Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Conclusion
This Convention is another example of the north-south tension inhering in the
IMO marine environmental discourses. The representatives from different
countries and organisations who participated in the negotiation processes
were divided into four major groups, including: developed countries; devel-
oping shipbreaking countries; environmentalist organisations; and shipping
companies. Each of these groups mainly tried to uphold their own interests,
which made the negotiations very difficult.
The developed countries sought to ensure overall environmentally-sound
management of ship recycling operations without jeopardising their shipping
businesses. 118 This group tried to put more of the burdens on the developing
countries
recycling facilities rather than on the shipping industry.
The second group included developing countries that host the major
recycling facilities in the world. They tried to ensure the environmentally-
sound disposal of obsolete ships by imposing more of the burdens on the
shipping industry rather than on the recycling facilities. 119 But this group was
very much underrepresented due to a lack of resources, funds, and political
will. For instance, the largest shipbreaking country, Bangladesh, never par-
ticipated in any correspondence group or intersessional working group
meeting.
The third group was made up of the environmentalist organisations, whose
only concern was environmental conservation. 120 The final group was the
shipping industry, whose main objective was presenting their own concerns
'
(continued)
118 This can be better explained by an example. Despite repeated requests from India, no provision
for prior ' gas-free-for-hot-work ' certification has been included in the Convention. Developed
countries with shipping interests were not supportive of India ' s proposal. Moreover, due to the
objection of developed countries, no provision for prior removal of hazardous substances from the
structure of ships was included in the Convention. The ultimate burden of cleaning the ship is now
on the ship recycling facilities of developing countries.
119
For example, in the second meeting of the intersessional working group, India proposed that
whole parts of Chapter 3 of the convention (i.e., the requirements for shipbreaking facilities)
should be deleted from the convention. Second ISRWG Report, para. 39.
120
Greenpeace, in one of its submission to the MEPC, stated that the draft convention should
“consider measures for mandating or creating incentives for the establishment of Green
Shipbreaking and decontamination facilities in developed countries - particularly those that
have most benefited from the shipping industry.” See MEPC 55/3/7, para. 11. In giving this
opinion, Greenpeace ignored the dependency of the developing shipbreaking countries on the
shipbreaking industry. A reasonable question is: what is the problem with creating incentives for
the establishment of green shipbreaking and decontamination facilities in developing shipbreaking
countries?
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search