Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea: Public Ideas ... - IMO
Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea: Public Ideas ... - IMO
Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea: Public Ideas ... - IMO
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
92 Chapter 6<br />
secretari<strong>at</strong>’s proposal to identify and list pollutants of ”broad intern<strong>at</strong>ional<br />
significance,” the Brazilian deleg<strong>at</strong>e to the Stockholm conference observed<br />
th<strong>at</strong> “the gre<strong>at</strong> polluters are the highly industrialized countries. Starting<br />
from radionuclides (practically 100 percent of whose production and dissemin<strong>at</strong>ion<br />
is imputable to a few highly developed countries) and going<br />
right on down the list of all the other major pollutants, the overwhelming<br />
discharge of effluents is the consequence of the developed countries’ recent<br />
technologies and of their high levels of industrial as well as primary production.<br />
. . . The contribution to this type of pollution by underdeveloped<br />
countries is, in absolute terms, extremely small and in rel<strong>at</strong>ive terms practically<br />
nil.” (de Almeida 1972, p. 48) 7 A 1971 report from the Indian<br />
N<strong>at</strong>ional Science Academy likewise did not count ocean pollution among<br />
existing global environmental problems. 8 Despite these clear indic<strong>at</strong>ions of<br />
opposition to global environmental standards and modest interest in marine<br />
pollution control, the U.S. deleg<strong>at</strong>ion was surprised, as was mentioned in<br />
chapter 4, when it learned th<strong>at</strong> developing countries preferred not to establish<br />
a global regime controlling ocean dumping.<br />
But the Stockholm secretari<strong>at</strong> was not the least surprised by the developing<br />
countries’ opposition to global environmental standards. At meetings<br />
arranged by the secretari<strong>at</strong>, represent<strong>at</strong>ives of developing countries had<br />
made it clear th<strong>at</strong> they were opposed to such standards. 9 However, Maurice<br />
Strong assured in his round-the-world lobbying to organize the conference<br />
th<strong>at</strong> land use, drastic erosion, spreading deserts, and loss of wetlands and<br />
w<strong>at</strong>ersheds—all topics most relevant to developing countries—would be<br />
on the Stockholm agenda. 10 In addition, conference organizers kept family<br />
planning—a politically sensitive issue—off the agenda in Stockholm, hoping<br />
not to alien<strong>at</strong>e developing countries. 11 As the journal Science pointed<br />
out, this was “part of the price paid for persuading underdeveloped countries<br />
to come to a conference they have no heart for” (Hawkes 1972a, p.<br />
737). A United N<strong>at</strong>ions conference on popul<strong>at</strong>ion was instead planned for<br />
1974.<br />
The Stockholm Secretari<strong>at</strong> and Ocean Dumping<br />
As has already been mentioned, the Stockholm secretari<strong>at</strong> took the initi<strong>at</strong>ive<br />
to establish the Prepar<strong>at</strong>ory Committee and l<strong>at</strong>er the IWGMP. As early<br />
as November of 1970, the secretari<strong>at</strong> singled out ocean dumping as a strong