Aftermath of Prestige oil spill - A oil cleanup volunteer holds an oil covered Comorant
A year after the Prestige oil spill, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has done nothing to prevent further catastrophes. Instead, the organisation is trying to remove the consultative status of one of its most outspoken critics: Greenpeace.
The IMO is the United Nations (UN) body that's responsible for ensuring 'safer ships' and 'cleaner seas.' Greenpeace has had consultative status since 1991, and has worked for stricter regulations against dozens of environmentally unsound practices, from the transport of high-level radioactive waste at sea to a ban on single-hulled oil tankers.
The IMO Council took action to expel Greenpeace in June 2002. Several member states, including Cyprus and Turkey, lodged complaints that Greenpeace practiced unsafe seamanship. Not coincidentally, several of these countries are Flag of Convenience states, which have been the targets of Greenpeace protests for operating unsafe oil tankers or carrying unsafe cargoes in the past. Without a vote, the Chair decided to uphold the complaints and expel Greenpeace, saying the decision would be "forwarded for formal decision to the IMO Assembly." That assembly takes place between November 24 and December 5 in London.
This decision is unprecedented.
At forums such as the IMO, Greenpeace speaks for the oceans. We speak for the ecosystems that have no high-paid lobbyists to defend them, for the whales and dolphins that can't lodge a complaint against the oil giants. We counterbalance industry lobby groups such as Intertanko, the industry association of supertanker owners. (Which, incidentally, has never had its consultative status threatened for "unsafe seamanship" despite the fact that supertanker oil spills such as the Exxon Valdez, the Erika, and the Prestige have been responsible for environmental, economic, and human catastrophes the world over.)
Under the IMO's own guidelines, an observer can be expelled for specified reasons, for example if an organisation has failed to attend meetings regularly or changed its activities. None of these are grounds that can be made against Greenpeace.
Rather, following the complaints made by some member states, the IMO is claiming that some Greenpeace activities, in highlighting the environmental problems associated with shipping, has contravened the 1972 collision regulations; so-called COLREGS. These are important safety laws which aim to ensure safety at sea. It has not been contested by any State that Greenpeace is a non-violent organisation and uses peaceful means to highlight bad practices. The IMO moves are based on complaints such as protests against GMO shipments, substandard tankers and nuclear shipments.
We believe that the safety of life at sea and the protection of the marine environment are of paramount importance. These concerns underpin all our work - both the issues we address and how we address them.
Safety comes first for Greenpeace at all times. Our activists are thoroughly trained, our nautical standards and expertise have earned the respect of coast guards and maritime specialists around the world. Unlike the oil industry, we don't put other people's lives or the environment at risk with our actions.
The claims made in the IMO are false. Greenpeace has never been taken to court, much less prosecuted for violating COLREGS. In fact, when we were first granted consultative status, Greenpeace made a commitment to abide by the rules of good seamanship, including the COLREGS and has reaffirmed this commitment to the IMO since then.
Furthermore, the way that Greenpeace operates and the issues which we tackle have not changed since we were first given consultative status in 1991. And our fundamental commitment to speak out on behalf of the planet, despite attempts to shut us down and shut us up, has not changed since 1971.
Greenpeace International has Consultative Status in Category II with ECOSOC (the UN Economic and Social Council), and we take part as an official observer at a wide range of political conferences and conventions. No other forum, either regional or global, has ever expelled Greenpeace.
The reality is that our activities have upset some members of the shipping industry - those which are involved in environmentally damaging activities. If the IMO's mission is truly to protect the seas and ensure safer shipping, they shouldn't be shooting the messenger: they should be taking action now to ensure disasters like the Prestige oil spill never happen again.
