Legal consideration on Convention for the Prevention of Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (at sea) and assessment of its implementation in Iran (The London [dumping] Convention)

Making use of sea, as a place for dumping of wastes and other materials from human activities wasn’t forbidden before creation of the convention on the prevention of marine pollution by dumping of wastes and other matters (London Convention). Therefore, industrial countries, without any specific consideration, were dumping their wastes into the world’s seas. Many years and before the beginning of rapid development of industry, the great self- purification of seas were preventing some of discharging problems. But gradually, the increase of industrial development activities, exceeded the production of wastes and other matters, and this led to the misuse of world’s seas and oceans as a dump site. One of the most important consequences of 1972 Stockholm World Conference was to focusing world attention on threats have jeopardized marine environment balance. World countries` leaders committed in Stockholm to begin protecting the environment. Finally, this movement at marine environment section led to the creation of London Convention in the same year. London Convention was concluded for cooperating between countries at December 29, 1972 to promote effective control of all marine environment polluting resources and to prevent marine pollution by dumping wastes and other matters. Then it was opened for signature to other countries. At last, after 15 states signature, this convention was entered in to force at August 30.1975. Ratification and execution of London Convention resulted in coordinated performance of countries in marine waste management. Common actions with supports and cooperation of different international, regional, governmental and non-governmental organizations and agencies prevent marine pollution by dumping of wastes and other matters. Due to the importance of wastes in our marine and coastal areas, investigation of the performance of London Convention can identify the lack of regulations and lack of regulation supports about marine pollution prevention by dumping of wastes and other matters in Iran. Considering this issue, proper protection of seas will be achieved. London Convention has been studied here to achieve intended purposes. In first chapter, generalities about marine environment, including the importance and necessity of marine environment protection, with the focus on some internal and international resources of environmental law accompanying with marine pollution and its recourses, and finally, due to the study theme, dumping of wastes and other matters at seas with its impacts have been investigated .In the section of international measures, a brief history of marine pollution and marine environment international law with international law framework, exclusively for controlling of wastes and other material discharge at seas and oceans has been reviewed. In second chapter, obligations, amendments, and annexes of London Convention have been investigated and classified. The obligations have been categorized in to legal obligations and technical and organizational obligations. In former section, subject ,purpose, territory, exceptions, rights and duties of parties, convention amendments,… and in latter, special requirements for wastes assessment, determination of pollutants` permissible limit, site selection and type of discharge selection, design principles for marine environment quality monitoring program, and discharge license issuance mechanism have been studied. In third chapter, due to the examination of convention performance in Iran, the internal law system for marine environment conservation and its pollution has been mentioned in detail. Considering this, two issues have been compared .firstly, convention obligations with regional treaties that Iran as a party to them and secondly, Iranian internal law there of .Finally, common and different aspects of these issues have been determined. At last, recommendations and strategies for convention enforcement and conformity of its obligations with internal regulations have been presented. Furthermore, translation of convention English text has been reviewed and its protocol has been translated.

Sea otter predation and the distribution of bivalve prey in the Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve

The California sea otter population is gradually expanding in size and geographic range and is consequently invading new feeding grounds, including bays and estuaries that are home to extensive populations of bivalve prey. One such area is the Elkhorn Slough, where otters have apparently established a spring and summer communal feeding and resting area. In anticipation of future otter foraging in the slough, an extensive baseline database on bivalve densities, size distributions, biomasses, and burrow depths has been established for three potential bivalve prey species, Saxidomus nuttalli, Tresus nutallii, and Zirphaea pilsbryi. In 1986, the Elkhorn Slough otters were foraging predominately at two areas immediately east and west of the Highway 1 bridge (Skipper's and the PG&E Outfall). Extensive subtidal populations of Saxidomus nuttalli and Tresus nuttallii occur in these areas. Shell records collected at these study areas indicated that sea otters were foraging selectively on Saxidomus over Tresus. The reason for this apparent preference was not clear. At the Skipper's study site, 51% of the shell record was composed of Saxidomus, yet this species accounted for only 16% of the in situ biomass, and only 39% of the available clams. Tresus represented 49% of the shell record at Skipper's, yet this species accounted for 84% of the in situ biomass and 61% of the available clams. There was no difference in mean burrow depth between the two species at this site so availability does not explain the disparity in consumption. At the PG&E Outfall, Saxidomus represents 66% of the in situ biomass and 81% of the available clams, while Tresus accounts for 34% of the in situ biomass and 19% of the available clams. Saxidomus accounts for 96% of the shell record at this site vs. 4% for Tresus, again indicating that the otters were preying on Saxidomus out of proportion to their density or biomass. High densities and biomasses of a third species, Zirphaea pilsbryi, occur in areas where sea otters were observed to be foraging, yet no cast-off Zirphaea shells were found. Although it is possible this species was not represented in the shell record because the otters were simply chewing up the shells, it is more likely this species is avoided by sea otters. There were relatively few sea otters in the Elkhorn Slough in 1986 compared to the previous two years. This, coupled with high bivalve densities, precluded any quantitative comparison of bivalve densities before and after the 1986 sea otter occupation. Qualitative observations made during the course of this study, and quantitative observations from previous studies indicate that, after 3 years, sea otters are not yet significantly affecting bivalve densities in the Elkhorn Slough.