LAW

LONDON DUMPING GROUND

QUESTIONS ASKED:
1. WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND BY THE TERM PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH WITH
REGARD TO MARINE POLLUTION AND WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIVES OF LONDON DUMPING
CONVENTION? WHAT OPERATIONS ARE NOT CONSIDERED DISPOSAL AT SEA UNDER THE
LONDON DUMPING CONVENTION. (AUG 08)
2. WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIVES OF LONDON DUMPING CONVENTION. HOW ARE THESE
OBJECTIVES ACHIEVED? (JAN 09)

OBJECTIVES OF LONDON DUMPING CONVENTION

OBJECTIVES OF THE CONVENTION ARE TO PROMOTE THE EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF ALL
SOURCES OF MARINE POLLUTION AND TO ENCOURAGE REGIONAL AGREEMENTS
SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE AGREEMENT.
THE PURPOSE IS TO CONTROL ALL SOURCES OF MARINE POLLUTION AND PREVENT POLLUTION
OF THE SEA BY PREVENTING DELIBERATE DISPOSAL AT SEA OF WASTES OR OTHER MATTER FROM
VESSELS, AIRCRAFT, AND PLATFORMS.

THE OBJECTIVES ARE ACHIEVED BY FOLLOWING:

1. A SO CALLED BLACK LIST AND GREY LIST APPROACH IS APPLIED FOR WASTES, WHICH CAN BE
CONSIDERED FOR DISPOSAL AT SEA ACCORDING TO THE HAZARD THEY PRESENT TO THE
ENVIRONMENT. FOR THE BLACK LIST ITEMS DUMPING IS PROHIBITED. FOR THE DUMPING OF
GREY LISTED MATERIALS A SPECIAL PERMIT IS REQUIRED A DESIGNATED AUTHORITY UNDER
STRICT CONTROL AND PROVIDED CERTAIN CONDITION ARE MET.
2. THE 1996 PROTOCOL PRESENTS MORE RESTRICTIVE MEASURES:
1. APPLICATION OF A PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH IS INCLUDED AS A GENERAL OBLIGATION.
2. A REVERSE LIST APPROACH IS ADOPTED, WHICH IMPLIES THAT ALL DUMPING IS PROHIBITED
UNLESS EXPLICITLY PERMITTED,
3. INCINERATION OF WASTES AT SEA IS PROHIBITED,
4. EXPORT OF WASTE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DUMPING OR INCINERATION AT SEA IS PROHIBITED.

OPERATIONS WHICH ARE NOT CONSIDERED DISPOSAL AT SEA UNDER THIS CONVENTION
1. DISCHARGES OF WASTES ARISING DURING NORMAL OPERATION OF THE VESSEL,
2. DISPOSAL OF WASTE ARISING FROM EXPLORATION OR EXTRACTION OF SEA BED MINERAL
RESOURCES,
3. PLACEMENT ON THE SEA FLOOR FOR A PURPOSE OTHER THAN DISPOSAL (EG. SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH DEVICES)

PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH
IT REQUIRES THAT APPROPRIATE PREVENTIVE MEASURES ARE TAKEN WHEN THERE IS REASON TO
BELIEVE THAT WASTES OR OTHER MATTER INTRODUED INTO THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT ARE
LIKELY TO CAUSE HARM EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE TO PROVE A CAUSAL
RELATION BETWEEN INPUTS AND THEIR EFFECTS. THE ARTICLE ALSO STATES THAT THE POLLUTER
IN PRINCIPLE SHOULD BEAR THE COST OF THE POLLUTION. THE CONVENTION ALSO EMPHASIZES
THAT CONTRACTING PARTIES SHOULD ENSURE THAT POLLUTION SHOULD NOT TRANSFER FROM
ONE PART OF THE ENVIRONMENT TO THE OTHER