub-seabed carbon sequestration, some
parties began to question how to deal with
transboundary carbon sequestration issues. At the
request of Norway, Germany, and several other
Protocol Parties, the meaning of "export" under LP
Article 6 in specific relation to sub-seabed
geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide streams
under Annex 1 was discussed. Germany hosted an
intersessional meeting in March 2008 in Bonn to
discuss this topic, which the United States did not
attend. Of immediate concern is how the Article 6
prohibition on export of wastes for dumping impacts
Parties planning to export CO2 to another country
for the purpose of sub-seabed geologic
sequestration. Given the unique circumstance of
finding sites suitable for carbon sequestration, it
may be that the most appropriate and efficient site
is not located within or wholly within a country's
own jurisdiction. A working group was set up to
discuss this issue during the week, with options
for addressing it outlined. Some parties felt that
an amendment to Article 6 is in order, while others
(including the United States) wanted to explore use
of an interpretive resolution. There was general
support for the policy objective of facilitating
such export, and work will continue on this topic
intersessionally.

--------------
Compliance Group Meeting
--------------


13. In 2007, the Meeting of Contracting Parties
finalized and adopted Compliance Procedures and
Mechanisms (CPM) pursuant to Article 11 of the
London Protocol. The Compliance Group met for its
first session from 27 to 29 October 2008 and
elected Ms. Anne Daniel (Canada) as chair and Ms.
Zhou Qian (China) as co-chair. Others elected to
the group included Mr. Mongezi Nqoro (South
Africa); Professor Hisakazu Kato (Japan); Ms.
Marinka Bogdanova (Bulgaria); and Captain Federico
Crescenzi (Italy); for a total of six members.
Consideration was given to the need to increase the
nominations for compliance group members, although
no specific conclusion was reached in this regard.
The United States was active in the group as an
observer given our non-party status to the London
Protocol. There was a general sense among members
that the group should limit itself primarily to
procedural decisions at this stage. It was decided
that the working language of the compliance group
would be English and that the Group would meet next
year at the same time as the Meeting of Contracting
Parties but would remain in contact for any issues

that arose during the intersessional period. The
Group also developed a statement on how to deal
with a potential conflict of interest for its
members when reviewing cases and how it would
invite and prepare reports to be received from
Contracting Parties under Articles 9 and 26 of the
Protocol. The Group recommended the following
future work items: a) handling referred individual
cases of non-compliance; b) studying the Final
Report of the "Barriers to Compliance" project (LC
29/INF.2) and considering how the work of the
Compliance Group could both contribute to and
benefit from this project; c) reviewing dumping
reports referred to the Compliance Group pursuant
to paragraph 6.2 of the CPM, including where
concerns have been raised by the LP Scientific
Group; d) examining reports received under Articles
9.4.2 and 9.4.3 of the Protocol; and, e) examining
how to make the Guidance on National Implementation
of the Protocol a more effective tool for
prospective Parties (e.g., providing links to a
variety of implementing legislation).

-------------- --------------
Technical Cooperation and "Barriers to Compliance"
Project
-------------- --------------


14. A key accomplishment of this meeting was
establishing a technical cooperation (TC) trust
fund, which will be used to fund training programs
aimed at increasing and improving compliance with
the London Convention and Protocol, especially in
developing countries that lack sufficient capacity
for adequately regulating ocean dumping. The United
States initially had some reservations on
establishing such a trust fund, but these were
allayed by the Secretariat's full explanation of
the planned structure and accountability procedures
for the trust fund. The Secretariat assured parties
that the TC trust fund will be reported to the IMO
Council; IMO will not need to hire additional
personnel to manage the fund; auditing costs will
be taken from TC trust fund contributions (not from
the general IMO budget) and carried out by regular
IMO auditors; and the TC trust fund will not
detract from normal London Convention/Protocol
Secretariat operations. Responding to a query by
Australia, the Secretariat assured the meeting that
contributing parties will be able to direct their
contributions to specific projects they wish to
support.


15. The meeting also discussed the "Barriers to
Compliance" project, which resulted from the
previous annual meeting's decision to adopt a
strategic approach to help states overcome
legislative, institutional, technical and other
"barriers" to full compliance with the London
Convention and Protocol. At this meeting, parties
adopted a Barriers to Compliance "Implementation
Plan" as a living document to be revised as needed
(the United States already provided some suggested
revisions). Italy agreed to continue chairing the
working group that will monitor and assist the
Secretariat in implementing technical cooperation
projects aimed at overcoming barriers to fully
complying with the London Convention and Protocol.
The Barriers to Compliance project also will pursue
the goal of encouraging non- parties to join the
London Protocol. Various parties offered to
contribute additional funds to the Barriers to
Compliance project (which will be put into the TC
Trust Fund described above),including Canada,
Spain, Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United
States. France already has pledged over USD
800,000 for the project, and the barriers project
now has funds of over USD 1.2 million. The LC/LP
Secretariat is developing plans for workshops in
various regions and publications of technical
assistance documents.
E

--------------
Artificial Reefs
--------------


16. An ongoing discussion within the London
Convention concerns the placement of material into
the ocean for purposes other than disposal of that
material, especially for the creation of artificial
reefs. A Correspondence Group has been working
intersessionally to develop "Guidance for the
Placement of Artificial Reefs" jointly with the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The
United States was very actively involved in
drafting the Guidance, and a final version was
presented to the Governing Bodies for adoption at
the 2008 meeting. The final Guidance was adopted by
the Contracting Parties, who instructed the
Secretariat to publish the Guidelines in the UN
working languages as soon as possible in 2009. The
issue of the ex-USS ORISKANY (a former aircraft
carrier used to create an artificial reef off the
coast of Florida),which Greenpeace International
raised at the 2006 annual meeting citing concerns
over PCBs, was not mentioned at the 2008 meeting.

--------------
Spoilt Cargoes and Anti-Fouling Paint
--------------


17. Certain issues related to marine environmental
protection that are, in part, also covered by other
international agreements such as MARPOL (another
convention in the IMO family that deals with oil
spills and pollution from ships),are referred to
as "boundary issues." One boundary issue between
the London Convention/Protocol and MARPOL is the
handling of spoilt cargoes. Canada chaired a
joint LC/MEPC correspondence group that prepared a
final draft of "advice to mariners" regarding
management of spoilt cargoes, which was submitted
it to the London Scientific Groups for review in
May 2008. The Governing Bodies adopted this
"Guidance on Managing Spoilt Cargoes" and agreed to
forward it to the next meeting of the IMO's Marine
Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC 59) for
its consideration and adoption, and recommended
distributing it through a joint LC-LP/MEPC Circular
to replace Circular Letter No. 2074, issued in 1998
on the same topic. The guidance reflects the U.S.
view that the disposal of spoilt cargo at sea is
subject to regulation under MARPOL only if it
constitutes "garbage" as defined in MARPOL Annex V,
Regulation 1. Otherwise, it is subject to
regulation as "dumping" under the London
Convention/Protocol. Whether the disposal of a
particular spoilt cargo is subject to the London
Convention/Protocol or MARPOL Annex V must be
determined on a case-by-case basis, but in most
cases does not fall under Annex V.


18. The governing bodies also developed an outreach
strategy for the Guidance. In so doing, the
governing bodies took into account the fact that
MARPOL Annex V (Garbage) is currently being
reviewed in an MEPC Correspondence Group, led by
Canada, and that the outcome of this review will be
discussed at MEPC 59 in July 2009. In terms of
planning and timing of the LC/LP outreach effort on
spoilt cargo management, and due to the
relationship between "garbage" and "spoilt
cargoes," it will be important to coordinate the
outreach activities on both issues as soon as MEPC
has adopted the guidance. It was agreed in this
respect that LC/LP experts should join the MEPC
Correspondence Group on the review of MARPOL Annex
V and exchange views on other boundary issues that
were being explored during the review.


19. The governing bodies adopted, at this session,
the "Guidance on Best Management Practices for
Removal of Anti-Fouling Coatings from Ships,
Including TBT Hull Paints," agreed to forward the

Guidance to MEPC 59 for its consideration and
adoption, and recommended its distribution through
a joint LC-LP/MEPC circular.

--------------
Radioactive Wastes
--------------


20. Similar to the previous two annual meetings,
the IAEA updated their progress on activities in
two major areas - the extension of the system of
radiological protection to cover protection of the
environment such as explicitly including
radiological protection of non-human biota, and
updating databases on radioactive waste disposal at
sea, and accidents and losses at sea, involving
radioactive material. The IAEA reported on work
being undertaken by the IAEA, ICRP (the
International Commission on Radiological
Protection),the European Commission, and
international agencies regarding the development of
mechanisms for the radiological protection of
humans and the environment. The report noted that
in 2007, the ICRP approved the revised fundamental
recommendations on the protection of man and the
environment.


21. The IAEA highlighted that there has been
significant progress towards the revision of the
BSS (Basic Standards for Protection Against
Ionizing Radiation and the Safety of Sources, IAEA
SS-115 1996),where explicit international
requirements on environmental radiation protection
were considered. The revised BSS are being
developed together with several cosponsoring or
collaborating organizations following the
established mechanisms of developing IAEA
standards, the participation of relevant advisory
standards committees and, consultation with all of
its Member States. However, no new developments in,
or major revisions of, detailed safety standards
applicable to the control of releases of
radioactive materials to the environment were
foreseen before 2009/2010.


22. The second part of the IAEA report dealt with
updating of inventories that the IAEA, upon the
request of the Contracting Parties, had developed
and maintained of radioactive materials entering
the marine environment from all sources, including:
(a) radioactive waste disposal at sea; and (b)
accidents and losses at sea involving radioactive
material. Both France and the United States
notified the IAEA and the Secretariat,
respectively, over the last year of corrections to
their specific sections involving historical
radioactive waste disposal sites in the Pacific.
This information was inadvertently omitted in
earlier reports to the IAEA. The French sites, off
the coast of Mururoa and Hao Atolls in French
Polynesia and used in the 1970s, has been verified
by the IAEA for inclusion in the next update of the
inventory. The U.S. site, approximately 90
kilometers off the coast of Hawaii and used between
1963 and 1968, has yet to be verified by the IAEA.


23. The meeting noted the agreement from the 25th
Consultative Meeting that Contracting Parties
should use a precautionary approach and ensure that
an assessment of potential effects on marine flora
and fauna and legitimate uses of the sea would be
included in specific assessments using contemporary
scientific information.

--------------
Korea and Bauxite Dumping
--------------


24. Korea asked a number of countries to
participate in a lunch meeting on October 28 to
discuss Korea's ability to accede to the London
Protocol in light of their continued dumping of

bauxite in the ocean. The non-Koreans present were
Suzanne Schwartz, USA; Peter Burnett, Australia;
and Andrew Greaves, UK. Korea explained that under
Korean domestic law their bauxite dumping must be
terminated no later than 2015. Other participants
enquired as to whether the material and process
were essentially the same as for bauxite known to
be dumped by Japan, a current Party to the
Protocol. Korea responded that it was, except that
it is in very small volumes compared to the dumping
from Japan. The UK, Australian and U.S. officials
advised that since Japan had determined that this
activity was consistent with the Protocol, and no
Parties had questioned it (even though all Parties
were aware of it),there was no reason that Korea
shouldn't be able to accede to the Protocol. In
fact, Japan has agreed to terminate bauxite dumping
by 2015, but does not have it in their law as Korea
does. The lunch meeting participants felt that this
would provide additional comfort to any Parties who
were concerned about whether this dumping was
permissible under the Protocol. Korea thanked the
group and indicated that this view would be
provided to their President, who would then decide
whether or not to proceed with accession to the
Protocol.

--------------
Elections and Meeting Dynamics
--------------


25. Again this year the issue of ocean
fertilization proved to be the most contentious
topic on the agenda. Parties spent many late
evenings in a break-out working group on the topic,
and most of the day on Friday was spent discussing
the topic in plenary, at times in strongly worded
debates not typically seen at the normally
collegial London Convention/Protocol meetings. Mr.
Victor Escobar of Spain chaired this combined
meeting of the London Protocol and London
Convention for the last time. Mr. Escobar has been
a particularly effective chair during the last few
years -- an important period in which the London
Protocol came into force and the controversial
issues of sub-seabed carbon sequestration and ocean
fertilization emerged as priorities. Many
delegations openly expressed regret that he would
no longer be fulfilling that role. The meetings
elected the former First Vice-Chair, Ms. Chen Yue
of China, as the new Chair for both the London
Convention and London Protocol, and Mathew Johnson
of Australia as the new First Vice-Chair. As no
nominees were proposed in time to vote, the
position of Second Vice-Chair is still vacant, and
the Secretariat will work with the Chair and First-
Vice Chair to approach possible candidates during
the intersessional period, for election before the
next year's annual meetings, which will take place
in London October 26 - 30, 2009.

--------------
Comment
--------------


26. Overall, this meeting was a success from the
U.S. perspective. In particular, the strong
resolution on ocean fertilization satisfied the
U.S. goal of allowing continued scientific research
while effectively restricting commercial ocean
fertilization activities until the science is
further established. Like many other multilateral
environmental fora these days, the LC/LP meetings
seemed to be seized with issues related to climate
change - notably ocean fertilization and carbon
sequestration. However this has not detracted from
other accomplishments - notably the agreement on
new guidelines for placement of artificial reefs,
assessment tools for inert, inorganic geological
material, and revised generic waste assessment
guidelines. These were significant achievements
that should produce real benefits for the

regulation and control of ocean dumping in the long
term. The agreement to establish a technical
cooperation trust fund and the strong support for
pursuing activities to help developing countries
overcome barriers to compliance with the Convention
and Protocol were also an indication of the
increasing global recognition of the importance of
controlling ocean dumping and better managing
marine pollution, especially from land-based
sources. The United States is still recognized as a
leader within the London Convention/Protocol
community. Many of the concrete actions in terms of
better management of ocean disposal, especially the
development of implementing methodologies and
guidelines for testing and disposal of dredged
material (the bread and butter of the London
Convention and Protocol) have been the product of
initiatives led by the United States. However, as
more and more countries accede to the London
Protocol, we are gradually losing our influence
because we remain outside of the Protocol.

TUTTLE