Spaces:
Runtime error
Runtime error
| Chapter 24. Solid Waste Disposal | |
| Contributors: Alan Simcock (Lead member), Juying Wang (Co-lead member) | |
| 1. Introduction — the regulatory system | |
| The disposal at sea of waste generated on land and loaded on board vessels fo dumping is the object of long-standing global, and (in many areas) regional, system of regulation. (These systems also cover, for completeness, dumping from aircraf and waste (other than operational discharges) from fixed installations in the sea) Such dumping must be distinguished from discharges into rivers and directly fro land into the sea and emissions to air from land-based activities discussed in Chapte 20 (Land-based inputs). | |
| When concerns about the environment developed in the 1960s, growing constraint on the land disposal of waste and discharges into rivers led to pressures to find ne routes for waste disposal. Concerns about these pressures led to action in severa forums. Several United Nations specialized agencies set up the Group of Experts o the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution (GESAMP* — later altered to “Marin Environmental Protection”). | |
| The preparatory committee for the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Huma Environment, set up by the United Nations General Assembly, established a intergovernmental working group on marine pollution. At the national level, severa countries started developing approaches to control such dumping. The United State of America put forward proposals for an international agreement on the subject Spurred from the national level by an attempt by the vessel Stella Maris to dump 65 tons of chlorinated waste, several countries started developing approaches t control such dumping. States adjoining the North-East Atlantic adopted a international convention regulating dumping in that area in Oslo, Norway, on 1 February 1972 (OSPAR, 1982; IMO, 1991). | |
| Later that year, the Stockholm Conference adopted a set of principles fo international environmental law and called, among other things, for an internationa instrument to control dumping of waste at sea. The United Kingdom, in consultatio with the United Nations Secretariat, organized a further conference in London, an the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes an Other Matter 1972 (the 1972 London Convention) was signed on 13 November 197 in London, Mexico City and Moscow (ICG, 1982, IMO, 2014f).” | |
| "At present, it is jointly sponsored by IMO, FAO, IAEA, WMO, UNESCO-IOC, UN, UNDP, UNEP an UNIDO * United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1046, No. 15749. | |
| © 2016 United Nations | |
| 1.1 The 1972 London Convention | |
| The main provisions of the 1972 London Convention can be summarized as follows: | |
| (a) | |
| (b) | |
| (c) | |
| (d) | |
| (e) | |
| (f) | |
| A definition of “dumping” to cover the deliberate disposal of waste an other matter at sea from ships, aircraft, platforms or other man-mad structures in the sea; | |
| A ban on dumping at sea of any of the substances on the “black list (Annex | to the Convention): toxic organohalogen compounds, agree carcinogenic substances, mercury and cadmium and their compounds crude oil and petroleum products® taken on board for the purpose o dumping them, high-level radioactive substances as defined by th International Atomic Energy Agency and persistent synthetic substance (including plastics) liable to float or remain in suspension. Exception were allowed for force majeure and for trace amounts not added fo disposal purposes; | |
| A requirement for a special prior permit for any dumping of an substances on the “grey list” (Annex II to the Convention) — arsenic, lead copper and zinc and their compounds, organosilicon compounds cyanides, fluorides and pesticides not in Annex |, bulky objects and ta likely to obstruct fishing or navigation, medium-level and low-leve radioactive waste and substances to be dumped in such quantities as t cause harm; | |
| A requirement for at least a general prior permit for all other dumping Such permits were required to follow an approach set out in Annex III t the Convention, which required consideration of alternative land-base disposal and the avoidance of harm to legitimate uses of the sea; | |
| A requirement to appraise the effectiveness of the regulator assessment process through compliance monitoring and field monitorin of effects; | |
| An obligation to report to the Secretariat of the Convention (which i hosted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in London) o dumping permits issued and amounts permitted to be dumped (IGC 1982; LC-LP, 2014a). | |
| When the 1972 London Convention entered into force in 1975, dumping at sea wa still a major disposal route for many kinds of waste. Over the years, the meetings o the Contracting Parties have tightened the requirements of the Convention, with th result that the amounts of waste that may be dumped were reduced significantly: | |
| (a) | |
| Guidance was adopted on the approaches to the grant of special an general permits for dumping. In many respects this guidance wa gradually made more precise and restrictive (IMO, 2014a); | |
| > “Petroleum products” includes wastes from crude oil, refined petroleum products, petroleu distillate products, and any mixtures containing these substances. | |
| © 2016 United Nations | |
| (b) In 1972 incineration of hazardous waste at sea was just beginning to b practised. In 1978 an amendment was adopted clarifying that th incineration at sea of oily wastes and organohalogen compounds wa permitted as an interim solution, but requiring a special prior permit i accordance with agreed guidelines for this practice. This amendmen came into force in 1979 (IGC, 1982). In 1988, the Consultative Meetin of the States parties called for such incineration to be minimized and fo a re-evaluation of the practice (LDC, 1988). In 1993 an amendment t prohibit this practice was adopted and entered into force from 199 (IMO, 2012); | |
| (c) In 1990, the Contracting Parties adopted a resolution calling for th phasing out of the dumping of industrial waste (LDC, 43(13)). Followin this, an amendment to Annex | of the Convention was adopted in 1993 which entered into force in 1994, to prohibit the dumping of industria waste from the end of 1995 (IMO, 2012; IMO, 2014c). | |
| (d) Even though the 1972 London Convention, as adopted, prohibited th dumping of high-level radioactive waste, many Contracting Partie remained unhappy with any dumping of radioactive waste of any kind. I 1983, a voluntary moratorium on such dumping was agreed. In 1993 a amendment was adopted to prohibit all dumping of radioactive waste subject to a review before February 2019, and every twenty-five year thereafter. The Consultative Meeting of the Contracting Parties i beginning preparations for this review (IMO, 2012; LC-LP, 2014). | |
| 1.2. The 1996 London Protoco/* | |
| The generally restrictive policy of the Contracting Parties to the 1972 Londo Convention towards the dumping of waste and other matter at sea resulted in further development in 1996, when a protocol to the convention was adopted. Thi Protocol is intended gradually to replace the 1972 London Convention. The Londo Protocol entered into force in 2006. Among a number of other changes, th fundamental difference between the 1972 Convention and the 1996 Londo Protocol is that the Protocol adopts a “reverse list” approach. All dumping of wast is prohibited, except for a limited number of categories where dumping could b permitted, in contrast to the 1972 Convention approach, which prohibited dumpin only of a specified list of substances, while requiring a permit (general or special) fo everything else. The limited number of categories where dumping can still b permitted under the Protocol as originally adopted are: | |
| (a) Dredged material (b) Sewage sludge; | |
| (c) Fish waste, or material resulting from industrial fish processin operations; | |
| * 36 International Legal Materials 1 (1997). | |
| © 2016 United Nations | |
| (d) Vessels and platforms or other man-made structures at sea (e) Inert, inorganic geological material (f) | Organic material of natural origin; | |
| (g) Bulky items primarily comprising iron, steel, concrete and simila unharmful materials for which the concern is physical impact and limite to those circumstances, where such wastes are generated at locations such as small islands with isolated communities, having no practicabl access to disposal options other than dumping. | |
| Shortly after the Protocol entered into force in 2006, the Meeting of Contractin Parties to the London Protocol adopted an amendment to add “sub-seabed carbon dioxide (CO) streams from CO capture processes for sequestration” to the list o permitted forms of disposal (LP.1(1)). States Parties may therefore issue permits t allow the injection into a sub-seabed geological formation of CO streams from CO capture processes. This amendment entered into force in 2007. In 2012, specifi guidelines were adopted to for such disposal activities and the potential effects o the marine environment in the proximity of the receiving formations. In 2009, further amendment was adopted, allowing the export of CO2 from CO, captur processes for sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations (LP.3(4)). Thi amendment is not yet in force. Guidance on the implementation of the export of C streams for disposal in sub-seabed geological formations for the purposes o sequestration was adopted in 2013. The intention of carbon dioxide sequestration i sub-seabed geological formations is to prevent release into the biosphere o substantial quantities of carbon dioxide derived from human activities, by retainin the carbon dioxide permanently within such geological formations. | |
| In 2008, the Contracting States to both the 1972 London Convention and the 199 London Protocol adopted a resolution agreeing that the scope of the Londo Convention and Protocol includes ocean fertilization activities, that is, any activit undertaken by humans with the principal intention of stimulating primar productivity in the oceans. (Ocean fertilization does not include ordinar aquaculture, or mariculture, or the creation of artificial reefs). It was further agree that: | |
| (a) In order to provide for legitimate scientific research, such researc should be regarded as placement of matter for a purpose other than th mere disposal thereof under Article III.1(b) (ii) of the London Conventio and Article 1.4.2.2 of the London Protocol; | |
| (b) Scientific research proposals should be assessed on a case-by-case basi using an assessment framework to be developed by the Scientific Group under the London Convention and Protocol; | |
| (c) Such an assessment framework should include, inter alia, tools fo determining whether the proposed activity is contrary to the aims of th Convention and Protocol; | |
| (d) Until specific guidance is available, Contracting Parties should be urge to use utmost caution and the best available guidance to evaluate the | |
| © 2016 United Nations | |
| scientific research proposals to ensure protection of the marin environment consistent with the Convention and Protocol; | |
| (e) For the purposes of the resolution, legitimate scientific research shoul be defined as those proposals that have been assessed and foun acceptable under the assessment framework; | |
| (f) | Given the present state of knowledge, ocean fertilization activities othe than legitimate scientific research should not be allowed. To this end such other activities should be considered as contrary to the aims of th Convention and Protocol and should not currently qualify for an exemption from the definition of dumping in the Convention and th Protocol (LC-LP, 2008). | |
| In 2010, the Contracting Parties to the 1972 London Convention and the 199 London Protocol adopted the Assessment Framework for Scientific Researc Involving Ocean Fertilization (LC-LP, 2010). In 2013, the Contracting Parties to th London Protocol adopted amendments to incorporate into the Protocol provision regulating the placement of matter for ocean fertilization and other marine geo engineering activities (LP.4(8)). These amendments are not yet in force (LC-LP, 2013) Guidance on implementing the provisions was adopted in 2014 (LC-LP, 2014). | |
| 1.3 Acceptance of the system of regulation | |
| As of October 2014, there are 87 parties to the 1972 London Convention, and 4 parties to the 1996 London Protocol. Thirty-four States are parties to both th Convention and the Protocol (IMO, 2014b). There are, however, many regiona conventions on marine environmental protection that have specific reference to, or contain provisions relating to, the regulation of disposal of wastes into the sea Most regional conventions (the Abidjan, Antigua, Barcelona, Bucharest, Cartagena Helsinki, Jeddah, Kuwait, Lima, Nairobi, Noumea, OSPAR Conventions’) have specific | |
| ° Convention for Co-operation in the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coasta Environment of the West and Central African Region (Abidjan Convention) http://abidjanconvention.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=100<emid=200&l ng=en | |
| The Convention for Cooperation in the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Marine an Coastal Environment of the Northeast Pacific (Antigua Convention) http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/programmes/nonunep/nepacific/instruments/nep_convention.p f | |
| Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of th Mediterranean (Barcelona Convention). United Nations Treaty Series. vol. 1102, No. 16908 Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution (Bucharest Convention). Unite Nations Treaty Series. vol. 1764, No. 30674. | |
| Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbea Region (Cartagena Convention). United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1506, No. 25974. | |
| Convention on the protection of the marine environment of the Baltic sea Area, 1992 (Helsink Convention). United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 2099, No. 36495. | |
| Regional Convention for the Conservation of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Environment (Jedda Convention). http://www.persga.org/Documents/Doc_62_20090211112825.pdf. | |
| © 2016 United Nations | |
| provisions that regulate sea dumping. The dumping clauses are largely based on, o are more stringent than, the London Convention or London Protocol. (An overvie of Contracting Parties to the London Protocol, London Convention and Regiona Agreements that include management of sea dumping issues is set out in IM 2014e). Most States are therefore Contracting Parties to an international agreemen that relates to the management of sea dumping of solid waste or other matter However, there remain some States, including some of the world’s 20 larges economies, which are not party to any of these agreements. It is not known how fa such States apply policies along the lines of those required by the 1972 Londo Convention or the 1996 London Protocol. | |
| 2. Amounts and nature of current dumping | |
| Agreements in, and under, the 1972 London Convention and the 1996 Londo Protocol provide for annual reporting of the number of permits and the quantity an nature of the waste dumped under them. However, reporting under th Convention and the Protocol is not consistent. Figure 1 shows, for 1976 to 2010, th number of States that are Contracting States of the 1972 London Convention, th number submitting reports and the proportion that the latter are of the former. | |
| Kuwait Regional Convention for Co-operation on the Protection of the Marine Environment fro Pollution (Kuwait Convention). United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1140, No. 17898. | |
| Agreement on the Protection of the Marine Environment and Coastal Area of the South-East Pacifi (Lima Convention). United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1648, No. 28325. | |
| The Convention for the Protection, Management and Development of the Marine and Coasta Environment of the Eastern African Region (Nairobi Convention) http://www.unep.org/NairobiConvention/The_Convention/index.asp. | |
| Convention for the Protection of Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Regio (Noumea Convention) https://www.sprep.org/attachments/Legal/Files_updated_at_2014/NoumeaConvProtocols.pd Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic (the ‘OSPA Convention’). United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 2354, No. 42279. | |
| © 2016 United Nations | |
| DAV ABAM oD ON 64.9% QP. 2 SN eB. QM 6D ON. TV... oO HV oH. 0% DN VL. MM... HA SBABRRA HH Pegwegpwgv nov ooo Ho NH HN oO I (Number of Contracting Parties to LC&LP == Number of Contracting Parties that Reporte ——— Percentage of Contracting Parties that Reported === Linear (Percentage of Contracting Parties that Reported) | |
| Figure 1. Contracting Parties to the 1972 London Convention, Contracting Parties submitting report to the Convention Secretariat and the latter as a proportion of the former, 1976 — 2010. Source: IMO 2014g. | |
| When the Meeting of Contracting Parties to the 1996 London Protocol set up compliance mechanism in 2007, the worrying decline in reporting led it to includ the issue of reporting in the terms of reference of the Compliance Group, whic formed part of that mechanism (LC-LP, 2007). Reports under the London Conventio and Protocol take some time to be compiled and submitted. It is usually only in th fourth year after the year being reported on that it is possible to take a final view o the reporting for that year. It is worth noting that non-reporting is the highes amongst London Convention parties, while reporting from London Protocol parties i above 75per cent. It may well be that some or all of the 59 per cent of Contractin States that did not submit reports had not authorized any dumping —like eight of th States in 2010 that did submit reports — but the absence of reports makes i impossible to draw clear conclusions. Also, several non-reporting States are land locked, and therefore may also not have had any dumping to report. There is also substantial degree of variation from year to year in which States submit reports. | |
| The Meetings of the Contracting Parties have made efforts to try to improve th level of reporting on the dumping of waste at sea, but so far with limited success The steps taken include reviews and simplifications of the reporting forms and mor recently the introduction of on-line reporting. Improved outreach to Parties an contact with the industrial organizations (such as the International Association o Ports and Harbours) involved in dumping is beginning to produce some results Some States (such as Nigeria and South Africa) have also sought to assist neighbour to set up reporting systems (LC-LP, 2013). | |
| © 2016 United Nations 7 | |
| 100.0% | |
| 90.0% | |
| 80.0% | |
| 70.0% | |
| 60.0% | |
| 50.0% | |
| 40.0% | |
| 30.0% | |
| 20.0% | |
| 10.0% | |
| 0.0 | |
| In spite of these efforts, it is therefore difficult to derive a clear picture of th quantity and nature of wastes and other matter being dumped at sea from th reports under the 1972 London Convention and 1996 London Protocol. | |
| Nevertheless, it is clear that the overwhelming type of dumping is of dredge material. For the last year for which a summary of the national reports is availabl (2010), 35 of the 38 reports submitted recorded the dumping of dredged material Most, if not all, of this is derived from dredging for navigational purposes. Some i “capital dredging” for the creation of new berths or shipping channels, but most i “maintenance dredging” for the maintenance of existing harbours and shippin channels. The quantity of material involved is considerable. For example, Belgiu reported dumping 52 million tons in 2010: over 200,000 tons per working day. It i not, however, possible to give an overall picture of how much is the result of regula dredging and how much is new construction, because many reports do no differentiate between capital dredging and maintenance dredging. | |
| The impacts of this dumping of dredged material are essentially twofold (althoug there can be other effects): the smothering of the seabed by the dredged material and the remobilization of hazardous substances contained in the dredged material The effects of smothering depend essentially on the nature of the dump area. If th dumpsite were to have a biodiverse benthic life, such smothering would b catastrophic. Where tidal action is very dynamic and there is a sedimentary bottom effects are limited, because much of the seabed material will be kept in motion b the tidal action. The choice of dumpsite is therefore important. The regular use o the same dumpsites (which is reported to be common) limits adverse effects. Th remobilization of hazardous substances is a different matter. The Guidance unde the London Convention and Protocol sets out procedures and criteria for decidin whether it is safe to dump contaminated dredged material. Where the harbour fro which the dredged material comes is on the estuary of a river with a history of heav industry (for example, the Rhine), it is frequently contrary to this Guidance (or, in th example quoted, parallel guidance from OSPAR, the local regional organization) t dump the material at sea, and it should be returned to land. | |
| In the past, a substantial number of States dumped sewage sludge or animal slurry a sea. Where this was done, of course, it was an addition to the nutrient input. I many areas, this has now been stopped because it was a potential contributor t eutrophication problems. In 2010, only Australia (up to 20,000 litres) and th Republic of Korea (556,534 tons) reported dumping of this kind (IMO, 2014b). Th Republic of Korea has also reported that dumping of sewage sludge will end by th end of 2015 (LC-LP, 2013). | |
| The other substances reported as dumped cover a miscellaneous range. Dumping o fish waste was reported in 2010 by six countries. The total amount dumped wa around 100,000 tons (not all reporting was in terms of tonnage). The othe categories of material dumped included rock, sand and gravel, spoilt cargoes (fo example, wheat, rice and fertilizer), molasses waste and a handful of ships an platforms (some of the latter being intended to create artificial reefs). In addition permits were granted for a few burials at sea (see Chapter 8 Cultural ecosyste services). The overall impression is that, for the countries submitting reports, | |
| © 2016 United Nations | |
| disposal of waste at sea is now a minor impact on the marine environment an human uses of the sea, except for the dumping of dredged material. | |
| 3. Dumping of radioactive material | |
| As noted above, the dumping of high-level radioactive waste has been prohibite under the 1972 London Convention since 1975, and dumping of medium- and low level radioactive waste has been prohibited also under the 1996 London Protoco (subject to a review every 25 years) since 1994. The first reported sea disposal o radioactive waste took place in 1946 and the last authorized disposal appears t have been in 1993. During the 48-year history of sea disposal, 14 countries hav used more than 80 sites to dispose of approximately 85,000 terabecquerels o radioactive waste. Some countries used this waste management option only fo small quantities of radioactive waste. Two countries conducted only one disposa each and one country conducted only two disposals (IAEA, 1999). | |
| In 1992, reports that the former Soviet Union had dumped large amounts of high level radioactive wastes for over three decades in shallow waters in the Arctic Ocea caused widespread concern, especially in countries with Arctic coastlines. In 1992, joint Norwegian-Russian Expert Group was established to investigate radioactiv contamination due to dumped nuclear waste in the Barents and Kara Seas. Th Russian Federation provided information on the dumping, some of which had take place before 1975. It arranged exploratory cruises to the dumping areas, with th participation of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The results obtained durin the cruises did not indicate any significant radioactive contamination at the dumpin sites, although the levels near some dumped objects are slightly elevated compare with elsewhere (IAEA, 1995). | |
| Norway undertook further radiological monitoring of the Barents Sea in 2007, 200 and 2009. Activity concentrations of the anthropogenic radionuclides usually used t trace the impact of radioactive waste were reported as low, and up to an order o magnitude lower than in previous decades, including in marine biota. Weighte absorbed dose rates to biota from anthropogenic radionuclides were low, and order of magnitude below a predicted no-effect screening level of 10 micrograys per hou (uGy/hr). Dose rates to man from consumption of seafood and dose rates to biota i the marine environment were found to be dominated by the contribution fro naturally occurring radionuclides (Gwynn et al., 2012). In 2012, a further join Norwegian/Russian project examined radioactive pollution in the Kara Se (Straleverninfo, 2012). It concluded that the situation gave rise to no immediat cause for concern, but that further monitoring of the situation is warranted (JNREG 2014). A further joint Norwegian/Russian study of radioactive contamination in th Barents Sea has been launched. | |
| © 2016 United Nations | |
| 4. Dumped explosives and military chemicals | |
| After both World Wars, States were faced with the problem of how to dispose of th residues of explosive materials and other warlike stores (“munitions”), including number of containers of poisonous gases. The solution adopted for substantia quantities was to dump them in the sea. During peacetime, some States have als adopted this method of disposal for unwanted explosives and military chemicals The dump sites were usually chosen to avoid seabed areas then being used b people, but over time some of these areas have come into use as a result o improved technologies and pressures from other uses of the sea. | |
| In 2010, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution noting th importance of raising awareness of the environmental effects related to wast originating from chemical munitions dumped at sea, and invited relevan international organizations to keep the issue under review (UNGA, 2010). | |
| Munitions dumped at sea present a risk to several classes of users of the sea. Fisher in the location of the dump sites can bring the munitions up in their nets, especiall bottom-trawling nets. Construction of offshore installations, submarine cables an submarine pipelines can interact with dumped munitions. Some munitions based o phosphorus can break out from the (often wooden) boxes in which they were store at the time of disposal, float to the surface, be stranded on beaches and then (as th tide recedes and they dry out) spontaneously burst into flame, and burn a temperatures around 1,000 degrees centigrade. These present potential risks t users of beaches, especially tourists (HELCOM, 2013). | |
| Exercises have been carried out in several parts of the world to map the dump site and to establish what was dumped there. The Baltic Marine Environment Protectio Commission (HELCOM) estimated that 40,000 tons of munitions were dumped in th Baltic at the end of World War II. Some of these munitions are contained in ship onto which they were loaded and which were then scuttled. Others were throw overboard piece by piece, a process which means that the munitions can end u scattered over a wide area. Similar conclusions about dispersed dumping have bee reached in other areas. The four main dumping areas in the Baltic were south-eas of the Swedish island of Gotland and south-west of the Latvian city of Liepaja, east o the Danish island of Bornholm and south of the Little Belt between the main Danis islands and Schleswig-Holstein in Germany. There is also evidence that munition were thrown overboard as the ships left port (HELCOM, 2013). The OSPA Commission has carried out a similar exercise, resulting in an “Overview of Pas Dumping at Sea of Chemical Weapons and Munitions”, together with a database o encounters with dumped conventional and chemical munitions, which it is intende to keep up-to-date. Best estimates suggest that over one million tons of munition were dumped in Beaufort’s Dyke (a trough in the United Kingdom of Great Britai and Northern Ireland between Scotland and Northern Ireland), some 168,000 tons o ammunition were dumped in the Skagerrak, some 300,000 tons of munitions o various types, such as bombs, grenades, torpedoes and mines, were dumped in th North Sea and an estimated 35,000 tons were dumped off Knokke-Heist, Belgiu (OSPAR, 2010). | |
| © 2016 United Nations 1 | |
| In other parts of the world, problems have arisen with dumped munitions. Fo example, in 2006 New Zealand had problems with munitions that had been dumpe improperly at the end of the Second World War. An estimated 1,500 tons o munitions had ended up in relatively shallow water and were posing threats t fisheries and recreational uses of the sea. The New Zealand authorities conclude that the best solution was to lift them and re-dump them in much deeper wate before they dried out: if they were brought ashore and allowed to dry, there was high risk that they would become unstable (LC-LP, 2006). | |
| A non-governmental organization, the James Martin Center for Nonproliferatio Studies, conducted a general survey of dumped chemical warfare munitions an published an interactive map of 168 munitions dump-sites, with the publicl available information about them, on the interne (https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zwm9Gb8KEKxl.kKMpXo9rjqlLZM&hl en). | |
| In 2010, the Research and Technology Organization of the North Atlantic Treat Organization (NATO) reviewed the environmental aspects of the disposal o unwanted munitions. The overall conclusion was that that the technology an expertise existed to deal with immediate problems and with the current generatio of munitions, including the legacy of munitions dumped at sea, but that th expertise and technology was often lodged in countries where there was n significant problem, and that a mechanism was required to assist in the transfer o the technology and expertise to the places where it was needed. It was noted tha this could be significant in measures to control terrorism (NATO, 2010). | |
| 5. Illegal dumping | |
| If there are problems in obtaining an overall global picture of dumping authorize under the London Convention and London Protocol, trying to gain an overview of th potential effects of illegal dumping presents much greater problems. While the 197 London Convention and the 1996 London Protocol have a mechanism for reportin illegal dumping’, no report has been received in the recent past. An alleged case o illegal dumping in Canadian waters is currently under investigation with a repor expected to be provided to the governing bodies of the London Convention an Protocol in the near future. | |
| Several cases have been reported of illegal export of waste from industrialize countries for disposal in States in Africa. Most of these have concerned disposal o land. There have also been persistent informal reports of dumping of radioactive o toxic waste in the sea off the coast of the Federal Republic of Somalia. Informa information given to INTERPOL suggested that the naval force present off the coas of the Federal Republic of Somalia to combat piracy may have detected vessel suspected of illegal dumping of waste. Following the tsunami on 26 December 2004, | |
| ® See http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/LCLP/Reporting/incidents/Pages/default.aspx | |
| © 2016 United Nations 1 | |
| UNEP responded to an urgent request from the authorities in the Puntland region o the Federal Republic of Somalia for help in assessing potential environmenta damage. After an initial UNEP report, an inter-agency mission, which included FAO UNDP, UNEP and WHO, went to Puntland in March 2005. It investigated thre sample sites along a 500-kilometre coastal stretch between the three mai populated coastal locations of Xaafuun, Bandarbeyla and Eyl where toxic waste ha reportedly been uncovered by the tsunami. No evidence of toxic waste was found b the mission. In June 2010, Greenpeace International claimed to have proof of th dumping of toxic waste in the Federal Republic of Somalia by European an American companies in the period from 1990 to 1997, citing testimony from a Italian parliamentary commission, evidence uncovered by an Italian prosecuto (including wiretapped conversations with alleged offenders) and warnings by th Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Somalia in 2008 of possibl illegal dumping in the Federal Republic of Somalia. While INTERPOL and some of th entities cited in the Greenpeace International report have uncovered fragmentar evidence and signs of the dumping of toxins, no international investigation has eve been able to verify the dumping of illegal waste in the Federal Republic of Somalia largely because of the security situation (UNSC, 2011). | |
| Other evidence of illegal dumping appears from time to time as a result of ocea monitoring. For example, the authorities in Japan have detected within areas unde its jurisdiction high levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and butyl tin an phenyl tin compounds. The origins of such pollution could not be identified (Japa MOE, 2009). | |
| 6. Conclusions on knowledge gaps and capacity-building gaps | |
| The disposal of solid waste at sea has been regulated under internationa agreements for the past 40 years. The majority of coastal States have accepted thi regime. If the 1972 London Convention and the 1996 London Protocol wer effectively and consistently applied, this source of inputs of harmful substance would be satisfactorily controlled. The problem is basically that we do not kno whether this regime is generally being fully implemented, since there is substantia under-reporting of what is happening. | |
| There is therefore a major knowledge gap about the implementation of the 197 London Convention and the 1996 London Protocol, as has been acknowledged b the Meetings of the Contracting Parties to the two agreements. Some capacity building is available from the International Maritime Organization and some of th Contracting Parties, to promote better implementation of the agreements an better reporting of what is being done. However, a significant capacity-building ga remains. | |
| The information gap about the scale and nature of dumping of waste and othe matter that is taking place is further compounded by the absence of informatio about dumping under the control of States which are subject to any formal reportin system under the 1972 London Convention, the 1996 London Protocol or regional | |
| © 2016 United Nations 1 | |
| dumping agreements and which do not publish any national data. This categor includes some of the world’s largest economies. | |
| Much work has been done to identify the locations where munitions have bee dumped. However, some gaps in the knowledge remain on this subject. There ar gaps in building capacities to help fishers and other users of the sea to draw on thi knowledge, in order to reduce the risks to which they are subjected and to kno how they should respond if they bring up dumped munitions in their nets. | |
| References | |
| Gwynn, J.P., Heldal, H.E., Gafvert, T., Blinova, O., Eriksson, M., Sveren, I. Brungot, A.L., Stralberg, E., Mgller, B., Rudjord, A.L. (2012). Radiologica status of the marine environment in the Barents Sea, Journal o Environmental Radioactivity, 113. | |
| HELCOM (Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission) (2013). Chemica Munitions Dumped in the Baltic Sea. Report of the ad hoc Expert Group t update and Review the Existing Information on Dumped Chemical Munition in the Baltic Sea, Baltic Sea Environment Proceeding (BSEP) No. 142, Helsinki. | |
| IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) (1995). Special Report: Marine scientist on the Arctic Seas: Documenting the radiological record by Pavel Povinec lolanda Osvath, and Murdoch Baxter, in IAEA Bulletin 2/1995. | |
| IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) (1999). Inventory of Radioactive Wast Disposals at Sea, |AEA-TECDOC-1105. | |
| IGC (Inter-Governmental Conference on the Convention on the Dumping of Waste at Sea (1982). Final Act of the Conference, International Maritim Organization, London. | |
| IMO (International Maritime Organization) (1991). The London Dumping Convention The First Decade and Beyond. International Maritime Organization, London. | |
| IMO (International Maritime Organization) (2012). International Maritim Organization, Status of the London Convention and Protocol (IMO Documen LC 34/2), 2012. | |
| LC-LP (International Maritime Organization) (2014a). Convention on the Preventio of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/Convent on-on-the-Prevention-of-Marine-Pollution-by-Dumping-of-Wastes-and Other-Matter.aspx accessed 9 April 2014). | |
| IMO (International Maritime Organization) (2014b). Final report on permits issued i 2010 (IMO Document LC-LP.1/Circ.63). | |
| © 2016 United Nations 1 | |
| IMO (International Maritime Organization) (2014c). Status of multilatera Conventions and instruments in respect of which the International Maritim Organization or its Secretary-General performs depositary or other functions 2014 (http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/StatusOfConventions/Documents Status%20-%202014.pdfaccessed 28 October 2014). | |
| IMO (International Maritime Organization) (2014e). The London Protocol — What is i and how to implement it, IMO 1533E. | |
| IMO (International Maritime Organization) (2014f). Origins of the Londo Convention (http://www.imo.org/KnowledgeCentre/ReferencesAndArchives/IMO_Conf rences_and_Meetings/London_Convention/VariousArticlesAndDocumentsA outTheLondonConvention/Documents/Origins%200f%20the%20London%20 onvention%20 %20Historic%20events%20and%20documents%20%20M.%20Harvey%20Sep ember%202012.pdf accessed 12 October 2014). | |
| IMO International Maritime Organization (2014g). Direct Communication from th IMO Secretariat in 2014. | |
| Japan MOE (Ministry of the Environment) (2009). Present Status of Marine Pollutio in the Sea around Japan, Ministry of Environment, Tokyo. | |
| JNREG (Joint Norwegian-Russian Expert Group) (2014). Investigation into th Radioecological status of Stepovogo Fjord. The dumping site of the nuclea submarine K-27 and solid radioactive waste. Result from the 2012 researc cruise. Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority. ISBN: 978-82-90362-33-6. | |
| LC-LP (1972 London Convention and 1996 London Protocol) (2006). Notificatio under Article 8.2 of the 1996 London Protocol regarding a case of emergency London Convention document LC-LP.1/Circ.2. | |
| LC-LP (1972 London Convention and 1996 London Protocol) (2007). Complianc Procedures and Mechanisms pursuant to Article 11 of the 1996 Protocol t the 1972 London Convention (Report of the Twenty-Ninth Consultativ Meeting Annex 7 (London Convention document LC 29/1 7, annex 7). | |
| LC-LP (1972 London Convention and 1996 London Protocol) (2008). Resolution LC LP.1 on the Regulation of Ocean Fertilization (LC-LP document 30/16, Anne 6). | |
| LC-LP (1972 London Convention and 1996 London Protocol) (2010). Resolution LC- | |
| LP.2 on the Assessment Framework for Scientific Research (LC-LP documen 32/15, Annex 5). | |
| LC-LP (1972 London Convention and 1996 London Protocol) (2013). Report of th Thirty-Fifth Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties to the Londo Convention & Eighth Meeting of Contracting Parties to the London Protoco (London Convention document LC 35/15). | |
| LC-LP (1972 London Convention and 1996 London Protocol) (2014). (36t Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties (1972 London Convention) and | |
| © 2016 United Nations 1 | |
| 9th Meeting of Contracting Parties (1996 London Protocol), 3-7 Novembe 2014 (http://www.imo.org/MediaCentre/MeetingSummaries/LCLP/Pages/LC-36 LP-9.aspx accessed 20 November 2014). | |
| LDC (London Convention) (1988). Resolution LDC.35 (11) Status of Incineration o Noxious Liquid Wastes at Sea. | |
| NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) (2010). Environmental Impact of Munitio and Propellant Disposal. RTO Technical Report Tr-Avt-115. | |
| OSPAR (Oslo and Paris Commissions ) (1982). The Oslo and Paris Commissions — th first ten years. London. | |
| OSPAR (Oslo and Paris Commissions) (2010). OSPAR Commission for the Protectio of the North-East Atlantic, Overview of Past Dumping at Sea of Chemica Weapons and Munitions, London 2010 (ISBN 978-1-907390-60-9). | |
| Straleverninfo (2012). Statens Stralevern, Felles norsk-russisk tokt til dumpe atomavfall | Kara havet (http://www.nrpa.no/dav/6ced2cea4b.pdf accesse 19 April 2014). | |
| UNGA (United Nations General Assembly) (2010). Cooperative measures to asses and increase awareness of environmental effects related to waste originatin from chemical munitions dumped at sea (A/RES/65/149). | |
| UNSC (United Nations Security Council) (2011). Report of the Secretary-General o the protection of Somali natural resources and waters (S/2011/661). | |
| © 2016 United Nations 1 | |