I regret that, due to the lack of preparation time, I am unable to provide precise numerical data at this point I will begin with a brief explanation of my reasons for asking for your time today.

　

In this presentation, I think of ships as vessels that are loaded with cargo, staffed with a crew and used on a regular basis for the transportation of people and goods. In recognition of the changing nature of ships and shipping, the theme of this address is "protect the ocean. " The key ideas explored here are the "responsibilities of flag states" and "shipowners' responsibilities."

　

When people think of marine pollution caused by ships, tanker accidents are the first issue that comes to mind. According to International Maritime Organization (IMO) statistics, however, the activities of people on land account for most marine pollution. Pollution resulting from accidents represents only 17% of the total.

　

Spurred by the Exxon Valdez accident in 1989, the IMO tightened regulations on tanker construction, requiring a double-hulled structure on large tankers. Again in 2000, reacting to the oil spill from the Enka in the Bay of Biscay. the IMO ordered a phaseout of all single-hulled tankers in principle by 2015. Over the next 10 years, the amount of spillage in the event of tanker accidents should be seen to decline dramatically.

　

In both the Erika incident and an earlier accident, the 1997 spill from the Russian tanker Nakhodka in the Sea of Japan, the hull was sliced clear in half. In both of these accidents, the tankers had problems with the longitudinal strength of their hulls. Owing to lack of proper maintenance, the steel thickness of the hulls had become reduced and were thus unable to withstand the force of waves.

　

From the early 1990s onward, these types of incidents, in which a hull split in two due to poor maintenance, have been more common with bulkers than with tankers. Although this type of mishap is less known to the public, because of the cargo type not being oil but coal and iron ore, the impact on the marine environment of fuel oil from such vessels cannot be ignored. Also important is that every year an average of 60 sailors perish at sea For these reasons proposals are currently being tabled at the IMO to require double-hulled construction in bulkers as well as tankers.

　

The seaworthiness of ship hulls should be the responsibility of the owners of the ships. In practice, this work is usually contracted out to third parties.

　

What have we learned from these accidents? The principal lesson is that the fastest route to better safety at sea is to pursue and enforce the management responsibilities of ship operators and the ship management companies that maintain vessels on behalf of shipowners. In fact, this imperative has developed into international regulations based on International Safety Management (ISM) code.

　

Marine and other forms of pollution related to ships, other than accidental pollution, have clearly become a problem. While accidents at sea are certainly one source of pollution, ships also inevitably generate pollution in the course of their normal seafaring activities.

　

For example, although the discharge of bilge water from ships is already subject to regulation, other sources of pollution generated aboard ships, such as ordinary garbage and sewage, remain problematic. The industry is currently focusing on ballast water and whether it should be considered a form of pollution or not.

　

Other issues being debated are factors that pollute the oceans indirectly, such as the exhaust gas from ships that contributes to acid rain and global warming.

　

Although this is something of a departure from the topic of responsibilities for shipping operations, the problem of marine pollution resulting from ship breaking has still not been resolved.

　

Before we move on to consider which responsibilities for these new problems of marine pollution are borne by flag states and which are borne by shipowners, it is worthwhile to add a brief discussion of some recent moves in this area.

　

Strictly speaking, ballast water is a problem not of marine pollution but of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. First of all, a few examples will provide a quantitative glimpse of the scale of the problem.

　

Every year ocean going ships take on 300 million metric tons of ballast water in Japanese waters and carry it to every corner of the world. Of this amount, some 80 million metric tons is loaded on ships bound for Australia. From all countries combined, Australia is estimated to accept about 160 million metric tons of ballast water. If the ballast were never changed in the course of navigation, almost exactly half of the ballast water discarded in Australian waters would be of Japanese origin.

　

Although no figures are available giving a breakdown of how much water comes from each of Japan's ports, the issue is by no means dire enough to be called a plague, i.e.a "marine pest." Nonetheless, awareness is growing among the Australian public of the need for preventive maintenance against microorganisms carried in from abroad, and Australians are extremely sensitive on this point.

　

Virtually all of the sea lanes between Japan and Australia in which ballast water is exchanged lie within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of one country or another. Some countries do not permit the exchanging of ballast water within their EEZ, in which case ballast must be changed in open seas. If ships encounter rough seas or inclement weather, however, they may not be able to exchange their ballast water at all.

　

The IMO is currently debating a new treaty for the regulation and management of the disposal of ship ballast water. A diplomatic conference is scheduled for the fall of 2003 to adopt this treaty.

　

Fundamental discussions on the degree to which the possible inclusion of foreign species in ballast water can be tolerated are likely to continue for some time. This is a particularly intractable problem facing the world community today.

　

In September 2002 Norway submitted a deposition to the IMO that it had satisfied the conditions stipulated in MARPOL Appendix IV, which deals with the regulation of discharge from ships of excreta and other sewage. Appendix IV would come into force in September 2003.

　

The original Appendix IV covered only the regulation of ships with 10 or more persons aboard and more than 200GT. On present trends, however, it appears set to apply to ships with 15 or more persons aboard and more than 400GT.

　

Regulation of nitrous oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SOX) is already adopted in Appendix VI of MARPOL. Upon coming into effect, this treaty enforces the installation of engines satisfying certain regulatory values, retroactive to all vessels whose construction was completed in or after 2000. It is now likely that the conditions will be met for putting Appendix VI into effect by the first half of 2003.

　

It has been known for 20 years that, in ports surrounded by steep slopes of mountains, such as those in Northern Europe, and those in enclosed seas such as Tokyo Bay, NOX and SOX emissions from ships can, depending on the wind direction, have a deleterious impact on residents by causing acid rain. Advances in technology for modeling atmospheric diffusion have made it possible to provide a quantitative estimate of the impact of the impact of these emissions.

　

Measures are currently being examined to reduce emissions of global-warming gases from aircraft and ships. According to the results of recent surveys by the Ocean Policy Research Department of the Ship & Ocean Foundation, 1.7% of the carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) generated worldwide derives from ocean-going ships.

　

Fundamentally, ships are the most energy-efficient means of transportation in terms of weight times distance traveled, and are therefore the most environmentally friendly shipping mode. Serious discussion of reducing emissions in trucks and other land-based shipping methods should take priority over similar reductions in ships. The reality, however, is that this view is not widespread.

　

In October 2001 , the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ship was adopted.

　

Concerned about the effects of tributyltin (TBT) paint on the oceanic ecosystem, in 1992 the Japanese government became the first nation to take action on this issue, stopping the paint at the nation's shipyards and prohibiting the production of this substance by Japanese manufacturers.

　

These results formed the background to the inception of this treaty, which was the result of a Japanese initiative. Although considerable time will probably be needed to satisfy the conditions for putting the treaty into effect, the European Union (EU) has announced very recently the prohibition of the use of TBT as ship paint.

　

The breaking of ships raises two problems. The first one under examination involves violations of the Basel Convention, which does not allow the movement of ships across borders without first eliminating harmful or polluting substances.

　

The second is the pollution produced in breaking sites. The majority of ocean going ships are broken in the Indian subcontinent for disassembly. The breaking is conducted on beaches with little or no facilities to prevent marine pollution.

　

Aside from the economic and trade issues, the question the shipping community must face is whether those who have built and used ships can abnegate their responsibilities for those ships simply by selling them to other countries for breaking.

　

Currently, the IMO is collaborating with the International Labor Organization (ILO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to examine the issue of ship recycling, focusing not merely on ship breaking but the entire life cycle of ships, from shipyard to graveyard. The world community must search for a bold new paradigm to deal with the final processing of these huge manmade structures that crisscross the globe on a daily basis.

　

In 1984, the Mont Louis freighted with new fuel for a nuclear plant sank in the waters off Belgium In August 2000, a Russian nuclear submarine sank in Kola Bay, drawing everyone's attention even though this was an exotic faraway port.

In 1980, fire broke out in a Russian nuclear submarine approximately 110 nautical miles east off Okinawa's main island. It was towed by a Russian boat, passing through Japanese territorial waters. Furthermore, in 1993 there were also reports of waste from nuclear submarine breaking being dumped by Russia.

In the areas surrounding Japan, we have no real way of knowing how much nuclear marine pollution is sneaking upon us, however, it leaves no doubt that shipping and marine pollution are major concerns left behind in the 21st century.