Sure. Our group has been the “boots on the ground” in response to a lot of these shipping-container spills, as well as addressing the actions in the removal of the derelict vessels. An idea that we had was to create a small tax or levy through the port. Every shipping container or ship that comes in pays a small levy that then gets pooled into a larger fund or pool of resources. In looking at the “polluter pay principle”, we see that a lot of times it fails when the polluter doesn't pay or can't be identified. This fund would then allow some baseline resources to be put in place so that we can respond faster.
Oftentimes, when the polluter is identified, there is a lengthy administrative process that needs to occur. Those funds do not get out into the hands of communities or into the hands of experts to then remediate the pollution that is occurring from these spills. With the ZIM Kingston spill, the response was very delayed overall. The whole time that we were waiting for funds to be released, materials were photodegrading, smashing against the rocks and coastlines and getting smaller and smaller, which increases not only the difficulty of reclaiming these materials but also the cost of removing them.
We need to ensure that there's some kind of recurring income coming in that we can use as a resource to respond to these larger-scale spills that happen and will continue to happen as ocean traffic and transport continue to increase and trade increases on our coastline.