seen to be endorsing a decision to deliberately sink such a large vessel in violation of these laws.
What signal is this sending to the world for how vessels should be disposed of at the end of their lives?
2. ‘Alternative’ facts
As every oil spill expert in the world knows, one of the first actions to be taken following a major oil spill, is to conduct a lab test called Gas Chromatography - Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) to analyze samples of the oil spilled in the water. It is a process that takes less than an hour, and allows the unique signature of the oil to be compared to signatures around the world so that it is clear what sort of properties, behaviours and toxicity the oil may exhibit in these sorts of waters.
Every major oil refinery has access to such facilities as they need to run GC-MS several times a day to test the quality of their hydrocarbon products. Only a small sample of this oil is needed (not more than a test tube), and this can be flown to any laboratory that exists around the world. Such a test is usually conducted within the first few days of an oil spill, so all responders and scientists are immediately aligned with what is being dealt with in the environment.
It is 46 days since the grounding of the vessel - 12 days to have conducted the test from the grounded vessel to understand the risks before the leak, and 34 days since the leak to understand the behaviour of the oil along the coast of Mauritius. Not having this test is the same as flying the clean-up operation blind.
It is
that serious an omission. This was supposed to be part of the core mandate of the IMO involvement - managing the oil spill response under an OPRC. Why hasn’t the IMO made this analysis available so the best minds in the world can start working to safeguard this important biodiversity? It may even be considered negligence
The Report • December 2020 • Issue 94 | 77
if such testing was not taking place to universally established international standards.
Conveying accurate information about the oil spill to a nervous island population who have never gone through anything like this before, is a basic expectation of any UN body, especially when reading the original charter upon which the United Nations was founded, and which guides the IMO. In this charter, it is clearly stated that international machinery should be employed “for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.” However, public presentations and information by the IMO have been troubling and raise questions whether it is meeting these UN founding objectives
In a meeting with leading local business leaders, civil society leaders, and the media on 1 September in Mauritius, the IMO representative appeared to be giving health advice on the placebo effect of ‘tasting oil in fish.’ In responding to a question 27 minutes into this video at an event hosted by local industry body, Business Mauritius, the IMO’s representative flippantly remarks, “the biggest killer of fish is fishermen,” while discounting the very real risks of a major oil spill that has been shown to cause cancer in many parts of the world.
Indeed today the latest report from the Government of Mauritius reveals that all fish from South East Mauritius is not fit for human consumption, as harmful cancer- causing PAH chemicals as well as hydrocarbons have been found in samples revealing arsenic levels 500% to 700% above normal.
Does the representative - speaking on behalf of the IMO - have the appropriate medical qualifications to be making such statements or attempting to filter standard medical procedures following a major oil spill?
Mauritius has a biomedical hub on the island, and yet many of the tests that have been called for have not been undertaken. It could be considered highly irresponsible for the UN’s global shipping regulator to be making health or biodiversity clean-up recommendations to the local media of a country, without having conducted large scale, full toxicity tests on fish in a systematic way along the coast. MAH and PAH are cancer-causing chemicals and have already now been found in the local seafood.
This is not the time or place to be playing with people’s lives or unique biodiversity. There are scientists in Mauritius with deep expertise in these fields who are not being consulted. The IMO should be taking its responsibilities seriously, and perhaps inviting experts from the UN’s World Health Organization to address such health risks for major oil spills.
Equally troubling was a presentation on financial compensation given to local business leaders. This was supposed to be a fact-based presentation from the IMO, and yet there are clear inaccuracies and a feeling that the advice was being presented in a simplified way as either a fast or a slow path to compensation. Why would an IMO representative be pushing to fast-track claims and setting low expectations, as if this is a used-car
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116
