Sustainable Shipping and UN charade on toxic waste
Shipping in our oceans produces large amounts of toxic waste in a poorly regulated global infrastructure. (UN SDSN Greece Global campaigner for Sustainable Shipping and Ports is a key player. Friends of the Earth and others have also been campaigning on the situation for years). This briefing edited and extrapolated by Scientists Warning Europe co-director Brian McGavin sets out a shocking picture of neglect.
The influential International Maritime Organization is a UN agency in London that regulates international shipping, charged with reducing emissions in an industry that burns an oil so thick it might otherwise be turned into asphalt.
“Shipping produces as much carbon dioxide as all of America’s coal plants combined.”
The organization has repeatedly delayed and watered down climate regulations, even as emissions from commercial shipping continue to rise, a trend that threatens to undermine the goals of the 2016 Paris climate accord.
One reason for the lack of progress is that the I.M.O. is a regulatory body that is run in concert with the industry it regulates. Shipbuilders, oil companies, miners, chemical manufacturers and others with huge financial stakes in commercial shipping are among the delegates appointed by many member nations. They sometimes even speak on behalf of governments, knowing that public records are sparse. Even when the organization allows journalists into its meetings it typically prohibits them from quoting people by name.
The stakes are high. Shipping, unlike other industries, is not easily regulated nation-by-nation. A Japanese-built tanker, for instance, might be owned by a Greek company and sailed by an Indian crew from China to Australia — all under the flag of Panama. That’s why, when world leaders omitted international shipping from the Paris agreement, responsibility fell to the I.M.O., which has standardized rules since 1948.
Hundreds of industry representatives are accredited observers and can speak at meetings. Their numbers far exceed those of the approved environmental groups. The agency rejected an accreditation request by the Environmental Defence Fund in 2018.
The industry says such arrangements give a voice to the experts. “If you don’t involve the people who are actually going to have to deliver, then you’re going to get a poor outcome,” said Guy Platten, secretary general of the International Chamber of Shipping but I.M.O.’s secretary general at the time, Koji Sekimizu of Japan, openly opposed strict emissions regulation as a hindrance to economic growth.
The I.M.O. almost never puts environmental policies to a vote, favoring instead an informal consensus-building that effectively gives opponents blocking power.
The Marshall Islands suggested a target of zero emissions “by the second half of the century” — meaning by 2050. Industry representatives offered a slightly different goal: Decarbonization should occur “within” the second half of the century, a one-word difference that amounted to a 50-year extension. Soon, though, the delegates agreed, without a vote, to eliminate zero-emissions targets entirely.
What remained was a rating system to identify ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ ships. European delegates insisted that, for the system to work, low-scoring ships must eventually be prohibited from sailing. China and its allies wanted no such consequence. The dirtiest ships would not be grounded. Ship owners would file plans saying they intended to improve, but would not be required to actually improve. European Union officials rallied countries behind a compromise, arguing that Europe could not be seen as standing in the way of even limited progress. The rating system could work but it included another caveat not to publish scores, letting shipping companies decide whether to say how dirty their ships are.
Now the political winds are shifting. The European Union is moving to include shipping in its emissions-trading system. The United States, after years of being minor players at the agency, is re-engaging under President Biden, suggesting it may tackle shipping emissions.
Both would put pressure on the I.M.O., which has long insisted that it alone regulate shipping.
Ship Breakers Outwitting UN’s Basel Convention.
www.toxicswatch.org 17 June, 2016. Countercurrents.org
Many foreign Ship owners and Shipbreakers are outwitting the UN’s Basel Convention on transboundary movement of hazardous end-of-life ships, threatening India’s maritime security and environmental and occupational health of workers in the ship breaking facilities in Indian waters.
These ship owners have been lobbying the Ministry of Shipping and Ministry of Commerce to amend the Shipbreaking Code 2013.to establish a regime where free trade in hazardous waste is legalized using new Hazardous waste management handling rules under the US Environment Protection Act, 1986.
Maersk, a Danish company dumped its ship Wyoming on Alang beach, India in May 2016. It was built in 1996 and adopted “flagging out” sailing under a Hong Kong flag. In April, 2005 Denmark's then environment minister alerted her Indian counterpart about the illegal movement of a 51 year-old asbestos laden ship, Kong Fredrick IX. The ship was on its way to Alang ship breaking yard, Gujarat for scrapping. The ship's new owners Jupiter Ship Management, a Mumbai based company, had renamed it to 'MV Riky'. She said that 'Kong Frederik IX' had left Denmark on 16 March 2005, allegedly to be put in service in the Middle East as a cargo ship, and that it was transiting in the Suez, on its way to the Red Sea.
The Danish minister appealed to the Indian environment minister to co-operate by stopping the ship being dismantled in India and getting it returned to Denmark to be stripped of the hazardous waste. She added that “India and Denmark could send a strong signal that neither country would accept export of environmental problems that could be solved locally."
On 23rd April 2005, "Riky" arrived for scrapping at Alang beach. The lack of safeguards in handling the toxic contaminants means that under the Basel Convention’s Technical Guidelines and European Commission guidelines a beach is not an appropriate place for hazardous industrial activity. Although little work has been carried out to assess its environmental impact, the dismantling of ships on sandy beaches without any containment other than the hull of the ship itself appears to have caused high levels of contamination of soil, air, marine and freshwater resources in many South Asian countries, and to have adversely affected the livelihood of local communities surrounding the shipbreaking facilities, which often rely on agriculture and fishing for their subsistence.
Yemen. On the coast of Southern Yemen a looming ecological disaster is about to cause a huge oil spill and destroy pristine marine ecology in an area already devastated by war and poverty. An oil super tanker from the 1970’s was left to rot in port because the owners decided it was cheaper than making the cargo safe. No one has taken action. While oil spills are funded, prevention is not. The UN is now crowd funding a transfer of the oil to a tanker alongside in the hope this can be done before the old tanker collapses.
Deep Waters (BBC World Service 4 April 23) The Laconian Gulf in southern Greece is a major hub for oil transfers, and locals now fear any accident could cause major environmental damage in an area which depends on tourism and fishing. Tim Whewell talked to campaigners who believe the influence of powerful shipowners makes local authorities turn a blind eye to possible dangers. Where is the oil going? The war in Ukraine has led to a reshuffling of trade flows, as Asia becomes a bigger market for Russian crude.
A new ‘Dark’ fleet has doubled in size in one year, from 200 to 450, says Michelle Boxman who has been tracking the issue and says if there is an accident where do you go to complain? MARPOL - essentially maritime law, states port authorities should have extra safety measures but secretive multi-flagged ship owners don’t want to pay and ignore safety
A report written by Carly Hicks from Opportunity Green with the support of Climate Works Foundation says the International Maritime Organization has failed to adapt to manage the responsibility of reducing emissions from international shipping in the manner appropriate of a United Nations organization. The absence of effective access rights for citizens to the decision-making processes of the organization, and the resultant inability to hold the IMO to account are both cause and symptom of this failure.
The IMO has long been criticised for its unwillingness, to produce ambitious, binding regulations governing emissions from the international maritime sector. While it does not of itself have the authority to enforce the regulations it issues (these are enforced only by its member states), it is the only global organization governing the maritime sector and regularly lays claim to its role as the ‘appropriate international body to address GHG emissions in ships.
The IMO’s competence in this area is heavily relied upon by its member states. It should give better consideration of public views on environmental decisions at the IMO, including holding public consultations on key decisions at the national level, 0pening the IMO’s decision-making forums to the press and unrestricted use of social media from within IMO meetings.
Cruise ship impact
A deadly coral disease likely linked to waste water from cruise and freight ships has swept through the Caribbean linked to waste or ballast water from large cruise and container ships. Identified as Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease, it potentially has a deadly effect coral scientists say. More than 30 species are susceptible. First found in Jamaica in 2018, then in the Mexican Caribbean and St Maartin and the Bahamas – all big cruise ship destinations. The IMO has implemented a ballast water management convention requiring that ships discharge waste 200 nautical miles from land in seas at least 200m deep, but it is not clear if this is being adhered to.
“Cruise ships sewage released over one billion gallons of sewage into the ocean in 2014”
Cruise ships sewage released over one billion gallons of sewage into the ocean in 2014, according to a report from Friends of the Earth (FOE).
It cites data from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which shows “an average cruise ship with 3,000 passengers and crew produces about 21,000 gallons of sewage a day. FOE says this is likely “a conservative estimate,” because newer ships can carry up to 8,000 passengers and crew.
The analysis did show that some of the 16 cruise lines assessed are slowly becoming more environmentally friendly. But according to a press release from Friends of the Earth over 40 percent of the 167 ships in operation still operate using waste treatment technology more than 35 years old. “Such antiquated treatment systems leave harmful levels of fecal matter, bacteria, heavy metals and other contaminants in the water,”
US Federal law requires that cruise ships only dump treated wastewater if they are within three nautical miles of shore. But beyond that point, it’s essentially a free-for-all.
“This is an industry worth billions of dollars that could install the most advanced sewage treatment and air pollution reduction technology available,” said Marcie Keever, the oceans and vessels program director at FOE. “We’re encouraged that some cruise lines are taking incremental steps to improve their performance, but the entire industry must stop hiding behind weak regulations and take action to make sure the oceans their ships travel remain healthy.”
The centerpiece of FOE’s analysis is their Cruise Ship Report Card, which has come out every year since 2009. Up to 2013, the report card had graded the cruise lines on three metrics: the quality of their sewage treatment technology, how much they reduce their air pollution through the use of cleaner fuels and plugging into onshore power, and how well they comply with water quality standards.
But for the 2014 report, all 16 cruise lines apparently refused to respond to FOE’s request for information on their pollution reduction efforts — forcing the group to rely on federal data.
According to FOE, data from the EPA shows that “each day an average cruise ship is at sea it emits more sulfur dioxide than 13 million cars and more soot than one million cars.”
It is a $93 billion industry with oversupply but building more.
They discharge 79,000 litres of sewage a day and 643,000 litres of greywater (mix of detergents, shower gel, cooking oil) and use use 700 litres of fuel an hour.
In docking facilities power still has to be generated from engines, with more pollution.
Disney Cruise Lines was apparently the most environmentally friendly, scoring an A for sewage treatment, a B- for air pollution reduction, and an A for water quality compliance.
“Each day an average cruise ship is at sea it emits more sulfur dioxide than 13 million cars and more soot than one million cars.”
Princess Cruises, one of 10 brands owned by the world’s largest cruise holiday company, Carnival Corporation, was ordered to pay a $40m fine for illegally dumping thousands of gallons of oil and waste off the UK coast. It pleaded guilty to seven charges following an investigation by US federal authorities and a $20 million fine in 2019 for disposing of plastic waste in the ocean
Carnival agreed to submit 78 cruise ships across its brands to a five-year environmental compliance programme as part of a plea agreement. The oily bilge waste comes from a ship’s engines. Instead of being dumped raw into the ocean it is supposed to be offloaded when a ship is in port and either burned in an incinerator or taken to a waste facility.
New fuel standards are due to kick in in 2022 for both the United States and Canada, which hope to reduce sulfur emissions from each ship by 97 percent and cut soot emissions by 85 percent.
The Clean Shipping Coalition policies aim to protect and restore the marine and atmospheric environment consistent with the safe operation of ships, sustainable development, social and economic justice, and human health. It works to improve the environmental performance of international shipping by bringing extensive expertise to bear on relevant international regulation, and in particular the IMO.
A question is how will the new UN Marine Protected Areas – where 30% of seas are to be protected by 2030 improve the situation. Will the UN/ IMO need to make fundamental reforms?
After almost two decades of negotiations, the 193 United Nations Member States have adopted a legally binding marine biodiversity treaty for the oceans beyond national boundaries, covering two thirds of Earth’s oceans, UN Secretary-General António Guterres announced in June 2023 at a Conference on Marine Biodiversity in New York.
Individual countries have the responsibility to sustainably use and conserve waterways under their jurisdiction, and now the high seas also have protection from unsustainable fishing activities, pollution and other destructive and depleting forces.More than 37 billion pounds of plastic made its way into Earth’s ocean in 2021, which accounted for 85 percent of marine garbage. It is predicted that marine litter will double or triple annually by the year 2040 says the latest UN Sustainable Development Goals report.
The high seas treaty contains “polluter-pays” provisions, as well as provisions requiring parties to assess the potential environmental impacts of planned activities that reach beyond their jurisdictions.
On July 7 2023 the UN/IMO and 170 countries pledged to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050 but many critics like Greenpeace say the commitments are not rigorous enough and there are many loopholes.
The IMO press office says it has adopted mandatory regulations aiming to limit the discharge of waste from ships. The MARPOL treaty covers operational waste from ships, including oil, chemicals, sewage and garbage; as well as air pollution. The treaty also aims to limit accidental spillages such as oil through the design and structure of ships.
It adds, The London Convention and Protocol regulates what can be discharged at sea from ships. The IMO has adopted the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships (2009), aimed at ensuring that ships, when being recycled after reaching the end of their operational lives do not pose any unnecessary risks to human health, safety and to the environment. It is not yet in force.