Royston, Michael G.

RERO DOC Digital Library

Conferences & Meetings 151However, this choice is certainly not easy: for instance,entirely opposing conclusions were reached in two succes-sive papers as to the estimated costs of two methods ofburning refuse!Speakers at the sessions devoted to new methods ofenergy extraction dealt mainly with pyrolysis f projects orpilot-plant experiences. The number of systems presented ormentioned—nearly twenty—offers great hopes that at leastsome of them will emerge and become fully satisfactory.This is not yet the case and, at the present time, no city willreadily accept pyrolysis as the disposal method for all itswaste without strong government financial support andinvolvement. However, pyrolysis is an exciting prospectand should be tried.Among the processes that are based on thermic treat-ment, recycling or resource recovery may be given variousdegrees of consideration, ranging from the standard pro-vision of 'complete' recovery equipment to simply ignoringit, the choice being often related to the characteristics of thethermic process. The value of recovered products is apt tobe dependent on their purity, and efficient separation equip-ment becomes all the more complicated the higher thedegree of purity desired. This makes the separation processmore and more capital-intensive and costly.Energy extraction through bioconversion was only dealtwith in a round-table discussion. Although anaerobicdigestion is frequently used in the disposal of sludge oranimal waste, there does not appear to be any such appli-cation to urban waste—with the exception of the recoveryof methane from landfill. Research is being performed inseveral fields, but the effort is not comparable with thatwhich is being made on pyrolysis, although there certainlyare interesting results to be obtained.One session was devoted to the impact of recycling onthe energy content of refuse. Relationships between materialand energy balance in recycling, as well as the limits ofresources, were explored. Our consumer civilization wasclearly questioned as to the price it is willing to pay to'ensure' its long-term survival: recycling alone will not solvethe problem if we do not limit the dissipative use of resour-ces. However, this kind of reflection and some others, suchas the consideration of separate collection as a method ofmaterials recovery, were not much in the minds of mostparticipants, who were apparently more concerned witheliminating, at the lowest possible cost, increasing moun-tains of solid waste; alternatively they were involved withdemonstrating the capabilities of their own equipment.The need to analyse recycling profitability in terms ofenergy, resources, and finance, before offering a solutionto any solid-waste problem, must be emphasized. However,local authorities are not equipped for this and often—owing to their necessarily restricted view—lack the requiredperspective. Who in our modern society is really assumingthe responsibility of taking this task in hand? Clearlythere is room for another conference, attacking the problemfrom the other end. It should be remembered meanwhilethat the Montreux CRE Conference was on 'Conversionof Refuse to Energy', and it certainly came up to expecta-tions in bringing together people from all the sectorsconcerned and allowing them to become aware of, andshare experience gained from, pertinent achievements,potentialities, and projects, all over the world.HENRY P. NAVEAU, Associate ProfessorFaculty of AgronomyCatholic University of Louvain1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.f Defined as 'chemical decomposition or other chemical changebrought about by the action of heat regardless of the temperatureinvolved'.—Ed.MEETING ON THE BIO-ENVIRONMENTAL METHODSOF MALARIA CONTROL,HELD IN LIMA, PERU, 10-15 DECEMBER 1975This meeting was organized jointly by the United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP), the World HealthOrganization (WHO), and the Government of Peru, withthe objective to promote (a) the development of sound bio-environmental methods of malaria control, (b) research onthe development of new pest-management systems, and(c) training of anti-malaria workers on these systems anddissemination of technical knowledge among countriesinvolved in the global anti-malaria programme.The meeting was attended by participants from 4 conti-nents representing 16 different countries as follows: Asia(China, Malaysia, Afghanistan, India, and Iran); Africa(Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Tanzania, Zaire, and Nigeria);North America (Mexico and the United States); and SouthAmerica (Peru, Brazil, and Venezuela). In addition toUNEP and WHO, representatives from UNESCO, UNDP,the 'World Bank', and USAID, attended the meeting.Both malaria experts and environmentalists found themeeting an excellent forum to express their views. Earlierin the discussions these views had appeared to be diametri-cally opposite; but gradually the gap narrowed and eachdiscipline came to understand the problems of the other,whereupon both parties began to develop constructiverecommendations to suit common objectives. Amongimportant recommendations, the following should be noted:A. An attempt has to be made, based on feasibilitystudies, to promote and introduce bio-environmentalmethods of malaria control in anti-malaria pro-grammes.B. The dissemination of information on the varioussound bio-environmental methods and their cost-benefit effectiveness and use under different epidemio-logical and socio-economic situations have to beintensified.C. While endorsing the WHO policy regarding the useof insecticide in anti-malaria programmes, the partici-pants realized the urgent need to introduce bio-environmental methods to complement the insecti-cidal approach, and to reduce the period of thecurrent dependency on the latter.D. Studies are to be intensified to trace the fate andpathways of the various insecticides that are used inpublic health and agriculture—particularly thoseentering the various food-chains that terminate inMan and give rise to human health-hazards.E. WHO, in close association with UNEP and otherinterested agencies and institutions, should developfurther its research programme aimed at discoveringeffective and comparatively cheap new anti-malariaweapons. M. A. F.SECOND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENTSEMINAR, HELD AT THE CENTRE D'ETUDES INDUSTRIELLES,1231 CONCHES, GENEVA, SWITZERLAND, 19-30 JANUARY 1976A group of participants in key environmental positionsin industry, national governments, and international organ-izations, from eleven different countries, attended the secondsuch International Environmental Management Seminar atthe Centre d'Etudes Industrielles (CEI), Conches, Geneva,Switzerland. The fiirst such occasion having been thepioneering one held just a year earlier as reported inEnvironmental Conservation (Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 235-6,Autumn 1975), two intervening but allied seminars of ahttps:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900018336Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 12:59:35, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at152 Environmental Conservationmore specialized nature made this January 1976 eventactually the fourth environmental seminar to be held atCEI.Dr Mostafa K. Tolba, Executive Director of the UnitedNations Environment Programme, opened the seminar withan address on the 'State of the Environment' and a reviewof the major environmental issues facing mankind. Theseissues of human well-being, the natural environment, anddevelopment, were explored in more detail throughout thefirst week of the ssminar, being viewed from the standpointof health, energy, economics, legislation, conflict, and land-use planning. Particular emphasis was given to matters ofindustrial project planning, plant location, and pre-marketenvironmental testing of products.Formal contributions to the seminar were made byspeakers in leading positions in international organizations,national governments, and industrial enterprises. Animportant feature of the Seminar was the free exchange ofviews and experience among participants working in smallgroups on cases dealing with current environmental prob-lems (e.g. PVCs, fluorocarbons, nuclear energy, etc.).The second week of the seminar was devoted to an in-depth study of the principles and methods of environmentalimpact assessment and minimization of conflict. Theseminar participants concentrated their attention on impactsand conflicts associated with a major industrialization proj-ect at Fos-sur-Mer on the Mediterranean coast of France.The Seminar proved to be highly successful in helpingto identify, develop, and clarify, the necessary tools andtechniques for management of the environment. It furtherhelped to reinforce the view that the central concern ofenvironmental management is the formulation and imple-mentation of policies and decisions towards providing forlong-term, sustainable, and broad-based, human well-being.Perhaps the foremost achievement of the Seminar was todemonstrate clearly how industry, governmental bodies,and international organizations, can indeed work togetheron a continuing basis for promoting management of thehuman environment more effectively than has beenaccomplished to date.MICHAEL G. ROYSTONFaculty Member, Environmental ManagementCentre d'Etudes Industrielles4 Chemin de Conches1231 ConchesGeneva, Switzerland.CONFERENCE OF PLENIPOTENTIARIES OF THE COASTALSTATES OF THE MEDITERRANEAN REGION ON THE PROTECTIONOF THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA,HELD IN BARCELONA, SPAIN, 2-16 FEBRUARY 1976Over the last two years, the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP) and several United Nations specializedagencies (particularly FAO, IAEA, IMCO, UNESCO,UNIDO, WHO, and certain UN Economic Commissions)have intensified efforts towards the development andimplementation of a comprehensive plan to protect andenhance the Mediterranean region. The Mediterranean'action plan', which was adopted at a regional Inter-governmental Meeting in Barcelona early in 1975,* containsrecommendations for activities in four main areas: researchand monitoring, integrated planning of development, legalobligations, and institutional structures.* See the account by Stanley P. Johnson, Head of the Preventionof Pollution and Nuisances Division, Commission of the Euro-pean Communities, published in Environmental Conservation(Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 235-6, Autumn 1975).—Ed.Probably the main development in this field since the1975 Intergovernmental Meeting was the above occasion,at which sixteen of the eighteen Mediterranean Statesparticipated (Albania and Algeria were not represented).On 13 February, the Conference adopted the Conventionfor the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea againstPollution, a Protocol for the Prevention of Pollution of theMediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft,a Protocol concerning Cooperation in Combating Pollutionof the Mediterranean Sea by Oil and other Harmful Sub-stances in Cases of Emergency, and ten assorted resolutions.What makes the Barcelona Conference particularly note-worthy is that after the weekend, on 16 February, twelvestates signed the Convention and the cooperation protocol,and eleven states signed the dumping protocol at a ceremonyarranged by the Depositary Government, Spain.f Normallya great deal of time passes before a significant number ofGovernments actually sign a treaty.The Convention itself is very broad and commits states ingeneral terms to 'take all appropriate measures... to pre-vent, abate, and combat, pollution of the MediterraneanSea area and to protect and enhance the marine environ-ment in that area' (Article 4). The Convention thenspecifies the distinct sources of pollution for which controlsshould be implemented: pollution from dumping, ships,exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf andsea-bed, and land-based sources. There are also articles oncooperation in pollution emergencies, monitoring, scientificand technological cooperation, and liability and compen-sation.By ratifying a protocol, states accept more detailedobligations to control pollution from the discrete sourceslisted above. When discussing the system of legal controls,the states felt that the Convention was too broad to providemeaningful protection on its own; therefore, no state maybecome a contracting party to the Convention without alsobecoming a party to at least one of the protocols. A proto-col will enter into force when at least six states have ratifiedit, and the Convention will enter into force simultaneouslywith the first protocol.The Dumping Protocol closely follows the precedent ofthe 1972 London Convention on the Prevention of MarinePollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, andthe 1972 Oslo Convention for the Prevention of MarinePollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft. Theprotocol prohibits the dumping of substances on the 'black'list, requires a prior special permit to be issued by thecompetent national authority for the dumping of substanceson the 'grey' list, and requires a general permit for thedumping of all other wastes or other matter.The second protocol adopted at Barcelona calls forcooperation among the parties 'in cases of grave andimminent danger to the marine environment, the coast orrelated interests . . . due to the presence of massive quan-tities of oil or other harmful substances resulting fromaccidental causes or an accumulation of small dischargeswhich are polluting or threatening to pollute the sea'(Article 1). The protocol provides for information exchange,coordination of communications, and assistance in emer-gencies. Parties to the protocol may cooperate directly orthrough the regional centre. A regional oil-combatingcentre is to be established on Malta as a result of one ofthe resolutions adopted by the Conference. The functionsof the centre will include information dissemination, prepa-ration of contingency plans, maintenance of a commu-f The twelve states were Cyprus, Egypt, France, Greece, Israel,Italy, Lebanon, Malta, Monaco, Morocco, Spain, and Turkey.Greece did not sign the dumping protocol.https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900018336Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 12:59:35, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Second International Environmental Management Seminar, held at the Centre d'Etudes Industrielles, 1231 Conches, Geneva, Switzerland, 19-30 January 1976

Second International Environmental Management Seminar, held at the Centre d'Etudes Industrielles, 1231 Conches, Geneva, Switzerland, 19-30 January 1976

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

RERO DOC Digital Library