ing North Atlantic bottlenose whales as PS and prohibiting pelagic take of orca, does not currently regulate any stocks of small cetaceans. Hence this case is outside its present competence; nevertheless the Like-minded Group drew attention to it and the need for control. Many IWC members. especially the Latin- American states. continued to ex- press the view that cetaceans not listed either in the Schedule or on a List of Nomenclature attached to the Final Act of the 1946 Conference at which the IWC was established. viz. most small ccta- ceans, cannot come within the scope of the ICRW’s regulatory processes, though accepting that data can be collected on certain small-type whaling operations already defined in the Schedule. As a compromise it was agreed, however, to keep on the agenda the question of the status of Baird’s beaked whale, which in the view of some states now requires regulation in order to conserve it, without coming to any conclusions on the substantial issues involved.

0 Chuirnlunship of rhe IWC: Mr Stewart (New Zealand) was elected as the new Chairman of the IWC on the conclusion of the 3-year term of office of Mr Igle- sias (of Argentina). This was a popular choice as Mr Stewart had distinguished himself both as Vice-Chairman of the Technical Commitee and on occasions when he had been called on to chair the IWC. Warm appreciation of the manner in which Mr Iglesias had conducted the Commission Meet- ings through a difficult period was expressed by all IWC members. The new Chairman of the Tech- nical Committee is to be Mr Haddon (UK).

Conclusion

The meeting was something of a dis- appointment so far as conservationists were concerned since despite some gains - more PS stocks and a lower

66

quota than sought by the USA for the Bering Sea bowhead catch - the three states objecting to the zero catch limits on commercial whaling did not indi- cate that they would withdraw their objections in time for the ban to take effect within the time prescribed. Although events outside the IWC may lead to cessation of Japanese commer- cial whaling by 1988 and the USSR apparently will not send out its cxpcdi- tion next year. the effective entry into force of a total cessation of commer- cial whaling remains in doubt.

Even if commercial whaling does cease in the near future, it appears that some states intend to maintain their industries, albeit in a reduced form. by issue of more scientific per- mits, despite SC reservations concern- ing the scientific value of the data obtained from such catches: that more sympathy for allowing native rights to override scientific caution is develop- ing among some developing state members; that no progress will be made in the near future concerning international overview of such stocks of small cetaceans as may be overex- plaited and requiring regulation, or on developing more humane methods of killing since the existing methods of killing will be used to further ‘scien- tific rcscarch’ under permits.

On the other hand it is possible to conclude. as does one conservationist organization. that the IWC is ‘stronger

and more viable than at any time in the last decade’ since its use of consen- sus voting nowadays. used at the 37th meeting for all but two decisions (on North Atlantic minke whales and on Alaskan Eskimo bowhead whales). makes IWC decisions less likely to be challenged or formally objected to. Thus, in the words of its Director ‘The IWC has survived. The whales arc safer than ever. The war has been won. But our work is by no means done’.’

Patricia Birnie London School of Economics

and Political Science, UK

An appendix to this report appears on p 85.

‘Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austra- lia. Belize. Brazil. Chile. Peoole’s Reoublic of China, Costa Rica, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, FR Germany, Iceland, India, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Phillipines, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Sey- chelles, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, USSR, USA. “Whales and the IWC: Agreements Reached at The 1985 Meeting of the International Whaling Commission’, an un- official report by Dr Robbins Barstow, Volunteer Executive Director of the Con- necticut Cetacean Society, member of US delegation at the 37th IWC Meeting, 30 July 1985, obtainable from CCS, 190, Stillwood Drive, Wethersfield, CT 06109, USA.

The hybrid emergency

‘The hybrid emergency: multiple risk and hazard in marine transportation’, The Greenwich Forum, Royal United Services Institution, London, 7 June 1985

The theme of the conference was summed up by the organizers as fol- lows:

The Maul LOILLS incident potenttally in- volving simultaneous pollution from oil, chemicals, and radioactive material. high- lighted certain new problems. Hitherto unrecogniscd risks arc being taken daily in the transport of toxic and hazardous mat- trials by sea. A spotlight will bc cast on the rules governing such transport and their

range and enforceability: this OneDa) Conference w,ill examine the hazards thcm- selves. the risks presented both hy indi- vidual substances and possible synergisms, and the extent to which hoth central and local government may need to re-examine their responsihilitics and capabilities.

The chairman of the Conference was Lord Nathan. member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollu- tion and chairman of the Environmen-

MARINE POLICY January 1986

tal Sub-Committee of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Euro- pean Communities. The keynote speaker at the Conference was Mr Stanley Clinton-Davis, member of the Commission of the European Com- munities, with special responsibility for, among other things, the environ- ment and transport. The other speak- ers included Mr Tony C. Barrel1 and Dr Richard Pape of the Major Hazards Assessment Unit of the Health and Safety Executive; Captain A.J. Corner of the Marine Pollution Control Unit of the Department of Transport; Mr Nicholas Gaskell of the Institute of Maritime Law at the Uni- versity of Southampton; Mr Jonathan Pitman of the West of England Ship- owners Insurance Services Ltd; and Mr Michael Lacey, Master Mariner and Managing Director of United Towing Ltd. Dr T.A. Mensah, Assistant-Secretary General of IMO joined the other speakers in a Panel Discussion.

Mr Clinton-Davis recalled that EC Environment Policy dates from 1972, the year of the Stockholm Conference when Heads of State and Government so decided in Paris. The fourth En- vironmental Programme is now com- ing up and 1987 is to be European Year of the Environment. In March 1985 the Commission decided to ex- tend its policy on combatting pollution by oil to other harmful substances; its plan comprises a legal framework, an action programme for 1985, and a training programme. By and large oil pollution arrangements show that the lessons from the Torrey Canyon,

Amoco Cudiz and other incidents have been learnt and mainly need consolidating. Arrangements for deal- ing with chemical pollution, particu- larly as regards the ‘provision of in- formation and framework for coop- eration’ are at an ‘embryonic level’. Mr Clinton-Davis emphasized that ‘here we must rapidly establish the appropriate political and juridical framework and develop a broadly based action programme to improve the capacity for intervention and inter- national cooperation’. He called for better reception facilities: above all there must not be ‘ports of conveni- ence’; there must be full disclosure of

facts; not only must the IMO Pollution Conventions be fully operated but so also must IL0 Convention No 147 and the IMO Conventions dealing with the safety and conditions of employment of crews. Both PPP doctrines ~ ‘The Polluter Pays Principle’ and ‘Pollution Prevention Pays’ - must be put into effect.

In their paper on risk analysis and assessment of the emergency, Mr Bar- rell and Dr Pape emphasized that because ‘major accidents are so rare, yet potentially so serious, deci- sions on control, siting etc cannot simply be based on the past history of accidents’. The major hazards assess- ment unit has hitherto considered risks involving not only events on land, but also in ports and ‘hazards with the potential to cause immediate injury to people at long range’. They noted that on both land and sea the most common major hazard substance seems to be LPG’, and that in the sea other important substances are LNG and ammonia, plus ethylene, VCM and other chemicals, highly flammable liquids in very large quantities and certain potentially explosive solids such as ammonium nitrate and sodium chlorate.

They went on to discuss the ‘criteria for the acceptance of risk’, a matter which has been discussed by a study group of the Royal Society, without any entirely satisfactory conclusion being reached.

Captain Corner pointed out that the other ship involved in the Mont Louis

incident, the Olau Britannic, was carrying 985 passengers and a crew of 80: ‘Had the timing and angle of collision been a little different, this might have been the ship to be lying on her side’ in which case, he re- marked. ‘our discussions might have been very different’.

He explained that the Marine Pollu- tion Control Unit has for its ‘main purpose . counter-pollution effort

. aimed at oil spills . . . the MPCU also has a capability to respond to chemical incidents at sea’. Thus ‘to deal with chemical tanker accidents and the like a contract exists whereby a major chemical tanker operator, PALSS Ltd, will provide a strike team of eight men to go at short notice

anywhere around the coast’. The gov- ernment held emergency cargo trans- fer equipment, etc, in Hull ready for urgent despatch on instructions from MPCU, either by road or by helicop- ter. Mostly shipowners will contract with a professional salvor and in ordinary salvage operations govern- ment has little to do other than to ensure that the salvor takes reason- able precautions against pollution from the fuel oil, but ‘in the type of incident we are here considering there would necessarily be a much closer involvement’ with the MPCU. acting on behalf of government. Sec- tion 12 of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 was originally framed to deal with oil spills but has been extended by Statutory Instru- ment to include noxious substances other than oil, such as chemicals, liquified gases and radioactive subst- ances. Under this intervention power, the Head of the MPCU holds very wide authority to give orders to the owner master or salvor.

Speaking on the implications for the commercial salvor, Mr Michael Lacey pointed out that there are some 300 salvages a year world-wide, dealt with by 28 professional salvors. The salvor knows nothing about the incident in advance and the ‘greatest difficulty is establishing precisely what is on board’. The new Lloyds Form does provide ‘an increment for oil pollution prevention’ but nothing in relation to other cargoes damaging the environ- ment. With the vast increase in the number, the size, the variety of ship- ping, the salvage industry has had to maintain the capability both to be in the right place at the right time and to have the right equipment; much of the latter is now designed to be transport- able by air rather than needing to be carried overland or kept on site.

The legal framework upon which the law of salvage is presently based is the Brussels Salvage Convention of 1910, a revision of which is now being considered by IMO.

Of the Mont Louis case, Mr Lacey said that ‘It couldn’t have happened at a better place ie in an area where there is a considerable spread of sal- vage capability’; he called attention to the fact that there were few places in

MARINE POLICY January 1986 67

the world where this situation existed and the availability of salvage facilities was decreasing world-wide.

Mr Nicholas Gaskell speaking on the International Legal Implications addressed the legal issues to which hybrid pollution incidents may give rise. He pointed to the multiplicity of legal perspectives and to the various international conventions - SOLAS 1974/72X, the rules governing the con- struction of ships and packages, the collision regulations of 1972 (Interna- tional Maritime Dangerous Goods Code) and to the Convention estab- lishing INMARSAT in 1976; the STCW (on Standards of Training, Crewing and Watchkeeping) Conven- tion of 1978; the IMDG Code, reg- ulating the carriage of dangerous sub- stances, etc. He drew attention to the different liability regimes concerning oil and other hazardous noxious sub- stances, including nuclear materials.

Mr Jonathan Pitman, considering liability insurance irnplicati(~ns, consi-

dered the issues from the point of view of the Insurance Industry and the Protection and Indemnity (P and I) Clubs. He told the Conference that ‘more than 50% of cargoes shipped in bulk today may be classed as danger- ous or hazardous and up to 15% of cargoes are carried in conventional dry cargo, container, or roiro vessels’. The first statutory reference to dangerous cargoes came in the Mer- chant Shipping Act of 1894. In 1965 the IMDG Code was adopted by IMO: ‘It is an underst~Itei~le]~t to say that it is more than desirable that its requirements are followed by all ves- sels’ stated Mr Pitman and went on to examine the ways in which the P and I Clubs currently offer insurance and how that cover is applied in practice.

In the Panel Discussion. in which the audience took part, a number of issues emerged: a re-emphasis on the inadequacy of reliance on history and past experience as the basis of regula- tion, etc: the possible desirability of

Waste disposal and the oceans

‘Scientific basis for the role of the oceans as a waste disposal option’, North Atlantic Treaty Organization Advanced Research Workshop, Vilamoura, April 1985

This conference, attended predomi- nantly by ocean scientists, focused upon sewage sludge and, secondarily, upon radioactive waste disposal in the oceans. The Instituto National de Investigacao das Pescas. Ministerio do Mar. hosted the meeting in late April 1985, in Vilamoura, Portugal. This workshop, organized by Professor Gunnar Kullenberg from the Uni- versity of Copenhagen. included in- vited participants from Belgium, Canada, Denmark, FR Germany, Greece, Norway, Portugal, The Netherlands, Turkey, UK and the USA.

The meeting provided an opportun- ity for marine scientists to review research on a wide range of materials entering or disposed of in the oceans, for those from the academic commun- ity to learn of research applications in waste management, and for all to

consider bilateral, multilateral and in- ternational ~irr~~ngernel~ts for wastes disposed of in the oceans.

The meeting was organized around several broad topics: experiences from sewage disposal and nutrient releases in different types of environments; additions of nutrients, toxic organics, metals to soil, freshwater, coastal en- vironments, semi-enclosed basins and/ or the open ocean; radioactive waste disposal options, biological effects and assessment methods; containment ver- sus dispersion. Within these topic areas. case studies were presented for several sites in UK coastal waters. the Elbe River estuary, the USA, Portug- al, the Baltic-Kategat-North Sea area, the Mediterranean. and the north-cast Atlantic.

Two topics seemed to raise more controversy than others. The first of these was an attempt by Capuzzo et

extending to the offshore the prepara- tion of emergency plans which, from 1 October 19X5, are to be mandatory for local authorities as regards the land and ports and harbours.

The belief of a participant from the chemical industry that incidents in- volving chemicals were unlikely to occur was not shared by the panel or other participants in the symposium.

The organizers of the Conference concluded that they had indeed brought forward for examinati~)n ini important matter that deserves con- tinuing examination: the proceedings of the Conference will in part be published and the Greenwich Forum hopes that the discussions started on 7 June will carry on elsewhere. As the Conference’s chairman, Lord Nathan, put it ‘The Conference proceedings should become basic reading for any- one with responsibility in the field’.

Elizabeth Young London, UK

aI.’ to use a matrix to describe and calibrate effects of domestic waste disposal options upon the land, ocean and atmosphere. This paper was a catalyst for other discussions of methods for weighing scientific in- formation in a political context. Many informal suggestions for formal deci- sion analysis were heard. alth~)u~h the most detailed approach to conflict mediation within the context of deci- sions about waste disposal came under the discussion of radioactive waste by Hollister and Craig.’

The second controversial topic was sewage sludge disposal in the North Sea. It was clear from the papers presented that the countries surround- ing the North Sea held different perceptions as to the appropriateness of using the ocean for waste disposal. Papers by scientists from the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands and FR Germany described research on sew- age sludge disposal sites and the methods used for incorporating the research results in domestic political decisions. Although input from run- off and rivers was alluded to and

68 MARINE POLICY January 1986