Maritime Safety and the Protection of th

Maritime Economics and Logistics

Maritime Safety and the Protection of the Marine Environment

The pressures of the Maritime Industry on the Marine Environment: how effective
implementation of international regulations on maritime safety and the prevention of
marine pollution can protect the environment and sustain the global economy

William Boris Douni Kouambo

15 June 2012

Word count: 5993

1

Introduction
For many centuries the world’s seas and oceans have been the main transport routes for
international trade. Until the invention and the modernization of aircrafts, ships were the
only available carriers of sufficiently large capacity for trading across oceans. Used to
transport spices, natural resources and even human lives, countries have historically

thrived through the shipping trade, and it is not remarkable that even today shipping still
accounts for 90% of global trade and is a prime contributor to global economic growth
(IMO, 2011).
Globalization and the continuous elimination of geographic, economic and political
frontiers have transformed the world into a global marketplace, where goods and services
are rapidly exchanged among nations, placing increasing high demands on the need for
more efficient modes of transportation. Over the past decennia larger and faster ships
have been developed to meet these needs and to facilitate transcontinental business.
Along with the modernization of ocean carriers, and contributory factors such as
increasing demand for raw materials, energy (oil and coal), consumer goods and essential
foodstuffs; global sea traffic has risen substantially (Adolf & Wilsmeier, 2012).
Although maritime transport plays a key role in the economic and political development
of many countries, it also has several negative side-effects. Set against land-based
industries, shipping is comparatively a minor contributor to marine pollution, however it
is still shown to adversely affect marine and land environments in a number of ways.
Pollution by maritime activities can take place through the spillage of oil, sewage and
refuse into the sea and also through emissions pollution to the air, which can come back
in the seas by acid rain. Furthermore, ships can carry invasive plant and animal species,
and proliferate the spread of human diseases – Columbus for example was accused of
bringing ‘European’ diseases such as the flu, measles and small pox to the Americas.

Nowadays, ballast water forms a significant threat to ecosystems, human health and
economic growth by disposing invasive aquatic species across the oceans (IMO, 2011).
Further dangers for the marine environment are posed by shipping accidents. Several
times a year media reports depict news of tanker accidents that result in oil spills leading
to the loss of sea life, destruction of fragile aquatic ecosystems, as well as the impacts on
the livelihood of the people living in and from these ecosystems.
In response to these issues, and in order to effectively manage maritime safety, the
marine environment, and prevent marine pollution, the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) was established in 1948. IMO is the United Nations specialized
agency in charge of creating and adopting global regulations on the safety, security and
efficiency of ships and on the protection of the environment – both marine and
atmospheric – from shipping operations (IMO.org, 2012). Currently IMO has 170
member states, which makes it a key global player in improving maritime safety and the
protection of the marine environment. In 1973 IMO adopted the International Convention
for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, now known universally as MARPOL, in order
to protect the marine environment. Subsequently in 1974, IMO developed the
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) to improve maritime

2

safety. Maritime safety entails the regulations, management and technology development
of all forms of maritime transportation to protect life, property and the environment
(IMO.org, 2012).
The central tenet of this paper argues that investing in improvements in maritime safety,
through enforcement of international regulations and the implementation of conventions
on maritime safety and the prevention of pollution from ships, results in greater
protection of the marine environment, provided that the regulations are implemented
accurately. This paper first describes the various pressures that the maritime sector poses
on the marine environment. Subsequently, it discusses how the implementation of the
SOLAS and MARPOL conventions can help in protecting the environment. This paper
will pay special attention to the adequacy of the implementation of these international
regulations, showing that if the regulations are not strictly implemented, both the marine
environment and the local communities reliant on the marine ecosystems suffer adverse
impacts.
I - Pressures of the shipping industry on the marine environment
The transport sector is very much dependent on the world’s oceans and seas to carry
goods across continents. However, these activities cause significant pressures on the
marine environment. 77% of the marine pollution can be linked to human activities. The
maritime sector only contributes 12% to the overall global marine protection
(Marisec.org, 2012). This might be a small number; but it still causes several important

pressures on the marine environment which are identified and discussed in the following
paragraphs:
a)

Invasive Species

In the context of an increasingly globalized world, where markets are becoming less
restricted by economic and geographical boundaries, overcoming competition relies
heavily on reducing transportation times of global supply chains. This requires shortening
or eliminating steps in the global chain that do not demonstrably add value to the product.
Advances in shipping technology have contributed tremendously to speeding up the
movement of goods and people across distant locations (MacPhee, 2006). New
technologies have ensured that ships can move faster, while simultaneously carrying
more ballast, creating logistical changes and challenges that pose risks to the marine
environment.
According to Bijal (2002) shipping is responsible for the introduction of new aquatic
species to habitats. For example, invasive species such as bacteria can be introduced into
habitats through the dumping of waste water. Moreover, some aquatic species attach
themselves to vessels and detach when the destination is reached, as occurred recently
when a fishing dock from Japan that was thrown into the ocean by the tsunami in 2011,

and washed ashore in Oregon in the United States. The Japanese dock was covered in
algae and sea organisms that survived the trans-Pacific ride and now pose a threat to the
local marine environment (Carbone, 2012). Introduced species become invasive when

3

they turn out to be predators for native species or when they take over their natural
habitats. In the worst scenario the new species cause the extinction of the native species.
Invasive or ‘alien’ species are considered to be the main contributing factor in the
classification of 35 to 46 percent of species on the endangered species list (MacPhee:
2006).
Studies have also demonstrated the financial impact of invasive species on the global
economy. According to Cangelosi (2002-2003: 69), it is estimated that the United States
alone have recorded damages by alien species for an amount of $100 billion. One can
therefore imagine the global financial burden faced by many countries in addressing the
prevention, control and elimination of non-native species. In her article “Alien Flotillas:
The Expansion of Invasive Species through Ship Ballast Water”, MacPhee (2006)
demonstrates the impact of invasive species on communities whose survival heavily
depends on resources from their direct habitat. The consequences are especially felt in
poor countries; where the primarily source of income for communities living close to

the sea is often through fishing. The impact of invasive species to the native
ecosystem(s) and food chains can cause a reduction, and even the eradication, of other
species that might be essential to the survival of the neighboring ecosystems.
b)

Plastic debris

Marine debris, defined as solid material that finds its way to the marine environment
(Greenpeace, 2006), consists of waste materials derived directly from shipping activities
but also from debris that comes from land-based activities. Plastic debris is one major
part of marine debris. Plastic debris causes a detrimental effect on the health of numerous
marine animals, birds and ecosystems. The disturbance is caused by the plastic itself
which can kill animals that get entangled in it or eat it; or by toxic chemicals released by
plastic in its decomposition phase. All types of boats are potential dischargers of plastic
debris, originating accidentally by the loss of shipping parts, or intentionally through
illegal dumping. Cans, bottles, plastics bags, pieces of polypropylene fishing net and
sanitary and sewage-related debris such as diapers and condoms, are among the many
types of harmful debris that end up in the oceans. According to IMO (imo.org, 2012) a
plastic bottle that ends up in the sea can survive for up to 450 years. The problem with
plastic debris is that it can remain unchanged for hundreds of years, while at the same

time the production of plastic increases continuously. It therefore becomes extremely
important to manage the production and deposition of the products (The GEF, 2011).
Some studies, such as Derraik (2002), suggest that plastic debris originating from ships,
platforms and boats accounts for just 20% of overall marine debris. Although most plastic
debris comes from land-based activities, it is still important to consider the threat this
volume of waste debris alone represents, not only for the marine ecosystem, but also for
communities living nearby and for ships that navigate across the polluted areas. The
negative effects caused by the debris are often endured by those affected by rather than
those causing the problem (The GEF, 2011).

4

Annex V from MARPOL prohibits the dumping of plastics into the sea and restricts
disposal of other garbage from ships into coastal waters. Signatory countries are obliged
to ensure the provision of reception facilities at ports and terminals for the reception of
garbage and are allowed to check the Garbage Record Book of the vessels (IMO.org,
2012). Although the global regulations on restricting the amount of plastic debris in
oceans well are widely known and understood; in practice they tend to be poorly
implemented by many national governments. There are various global legal instruments
and voluntary agreements aimed at the prevention and management of plastic debris, both

on land and sea, such as MARPOL annex V. However; preventing marine debris and
addressing the impacts of marine debris is not as easy as it may seem on paper. The issue
of marine debris is a global one, and extends beyond the jurisdictional authority or ability
of any single institution or country to address. Furthermore, there is a lack of economic
and financial incentives for companies and countries to address the debris. There are even
perverse incentives for big upstream producers to pass costs on to individuals or nations
that are excessively impacted by marine debris in comparison to any economic benefits
they may obtain (The GEF, 2011). The impacts of this lack of regulatory adherence are
often felt disproportionately by those least equipped to protect themselves, such as poor
coastal communities and marine animals and birds.
c)

Waste Dumping

Another pressure from which the marine environment suffers and which is directly linked
to shipping activities across oceans is waste dumping. For the purpose of this paper,
waste dumping is defined as the deliberate disposal of wastes from ships and it does not
include land-based activities or accidental discharges (Greenpeace, 2006). Two types of
waste dumping by ships are highlighted here: waste dumping by cruise ships and the
dumping of hazardous goods in poor countries.

As mentioned earlier, sea traffic over the past few years has been significantly increasing.
While the growing global economy and population ask for more goods, creating the
demand for more see traffic, additionally developed countries populations are
increasingly interested in enjoying cruise-ship holidays. This increase in cruise ship
holidays, while a lucrative business, is one that can pose a significant threat to the marine
environment from waste dumping.
According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), it is now
common to see a vessel carrying 3,000 passengers and crew and it has been estimated
that today’s worldwide cruise ship fleet includes more than 230 ships (EPA, 2012).
Generally known as floating cities, the pace at which this industry has grown and the lack
of regulations governing cruise ship companies, raise questions about the environmental
impact of cruise ships on the marine ecosystem.
A report by Oceana (2003), an international organization that focuses on ocean
conservation, explores the main reasons why cruise ships are less prudent when it comes
to waste dumping. Unlike cities and industries, the permits that are required by cruise
ships to dump their wastes into oceans are far less strict. Cruise ships also often report

5

their waste in the Garbage Record Book, however simply keeping track of waste does not

mean that they are often held accountable for the waste they dispose. A problem with
marine debris is that it is hard to prove which vessel is responsible for the waste
dumping. With an estimated 3,000 people on board of a vessel, one can imagine the
amount of waste generated by passengers and crew as quite substantial and one can also
imagine the consequences when this waste is not brought back ashore but dumped in the
sea. Subsequently, many solid objects, ranging from food waste to toiletry waste, become
floating refuse of oceanic waters.
Moreover, in its report “Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharges” (2006) the US
environmental protection agency lists many other types of waste that are usually
thrown from cruise ships. These include:
Bilge waters: water that collects in the lowest part of the ship’s hull and may
contain oil, grease, and other contaminants
Sewage and gray water: waste water from showers, sinks, laundries and kitchens

-

Ballast water: fresh or salt water, sometimes containing sediments, held in tanks
and cargo holds of ships to increase stability and maneuverability during transit

Cruise ships also pose a threat to the environment when accidents happen. Ships often try

to get as close as possible to interesting sights risking the safety of the ship. For example,
in early 2012 a cruise ship capsized of the Italian coast, causing the death of several
people. Besides the loss of life, the ship polluted the water in the area endangering
dolphin populations and other sea creatures living in the ecosystem (The Asian Age,
2012).
From the above it can be viewed that cruise ships are a threat to the marine environment.
The danger with cruise ships is that they are not adequately held responsible for the
pollution they case. Although ships coming from countries that have signed international
treaties against the pollution of the oceans such as the MARPOL are obliged to obey to
its rules; cruise ships seem to be finding ways to pollute without getting into major
trouble. A solution for this could be not permitting cruise ships to dump any pollution in
the sea and to return with waste to the harbor of the country under which flag the ship
cruises. The ships should be made responsible for their adverse effects on the
environment and bear the costs. Another problem with cruise ships is that they are not
always following maritime safety regulations; such as the ones spelled out in the SOLAS.
Companies that cause accidents that adversely affect the life of the passengers as well as
the marine environment should be held accountable.
A second form of waste dumping is the disposal of hazardous waste in oceans
surrounding developing countries originating primarily from ships sent to developing
countries for decommissioning. Over the past two decades regulations have tightened in
the western world on how to dispose of toxic waste and it has become harder and more
expensive for companies to eliminate their waste in their home countries. Instead of
searching for more environmentally friendly and safer ways to deal with toxic wastes,

6

some companies found it more economical (the most evident but not only reason) to
dispose waste in countries where disposal regulations are less strict and were
governments are eager to make money out of accepting to deal with the toxic waste
(UNECA, 2009).
Evidence of this process can be seen through the example of dumping hazardous waste
by the Dutch commodity trading company Trafigura’s ship Probo Koala in the Ivory
Coast. The vessel was carrying out a procedure for caustic washing on several cargoes of
one such product, coker naphtha, and had to release residual waste (‘slops’).The company
Trafigura selected the Amsterdam Port Services BV (APS) to take care of the treatment
of the slops, but the deal was never settled since the APS increased its price for handling
the slops by 3000%, after which Transfigura departed to Estonia (Transfigura, 2012).
Subsequently Transfigura appointed a contractor in Ivory Coast to handle the discharged
slops. Although the company believed that it made no mistake by choosing the contractor
in the Ivory Coast, since the Ivory Coast had signed the MARPOL regulations, the slops
were mishandled resulting in the death of a dozen of people and injuring many more. In
addition to the effect it had on the victims, it had a major detrimental effect on the local
and marine environment by intoxicating the waters.
The global community considers toxic dumping as an important hazard and both IMO’s
SOLAS and MARPOL conventions deal with the topic. SOLAS dedicates one chapter
(VII) to the rules surrounding the carriage of dangerous goods, because of the special
hazards they pose to ships, persons on board and the marine environment. The carriage of
dangerous goods is also covered by MARPOL Annex 2 and 3. Despite the many
signatories of both conventions; and the establishment of other conventions such as the
Basel Convention (Basil.int, 2012) on the Control of Transboundary Movements of
Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, accidents with vessels carrying dangerous goods
and the dumping of waste still occur too often. Mainly because the costs of disposing
waste in developing countries is continuously rising and because countries can define
what is meant by hazardous waste individually (INECE, 2009).
With similar malpractices as the Probo Koala case continuing, the disposal of hazardous
waste by ships in developing countries remains a real threat for the environment as well
as for the local population. Improved enforcement of maritime safety regulations are
required to prevent incidents like the Probo Koala from reoccurrence. The incident shows
that signing interventions such as the MARPOL is not necessarily enough to prevent
waste dump from happening. Responsible stakeholders should be appointed, while at the
same time it seems clear that countries sometimes see the economic benefits of allowing
companies to dispose waste in their nation to be bigger than the costs borne by the local
communities and the environment.
d)

Oil Spills

Oil spills occur as a result of accidents or operations or from the intentional discharge of
oily wastes into the water. As shown in table 1, although global trade in oil has increased,
accidents from tankers have tremendously reduced over the past twenty years. In her

7

study, Keisha (2005) mentioned that oil spills across the globe were on average 6 times
higher in the 1970s. Despite the reduction in oil spills they should still be regarded as one
of the most serious threats to the marine environment. Oil spills have such a detrimental
effect on the marine environment since the consequences are both short term (e.g. loss of
aquatic species and birdlife due to oil intoxication) and long term (such as decrease in
fish and marine mammal species) (Marine Mammal Commission, 2011).
Maritime safety regulations such as the International Convention for the Safety of Life at
Sea have been put in place to prevent oil leakages and to reduce accidents from
happening. The first chapter of SOLAS deals with the construction, subdivision, stability
and machinery and electrical installations. In 2010 "Goal-based standards" for oil tankers
and bulk carriers were approved, obliging new ships to be designed and constructed for a
specified design life and to “be safe and environmentally friendly, in intact and specified
damage conditions, throughout their life” (SOLAS, 1974). These regulations have helped
in improving maritime safety and accidents from happening; however due to the
increasing size of vessels contemporary leakages and accidents have far more detrimental
effects. When comparing the frequency of oils spills from tankers in the 1970s with those
of our present decade, it is important to consider the continuous increase in capacity and
size of ships and tankers. The increase of larger ships carrying much larger volumes of oil
makes oil spills from these vessels potentially far more hazardous. In her study, Keisha
(2005) demonstrates that over a 10 year period, out of 1,430,000 tons of oil spilt in
oceans across the world, 990,000 tons (70%) were spilt in just 10 accidents (out of 395
recorded accidents). The PRESTIGE oil spill in 2002 also illustrates the proportional
impact of bigger tankers on sea pollution. The PRESTIGE (63,000 tones) was responsible
for exactly 94% of the total oil spills in that year across the world (Dailygreen, 2010)
Aside from being an immediate threat to the aquatic environment oil also impacts the
health and economic wellbeing of exposed populations. Oil spills that occur near to
coastlines often require the impacted country to invest financially to quickly try and
mitigate the spill. In Canada for example, where coastal regions are a “vital part of the
country’s economy” oil spills can have a serious impact on the country’s economy, as
well as for people whose jobs are directly related to the shipping industry (Office of the
Auditor General of Canada, 2010). Loss of jobs and the reduction in tourism and
recreational activities are among many others the consequences of these accidents.
Typically the shipping and transportation industry of the impacted country will suffer
from the pollution incident, since these waters will have to be avoided, forcing many
ships to use different routes or to birth at different ports, thus increasing the inland
transportation and storage costs.

8

Table 1: oil spills from 1970 to 2010 compared to seaborne oil trade

e)

Climate Change

A final effect of shipping on the marine and global environment is the role of the
maritime sector on global climate change. Climate change is widely acknowledged to be
the consequence of massive industrial activities, characterized by an ever increasing
release of emissions into the atmosphere and the vanishing of the world’s forest. It entails
changes in weather patterns such as a rise in global temperatures, changes in rainfall
patterns, rising sea levels and melting of ice. Some of the changes in climate are naturally
induced, but others are linked to human activity and are in many cases seen to be
irreversible.
The main way in which the maritime sector affects the global climate is by releasing CO2
emissions into the atmosphere. The primary emissions from ships are exhaust gases, with
carbon dioxide being the most important greenhouse gas (IMO, 2011). Despite the
relatively low contribution to global CO2 emissions from ships (according to an IMO
report of 2007 international and domestic ships only contribute to 3.3% of global
emissions), however, the pressure that this volume of CO2 puts on global ecosystems
should not be underestimated. The expected growth in world trade predicts that the
amount of emissions coming from ships will be multiplied by two or three by 2050 (IMO,
2011). On current predictions climate change impacts have the potential to lead to
irreversible changes in oceanic temperatures causing the extinction of many aquatic
species.

9

The maritime sector does not close its eyes for the effects of its greenhouse emissions and
over the years various interventions have been designed to lower the emissions. An
example of this is cold ironing, a technique where ships shut down their own power
plants while at dock, and shift to shore side electricity. Other solutions for companies are
increasing the number of operating vessels on routes to ensure that the vessels can go at
lower speed producing lower emissions. Furthermore; ships can strive to reduce fuel
consumption to cut emissions. All these solutions are environmentally friendly, but come
at an economic cost for the vessel owners. As long as the solutions are not made
economically friendlier (for example by subsidizing onshore electricity) the solutions
might not be taken over by the majority of stakeholders (Bowman, 2008).
II – International legislation on Maritime Safety and the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships: where is it lagging behind?
In the first section the pressures posed by the maritime sector on the marine environment
were discussed. This section intends to investigate why these pressures are still so
prevalent, when global governance structures have designed various conventions to
protect the marine environment from the negative effects of shipping. This section will
argue that the implementation of the discussed SOLAS and MARPOL regulations as
established by the International Maritime Organization is not strictly enough executed
causing risks for the environment, human health and the maritime transport sector.
Both the SOLAS and the MAPROL convention are crucial players in protecting the
environment from the possible negative effects from shipping. The key purpose of the
SOLAS convention is to specify standards for a ship’s structure, machinery and electrical
installations for firefighting, live saving appliances, and radio communications. It also
specifies standard for the carriage of cargo, carriage of dangerous goods, standard for
nuclear ships, ISM, safety measures for high speed craft and other special measures to
enhance maritime safety (SOLAS, 1974). Full implementation of these standards ensures
improvements in the general safety of a ship, its passengers and its carriage.
Simultaneously, when the safety of the ship is improved it is less likely to have an
accident and pose a risk to the marine environment. IMO states that to prevent pollution
safety is key and that governments and industries should focus more on reducing the
number of accidents at sea that stem from human error. Estimates show that mistakes
make op 80% of the total scope of marine pollution (IMO.org, 2012).
MARPOL 73/78 is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships. It was initialized in 1973 and modified by the Protocol of 1978. All countries that
have signed the convention are subject to its requirements and are responsible for their
ships no matter where they sail. The convention consists of six annexes for preventing
and minimizing the stresses from ships on the marine environment. The annexes are: I –
Oil, II - Noxious Liquid Substances carried in Bulk, III - Harmful Substances carried in
Packaged Form, IV – Sewage, V – Garbage and VI - Air Pollution. For the first five
annexes; between 82% and 99% of the world’s tonnage is covered by countries signing
the annexes. The last convention on Air Pollution, relating to the earlier described
pressure on climate change is the most disputed convention and only covers 46% of the

10

world’s tonnage (Marine Knowledge, 2011). Seeing that the majority of global tonnage is
covered; it remains remarkable why the marine environment is still feeling so many
pressures from the maritime sector.
When putting both conventions together; it seems that IMO developed a promising and
global way to prevent and minimize marine pollution from happening. However;
adopting conventions has shown not to be sufficient to protecting the environment, since
most boils down to the actual implementation of them, which brings down the
responsibility to the signatory states and stakeholders such as shipping companies, sea
farers and individual boat owners.
It is often said that the responsibility for taking care of the environment is the
responsibility for everyone; but this means at the same time that it is no one’s full
responsibility. Preventing pollution from ships may vary from region to region, country
to country, and even from port to port, and this makes it hard to control it from
happening. Although countries may sign international conventions; enforcement often
proofs to be ineffective. The situation is often worse in developing countries; where
political corruption still takes place and where lacking financial resources disturb
enforcement from happening. Also; many countries do not have the capacity to either
prevent pollution from happening or to deal with existing pollution. A lack of global and
national political will to truly defeat the majority of marine pollution is a serious threat.
Furthermore, there is often inadequate data available on the scope and complexity of
illegal pollution. Also, want maritime safety regulations are not well taken care off by
ships from one country and an accident occurs in the waters of another country, the
responsibility is not often strictly taken by the country whose ship caused the accident
(INECE, 2009).
Since seaborne trade is likely to only increase in the upcoming decades, it therefore
remains of upmost importance that global and national regulations on maritime safety and
the prevention of the pollution of the marine environment are effectively implemented.
From the above it becomes clear that right now uniform binding rules are lacking,
countries can still define their own regulations surrounding the pollution of the marine
environment and are not always punished with monetary penalties when pollution occurs.
A suggestion is therefore to broaden the scope of the global regulations and to create
uniform rules that have to be translated into national policy and be implemented
accordingly. National policies are now still designed at country level and may give
various interpretations to global regulations. Also, in the current situation no stakeholder
is held ultimately accountable for marine pollution and it is therefore important to choose
an actor, most likely the national government, to be responsible for the pollution caused
by the ships that fare under her flag. Governments should be able to be held globally
responsible for the pollution caused by their ships. It is important to improve the capacity
from national agencies in implementing the proposed changes. Furthermore; global
sharing of information is crucial to trace down the polluters. In the current situation, it
often remains too unclear who can be held accountable for the damage caused.

11

Conclusion
Although the maritime sector only contributes 12% to the total of marine pollution, it is
still an important disturbance to the marine environment and the people whose
livelihoods are dependent on the oceans. This essay discussed various pressures posed by
the maritime sector on the marine environment; such as waste dumping, plastic debris, oil
spillage and global climate change.
Global conventions have been put in place by international bodies such as the
International Maritime Organization to mitigate the risks of shipping on the marine
environment and to ensure that pollution is taken care of accordingly. IMO designed two
major conventions; the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships (MARPOL) and the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS). These global regulations have shown to be benchmarks in the protection of the
marine environment, but it has also become clear that much is dependent on the
individual implementation of the agreements by signatory states. Regulations mean
nothing if they are not enforced. Since oceans are not strictly divided between countries
in the same way as land is, it has proven to be difficult to inflict the international
regulations.
Furthermore, financial benefits are often seen as more important than protecting the
environment by companies and countries. For example, when it is too expensive to
dispose waste in one country, then a company can almost certainly find another
(developing) country that agrees to buy the waste for disposal for a fair amount. The costs
of these activities on the marine environment as well as on the health and livelihoods of
the local communities are often neglected. Furthermore, although wealthy countries have
a far bigger share in the global maritime trading, it is more often the poor countries that
suffer the most from marine pollution, because of insufficient knowledge, capacity
funding and weak governments to protect the oceans. Therefore, global enforcement
could help in holding governments accountable for the damage caused in other countries.
This essay wants to show that the enforcement of the implementation of global treaties is
crucial for the protection of the marine environment. It should become easier to hold
companies and countries accountable for the pollution caused. A way to do this can be to
establish international binding agreements, and when these are not met high monetary
penalties should be raised. In this world, in which money plays such a big role, this might
well be the most prudent way to prevent marine pollution from happening.

12

References
Adolf K.Y. Ng & Gordon Wilmsmeier, 2012, the Geography of Maritime Transportation:
Space as a Perspective in Maritime Transport Research, Maritime Policy & Management,
Volume 39, Issue 2.
Bijal, P.T., 2002. Invasive species “Stowaways” May Lose Ride on Ships. National
Geographic Today, [Online]. Available at:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/01/0109_020109TVballastwater.html
[Downloaded 5 May 2012].
Bowman, R.J. 2008, Ships and Ports Explore Many Ways to Go Green, Global Logistics
& Supply Chain Strategies | September 10, 2008
Cangelosi, A. 2002-2003. "Blocking invasive aquatic species." Marine Pollution
Bulletin 44: 32-38. 3. Issues in Science and Technology 19(2): 69-74. Available at:
http://www.issues.org/19.2/cangelosi.htm [Downloaded 5 May 2012].
Carbone, N. 2012, Massive Fishing Dock Washes Ashore in Oregon, 15 Months After
Japanese Tsunami, Time Magzazine , [online] Available at:
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/06/07/massive-fishing-dock-washes-ashore-in-oregon15- months-after-japanese-tsunami/#ixzz1xqIOURe. [Downloaded 5 May 2012].
Copeland, C. 2008. Cruise Ship Pollution: Background, Laws and Regulations, and Key
Issues Congressional Research Service. [online] Available at:
http://cep.unep.org/publications-and-resources/databases/documentdatabase/other/cruise-ship-pollution-background-laws-and-regulations-and-keyissues.pdf.[Downloaded 12 May 2012]. [Downloaded 12 June 2012].
Derraik,J.G..B., 2002. The pollution of the marine environment by plastics debris: a
review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44, 842-852, [online]. Available at:
http://5gyres.org/media/Derraik_2002_Plastic_pollution.pdf [Downloaded 8 May 2012].
Greenpeace International, 2006, Plastic Debris in the World’s Oceans, Amsterdam,
[online]. Available at
http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/publications/docs/plastic_ocean_report.pdf
[Downloaded 8 June 2012].
International Chamber of Shipping & International Shipping Federation, 2012, [online]
Available at: http://www.marisec.org/shippingfacts/environmental/small-contributionto- overall-marine-pollution.php, [Downloaded 13 May 2012].
International Maritime Organization, (2011), IMO and the environment, London. [online]
Available at
http://www.imo.org/ourwork/environment/documents/imo%20and%20the%20environme
nt%202011.pdf [Downloaded 2 May 2012].

13

International Maritime Organization, (2012), www.imo.org.
International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Seaport
Environmental Security Network, 2009, The International Hazardous Waste Trade
Through Seaports, [online]. Available at:
http://www.inece.org/seaport/SeaportWorkingPaper_24November.pdf. [Downloaded 12
May 2012].
Keisha, H., 2005. Trends in Oil Spills from Tankers Ships 1995-2005. In: ITOPF
(International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation), 28th arctic and marine oil
spill program: Technical seminar. 7-9 June 2005. Calgary: Canada
MacPhee, B., 2006. Alien Flotillas: The Expansion of Invasive Species through ship ballast
water. Earth Trends, [online]. Available at:
[Downloaded 5 May 2012].
Marine Knowledge, 2011, Marpol,[online]. Available at: http://www.marineknowledge.com/marine-law/marpol.html, [Downloaded 5 May 2012].

Marine Mammal Commission, 2011, Assessing the Long-term Effects of the BP
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on Marine Mammals in the Gulf of Mexico: A Statement
of Research Needs, [online]. Available at:
http://mmc.gov/reports/workshop/pdf/longterm_effects_bp_oilspil.pdf [Downloaded 5
May 2012].
OCEANA, n.d. Protect our oceans: Stop cruise Ship Pollution. [online] Available at:
http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/o/uploads/cruiseshipwaste_uslawsandregulations.pdf
[Downloaded 8 May 2012].
Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2010, Report of the Commissioner of the
Environment and Sustainable Development to the House of Commons, Chapter 1
Oil Spills from Ships, Available at: http://www.environmentalauditing.org/Portals/0/AuditFiles/Canada_f_eng_Spills-from-Oil-Ships.pdf,
[Downloaded 5 May 2012].
SOLAS, 1974, International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) 1974,
[online] Available at:
http://www.imo.org/about/conventions/listofconventions/pages/international-conventionfor-the-safety-of-life-at-sea-%28solas%29,-1974.aspx, [Downloaded 1 June 2012].
The Asian Age, 2012, Greenpeace finds pollution from Italy cruise ship wreck, [online]
Available at: http://www.asianage.com/international/greenpeace-finds-pollution-italycruise-ship-wreck-597, [Downloaded 5 June 2012].

14

The Daily Green, 2010, 10 of the World's Worst Energy Disasters: The Prestige Oil Spill:
it was one of the worst oil spills in history, and it didn't have to happen. [online]
Available at: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/prestige-oil-spill
[Downloaded 6 June 2012].
The Global Environment Facility (GEF), 2011, Marine Debris as a Global
Environmental Problem Introducing a solutions based framework focused on plastic.
[online] Available at: www.thegef.org/gef/.../STAP%20MarineDebris%20%20website.pdf. [Downloaded 1 June 2012].

Transfigura, 2012, Probo Koala Updates, [online] Available at:
http://www.trafigura.com/our_news/probo_koala_updates.aspx [Downloaded 1 June
2012].
World shipping council, 2012. Invasive Species. [online] Available at:
http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/environment/invasive-species [Accessed
9 May 2012].
United Nations Economic and Social Council, Economic Commission for Africa, 2009,
Sixth Session of the Committee on Food Security and Sustainable Development (CFSSD6)/Regional Implementation Meeting (RIM) for CSD-18.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Cruise Ship Wasterwater
Discharges. [Online] Available at
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/vwd/upload/2006_10_9_oceans_cruise_ships_wastewaterf
actsheet.pdf [Accessed 8 May 2012].

United States Environmental Protection Agency, (2012), Vessel Water Discharge,
Available at http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/vwd/wastewaterfactsheet.cfm,[Accessed
8 May 2012].
Willen, J., 2008. International Trade with waste: Do developed countries use third world as
a garbage-can or can it be a possible win-win situation, Thesis, Uppsala University.

15