Carriage, Handling and Storage of Dangerous Goods along

More documents

Recommendations

Info

120 RECOMMENDATIONS Due to the lack of harmonised rules and regulations, vessels on the Mekong River sailing through the territory of different riparian states will be confronted with different (imperfect) legal frameworks, requirements and procedures and with legal uncertainty. This may be considered an obstacle to trade and economic development in its own right, lead to an uneven playing field for individual ship and port operators and traders from different countries, and put shipping as such at a competitive disadvantage vis-á-vis other transportation modes. For these reasons, a first and indeed quite fundamental recommendation is to harmonise rules, regulations and standards for the transportation of dangerous goods on the Mekong. This need for harmonisation was already acknowledged by all riparian states and was moreover considered very high priority. Technically, harmonisation may be attained in two different ways: through harmonisation in the strict sense, i.e. a mere fine-tuning of national rules, regulations and standards, or through the adoption of full-blown common rules at the international or regional level which replace national instruments. The choice between these two procedures should be made on a case-by-case basis. 5.3.2 Adoption of a Regional Agreement RECOMMENDATION The harmonisation of rules and regulations on the transportation of dangerous goods on the Mekong may be carried out through either (1) a specific dangerous goods agreement to be concluded by the four MRC Member States or (2) separate agreements to be concluded by (a) Cambodia and Viet Nam and (b) Lao PDR and Thailand. CHALLENGE In order to establish harmonised rules on the basis of an international agreement, two options are available: (1) a specific dangerous goods agreement to be concluded by the four MRC Member States or (2) separate agreements to be concluded by (a) Cambodia and Viet Nam and (b) Lao PDR and Thailand. While the first option needs no further clarification, it should be pointed out that the second one would presuppose the conclusion of separate agreements for the Lower and the Middle Mekong. Cambodia and Viet Nam may conclude such a separate dangerous goods agreement or either adopt harmonised rules and regulations on this issue through the Mekong Navigation Facilitation Committee; Lao PDR and Thailand may either sign a similar specific dangerous goods agreement or adopt harmonised rules and regulations on the basis of a future comprehensive bilateral navigation agreement. The alternative of adopting separate instruments can be justified on the strength of the following considerations: • currently, there are two up-to-date legal agreements on navigation in the Mekong River Basin; • the Khone Falls form a natural geographical boundary; • the physical characteristics of the waterways and the ships operating on the Upper (and Middle) Mekong and the Lower Mekong differ; and • the harmonisation of the aids to navigation systems has followed a similar approach. With regard to the first argument, it should be borne in mind that currently, there is no up-to-date legal regime for the stretch of the Mekong between Luang Prabang and Khone Falls. If Thailand and
LEGAL FRAMEWORK 121 Lao PDR conclude a new agreement with regard to this stretch, this would result in three different legal regimes for navigation in the Mekong River Basin. Nevertheless, in case of such a new agreement for the “Middle Mekong”, the other three arguments set out above remain valid and a distinction between the stretches upstream and downstream of the Khone Falls would remain relevant. Road and ferry transportation of dangerous goods is already covered by the 1999 Agreement for Facilitation of Cross-Border Transport of Goods and People, and its Annex 1 on carriage of dangerous goods (the entry into force and the exact scope of which have to be studied further; this Agreement was signed/acceded to by six countries including China and Myanmar). In order to avoid overlaps or contradictions with existing GMS-CBTA (Annex 1), consultation with ADB-GMS is advisable. The existing Quadripartite Agreement on the Upper Mekong (to which China and Myanmar are parties together with Lao PDR and Thailand) should be taken into account as well. Whether the proposed regime for the Middle Mekong can or indeed should be identical to the regime in place for the Upper Mekong remains to be seen. 5.3.3 Conformity with International Standards RECOMMENDATION Rules and regulations on dangerous goods should conform to applicable international standards such as IMDG (for maritime transportation) and, as far as feasible, relevant UN or IMO rules and recommendations and the ADN Agreement. CHALLENGE The Risk Analysis compared the subjects dealt with by the current legal regime pertaining to the transportation of dangerous goods on the Mekong with international benchmarks. In doing so, a number of important gaps were identified. It was noted that the current legal regime does not contain provisions on, inter alia, dangerous goods packed in limited quantities, construction and testing of packaging, training of crew (with the exception of Viet Nam), rules for the construction of vessels and segregation of dangerous goods (with the exception of Viet Nam). With a view to legal certainty and maximum trade facilitation, harmonised rules on the transportation of dangerous goods on the Mekong should conform to worldwide international legal and technical standards. Cambodia, Thailand and Viet Nam already comply with the IMDG Code at maritime ports. Probably, the application of the IMDG Code can be extended to include major inland ports and be integrated with existing road and rail networks. With regard to vessels, reference can be made to the following instruments (some of which were adopted at IMO level as well): • Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk; • International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk; • Code for Existing Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk; and • International Safety Guide for Inland Navigation Tank-barges and Terminals.
Page 1 and 2:
2 3 5.1 CARRIAGE, HANDLING AND STOR
Page 3 and 4:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Key MRC staff, memb
Page 5 and 6:
CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Page 7 and 8:
CONTENTS III 3.3.3.2 Safety Managem
Page 9 and 10:
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ADN Acco
Page 11 and 12:
ILO International Labor Organisatio
Page 13 and 14:
PPE Personal Protective Equipment P
Page 15 and 16:
DEFINITIONS Administration: means t
Page 17 and 18:
DEFINITIONS XIII Loading arm: an ar
Page 19 and 20:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS (
Page 21 and 22:
1. FROM RISK ANALYSIS TO RECOMMENDA
Page 23 and 24:
FROM RISK ANALYSIS TO RECOMMENDATIO
Page 25 and 26:
FROM RISK ANALYSIS TO RECOMMENDATIO
Page 27 and 28:
1.3.3 Enforcement and Compliance FR
Page 29 and 30:
2. PORTS AND TERMINALS 2.1 INTRODUC
Page 31 and 32:
HAZARD HOT WORK RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
Page 33 and 34:
2.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PREVENTION
Page 35 and 36:
PORTS AND TERMINALS 15 The ISPS Cod
Page 37 and 38:
ACTIONS Technical and Management PO
Page 39 and 40:
PORTS AND TERMINALS 19 • OISD-STD
Page 41 and 42:
ACTIONS Technical and Management (c
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
PORTS AND TERMINALS 25 Fire and gas
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
References ILO Code of Practice on
Page 53 and 54:
For the segregation table the follo
Page 55 and 56:
2.3.4.3 Monitoring and Control of D
Page 57 and 58:
References International Safety Gui
Page 59 and 60:
2.3.4.6 Drug and Alcohol Policy REC
Page 61 and 62:
Tier 1 PORTS AND TERMINALS 41 • S
Page 63 and 64:
PORTS AND TERMINALS 43 • Planning
Page 65 and 66:
PORTS AND TERMINALS 45 • Dangerou
Page 67 and 68:
Technical and Management (continued
Page 69 and 70:
2.4.2.2 Portable and Mobile Firefig
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
3. VESSELS 3.1 INTRODUCTION RECOMME
Page 79 and 80:
VESSELS 59 Priority levels are base
Page 81 and 82:
References VESSELS 61 • ADN (Euro
Page 83 and 84:
VESSELS 63 collisions. If a VTS sys
Page 85 and 86:
VESSELS 65 important cause was "mai
Page 87 and 88:
Drip Trays VESSELS 67 Suitable drip
Page 89 and 90: ACTIONS Technical and Management (c
Page 91 and 92: Institutional and Capacity Building
Page 99 and 100: 3.3.2.7 Bunkering Operations Target
Page 101 and 102: VESSELS 81 Special attention is nee
Page 103 and 104: VESSELS 83 To deliver the required
Page 105 and 106: For port facilities, the requiremen
Page 111 and 112: VESSELS 91 including the kind of PP
Page 113 and 114: guidelines are given as these are s
Page 115 and 116: References • IMO Resolution MSC.2
Page 119 and 120: VESSELS 99 oil pollution incident h
Page 121: ACTIONS Institutional and Capacity
Page 124 and 125: 104 RECOMMENDATIONS d. Navigation,
Page 126 and 127: 106 RECOMMENDATIONS Table 5: Summar
Page 128 and 129: 108 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.3.2 Minimum S
Page 130 and 131: 110 RECOMMENDATIONS tool that would
Page 132 and 133: 112 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.3.8 Establish
Page 134 and 135: 114 RECOMMENDATIONS Ship's skipper
Page 136 and 137: 116 RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 138 and 139: 118 RECOMMENDATIONS • ILO Code of
Page 142 and 143: 122 RECOMMENDATIONS With regard to
Page 144 and 145: 124 RECOMMENDATIONS 5.3.7 Examine M
Page 146 and 147: 126 RECOMMENDATIONS to enact or imp
Page 148 and 149: 128 RECOMMENDATIONS • Elevated le
Page 150 and 151: 130 RECOMMENDATIONS There is no sin
Page 152 and 153: 132 RECOMMENDATIONS 6.3.6 Environme
Page 154 and 155: 134 RECOMMENDATIONS that some oily
Page 156 and 157: 136 RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendat
Page 158 and 159: 138 RECOMMENDATIONS Figure 20: The
Page 160: 2 3 5.1 Office of the Secretariat i
show all

Carriage, Handling and Storage of Dangerous Goods along

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?