Government▼Watch EU gets tough on organotins
PHOTODISC
The European Commission has proposed banning the use of antifouling paints containing organotins on EU member states’ ships by January. The proposal, which requires approval by the European Parliament and the EU
gross tonnage have ratified it. It is likely that Port State Controls, which operate agreements around the world in different regions, would enforce the convention and require certificates from ships entering port confirming their organotin-free status, regardless of where the ships are registered or owned. EU legislation would set a significant precedent, says Lee Adamson of the IMO. Campaigners at the conservation organization World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) agree. “This is good news, even though non-EU ships will still be able to use these paints and then visit EU waters,” says WWF’s Simon Walmsley. Currently, the only main EU country through which many ships are
registered is Greece. However, once the ban becomes EU law, countries hoping to join the EU such as Cyprus and Malta, both of which boast many ship registrations, will be required to adhere to the law. “If Greece, Cyprus, and Malta follow the legislation and ratify the IMO instrument, the entryinto-force conditions may be met, leading to a worldwide ban on the use of these chemicals in antifoulant formulations,” Walmsley says. A Europe-wide ban could damage the European industry’s competitiveness on the global market because it would force it to operate under rules not effective in other countries. Nonetheless, companies support a global ban. —MARIA BURKE
EU eyes sustainable agriculture
EU moves toward banning organotins on ships’ hulls.
Council of Ministers, is intended to encourage states to ratify the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) convention on organotins. No country has yet ratified the IMO Convention, which prohibits applying paints containing organotins after 2003 and bans their presence completely by 2008. Antifouling paints are used to prevent organisms, such as barnacles and mollusks, from attaching to ships’ hulls where they increase drag leading to reduced speed and higher fuel consumption. But in the 1980s, it emerged that tributyltin, a common component of these paints, was extremely harmful to the marine environment; for example, whelks started to suffer from sex-changing disorders and oysters developed abnormally thick shells. Approved in October 2001, the IMO treaty is designed to enter into force 12 months after 25 states representing 25% of the world’s merchant shipping © 2002 American Chemical Society
In an effort to separate farm subsidies from food production, the European Commission (EC) in July proposed a series of far-reaching measures for overhauling Europe’s agricultural policy. The new proposals would make payments to farmers conditional on higher environmental, food safety, animal welfare, and occupational safety standards. Although environmentalists widely applaud the initiative, farm groups voice concerns that the initiative will place them at a competitive disadvantage, particularly vis-à-vis U.S. farmers, who saw a massive increase in commodity subsidies under the farm bill signed into law in May. In announcing the proposal, EC President Romano Prodi stressed “the stark contrast between our proposals and the U.S. policy, which forces down prices and damages the market.” A primary motive behind the European initiative, however, is to reassure European consumers in the wake of seemingly never-ending food scares, such as the recent foot and mouth and “mad cow” outbreaks. Also, farmers engaging in sustainable practices would be rewarded not only for the environmental services that they provide, such as soil protection and improvement, ecological diversity, and better water quality, but also for their role in maintaining the countryside by keeping urban development at bay, according to EC documents. The initiative also seeks to halt subsidized overproduction, which results in food surpluses that are dumped on developing countries. The EC is preparing the legislative text needed to adopt its proposals, which will be debated by the European Parliament and European Council over the coming months. It’ll face tough going, says Elizabeth Guttenstein of the conservation group World Wide Fund for Nature, because although “every single element has some supporter, most countries are against something in the policy.” For more information on the European agricultural policy review, go to http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/mtr/comdoc_en.pdf. —KRIS CHRISTEN
OCTOBER 1, 2002 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
■
375 A
