FEATURE ARTICLE  

Anti-Ocean Dumping Treaties Fall Short on ‘Policing’ Efforts 

2,001 

by A. Duffy Baker 

Since the 1970s, international treaties—such as the London Convention—have regulated the dumping of waste in ocean waters. The MARPOL (Marine Pollution) Convention also was instituted to restrict releases from vessels. Both conventions were upheld by the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

These treaties have been instrumental in curbing pollution, according to Lisa Mastny and Hilary French, of the World Watch Institute. Under the London Convention, “the amount of industrial waste dumped into the sea dropped from 17 million tons in 1979 to six million tons in 1987, and dumping of dredge material and sewage sludge also declined,” they wrote in a recently published report. Additionally, the MARPOL Convention has led to a 60-percent decline in the amount of oil spilled into the oceans between 1981 and 1989.

But despite the treaties, there is no international policing effort. “A lot of these [treaties] when they were set up, the language about enforcement was very vague. It didn’t really say what happened when someone did illegal things. And because of that there was no incentive to uphold that. You have no consequences,” explained Mastny in an interview.

Vessels are subject to the laws of the country where they are registered. This has resulted in a common practice called flag-of-convenience. Oftentimes, shipping or cruise companies will re-flag their vessels in countries that have lower environmental standards. Mastny said that many countries where ship companies register their flags aren’t members of these treaties, so the companies don’t have to abide by the standards. “They end up registering in Liberia and then dumping all this oil in international waters, because no one can really stop them.”

Enforcement of the treaty is under national, not international control. French and Mastny wrote, “The IMO has encouraged flag-state governments to exercise greater control over their ships. Another significant development has been the shifting of power to countries other than the flag states, in particular to countries with ports. Under an accord known as the 1982 Paris Memorandum of Understanding, some 19 port countries in Europe and North America have agreed to systematically inspect and detain any docked foreign vessels if they suspect violations of international maritime laws.”

However, organizations such as the IMO, Greenpeace and other watchdog groups seek to inform governments on illegal activities. Rene Coenen, of the IMO, cited one instance in which a company “was marketing a technique for getting rid of highly hazardous materials such as PCBs and possibly radioactive materials. They would sell, to a prospective government, the torpedo-shaped, stainless steel rocket. ... You would shoot it or propel it into mud located on the sea bottom somewhere.” The company claimed that this was legal. The IMO took action to inform governments about the illegal activities of the company and stop them from buying the system.

“If you look into this business from another prospective, waste dealings mean money, and if it’s highly hazardous material, it means more money, in terms of finding solutions. So there is always an incentive, for say people with a different morale, to step into this business and make some money out of it,” stated Coenen. There is no systematic way of reporting illegal activities or actions to prevent them, he said.

In the United States, the London Convention is upheld under the U.S. Dumping Act. The Navy defines illegal dumping as “the intentional disposition of wastes generated ashore or materials onloaded for the express purpose of disposal at sea.” The only legal way to dispose of any kind of waste at sea is through a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). According to Doug Johnson, regional sea quality coordinator for the EPA, about the only item that legally can be dumped in U.S. waters is dredge material. But the Navy occasionally will ask for permission to dispose of ships at sea, as targets for evaluation of conventional ammunition and weapons systems, or for burials at sea. Both examples follow strict environmental guidelines.

The Army Corps of Engineers is the primary source of dredge material. Johnson explained that there is a three- to four-year process in which the EPA chooses a site with the least environmental impact. The area is studied for bottom characteristics such as levels of sand, mud, types of sea life and the water quality. They also test to determine if dispersion of the dredge will create any obstacles for ship navigation.

The illegal dumping the EPA finds is mostly construction materials from the building of bridges or piers. Sometimes, people dump without realizing it is against the law. Johnson cited an instance when police were disposing of guns from a buy-back program.

  Bookmark and Share