L:\MED\LONCONOF\TC ACTIVITIES\2013\Argentina May 13\Report\Workshop report -

Argentina May 13 Final-ek.doc

Report of the Regional Workshop on the London Protocol

Buenos Aires, Argentina, 22 to 24 May 2013

- 2 -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary Sheet ........................................................................................................................... 3

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4

2 Objectives of the Workshop ............................................................................................. 5 3 Venue, Dates, Roles and Participants ........................................................................... 5 4 Pre-workshop assignments ............................................................................................. 5

5 Opening Ceremony ............................................................................................................. 6 6 Description of key presentations ................................................................................... 6

7 Panel debate/Plenary Discussion: The way forward and recommendations ... 12 8 Evaluation Questionnaire ............................................................................................... 12

9 Field trip ............................................................................................................................... 12 Annex 1 – List of Participants ............................................................................................... 14 Annex 2 – Workshop Programme ......................................................................................... 16

Annex 3 – List of Material Provided to Participants ........................................................ 19 Annex 4 – Opening Speeches................................................................................................ 20

Annex 5 – Copy of the Certificate ......................................................................................... 21

Annex 6 – Summary of Evaluation Questionnaires ......................................................... 22

- 3 -

Summary Sheet 1. Title: Regional Workshop on the London Protocol 2. Dates: 22 – 24 May 2013 3. Location: Prefectura Naval Headquarters, Buenos Aires, Argentina 4. Objective: The key objectives of the Workshop were to:

.1 increase the awareness and understanding of the London Protocol;

.2 set out the benefits and implications of membership to this agreement;

.3 review various related IMO and other multi-lateral environmental agreements for the protection of the marine environment;

.4 review status on management of dumping activities in participant countries;

.5 identify opportunities for IMO (Secretariat of the London Protocol) to assist prospective Parties to the London Protocol to join the London Protocol; and

.6 foster the intra-regional and global co-operation in protecting the marine environment from dumping and other activities.

5. Number of Participants: 33

6. Recipient counties: Argentina, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru,

Uruguay 7. In-kind support from Host Country: The Government of Argentina, through the Prefectura

Naval (PNA) provided the venue and logistical arrangements for the Workshop. 8. The training course was run over 3 days from 22 to 24 May 2013. The course participants

were a mixed group with a wide range of experience and expertise from the government and the private sector.

9. The lecturers provided the participants with a thorough understanding of the main benefits

and requirements under the London Protocol and an overview of the Guidelines developed to assist Parties with implementation of these instruments, and reduce the amount of waste and other matter deemed for disposal at sea.

10. Coordinator/resource persons: The training was coordinated Mr. Edward Kleverlaan and Mr. Fredrik Haag (IMO). The following resource persons contributed: Dr. Gi-Hoon Hong, Chairman Scientific Groups and Second Vice-Chairman, LC/LP, Republic of Korea), Ms. Linda Porebski, First Vice-Chairman Scientific Groups (Canada), Mr. Darrell Brown, Second Vice-Chairman Scientific Groups (United States), Ms. Anne-Marie Svoboda (the Netherlands), and Dr. Chris Vivian (United Kingdom).

Key words: London Convention, London Protocol, Marine Environmental Protection

- 4 -

Group photo, Regional workshop on the London Protocol, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 22-24 May 2013

- 5 -

1 Introduction The Regional Workshop on the IMO London Protocol (LP) was organised jointly by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and Prefectura Naval Argentina (PNA). It was organized within the framework of the Technical Co-operation and Assistance Programme (TCAP) established under the London Convention and Protocol and funded by London Convention/Protocol Trust Fund) and the IMO Technical Advisory Services (TC/1301-11-2000). 2 Objectives of the Workshop Given the current situation in the region, the objectives of the Workshop were to:

.1 increase awareness and understanding of the LP and its relationship to other relevant international agreements for the protection of the marine environment;

.2 brief the participants on all aspects of the LP, including the legal, technical and

administrative requirements and implications of accession to it; .3 set out the benefits and implications of full LP implementation; and .4 identify the needs for further co-operation on LP and other issues, as appropriate.

The Workshop was organized as part of the efforts by Contracting Parties and the Office for the London Convention (LC) and Protocol to raise awareness and increase capability to protect the marine environment in case any wastes or other matter are considered for dumping at sea. The Workshop Programme is shown at annex 1. The presentations provided to the participants were intended to inform senior Government officials and technical staff about the value of becoming a Contracting Party to the LP and the responsibilities of Contracting Parties in managing ocean dumping of dredged material and other allowable wastes. 3 Venue, Dates, Roles and Participants The Regional Workshop was held at the PNA Headquarters in Buenos Aires, Argentina, from 22 to 24 May 2013. The logistical arrangements were very good and the staff and management were very friendly and helpful. The workshop was attended by key government officials from Argentina, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. In addition, a representative from the Permanent Commission on the South Pacific (CPPS) attended. The list of participants is shown in annex 1 to this report. The workshop was deemed to be a great success by all, with good feedback received from the participants. The resource persons provided the lectures/presentations from the LP perspective, as indicated in the programme attached at annex 2 to this report. 4 Pre-workshop assignments Prior to the Workshop, the publications listed in annex 3 to this report were sent to the organizers at the PNA. These and other materials supplied by the PNA were made available to the participants during the Workshop. There was no pre-workshop assignment.

- 6 -

5 Opening Ceremony

The Workshop was officially opened by Captain Roberto Tomas Annichini, Head of the International Affairs Secretariat, PNA. Mr. Edward Kleverlaan, on behalf of IMO, welcomed the distinguished guests and participants to the Workshop, and highlighted the importance of international agreements for the protection of the marine environment. He also described the key benefits of full implementation and enforcement of the LP and set out the challenges for the Workshop this week. He thanked the hosts for providing the excellent arrangements and support for organizing this Workshop and looked forward to sharing ideas and experiences during the Workshop. The Opening and Closing Remarks are shown at annex 4 to this report.

Workshop opening session

6 Description of key presentations The lectures at the Workshop were provided by Mr. Edward Kleverlaan (IMO), Mr. Fredrik Haag (IMO), Dr. Gi-Hoon Hong, Chairman Scientific Groups and Second Vice-Chairman, LC/LP, Republic of Korea), Ms. Linda Porebski, First Vice-Chairman Scientific Groups (Canada), Mr. Darrell Brown, Second Vice-Chairman Scientific Groups (United States), Ms. Anne-Marie Svoboda (the Netherlands) and Dr. Chris Vivian (United Kingdom), as indicated in the final programme and are summarized below in the sequence in which they were given. Time was allocated for questions and clarifications after each presentation, which often contributed to a very lively atmosphere. Background: Scope and impact of dumping activities (Dr. Gi Hoon Hong) A new, brief introductory presentation was shown, with the aim of putting the issue of dumping of waste into a wider context of the sources of marine pollution. The presentation described the background as to why wastes have been dumped at sea, the different types of wastes or other

- 7 -

matter, the scale of dumping activities and their marine environmental consequences. To illustrate the success of the London Convention, 1972 and its 1996 Protocol, the global annual trends in the amount of wastes disposed of at sea for the past twenty years was presented. The downward trends demonstrated the individual national efforts to prevent, reduce or eliminate their needs of dumping at sea. The presentation ended with a short video (London Convention: 40 years). Introduction to the London Protocol (Mr. E. Kleverlaan) The London Protocol (LP) was introduced and several important operative articles in the Protocol were highlighted. The achievements and lessons learned under these agreements were also briefly described, as well as the current and future issues for discussion at the annual meetings of Contracting Parties. Although ample attention was still given under LP to “traditional” dumping issues, with an emphasis on dumping of dredged material, and to keeping implementation guidelines up to date, attention was also given to new and emerging issues such as CO2 capture and storage in sub-seabed geological formations, the regulation of ocean fertilization, clearer spoilt cargo management, and guidance on the placement of artificial reefs. Finally, the benefits and costs of implementing and enforcing the LP were described. Presentation by hosts: Case Studies (Cmdr. Roberto Rodriquez) Cmdr. Roberto Rodriquez (Argentina) provided the participants with a short presentation on the current arrangements for dumping at sea in Argentina. Argentina has implemented the London Convention for many years through the Argentine Coast Guard. Most dumping arises from dredging activities conducted in the lengthy inland rivers that are navigable for many hundreds of kilometres inland. This is an ongoing process and results in many millions of cubic meters to be dumped annually. Actual dumping occurs in internal waters, mostly in the mouth of the River de Plata. Legal framework for marine pollution management (Dr. Gi-Hoon Hong and Ms. Anne-Marie Svoboda) This lecture gave background information on the IMO and set out the relationship between the LP and several other important international agreements and programmes to protect the (marine) environment. These included: IMO Conventions on Pollution Prevention: MARPOL (1973/1978); the Ballast Water Management Convention (2004); the Antifouling Systems Convention (2001) and other global conventions linked with the LP: the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS 1982); the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (1989); and the UNEP Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (1995); United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) and Kyoto Protocol (1997) and many regional seas agreements. The conclusion was that the LP is compatible and consistent with these agreements, but that, occasionally, the boundaries between these agreements need to be clarified in the interest of their harmonized and effective implementation. The film “Any waste any time”, on the waste management practice in the Port of Rotterdam in relation to MARPOL Annex V, was also shown, to illustrate the complexity and importance of comprehensive waste management. Introduction to Waste Assessment Guidance (WAG) (Dr. Chris Vivian and Mr. Darrell Brown) The participants were introduced to the structure of the “Guidelines for the assessment of wastes or other matter that may be considered for dumping (Generic WAG)” and the eight steps of the guidelines were elaborated in detail. The list of wastes or other matter that may be considered for dumping in the LP Annex 1 was reviewed individually and the benefit of having a positive list compared to the earlier negative list used in the London Convention was presented.

- 8 -

In characterizing waste, different wastes or other matter require different characterization depending on their potential marine environment impacts. The participants learned that the results obtained from the characterization would enhance the capacity of the administrator to find the pollution prevention and the alternative disposal options relevant to the wastes or other matter under consideration. In order to select and characterize the dump site, the administrator needs to be assisted by appropriate marine science experts that can be found in government agencies e.g. in fisheries administrations and nature conservation bodies or in universities and research institutes to select disposal sites that avoid sensitive areas. Then the administrator weighs up the potential impacts arising from the proposed dumping of wastes or other matter. If those impacts are perceived to be within the tolerable limit, then the administrator could issue a permit with appropriate conditions. The administrator has to decide how, if it is needed, the monitoring of the issued permit should be carried out and incorporate those requirements in the permit conditions. The participants also learned that the eight steps are part of an iterative process, aimed at obtaining satisfactory information in order to protect the marine environment and that finding alternative management options other than disposal at sea is an important consideration. Various examples of characterization of wastes or other matter, waste prevention, and management options were given to the participants. Examples of action lists and national dumping regimes were also specified. These lists are also presented in the IMO-LP publication entitled “Guidance for the Development of Action Lists and Action Levels for Dredged Material” – refer to annex 3.

The common tools and approaches used to monitor disposal sites were briefly described and it was emphasised that a well-planned survey is more important than the use of sophisticated tools. Monitoring is used in the Waste Assessment Guidance to verify that permit conditions are met - compliance monitoring - and that the assumptions made during the permit review and site selection process were correct and sufficient to protect the environment and human health - field monitoring. In the discussion, clarifications were given with regard to: the speed of re-colonization by benthic species of dredged sediments as a measure of recovery; experiences where monitoring results had led to adjustments in dumping activities; the need to take sufficient time for baseline surveys before assigning new disposal sites; and the available methods of electronic (compliance) monitoring. The process of establishing and administering Action Lists and Action Levels was set out during the discussion. These are developed to determine the suitability of material for sea disposal, drawing from the Guidance for the Development of Action Lists and Action Levels for Dredged Material. It was noted that there is no universal mechanism for the selection of action lists and action levels and that the Guidance points to the process adopted by a number of countries, noting that they themselves borrowed from other countries or mechanisms in developing their lists. It was noted that action lists can consist of chemicals, biological responses, and other characteristics, such as grain size, which provide insight into the potential impacts of dredged material on the marine environment. The „upper‟ and „lower‟ action levels were described. It was noted that increasing the complexity of action lists (e.g., with sediment chemistry, eco-toxicology, bioaccumulation, biomagnification testing) increased a degree of confidence in decision making. However, the increased time, cost and technical expertise required were noted as potential drawbacks. It was noted that these multiple „lines of evidence‟ also provided for a „weight of evidence‟ approach – taking all of this information into account in coming to a decision.

- 9 -

Presentation by hosts: Environmental sensitivity mapping, a tool for environmental impact study by dumping (Ms. Natalia Segreto) Ms. Natalia Segreto (hosts/Argentina) gave an excellent presentation on the use of GIS-based environmental sensitivity mapping as a tool for studying the environmental impacts of dumping. This could be easily adapted to select dumping sites and to monitor its long term effects. Introduction to Specific Waste Assessment Guidance (Mr. E. Kleverlaan, Ms. Anne-Marie Svoboda, Mr. Darrell Brown)

This presentation focussed on the following specific WAGs which have been derived from the generic WAG while applying the same approach: the Vessels and Platforms WAG and an example of the best management practices applied by the United States in this regard, the Fish waste WAG; and the recently adopted WAG for CO2 sequestration in sub-sea geological structures. The above mentioned wastes are each further described as part of the set of WAG documents. For each specific waste, certain characteristics and Action List considerations must be taken into account:

1. Fish waste – consider species, origin, biological oxygen demand, and time factor;

2. Sewage sludge and organic material of natural origin – consider organic enrichment, pathogens, viruses, parasites, specific gravity, and biological oxygen demand;

3. Inert, inorganic geological material – consider origin, mineralogy, physical persistence. The Action List should consider physical impacts; and

4. Bulky wastes – specific gravity must be > 1.2, composition of iron, steel or concrete only, potential reactions with seawater. The Action List should consider physical impacts.

Finally, an overview was given of the contents of the comprehensive “LC-LP/UNEP Guidelines for Placement of Artificial Reefs”, which was published in April/May 2009 and available on the LC/LP Web-site at: http://www.imo.org/blast/mainframemenu.asp?topic_id=1815

Vessels and Platforms – WAG (Mr. E. Kleverlaan)

This presentation covered the Vessels Specific WAG as well as IMO Guidelines and Standards on removal of platforms. Best Management Practices for preparing vessels as artificial reefs was introduced noting the useful documents prepared in the United States and Canada. Approaches to the cleanup of materials of concern, such as oils, PCBs and asbestos, fuels, lubes, and dielectric fluids were noted. The Action List for this category of substances should consider cleanup standards and impacts of a physical nature. The need to balance safety, environmental and economic factors was discussed.

Other WAGs (CO2 and Ocean Fertilization/Marine Geoengineering, Ms. A. Svoboda) The participants were introduced to recent developments under the London Convention and Protocol, in particular on climate or marine geoengineering, namely carbon dioxide waste stream sequestration under sub-seabed geological formation, and ocean fertilization. A brief overview was given of CO2 sequestration in sub-sea geological formations which aims to permanently isolate CO2 for storage in the oceans seabed mostly in old or depleted oil and gas reservoirs. This waste stream has recently been added to Annex 1 of the Protocol. It is not included in the London Convention. In 2006, London Protocol Parties adopted amendments to Annex 1 to the Protocol, to regulate the sequestration of CO2 streams from CO2 capture processes in sub-seabed geological formations. These amendments are in force since February 2007. The LP Parties also adopted an amendment to Article 6 in October 2009 that allows the export of carbon dioxide streams for disposal in accordance with LP Annex 1. This amendment will enter into force for those Parties which have accepted it, on the 60th day after

- 10 -

two-thirds of the Parties have deposited their instruments of acceptance with IMO. To date there have only been two ratifications. A number of projects have been proposed to fertilize the relatively large area of the ocean surface to enhance primary productivity for the purpose to mitigate the CO2 induced climate change in the recent years. The meeting of parties of the London Convention and Protocol expressed deep concern on large-scale ocean fertilization in 2007 and noted that knowledge on the effectiveness and potential environmental impact of ocean fertilization is currently insufficient to justify activities other than legitimate scientific research. They also agreed that the scope of the London Convention and Protocol includes ocean fertilization activities. The Parties further agreed that in order to provide for legitimate scientific research, such research should be regarded as placement of matter for a purpose other than the mere disposal thereof under Article III.1(b) of the London Convention and Article 1.4.2.2 of the London Protocol. Finally they agreed that scientific research proposals should be assessed on a case-by-case basis using an assessment framework to be developed by the Scientific Groups under the London Convention and Protocol. The scientific background information on ocean fertilization and its relation to other international treaties and organizations was discussed. These included the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Convention on Biological Diversity, and UNESCO-IOC, United Nations Framework Convention on the Climate Change (and its Kyoto Protocol), as well as the current prospects for a post-Kyoto agreement. Finally, other forms of marine geoengineering were highlighted, based on the paper “A brief summary of marine geoengineering techniques” by Dr. Chris Vivian. Monitoring of Waste Disposal at Sea (Dr. C. Vivian) The common tools and approaches used to monitor disposal sites were described and it was emphasized that a well-planned survey is more important than the use of sophisticated tools. Monitoring is used in the Waste Assessment Guidance to verify that permit conditions are met - compliance monitoring - and that the assumptions made during the permit review and site selection process were correct and sufficient to protect the environment and human health - field monitoring. Examples of monitoring and impact assessment approaches used by several LP Parties were presented. It was recommended that Monitoring should be (1) based on a conceptual model and testable impact hypotheses and (2) a monitoring program should be established before a permit is issued. Monitoring has been developed to varying degrees by member countries, with progressive increases from year to year and the results are improving the ability to evaluate and manage wastes in the oceans and seas. Dredged Material Management (Dr. C. Vivian, Ms. L. Porebski, Ms. A. Svoboda) The Dredged Material WAG was described in some detail, building on the earlier description of the generic WAG. Sampling plans and the underlying concepts were introduced and should represent the vertical/horizontal distribution of the material at the site, and the variability of the material. Testing and evaluation goals should be pre-established with appropriate quality assurance and quality control procedures. An introduction was given in the set up of bioassays/bioaccumulation tests for acute and chronic toxicity for commonly used marine species in water and sediments, as well as examples for interpretation of test results against pre-determined benchmarks. An introduction was given in the selection of disposal sites and the principal factors to be considered in such a selection, including:

.1 Characteristics of the water-column and the seabed at potential disposal sites; .2 Location of amenities, values and other uses of the sea in the area;

- 11 -

.3 Economic and operational feasibility of marine transport to the site; .4 Size of the disposal site (large enough to accommodate the anticipated

volumes of dredged material for many years without unacceptable degradation of the marine environment or interference with other uses of the sea, but small enough for practical monitoring); and

.5 Characteristics of the material to be dumped, including the presence and

mobility of contaminants. The specific guidelines for assessment of dredged material are intended for use by national authorities responsible for regulating dumping of wastes and embody a mechanism to guide national authorities in evaluating applications for dumping of dredged material in a manner consistent with the provisions of the London Convention 1972 and the 1996 Protocol. The guidelines place emphasis on progressively reducing the need to use the sea for dumping of dredged material. Furthermore, it recognizes that avoidance of pollution demands rigorous controls on the emission and dispersion of contaminating substances and the use of scientifically based procedures for selecting appropriate options for dredged material disposal. When applying the guidelines uncertainties in relation to assessments of impacts on the marine environment will need to be considered, and a precautionary approach applied in addressing these uncertainties. They should be applied with a view that acceptance of dumping under certain circumstances does not remove the obligation to make further attempts to reduce the necessity for dumping. In this workshop, dredged material guidelines and the relationship between the operational components were briefly introduced which contains the following elements: .1 dredged material characterization; .2 waste prevention audit and evaluation of disposal options; .3 action list; .4 identify and characterize dump-site; .5 assessment of potential effects; .6 issue Permit; .7 implement project and monitor compliance; .8 field monitoring and assessment. Some key elements and procedures, e.g. dredged material testing and evaluation, action lists and action levels, beneficial uses of dredged material, and some typical monitoring projects from Canada, China, Japan, and the United Kingdom who are members of the London Protocol were introduced in detail. Finally, attention was given to the potential beneficial uses of dredged sediments, recognizing that about 90% of the dredged material which is annually reported to be dumped, worldwide, is uncontaminated. Beneficial use is aimed at utilizing a waste as a resource for productive use. Examples are: (1) engineered uses of sediments, such as beach nourishment and sediment capping; (2) environmental enhancement, such as habitat creation, reef restoration, or the creation of mudflats and dunes; (3) agricultural uses, such as landscaping and 4) use for products, such as building blocks. Important considerations for beneficial uses are: the grain size of the sediment, organic content, habitat replacement, the logistics of such use (transport, handling areas, and process rates) and the cost differential compared with the dumping of the material in question. Furthermore, there was a short summary of a Dutch project on beneficial use on the North Sea. In this project an assessment framework was established, using different principles, such as grain size, other uses and shipping distance, to find the most suitable locations for the relocation of dredged material. Permitting and Mandatory Reporting procedures (E. Kleverlaan)

In this presentation some specific LP requirements and procedures were highlighted. This included the arrangements for exceptions under the Protocol, such as „force majeure‟, emergencies and placement for a purpose other than disposal; a brief overview of the requirement to monitor disposal sites; the preparation and submission of monitoring reports

- 12 -

(field- and compliance- monitoring); as well as the mandatory annual reports of dumping activities and the related review process which is normally undertaken by the Scientific Groups. It was noted that Reporting from countries in the Region should be improved as this is a mandatory requirement under the London Convention and the Protocol – even if it is a Nil response (that is – no dumping permits issued in that particular year), this must be forwarded to the Secretariat on an annual basis. Technical Co-operation and Assistance requirements and recommendations (Mr. F. Haag)

The mandate for the Technical Co-operation and Assistance Programme under the LC and LP was described including the benefits for recipients. Several current and planned projects in other parts of the world were used as examples of the types of activities that could be undertaken. An overview was given of where funding comes from, and the need for making direct requests to IMO for TC activities. Work Programme of the London Convention and Protocol (Dr. Gi-Hoon Hong) The work program of the governing bodies, and subsidiary bodies of the Scientific and Compliance Groups for 2013-2015 were briefly introduced. This information can also be found at the IMODOCS web-site (http//:docs.imo.org) by downloading LC-LP circular (LC-LP.1/Circ.54). 7 Panel debate/Plenary Discussion: The way forward and recommendations At the end of the workshop, a panel debate/plenary discussion was arranged, in order to give the participants an opportunity to discuss a road map to full implementation of the LP at the national level. For example, the following issues were discussed:

What are the possible obstacles to implementation/accession?

Identify specific assistance needs or Regional Work that could assist implementation and accession to the LP in the region

How can regional harmonization be promoted? What role can regional bodies such as CPPS, ROCRAM and others play?

How can we engage other stakeholders not represented here today?

The participants were also given the opportunity to raise any other issues that had been missed or not clear during the lectures 8 Evaluation Questionnaire The new IMO evaluation questionnaire form was distributed at the end of the Workshop. A summary of the questionnaire responses is provided at annex 6. 9 Field trip At the end of the second day, a visit to a dredging company (Hidrovia) was arranged, to give some practical, hands-on perspectives on some of the topics discussed during the lectures. During a series of presentations, the company presented their activities in Argentina, in particular in the extensive inland river system, as well as some of the scientific and regulatory considerations they take into account in their operations.

- 13 -

Visit to the offices of Hidrovia.

***

- 14 -

Annex 1 – List of Participants

COUNTRY LAST NAME OTHER NAMES E-mail

CHILE VALDEBENITO EUGENIA LETICIA evaldebenito@dgtm.cl

CHILE FREDES CARLOS MONSALVE Carlosfredes627@gmail.com

COLOMBIA LOZANO CHACÓN DAVID ANDRÉS dlozano@dimar.mil.

CUBA ALVAREZ PEREZ CARLOS ERNESTO carlos@orasen.co.cu

MEXICO DINORIN JUÁREZ ESTELA direccion_promam@semar.gob.mx

PANAMA ALVAREZ ELI ANEL elialvarez@amp.gob.pa

PANAMA MARTINEZ ABRAHAM operea@amp.gob.pa

PARAGUAY FLEITAS GIMENEZ HUMBERTO ISMAEL omiparaguayhotmail.com

PARAGUAY VALLEJOS DENIS PEDRO RUBEN Pedrovallejosdenis@hotmail.com

PERU HINOJOSA MANUEL GILBERTO manuel.hinojosa@dicapi.mil.pe

URUGUAY FERRARI GUIDO ALEJANDRO dirma@armada.mil.uy

CPPS GONZALEZ MARIA DEL CARMEN mcgonzalez@cpps-int.org

ARGENTINA/EXTERNAL

DICOL MARZARI VÍCTOR MINISTRO

SSAyDS POBLETE NOELIA Lic. / Dir. Nac de Prev. y Recomposicón Ambiental

VISMARA JUAN PABLO Dr. / Dr. Nac. de Control Ambiental

SHN VILLAR MAXIMILIANO Teniente de Navío. Lic. En Química

ARA FRIAS JUAN CARLOS Capitán de Navío / Jefe del Depto de Int. Marít.

juanchofrias@hotmail.com

CONICET MARCOVECCHIO JORGE Dr.

SSPyVN DORREGO SERGIO Capitán / Dr. Nac. De Transporte Fluvial y Marítimo

SSPyVN CHIMENTO JUAN Licenciado / Dr. Nacional de Puerto

- 15 -

COUNTRY LAST NAME OTHER NAMES E-mail

SSPyVN TETTAMANTI LUIS HORACIO Ingeniero / Subsecretario de PyVN

PNA-DPAM PM LOPEZ NESTOR

PNA-DPAM PP RODRIGUEZ ROBERTO dpam-jddc@prefecturanaval.gov.ar

PNA-DPAM SP ALMADA PABLO dpam-kdic@prefecturanaval.ar

PNA-DPAM OP SEGRETO NATALIA

HIDROVIA HOORNAERT/SANCHEZ

HANS / Enrique

HIDROVIA BOSTEELS / DABAS

WIM / Marcela

HIDROVIA VAN DEN DRIESSCHE

JAN

HIDROVIA PAZ EUGENIO ALFREDO

PNA-DPAM PM LOPEZ NESTOR

PNA-DPAM PP RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ

PNA-DPAM SP ALMADA PABLO

PNA-DPAM OP SEGRETO NATALIA

- 16 -

Annex 2 – Workshop Programme

IMO London Protocol Workshop for Senior Managers and Government Administrators

Draft Programme (as of 20 May, 2013)

Buenos Aires, Argentina

Day 1, Wednesday 22 May 2013 Speaker/Lecturer

08.30-09.30 Arrival and registration of participants

09.30-10.30 Official opening

Welcome Address by hosts

Address - IMO Rep

Workshop aims and objectives

Lecturer introductions

Introductions of participants

Timetable and materials

Hosts

Edward Kleverlaan

(EK)

10.30-10.45 Background: The scope and impacts of dumping activities

Short Video – LC 40

The scope and nature of dumping as a source of marine pollution

Possible consequences and impacts of dumping

Gi Hoon Hong (GHH)

10.45-11.15 Refreshments

11.15-12.30 Introduction to London Convention and its Protocol

Legal, economic and technical implications of membership to the

London Protocol

Case studies (short presentation by hosts/guests on their current

arrangements for dumping at sea)

EK

Cmdr Roberto

Rodriguez (Argentina)

12.30-14.30 Lunch

14.30-16.00 Legal Framework for Marine Pollution Management

Relationships with other International Treaties (MARPOL + video

„Any Waste, Any Time), Ballast Water, Anti-fouling Systems)

Regional/Local Agreements/Regulations

GHH and

Anne-Marie Svoboda

(AMS)

16.00-16.30 Refreshments

16.30-17.30 Introduction to Waste Assessment Guidance (WAG)

Key components of Waste Assessment Guidance

Waste Characterization/Action Lists

Waste Prevention Audit and Management Options

Environmental impact assessment and field monitoring

Chris Vivian (CV)

Darrell Brown (DB)

17.30 End of day one

Day 2, Thursday 23 May 2013

09.00-10.30 Video from Environment Canada on Implementing the London

Protocol

Presentation by hosts: Environmental Sensitivity Mapping: A tool

for environmental impact study by dumping

Specific Waste Assessment Guidance - Examples

Vessels and Platforms WAG

Linda Porebski (LP)

Ms. Natalia Segreto

(Argentina)

EK and AMS

DB

- 17 -

Briefly other WAGS (Fish (organic) and CO2)

Artificial Reefs – Guidance

10.30-11.00 Refreshments

11.00-12.00 Monitoring of waste disposal at sea

Monitoring of Disposal Sites, Monitoring Reports

Permitting and Reporting Procedures

Permitting Process

Procedures for emergency dumping

Dumping reports

CV

EK

12.00-13.30 Lunch

13.30-17.30 Site Visit

17.30 End of day two ALL

Day 3, Friday 24 May 2013

09.00-10.30 Dredged Material Management

Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal

Identification of disposal sites - detail

Dredged Material Testing and Evaluation - Action Lists

Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material

CV, AMS and LP

10.30-11.00 Refreshments

11.00-11.30 Further Technical Co-operation and Assistance Requirements

and Recommendations

Fredrik Haag (FH)

11.30-12.00 Work Programmes of London Convention and Protocol FH

12.00-14.00 Lunch Break

14.00-15.30 Panel debate/Plenary discussion: The way forward and

recommendations

Any Pending issues

ALL

15.30-16.00 Refreshments

16.00 Course close-out session

Presentation of certificates

Farewell

EK/Hosts

16.30 End of Workshop

Resource Persons Dr. Gi-Hoon Hong (Chairman – Scientific Groups and Second Vice-Chairman, LC/LP) Korea Institute of Ocean Science & Technology (recently changed its name) ghhong@kiost.ac Ms. Linda Porebski (First Vice-Chairman – Scientific Groups) Chief, Marine Protection Programs Section, Environmental Assessment and Marine Programs Division, Environmental Protection Operations Directorate, Environment Canada. Linda.porebsk@ec.gc.ca Mr. Darrell Brown (Second Vice-Chairman – Scientific Groups) Senior Advisor, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, United States Environmental Protection Agency Brown.Darrell@epamail.epa.gov Ms. Anne-Marie Svoboda Senior Adviser, Water and Shipping, Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, Netherlands.

- 18 -

annemarie.svoboda@rws.nl Dr. Chris Vivian National Marine Advisor Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), UK chris.vivian@cefas.co.uk Secretariat Mr Edward Kleverlaan, Head, Office for the LC/LP and Ocean Affairs ekleverlaan@imo.org Mr. Fredrik Haag, Technical Officer, Office for the LC/LP and Ocean Affairs fhaag@imo.org Marine Environment Division, International Maritime Organization United Kingdom

- 19 -

Annex 3 – List of Material Provided to Participants

Publications provided by IMO 1 IMO Publication IA532E – Text of the London Convention and Protocol 2003

(Plus WORD- version of Text of the London Protocol, as amended in 2006) 2 IMO Publication I537E – Sampling of Dredged Material – Guidelines for the

Sampling and Analysis of Dredged Material intended for Disposal at Sea (2005) 3 IMO Publication I531E – Guidelines on the London Convention (2006) 4 LC/LP/UNEP- Guidelines for the Placement of Artificial Reefs (2009) 5 Guidance for the development of Action Lists and Action Levels for Dredged

Material (2009) Circulars LC-LP.1/Circ.1 – Notification under Article 8.2 regarding a case of emergency: Example: Application for Emergency Dumping Permit Port-Daniel-Est LC-LP.1/Circ.17 - “Tutorial: Guidelines for the Assessment of Wastes Proposed for Disposal at Sea” LC-LP.1/Circ.28 - Invitation to reporting on activities related to disposal at sea of wastes or other matter LC-LP.1/Circ.27 – Final Report on Permits issued in 2005 LC-LP.1/Circ.30 – Guidance on managing spoilt cargoes (Equivalent to MEPC.1/Circ. 688) LC-LP.1/Circ.31 – Guidance on Best Management Practices for the removal of anti-fouling systems from ships (Equivalent to AFS/Circ.3) LC-LP.1/Circ.32 – Long Term Work Programme for the London Convention and Protocol 2010-1012 LC-LP.1/Circ.33 – Note regarding establishment of an LC-LP Trust Fund for Technical Co-operation LC-LP.1/Circ.35 – Invitation to report on environmental controls in place for sub-sea (submarine) and riverine tailings disposal operations Other reference material Circular Letter No.2984 - Note on the London Protocol 1996 as the successor to the London Convention 1972 Guidance on the national implementation of the London Protocol Text of the Risk Assessment and Management Framework for CO2 Sequestration in Sub-Seabed Geological Structures (CS-SSGS) (2006) Text of the Revised Guidelines for the Assessment of Wastes or Other Matter that May be Considered for Dumping (2008) Lists and Map of Parties to the London Convention and Protocol (September 2009)

Websites: www.imo.org www.londprotocol.imo.org www.dredging.org/ www.dredging.org/content.asp?page=28 www.pianc-aipcn.org/

All Workshop presentations and key documents identified above were provided on CD/DVD.

***

- 20 -

Annex 4 – Opening Speeches

Opening remarks by Captain Marcelo Rodolfo Valentini, Marine Environment Director, Prefectura Naval Argentina

Good morning to everyone.

I feel very happy to deliver the welcome speech for the “Regional Workshop for the promotion of the London Protocol” on behalf of Prefectura Naval Argentina, our National Maritime Authority, and I am even happier considering the position I am occupying today in my capacity as Head of the Environmental Directorate of this Organization.

We have met here to represent Maritime Authorities and Agencies related to environmental protection in the region, with the aim of achieving one of the main purposes of the International Maritime Organization, i. e. fostering and facilitating full implementation of very significant rules on maritime safety, navigation effectiveness and, exclusively in this case, the prevention of marine pollution by dumping of wastes at sea.

On the one hand, before beginning with this workshop, it is worth mentioning the international instruments that will be herein analysed, such as the International Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, which was adopted in 1972 and created with the aim of promoting the effective control of all sources of marine pollution and taking all possible measures to prevent marine pollution by dumping of wastes and other matter.

On the other hand, more specifically, the 1996 London Protocol, attempting to replace said Convention, represents a significant change to deal with the issue of regulating the use of the sea as a repository of wastes, and it is much more restrictive than the original 1972 London Convention.

Now then, with the intention of not consuming the valuable time you have ahead and leaving you ready to work on the complete agenda of this workshop, I am pleased to welcome you again to the City of Buenos Aires. Furthermore, I wish that you enjoy your stay, take full advantage of this workshop and benefit from the distinguished professionals who will lecture during this three days. Thank you very much.

L:\MED\LONCONOF\TC ACTIVITIES\2013\Argentina May 13\Report\Workshop report - Argentina May 13 Final-ek.doc

Annex 5 – Copy of the Certificate

***

L:\MED\LONCONOF\TC ACTIVITIES\2013\Argentina May 13\Report\Workshop report -

Argentina May 13 Final-ek.doc

Annex 6 – Summary of Evaluation Questionnaires

Quantitative Analysis of the Evaluation Questionnaire (Based on 19 replies)

Arrangements prior to the activity

1 Was the invitation received in good

time?18 94.74% 1 5.26% 0 0.00%

2 Did you receive the information listed below about the event before your participation?

           on its objective and scope 18 85.71% 2 9.52% 1 4.76%

           subject areas and programme 13 65.00% 3 15.00% 4 20.00%

3 Were the instructions on the following clear and easy to understand?

         profile required of participant 15 75.00% 3 15.00% 2 10.00%

         completion and submission of

the nomination form15 75.00% 1 5.00% 4 20.00%

4 Did you receive logistical information on

         venue 19 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

         travel arrangements 13 65.00% 0 0.00% 7 35.00% 0 0.00%

         DSA payments 13 65.00% 0 0.00% 6 30.00% 1 5.00%

         accommodation 12 60.00% 1 5.00% 6 30.00% 1 5.00%

5 If you were given any pre-event

assignment, was it useful?5 26.32% 0 0.00% 12 63.16% 2 10.53%

During the activity

6 To cover the topics fully, was the

event (please check the appropriate

box )

0 0.00% 17 89.47% 2 10.53% 0 0.00%

7 How do you rate the event with regard to the following? (tick one box in each case )

Venue 14 73.68% 5 26.32% 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00%

Facilities 12 63.16% 7 36.84% 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00%

Equipment 15 78.95% 4 21.05% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

8 How do you rate the following aspects of the materials? (tick one box in each case )

Presentation 15 78.95% 4 21.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00%

Clarity 11 57.89% 8 42.11% 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00%

Technical content 14 73.68% 5 26.32% 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00%

Comprehensiveness 12 63.16% 7 36.84% 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00%

Quantity 11 57.89% 7 36.84% 1 5.26% 0.00% 0 0.00%

9 How would you rate the following aspects of the presentations? (tick one box in each case)

Design and structure 15 78.95% 4 21.05% 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0.00%

Clarity 10 55.56% 6 33.33% 1 5.56% 0.00% 1 5.56%

Technical contents 11 61.11% 5 27.78% 1 5.56% 0.00% 1 5.56%

Comprehensiveness 11 61.11% 5 27.78% 1 5.56% 0.00% 1 5.56%

10 How would you rate the use of the following? (tick one box in each case)

Course materials 12 66.67% 6 33.33% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

IMO reference materials 12 66.67% 6 33.33% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Other resource materials 9 50.00% 5 27.78% 2 11.11% 0 0.00% 2 11.11%

Group and practical activities 5 25.00% 6 30.00% 2 10.00% 0 0.00% 7 35.00% 0 0.00%

Field trips 6 31.58% 4 21.05% 1 5.26% 1 5.26% 6 31.58% 1 5.26%

No answerN/Asatisfactory

Yes No N/A No answer

poor No answer

excellent good poor No answersatisfactory

excellent good

Just Right Too short No answer

excellent good poor No answer

excellent good poor

satisfactory

satisfactory

No answer

Yes No No answer

No answerYes No

Yes No

No answerN/ANo Yes

Too long

- 23 -

12 What topics were of most interest and relevance to you?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

13 Are there any topics which should be

added?5 26.32% 12 63.16% 2 10.53%

If yes, please list them:

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

14 Do you consider that the objective of

the event was met?19 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

15 Are you likely to use the information

you gained on the course when you

return to your work?

19 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

16 Will you have the opportunity to

transfer the knowledge gained to your

collegues at work?

19 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Yes No answerNo

No answerYes No

- 24 -

Graphical summaries, key aspects

How do you rate the event with regard to the following?

How do you rate the following aspects of the materials?

- 25 -

How would you rate the use of the following?

Do you consider that the objective of the event was met?

__________