Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:54:38.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Environment, COST-301 and Coastal State Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2009

Aline De Bièvre  and
J. F. Kemp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper was presented at a seminar entitled a European Concerted Approach to Vessel Traffic Services for Safe Navigation – EEC Project COST-301, sponsored jointly by the Institute's Netherlands branch and the Royal Institute of Engineers, Delft University of Technology and the Netherlands Directorate General for Shipping and Maritime Affairs held in Delft on 20 January 1986. It was published under the auspices of the European Environmental Bureau, an independent coalition body of leading environmental organizations in all the European Economic Community countries (with a total membership of over 10 million). The paper, of which the following is a condensed version, seeks to comment on the implications for environmental protection of the various COST-301 research programmes, and to assess the contribution which the findings resulting from them may make to future European coastal state policy and international measures.

Aline De Bièvre is with the European Environmental Bureau and John Kemp is Professor Emeritus at the City of London Polytechnic.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , September 1986 , pp. 310 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1Memorandum on Shipping and Environment – Supplement No. 2 (1986). Obtainable from: European Environmental Bureau, Vautierstraat 29, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
2Goldberg, E. D. (1976). The Health of the Oceans. UNESCO Press, New York.Google Scholar
3 Canadian Coast Guard (1984). Vessel Traffic Services Study. Final Report.Google Scholar
4Sukselainen, J. (1985). Integration Report on Task 1.40. COST-301 /SF/VTT/1.40.Google Scholar
5Hamer, K. H. (1985). New vessel traffic services with improved data processing. Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of the International Association of Institutes of Navigation, Tokyo.Google Scholar
6Goss, R. O. and Halliday, J. E. (1985). The costs and benefits of navigational safety. Proceedings of the International Law of the Sea Conference, Cardiff.Google Scholar
7 IMO document STW/18/INF. 6 (15 08 1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Ligthart, V. (1985). Navigation in the North Sea. The Opinion of the Mariner. MARIN-(Maritime Research Institute Netherlands), Rotterdam.Google Scholar
9 IMO Assembly Resolution A. 474 (XII) (19 11 1981).Google Scholar
10Sunday Times (4 05 1978).Google Scholar
11 Section 2, p. 2.Google Scholar
12 Section 5, p. 6. The overall actual inspection rate achieved per participating State after 3 years of the MOU's operation reportedly amounts to about 20 per cent of the foreign merchant ships entering the national ports of the State concerned. This corresponds with a regional coverage of approximately 60 per cent of all foreign merchant ships travelling in the MOU area (Section 9, p. 10).Google Scholar
13 Section 9, p. 11.Google Scholar
14De Bièvre, A. (1985). Vessel traffic services and the law. This Journal, 38, 347–64.Google Scholar
15 The Guidelinesfor VTS were endorsed by the Assembly of IMO in November 1985 (Resolution A. 577 (14)).Google Scholar
16Van Riet, J. A. (1985). The N.W. European Scene. From Ships’ Routeing to Serving the Traffic. Eleventh Conference of the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities, Brighton.Google Scholar
17 Protocol I of MARPOL 73/78 as amended and accompanying revised Guidelines for Reporting Incidents Involving Harmful Substances.Google Scholar
18 If compulsory reporting procedures cannot be implemented, there remains of course the possibility of introducing recommendations. These can also be very effective, only to the extent that the shipping industry perceives a real benefit because mariners experience ‘feedback’ in the form of broadcast navigational and other relevant information. The MAREP and SHIPPOS systems operated in the English Channel/Dover Strait and in the Sound provide examples in this respect.Google Scholar