205 



that a ship does not have a valid certificate of compliance. At present, th(> 

 Convention, in Article 5, provides that ships in violation shall not sail until 

 they can proceed to sea without presenting "an unreasonable threat to harm 

 to the marine environment." This is clearly not the optimal solution. Rather, an 

 alternative requirement that a ship should not be permitted to sail "until the 

 deficiency is corrected" provides far greater assurance of the protection of the 

 marine environment. At the very least, permission to leave port should only 

 be granted to proceed to the nearest repair yard available. Similarly, the Con- 

 vention should provide for mandatory denial of access to ports and offshore 

 terminals, except for repair purposes, when a ship does not comply with the Regu- 

 lations. . ,.,,,,, •« 1, 



A final element of the enforcement mechanism which should be specihcally 

 mentioned is the develoimient of an appropriate evidentiary standard, in par- 

 ticular, with regard to oil pollution. Although there is unanimous agreement 

 that such a provision is appropriate, the four alternatives suggested vary vastly 

 in effectiveness. One alternative merely provides that evidence of "visible traces 

 . . . shall be cause for investigation ..." A second alternative even makes 

 adoption of this evidentiary standard optional. A third alternative would re- 

 quire that it be "proven" that oil has been discharged. Only one alternative of 

 the four presented makes evidence of "visible trac-es" in and of itself "sufficient 

 to establish a violation of this RegiUation," unless rebutted by evidence to the 

 contrary. Obviously this is the strongest of the present formulations, for it 

 places the burden of disproving an apparent violation upon the alleged violator. 



IV. THE CONVENTION MUST PROVIDE FOB THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE POSSIBLE REGULA- 

 TION OF SHIP-GENERATED POLLUTION 



A final element of an effective Convention is the scope of its impact on ship- 

 generated pollution. It is obvious that unless the Convention is comprehensive 

 in scope and provides for application to the widest possible number of states and 

 variations of situations, its ultimate impact on reducing pollution of the oceans 

 will be severely limited. Broad application. I would emphasize, means not just 

 that the Convention must apply to a large number of states and a large variety of 

 vessels, but that it must apply without reservation and must leave open the 

 option for Contracting States to establish higher standards— to provide for even 

 greater protection — should they so desire. The most significant issues pertaining 

 to expansiveness and inclusiveness are those relating to higher state standards, 

 the kinds of .ships and trades to which the Convention applies, the exemption of 

 military vessels, and the taking of reservations. 



(o) Higher State Standards 



Whether Contracting States will be able to take stricter measures within their 

 own jurisdiction regarding any matters covered by the Convention will be a cen- 

 tral issue in October and deserves particular emphasis. Such a provision, in our 

 view, is essential if the United States is to retain the flexibility to protect its 

 own waters and coastlines and, in general, to allow for the broadest possible 

 protection of the marine environment. As this Committee is well aware. Congress, 

 in the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, has specifically mandated that 

 the U.S. Coast Guard establish tank ship design and construction standards which 

 are .sufl^cient to protect U.S. coastal waters. Similarly, in the Federal Water 

 Pollution Control Act of 1072, Congress has authorized the Environmental Pro- 

 tection Agency to set stringent discharge standards for United States watei-s. 

 It need hardly be said that international agreements tend to be compromises and 

 may not be stringent enough to meet our'own environmental goals. It is thus ob- 

 vious that if provision for higher state standards is deleted from the Convention 

 the United States might be faced with the choice of rejecting the Convention or 

 giving up its own commitment to the highest standards of environmental protec- 

 tion. Such a choice is simply unacceptable ; provision for higher state standards 

 must be included. 



(b) Application to All Floating Equipment in All Trades 



The definition of "ship" in Article 2 of the Convention now broadly applies 

 to ships of "any type whatsoever" and includes "fixed and floating platforms." 

 There is substantial pressure to narrow this definition to exclude vessels en- 

 gaged in offshore exploration. Such exclusion would be exceedingly unfortunate. 



