BALTIC SEAENVIRONMENT PROCEEDINGS No. 59 - Helcom

mv l(T,zzbaae)
Ehtxy into foxre: 31 Deem&r 1988
As farasgartige iscmcemed, specificminimm distanceshave
been set for the disposal of the principal types of garbage.
Perhaps themsti-npomtfeature of this Annex is the cmplete
prahibition placfzd on the dispcM1 of plastics into the sea.
Procress towards ratification
Although it was hoped that the MARPOL Convemion would enter into
fcrceguickly, in practice, prcgress was very slow. tiswasdue
largely to a number cf techzical diffimlties, in particular those
associated with Annexes I and II.
In 1976 and 1977, a series of accidents involving oil tankers
led to in- concern about safety and pollution. LF20 was asked
to alla conferenceto cmsider furthermasures - including
changes to MARPOL arki the International Convention for the Safety
cf Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS).
The 1978 KAR?!OL Protocol
ivhen the Internaticnal Cmference cn Tanker Safety and Pollution
Prevention (TSPP) ms held early 5 1978, neither Convention was
then in force and coi-squently could not be axnded. Ihenew
measures were, therefore, contained in two protocols. The
Ccnference decided that the SOLAS Protocol should be a separate
ixtmment, and should enter into force after the parent
Convention.
In the case of !GRFOL, ;however, the Conference adopted a
different approach. At that time, t!!e principal problems preventing
early ratification of the IK~PWL Convention were those associated
with Annex II. The c!!anges envisaged by the Conference involved
mainly Annex I am3 it was, therefore, decided to adopt the agreed
_
chmges and, at the same tize, allow Contracting States to defer
implemntation of Annex II for three years after the date of entry
into force of the Protocol (i.e. until 2 October 1986). By then,
it was expected that the technical problerrrs would have been solved.
112