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

96 Chapter 6
UNESCO also attended, as did representatives of IMCO. An observer from
the UN’s Group of Experts on Long-Term Scientific Policy and Planning
(GELTSPAP) was also present. Thor Heyerdahl, who participated as a special
adviser to the Norwegian delegation, described having encountered
“visible signs of extensive pollution” on his two transatlantic voyages. 20
After a brief speech by the British environmental secretary, Maurice
Strong addressed the IWGMP. He first underlined the common interests of
states in cooperation on marine pollution control: “We are dealing with the
problem of more than seventy percent of the surface of this planet; seventy
percent of this planet’s biosphere on which all life depends—and most of
this beyond the protection of any nation or any group of nations.” 21
Strong was at pains to stress that sufficient knowledge existed to act
against specific pollutants, and he underscored that international action
was urgently needed and, despite many unknowns, scientifically justified:
“It must be acknowledged that we lack sufficient knowledge today on
which to base all future decisions. . . . But we do know enough to begin to
take some of the important decisions that must be made. . . . The recommendations
of GESAMP are clear on this point; that the time for action is
at hand.” (Annex IV to A/CONF.48/IWGMP.I/5, p. 2) In the face of incomplete
scientific knowledge, a piecemeal approach would facilitate cooperation
in certain areas. At the second session of the IWGMP, Strong similarly
insisted that governments needed “no longer await the results of painstaking
scientific research; they already knew enough to act.” 22
Strong vehemently advocated precaution and immediate action. He cautioned
that economic assessment likely would underrepresent damages
from ocean dumping and moreover delay necessary action: “[Economic]
figures would represent only the tip of the iceberg of ultimate costs. Just as
the law must anticipate science to a certain extent [because of long-term
effects of pollutants], I think we will agree that the law cannot wait either
on a fully detailed cost-benefit balance sheet.” 23 Concluding, he repeated
the need for action by governments: “So we have now reached the point
where we need to get down to work if we are to prepare the concrete proposals
which are so urgently needed for action at Stockholm. . . . This
Group could demonstrate that we have moved from the talking stage to the
action stage. This is, I believe, what the world expects of us.” (ibid.)
From the outset, the participants agreed that many forms of action were
needed, owing to the variety of human activities on land and at sea, to pre-