"The meeting could be called a' victory' for "dumping-as-usual"
- and a source of temporary satisfaction for a shipping industry
that does not wish to change its ways, and for those states that
support this irresponsible industry - most notably Norway, Japan,
and Greece," said Kevin Stairs of Greenpeace International. "But
for sustainable development, for environmental justice, for
producer responsibility, for the spirit of cooperation, for even
beginning to actually reduce the flows of toxic waste to the
poorest communities on earth - it was a total failure."
Among the missed opportunities cited, the meeting:
* Refused to recognize existing international law (e.g. Basel
Convention) and resulting case law forbidding the export of toxic
ships
* Proposed nothing that will lead to programmes that will see
more ships broken or pre-cleaned in developed countries (e.g.
Europe, or North America)
* Failed to provide any direction for investors to promote
pre-cleaning and green shipbreaking facilities
* Refused to recommend a global ship recycling fund based on the
producer responsibility principle
* Refused proposals to operate in a transparent way, and gave
ship owners voting power on the committee, while preventing
environmental NGOs from participating as members.
* Failed to mend any fences between the International Maritime
Organization and the Basel Convention
* Failed to discuss the human rights aspects of the meeting.
* Proposed nothing that will actually reduce even one kilo of
the amount of PCBs and asbestos that currently moves by the
hundreds of tonnes each year to Asia.
In October 2004 the Basel Convention (2) reiterated that waste
ships fall under the Convention. The need for the signatories of
the Convention to clean up the industry is all the more urgent with
the European deadlines for phasing out over a thousand single
hulled tankers only a matter of months away. (3)
According to environmentalists, the IMO delegates allied with
the shipping industry held sway over the meeting with Norway at the
helm, holding two of the three chair positions, effectively
blocking most of the recommendations made by Basel delegates or
non-governmental organizations.
"Instead of a spirit of cooperation, we got an ugly show of
strength from one of the most powerful industries in the world,"
said Jim Puckett of the Basel Action Network. "It is clear that the
real solutions to the problem will not be found at IMO, but with
the 163 countries who made a commitment to the Basel Convention
principle of minimizing transboundary movement of hazardous waste
through pre-cleaning, strict controls, and the promotion of green
ship design. "
VVPR info: A copy of the report "The Ship Recycling Fund" can be found at: www.greenpeaceweb.org/shipbreak/fund.pdf For more information schipbreaking, and conflicts between IMO and Basel Convention see: http://www.ban.org/Library/briefp5.pdf and http://www.basel.int/legalmatters/ilo-imo-sbc-wg/1_7_3.docwww.ban.org and http://www.greenpeaceweb.org/shipbreak/
Notes: (1) Meeting of the joint International Maritime Organisation, Basel Convention and International Labour Organisation Committee on Ship Breaking(2) The Basel Convention was created to prevent the dumping of toxic wastes from rich to poorer countries. It calls for minimizing the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and has passed a decision to ban all such exports from developed to developing countries. (3) See Greenpeace report "destination unknown, single hull oil tanker no place to go" found at: http://www.greenpeaceweb.org/shipbreak/destination.pdf