Economic and environmental impacts on ports and harbors from the convention to ban harmful marine anti-fouling systems.

The recent Diplomatic Conference held (1-5 October 2001) by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in London adopted the Draft Convention prepared by The Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) of IMO for the "Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems for Ships." The convention has been developed to immediately ban the use of Tributyltin (TBT) globally in anti-fouling paints to "protect the marine environment". The ban on TBT has come about because TBT has detrimental effects on non-target marine organisms. In November 1999, IMO agreed that a treaty be developed by the MEPC to ensure a ban on the application of TBT based anti-fouling paints by 1 January 2003, and a ban on the use of TBT by 1 January 2008. At the meeting surious concern was expressed by some experts for the need to identify in the treaty the necessary regulatory language for: (1) the "safe" removal, treatment, and disposal of marine anti-foulants deemed "harmful" by the treaty and (2) who is liable for the future dredging and disposal of TBT-contaminated port and harbor sediments--to also "protect the marine environment". The requirement for "safe" removal and disposal was incorporated at MEPC 46 as Article 5 in the treaty, without it shipyards complying with existing national and local discharge regulations (most have none for discharge of TBT) could inadvertently release more TBT to ports and harbors in the five-year compliance period than has been leached from ships (hulls) in the past 40 years to the same waters. Virginia is the only State in the US that regulates the discharge to below 50 ng/l (50 parts per trillion). However, the liability for the future dredging and disposal costs of TBT-contaminated port and harbor sediments has not been addressed.

A review of organotin regulatory strategies, pending actions, related costs and benefits.

Achieving consensus on equitable and effective national and global regulation(s) for the use of organotins as biocides in antifouling boat bottom paints has proven to be very complex and difficult for a variety of reasons as discussed in this paper. There appears to be broad agreement among stakeholders about the effectiveness of tributyltin (TBT) in antifouling paints. A draft Assembly Resolution prepared by the Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to propose a global ban on the use of organotins in antifouling paints was approved by the IMO at its 21st regular session (November 1999). In approving the Resolution, the Assembly agreed that a legally binding instrument (global convention--an international treaty) be developed by the Marine Environmental Protection Committee that should ensure by 1 January 2003, a ban on the application of tributyltin (TBT)-based antifouling paints; and 1 January 2008 as the last date for having TBT-based antifouling paint on a vessel. The Assembly also agreed that a diplomatic conference be held in 2001 to consider adoption of the international legal instrument. Monitoring, policing, enforcement, fines and record-keeping are yet to be defined. In addition, the MEPC has also proposed that IMO promotes the use of environmentally-safe anti-fouling technologies to replace TBT. Existing national regulations in the US and Europe have: (1) restricted the use of TBT in antifouling boat bottom paints by vessel size (less than 25 m in length), thus eliminating TBT from the smaller and recreational vessels that exist in shallow coastal waters where the impacted oysters species grow; (2) restricted the release rates of TBT from co-polymer paints; and (3) eliminated the use of free TBT in paints. The present movement toward a global ban suggests that the above regulatory approach has not been sufficient in some countries. Advocates of the ban cite international findings of: (1) higher levels of TBT in surface waters of ports and open waters; (2) imposex still occurring and affecting a larger number of snail species; (3) TBT bioaccumulation in selected fisheries; and (4) the availability of 'comparable' alternatives (to TBT) with less environmental impact. The global ban has been absent of a policy debate on the: (1) lack of 'acceptable and approved' alternatives in many nations; (2) appreciation of market forces in nations without TBT regulations; (3) full consideration of the economic benefits from the use of TBT; (4) 'acceptance' of environmental impacts in marinas, ports and harbors; and (5) realization of the 'real' time period required by ships for antifoulant protection (is 5-7 years necessary or desirable?). Estimates of fuel savings range from $500 million to one billion. In assessing the environmental impact from TBT, there are two sources: the shipyard painting vessels and the painted vessel itself. Today vessels can be painted with regulated or banned antifouling materials by boatyards in a country that does not have TBT regulations and subsequently travel in international and regulated national waters and thus bringing the impact back to the country which was trying to prevent it. Worse, local and national regulations for TBT have proven to be the antithesis of the popular environmental cliché--'Think Globally and Act Locally.' Legislative policies enacted by 'regulated' countries to regulate the use of TBT to protect (their) local marine resources have subsequently had far reaching environmental and economic impacts which have in essence transferred TBT contamination to those countries least able to deal with it. Market forces are selective for cheap labor and cheap environments. 'Unregulated' countries have unknowingly accepted the environmental and human health risks to gain the economic benefits from painting TBT on ships. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Cost-benefit analysis of the use of TBT: the case for a treatment approach.

The current climate of hostility towards the use of tributyltin (TBT) as an active ingredient in ship anti-fouling paint appears to be based on a very biased assessment of its environmental impact. While many national and international regulatory agencies are moving towards further restriction, and a complete ban is under active discussion, a number of factors appear to have been ignored. The economic impact of a ban on TBT when no adequate substitute exists could be substantial. Environmentally, consequences would include a substantial increase in the consumption of fossil fuel, with corresponding increases in carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide emissions; the construction of more vessels; the transfer of ship-building, ship-repairing and ship-breaking activities from well-regulated to unregulated or under-regulated areas in the developing world; and a shift from sea transport to less environmentally acceptable forms of transport. Experience in Europe and other parts of the developed world shows that existing restrictions, where they are properly enforced, are probably adequate to alleviate the environmental damage associated with TBT. Some existing legislation acts to inhibit the search for effective substitutes. The environmental benefits of TBT have been ignored. Little thought has been given to a technical, rather than a legislative solution to controlling TBT inputs to the environment. A method is described for treating TBT-contaminated wastewaters, which has been successfully tested in prototype at full scale. Legislative measures against TBT will do nothing to address the problem of the existing backlog of contaminated material, nor even to permit the IMO proposal for the removal of TBT from all ships by 2008 to be successfully concluded in an environmentally safe manner, since no provision has been made for the disposal of the existing TBT; most probably it will be dumped in environmentally sensitive, unregulated areas in the developing world.