International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships (the AFS Convention) (full pdf format)
Introduction
5.1 The purpose of the Convention1 is to ban the use of organotin
compounds which act as biocides in anti-fouling paints on ships,
specifically tributyl tin (TBT) based anti-fouling paints. From
1 January 2008, with minor exceptions,2 ships shall be required to
either remove any organotin compounds that are on their surfaces or
to ensure that any organotin compounds on their external surfaces are
sealed to prevent their leaching into the water.3
5.2 The Convention will enable Australia to enforce the full range of
controls on TBT-based anti-fouling paints on foreign and Australian
flagged vessels.
1 International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, done
at London on 18 October 2001.
2 The exemptions of Australian Defence Force vessels will be discussed later in the
Chapter. See also paragraph 4.17 for further exclusions under the Convention.
3 Robert Alchin, Transcript of Evidence, p. 34.
74 REPORT 52: TREATIES TABLED IN MARCH 2003
Anti-fouling Systems
5.3 Article 2.2 of the Convention defines an anti-fouling system as ‘a
coating, paint, surface treatment, surface or device that is used on a
ship to control or prevent attachment of unwanted organisms’.
5.4 Anti-fouling systems are used to prevent the growth of algae,
barnacles and other marine organisms on a ship’s hull, enabling the
ship’s faster movement through the water, thus reducing fuel
consumption.4 In the early days of sailing ships, lime and later arsenic
were used to coat ships’ hulls; anti-fouling paints using metallic
compounds were later developed by the chemicals industry.5
Organotin-based compounds have been used since the 1970s. The
Committee was advised that the most successful of these anti-fouling
paints have been those which contain tributyl tin, which remains
effective for up to five years.6
Effects of TBT
5.5 The harmful effects of organotin-based compounds on marine life, the
environment and human health were first recognised in the early
1980s.7 In response to calls from the global community for
international action, the International Maritime Organization (IMO)
developed proposals for international regulations, which led to the
conclusion of the International Convention on the Control of Harmful
Anti-fouling Systems on Ships (AFS Convention).8
Environmental concerns
5.6 Scientific investigations have shown that TBT-based paints pose a
substantial risk of toxicity and other chronic impacts at the species,
habitat and ecosystem levels.9 Detrimental effects of these paints have
been reported on ecologically and economically important marine
organisms, such as oysters and molluscs. Further, contaminating
4 National Interest Analysis (NIA), para. 5; Transcript of Evidence, p. 34.
5 Source: International Maritime Organization (IMO) Website, www.imo.org/home.asp
6 Regulation Impact Statement (RIS), para. 1.1.; R.Alchin, Transcript of Evidence, p.34.
7 RIS, para. 1.2.
8 RIS, para. 1.10.
9 NIA, para. 5.
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE CONTROL OF HARMFUL ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS
ON SHIPS (THE AFS CONVENTION) 75
sediments have been found in many port areas around the world and
the Committee understands that TBT is also highly toxic to a range of
marine reef biota.10 The Victorian Government advised that ‘the input
of organotins has been listed as a Potentially Threatening Process
under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1998.11
5.7 According to the Regulation Impact Statement (RIS), a report by the
Victorian Environmental Protection Authority in 1999 considered
that:
organotins threatened biodiversity and ecosystem health, ecotourism
and related activities valued at $96 million each year
and aquaculture and fisheries, particularly mollusc
production valued at $55 million each year.12
5.8 Further, ‘there are strong indications that the presence of TBT-based
anti-foulants at ship grounding sites may present on ongoing
impediment to coral reef recovery’.13 The Queensland Government
commented on the damage caused to the Great Barrier Reef from
inappropriate disposal of blasting-waste containing organotin
compounds and from a vessel’s collision which exposed the
compound on the hull to the surrounding waters.14
5.9 The Committee was advised that if Australia does not adopt this
Convention, the level of environmental protection in Australia will be
lower than internationally adopted standards.15
Health impacts
5.10 In recent years concerns have also been raised about the impact of
TBT on human health, especially people who consume large
quantities of seafood in their diet.16 The possible harm to human
health as a result of the consumption of affected seafood is recognised
in the preamble to the Convention.
5.11 The RIS states at paragraph 1.2 that research in Australia conducted in
the late 1980s found evidence of TBT contamination in Sydney rock
10 NIA, para. 5.
11 Government of Victoria, Submission 26.
12 RIS, para. 1.3.
13 RIS, para. 1.8.
14 Queensland Government, Submission 25.
15 NIA, para. 10.
16 NIA, para. 6.
76 REPORT 52: TREATIES TABLED IN MARCH 2003
oysters. Other adverse effects have been reported on a range of
invertebrate species near ports and marinas around the Australian
coast.
5.12 The RIS states further that while the threat to human health has not
yet been studied in detail, organotins may disrupt the function of
human immune cells, particularly those which fight infection.17 The
Committee notes with concern the results of a recent United States
(US) study which showed that shipyard workers exposed to TBT even
for a few minutes developed ‘breathing difficulties, skin irritation,
dizziness, and flu-like symptoms’.18
Implementation
5.13 The Committee understands that the Federal Cabinet agreed to the
banning of organotin-based antifouling paints through Australia’s
Oceans Policy in 1998. The Policy commits Australia to banning the
application of TBT to vessels being repainted in Australian docks
from 1 January 2006.19
5.14 The Committee was advised that two elements have assisted with the
domestic implementation of Convention20:
_ The States and the Northern Territory have implemented
legislation which prohibits the application of anti-fouling paint
containing organotins on vessels less than 25 metres in length. In
some cases this legislation extends to the application of such paints
on other structures (e.g. piers).
_ The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
(formerly known as the National Registration Authority for
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals) has set in place a process
for the deregistration of anti-fouling paints containing TBT.
5.15 Ratification of the Convention by Australia is dependent on the
passage of domestic legislation: the Protection of the Sea (Harmful
Anti-fouling Systems) Bill 2003 is expected to be introduced during
the Spring 2003 parliamentary sittings.21 The Australian Maritime
17 RIS, para. 1.5.
18 RIS, para. 1.5.
19 RIS, para. 1.19.
20 Robert Alchin, Transcript of Evidence, p. 35.
21 NIA, para. 4.
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE CONTROL OF HARMFUL ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS
ON SHIPS (THE AFS CONVENTION) 77
Safety Authority (AMSA) will also make appropriate subordinate
legislation such as Marine Orders and will also develop Instructions
to Surveyors and/or Class Societies, as necessary, based on guidelines
being developed by the IMO.22
5.16 Survey and certification of vessels will be required under Article 10 of
the Convention. According to the National Interest Analysis (NIA):
the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and/or an
authorised organisation will undertake this role as part of its
flag State control function for Australian ships.23
5.17 The Committee heard that the Convention has certification
requirements for two different groups of ships.24 Ships of 400 gross
tonnage and above engaged in international voyages will be required
to undergo an initial survey before the ship is put into service and a
survey when the anti-fouling systems are changed or replaced. This
excludes fixed or floating platforms, floating storage units, and
floating production storage and offtake units used by the oil
production industry. Ships of 24 metres or more in length, but less
than 400 gross tonnage engaged in international voyages are required
to carry a compliance declaration signed by the owner or owner’s
authorised agent.
Obligations
5.18 The Convention provides for inspection of ships and detention for
violations. Each party must also prohibit and enforce violations of the
Convention under its domestic law. Compensation may be provided
for any loss or damage suffered if a ship is unduly detained or
delayed while undergoing inspection for possible violations of the
Convention.25
5.19 The RIS states that:
The Convention will not apply to any warship, naval
auxiliary, or other ships owned or operated by the country
and used only on government non-commercial service.26
22 NIA, para. 21.
23 NIA, para. 16.
24 Robert Alchin, Transcript of Evidence, p. 35.
25 NIA, para. 19.
26 RIS, para. 1.13.
78 REPORT 52: TREATIES TABLED IN MARCH 2003
5.20 The Committee understands that, while IMO environmental
conventions generally do not apply to naval vessels, Australian
Defence Force vessels seek to comply with international
environmental standards as far as practicable.27 This commitment is
recognised in Australia’s Oceans Policy.
Impact on States and Territories
5.21 Implementation of the Convention will establish a national approach
to TBT-based paints by complementing current State and Territory
regulations and policies.
5.22 The RIS states that the implementing legislation will form part of the
‘Protection of the Sea’ suite of acts which give effect to the IMO
environmental conventions:
As such, it will apply to all State/NT coastal and internal
waters, with suitable ‘roll-back’ provision preserving the
operation of State/NT legislation.28
5.23 The RIS also states that existing State and Northern Territory
legislation applicable to vessels less than 25 metres in length will need
to be examined in detail to ensure there are no omissions,
inconsistencies or duplication of requirements, although no
significant difficulties are foreseen.29
5.24 Submissions received from three state governments (Tasmania,
Queensland and Victoria) supported ratification of the Convention.
Industry impact
5.25 The Committee was advised that Australian industry has been aware
of the Convention and, depending on the docking cycle of ships,
alternatives to TBT-based paints are already in use.30
5.26 In terms of the certification requirement, the RIS states that the impact
on the Australian shipping industry will be minimal. Australian ships
undergo regular surveys by approved Classification Societies to
27 RIS, para. 1.19.
28 NIA, para. 20; RIS, para. 4.13.
29 RIS, para. 4.13.
30 Robert Alchin, Transcript of Evidence, p. 34.
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE CONTROL OF HARMFUL ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS
ON SHIPS (THE AFS CONVENTION) 79
verify compliance with a broad range of IMO conventions relating to
safety and protection of the marine environment.31
Costs
5.27 Regarding costs to the Australian Government, the NIA states at
paragraph 24 that:
costs of enforcement for the Convention will be low as
established inspection and certification procedures applied to
other IMO environmental conventions are already in place.
5.28 The Committee was advised that costs to paint manufacturers if the
Convention is ratified will be minimal. According to the RIS, the
largest Australian paint manufacturer estimates that anti-fouling
paint represented 2 per cent of total sales. 32
5.29 The Committee understands that alternative non-TBT-based antifouling
paints are readily available in Australia and overseas. The RIS
states that while short-term alternatives to TBT-based anti-fouling
paints are likely to be copper or silicone-based, the majority have been
developed for the pleasure craft market and are unsuitable for
commercial trading vessels.33 The Committee was advised of the
concerns raised by the Australian Shipowners Association about the
limited alternatives to TBT-based paints currently available in
Australia; the small Australian market and lack of competition has
resulted in premium costs.34
5.30 The RIS states that competition from the availability of more paints
will reduce these costs, although there are likely to be some cost
implications for shipowners in the short term, depending on a vessel’s
dry-docking cycle. The Committee understands that there are
currently many more alternative paints available overseas, and that
discussions have been held with the National Registration Authority
with the view to streamlining the assessment and registration
process.35
31 RIS, para. 4.11.
32 RIS, para. 4.12.
33 RIS, para. 4.7.
34 RIS, paras 4.7 and 5.1.
35 RIS, para. 4.8.
80 REPORT 52: TREATIES TABLED IN MARCH 2003
Consultation
5.31 Several parties including industry, state and territories, paint
manufacturers and environmental groups have been consulted.36 The
Committee is satisfied with the range and extent of consultation and
that all relevant parties have been adequately involved in the treatymaking
process.
5.32 The Committee notes that ongoing consultation is planned if changes
to the AFS Convention are proposed, or problems are experienced by
industry with regard to the Convention.37
Entry into Force
5.33 Australia signed the Convention on 19 August 2002. It will enter into
force internationally 12 months after the date at which at least
25 States representing 25 per cent of the world’s merchant shipping
tonnage have become Parties to the Convention. As stated at
paragraph 4.15, ratification by Australia is dependent on the passage
of domestic legislation: the Protection of the Sea (Harmful Antifouling
Systems) Bill 2003 is expected to be introduced during the
Spring 2003 parliamentary sittings.38
5.34 The NIA and RIS suggest that most countries are generally in favour
of this Convention and are adopting the standards outlined in the
Convention regardless of whether they are contracting parties. The
Committee was concerned however that, as at 30 April 2003, only
three states had ratified the Convention.39 The Committee was told
that other states are currently undergoing the process of ratification
and an ‘en masse’ signing is expected in due course.40
36 These consultations were described in the NIA at paras 25-7.
37 RIS, para. 7.4.
38 NIA, para. 4.
39 These states are Denmark, Antigua and Barbuda and Nigeria. These states represent 2.12
per cent of the world merchant tonnage.
40 Robert Alchin, Transcript of Evidence, p. 35 and Paul Nelson, Transcript of Evidence, p.36.
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE CONTROL OF HARMFUL ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS
ON SHIPS (THE AFS CONVENTION) 81
Concluding observations
5.35 The Committee recognises the leadership that Australia has
demonstrated in many areas of marine environment protection and
the important role played by the international maritime industry in
underpinning Australia’s international trade. The Committee also
accepts that, without international treaty-level action, there would be
insufficient impetus for the shipping and marine coating industries to
restrict the use of harmful anti-fouling systems.
5.36 The Committee notes the comprehensive information contained in the
Regulation Impact Statement concerning anti-fouling paint
compound and manufacture, the increasing acceptance and
availability of alternatives to TBT-based products and consultation
undertaken in the development of the Convention.
5.37 The Committee also understands that safer alternatives to TBT antifouling
alternatives exist and should last from between three and five
years, which should be suitable for the dry-docking cycle of most
ships.41