|
By
Hugh O’Mahony-Monday October 01 2001
I n a last-ditch attempt to influence opinion at the this
week’s IMO Diplomatic Conference on Antifouling, the Consortium
of TBT (tributyltin) manufacturers has launched a provocative
attack on the impending ban on the material’s use in marine
paints.
In response to well-founded concern over the damage done
to marine life by the build-up of TBTs in the environment,
shed by antifoulant hull coatings, the IMO is expected to
agree a ban on paints including TBTs by the end of the conference,
which runs from October 1 to 5.
It is anticipated that the ban will be imposed on new applications
from January 1, 2003, and to all vessels from the start of
2008.In its current form the convention is riddled with problems,
inconsistencies and, as a result, is inadequate, said Dr Ulrich
Stewen for the industry pressure group.
The convention will do the environment, shipping, port states
and the IMO’s reputation more harm than good.The convention
will lead to the mass introduction of environmentally untested
and potentially harmful antifouling alternatives into the
environment.
Contentiously, Dr Stewen cited comments by Ospar the Convention
for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast
Atlantic as supporting a rethink on the ban.
Recent studies have predicted that copper might be present
in certain areas of the marine environment at concentrations
that might cause an adverse impact on biota, he quoted Ospar
as saying.
The lack of consensus on alternatives to TBTs could lead
countries to ban other antifoulants unilaterally, he argued,
citing Sweden and the Netherlands as examples of countries
already prohibiting copper-based alternatives in parts of
their waters.
Arguing that levels of TBTs in the marine environment had
declined demonstrably in countries where effective regulations
had been introduced to ban their use on leisure craft, Dr
Stewen added: The convention is economically unfair on the
shipping industry by forcing the use of expensive alternative
antifouling systems. Alternative paints are two to six times
more expensive.
A report from Princeton Economic Research had established
that the annualised additional cost to the global fleet of
bulkers, container vessels and large tankers would be in the
order of $500m, he said, if a 30-month tin-free SPC was substituted
for a 60-month TBT-SPC.
Adoption of the convention would drive pollution to developing
world countries as demand for lower cost drydocking for blasting,
sealing and over-coating of hulls rose, Dr Stewen argued.
Unsurprisingly, given what is at stake, the Consortium of
TBT Manufacturers has called on delegates at next week’s diplomatic
conference to reconsider the ban’s timing and scope, insisting:
As it stands, the convention will damage the environment,
shipping and ultimately, the IMO’s reputation.
The convention is incomplete and the ban dates are therefore
premature. It should be delayed until all-important issues
have been satisfactorily resolved.
|
TBT manufacturers lobby diplomats
against ban