The Maritime Externalities - Essay Example

Maritime Externalities Externalities are those problems that are not reflected in terms of monetary costs or benefits and are measured in terms of 'positive' and 'negative'. Positive externalities are the benefits that occur to third parties (not in terms of money) while negative externalities are the monetary disadvantages that occur but not in terms of money. In context with the 'Maritime Externalities' we mean those costs that take place in terms of 'losses' to the general public. In other words 'maritime externalities' act like a threat to the people and global environment. Health: Marine pollution is not new. This problem of disposal and dumping of radioactive waste and its adverse effects on our ecology has gained considerable attention in recent years. Marine pollution not only effects and pollutes the environment and beaches, it upholds toxic effects for the marine divers, ecologists and marine wild life. It is true that more than 70% of land is water and how awful is the situation in which the marine pollution rate which is caused by ships and cruises is increasing. This rapid increase is harmful for us in dual ways. On one hand it pollutes the sea and marine life, thereby affecting our health indirectly as the same sea food is consumed by us, on the other hand we are directly affected by the marine wastes and polluted environment caused by sea transport. Offshore Externality: Another negative externality is to the fishing industry, which according to research is affected to an extent that there has been a concern about the impact of 'seismic detonations', which means that on a local scale, eggs and larvae are killed and fish are scared off (Vidas, 2000, p. 132). The onus has been on the shoulders of Norway and Russia, both of which are engaged in drilling offshore petroleum in the Barents Sea, whose part has been explored as an important spawning and growth area for the Arctic cod stock, supplying one of the most valuable commercial fisheries in the world. Any accident involving large scale oil spills would end up in severe environmental effects resulting from sea transport. Of course one cannot predict the probability of such accident but it is presumed to occur at higher temperate zones. Also the regional differences in shipping equipment standards and maritime industrial safety levels indicate that the risk is particularly high in the Russian part of the Barents Sea. Should an accident occur marine life would suffer utmost from the climate and weather conditions. Pollution: The marine externalities are almost common to every country and state, therefore the law is international which suggests that marine environment in context with the rules on pollution from ships are essentially uniform and international at the global level. For example legal implications require that dumping at sea should be followed by a minimum standard on a global platform, but have been supplemented and strengthened by a number of regional agreements or by national legislation. Despite having same rules to be followed everywhere which is based on airborne sources of marine pollution no efforts have been made at the regional, sub-regional or national level to deal with this problem globally. No significance has been given to the environmental impact assessment which results from the basis of marine pollution. Not even legal monitoring of pollution is observed. What has been done so far in order to regulate marine environment is the regulation of International ship-sourced marine pollution which has acquired at least some attention since the 1950s. In this current era where 70% of our seas are polluted, the marine pollution regulation is still following the 1954 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil. Though the Convention has been designed to combat maritime pollution by prohibiting and limiting the discharge of harmful substances or effluents from ships, but still unimplemented. Being globally accepted and encouraged by marine ecologists, this global application contains general provisions for all oceans, but it also contains enhanced protection for nominated 'special areas' which can include oceans or parts of oceans (Vidas, 2000, p. 59). Customary international law contains few rules directly relevant to the control of marine pollution. Two cases are cited as examples to illustrate the existence of such rules that discourage externalities like pollution. The Corfu Channel Case highlights the externalities of life threats and damage (1949), does not allow by the International Court of Justice to use any States territory for acts contrary of the rights of other states (Corfu, 2008). Another is the Trail Smelter Arbitration (1938-41), an even earlier case that damaged property in the United States caused by noxious fumes emitted by a smelter in Canada. Therefore to this day the arbitral tribunal decided that no state would possess the right to use or permit its territory to be used so as to cause injury (Sherwood & Wilson, 2000, p. 106). It is difficult, however, to adduce any particular standards regarding the control of maritime pollution from these two cases, let alone find in them sufficient evidence of the necessary opinion state practice required for establishing settled rules of customary international law. The Corfu Channel Case was not that much concerned about the pollution damage as it was about other types of harm resulting from the unauthorised mining of the channel. However still there is a room for the international economics to establish general principles of law applicable to acts beyond the territorial boundaries of a state. Accordingly, it is to the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) and other treaties that we must look to establish the legal basis for control of pollution. On the other hand the London Convention promotes the international convention for effective control of pollution from ocean disposal which is perilous not only to human health but is also a threat to marine life. Other aspects of LOSC includes the long term aims to save and preserve the marine environment thereby minimising marine pollution. A protocol has been developed under the London Convention which restricts various types of waste dumped at sea from dredged material to vessels and platforms. Under the protocol, dumping can only occur when waste prevention audits have been conducted and alternative waste management options have been exhausted. Environmental Security and Accidents: Although well entrenched in the dictionary of international security studies, it is remarkable how loosely the term environmental security is often applied and how much confusion still exists about its precise meaning. The externalities in the shipping environmental security include acid rain, biodiversity, counterterrorism, economic competitiveness, flooding, fossil fuels, hazardous waste, infectious diseases, illegal migration and vector-borne diseases. Russian sources indicate that the number of accidents took place from 1964 to 1990 were as high as 800, of which 40 per cent occurred in the Kara Sea, where ship density is the highest. Inadequate safety practices imply that the nuclear installations in many marine regions of the Arctic Ocean pose the constant risk of a severe accident involving widespread radioactive contamination, harmful for the human and marine life (Vidas, 2000, p. 133). EU has entered into an era which is entirely based upon the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). UK is a party to many bilateral and multilateral international treaties and instruments which influence the use and management of our oceans, including those dealing with shipping, protection of the marine environment, dumping, fishing, customs, maritime crime, enforcement and maritime boundaries. Generally, the Commonwealth Government has responsibility for matters such as sea dumping; ship-sourced pollution; search and rescue; offshore fisheries and the detection of illegal fishing activities; monitoring of illegal activity in protected areas; wildlife matters including endangered species and marine mammals; and illegal movement of people and goods with their associated quarantine, customs and health implications. Within each state and territory there are agencies responsible for the regulation and enforcement for state/territory laws which specifies a particular area within the coastal waters for such matters as boating safety, local search and rescue, land-based sources of marine pollution, inshore fisheries and state national parks and wildlife matters (Sherwood & Wilson, 2000, p. 167). In order to deal with maritime externalities, the oceans policy provide the strategic framework for the planning, management and ecological development of fisheries, shipping, petroleum, gas and seabed resources while ensuring the protection of marine environment. The policy will set a vision, goals and guiding principles for our oceans which will be common to all ocean users and will be adopted by sectoral management agencies. Specific outcomes and actions for each sector is a positive step towards dealing with maritime externalities and will be developed to assist us use, care and understand our oceans. Over the past few decades, maritime environmental externalities in the coastal areas have gained an ever-greater importance for the reason that coastal environments provide the setting in which new conflict relationships between different economic uses take place. Uses like that of transport, manufacturing, fishing, aquaculture and tourism have provided a broad recognition of the important role that coastal ecosystems, in particular wetlands and other shallow estuarine and coastal habitats, play in providing and maintaining biodiversity and productivity (Pinder and Witherick, 1990). Such advancement no doubt has caused social tolerance of technical complexities but so far has failed to cope up securing marine life and offshore activities which includes issues like pollution, accidents and threat to marine life. References & Bibliography Pinder David & Slack Brian, (2004) Shipping and Ports in the Twenty-First Century: Globalization, Technological Change and the Environment: Routledge: New York. Pinder, D.A. and Witherick, M. (1990) "Port industrialization, urbanization and wetland loss", In M. Williams (ed.) Wetlands: A Threatened Landscape, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 234-246 Corfu, 2008 Accessed from < http://lawofwar.org/corfu_channel_case.htm> Europa, 2008 Accessed from Sherwood Dick & Wilson David, (2000) Oceans Governance and Maritime Strategy: Allen & Unwin: St. Leonards, N.S.W. Slack, B. (2002) "Pawns in the game: ports in a global transportation system", In: Growth and Change, 24: 579-588 Stopford Martin, (1997) Maritime Economics: Routledge: London. Vidas Davor, (2000) Protecting the Polar Marine Environment: Law and Policy for Pollution Prevention: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England. Wang, J. and McOwan, S. (2000) "Fast passenger ferries and their future", In: Maritime Policy and Management, 27: 231-251. Read More