the toxic truth - Greenpeace

100 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenpeAce netherlAnds
Chapter 8
separate category from operators who were
authorized to remove “used waters and oils”
from ships to “treat and ‘condition’ them”,
for which a licence is granted “exclusively by
the Environment Ministry”. 441 Under Law No.
96-766 dated 3 October 1996 concerning
the Environmental Code, the Department for
the Environment is the only body competent
to issue licences for “garbage” (removal of
garbage on board ships), for the recovery of
waste, garbage, used oils, junk and other
things on board ships. 442 The licence that
Compagnie Tommy held was not, therefore,
the one required for them to remove and treat
waste from ships.
The National Commission of Enquiry even
found that the procedure for granting a licence
as a maritime chandler had been incorrectly
followed by the Ministry of Transport. 443 Under
the law, 444 all such requests for licences
should be referred to a Licence Commission,
but Compagnie Tommy’s licence was issued
without being either referred to or checked by
the Licence Commission. 445 It was noted that
the administration had not convened a single
meeting of the Licence Commission since
2004. The licence was also processed without
any investigation. The inspection of Compagnie
Tommy’s place of business by the Head of the
“Avitaillement” Office took place only after
Tommy’s application had been sent to the
Minister of Transport 446 for final approval, and,
although the inspection revealed the inadequacy
of Compagnie Tommy’s equipment, no action was
then taken to withdraw or amend the licence. 447
The National Commission of Enquiry found
that the Minister for Transport had approved
the licence without a statement from the
Licence Commission and he was aware
that the Licence Commission had not met
since 2004. 448 The Enquiry also noted that
the terms used to identify the activities
authorized under the licence were irregular
and led to confusion about the scope of the
licence. The Ministry had incorrectly used the
terms “specialized in waste collection and
maintenance” in the licence, and this had led
to confusion between the activities permitted
by a maritime chandler as compared with
more specialist waste collection and
treatment operations, which required licences
from the Ministry of Environment. 449
Tommy granted additional
permit by the Port Authority
The catalogue of failings continued when,
on 9 August 2006, just 10 days before
the dumping, the Port Authority granted
Compagnie Tommy “authorization for the
recovery of used oils and domestic waste on
board the ships docked at Port Abidjan”. 450
The National Commission of Enquiry found
that this authorization exceeded the licence
granted to Compagnie Tommy by the Ministry
of Transport and included activities (recovery
of waste and used oils) that were not
permitted under the regulations governing
maritime chandlers. 451 As noted above,
licences to remove waste, including garbage
on board ships and used oils, have to be
granted by the Ministry of Environment, not
the Ministry of Transport. 452
Despite having an obligation to ensure
that Compagnie Tommy had the relevant
qualifications and necessary equipment for the
work, the Port Authority undertook no further
investigation into the company’s application
before granting the authorization. 453 The
National Commission of Enquiry later found
that it was this extension of the scope of
Compagnie Tommy’s activity that permitted it to
carry out the removal of waste from the Probo
Koala, “something that a maritime chandler
is not able to do”. 454 The Port Authority told
Trafigura’s subsidiary, Puma Energy, that
Compagnie Tommy’s papers were in order. 455
Customs officials fail to check
Compagnie Tommy’s licence
Compagnie Tommy then applied to the
Customs Authority for permission to unload
the waste. This application was also approved
without enquiry. 456 The Director of the