Land-based marine pollution and the Arctic - polarities between principles and practice

8 Land-based marine pollution and the
Arctic: polarities between principles and
practice
 *
The concept of sustainable development calls for the application of
manyprinciples – including public participation,
polluter pays, intergenerational
equity, community-based management, indigenous rights and environmental
impact assessment.
1
Fundamental in combating land-based pollution is the pre-
cautionary principle, also known as the precautionary‘approach’.
2
It urges a shift
awayfrom the traditional belief in the assimilative capacityof the oceans to absorb
wastes and faith in end-of-pipe standards to achieve acceptable environmental
qualitystandards. The precautionaryprinciple is torn between competing
philosophies towards nature and natural resources. In its strictest form, it calls for
quite extreme law and policyreforms that emphasise pollution prevention and the
need to develop clean technologies and products.
Extreme control measures may include the establishment of zero dis-
charge (or virtual elimination) standards for synthetic chemicals, a ‘reverse listing’
approach to chemicals management where only ‘safe’ chemicals are listed for use,
and a shift in the burden of proof to those proposing development activities to
show some standard of safety.
3
Best available technology without regard to costs is
a further direct measure often advocated.
4
175
* The author wishes to acknowledge the research assistance of Justin Mellor, third-year law student

at Dalhousie Law School, and research funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada.
1
See J. M. Van Dyke, ‘The Rio Principles, and Our Responsibilities of Ocean Stewardship’, Ocean and
Coastal Management, Vol. 31, 1996, pp. 1–23; and P. Sands, ‘International Law in the Field of
Sustainable Development: Emerging Legal Principles’, in W. Lang (ed.), Sustainable Development
and International Law (London and Dordrecht: Graham & Trotman and Martinus Nijhoff, 1995),
pp. 53–72.
2
For reviews, see D. Freestone and E. Hey, ‘Origins and Development of the Precautionary Principle’,
in D. Freestone and H. Hey (eds.), The Precautionary Principle and International Law: The
Challenge of Implementation (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1996), pp. 3–12; and E. Hey,
‘The Precautionary Principle’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 26, 1993, p. 53.
3
J. Moffett, ‘Legislative Options for Implementing the Precautionary Principle’, Journal of
Environmental Law and Practice, Vol. 7, 1997, pp. 157, 166–7; A. Deville and R. Harding, Applying
the Precautionary Principle (Sydney: Federation Press, 1997), p. 71; and T. Lundmark, ‘Systemizing
Environmental Law on a German Model’, Dickinson Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, Vol. 7,
1998, pp. 1, 17.
4
O. McIntyre and T. Mosedale, ‘The Precautionary Principle as a Norm of Customary International
Law’, Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 9, 1997, pp. 221, 237.
A more utilitarian view of precaution, as articulated in Principle 15 of the
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development,
5
supports an array of less
extreme management measures. Reliance on cost–benefit and risk–benefit assess-
ments is viewed as critical in reaching rational decisions. Flexible trade-offs
between environmental and economic values are encouraged through application
of best available techniques (with consideration given to costs).

6
The principles of pollution prevention and precaution ar
e closely related,
as pollution prevention measures are one of the best ways of being ‘precautionary’.
There is also a distinction, however, since the precautionary principle or approach
applies where there is scientific uncertainty regarding the cause–effect links of an
activity.
7
The twin principles of precaution and pollution prevention raise various
questions which will be explored in this chapter. These include:
1. How far are the abstract principles heralded by politicians and bureau-
crats being translated into concrete action in the Arctic?
2. To what extent do ethical, economic, scientific and cultural perspectives
influence interpretations?
3. How effectively are concerns o
ver toxic contamination of traditional
foods of Arctic inhabitants and calls for preventing transboundary pollu-
tion being articulated and heeded at the regional and global levels?
Practical questions have also arisen over the adequacy of financial and human
resource commitments to environmental protection, and the effectiveness of com-
pliance and enforcement.
This chapter examines the tensions between the principles of precaution
and pollution prevention, on the one hand, and actual practices relating to land-
based pollution control in the Arctic, on the other. Following an introductory
summary of the sources of land-based marine pollution in and into the Arctic,
further sections review global efforts to address land-based pollution in terms of
the precautionary principle or approach, as well as examining extra-regional
efforts to address land-based sources of pollution. The focus is then shifted to
‘regional seas’ agreements tangential to Arctic land-based pollution control,
specifically the two 1992 conventions for the protection of the marine environment

of the northeast Atlantic
8
and the Baltic Sea area, respectively.
9
Finally, efforts
176 David VanderZwaag
5
UN doc. A/CONF.151/26, Vol. 1, text reprinted in ILM, Vol. 31, 1992, pp. 874ff.
6
F. B. Cross, ‘Paradoxical Perils of the Precautionary Principle’, Washington & Lee Law Review, Vol.
53, 1996, p. 851.
7
See J. Cameron and W. Wade-Gery, ‘Addressing Uncertainty: Law, Policy and the Development of
the Precautionary Principle’, CSERGE Working Paper GEC 92-43 (London: Centre for Social and
Economic Research on the Global Environment, 1992), pp. 6–8.
8
Reprinted in ILM, Vol. 32, 1993, pp. 1,069ff.
9
Reprinted in K. R. Simmonds (ed.), New Directions in the Law of the Sea (New Series), Vol. 3, J. 47,
Release 92–2 (London: Oceana Publications, 1993), pp. 1–53.
undertaken at the Arctic regional level to address land-based sources of marine
pollution are reviewed.
10
   
Although the Arctic Ocean has been described as less polluted than other
marine regions,
11
the Arctic seas are coming under increasing str
ess from various
sources: from land-based activities in the Arctic, particularly in the Russian

Federation; from long-range movements of hazardous substances from areas
outside the Arctic; and from global emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone-
depleting substances.
Land-based activities in the Arctic
From one perspective, land-based marine pollution in the Arctic would
not appear a major regional problem. Since population levels are relatively low,
with small communities dotting the coastline, quantities of human sewage are low
as well, and tend to have only local effects. For example, the population of
Greenland is about 57,000, out of which about 80 per cent live in villages. In the
Canadian Far North, approximately fifty settlements fringe the coast, with the
average community population being 742.
12
However, major local sources of marine and coastal pollution do exist –
among them urban settlements, mining wastes, oil and gas operations, nuclear
activities, industrial complexes (particularlysmelters), and pulp and paper mills.
Sewage from urban settlements is a special concern in the Russian Federation,
where some two million people live in its Arctic part.
13
The most serious discharges
of untreatedsewage and wastes come from Murmansk, Arkhangelsk, Severodvinsk,
Naryan-Mar, Anderma, Igarka, Dudinka,Tiksi and Pevek.
14
The annual discharge of
mining wastes into watercourses in the Murmansk region of the Russian
Federation is reported to be over two billion m
3
.
15
In addition to sources in the
Russian Arctic, mining wastes also enter the Arctic marine environment from two

Land-based marine pollution and the Arctic 177
10
A discussion of global agreements addressing land-based nuclear pollution is beyond the scope
of this chapter. On dumping of radioactive wastes in parts of the Arctic Ocean, see Stokke, Chapter
9 in this book.
11
Arctic Pollution Issues: A State of the Arctic Environment Report (Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and
Assessment Programme, 1997).
12
Working Group on the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment, Report to the Third
Ministerial Conference on the Protection of the Arctic Environment, 20–21 March 1996, Inuvik,
Canada (Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of the Environment, 1996), p. 31 (hereinafter PAME 1996
Report).
13
AMAP Assessment Report: Arctic Pollution Issues (Oslo: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment
Programme, 1998), p. 168.
14
Report of the Russian Arctic Group of the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea (ACOPS):
Identification and Assessment of Land-Based Sources Which Lead to the Degradation of the Arctic
Marine Environment, Executive Summary (London: Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea,
1996) (hereinafter ACOPS Report).
15
PAME 1996 Report, pp. 34–7.
lead-zinc mines in Canada that discharge tailing effluents – the Polaris mine on
Little Cornwallis Island and the Nanisivik mine on the north coast of Baffin Island
– and three former mines in Greenland known to be sources of heavymetals enter-
ing the sea.
Considerable amounts of hydrocarbons enter Arctic waters by means of
rivers and the atmosphere. Atmospheric transport is estimated to add about 40,000
tons of hydrocarbons to the Arctic marine environment annually. Input of petro-

leum hydrocarbons into the European Arctic is thought to stem mainly from river
transport, with Russian measurements indicating a concentration of petroleum
hydrocarbons four to twenty times higher in the Ob Gulf than in the Rhine or Elbe
rivers.
16
A major land-based oil pollution concern remains the Russian Federation’s
extensive pipeline network, which is often in poor condition and experiences fre-
quent leaks. Six trunk oil pipelines stretch over 10,000 km of western Siberia; the
network is capable of carrying 400 million tons of oil per year. Estimates of losses
from oil pipelines for western Siberia and Timan-Pechora, the two main petroleum
provinces of Russia, are 1–1.2 per cent. The notorious 1994 oil pipeline leaks north
of the town of Urinsk in the Komi Republic spilled over 100,000 tons across a 60 km
2
area, with some oil entering the Usa and Pechora rivers.
17
In addition to the contamination hazards associated with some 130
decommissioned former Soviet nuclear submarines, most of which remain afloat
in coastal ar
eas and have spent nuclear fuel aboard, two nuclear power plants
operate in the Russian north. The Kola nuclear power plant, estimated to produce
over 1,000 m
3
of radioactive solid and liquid wastes per year, has four nuclear reac-
tors. The Bilibino nuclear power plant in the Chuckchi autonomous district also
has four blocks; more than 3,600 spent nuclear assemblies are stored at the site.
18
The largest point-source contributors of land-based marine pollution
in the Arctic appear to be major mining-metallurgical complexes. Hot spots of
heavy metal emissions include the Pechenganikel industrial complex and the
Severonickel smelter complex on the Kola Peninsula of the Russian Federation.

Severonickel, the largest nickel-copper smelter in the world, emits an estimated
3,000 tons of copper and 2,700 tons of nickel annually to the atmosphere. The
Norilsk mining and metallurgical combine is also a major polluter, responsible
each year for up to 1,300 tons of nickel emissions, 3,000 tons of copper, 44 tons of
lead and almost 31,000 tons of sulphuric acid emissions.
19
Human health effects
from pollution may be severe, with overall child mortality in the Kola Peninsula
exceeding the Russian average by 39 per cent.
20
Also outside Russia there are prob-
lems. In northeastern Sweden, airborne emissions from the primary smelter at
178 David VanderZwaag
16
A State of the Arctic Environment Report, p. 151; and J. R. Hansen, R. Hansson and S. Norris (eds.),
‘The State of the European Arctic Environment’, EEA Environmental Monograph No. 3
(Copenhagen: European Environment Agency, 1996), p. 97 (hereinafter State of the European
Arctic Report).
17
A State of the Arctic Environment Report, p. 150; and ACOPS Report, pp. 31–3.
18
ACOPS Report, pp. 38–42.
19
A State of the Arctic Environment Report, p. 98; and ACOPS Report, pp. 9–10.
20
State of the European Arctic Report, p. 102.
Rönnskär carry arsenic, copper, lead, mercury, zinc as well as sulphur and nitrogen
compounds to the Arctic region.
21
Finally, pulp and paper mills are also among major land-based sources of

marine pollution on the Arctic. The volume of waste discharged from the Russian
Federation’s Arkhangelsk pulp mill between 1985 and 1990 ranged between 309
and 345 million m
3
per year, while the Solombalsky pulp mill contributed an
annual 82–90 million m
3
. Both mills dispose of wastes into the North Dvina r
iver,
whose estuarine area has been found to have dioxin levels exceeding industrial
areas of central Europe.
22
Long-range transport of hazardous substances from land-based sources
outside the Arctic
Three main categories of hazardous pollutants are transported from
outside the region. Radionuclides are carried by ocean currents into the Arctic from
three nuclear reprocessing plants in western Europe: Sellafield on the northwest
coast of England, La Hague near Cherbourg in France and Dounreay in northeast
Scotland.
23
Heavy metals, including mercury, lead, nickel, cadmium and copper,
are mainly transported from sources in Eurasia and North America.
24
Persistent
organic pollutants (POPs), typically semi-volatile and enabling long-distance
movements
, include many persistent pesticides such as dieldrin, DDT, to
xaphene,
chlordane and hexachlorocyclohexane; also several industrial compounds, among
them the polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); and various combustion by-products

such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) as well as dioxins and furans.
25
Substantial amounts of POPs may be reaching the Arctic, transported on
air masses from Europe, Russia, North America and Asia, and are a special concern.
Concentrating in the fatty tissues of wildlife, POPs raise health risks to indigenous
communities that rely on traditional diets high in lipid content. For example,
concentrations of organochlorines in mothers’ milk of the Inuit from Nunavik in
northern Quebec are two to ten times higher than levels in southern non-aborigi-
nal populations. While a whole range of socio-cultural, nutritional and spiritual
benefits accompany traditional foods, various threats are posed by toxic contami-
nants, including neurological effects, reproductive problems, immune suppres-
sion and cancer.
Global climate change and ozone depletion threats
Global warming, fuelled by greenhouse gas emissions, may have partic-
ularly severe impacts on the Arctic. Temperatures in the Arctic are predicted to rise
approximately twice the global average, and melting ice contributing to sea-level
Land-based marine pollution and the Arctic 179
21
PAME 1996 Report, p. 36.
22
ACOPS Report, pp. 36–7.
23
A State of the Arctic Environment Report, p. 114; and PAME 1996 Report, pp. 61–3.
24
A State of the Arctic Environment Report, p. 98.
25
Ibid., pp. 72–91.
rise may increase coastal erosion and inundate low-lying areas.
26
Thawing of the

permafrost could damage vegetation, while changes in sea ice could shift the
migration routes of marine mammals and reduce feeding areas for polar bears.
27
Higher temperatures and lower salinity (from increased snow melting) could
also affect global ocean circulation, including the warm North Atlantic current,
and might result in colder climates, especially in Scandinavia and northwest
Russia.
28
The thinning of the ozone layer over the Arctic is also a growing concern,
with its environmental impacts still uncertain. A general trend of ozone depletion
greater than 8 per cent per decade has been reported for the Arctic. Numerous
ozone holes, likened to Swiss cheese, occur over the Arctic in late winter and early
spring. At such times, depletion maybe severe indeed – up to 40 per cent. Snow,
with its highlyreflective surface, can double ultraviolet radiation exposure. Polar
plants and plankton that have become adapted to low light and radiation condi-
tions might be more susceptible to damage than organisms from other regions.
Zooplankton and fish eggs and larvae might also be threatened. Human health
risks include increases in skin cancer, cataracts and immune system suppression.
29
   - 

Since no global convention exists on land-based pollution control, man-
agement efforts here have been fragmented. The three main initiatives to date have
shunned a strict precautionary approach to pollution control: the 1998 Convention
on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and
Pesticides in International Trade,
30
the proposed global convention on POPs, and
the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment
from Land-Based Activities (GPA).

31
The provisions of the 1982 Law of the Sea
Convention relating to land-based pollution will not be discussed here, as they are
analysed elsewhere in this book.
32
The 1998 Convention on Prior Informed Consent
This Convention promises to address – partially and indirectly – the
problem of long-range chemical transport. The Convention will make mandatory
the previously voluntary ‘prior informed consent’ procedures for banned and
severely restricted chemicals promoted by the FAO Code of Conduct on the
180 David VanderZwaag
26
State of the European Arctic Report, p. 32; and A State of the Arctic Environment Report, p. 162.
27
P. Prestrud and I. Stirling, ‘The International Polar Bear Agreement and the Current Status of the
Polar Bear Conservation’, Aquatic Mammals, Vol. 20, 1994, pp. 119–20.
28
A State of the Arctic Environment Report, p. 161.
29
Ibid., pp. 165–8, 180.
30
Text reprinted in ILM, Vol. 38, 1999, pp. 1ff.
31
UNEP (OCA)/LBA/IG.2/7, of 5 December 1995.
32
See Boyle, Chapter 1; and Vukas, Chapter 2 in this book.
Distribution and Use of Pesticides, and by the London Guidelines for the Exchange
of Information on Chemicals in International Trade.
33
The Convention requires each party to inform other parties of national

bans or severe restrictions on chemicals; it further makes chemicals listed under its
Annex III subject to the ‘prior informed consent’ procedure whereby the importing
state can withhold consent. The Convention initially covers twenty-two pesticides
and five industrial chemicals, of which many are POPs.
However, the Convention does not adopt a precautionary approach. Its
Preamble, while recalling pertinent provisions of the Rio Declaration in a general
way, does not explicitly call for a precautionary approach. Nor does the Convention
promote pollution prevention and toxic chemical reduction. It does not ban trade
in hazardous chemicals but is aimed at preventing illegal international traffic in
dangerous chemicals. The Convention does not establish a proactive chemical
management regime, but envisages a reactive chemical-by-chemical addition to
the ‘prior informed consent’ procedure. Before additional listings are possible,
notifications are required from two different regions that a chemical is banned or
severely restricted. A Chemical Review Committee must recommend listing and
prepare a draft decision guidance document; and the Conference of the Parties
must approve the listing.
The Convention’s provisions on technical assistance are also slanted
towards promoting chemical use. No financial mechanism is established and no
binding financial commitments are made to assist developing countries or coun-
tries with economies in transition. General funding commitments are made to
promote technical assistance so that countries can implement the Convention and
manage chemicals throughout their life-cycle.
Global POPs Convention Initiative
In early 1997 the Governing Council of UNEP launched negotiation
efforts to convene, together with relevant international organisations, an inter-
governmental negotiating committee to prepare an international legally binding
instrument for POPs. The initial focus was to be on the so-called
‘dirty dozen’ per-
sistent organic pollutants (aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, dioxins and furans,
endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mirex, PCBs, and toxaphene).

The negotiation process commenced in Montreal, in mid-1998, at which
time the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) for an International
Legally Binding Instrument for Implementing International Action on Certain
Persistent Organic Pollutants considered some of the key sections necessary for
inclusion in a future convention and suggested the completion of an international
Land-based marine pollution and the Arctic 181
33
The documents are reprinted in H. Hohmann (ed.), Basic Documents of International
Environmental Law, Vol. 1 (London: Graham & Trotman, 1992), pp. 173–86 and 157–72, respec-
tively.
convention by the year 2000. The Committee decided to establish two groups to
forge approaches in two critical areas. An expert group on POPs has been man-
dated to develop science-based criteria and a procedure for identifying other sub-
stances for management actions. Another group, on implementation aspects, was
to consider convention provisions on technical and financial assistance to devel-
oping countries and countries with economies in transition.
34
At the second negotiation session held in Nair
obi, in January 1999,
numerous issues remained unresolved. One contentious point was the need for a
financial mechanism, like the multilateral fund of the Montreal Protocol. Another
open question was whether those who had produced or exported POPs should be
responsible for the removal and destruction of unused stockpiles in developing
countries. Details on technology transfer and non-compliance procedures also
needed to be worked out.
35
Adoption of a strict precautionaryapproach seems unlikely. A slow
chemical-by-chemical regulatory approach is what is being endorsed. Even for
chemicals understood as being ‘super nasty’, gradual phase-outs are likely to be
recommended for some, in order to allow the development of economically

viable
alternatives and to continue the battle against diseases such as malaria.
Moreover, the Group of 77 and China pressed for the inclusion of various princi-
ples in the Convention, such as the right to development and the need for
differential obligations for developing countries, which mayrun counter to pre-
cautionarymeasures.
36
The group of African countries emphasised the numerous
obstacles to effective phasing out of POPs, such as the lack of national invento-
ries, and the lack of financial resources for research, monitoring and management
of chemicals.
37
The Global Programme of Action
The Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine
Environment from Land-Based Activities, adopted in November 1995 by over 100
countries at a conference held in Washington DC, marked a further step in build-
ing international consensus on the need for a global POPs convention. Paragraph
88 of the GPA endorses the need for a global, legally binding instrument on POPs
and highlights the need to address the technical and financial needs of developing
countries.
The GPA also promises to promote national actions to control land-based
182 David VanderZwaag
34
Report of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for an International Legally Binding
Instrument for Implementing International Action on Certain Persistent Organic Pollutants on the
Work of Its First Session, UNEP/POPS/INC.1/7, of 3 July 1998.
35
Report of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for an International Legally Binding
Instrument for Implementing International Action on Certain Persistent Organic Pollutants on the
Work of Its Second Session, UNEP/POPS/INC.2/6, of 29 January 1999.

36
Ibid., Annex V.
37
Ibid., Annex III.
pollution. Its Chapter 2 calls on states to develop, within a few years’ time, national
programmes of action. Such national programmes should follow a six-step
process: identifying and assessing problems; establishing priorities; setting man-
agement objectives; identifying and selecting management strategies and mea-
sures; developing criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of strategies and
programmes; and ensuring programme support, such as financial mechanisms
and new legislation.
The GPA also encourages strengthening of regional cooperation to
address land-based pollution and activities. Its Chapter 3 calls for building institu-
tional arrangements for regional cooperation and negotiating new regional
conventions, as appropriate. Regional programmes of action are advocated; these
should include the harmonisation of environmental standards, the protection of
critical habitats and endangered species, the exploration of innovative financing
mechanisms, and the identification of regional centres of excellence in research
and management training.
Chapter 5 of the GPA urges national, regional and international action for
nine specific problem areas. Targets and actions are set for sewage, POPs, radio-
active substances, heavy metals, oil (hydrocarbons), nutrients, sediments, litter
and physical alterations/destruction of habitats.
The GPA entrenches a utilitarian version of the precautionary approach,
emphasising the validity of weighing environmental values and interests against
economic costs and benefits. Paragraph 24 of the GPA states:
The precautionary approach should be applied through preventive and cor-
rective measures based on existing knowledge, impact assessments, resources
and capacities at national level, drawing on pertinent information and analy-
ses at the subregional, regional and global levels. Where there are threats of

serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be
used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent the
degradation of the marine environment.
The effectiveness of the GPA remains uncertain. Besides being full of undefined
buzzwords and often stating the obvious, the GPA is weak on the financial side. It
leaves implementation to the happenstance of available national funding and
private sector contributions. The GPA lists in an annex likely sources of financing,
such as pollution fees, taxes and loans from international financial institutions, but
does not include a trust fund or firm financial commitments to assist developing
countries and countries with economies in transition.
38
The prospects for a global convention on land-based marine pollution do
not look good. ‘Treaty fatigue’ is evident: many developing countries in particular
are averse to any further binding commitments until technical and financial
Land-based marine pollution and the Arctic 183
38
D. L. VanderZwaag, P.Wells and J. Karau, ‘The Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the
Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities: A Myriad of Sounds, Will the World Listen?’,
Ocean Yearbook, Vol. 13, 1998, pp. 183, 208.
assistance is assured. State sovereignty concerns remain paramount, and calls for
differential standards between developed and developing countries constrain the
finding of common ground.
39
The broad array of activities needing to be controlled
also complicates the picture.
40
-   - 
Various regional agreements and actions developed outside the Arctic
region proper promise to assist in controlling long-range pollutants, but they are
also limited in advocating a precautionary approach. Key agreements adopted

under the auspices of the UN Economic Commission for Europe include the
Protocols on POPs and heavy metals adopted pursuant to the 1979 Convention on
Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP)
41
and the Convention on
Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundar
y Context.
42
Also, four
regional action plans (covering DDT, chlordane, mercury and PCBs) have been
adopted pursuant to the North American Sound Management of Chemicals
Initiative.
Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)
The 1998 POPs Protocol to LRTAP,
43
adopted at Aarhus, Denmark, in June
1998, does include various provisions encouraging precautionaryand pollution-
preventionapproaches.The Preamble to theProtocol articulates the parties’ resolve
‘to take measuresto anticipate,preventor minimise emissions of persistentorganic
pollutants, taking into account the application of the precautionaryapproach, as
set forth in principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development’.
Twelve substances are targeted for elimination: aldrin, chlordane, chlordecone,
DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, hexabromobiphenyl, hexachlorbenzene, mirex,
PCBs and toxaphene. Parties also pledge to facilitate the exchange of information
and technologyfor reducing the generation and emissions of POPs and to develop
alternatives.
In many ways, however, the Protocol is weak and not strictly precaution-
ary. For the twelve substances scheduled for elimination, some major exceptions
exist. For example, production of DDT is to be eliminated only within one year of
consensus by the parties that suitable alternatives are available for public health

184 David VanderZwaag
39
D. B. Magraw, ‘Legal Treatment of Developing Countries: Differential, Contextual, and Absolute
Norms’, Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law & Policy, Vol. 1, 1990, p. 69.
40
Qing-nan Meng, Land-Based Marine Pollution: International Law Development (London: Graham
& Trotman and Martinus N
ijho
ff, 1987).
41
ILM, Vol. 18, 1979, pp. 1,442ff. Additional protocols adopted but not discussed in this chapter
include those on the European Monitoring and Evaluation Program (1984), Reduction of Sulphur
Emissions (1985), Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions (1988), Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds (1991) and Further Reduction of Sulphur Emissions (1994).
42
ILM, Vol. 30, 1992, pp. 800ff.
43
Text available at www.unece.org/env.