The International Maritime Organisation's most visible action in response to the Prestige oil spill: a move to evict Greenpeace.
The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) is the UN body
charged with responsibility for ensuring 'safer ships' and 'cleaner
seas.' Greenpeace has had consultative status since 1991, and has
worked for stricter regulations against dozens of environmentally
unsound practices, from the transport of high-level radioactive
waste at sea to a ban on single-hulled oil tankers.
The IMO Council took action to expel Greenpeace in June 2002.
Several member states, including Cyprus and Turkey, lodged
complaints that Greenpeace practiced unsafe seamanship. Not
coincidentally, several of these countries are Flag of Convenience
states, which have been the targets of Greenpeace protests for
operating unsafe oil tankers or carrying unsafe cargoes in the
past. Without a vote, the Chair decided to uphold the complaints
and expel Greenpeace, saying the decision would be "forwarded for
formal decision to the IMO Assembly." That assembly takes place
between November 24 and December 5 in London.
This decision is unprecedented.
At forums such as the IMO, Greenpeace speaks for the oceans. We
speak for the ecosystems that have no high-paid lobbyists to defend
them, for the whales and dolphins that can't lodge a complaint
against the oil giants. We counterbalance industry lobby groups as
Intertanko, the industry association of supertanker owners. (Which,
incidentally, has never had its consultative status threatened for
"unsafe seamanship" despite the fact that supertanker oil spills
such as the Exxon Valdez, the Erika, and the Prestige have been
responsible for environmental, economic, and human catastrophes the
world over.)
At present the Rainbow Warrior is at the shipbreaking yards in
Alang, India. The current practice in this business, for which
shipowners are responsible, is to simply send their old ships for
beaching when they contain a wide range of toxic substances and
fuel oil. Lives have been lost and livelihoods ruined as a result.
Yet the IMO has failed to adequately regulate this practice to
protect lives and the environment allowing the current practices to
continue. There is a need for a mandatory regime, which ensures
that ships are cleaned of all hazardous materials before being sent
to scrap yards, to end this appalling practice.
Greenpeace International has Consultative Status in Category II
with ECOSOC (the UN Economic and Social Council), and we take part
as an official observer at a wide range of political conferences
and conventions. No other forum, either regional or global, has
ever expelled Greenpeace.
Under the IMO's own guidelines, an observer can be expelled for
specified reasons, for example if an organisation has failed to
attend meetings regularly or changed its activities. None of these
are grounds that can be made against Greenpeace.
Rather,
following the complaints made by some member states, the IMO is
claiming that some Greenpeace activities, in highlighting the
environmental problems associated with shipping, has contravened
the 1972 collision regulations; so-called COLREGS. These are
important safety laws which aim to ensure safety at sea. It has not
been contested by any State that Greenpeace is a non-violent
organisation and uses peaceful means to highlight bad practices.
The IMO moves are based on complaints such as protests against GMO
shipments, substandard tankers and nuclear shipments.
We believe that the safety of life at sea and the protection of
the marine environment are of paramount importance. These concerns
underpin all our work - both the issues we address and how we
address them.
Safety comes first for Greenpeace at all times. Our activists
are thoroughly trained, our nautical standards and expertise have
earned the respect of coast guards and maritime specialists around
the world. Unlike the oil industry, we don't put other people's
lives or the environment at risk with our actions.
The claims made in the IMO are false. Greenpeace has never been
taken to court, much less prosecuted for violating COLREGS. In
fact, when we were first granted consultative status, Greenpeace
made a commitment to abide by the rules of good seamanship,
including the COLREGS and has reaffirmed this commitment to the IMO
since then.
Furthermore, the way that Greenpeace operates and the issues
which we tackle have not changed since we were first given
consultative status in 1991. And our fundamental commitment to
speak out on behalf of the planet, despite attempts to shut us down
and shut us up, has not changed since 1971.
The reality is that our activities have upset some members of
the shipping industry - those which are involved in environmentally
damaging activities. If the IMO's mission is truly to protect the
seas and ensure safer shipping, they shouldn't be shooting the
messenger: they should be taking action now to ensure disasters
like the Prestige oil spill never happen again.
Take Action
Send a
message to the IMO: Don't Silence Greenpeace.
Here are the responses to date to our written request to know
where members stand on evicting Greenpeace. We'll update this chart
as more nations clarify their position. You can help them clarify
their position by sending a
message telling them not to silence Greenpeace.
| Supporting Greenpeace Consultative
Status? |
| Argentina |
No Response |
| Australia |
No Response |
| Austria |
No Response |
| Belgium |
Supporting Greenpeace |
| Brazil |
No Response |
| Canada |
No Response |
| Chile |
No Response |
| China |
No Response |
| Denmark |
On the condition that Greenpeace International in a convincing
manner confirm [obligations to safety at sea], the government does
not intend to support the proposal of taking away Greenpeace
International's consultative status |
| Fiji |
No Response |
| Finland |
Finland is unlikely to support Greenpeace |
| France |
Supports Greenpeace |
| Germany |
Supports Greenpeace |
| Greece |
No Response |
| India |
No Response |
| Ireland |
No Response |
| Israel |
Supporting Greenpeace |
| Italy |
No Response |
| Japan |
No Response |
| Lebanon |
No Response |
| Luxembourg |
No Response |
| Malaysia |
No Response |
| Malta |
Supporting Greenpeace |
| Mexico |
No Response |
| Netherlands |
Supports Greenpeace, giving the organisation a year to
demonstrate compliance with safety regulations |
| New Zealand |
No Response |
| Norway |
Supporting Gteenpeace, under same conditions as Denmark |
| Panama |
No Response |
| Peru |
No Response |
| Philippines |
No Response |
| Russian Federation |
No Response |
| Spain |
Spain will support Greenpeace maintaining its consultative
status... at the same time, Spain will demand that Greenpeace, or
any other organisation with consultative status in IMO, respect the
laws of marine security. |
| Sweden |
No Response |
| Switzerland |
No Response |
| Thailand |
No Response |
| Turkey |
Supporting Greenpeace |
| United Kingdom |
No Response |
| United States of America |
The US indicated that they will support Greenpeace, but
indicated the organisation must adequately address the issue of how
to differentiate their non-violent activities from terrorist
acts |
Send a
message to the IMO: Don't Silence Greenpeace
Join Greenpeace! Greenpeace depends on your contributions. In order to ensure that we remain an independent voice for the planet, we don't accept corporate or government funds: we rely on the small donations of millions of supporters. Greenpeace exists because this fragile earth deserves a voice. It needs solutions. It needs change. It needs action. Please help us by becoming a supporter today.