TL: THE WAY FORWARD FOR THE NORTH-EAST ATLANTIC: FROM OSPAR TO A CLEAN SEA CONVENTION SO: Greenpeace International (GP) DT: June 1991 Keywords: agreements toxics europe greenpeace conferences gp legislation legal protection waste disposal / A Submission by Greenpeace International to the Thirteenth Joint Meeting of the Oslo and Paris Commissions Den Haag, 13-15 June 1991 In Preparation for the First Ministerial Conference of the Oslo and Paris Commissions, to be held in France in 1992 The 1992 Ministerial Meeting, A Clean Sea Conference? The Environment Ministers from the Member States of the Oslo and Paris Commissions, which have regulated marine pollution in the North-East Atlantic ocean for nearly twenty years, will be meeting in France in 1992 with a view toward improving the existing framework of marine pollution prevention in the region. Although Greenpeace has expressed officially on many occasions its desire to contribute in a constructive manner to the preparation of this Conference, the Contracting Parties and the Secretariat have apparently chosen to exclude environmental Non-Governmental Organisations from the preparatory process. With this situation, which is regrettable by all means - especially in light of the fact that in the last ten years Greenpeace has shown, with fifteen written and oral submissions to the Oslo and Paris Commissions, its ability to co-operate in a constructive manner - Greenpeace International wishes to make a submission to what will probably be the last Joint Meeting of the Oslo and Paris Commissions before the Ministerial Conference. The submission is divided into two parts: Part I A document entitled The Way Forward For The North-East Atlantic, containing twenty-two concrete proposals, which in our opinion are vital and should be endorsed by the Ministerial Conference; and Part II A document entitled The Oslo and Paris Commissions: Review of Past Performance, which is a critical review of the successes and shortfalls of the almost twenty years of history of the Oslo and Paris Commissions. The twenty-two proposals, explained in the document The Way Forward for the North-East Atlantic, cover the following issues: 1 Withdrawal of Reservations 2 The Principle of Precautionary Action 3 Clean Production Methods 4 Clean-up Measures 5 Hazardous Waste Export Ban 6 Ocean Dumping 7 Technology, Training, Data and Information Exchange 8 Development Funds 9 Monitoring and Licensing of Discharges 10 Strengthening the Industrial Sectors Approach 11 Radioactive Discharges and Wastes 12 Burden of Proof 13 Enforcement 14 Civil and State Liability 15 Access to Information 16 The Management of Marine Resource Exploitation 17 Shipping 18 Wildlife Protection 19 Decision Making 20 Institutional Framework 21 Economic Realities 22 NGO Participation The Ministerial Meeting in 1992 will be faced with a simple alternative: it can either make some superficial changes such as merging the two existing commissions in the hope that it will be perceived, or marketed, as a step forward in the Member States. Or it can truly reform the existing system which has failed to protect the North-East Atlantic ocean adequately, by setting Zero Discharges from land- and ocean-based sources as their unrenounceable target. This can, and should be achieved through the application of the Principle of Precautionary Action and Clean Production Methods, and taking all other measures - as detailed in this paper - necessary to restore a Clean Sea for our children. THE WAY FORWARD FOR THE NORTH-EAST ATLANTIC Part I of the Submission by Greenpeace International to the Thirteenth Joint Meeting of the Oslo & Paris Commissions Den Haag, 13-15 June 1991 Contents Introduction1 PROPOSALS 1 Withdrawal of Reservations3 2 The Principle of Precautionary Action3 3 Clean Production Methods4 4 Clean-up Measures7 5 Hazardous Waste Export Ban7 6 Ocean Dumping7 7 Technology, Training, Data and Information 8 Development Funds8 9 Monitoring and Licensing of Discharges9 10 Strenghening the Industrial Sectors Approach: Improvements and Additions 9 An Agriculture Industrial Sector 10 A Chlor-Alkali and Chlorine Use Industrial Sector10 11 Radioactive Discharges and Wastes11 12 Burden of Proof11 13 Enforcement12 14 Civil and State Liability13 15 Access to Information13 16 The Management of Marine Resource Exploitation13 17 Shipping14 18 Wildlife Protection14 19 Decision Making15 20 Institutional Framework15 21 Economic Realities16 22 NGO Participation16 Conclusion17 Annex A - Implementing the Precautionary Principle and Clean Production Approach Annex B - Clean Production Contact and Reference List THE WAY FORWARD FOR THE NORTH-EAST ATLANTIC Introduction 0.1 Greenpeace has analysed the course of the Oslo and Paris Conventions over the last twenty years (see Part II of the Greenpeace Submission). The review provides the basis for the proposals contained in this paper; proposals which Greenpeace views as essential if the Conventions' marine environment is to be adequately protected. During these past twenty years both public and political awareness of marine pollution issues have risen and the scientific thesis that the sea is a sink with a relatively unlimited capacity to receive humankind's wastes has been replaced by the adoption of the precautionary principle by all the states which are parties to the conventions. The time is, therefore, ripe to review the scope and thrust of the conventions in order to remove anachronisms and ensure that the legal framework of a revised convention(s) is well-fitted for the tasks of the l990s, and beyond. 0.2 An objective assessment of the performance of the Commissions, reveals that in particular, the Paris Commission, after thirteen years of operation, has not succeeded in achieving its mandate, either in terms of agreed measures, or in terms of implementation. Some successes have been achieved - certainly in the Oslo Commission and to a much lesser degree within the Paris Commission - but these are small in comparison to the task and measures needed to fulfill the environmental objectives. 0.3 One glaring example is especially evident: Notwithstanding the PARCOM mandate "...to take all possible steps to prevent pollution of the sea.. "(Article 1), and "to eliminate, if necessary by stages, pollution of the maritime area from land- based sources by substances listed in Part I of Annex A..." (Article 4), almost nothing has been done to phase out inputs from organohalogen compounds, included on the "black-list" (Annex A, Part I) of the Convention. Organohalogen compounds, comprised primarily of organochlorine compounds, are a major source of marine pollution. There is no debate on the issue of their harmful effects, as evidenced by their inclusion on many "black-lists" of international conventions. Organochlorine compounds are also a source of dioxins which the North Sea Ministers have agreed to reduce by 70% by 1995. Yet PARCOM still lacks an adequate policy, approach and strategy for even beginning to eliminate pollution from organohalogen compounds. This example is only one illustration of why the following proposals are important and, in our view, necessary for inclusion in a revised convention and work programme for the Commissions. 0.4 Greenpeace welcomes the initiative of the Commissions to prepare a new unified convention in time for adoption by Ministers at their meeting in 1992. 0.5 Although it is important that the unified convention should incorporate the principles which have already been adopted, it would be regrettable if it did nothing more. Indeed, if the unified convention simply "rearranges the furniture" then there is little to be gained from the exercise other than to provide work for the legal drafters. Zero Discharges 0.6.1 Although the following paragraphs relating to zero discharges are elaborated in the forthcoming precautionary principle and clean production proposals, the concept deserves mention at this point given its relevance to all twenty-two proposals made below. 0.6.2 The time has come for Contracting Parties to adopt - in line with present day realities and the most recent environmental policy developments - a clear policy establishing zero discharge objectives for ocean and land-based sources of marine inputs as their primary goal. Efforts and discussions should focus on the best way to achieve this objective. Clearly, a modern day revised convention should incorporate this concept within its provisions, not only as it relates to existing black- and grey-listed substances, but, at a minimum, to all substances which are toxic, persistent and liable to bioaccumulate. Indeed there is considerable justification to apply this concept to all substances and emissions which are harmful and those which are suspected to be harmful. 0.6.3 The opportunity facing the Commissions is an historic one of enormous importance; to set the framework policy and strategy for what is expected to be the most contemporary, effective regional marine protection convention to date. The opportunity exists to incorporate the most recent environmental policy, the precautionary principle implemented through clean production methods. Strong appeals for this approach have come from the international community, e.g., the UNEP Governing Council (1990), the London Dumping Convention's 1990 resolution of recommendations to the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), and the current preparatory work of the UNCED. The Bamako Convention, adopted under the auspices of the Organisation of African Unity in early 1991, is the most recent international legal instrument which fully incorporates the precautionary principle and the clean production approach. 0.7 The Commissions are urged to take this opportunity to incorporate, endorse and enforce firm new principles (commensurate with the dramatic scale of environmental degradation) in the new convention which can then be held up as an example to be followed in other parts of the world. Greenpeace would therefore like to submit the following proposals for inclusion in the new unified convention, recognising that many of the proposals are appropriate for consideration and agreement at the present meetings prior to the 1992 review. 0.8 Greenpeace takes the protection of the marine environment, and in particular, the work of OSPARCOM, very seriously. We have developed the following proposals with considerable thought, resource investment, and good will. Many of the proposals represent a synthesis of ideas and recommendations following extensive discussion with a number of constituencies, including government officials, industry, and others such as trade union representatives. The proposals are offered in a spirit of concern and co-operation, and represent recommendations based on pragmatic solutions which Greenpeace views as realistic, and necessary if the Contracting Parties are to achieve an effective marine environment protection regime. Proposals 1 Withdrawal of Reservations 1.1 As a minimal first proposal for OSPARCOM in the year preceding the 1992 Ministerial review, Contracting Parties which have outstanding reservations expressed on decisions and measures agreed by the Oslo and Paris Commissions are urged to withdraw their reservations. 2 The Principle of Precautionary Action 2.1 It is evident that the new convention must be based upon the precautionary principle. Prior to the 1980s, marine environmental policy was based almost universally on assumptions of "assimilative capacity", and this was most particularly the case with respect to coastal areas. As coastal waters have become increasingly degraded, there has been a shift in thinking toward the view that all contamination with unnatural substances which have the property of persistence in any part of the marine ecosystem should be prevented. Toxicity and bioaccumulation, whilst useful indicators of potential harm, cannot always serve as identifiers of a harmful substance. This preventative approach also encompasses natural substances in unnatural quantities. 2.2 The shift in view, to the Principle of Precautionary Action, translates into a precautionary approach of preventative action and a shift in the burden of proof. The proponent of an activity, e.g., discharge, must demonstrate no likelihood of harm since it is recognised that action must be taken before waiting for conclusive scientific cause-effect proof, which all-too-often comes after the damage has been done. More on the burden of proof issue is provided below, under proposal 12. 2.3 The Principle of Precautionary Action provides the logical next step beyond Uniform Emissions Standards (UES) and Environmental Quality Objectives (UES). It is a further development of this past approach due in part to the recognition that for many substances, e.g., organohalogens, no allowable levels of inputs are safe and zero discharge objectives are necessary. The distinction and debate over what constitutes "pollution" for such substances then, becomes irrelevant. The issue becomes one of preventing inputs. 2.4 With these points in mind, the Precautionary Principle serves as an essential component of efforts to preserve and protect marine ecosystems. It will therefore be necessary to incorporate, as a key article of a revised convention, a fundamental commitment that Contracting Parties will apply the precautionary principle, and accept its requirements as binding. 2.5 The Principle of Precautionary Action was adopted by the Paris Commission (PARCOM Recommendation 89/1) during the earlier days of this environmental policy change occurring over the past two years. However, Recommendation 89/1 is already in danger of being outdated given the pace of the subsequent development and interpretation of the Principle. PARCOM qualified the Principle as being applicable to "polluting emissions of substances that are persistent, toxic and liable to bioaccumulate...". Although the PARCOM Recommendation for implementing the Precautionary Principle represents a step in the right direction, it does not entirely endorse a true precautionary approach and is already in need of updating. Indeed, a decision to prevent and eliminate inputs of substances which possess all three characteristics, toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative, is based more on obvious common sense than on a precautionary approach. Elimination of such substances alone, without more, will not provide the final solution to protection and restoration of marine ecosystems. 2.6 Clearly, common sense dictates that a commitment and programme is needed to phase out all marine inputs of substances that are toxic, persistent and liable to bioaccumulate. THEN, the Precautionary Principle should be applied to additional substances for which there is, as the PARCOM Recommendation 89/1 states, "scientifically based presumption of a causal link between emissions and effects even if no definitive evidence of such a link has been established". 2.7 Presumably recognising this, the Paris Commission and Third North Sea Ministers Conference agreed to apply the Principle of Precautionary Action to nutrient inputs as well. It would therefore, appear that this broader application is the approach that a revised convention would contain. 2.8 A revised convention should also remove any doubt and expressly recognise that for a host of substances such as those listed in Annex A, no "allowable level" of discharge or input is safe. For such substances, and corresponding products, there needs to be an express provision for zero discharges, as well as a commitment to phasing them out as quickly as possible. This shift from assimilative capacity assumptions to precautionary preventative measures is a prerequisite for any modern, credible environmental protection regime taking account of the environmental, social, scientific, technical, and political realities of the times. 2.9 To transfer the policy into practice, clearly the Commission must move forward without the type of debate which took place in 1990 regarding Cadmium. Such targetted substances should be subject to a mandatory full phase-out programme. A possible exception (longer time frame) could be considered ONLY where a use is demonstrated as "necessary", i.e., there is no current alternative. Stringent justification procedures should be imposed for this situation, coupled with a commitment to allocate research and development efforts to accomplishing the full phase-out. 2.10 PARCOM recommends that the Principle be implemented through "the use of the best available technology and other appropriate measures." The concept of Best Available Technology (BAT), defined in PARCOM Recommendation 89/2 (June 1989) has, since the time of its adoption, undergone further development and currently incorporates clean production methods, including clean technologies. Clean production methods have rapidly become the most progressive, and promising refinement of the BAT approach (as discussed below), primarily through the recognition that few end-of-pipe and disposal methods are without their own set of environmental risks and problems. Hence, the historical focus on disposal options and end-of-pipe measures is being replaced with a priority focus on clean production substitution to eliminate the generation of the wastes and products. 3 Clean Production Methods 3.1 The only certain way of applying the Principle of Precautionary Action and minimising the risk to waters and marine life is by placing emphasis on the application of clean production methods and technologies. Clean Production can be viewed as an improved, further development of the BAT concept. Its primary advantage is that it ensures that pollution is eliminated and not transferred to another pathway or environmental medium, a requirement of Article 7 of the Paris Convention. By analysing the entire production life cycle, including the ultimate fate of the product itself, clean production substitution is not restricted to technological fixes, but is broader. Through substitution with clean production methods, hazardous wastes and products entering the marine environment can be fully eliminated rather than creating a disposal problem. 3.2 The importance of tackling environmental problems via this approach (low- and non-waste technologies) has already been endorsed in general terms by the Commissions at their joint meeting in 1987 (OSPAR 9/11/1, par. 5.1). The Commissions now need to further update and elaborate this concept, and implement it via action programmes with concrete phase-out targets tied to time-lines. To assist in this task, the following paragraphs illustrate what has been taking place in other fora. 3.2.1The UNEP Governing Council in August 1990, appealed, through Decision UNEP GC/SS.II/4B, to governments and appropriate international fora to consider: "alternative clean production methods - including raw material selection, product substitution, and clean production technologies and processes - as a means of implementing a precautionary approach in order to promote production systems which minimise or eliminate the generation of hazardous wastes....". 3.2.2 Since that decision, the London Dumping Convention, in a resolution adopted by consensus in November 1990, recommended to the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), among other things, the precautionary principle and clean production approach. The UNCED Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) has already included the approach in its documentation. 3.2.3 The most recent reflection of the approach in an international legally binding instrument is the Bamako Convention adopted in January 1991 in Bamako, Mali under the auspices of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). The Bamako Convention contains a definition of the precautionary principle and clean production which Greenpeace has included in the proposed action programme for implementing the Principle of Precautionary Action (see Annex A). 3.2.4Other fora have begun to pursue the concept of phasing out selected substances pursuant to this approach. The OECD has initiated a "sunset proposal" plan and the Swedish government has begun similar plans regarding selected chlorinated solvents. The UN Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) recommendations for the UNCED process, contained in the Bergen Ministerial Declaration on Sustainable Development in the ECE Region, May 1990, also contain provisions in section IV, Sustainable Industrial Activities, which call for phasing out uses of substances that are toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative which cannot be adequately controlled. As one last example, the North Sea Conference Hague Declaration commitments to reduce by 70% inputs of dioxins, mercury, lead, and cadmium (and by 50% a host of other substances) from all sources by 1995, can only be successfully achieved through the mandatory implementation of clean production along the lines of the action programme proposed in Annex A. 3.2.5Such an approach is currently being pursued in various other areas. One example is the work carried out by the Industry and Environment Programme of UNEP. .1 In May 1989, UNEP convened in Paris a meeting of experts to advise the Director of the Industry and Environment Program of UNEP on how best to proceed with the development of the new "Global Information Network on Low- and Non-Waste Technology". .2 The experts present at that meeting agreed that all the terms presently in use designed to provide guidance to industry on measures which should be taken to meet pollution reduction objectives are too limited, and fail to promote the type of comprehensive approach that is needed. Therefore, they argued that a new approach was required to encompass the broader diversity of conceptual, behavioural, procedural and other policy and technical facets pertaining to the entire life cycle of products and production, including: = the product design phase; = the raw material selection and production phase; = the product manufacture and assemblage phase; = the consumer use of the product phase; = the societal management of the materials at the end of the useful life of the product. .3 The UN group of experts coined a new phrase to encompass this broader approach to pollution prevention, and agreed to the following definition: Clean production is the conceptual and procedural approach to production that demands that all phases of the life cycle of a product or process should be addressed with the objective of prevention or the minimisation of short and long term risks to humans and to the environment. A total societal commitment is required for effecting this comprehensive approach to achieving the goal of sustainable societies. 3.3 The pace of the environmental policy change favouring the Principle of Precautionary Action, implemented through clean production is fast indeed. This has become the preferred approach of major international environmental fora within the past year. The primary reason is due to a recognition of the need to prevent hazardous emissions rather than attempt to dispose of them, and due to the availability of clean production methods. A multitude of clean production experts, pilot projects, and case studies has developed over the past few years. The primary hurdle at present is the lack of industrial and political will to implement clean production methods, not a lack of physical or technical capability. 3.4 Based on the above developments, Greenpeace has developed an action programme for implementing the Principle of Precautionary Action through clean production methods. The action programme is attached as Annex A. It was drafted after discussions with a number of experts from government, intergovernmental organisations, industry, and others such as trade union representatives. The Oslo and Paris Convention Member States are urged to incorporate the action programme in the revised convention as a realistic and necessary component of an effective marine environment protection regime. 3.5 In OSPARCOM, what is needed is a radical rethink among policy makers and politicians in order to achieve a shift of opinion away from the notion that waste creation is acceptable provided it is properly managed. The objective should be to aim for zero discharges and closed systems for all substances (persistent organics and heavy metals) by the year 2000. The target date should be enshrined in the new convention text. The Ministerial meeting in 1992 should produce a systematic plan, including industry target dates, for the management of the change to clean production methods as the central means of marine environmental protection during the 1990s. 3.6 It is important that the terms of reference of both the Industrial Sectors Working Group and the Working Group on Diffuse Sources should be expanded to include a remit to consider clean production methods with a view to achieving the zero discharge target by the year 2000, particularly as applied to production processes which result in the generation of black- and grey-listed substances. 4. Clean-Up Measures 4.1 A programme consisting of clean-up measures should be incorporated within the new convention. Past and present industrial plant locations, and industrial waste dump sites should be targeted for such measures. 4.2 Additionally, such a programme, based on the Polluter Pays Principle, would provide an indirect enforcement mechanism by creating incentives and pressure to pursue clean production. The United States Super Fund programme, which was established as part of the Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) to address serious problems of hazardous wastes, is one option which could be considered. A clean-up programme for selected sites would help the shift to production systems which do not operate at the expense of the environment and human health. 4.3 Such a programme should not be restricted to land-based sites, but include ocean dumping and coastal area clean-up plans as well. It would send a powerful message that a page has turned and that governments are willing to restore the integrity of the environment in the region. 5 Hazardous Waste Export Ban 5.1 There is currently a growing recognition that we cannot continue seeking alternative disposal methods, when the only true solution lies in the reduction of hazardous wastes at source. There is a new political demand to stop shipping tons of wastes to other countries, especially developing countries. Developing countries, alarmed by such exports, are producing national legislation as well as international law to ban the import of such wastes into their countries. The Bamako Convention (January 1991) for example, adopted under the Organisation of African Unity (51 States), bans the import of all hazardous wastes (for any reason) into Africa. 5.2 Consistent with this recognition, and with the many declarations from OSPARCOM members for self-sufficiency in waste management, including the EEC, OSPARCOM Member States are urged to include an article in the new convention which bans the export of hazardous wastes. As a minimum, a ban to non-OECD countries should be a legally binding article of a revised convention. Such a regional ban would be fully consistent with the spirit and text (Article 11) of the Basel Convention on Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. This would in particular, ensure that pollution prevention measures taken in the region do not result in the export of pollution to other areas, as required by Article 7 of the Paris Convention. It would also go far in reducing the incentives to continue to generate hazardous waste rather than to pursue its elimination through clean production. 6 Ocean Dumping 6.1 In light of the improved state of knowledge regarding threats and damage to the marine environment and regarding environmental protection, as well as the multitude of demands from the public, the international community (including the London Dumping Convention) and individual governments to cease using the oceans as a dumping ground, the revised convention should meet its responsibility in this regard. 6.2 Consistent with the Principle of Precautionary Action, a new convention should expressly prohibit the dumping at sea of industrial wastes, including products at the end of their useful life; sewage sludge; radioactive wastes; ocean incineration; and the dumping via tunnels or the sea of wastes into the seabed and sub-seabed. The most recent international convention addressing this issue, the Bamako Convention, contains legally binding provisions to achieve all of these objectives. The discharge of drilling muds and cuttings from offshore platforms should also be considered industrial waste dumping and banned. 6.3 Greenpeace International believes that it is time that all radioactive wastes, including low- and intermediate-level wastes, be included in the list of wastes that cannot be disposed of at sea. Without prejudice to the ongoing work of the London Dumping Convention's Intergovernmental Panel of Experts on Radioactive Wastes (IGPRAD) on the scientific, technical, legal, social, economic and political aspects of radioactive waste dumping at sea, such a decision would be timely. The London Dumping Convention Parties need to adopt such an approach, and OSPARCOM could lead, rather than follow, in its actions on this important issue. 6.4 Surely, a failure to ban radioactive waste dumping at sea, undoubtedly a matter of the highest concern to public opinion world-wide, and especially a resumption of this practice, would reflect negatively on the Contracting Parties' public record. 7 Technology, Training, Data and Information Exchange 7.1 The opportunity to employ clean production methods provides one excellent example of a rapidly changing situation requiring exchange of information, technology and training. However, in order to meet the technical requirements of clean production, it is essential that far better mechanisms be in place to provide for the exchange of technology, as well as training, data and information. A special centre or office should be established, probably within an existing organisation or institution, to address these concerns as a priority. 8 Development Funds 8.1 As a corollary to exchange of technology, training, data and information noted above, a key component of an effective regional regime is the inclusion of development assistance for environmentally benign production. 8.2 Various methods may be adopted, from voluntary contributions to the establish- ment of a clean production development bank or a clean production division of an existing bank. Since regional environmental regulatory frameworks are expected to benefit the regional environment, and therefore, the quality of life for all in the region, annual dues or an international environmental tax system could be considered, and administered through the Secretariat. Pursuant to the Polluter Pays Principle, a tax system on industry could be established whereby over time, the tax incidence based on an audit of the emissions, wastes, and type of product would progressively increase. This would provide the incentive for industries to transform production processes to clean production and simultaneously, provide funding for the necessary changes, in particular to countries in need of assistance. 9 Monitoring and Licensing of Discharges 9.1 The new convention should contain a requirement that Contracting Parties license all industrial discharges by 1 January 1994. The definition of all industrial discharges should include discharges directly to rivers, estuaries or the coast, discharges into public sewage systems, atmospheric emissions from industrial plants and also waste arising from industrial processes. 9.2 The convention should also contain an obligation on Contracting Parties to monitor the discharges to ensure that they comply with license conditions. For selected substances, e.g., the black- and grey-listed substances, the licensing permit should not be issued without an accompanying plan to phase out the discharges through clean production methods pursuant to a defined time-line, and adherence thereto. 9.3 The new convention should also contain a requirement that industrial enterprises shall submit their production processes to regular environmental auditing procedures, including applicable clean production methods, to be carried out by external auditors, either government appointed or professionally accredited. Without an audit to identify qualitatively and quantitatively toxic and other substance uses, and corresponding clean production methods, the Commissions will not be able to achieve the objectives of pollution prevention. Such an audit is also an indispensable requirement in conjunction with other measures taken by PARCOM to implement the 50% and 70% reduction commitments agreed by the North Sea Ministers in their Hague Declaration. 10 Strengthening the Industrial Sectors Approach: Improvements and Additions 10.1 PARCOM has initiated a welcome approach to administering measures and programmes to protect the marine environment; the industrial sectors approach. However, substantive improvement is necessary for success. Additional sectors should be added and the work within each sector should focus, as a priority, on clean production methods to eliminate the generation of hazardous substances, wastes and products rather than attempt to list and define end-of-pipe technologies and disposal options. 10.2 Given the number of clean production experts, projects, cases and literature currently available, a substantial opportunity would be lost if this approach was ignored. Experts on clean production applicable to the industrial sector in question should be sought for the composition of the working groups. Greenpeace has compiled a list of such experts and contact persons, as well as sources of information on clean production which could assist in advancing these efforts more rapidly. The list is attached as Annex B for the convenience of OSPARCOM delegates. 10.3 In particular, taking the Pulp and Paper Industrial Sector as an example, PARCOM has recently adopted a relatively strict discharge limit for organochlorine compounds discharged by plants still using chlorine bleaching methods. While this step is an improvement, it is simply not enough. In Sweden, where a mill has established even lower limits than PARCOM, the marine ecosystem is still being damaged by chlorine bleaching of pulp and paper. 10.4 This example illustrates that for certain substances, in particular organochlorine compounds, no discharge limit is acceptable. The focus on attempting to reach agreement on a particular limit for these discharges, given the voluminous documentation regarding the damaging effects of organochlorine compounds, is not the way forward. Clean technology is available and being practised for the production of paper without the use of chlorine bleaching. This is the only solution which the Pulp and Paper Industrial Sector should pursue. 10.5 An Agriculture Industrial Sector 10.5.1 Although agriculture is addressed within the newly formed Diffuse Sources Working Group and the Nutrients Working Group, its current significant negative impact on the marine environment due to reliance on chemical compounds (biocides and nutrients) is well documented and warrants special attention; the establishment of an agriculture industrial sector. 10.5.2 Within a clean production context, ecological agricultural practices should be promoted with a clear commitment to phase out chemical-based agriculture. Priority should be given to implementing the Principle of Precautionary Action in the agriculture context by shifting from chemical dependent agriculture to ecologically based agricultural systems. Such systems should emphasise the use of non-chemical pest control and soil fertility methods together with environmentally sound animal husbandry. 10.5.3 The adoption of Precautionary Action in agriculture is essential if the toxic burden placed on marine ecosystems by conventional farming is to be eliminated. A shift to ecological farming methods is the only means to resolve the problems of air, soil and water contamination and the resulting public health burden on farm workers, consumers and the community at large. 10.6 A Chlor-Alkali and Chlorine Use Industrial Sector 10.6.1Due to the diverse and serious problems associated with the use of chlorine and chlorinated compounds, it is surprising that the chlorine industry at large is not addressed within its own Industrial Sector. Although the chlor-alkali industry is already under PARCOM review for selected purposes, e.g., atmospheric emissions and mercury use, the more rational, appropriate and responsible approach would be to look at the chlor-alkali industry from a holistic view - by including the end uses for the resulting chlorine by-product - within an industrial sector. Such an industrial sector would address, for example, pulp and paper bleaching, PVC, CFC and chlorinated solvent manufacture, water treatment and titanium dioxide production. These are the most common uses of chlorine in the North-east Atlantic. 10.6.2 PVC, for example, creates environmental problems throughout its entire life cycle and can be readily substituted with alternative products. Another major use of chlorine, chlorinated solvents production, is already under review for phase out in Sweden and by the OECD because of their documented effects on the ozone layer and water quality. Chlorinated solvents can also be easily substituted. 10.6.3 Given the enormous environmental problems associated with chlorinated organic compounds, and their pervasive sources of inputs into the marine environment, it is incumbent upon PARCOM to make this industrial sector a priority. Such an industrial sector approach is necessary in order to meet the existing obligations to eliminate pollution from Annex A, Part I black-listed substances, specifically organochlorine compounds (which comprise the vast majority of organohalogen compounds). 10.6.4Such an industrial sector, coupled with the clean production approach, is necessary in order to eliminate organochlorine compounds which yield dioxins if PARCOM is to actively pursue the North Sea Ministers 1990 commitment to reduce dioxins by 70% by 1995. It is also necessary if the Commission is going to implement its Decision to phase out mercury cell chlor-alkali plants (Decision 90/3) 11 Radioactive Discharges And Wastes 11.1 As expressed above, under section 6, the new convention must explicitly rule out and ban the dumping at sea of high-, intermediate- and low-level radioactive wastes. The controversy within the London Dumping Convention and other fora over the dumping of radioactive wastes at sea, has been one of the most far reaching debates on waste management. A decade after the dumping of radioactive waste at sea was halted by the adoption of the LDC moratorium, it is clear that there is no technical need to keep this option open. 11.2 Likewise, the disposal of high-, intermediate- and low-level radioactive wastes into, under, and next to the seabed should be expressly banned in the area covered by the Convention. Such disposal methods permit a circumvention of the moratorium on radioactive waste dumping at sea, and constitute a serious threat to the marine environment. In addition, leaching/leakage into the marine environment is often considered an integral part of the "safety plan" (as with NIREX/UK). 11.3 In addition, all Contracting Parties should strictly abide by the existing PARCOM decisions on land-based sources of pollution arising from all nuclear industries, including reprocessing plants, especially decisions concerning the use of the Best Available Technology and the decision not to construct new reprocessing plants or to substantially increase the existing reprocessing capacity. The expansion of activities, e.g., THORP, and the import of research reactor fuel to Dounreay are clear examples of activities with harmful effects to other States outside of national borders wherein the facilities are located. Such activities are in contravention of the regulations and should be addressed in order to ensure that they immediately cease. 11.4 It is Greenpeace's firm belief that discharges (marine and atmospheric) from nuclear reprocessing plants are not in line with the Principle of Precautionary Action, and that the Ministerial Conference should adopt a strict calendar to insure their elimination pursuant to a programme to phase out all nuclear reprocessing plants affecting the region. 11.5 Finally, in relation to the USSR's pending application to become a Contracting Party, Greenpeace wishes to draw the Contracting Parties' attention to the recent re-opening of the Soviet underground nuclear weapons test site on the island of Novaya Zemlya. In light of the potentially very severe environmental impact resulting from nuclear testing for the region covered by the Oslo and Paris Commission, Greenpeace would recommend that the Contracting Parties adopt a resolution urging the USSR to refrain from testing nuclear weapons in the vicinity of the Convention's area. 12 Burden of Proof 12.1 Although this issue has been mentioned under proposal 2, The Principle of Precautionary Action, the importance of the concept warrants further elaboration. The Precautionary Principle has contributed to the continuing evolution of Contracting Parties' concerns related to "who proves what". Traditionally, those who engage in (or propose) an activity which risks harm to the environment take the position that others who question the activity must prove that it is harmful. As a general principle, such an approach is inadequate, because all too often it is only the proponent of the activity who is in a position to perform the necessary studies and assessments. Moreover, it is especially inappropriate when the activity at issue involves toxic and persistent substances. 12.2 The contemporary approach, especially in light of the Principle of Precautionary Action and currently available clean production methods, is to shift the burden on to the proponent of the activity to demonstrate that it is not likely to harm the environment or human health. The analogy to food and drug regulation is appropriate. The revised convention should ensure that this concept is enshrined within the new framework, either as a component of the precautionary principle or on its own. 12.3 A practical way to effectively shift the burden of proof is by allowing, under the new convention, the disposal of harmless substances rather than banning harmful ones. This approach is currently the one taken by OSCOM in relation to the industrial waste dumping ban. Instead of dumping being an acceptable activity as it once had been, provided certain rules were followed, the burden of proof switched to the prospective dumper to demonstrate = the necessity of dumping at sea, i.e., that no alternatives exist, and = that such dumping would have no harmful or adverse effects. This approach should be adopted for land-based discharges and other waste generation within the revised convention. 13 Enforcement 13.1 Simply stated, the Convention can never achieve its aims if Contracting Parties fail to ensure that decisions and activities are made in accordance with the requirements of the articles, annexes, regulations and other decisions of the Commission. 13.2 It is widely recognised that significantly stronger and more effective enforcement mechanisms are needed to ensure that parties adhere to the letter and intent of the Convention. As the Convention Revision Group examines the issue, discussions should include consideration of a variety of effective enforcement mechanisms, including, but not limited to, intervention, inspection, response, dispute settlement, the imposition of sanctions, and liability and compensation. 13.3 Another option is the creation of an OSPAR legal unit with the delegated authority to verify compliance by Member States, where there is reasonable cause for believing that violations have occurred, or are occurring. Their findings could then be brought to the attention of the Member States. If it was determined that a violation had in fact occurred, various sanctions could be applied if the wrongful party did not bring its violations into compliance within a particular time period after the determination that a violation had occurred. 13.4 A potentially valuable tool for enforcement assistance at no resource expense to the Commissions would be the practice of granting governments, as well as NGOs and other public interest groups, authority to bring law suits on behalf of the environment, against both private individuals and public agencies which are in violation of OSPARCOM Decisions. Such law suits could be filed in the national courts of any Member State. 14 Civil and State Liability 14.1 In the interest of judicial fairness and justice, as well as in the interests of providing incentives to reduce hazardous waste generation at source, absolute, unlimited, joint and several liability should be imposed on all generators of hazardous substances and wastes, for damage caused to humans and the environment. In addition, harm to the environment per se should be legally recognised and actionable. 14.2 The dumping or discharge of dangerous wastes into the marine environment entails the principle of state liability, in addition to applicable civil liability. Assigning state liability to the consequences of potentially harmful activities is consistent with the overriding concern for controlling a dangerous activity. This concern must logically focus upon the activity itself, rather than upon the identities of the various actors involved in the activity. As a result, direct state liability is the most effective way to achieve the necessary control, in contrast to subsequent or indirect liability behind a private actor. 15 Access to Information 15.1 The exchange of information between Parties should be expanded to encompass mandatory consultations with neighbouring States, and involve them in national planning, environmental inquiries and impact assessments relating to activities which may effect the common marine environment. Such participation should include a substantive voice in the decision making process. 15.2 The new convention should contain an obligation on Contracting Parties to allow environmental information to be open to inspection by other Contracting parties, as well as third parties, including the general public. This information should include license conditions, the results of environmental audits and inspections by the regulatory authorities, environmental impact assessments, and the results of any monitoring (including marine monitoring) carried out by government authorities or other agencies. 15.3 Contracting Parties should include in the new convention an article requiring that industry complete audits and that the appropriate government agencies, workers, and the public have access to the information, in particular information on discharges and wastes generated, processes applied, and toxic substances used. 15.4 A convention for the 1990s and beyond should fully acknowledge that, in balancing the health interests of humans and the environment on one hand, with the proprietary interests of industry to keep information secret on the other, the prudent responsible conclusion is to release such information. Environment and human health accountability must be a condition to production. Furthermore, the interests in keeping secret information regarding the generation of hazardous emissions, discharges or wastes becomes meaningless when such emissions or wastes are targeted for elimination. New plants should not be able to use such a process if the regulatory framework is properly devised. 16 The Management of Marine Resource Exploitation 16.1 Pollution is not the only result of man's activities which affects the health of the seas. Activities such as dredging, sand and gravel extraction, oil and gas exploitation, fishing all have impacts on the marine environment. 16.2 Offshore oil and gas development by its very nature pollutes the land, water and air. Major oil spills from rig blowouts and tanker accidents cause significant damage during a very short period of time. If chemical dispersants are used, additional toxic contaminants are introduced to the environment. The heavy toll on wildlife as a result of such accidents is well known to the press and public, but routine operations are also harmful. Toxic drilling muds and cuttings contain a wide range of chemicals and heavy metals, and can become concentrated in the tissues of marine organisms and smother bottom dwelling life. Air pollution from offshore activities is also harmful; the daily air emissions from one exploratory well are equal to that of 7,000 cars driving 80 km. Finally, the burning of fossil fuels is unsustainable, and at present rates of consumption is likely to cause disastrous climate disruption. Offshore drilling is an example of an unsustainable activity regardless of the production method used. The ultimate solution is to work actively for substitution with renewable energy forms, efficiency and conservation. 16.3 Another important offshore activity within this category is fishing and related activities, which may harm the marine environment in a variety of ways. These include, but are not limited to, the physical impacts of fishing gear on the seabed, the use of antifoulants such as TBT to protect fishing equipment, mariculture's biological and chemical impacts on marine ecosystems, and the death of non-target species caused by the use of indiscriminate fisheries techniques. 16.4 Another offshore activity is seabed mining. To date, seabed mining has occurred principally in nearshore waters (e.g., extraction of gravel and phosphates), though deeper ocean mining has been a long-standing subject of interest and evolving international regulatory requirements (principally under the Law of the Sea Convention's Preparatory Commission). Seabed mining results in adverse environmental impacts at or near the seafloor, in the water column, at the surface, and as a result of processing at sea or on land. While opinions vary as to scope or severity of impacts over the longer-term, or beyond immediate mine-site areas, there is general agreement that such impacts can be significant, even in the short-term and in the vicinity of mining sites. 16.5 The new convention should state explicitly that these activities should be under appropriate international, as well as national control and that the Commission will consider what further measures are appropriate. 17 Shipping 17.1 Shipping is responsible for significant inputs of oil, sewage, and garbage including persistent plastic litter. The area covered by the convention includes the most heavily trafficked seas in the world. It is therefore appropriate that the new convention should include provisions along similar lines to the Helsinki Convention, to control discharges from ships. The Contracting Parties could, among other things, work actively toward the rapid adoption of measures required within an area designated as a specially protected area pursuant to the 1973 Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, including the Protocol thereto adopted in 1978 (MARPOL 73/78). 18 Wildlife Protection 18.1 The new convention should be based on an eco-centred approach. The traditional approach has been far too human-centred without sufficient regard for other species and the wider ecosystem. In other words, it should state that one of its objectives is the protection of marine wildlife. 18.2 The convention should contain a commitment that Contracting Parties will work actively to improve marine habitat protection, as a means to preserve the biodiversity and integrity of the marine environment. The new convention should state explicitly that activities which degrade the habitat of marine wildlife, including but not limited to seabirds, marine mammals, and fish species, should be under appropriate international, as well as national control and that the Commission will consider what further measures are appropriate. 19 Decision Making 19.1 The Commission should continue to strive for decisions which actually have an impact rather than searching for a consensus on the basis of the lowest common denominator. But, in order to strengthen the Commission's decision making powers, it is suggested that a decision taken by the Commission on a 3/4 majority vote should be binding on all Contracting Parties and not only those voting in favour of it. In the context of environmental pollution, with no respect for borders, such a voting procedure is warranted, especially if Contracting Parties are sincere in their objectives to protect the commons and insure that their activities do not pollute their neighbours. 19.2 In addition, the new convention should reconsider the voting powers of the EEC. The Community is a valuable member of the Paris Commission and should not be excluded from the new convention. However, its record on the negotiations within the Paris Commission leading to legal instruments clearly shows inconsistencies vis-a-vis Member States, as well as obstruction. A clarification of the role of the EEC in relation to PARCOM decisions is necessary in light of the ambiguity in Article 19 of the Paris Convention and the resulting inconsistencies, e.g., the EEC and Member States exercising concurrent authority. 19.3 This situation could be resolved by restricting the voting rights to the States Parties to the new convention. Alternatively, the EEC should only be allowed to vote on, or affect the outcome of a particular measure if requested, and authorised, to do so by Member State(s), on behalf of those State(s). 20 Institutional Framework 20.1 The success of the North Sea Conferences in the 1980s demonstrated beyond doubt that Government Ministers have the political power and profile to take more progressive decisions. However, as the conferences themselves acknowledged, the institutional framework of an established organisation is necessary in order to give the political commitments a legal basis under international law. It is also necessary in order for officials to work out implementation mechanisms and to ensure that the political directives are being achieved. 20.2 The running of two parallel organisations however, results in much duplication of effort and waste of resources. It places a heavy burden on the limited national administrations of all North Sea States, as well as on the Secretariat. 20.3 The way forward would seem to lie in arranging periodic meetings of the new convention at Ministerial level in order to maintain the necessary political drive. Ministerial level meetings at intervals of three years would seem to be appropriate. If necessary, Ministerial conferences at regional level, e.g., the North Sea Conferences, could continue to be held if this was considered to be useful. The Ministerial meetings should continue to be hosted by a country whose commitment to the preparation of the ministerial meeting should run to more than the provision of meeting facilities and should also include an undertaking to be actively involved in policy formulation. The host country could, for example, take an aggressive lead in drafting the ministerial declaration and circulating it for comments. 20.4 Finally, it is essential that Contracting Parties ensure that adequate financial and personnel resources are given to the Secretariat in order to ensure its efficiency. 21 Economic Realities 21.1 Unfortunately, economic costs are often given as an excuse not to take a particular course of action. This is typically based upon outdated notions of economic decision making which traditionally exclude the social costs associated with environmental and human health deterioration. 21.2 Industry is used to, and has come to expect, receiving an economic windfall through the traditionally held, free goods concept as applied to the use of environmental media, e.g., as a waste sink (which results in the degradation of the commons with costs to all). 21.3 However, this situation is rapidly beginning to change. These previously excluded social costs should be taken into account and reflected in arriving at and adopting far-reaching measures. One very useful way to capture the economic costs associated with pollution is to impose a tax (which increases over time to ensure it is not merely a license to pollute) on production processes which generate targeted substances. The proceeds from the tax could then be channelled to the pro-active side of promoting clean production methods, funding a regional clean production centre, and direct subsidies for the conversion to environmentally benign production processes. A mechanism for incorporating such economic instruments, both incentives and disincentives, should be provided for in a revised marine protection regime. 22 NGO Participation 22.1 The absence until 1991 of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) at the meetings of the Oslo and Paris Commissions has been an awkward anachronism, which reflects how the Commissions are out of touch with today's quickly evolving political realities. It is of utmost importance that the new convention be as open as possible to NGOs. 22.2 Environmental NGOs have played a significant role in recent years, which has been acknowledged by most governments. Indeed most recently, most of the OSPARCOM Member States have strongly advocated NGO participation during the UNCED process. In contrast, the resistance of the Oslo and Paris Commissions to admit NGO observers has led people to wonder about the true willingness of Contracting Parties to move forward and take the necessary steps to clean up the North-East Atlantic. 22.3 We note that some progress was finally achieved in 1990 when the Joint Meeting agreed in Reykjavik to give access to four NGOs to the Annual Meetings of the Oslo and Paris Commissions, and Greenpeace International has also expressed repeatedly its gratitude for the opportunity offered to us to make written and oral submissions to the meetings of the Commissions. However, the limitations imposed on NGOs, especially the fact that they cannot attend the Working Group meetings and the Joint Meeting, are not satisfactory. 22.4 Likewise, we note with scepticism the fact that no provision has been established to allow NGOs to have any sort of input in the preparatory work leading up to the Ministerial Meeting, as well as in the Ministerial Meeting itself. Surely, unless this situation is remedied immediately, questions will be asked, when the Ministers meet, about the dichotomy between the stated policy toward NGOs of most Contracting Parties, and the deliberate exclusion of NGOs in this important process. Conclusion 23.1 The state of the oceans, as well as the state of environmental policy, and the dimension of the political demand for a clean environment are no longer the same, nearly two decades after the foundation of the Oslo and Paris Conventions. A failure to adapt to this new evolving reality could well be perceived as a failure of the Contracting Parties to achieve their mandate to prevent the pollution of the marine ecosystem. 23.2 In line with our tradition of constructive co-operation and sincere efforts in the protection of the marine ecosystem, Greenpeace International has identified the above, non-exhaustive list of issues as important items for adoption by the Commissions and for inclusion as part of the revised marine environment protection regime. 23.3 As NGOs have so far regrettably been excluded from the preparatory process leading up to the Ministerial Conference, we have chosen to submit this document to the Joint-Meeting of the Oslo and Paris Commissions. We hope that ample opportunity can be given for us to discuss our recommendations, as well as the Contracting Parties' own plans for what is still known as the "OSPAR" region. ANNEX A Implementing the Precautionary Principle and Clean Production Approach: An Action Programme OSPARCOM and national governments are urged to adopt and implement: The Principle of Precautionary Action through the mandatory application of clean production methods (following the clean production definition guidelines attached) in order to achieve the goal of phasing out toxic and harmful emissions, wastes and products entering the marine ecosystem; and A strategy based on the following measures: INew Production Processes, plants, chemicals or products = All new production processes, plants, chemicals, or products should be subject to a licensing requirement founded on clean production prerequisites. Before an operating permit is issued, the owner/operators of the proposed activity must demonstrate that they will employ clean production methods following the attached guidelines. No permit should be granted if targeted emissions or discharges would enter the marine environment during the production, use or final fate of the product. II Existing Production Processes = 1 Regional and national clean production centres should be established for the exchange of information, expertise, and assistance for the application of clean production methods. = 2 Mandatory clean production (i.e., waste prevention) audits should be carried out whereby all stages of production processes are subjected to objective analysis of available clean production methods. The audit should cover the qualitative and quantitative identification of toxic and harmful inputs, emissions, wastes, and products, coupled with the applicable clean production substitutes. It should be applied to all plants within all industrial sectors, and its contents should be subject to access by workers and the community. = 3 Concrete phase-out programmes should be adopted, whereby targeted inputs, wastes and products are phased-out while clean production methods are phased-in; = As a priority starting point, a plan and timescale for the expeditious phase out of all inputs of black- and grey-listed substances should be agreed within the revised Convention; = Renewals for discharge and emission permits should only be granted when the application to release pollutants into the environment is accompanied by a detailed phase-out plan tied to a specific time-line, and adherence thereto. = 4 Research and development for additional clean production methods which are not currently available should be identified and resources should be committed appropriately. = 5 National environmental protection agency structures should be revised to reflect the priority given to clean production and to enable effective co-ordination with the regional clean production network created. III Clean Production Definition Guidelines (selected provisions taken from the Bamako Convention) = Definitions: "Clean production methods" means production or industrial systems which avoid, or eliminate the generation of hazardous wastes and hazardous products in conformity with Article 4 section 3 (f) and (g) of this Convention; = "The Adoption of Precautionary Measures: = (f) Each Party shall strive to adopt and implement the preventive, precautionary approach to pollution problems which entails, inter-alia, preventing the release into the environment of substances which may cause harm to humans or the environment without waiting for scientific proof regarding such harm. The Parties shall co-operate with each other in taking the appropriate measures to implement the precautionary principle to pollution prevention through the application of clean production methods, rather than the pursuit of a permissible emissions approach based on assimilative capacity assumptions; = (g) In this respect Parties shall promote clean production methods applicable to entire product life cycles including: raw material selection, extraction and processing; product conceptualisation, design, manufacture and assemblage; materials transport during all phases; industrial and household usage; reintroduction of the product into industrial systems or nature when it no longer serves a useful function; (Within the context of hazardous wastes), Clean production shall not include "end-of-pipe" pollution controls such as filters and scrubbers, or chemical, physical or biological treatment. Measures which reduce the volume of waste by incineration or concentration, mask the hazard by dilution, or transfer pollutants from one environmental medium to another, are also excluded;" (Article 4, par. 3, f) and g)) ANNEX B Clean Production Contact and Reference List ANon-Governmental Organisations/Policy Research Centers The following organisations: conduct research on the development and implementation of clean technology policies and programs act as technical and management consultants to industry publish: case studies on process and product substitutions guides to conducting company waste audits and source reduction programs conduct research on environmental and human health implications of toxic use and avoidance network with other clean technology centers Erasmus Center for Environmental Studies PO Box 1738 Burgemeester Oudlaan 50 3000 DR Rotterdam The Netherlands tel: 3l 10 4081886/4082050 contact: Leo Baas, Hans Dieleman Greenpeace Keizersgracht 176 1016 DW Amsterdam The Netherlands tel: 31 20 523 6555 fax: 31 20 523 6500 contact: Beverley Thorpe, Lisa Bunin International Association for Clean Technology (IACT) Head Office Fasangasse 30 A-1030 Vienna Austria tel: 43 1 78 39 57 fax: 43 1 78 35 99 12 contact: Othmar Hill NP = INFORM 381 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 United States tel: 1 212 689 4040 fax: 1 212 779 2382 contact: Joanne Underwood, Mark Dorfman Via Dante 12 20121 Milano Italy tel: 39 2 801071 fax: 39 2 8900477 telex: 340245 loriso i contact: Luciano Vescovi Netherlands Office of Technology Assessment (NOTA) Koninginnegracht 56 PO Box 85525 2508 CE Den Haag The Netherlands tel: 31 70 42 15 42 fax: 31 70 63 34 88 contact: Sybren de Hoo North Carolina Pollution Prevention Program Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources P O Box 27687 Raleigh, NC 27611 United States tel: 1 919 733 7015 contact: Roger N. Schecter Pollution Probe 12 Madison Avenue Toronto, Ontario Canada, M5R 2S1 tel: 1 416 926 1907 contact: Janine Ferretti Sammenslutningen af (SAMBA) BST-ansatte Ballerup Herlev BST Marielundvej 17 2730 Herlev Denmark tel: 45 2 84 12 84 contact: Gitte Goldschmidt NP University of Lowell Toxic Use Reduction Institute Department of Work Environment Lowell, MA 01854 United States tel: 1 508 934 3272 contact: Ken Geiser Tufts University Center For Environmental Curtis Hall 474 Boston Avenue Medford, MA 02155 United States tel: 1 617 381 3486 contact: Kurt Fischer, Anthony Cortese Universiteit van Amsterdam Interfacultaire Vakgroep Milieukunde (IVAM) Plantage Muidergracht 14 1018 TV Amsterdam The Netherlands tel: 31 20 525 62 06 fax: 31 20 525 58 02 contact: Marcel Crul Technical Research Centers The following research centers: offer detailed technical advice and information on product substitution and product redesign conduct individual plant assessments and implement technology transfer programs conduct case studies on source reduction research product life cycles and product labelling offer industrial training on clean technology implementation produce technical information and educational material JYSK Teknologisk The Jutland Technological Institute Teknologiparken DK-8000 Arhus C Denmark tel: 45 6 1424000 fax: 45 6 147722 telex: 68722 jytek dk contact: Kristian Bierring Lauritsen NP Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Technology, Policy & Industrial Development Cambridge, MA 02139 United States tel: 1 617 253 1664 fax: 1 617 253 7140 contact: Nicholas Ashford North Carolina State University Department of Chemical Engineering PO Box 7905-317 Riddick Hall Raleigh, NC 27695-7905 United States tel: 1 919 737 2325 contact: Michael R. Overcash Stiftelsen Ostfoldforskning PO Box 276 N-1601 Fredrikstad Norway tel: 47 9 34 1900 contact: Ole Jorgen Hanssen Cleaner Technology Center PO Box 141 DK-2630 Taastrup Denmark tel: 45 42 99 66 11 fax: 45 43 71 06 63 telex: 33416 ti dk contact: Stig Hirsbak, Kim Christiansen University of Lund TEM Asumsgatan 38, S-275 37 Sjobo Sweden tel: 46 416 27300 fax: 46 416 27312 contacts: Mikael Backman, Lars Siljebratt University of Minnesota Minnesota Technical Assistance Program Environmental Health School of Public Health Box 197 Mayo 420 Delaware Street SE Minneapolis, MN 55455 United States tel: 1 612 625 9471 fax: 1 612 626 6931 contact: Cindy A. McComas NP VTT Technical Research Center of Finland Vuorimiehente 5 SF-02150 Espoo 15 Finland tel: 358 0 4561 fax: 358 0 460 493 telex: 122 972 contact: Allan Johansson CGovernment Departments On Source Reduction ng departments: conduct research and develop and implement waste rograms sponsor conferences publish newsletters and technical and educational offer grants to encourage implementation studies Danish Environmental Protection Agency Strandgade 29 1401, Kobenhavn K Denmark tel: 45 31 57 83 10 fax: 45 31 57 24 49 telex: 31209 contact: Karsten Skov US Environmental Protection Agency Pollution Prevention Office 401 M St SW Washington, DC 20460 United States tel: 1 202 245 3557 fax: 1 202 252 0780 contact: Gerald Kotas (Information regarding Pollution Prevention Programs the United States can be obtained through this US Office of Technology Assessment US Congress Washington, DC 20510-8025 United States tel: 1 202 224 9241 fax: 1 202 228 6098 contact: Joel Hirschhorn, Kirsten Oldenburg Umweltbundesamt Bismarckplatz 1 1000 Berlin 33 FRG tel: 49 30 89 03 452 telex: 183 756 contact: Hans Sutter International Governmental Organisations The following organizations facilitate the international transfer of information on clean technology/products. UNEP Industry and Environment Office Tour Mirabeau 39-43 quai Andre Citroen 75739 Paris Cedex 15 France tel: 33 1 40 58 88 50 fax: 33 1 40 58 88 88 telex: 20 4997F contact: Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel UNEP is in the process of establishing a Cleaner Production Network which will publish a newsletter, due for release in January 1990, and a directory of organizations working on clean technology, due to be released in July 1990. It is also in the process of organizing an international database on case studies of clean technology and technical consultants. UNIDO Department of Technology Transfer and Promotion Industrial Technology Promotion Division PO Box 400 A-1400 Vienna Austria tel: 43 1 21131 fax: 43 1 232156 contact: Sonja Maltesou UNIDO is in the process of setting up a clean technology transfer and promotion scheme. It sponsors conferences, offers grants, and liaises closely with UNEP on the above. EConsultants Gary Davis Director, Safe Substitutes University of Tennessee Waste Minimization Department 327 S Stadium Hall Knoxville, TN 37996 United States tel: 1 615 974 1000 Specialises in product design and product labelling. Donald Huisingh Eco-Consult Ltd Penning 5 2353 TD Leiderdorp The Netherlands tel: 31 71 417258 Facilitates in the establishment of international centers on clean technology, troubleshoots for industrial managers and actively promotes clean technology internationally. Warren R. Muir Hampshire Research Associates 9426 Forest Haven Drive Alexandria, VA 22309-3151 United States tel: 1 703 780 7474 Provides advice and conducts research on scientific, technical and management matters related to clean technology. FDatabases United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Compendium of Low and Non-Waste Technology UNEP Economic and Social Council tel: 33 1 40 58 88 50 International Cleaner Production Information Clearinghouse Network of databases on source reduction. UNEP/Industry and Environment Office tel: 33 1 40 58 88 50 contact: Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel USEPA Source Reduction Database Pollution Prevention Office Environmental Protection Agency tel: 1 202 245 3557 fax: 1 202 252 0780 contact: Gerald Kotas Clean Production Reference List Baas, L. and J.P.C. Dieleman. "Cleaner Technologies and the River Rhine", Proceedings of UNIDO/IACT Conference on Clean Technologies and Risk Management, Vienna, Austria, November 1988. Backman, M., D. Huisingh and L. Siljebratt. "Preventative Environmental Protection Strategy: Preliminary Results of an Experiment in Landskrona, Sweden", Environmental Professional, 1989 (in press). Bins-Hoefnagels, I.M.J. et al. The Environmental Auditor and the Accountant, Den Haag, Netherlands: Touch Ross, June 1986. Brown, E. G. Alternatives to the Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes - An Assessment for California, prepared by the Toxic Waste Assessment Group Governor's Office of Appropriate Technology, 1981. Campbell, M. E. and W. M. Glenn. Profit from Pollution Prevention: A Guide to Industrial Waste Reduction and Recycling, Toronto: Pollution Probe Foundation, 1982. Center for Hazardous Materials Research (CHMR). Hazardous Waste Minimization Manual for Small Quantity Generators, University of Pittsburg, April 1987. Clark, R. Proceedings of the Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Source Reduction Conference, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management, 1983. Commoner, B. "Why We Have Failed", Greenpeace, 14(5): 12-13, 1989. Environmental Auditing. "Conscientious Companies are Taking the Lead", Conservation Exchange, 5(1), 1987. Environmental Engineering and Pollution Control/3M. Low- or Non-Pollution Technology Through Pollution Prevention: An Overview, St. Paul, Minnesota: 3M, 1979. Erasmus Centre for Environmental Studies. Protection of the North Sea: Time for Clean Production, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, February 1990. Fromm, C.H. et al. "Succeeding at Waste Minimization", Chemical Engineering, pp 91-94, 14 September 1987. Geiser, K. "Critical Elements of a Waste Reduction Plan", Government Institutes, Inc., 1986. Guyer, S. and D. Roe. Approaches to Source Reduction: Practical Guidance from Existing Policies and Programs, Berkeley, California: Environmental Defense Fund, 1986. Hirschhorn, J.S. et al. Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, 1986. Hirschhorn, J.S. "Cutting Production of Hazardous Waste", Technology Review, April 1988. Huisingh, D. et al. Toward Pollution-Free Manufacturing, New York: American Management Association, 1987. Huisingh, D. and L. Gardner. "Waste Reduction Through Material and Process Substitutions: Progress and Problems Encountered in Industrial Implementation", Hazardous Waste & Hazardous Materials, 4(1): 23-33, 1987. Huisingh, D. and L. Gardner. "Alternative Approaches to Waste Reduction in Materials Coating Processes", Hazardous Waste & Hazardous Materials, 4(2): 177-191, 1987. Huisingh, D. and V. Bailey. Making Pollution Prevention Pay: Ecology with Economy as Policy, New York: Pergamon Press, 1982. Huisingh, D., L. Martin, H. Hilger and N. Seldman. "Proven Profits from Pollution Prevention: Case Studies in Resource Conservation and Waste Reduction", Washington, D.C.: Institute for Local Self Reliance, 1986. International Association for Clean Technology. International Journal for Clean Technology, 1(1), August 1989. International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association in cooperation with United States Environmental Protection Agency. Waste Minimization and Clean Technology: Moving Toward the 21st Century, Proceedings from the 1st International Conference, Geneva, Switzerland, 29 May-1 June 1989. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Waste Audit Study - Paint Manufacturing Industry, prepared for the California Department of Health Services, Pasadena, April 1987. Kaforav, V.V. Wasteless Chemical Processing, Moscow: Mir Publishers, 1985. Leenen, A.H.G. et al. The Principles of Environmental Auditing, Den Haag, Netherlands: Touche Ross, August 1985. Lindroos, V. et al. Environmental High Technology from Finland, Finland: Kirjapaino R. Lunkka Ky, 1986. Muir, W.R. Promoting Hazardous Waste Reduction: Six Steps States Can Take, New York: INFORM, 1987. Muir, W.R. "Hazardous Waste Reduction - The Best Approach to Hazardous Waste Management", submitted on behalf of Greenpeace International to the Joint LDC/Oscom Group of Experts on Incineration at Sea, 27 April - 1 May 1987, London, England, LDC/OSCOM/IAS 2/4/12. National Academy of Sciences. Reducing Hazardous Waste Generation: An Evaluation and a Call for Action, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1985. National Association of Environmental Professionals in cooperation with the Civil Engineering Department, School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of California, Los Angeles. The Environmental Professional, II(2) and II(3), 1989. Nijpels, E. "Prevention is Better than Cure ... We Need Fast Decisions", Phoenix International, pp 18-21, 1987. Oldenburg, K.U. and Hirschhorn, J.S. Waste Reduction: From Policy to Commitment, Hazardous Waste & Hazardous Material, 4(1): 1-8, 1987. Overcash, M.R. Techniques for Industrial Pollution Prevention, Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers, Inc., 1986. Piasecki, B.W. Beyond Dumping: New Strategies for Controlling Toxic Contamination, Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books, 1984. Piasecki, B.W. and Davis, G.A. America's Future in Toxic Waste Management: Lessons from Europe, New York: Quorum Books, 1987. Planning Research Corporation. Waste Audit Study - Printed Circuit Board Manufacturers, prepared for the California Department of Health Services, San Jose, June 1987. Royston, M. G. Pollution Prevention Pays, New York: Pergamon Press, 1979. S.C.S. Engineers. Waste Audit Study - Automotive Paint Shops, prepared for the California Department of Health Services, Long Beach, January 1987. Sarokin, D.J. "Going to the Source - The Real Solution to the Toxic Waste Crisis", Greenpeace, 12(1): 16-18, 1987. Sarokin, D.J., W.R. Muir, C.G. Miller and S.R. Sperber. Cutting Chemical Wastes: What 29 Organic Chemical Plants are Doing to Reduce Hazardous Wastes, New York: INFORM, 1985. Schecter, R.N. Pollution Prevention Bibliography, Raleigh, North Carolina: Pollution Prevention Pays Program, Division of Natural Resources and Community Development, 1987. Tavlarides, L.L. Industrial Waste Management, Process Modifications for Industrial Pollution Source Reduction, Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers, Inc., 1985. Thompson, F.M. and C.A. McComas. "Technical Assistance for Hazardous Waste Reduction", Environmental Science and Technology, 21(12): 1154-1158, 1987. Thorpe, B. "Cutting Chemical Wastes: A Neglected Priority", Process Engineering, 70(4a): 10-11, Spring 1989. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. "Compendium of Low and Non-Waste Technology". Vol. I Summaries of Monographs 1-20. Vol. II Summaries of Monographs 21-46. Vol. III Summaries of Monographs 47-62. Vol. IV Summaries of Monographs 63-80. (ECE/ENV/36) 1981/1982. United Nations Environment Programme, Industry and Environment. "Waste Minimization", 12(1), January/February/March 1989. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment Manual, Cincinatti, Ohio: EPA/625/7-88/003, July 1988. Van den Akker, F. Low Pollution Process Technology in the Netherlands, Leidschendam, Netherlands, Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning & Environment, 1986. Wesley, M. and P.E. Toy. Waste Audit Study - Automotive Repairs, prepared for the California Department of Health Services, Saratoga, May 1987.