Dumping at sea

Dumping at sea The evolution of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (LC), 1972 Background For hundreds of years, the seas have been used as a place to dispose of wastes resulting from human activity. The sea was seen as a place for getting rid of rubbish that was beginning to pile up on land, such as the sludge resulting from the dredging of ports and rivers, sewage treatment operations, tailings left over from mining, residues from the chemical industry, ash from power stations, and other unwanted wastes. The ability of the oceans to cope was taken for granted, providing that the wastes were dumped sufficiently far from land. By the early 1970s many millions of tonnes of waste were being dumped into the oceans each year, and there seemed to be very few controls over how it was carried out. In many countries concern began to grow about the wisdom of using the sea as an uncontrolled rubbish dump. It was widely felt that something should be done not only to assess the problem but also to control it - and it had to be done at an international level. In 1972 the general interest in the importance of the environment resulted in the holding of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, Sweden. As part of the preparatory process for the conference an Inter-Governmental Working Group on Marine Pollution held its first meeting in London in 1971 and the Stockholm conference recommended that Governments ensure that "ocean dumping by their nationals anywhere, or by any person in areas under their jurisdiction, is controlled and the Governments continue to work towards the completion of and bringing into force as soon as possible of an over-all instrument for the control of ocean dumping...". In response to this recommendation the United Kingdom convened a conference which met in London from 30 October to 13 November 1972, and adopted the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (the London Convention). The Convention entered into force on 30 August 1975 and the first meeting of Contracting Parties in December that year agreed to designate IMO to be responsible for the Secretariat duties in relation to the Convention. The Convention's purpose is to control all sources of marine pollution and prevent pollution of the sea through regulation of dumping into the sea of waste materials. It covers materials transported to sea for the purpose of dumping. The 1972 Convention defines dumping as "any deliberate disposal at sea of material and substances of any kind, form or description from vessels, aircraft, platforms, or other man_made structures, as well as the deliberate disposal of vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man_made structures themselves". What materials have been dumped at sea? Dredged material: dredging accounts for about 80_90% of all material dumped at sea and amounts to hundreds of millions of tons a year. The majority of dredging is for navigation to keep harbours, rivers and other waterways open and is directly related to the economy of seafaring nations. The ocean disposal of dredged material represents only 20_22% of the total dredged and the remainder is mostly dumped in internal waters, or placed on land for disposal or productive purposes. Approximately 10% of dredged sediments are heavily contaminated with toxic metals and petroleum compounds, organochlorines such as pesticides and nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous. These sediments are rigorously controlled through the Convention's regulatory guidelines for dredged material. For the vast majority of the "clean" dredged material the Convention encourages productive or beneficial use of the sediments (e.g. land development, marsh creation, fishery enhancement). Following stringent Convention guidelines these clean materials may also be disposed of at sea in an environmentally acceptable manner. "Clean" dredged material is merely soil (sand, silt or clay) eroded from land. Unregulated disposal of dredged material can, however, cause major physical impacts if not properly placed. Gravel, for example, is required by spawning fish such as herring and is the natural habitat of crustacea such as lobsters. Both will be adversely affected if the gravel is covered by other types of sediment. Industrial wastes: Ocean dumping of industrial wastes was, until recently, an accepted waste disposal option in many regions of the world. In the 1970s the quantity of industrial wastes dumped at sea rose from 11 million tons to 17 million. During the 1980s the total fell and stabilized at around 8 million tons. Sewage sludge: the sludge resulting from municipal sewage treatment operations can be used beneficially as fertilizer on agricultural land or for land reclamation, particularly if it is not contaminated with high levels of metals, oils and organic chemicals from industrial sources. However, in some cases, it can be economically and environmentally preferable to dispose of it at sea rather than on land. Municipal sewage sludge normally does not contain contaminants in large quantities, but inconsiderate dumping may still have harmful effects such as eutrophication and human health risks from the presence of pathogens. After reaching a peak of about 17 million tonnes in 1980 sewage dumping has declined to 12 million tonnes in the early 1990s, reflecting the phasing out of this practice by several countries. Currently only Ireland, Japan, Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom dump sewage sludge at sea. These three groups comprise most of the waste material that has traditionally been dumped at sea. The potential environmental problems associated with unregulated or uncontrolled disposal are: * human health risks from the presence of pathogens; * eutrophication due to nutrients and organics; * toxic effects on marine organisms and/or man, caused by various chemicals; and * resource_use conflicts with other legitimate uses of the sea such as fishing (including aquaculture), and recreation. How widespread is the problem? It would be a mistake to assume that dumping at sea is, or ever has been widespread. According to a study carried out by the United Nations Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environment Protection (GESAMP) in 1990, wastes dumped into the sea from ships contributed only 10% or less of the pollutants that enter the sea each year. Land_based sources contribute 44%, 33% comes via the atmosphere, originating also from the land, 12% from maritime transportation and the remaining 1% from offshore production. Nevertheless dumping activities tend to be concentrated in certain marine areas, so its impact locally can be considerable. Wastes considered for disposal at sea are classified by means of a number of technical Annexes and are graded into three categories according to the danger they present to the environment. The "black list" (Annex I) consists of the materials that are most dangerous to the environment and their dumping is prohibited. The list contained in the original Convention is as follows: 1. Organohalogen compounds. 2. Mercury and mercury compounds. 3. Cadmium and cadmium compounds. 4. Persistent plastics and other persistent synthetic materials. 5. Crude oil and petroleum products. 6. High_level radioactive wastes. 7. Materials produced for biological and chemical warfare. The "grey list" (Annex II) consists of less harmful materials that can only be dumped into the sea after a special permit has been issued, such as wastes containing significant amounts of arsenic, lead, copper, zinc, organosilicon compounds, cyanides, fluorides, pesticides and their by_products. In the issue of dumping permits, consideration must be given to the "grey list" substances which include containers, scrap metal and other bulky wastes which may present a serious obstacle to fishing or navigation; low_level radioactive wastes; and substances which may become harmful due to the quantities in which they are dumped, or which are liable to seriously reduce amenities. All other substances or materials can be dumped after a general permit has been issued. Criteria establishment Annex III of the Convention describes the conditions and waste characteristics that must be met before a disposal site is located and dumping is approved. This Annex describes the general and specific provisions that member nations must consider in establishing their domestic criteria prior to approving sea disposal of acceptable materials. Annex III is further supplemented with detailed technical guidelines for specific wastes and situations. These "rules of the road" ensure maximum protection of the marine environment. The Convention requires Contracting Parties to establish appropriate administrative authorities for enforcing its provisions and encourages the creation of regional arrangements for preventing pollution by dumping. Emergency Dumping In some cases, dumping may be unavoidable only because of a danger to human life. Article V allows this to be done "if dumping appears to be the oily way of averting the threat" and lays down procedures for dumping in emergencies. Administration The necessity to issue permits for dumping means that some form of administrative control is required in each country which ratifies the London Convention. Article VI therefore requires the designation of "an appropriate authority or authorities" to issue permits, keep records and monitor the condition of the sea. Contracting Parties are required to inform IMO of the permits issued and other relevant details such as monitoring information. Enforcement The provisions set out in Article VII of the Convention cover a wide range of measures for enforcement of the Convention. However, the basic thrust of these provisions is that coastal States have a duty to enforce the Convention within their jurisdiction. Enforcement on the high seas lies primarily with the flag State of the dumping vessel. International Co-operation In order to further the objectives of the Convention, Contracting Parties are encouraged, under Article VIII, to form regional agreements to prevent pollution by dumping. Monitoring and scientific research is also encouraged. The theme of co-operation is continued in Article IX which says that Contracting Parties shall promote support for Parties requesting assistance in training, the supply of equipment, and the disposal and treatment of wastes. Liability Under Article X the responsibility and liability of a State for damage to the environment of other States or to any other area of the environment is recognized in accordance with the principles of international law. Contracting Parties are required to develop procedures for the assessment of liability and the settlement of disputes regarding dumping. Settlement of Disputes Article XI provides that the "Contracting Parties shall at their first consultative meeting consider procedures for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation and application of this Convention". The development of the 1972 London Convention The Convention is a living document that responds to new information, pollution issues and environmental concerns through a process of consultative meeting, scientific and legal debates, consensus building and the addition of new member nations. Past amendments and proposed future actions to the Convention reflect our growing knowledge of or different approaches to waste management or of the potential harm from certain substances or processes. The implementation of the Convention is conducted through a Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties which normally meets once a year. One of its main tasks is to keep the content of the Convention under review and to amend it when necessary. The Convention was first amended in 1978. The first set of amendments affected Annex I and introduced measures to permit the incineration of wastes at sea. These amendments entered into force on 11 March 1979. The second group introduced new procedures for settling disputes. Because they affected the articles of the Convention rather than the Annexes the tacit acceptance procedure does not apply and the amendments will enter into force 60 days after being accepted by two-thirds of Contracting Parties. To date they have been accepted by only 19 Parties, well under the number required. In 1981 further amendments were made to the Annexes and were concerned with incineration and the substances which require special care when being incinerated. They entered into force on 11 March 1981. Further changes were made in 1989 when the procedures to be followed when issuing permits under Annex III were modified. The amendments, which entered into force on 19 May 1990 require that consideration be given to whether there is sufficient scientific information available to assess the impact of dumping before any permits are issued. The note of caution implicit in this amendment is indicative of the way attitudes towards the use of the sea for dumping purposes were changing. In the early 1970s it was generally assumed that dumping at sea was a permissible waste disposal option providing certain safeguards were met. By the 1980s some authorities - and Contracting Parties to the Convention itself - were beginning to doubt the wisdom of using the oceans in this way. Incineration at sea An example of this is the growth of opposition to the idea of incineration of noxious liquid wastes at sea. Incineration was first used in 1969 as a means of destructing certain chemical by-products which are particularly hazardous, and was therefore still a very new method of disposing of waste when the London Dumping Convention was drafted. Consequently it was not considered for inclusion in the original Convention. By 1978, however, incineration had become much more widespread - between 1980 and 1985 reports to IMO showed that an average of 100,000 tonnes of hazardous wastes were incinerated at sea annually, mainly in the North Sea - and at the Third Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties an addendum was adopted to Annex I containing Regulations for the Control of Incineration of Wastes and Other Matter At Sea. The addendum contains technical provisions concerning the approval and survey of the incineration system (among other requirements, the destruction efficiency of the incinerator must be in excess of 99.99 per cent); wastes requiring special studies; operational requirements; recording devices and records; control over the nature of wastes incinerated; incineration sites; and notification. The regulations make it clear that incineration at sea is regarded only as an alternative to other means of disposal; Contracting Parties shall "first consider the practical availability of alternative land-based methods of treatment, disposal or elimination, or of treatment to render the wastes or other matter less harmful, before issuing a permit for incineration at sea in accordance with these regulations". The regulations go on to state that: "Incineration at sea shall in no way be interpreted as discouraging progress towards environmentally better solutions including the development of new techniques". Numerous evaluations of incineration of liquid hazardous wastes at sea over the past 19 years have addressed various issues, ranging from the effectiveness and safety of this practice to opposition in principle based on the view that it is merely an inexpensive option which detracts from pollution control at the source. Key concerns expressed about incineration at sea include the effects of organic emissions, the risks of accidental spills and the waste management role for incineration at sea. A joint LC/Oslo Commission Group of Experts on Incineration at Sea met in April 1987 to examine the safety and environmental acceptability of this practice. As a result of the work undertaken by this Group of Experts and in the light of additional debate by the Scientific Group established under the Convention, it was proposed that further research on certain aspects of incineration at sea should be encouraged, including: .1 concepts for evaluating destruction efficiency of marine incinerators; .2 the effects on marine ecosystems due to possible impacts with the sea-surface microlayer; and .3 the collection of more data on the composition, persistence, toxicity and levels of organic emissions. The probability of releases of cargo from incineration vessels was considered low - on the basis of incineration activities in the North Sea the incidence was estimated by an IMO consultant as 1 spill in 68,000 voyages. By the late 1980s, however, opinion was moving steadily against incineration as a means of waste disposal. Ministers representing countries bordering the North Sea met in 1987 and agreed to reduce incineration by 54% by 1991. In June 1988 the Contracting Parties to the Oslo Convention - which regulates waste disposal in the North East Atlantic - agreed to end the practice by the end of 1994. Then in October 1988 the LC Contracting Parties held their 11th Consultative meeting and adopted a resolution in which they agreed "to take all steps possible to minimize or substantially reduce the use of marine incineration of noxious liquid wastes by 1 January 1991". They further agreed to re-evaluate incineration as early as possible in 1992 with a view of eliminating it by the end of 1994. But in practice opposition to incineration at sea had become so strong that at the end of 1989 the only company still engaged in ocean incineration announced that it was selling its two remaining incineration vessels. The practice ended with the de-commissioning of the last incineration vessel in February 1991. Radioactive wastes Radioactive wastes are divided in the London Convention into high-level and low-level. High-level wastes, as defined for the Convention by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), are included in Annex I (the "black list") and their disposal at sea is completely banned. The high-level wastes include materials resulting from fuel processing, irradiated fuel and irradiated fuel cladding. Low-level radioactive wastes appear in Annex II (the "grey list") of the Convention and may therefore be dumped at sea under certain conditions. The first operations involving sea disposal of radioactive wastes took place in 1946 in the north-east Pacific. Since then 13 countries have dumped radioactive wastes at sea. About two-thirds of the radioactivity of all waste disposed at sea is associated with six submarine reactors and the shielding assembly from a nuclear icebreaker reactor together with damaged fuel dumped in the Kara Sea by the former Soviet Union. The remainder consists of packaged solid low-level wastes dumped in the north-east Atlantic by eight European states, primarily the United Kingdom. The dumped wastes came from activities related to nuclear power production and from industrial, medical and research uses of radioisotopes. The type of waste involved was similar to that arising in non-nuclear parts of an industrial economy (including items such as broken machinery and old clothing), but with the difference that it is contaminated by radioactivity and so required special handling, treatment and disposal. The waste was typically incorporated into concrete-filled drums designed to provide shielding and containment of the waste prior to dumping and to ensure that the waste reached the seafloor intact. The total amount of radioactivity dumped in the ocean, some 84,000 TBq, is less than the approximately 200 million TBq that were added to the oceans as a result of the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons between 1954 and 1962. This, in turn, represented only 1% of the 20 billion TBq that exists naturally in the ocean. However, the mix of radioisotopes involved is different in each case and radioisotopes vary widely in the extent to which they can affect marine organisms and man, so that the total radioactivity is only a very rough guide to the risk.[1] Despite assurances that the dumping of low-level radioactive wastes into the sea was perfectly safe, a number of countries were strongly opposed to the practice and brought these concerns to the Seventh Consultative Meeting in 1983. After considerable discussion, the meeting adopted a moratorium on further dumping pending a review, by an independent panel of experts, of the relevant scientific and technical considerations. This panel, established by the London Convention and with members nominated by the IAEA and the non-governmental International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), produced its report in time for the Ninth Consultative Meeting in September 1985. The main conclusions of this report can be summarized as follows[2]. - "The present and future risk to individuals from past ocean dumping of radioactive wastes at the North East Atlantic dumpsite is extremely small. The risk (of developing a fatal cancer or severe hereditary defect) is predicted to peak about 200 years from now at a level of less than 10-9 or one chance in a billion per year. The most potentially-exposed individuals would be those consuming shellfish harvested in Antarctic waters. - Notwithstanding the very small risk to individuals, the aggregate exposure to the global population from long-lived components of the dumped waste imply that the total casualties resulting from past dumping may be up to about 1,000 spread over the next 10,000 years or so. The dominant pathway for this exposure would not be via shellfish consumption, but associated with the consumption of food produced on land. The reason for this is that the main contributor to these casualties (or to the collective dose commitment, as it is known technically) is the isotope carbon-14 which has a half-life (i.e. time required for its radioactivity to decrease be a factor of two) of 5,700 years. In such time much of the carbon-14 would escape from the ocean as gaseous carbon dioxide and spread throughout the world. If the carbon-14, and a few other long-lived radionuclides, were to be removed from the waste before disposal in the ocean, the collective dose commitment from future dumping operations would be very much reduced, although it should be appreciated that other means of disposal of the carbon-14 might carry risks comparable to those associated with sea dumping. - The incremental dose from past dumping to individual marine organisms on the seafloor at the dumpsite, or nearby, will be significantly less than the dose that the organisms receive from naturally-occurring radioactivity and hence it is not expected to cause any detectable effects on populations of organisms. A resumption of dumping at a rate an order of magnitude higher than previously might cause damage to individual organisms, but would still not be expected to affect a whole population significantly". At the Ninth Consultative Meeting there was general agreement that the scientific report had not shown that the dumping of low-level radioactive wastes at sea was environmentally dangerous. On the other hand, it was agreed that the report had not proved that dumping was harmless. Since the scientific evidence was inconclusive, it was realized that solving the problem rested more in the political, legal, social and economic domains. A resolution was adopted at this Meeting which requested Contracting Parties to suspend radioactive dumping pending completion of additional scientific and technical studies and assessments and, more importantly, additional studies on the wider political, legal, economic and social aspects of radioactive waste dumping. In October 1986 the Tenth Consultative Meeting adopted a further resolution establishing an Inter-Governmental Panel of Experts from Contracting Parties to consider these topics. The Panel worked on this subject during the next few years, during which the tide of public opinion turned steadily against the use of the sea as a dump for any sort of radioactive materials, however harmless they might appear to be from the scientific point of view. In 1993 the Panel issued a final statement. It generally acknowledged "that there has been a sustained development of international law in the past 20 years, with a trend towards, first, restricting and controlling, second, prohibiting sea disposal of radioactive wastes on a regional basis, and later challenging the legitimacy of States' use of the high seas and the oceans' floors beyond their national jurisdiction for activities that might result in the pollution of the marine environment." The Panel noted sea disposal of wastes had several characteristics that are different from other options. These include the diffusibility of waste radionuclides in sea water which could result in their transboundary transfer. Industrial waste The dumping into the sea of industrial waste declined steadily during the 1980s. Nevertheless, many Governments regarded the practice as so unacceptable that they feel it should be banned completely. In 1990 the 13th Consultative Meeting debated this issue and the result was the adoption of a resolution calling for the dumping of industrial wastes to be stopped by 31 December 1995 - or if possible before. It was further agreed that an evaluation of the consequences of this decision would be carried out by 1992 to see if there were any difficulties involved in adopting different technologies. The resolution also emphasized the importance of making appropriate technology available to developing countries. Industrial wastes are defined in the resolution as waste materials generated by manufacturing or processing operations. The term does not include inert materials and uncontaminated organic materials or natural origin. The resolution says the banning of industrial waste dumping at sea "should not result in unacceptable environmental effects elsewhere " but to ensure that this is the case the resolution says that it should be applied " in a manner that prevents any additional pollution of other parts of the environment. Furthermore, wastes currently being dumped must not be discharged into the sea via a pipeline, or from the shore, or via rivers and estuaries". Implementing the LC Convention In the early days of the Convention, guidance for interpretation of certain provisions was developed on a piece-meal and ad hoc basis as the need arose. This worked well, enabling experience to be gained in implementing the Convention. By the late 1980s, however, Parties wished to improve the effectiveness of the Convention in a broader context and to eliminate some of the inconsistencies and ambiguities that had emerged - such as defining the expression 'trace elements' and agreeing when they were rendered harmless at sea. As a result it was agreed that a review of existing guidance should be carried out, a review that led to the development of the 'Waste Assessment Framework (WAF).' This is a regulatory mechanism for waste evaluation in a logical step-by-step sequence. It embodies a precautionary approach and places emphasis on continual review of processes giving rise to wastes. If sea disposal turns out to be the favoured option after going through this process, the WAF offers advice on how to carry it out and monitor it. The survey began in 1991 and was completed four years later. It provides a unique mine of information on industrial and hazardous waste management practices around the world and facilitates a "broad brush" assessment of the state of waste management in 102 countries. Pilot National Waste Management Profiles have been prepared which present more detailed information from a selected cross-section of 18 countries. The Final Report concluded that the stockpiling of industrial waste is akin to open dumping in many developing and newly industrialized countries, and has reached catastrophic proportions in some regions. Moreover, there were no apparent strategies or actions for controlling or avoiding such practices. The report focused on industrial and hazardous waste management as defined and practised in different countries and regions of the world, and assessed the relative impact that a global ban on ocean dumping of industrial waste would have in those countries and regions. It said there was a striking contrast between the developed world and the developing and newly industrialized world in dealing with waste. Countries that were members of the Organization for Economic and Cultural Development (OECD), such as Canada, the Netherlands, Germany and Japan, introduced legislation to control industrial and hazardous wastes in the late 1960s and early 1970s. These countries gradually evolved their controls, tightened their standards and developed land-based treatment and disposal facilities over a period of 20 to 25 years. Most countries in the rest of the world are just in the process of initiating the journey, with actions concentrated over the last five to seven years. Uncontrolled waste disposal, water pollution and stockpiling of wastes emerged as three priority pollution problems which are widespread among non-OECD countries, the report said. Contaminated sites i.e. sites contaminated by industrial operations, accidental spillages of hazardous material, uncontrolled waste disposal etc., emerged as the most frequently identified national waste management issue among OECD countries responding to the Global Waste Inventory. The study showed that countries in developing and newly industrialized regions had a deep concern for environmental and human health effects as a consequence of inadequate management of industrial and hazardous wastes. The report said: "However, available evidence of specific damage is generally anecdotal, comprising of individual case histories. There is limited causal evidence to link industrial and hazardous waste management practices to the state of environment or the health of the public." For developing and newly industrialized countries, there were several common impediments to developing and implementing improved land-based waste management systems, according to the report. Some of the common issues were: inappropriate, incomplete or diffuse waste management legislation and regulations; inadequate enforcement of existing regulations and limited monitoring capability; data on existing waste generation, treatment and disposal are limited or scattered among a number of institutions and organizations; insufficient or inadequate waste management facilities and services, including poor operation and maintenance of existing facilities and services; lack of skilled human resources and equipment in the public and private sectors; access to and affordability of appropriate technologies, processes and practices; and a significant portion of the country's industrial waste is generated by a large number of small and medium-sized enterprises. These enterprises do not have the finances nor the technical know-how to manage their waste properly. Illegal or uncontrolled ocean dumping of waste was recognized, but undocumented, in some developing and newly industrialized countries, the report said. It was evident that, as national waste management programmes evolve, the need for land-based facilities would require greater investment of financial and human resources, by both the public and private sectors in these countries. Reluctance, hesitation or inability on the part of governments or industry to make such commitments could lead to increasing occurrences of illegal or uncontrolled ocean dumping of industrial waste over the short-to-medium term. When it comes to managing wastes, 64 of 101 countries identified that they did not have land-based facilities to manage industrial hazardous waste. Seventeen of the 37 countries that did were OECD member States. The Inventory showed that basic sewage and sanitation facilities and services were being provided to only a small portion of the population in developing and newly industrialized countries. Some medium-to-large sized industries in developing and newly industrialized countries pre-treated their wastes prior to disposal. Reuse, recycling and recovery of waste was primarily occurring within the municipal sector of developing and newly industrialized countries, as a consequence of scavenging by the urban poor. The report said capacity building initiatives and financial mechanisms were needed to support developing and newly industrialized countries with the development, implementation and sustainment of viable waste prevention and management programmes over the long-term. Enforcement and compliance programmes were a major weakness in many national waste management programmes in developing and newly industrialized countries, the report said. A common cause was the impracticality of the regulations themselves, which, in many cases, had been copied from mature industrialized countries. Little consideration had been given to the infrastructure required to administer and enforce such regulations, to the facilities and services which were necessary to allow industry to comply with regulations, or to the scientific, technical and legal framework that was needed in the country in order to effectively implement regulations. The report said that Contracting Parties to the London Convention had a wealth of experience and expertise that could accelerate the waste management/marine pollution prevention and management programmes in developing and newly industrialized countries. The Global Waste Survey had laid the groundwork for future technical assistance and technical co-operation initiatives. The report concluded: "The elimination of ocean dumping of industrial waste will not happen simply as a result of a global ban. It will occur only when governments and industry have practical and cost-effective waste prevention and management programmes, and associated land-based facilties and operations, in place." It emerged that there were two main points of view concerning the WAF. One group of countries favoured a system of controlled dumping based on assumptions of the assimilative capacity of the oceans while others favoured approaches based on precaution and prevention. Despite this, in 1992 Parties agreed on the scientific and technical validity of the WAF and adopted it on a provisional basis. In November 1996 it was incorporated into the Protocol to the Convention as Annex 2 (see below). The Global Waste Survey showed that waste treatment and disposal is still a serious problem in many parts of the world, and restricting the use of the sea for disposal purposes will do nothing to reduce the amount of wastes that have to be disposed of. The danger is that sea dumping may be carried out illegally in some areas as waste accumulates and no alternative disposal option seems to be viable, or is being developed. The 1993 amendments When the 16th Consultative Meeting met in 1993, it was in a position to take action on several of these issues. In addition to banning the dumping of low-level radioactive wastes the Contracting Parties also adopted amendments to: phase out the dumping of industrial waste by 31 December 1995, and ban the incineration at sea of industrial waste and sewage sludge. The amendments entered into force 100 days later, on 21 February 1994. The 1993 amendments brought to an end a long and controversial period and in a sense marked a turning point in the history of the Convention, which was symbolized by the decision of the Consultative Meeting to change the short title of the Convention from the London Dumping Convention to the London Convention. By dropping the word "dumping" they were able to show that in future the aim would be not simply to regulate the dumping of wastes into the sea but to introduce still more restrictions and encourage the adoption of alternative disposal. By removing this urgent pressure at an early stage of a full review of the Convention, Parties were able to carry out the rest of this review with the necessary reflection and detailed consideration and with appropriate input from all Parties involved. The sea_bed disposal of high_level radioactive wastes This form of disposal was not technically feasible in the early 1970s and consequently was not considered when the Convention was adopted in 1972. By the 1980s, however, the emplacement of encapsulated materials into the sea_bed was being seriously considered as a future means of disposal. Some Governments were concerned about this possibility. After considerable discussion, in 1986 it was agreed by a majority that no disposal into the sea_bed should take place until it is proved to be technically and environmentally acceptable, including a determination that such wastes can be effectively isolated from the marine environment and a regulatory mechanism is elaborated under the Convention. Transboundary movements of wastes for disposal The problem of the movement of wastes across boundaries has been considered by a number of international organizations during the last few years. In October 1986 the Tenth Consultative Meeting resolved that Contracting Parties should not export wastes for sea disposal "unless there are both compelling reasons for such export and clear evidence that the wastes would be disposed of in compliance with the requirements of the LC ...." The export of such wastes has now been banned by Article 6 of the 1996 Protocol (see below). In 1989 international concern about this subject culminated in the adoption of the (Basel) Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. The 1996 Protocol The adoption of the 1996 Protocol on 7 November, 1996, was the culmination of a process initiated by Parties in the mid-1980s to determine the long-term strategy and objectives of the London Convention, to enhance the effective implementation of the Convention, to consider future directions concerning dumping issues and to increase the membership of the Convention. There had been a marked evolution towards approaches based on precaution and prevention with Parties agreeing to move from controlled dispersal at sea of a variety of wastes towards integrated land-based solutions for most. Agenda 21, adopted at the Rio conference in 1992, encouraged this new orientation and in 1993 the Parties agreed to carry out a detailed review to incorporate the proposed changes. The 1996 conference was attended by 59 countries and the Protocol will enter into force 30 days after ratification by 26 countries, 15 of whom must be Contracting Parties to the 1972 treaty. The Protocol represents a major change of approach to the question of how to regulate the use of the sea as a depository for waste materials. One major change is the introduction (in Article 3) of what is known as the "precautionary approach", which had first been enunciated in a resolution adopted by the Consultative Meeting in 1991. The text of the 1996 Protocol, however, is rather stronger. Instead of saying that Parties to the LC shall be "guided by" the precautionary approach, its application is made mandatory. Article 3.1 says: "...Parties shall apply a precautionary approach to environmental protection from dumping of wastes or other matter whereby appropriate preventative measures are taken when there is reason to believe that wastes or other matter introduced into the marine environment are likely to cause harm even when there is no conclusive evidence to prove a causal relation between inputs and their effects." This Article, in effect, shifts the burden of proof by making it necessary for those wishing to carry out a dumping operation to prove that it is safe, not for those opposing it to prove that it is unsafe. The article also states that "the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution" and it emphasizes that Contracting Parties should ensure that the Protocol should not simply result in pollution being transferred from one part of the environment to another. The 1972 Convention permits dumping to be carried out provided certain conditions are met. The severity of these conditions varies according to the danger to the environment presented by the materials themselves and there is a "black list" containing materials which may not be dumped at all. The Protocol is much more restrictive. It states (in Article 4) that Contracting Parties "shall prohibit the dumping of any wastes or other matter with the exception of those listed in Annex 1." These include: 1. Dredged material 2. Sewage sludge 3. Fish waste, or material resulting from industrial fish processing operations 4. Vessels and platforms or other man-made structures at sea 5. Inert, inorganic geological material 6. Organic material of natural origin 7. Bulky items primarily comprising iron, steel, concrete and similarly unharmful materials for which the concern is physical impact and limited to those circumstances, where such wastes are generated at locations, such as small islands with isolated communities, having no practicable access to disposal options other than dumping. The only exceptions to this are contained in Article 8 which permits dumping to be carried out "in cases of force majeure caused by stress of weather, or in any case which constitutes a danger to human life or a real threat to vessels..." Incineration of wastes at sea is specifically prohibited by article 5 of the Protocol. Article 6 states that "Contracting Parties shall not allow the export of wastes or other matter to other countries for dumping or incineration at sea." Article 9 requires Contracting Parties to designate an appropriate authority or authorities to issue permits in accordance with the Protocol. The Protocol recognizes the importance of implementation and Article 11 details compliance procedures under which, no later than two years after the entry into force of the Protocol, the Meeting of Contracting Parties "shall establish those procedures and mechanisms necessary to assess and promote compliance..." A key provision is the so-called transitional period (Article 26) which allows new Contracting Parties to phase in compliance with the Protocol over a period of five years. This provision is supported (in Article 13) by extended technical assistance provisions. The duties of IMO as the Secretariat in relation to the Protocol are set out in Article 19. IMO also carries out this function in relation to the 1972 Convention. Other Articles contain procedures for settling disputes (Article 16) and amendments. Amendments to the Articles shall enter into force "on the 60th day after two-thirds of Contracting Parties shall have deposited an instrument of acceptance of the amendment with the Organization" (meaning IMO). The Protocol contains three annexes. Annex 1 is described above and the other two deal with assessment of wastes, replacing Annex III of the Convention, and arbitral procedures. The future Since it entered into force, the London Convention has proved to be a valuable instrument for controlling the dumping of wastes into the sea and subsequent global protection of the marine environment. Membership in the Convention has grown from 25 to 76 countries, with others considering joining. The regular Consultative Meetings have proved to be equally useful in global environmental consensus building and have made many major decisions on controlling or prohibiting harmful effects on the sea. In the closing years of the 20th century, attitudes towards the environment have changed. Many governments are now doubtful about the wisdom of using the oceans as a dumping ground for harmful wastes and this concern has been reflected in actions taken by the Convention. Despite this, waste disposal remains a major problem. Even though 76 countries have ratified the Convention, it is still possible for uncontrolled dumping operation to continue by non_Contracting Parties _ to the detriment not only of their own environment but that of neighbouring countries as well. An immediate priority is to encourage countries, especially in the developing world, to ratify the Protocol and to provide the technical assistance to them that will enable them implement it effectively. [1] Figures supplied by IAEA. One TBq = one trillion (10 12) Bq, where one Bq (Becqueral) is the amount of radioactivity arising from one nuclear disintegration per second. [2] IMO, Expanded Panel Report on the Review of Scientific and Technical Considerations Relevant to the Proposal for the Amendment of the Annexes to the London Dumping Convention Related to the Dumping of Radioactive Wastes,