TWO weeks ago, Prime Minister Lester Bird of Antigua added his voice to others condemning the shipment of nuclear waste through the Caribbean Sea. His statement follows the "strenuous and total rejection" of these shipments at the ACS Summit last December. Similar views were expressed at the CARICOM tourism summit held the same month. They come amidst reports that a fresh shipment is either imminent or has recently taken place.

Shipments of nuclear waste from Britain and France to Japan began in 1992. According to one authoritative source, the shipments will continue at least until the year 2014, at the rate of one to two per year. The materials shipped are plutonium, high-level vitrified nuclear waste (HLW) or mixed plutonium-uranium oxide (MOX). All are highly radioactive and toxic. Three routes have been used: the southern Africa route via the Cape Of Good Hope, the South America route via Cape Horn, and the Panama Canal route through the Caribbean Sea.

Shipments using the route through the Caribbean Sea are known to have taken place on a British vessel in January 1998, March 1999 and December 1999; carrying a total of 204 containers of HLW encased in glass blocks weighing 1,000 pounds each.

The possible consequences of an accident or terrorist act involving one of these shipments are summarised in an article by Professor Jon Van Dyke at the William S. Richardson School of Law of the University of Hawai:
"These highly-toxic and long-lived poisons could endanger large coastal populations or create an ecologically dead zone in the ocean for thousands of years. They are extremely difficult to handle, and the equipment necessary to salvage them in the event of an accident has not yet been developed. British representatives acknowledge that in the event of a vessel sinking 'it was quite apparent that recovery from some places would not be possible'. If a vessel carrying such a cargo collided with another vessel causing an intensely hot and long-lasting shipboard fire, then radioactive particles could become airborne, putting all nearby lifeforms in grave danger of catastrophic health impacts." (http://www.hawaii.edu/law/facpubs/mima101899.htm).

The countries responsible for the shipments insist that they are being made in conformity with the international regulations of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and invoke the rights of maritime passage recognised in the International Law of the Sea.

But coastal nations along the shipment routes - the Caribbean; Brazil, Argentina and Chile; South Africa; the Pacific Island nations, New Zealand and Korea - have consistently objected to the shipments passing through their territorial waters or Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). They point to major gaps and unresolved issues in existing IMO and IAEA regulations and the obligation to preserve and protect the marine environment imposed by the International Law of the Sea.

The issues that are outstanding or inadequately treated include salvage responsibilities, liability for damages, cask safety standards, obligations to consult and to provide advance notification to concerned coastal states, and the preparation of environmental assessments and of contingency plans to handle shore emergencies.

To further their strategy, Caribbean countries have been pressing for the United Nations to declare the Caribbean Sea to be a "Special Area in the Context of Sustainable Development". More in next week's column.