Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 63
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea 3 Implementation Implementation of MARPOL Annex V has been and continues to be problematic. The two greatest obstacles are the difficulties experienced by mariners seeking to comply with Annex V and the ease with which violators can escape detection. While both problems could be mitigated to some degree, the former—difficulty with compliance—probably is easier to resolve. This judgment is based on the assumption that human beings generally want to be helpful and can change if the barriers to voluntary compliance can be overcome. By contrast, increasing direct surveillance of mariners to identify Annex V violations would be difficult and in many cases impossible. Logic dictates, therefore, that an Annex V implementation strategy should focus on fostering voluntary compliance, while also ensuring robust enforcement capabilities. But the specific elements of an effective strategy are more difficult to determine. To pinpoint the opportunities to improve Annex V implementation, a systematic approach is needed. To that end, this chapter examines Annex V and the hazards it targets from a comprehensive hazard management perspective. The chapter opens with a description of a generic hazard evolution model. Then the model is adapted to the problem of vessel garbage, and opportunities for intervening in the evolution of the hazard (marine debris) are identified within this framework. Throughout the discussion, behavioral and organizational principles are introduced that must be considered in developing mechanisms for successful implementation of Annex V. The analysis also underscores how the provisions of the Annex welcome and support a very broad range of methods for facilitating compliance.
OCR for page 64
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea HAZARD EVOLUTION MODEL A framework for considering the problem of vessel garbage may be found in the work of social geographer Roger Kasperson and public administration specialist David Pijawka (Kasperson and Pijawka, 1985), who considered the ways in which technological hazards pose different and more challenging problems to the public and the government than do natural hazards such as hurricanes, tornadoes, or earthquakes. This work draws upon an overall conceptual framework of analysis developed at Clark University (Hohenemser et al., 1985; Kasperson et al., 1985). Kasperson and Pijawka proposed that technological hazards challenge institutions and communities for a number of reasons: (1) These hazards are new and unfamiliar; (2) there is a lack of accumulated experience with control or coping measures; (3) there is a lack of full appreciation of the hazard chain; (4) the broad opportunities for control mechanisms make these hazards seem more controllable than natural hazards are; and (5) there is a perception that technological hazards can be corrected with technical solutions, regardless of the social context or the significance of social costs. In sum, technological hazards are viewed erroneously as easily "fixable," with the result that less attention and effort are devoted to them than is warranted. In an effort to adjust perceptions to reality, Kasperson and Pijawka proposed using a hazard evolution model to clarify analysis of unfamiliar technological hazards. This comprehensive yet simple model examines the ways in which a society generates technological hazards and deals with the resulting impacts (see Figure 3-1). Human needs result in human wants, which are satisfied by a choice of technology. The selected technology can produce a product or byproduct (waste) that poses a hazard. For example, the production technology may create air, water, or ground pollution that requires constant controls. In addition, the product or its packaging can create hazards after its intended use if disposal is not controlled (e.g., discarded plastic six-pack rings may ensnare small animals). Once the material is in use or released into the environment, humans or other organisms can be exposed to and be harmed by the hazard. Using this flow diagram, Kasperson and Pijawka identified general types of interventions at each stage of the hazard-generating process that could prevent the hazard and its concomitant risks. The model provides an organizing framework for confronting a technological hazard and permits a full appreciation of the intervention opportunities available, both "upstream" and "downstream" of the initiating events. Upstream (toward the left), human wants can be modified, or the technology used to address the wants can be altered, or an initiating event during use of the material can be prevented, or release of the materials can be prevented. Downstream (toward the right), once release or use occurs, exposure of organisms to the hazard can be blocked, or the negative consequences of
OCR for page 65
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Figure 3-1 The Chain of Technological Hazard Evolution. Source: Kasperson and Pijawka, 1985.
OCR for page 66
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea exposure can be prevented. As a last resort, intervention after exposure to the hazard may be able to mitigate the harm done. In this manner, the flow diagram facilitates an examination of the changes needed and how they may be accomplished, by suggesting (1) the location of the required change within the social organization, (2) the costs of the change to society and how those costs are spread or concentrated, (3) the array of segments of society involved, and (4) ways to facilitate the change. Consideration of these four issues assists in determining how far the benefit(s) of a particular change or effort would go toward mitigating the targeted hazard. ADAPTING THE MODEL TO VESSEL GARBAGE MANAGEMENT The Kasperson and Pijawka model has considerable application to the problems of managing vessel garbage and facilitating the implementation of MARPOL Annex V. However, in adapting the model for its own analysis, the committee found it appropriate to make two modifications. First, the committee eliminated the first intervention option (''modifying human needs'') because, while this action may be possible, it is very difficult to accomplish and likely is not an intervention that marine user groups currently have the capacity to accomplish. It is important, however, to recognize the human needs that draw individuals to the marine environment: the need to cam a living, to engage in recreation, and to transport resources that enhance quality of life at the destination. It is also important to recognize that human needs might be modified, especially in the sense of altering perceptions about what needs and behaviors are regarded as appropriate in the marine environment. The committee's flow diagram, which identifies both the stages of hazard evolution and the possible interventions, is shown in Figure 3-2. The second change made by the committee was to re-label the second box ("human wants") to focus on behavior. (This change is not reflected in Figure 3-2 due to the simplicity of the diagram but appears in matrixes presented later in this chapter and in Chapter 4.) Because Annex V establishes new performance standards, it is appropriate to focus here on the changes in behavior that must be achieved to accomplish the mandated level of performance. No change in "human wants" is required, although this might help, indirectly. Interventions to Remedy the Hazard The committee recognized that a comprehensive set of approaches to implementation of Annex V was essential, based on the durable nature of the hazard created by garbage thrown overboard, and the need for a broad-based effort to halt permanently many longstanding practices of all sectors of the maritime community. Therefore, in addition to modifying the Kasperson and Pijawka hazard evolution model to focus on vessel garbage, the committee further set the stage
OCR for page 67
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Figure 3-2 Intervention opportunities in hazard management. Source: Adapted from Kasperson and Pijawka, 1985.
OCR for page 68
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea for its analysis by identifying five general approaches that might yield successful interventions and that, taken together, would cover all aspects of maritime activities. These five approaches were selected based on the committee's judgment, but, fortuitously, they also are suggested by Annex V. Specifically, the committee proposes that potent interventions to support successful implementation of Annex V can come from technological innovations, organizational and operational changes, educational communications, government and private regulation and enforcement, and economic incentives. These five approaches were incorporated, along with the elements identified by Kasperson and Pijawka, into a generic matrix designed by the committee. In the matrix, the rows represent the five general intervention approaches, and the columns represent the boxes (as modified) from the Kasperson and Pijawka flow diagram. To illustrate the strength of the hazard evolution concept in clarifying the unfamiliar, the committee used its generic matrix to analyze the intervention options permitted and encouraged by Annex V regulations and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Guidelines for the Implementation of Annex V (Garbage), which propose an integrated garbage management regime that combines waste reduction, treatment, and disposal strategies. (Table 3-1 illustrates this application of the model.) The following commentary on this application of the matrix also describes the general intervention approaches and establishes why the committee found them so appropriate to the hazard in question. Technological Innovations While most pollution-control technology to date has been designed to minimize the release of waste into the environment, technology also can assist in reducing both the amount of waste generated and exposure to the waste once it is introduced into the environment. Clearly, technology could be a useful intervention at numerous stages in the evolution of the hazard posed by vessel garbage. Table 3-1 shows how both Annex V and the IMO implementation guidelines encourage the use of technologies to intervene against the hazard at every step. In some cases, new technology may be needed, or existing technology may require further development to make it suitable for use on vessels or in port reception facilities. Research by the U.S. Navy has demonstrated some of the possibilities in garbage treatment equipment for military use. According to the four criteria established by Navy developers, shipboard systems should (1) be appropriate to handle the garbage generated by ships with different populations
OCR for page 69
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea and missions, (2) be sized to the space available on boats and ships, (3) be reliable and cost effective and (4) produce processed garbage in appropriate form for safe disposal as defined by Annex V (Smookler and Alig, 1992). Technologies tailored for use in port reception facilities also would support Annex V; existing technologies used to manage other waste streams need to be adapted for use in ports. As valuable as technology may be, it is not a panacea for environmental problems. Research suggests there is a maximum 35 percent ongoing implementation level for federal environmental regulations that include technological applications (Burby and Patterson, 1993).1 Therefore, supplementary interventions are required. Organizational and Operational Changes Organizational and operational changes are crucial to the Annex V regime, which attempts to change some very old practices. Responsible handling of vessel garbage has not been emphasized in business or government until recently, and there is much to modify. Necessary organizational and operational changes that have been identified include (1) consistent articulation of commitment to comply with Annex V by top executives of corporations involved in marine activities, (2) standardization and closer integration of vessel and port garbage handling practices so that vessel operators know what to expect, and (3) improved coordination among the various federal agencies responsible for implementation of Annex V. The first of these factors is addressed here. The integration of garbage handling practices is addressed in Chapter 5, and the issue of coordinating federal agency activities is addressed in Chapter 7. Bassow (1992) emphasizes that implementation of environmental regulations requires combining appropriate changes in technology with changes in corporate culture. He explains: In the last 20 years, many U.S. companies have adopted comprehensive environmental policies. They have introduced new procedures and technologies to reduce and eliminate harmful impacts on the environment and human health. But these are technological fixes, engineering fixes. The much more difficult challenge is to change the way people within a company think about the company's environmental policies, to change their attitudes and their mind set, in effect, to change their collective beliefs about the way the company does business. We're now talking about changing the corporate culture. 1 The 35 percent figure was derived as follows: 70 percent of the requisite technology was installed, and adequate maintenance to permit the technology to function was provided 50 percent (or half) of the time; half of 70 percent equals 35 percent total ongoing implementation (Burby and Patterson, 1993).
OCR for page 70
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea TABLE 3-1 Applying the Hazard Evolution and Intervention Model to MARPOL Annex V Provisions Hazard Evolution Model Behavior that Encourages Generating Garbage On-board Generation of Garbage Breakdown in Compliance Intervention Model Modify Behavior that Encourages Generating Garbage Reduce Garbage Generation during Voyage Prevent Breakdown in Compliance Technological Behavior modification is encouraged throughout guidelines but not mandated by Annex V regulations. While not mandated by Annex V regulations, waste reduction is encouraged explicitly by Guideline 3 (Minimizing the amount of potential garbage). Organizational and Operational No restrictions are imposed. As long as the garbage generated is disposed of properly, no on-board activities need be constrained. Waste reduction is encouraged but not required.
OCR for page 71
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Hazard Evolution Model Discharge of Garbage into Sea Exposure to Discharged Garbage Consequence of Discharged Garbage Intervention Model Block Discharge of Garbage into Sea Block Exposure to Discharged Garbage Diminish Consequences of Discharged Garbage Technological Guideline 4 (Shipboard garbage handling and storage procedures) and Guideline 5 (Shipboard equipment for processing garbage) address means for meeting the need to retain garbage on board for disposal in port reception facilities (addressed in Guideline 6). Pretreatment prior to release apparently is intended to minimize, although not block, the exposure to the garbage. Both food and nonfood garbage may be discharged after comminution to particles less than 25 mm in diameter. Guideline 4.3.5 encourages recovery of garbage at sea, but retrieval is not mandated. Organizational and Operational Discharge is only partially blocked. Overboard disposal of plastics is prohibited but many other items may be so discharged (Regulation 3). Pretreatment (i.e., grinding) is required in some cases. Restrictions vary by the location of discharge. Annex V provides maximum protection to coastal sea within 25 miles of shore. Floating non-plastic garbage may be discharged beyond 25 miles (Regulation 3.1.b.i). "Sinkable" garbage may be discharged beyond 12 miles (Regulation 3.1.b.ii). No discharges except ground food waste are permitted from fixed or floating structures. Annex V emphasizes the elimination of plastic discharges, which are judged most harmful. IMO guidelines encourage prevention and retrieval of lost fishing gear, even though such loss does not violate Annex V.
OCR for page 72
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Hazard Evolution Model Behavior that Encourages Generating Garbage On-board Generation of Garbage Breakdown in Compliance Intervention Model Modify Behavior that Encourages Generating Garbage Reduce Garbage Generation during Voyage Prevent Breakdown in Compliance Educational (Target Population/Content) Guideline 2 calls on governments to "develop and undertake training, education and public information programmes suited for all seafaring communities under their jurisdictions." Guideline 2.2 encourages exchange of information on compliance strategies. Placards and notices must be provided to crews of vessels over a certain size (under U.S. law). Annex V can be used as a tool in fostering public support for and raising mariners' environmental awareness. Regulation and Enforcement (by governments and private organizations in signatory nations, as required by the treaty and international law) Guideline 7.3 recommends that national governments assist and recognize compliance initiatives by private and professional organizations.
OCR for page 73
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Hazard Evolution Model Discharge of Garbage into Sea Exposure to Discharged Garbage Consequence of Discharged Garbage Intervention Model Block Discharge of Garbage into Sea Block Exposure to Discharged Garbage Diminish Consequences of Discharged Garbage Educational (Target Population/Content) To effect the changes mandated by Annex V, the guidelines encourage provision of both general information and specific education about means to comply. Guidelines also encourage technical exchange concerning improvements achieved in performance and equipment used for complying with garbage restrictions. Regulation and Enforcement (by governments and private organizations in signatory nations, as required by the treaty and international law) Annex V requires signatory nations to provide "adequate" reception facilities. Guideline 7.1 (Enforcement) suggests means to organize national authorities, record use of port reception facilities, and verify vessel operators' activities. Guideline 1.3 encourages the maximum use of port reception facilities rather than continued discharges at sea, even where legal.
OCR for page 74
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Hazard Evolution Model Behavior that Encourages Generating Garbage On-board Generation of Garbage Breakdown in Compliance Intervention Model Modify Behavior that Encourages Generating Garbage Reduce Garbage Generation during Voyage Prevent Breakdown in Compliance Economic (Market Forces) Guidelines include directions for estimating the required capacity of reception facilities but many uncertainties remain. Guideline 7.2 addresses compliance incentives, such as funding for capital investment in port facilities or garbage hauling infrastructure. It is likely that changing the orientation of personnel at all levels of an organization (i.e., changing the corporate culture) becomes more important when compliance with a regulation is very challenging, as in the case of Annex V. Indeed, organizational and operational changes may be essential in order to engage personnel and other resources in the effort to comply with Annex V. Such changes can range from modifying a procurement officer's job description to specifying that suppliers use reusable packaging, to reorganizing a port's waste management operations so that services are integrated. Organizational activities also can include development of company rules for handling garbage and internal penalties for violations of the rules, up to and including dismissal (Estes, 1993). These approaches must be supported by training, to prepare the organization for
OCR for page 75
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Hazard Evolution Model Discharge of Garbage into Sea Exposure to Discharged Garbage Consequence of Discharged Garbage Intervention Model Block Discharge of Garbage into Sea Block Exposure to Discharged Garbage Diminish Consequences of Discharged Garbage Economic (Market Forces) Annex V does not establish cost criteria for reception facilities but acknowledges implicit costs (delay to ships). Garbage hauling fees add to ship operating expenses. Annex V does not require ports to charge fees or ships to land garbage Annex V compliance, and commitment of organizational resources to develop new internal garbage management plans. Again, Table 3-1 makes it clear that the drafters of Annex V expected seafarers to include organizational and operational changes in their compliance plans. No specific changes are mandated, however. By establishing performance standards, the drafters left managers and operators the flexibility to devise a compliance program that best suits their circumstances. To effect a change in corporate culture, according to Bassow, there must be communication, involvement of all managers and employees, training and support, and system alignment to the new goals. "The experience of large corporations shows that synergy between technological change and a responsive corpo-
OCR for page 76
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea rate culture that supports an environmental vision is essential to achieving environmental goals'' (Bassow, 1992). The committee heard from commercial ship operators who discussed the way in which Total Quality Management (TQM) (Barkley and Saylor, 1993) is being adopted in the industry. The TQM approach may enable the commercial marine culture to incorporate new objectives more rapidly than would have been feasible through other management practices. Globally, the maritime industries have been trying to articulate the role management has to play in meeting the ambitious goals set by IMO and individual governments. Members of IMO have tried to unify years of isolated efforts into a comprehensive document that speaks to shoreside executives as well as watchstanding crew members. Guidelines for ship management and quality assurance have been developed (International Maritime Organization, 1993). While vessel crew members carry out garbage discharges, a corporate culture perspective would suggest that crew behavior reflects the values of their employer corporations and their professional membership organizations. These corporations and organizations may not have fully developed cultures committed to reducing environmental hazards. This lack of commitment may be influenced by the intractability of the marine waste management problem as well as the threat it poses to other corporate values, such as profit. It is important to remember that integrated waste management is more than technology—it is an organizational concept that employs technology. Organizational changes are possible in all phases identified in the hazard evolution model for vessel garbage, but particularly ''upstream," such as in modifying seafarers' behaviors, preventing initiating events, and blocking the discharge of garbage into the sea. A supportive organizational culture can make it easier to introduce new operating practices through measures such as restricting the distribution of supplies (Gallop, undated) and eliminating packaging that seafarers are accustomed to having ashore but do not need at sea. An example of such an intervention is to switch from small to large ketchup bottles in a dining room on an offshore platform. An oil company reported that it expected to eliminate 4,800 bottles from its annual waste stream through this change, without asking anyone to give up ketchup (Babin and Toll, 1992). Educational Communication Education has been shown to be an effective intervention against the problem of vessel garbage. Education often is employed in the movement to combat environmental hazards; such approaches have been used effectively, for example, in lobbying the U.S. Congress to ratify Annex V and enact the Marine Plastics Pollution Research and Control Act (O'Hara et al., 1988). But in the present context, persuasive public information is not enough. To achieve its potential in supporting Annex V, education must target specific users in each maritime sec-
OCR for page 77
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea tor. Within each sector, certain individuals and groups responsible for different aspects of Annex V compliance will have distinct requirements for education, training, and information exchange. Table 3-1 outlines how the drafters of Annex V viewed education and information exchange. Educational messages should be structured to build the seafarer's self-image as someone who engages in environmentally sound behavior (i.e., MARPOL compliance) voluntarily rather waiting for imposition of external controls (i.e., prosecution for a violation). Messages not only should persuade users to comply and provide information about legal responsibilities, but also should describe compliance methods, because a mariner needs tools to make it possible to follow the rules. Educational interventions are possible throughout the hazard evolution model. Mariners can be made aware of the way in which their needs are manifested in behaviors. They also can be taught alternative ways to satisfy their needs or even persuaded to constrain their needs while at sea because of the difficulties with garbage disposal. Simultaneously, it may be necessary to confront lingering, outdated attitudes among those who still view the ocean as a garbage receptacle. The educational message might be that it is inappropriate to continue garbage-generating activities at sea, unless one is willing to take responsibility for proper disposal. There are also promising possibilities for educational intervention at the waste generation and waste release stages. Objectives could include stimulating recognition and modification of behaviors that result in garbage being carried or generated on board vessels or disposed of improperly. If mariners were made aware of the ways in which marine organisms are exposed to garbage and the impact of the hazard, then they might recognize the need to modify their behaviors "upstream" in the hazard evolution model. Once informed about the legal restrictions, many mariners will modify their behavior in order to avoid sanctions. Multilingual and cross-cultural educational efforts are needed due to the international character of many crews. Educational communication can target either the individual user or those in authority who can change an organization to improve implementation of Annex V. Either way, it is important to recognize that no individual decides in isolation whether to comply. Norms of behavior exist for all subcultures in the marine community, whether the groups encompass specific types of users, particular regions of the country, or specific communities within a region. Therefore, the educational process should reinforce the message through group dynamics (Laska, 1990). To ignore the power of a group in influencing its members is to lose an important opportunity to alter behavior. User organizations need to be employed as much as possible as vehicles for communicating the importance of compliance with Annex V and for altering behavior throughout the intervention.
OCR for page 78
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Government and Private Regulation and Enforcement Environmental policies and enabling legislation must be accompanied by a commitment to enforcement if the regulatory process is to be successful. It is important to punish violators of environmental laws, which are designed to protect the commons. Annex V, like most environmental regulations, gives new enforcement authority to governments. The matrix details how the drafters of Annex V established both new standards and means to enforce them. Compliance rates are likely to fall if agencies charged with enforcement are not adequately funded or committed to enforcement. If no one ever is punished, then many seafarers will feel no pressure to comply. If no one is even caught, then more seafarers will disregard the law and continue to toss garbage overboard. Clearly, enforcement must serve as a visible deterrent to potential violators. But it is important to acknowledge that enforcement is only one way for a government to intervene. Overemphasizing this responsibility as the major obligation of government could skew implementation of Annex V toward a small group of violators, leaving unmet the needs of seafarers who are trying to comply. In other words, government needs to address the entire hazard evolution process. Regulations have focused on later stages of the hazard evolution process, by punishing illegal garbage discharges and requiring ports to provide reception facilities. Of course, these strategies may affect the upstream points of intervention indirectly, because good enforcement encourages modifications early in the process that reduce the costs of compliance later. The federal government is not the only U.S. regulatory body involved in control of vessel garbage. Some state and local jurisdictions have established regulations that differ from and sometimes are more stringent than federal requirements. (An example is California's quarantine requirements, which are more stringent than federal standards [Mendel, 1992]). This situation may exacerbate the difficulty of complying with Annex V and other related regulations and thereby increase the incidence of violations. The private sector also regulates the garbage disposal practices of employees, clients, and others. Private firms and other organizations can establish internal systems of penalties for violations of Annex V or for policy infractions that could lead to illegal garbage discharge. Economic Incentives If compliance is cheaper than committing a violation, then economic theory holds that seafarers will tend to comply. Several types of interventions encourage compliance by offering an economic benefit or opportunity. Whenever possible, it is important to facilitate compliance in a cost-effective manner. For example, the cost of disposing of vessel garbage in ports varies widely, even for the same service. Furthermore, the basis for the pricing is so variable that it is difficult for vessel operators to assess which ports offer the best value. Costs may be quoted
OCR for page 79
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea in cubic meters, kilograms, bins, dumpsters, skips, truckloads, barges, or other measures. If there were uniform and affordable garbage disposal rates, then levels of compliance probably would rise. Another possible economic incentive lies in the development of on-board garbage processing equipment that is reasonably priced, reliable, and effective. The government could be involved in this effort. For example, existing mechanisms could be used to disseminate to the private sector any relevant technical developments by government engineering facilities. Another option would be to assist the private sector (e.g., through loans) with research to improve on-board garbage treatment methods. Economic incentives are powerful means of encouraging compliance. In fact, for commercial marine users, these likely are the most important incentives. Because regulation and enforcement requires these users to bear the cost of business externalities such as garbage disposal, the cost of noncompliance (e.g., fines, bad publicity, reduced product and/or service demand) is weighed against the cost of compliance. Actions taken at each stage of the hazard evolution model may be considered means of reducing compliance costs. Application of the Model to the Seafarer Communities The foregoing overview of the two-dimensional hazard evolution model illuminates the range of interventions that could facilitate implementation of Annex V. The drafters of Annex V clearly intended that signatory nations would use many methods to encourage compliance or enable enforcement. There is an additional dimension of the problem of Annex V implementation that the model does not address adequately in its present form—the breadth and diversity of the regulated maritime fleets and ports. To remedy that shortcoming and assure that recommendations based on the model contain sufficient detail to be useful to policymakers, the committee decided to develop a separate matrix for each of the nine maritime sectors addressed in this report. This approach enabled the committee to consider specific interventions by type of action and phase of the process for each user group. In doing so, commonalities across user groups became evident, thereby suggesting where combined efforts might provide economy of scale. The examination of the nine maritime sectors may be found in Chapter 4. In filling in the cells of each matrix, two related approaches were employed. The activities of the user group were considered with respect to the actual and the potential waste they generated; the committee determined how the activities could be modified through various types of efforts. Concurrently, the committee focused on the different types of garbage generated by each group and how each type might best be controlled.
OCR for page 80
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea A Final Modification to the Model In adapting the matrix to each maritime sector, the committee omitted the final column ("Consequences") because it is usually beyond the ability of most seafarers to intervene once garbage is loose in the ocean. This is, of course, a critical point in the hazard evolution model, where the peril evolves from a possibility into reality. (The committee's review of the ecological and social consequences of discharging garbage from ships is summarized in Chapter 2 and Appendix F.) From the perspective of planning for Annex V implementation, however, the source of discharged waste is not a factor in intervening against the consequences. No matter what types of mariners discharge garbage into the sea, their capability to intervene is limited. It is possible for others to take effective action once debris is discharged into the marine environment. What is important in the present context is the issue of whether and how to integrate these types of interventions into the Annex V implementation strategy. Beach cleanups, for instance, are readily identifiable as interventions, however modest, against the consequences of a hazard. Each volunteer who bags a piece of marine debris is helping to reduce the hazard to wildlife, lessen aesthetic degradation of the beach, and reroute the pollutant into the shoreside waste management system. For materials still in the water, retrieval serves the same purpose. Fishermen who capture debris in their nets and bring it back to shore for disposal are helping to mitigate the consequences of someone else's discards. Such efforts are neither encouraged nor rewarded in the present Annex V implementation regime. Rewards could be offered to encourage seafarers to retrieve marine debris; this approach has been employed in fishing tournaments in the Gulf of Mexico (Louisiana State University Sea Grant Program, 1989). SUMMARY A systematic approach to Annex V implementation can help government authorities and regulated seafarers take full advantage of all options available to address the challenges posed by a potent pollutant—vessel garbage. The hazard evolution model described in this chapter is an example of such a systematic approach. An important feature of the model is the inclusion of waste reduction as a garbage management option. The committee's analysis demonstrates that, to date, most efforts to reduce the hazard—whether economic incentives, educational programs, or enforcement of the law—have been "downstream." That is, most interventions are carried out after packaging and other items made of nondegradable materials are brought on board. Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency revised its hazardous waste policy, which formerly emphasized waste
OCR for page 81
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea management, to focus "upstream" on reducing waste generation (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990). In seeking ways to improve implementation of Annex V, the federal government might benefit from emulating the shift in EPA's waste management policy. REFERENCES Babin, D.A. and B. Toll. 1992. One company's response to offshore waste management. Pp. 310-317 in Proceedings: Twelfth Annual Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting, Nov. 5-7, 1991, New Orleans, La., compiled by Geo-Marine, Inc. New Orleans: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. December. Barkley, B. and J.H. Saylor. 1993. Customer-Driven Project Management: A New Paradigm in Total Quality Implementation. New York: McGraw Hill. Bassow, W. 1992. Environmental policy, corporate culture. Environmental Protection 3:10-13. Burby, R. and R.G. Patterson. 1993. Improving compliance with state environmental regulations. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 12(4):753-772. Estes, J.T. 1993. Testimony of John T. Estes, president, International Council of Cruise Lines, before the Subcommittee on Superfund, Ocean, and Water Protection of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, 102nd Congress, Second Session, Washington, D.C., Sept. 17, 1992. Pp. 18 in Implementation of the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act. S. Hrg. 102-984. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Gallop, M. Undated. USS Theodore Roosevelt Environmental Compliance Program Cookbook. Available from the commanding officer, USS Theodore Roosevelt, homeport in Norfolk, Va. Hohenemser, C., R.E. Kasperson, and R.W. Kates. 1985. Casual Structure. Pp. 25-42 in Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology, R.W. Kates, C. Hohenemser, and J.X. Kasperson, eds. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. International Maritime Organization (IMO). 1993. International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and For Pollution Prevention (International Safety Management [ISM] Code). Resolution A.741(18). Adopted November 4, 1993. Available from IMO, 4 Albert Embank merit, London, SEI 7SR. Kasperson, R.E. and K.D. Pijawka. 1985. Societal response to hazards and major hazard events: Comparing natural and technological hazards. Public Administration Review 45:7-18. Special issue. Kasperson, R.E., R.W. Fates, and C. Hohenemser. 1985. Hazard Management. Pp. 43-66 in Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology, R.W. Kates, C. Hohenemser, and J.X. Kasperson, eds. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Laska, S. 1990. Designing effective educational programs: The attitudinal basis of marine littering. Pp. 1179-1190 in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii (Vol. II), R.S. Shomura and M.L. Godfrey, eds. NOAA-TMNMFS-SWFSC-154. Available from the Marine Entanglement Research Program of the National Marine Fisheries Service (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Seattle, Wash. December. Louisiana State University Sea Grant Program. 1989. Saltwater Anglers and Research. Aquanotes 18(spring):1-3. Mendel, N. 1992. Presentation by Nell Mendel, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service supervisor, Port of Oakland, to the Committee on Shipborne Wastes of the National Research Council, at Coast Guard Island, Alameda, Calif., Oct. 15-17, 1992. O'Hara, K.J, S. Iudicello, and R. Bierce. 1988. A Citizens Guide to Plastics in the Ocean: More Than A Litter Problem. Washington, D.C.: Center for Environmental Education (now the Center for Marine Conservation).
OCR for page 82
Clean Ships Clean Ports Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea Smookler, A. and C. Alig. 1992. The Navy's shipboard waste management research and development program. Naval Engineers Journal 104(3):89-97. May. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Management. SAB-EC-90-021. Washington, D.C.: EPA Science Advisory Board.
Representative terms from entire chapter: