05.04.2013 Views

Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea: Public Ideas ... - IMO

Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea: Public Ideas ... - IMO

Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea: Public Ideas ... - IMO

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!