BURY THE TOXIC WASTE TRADE August 96
Today, the world is closer than ever before to finally stopping rich countries from dumping their poisonous wastes in the backyards of the poor. The international community recently agreed to ban all such toxic waste exports forever. But some governments and industrialists, with a lot to lose from the ban, are already thinking up ways to get around it. They must not be allowed to succeed. You can help to stop them.
For decades, industrialised countries of the North have been paying the world's less-industrialised nations to import the unwanted poisons produced by Northern industries. Instead of investing in safe methods of waste disposal or recycling, they frequently find it cheaper to simply send their hazardous wastes overseas, to countries whose people had nothing to do with producing them, and where the facilities for safe disposal are often non-existent.
In 1989, recognising that this was both unjust and environmentally damaging, 115 of the world's governments met in the Swiss town of Basel, where they negotiated and signed the 'Basel Convention'. In this international treaty, they agreed to work towards controlling toxic waste exports.
Then, in 1995, despite massive pressure from waste-exporting industries, the international community adopted an 'amendment' to the Basel Convention, banning all toxic waste exports from the rich countries which make up the OECD - the 'Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development'* - to countries which are not. This was an historic decision - it means that, at last, the world's industrialised nations will be forced to stop using the developing world as their toxic dump, and will have to start taking responsibility for their own poisonous waste problems.
This amendment to the Basel Convention will become legally binding when two thirds of the 82 governments who agreed to it have the amendment ratified (in other words, legally approved) by their national parliaments. None have yet done so - and it is vital that they do as soon as possible. Without ratification, the ban has no legal force.
But even when this happens, there may still be problems. Some governments and industrialists are doing all they can to get around the ban. Some are trying to persuade developing countries to import their poisonous wastes anyway, regardless of the international ban. Others are trying to remove some wastes from the list of those that are internationally banned for export, or to 're-define' what constitutes a 'hazardous' waste.
Our governments need to seize the moment, and finally ban the toxic waste trade forever. The immediate next step is to sign and ratify the amendment to the Basel Convention. And they are more likely to do that if we urge them to act now, in the interests of justice and the environment.
OECD countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, USA.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Please write to one of your representatives in your national parliament or congress. Ask him or her to urge your government to:
* Immediately ratify and enforce the 1995 amendment to the Basel Convention which bans all toxic waste exports from OECD to non-OECD countries. You may want to add, since some countries, including the USA, have not even ratified the original Basel Convention, that if the government has not done so already it should also immediately ratify the Convention itself;
* Resist any attempts to 're-define' the hazardous wastes banned by the Basel Convention, or to remove any of those wastes from the list;
* Work to reduce and phase out the production of toxic wastes in your country, and ensure efficient recycling and disposal processes for those that remain.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
What is the toxic waste trade?
Every year, the industries of the world's richest countries produce millions of tonnes of highly poisonous waste products. From mercury to lead scraps, from asbestos to battery acid, from PCBs to dioxins; thousands of different toxic wastes are constantly in production. In recent years, forced to contend with increasingly rigorous environmental laws in their own countries, and strong regulations protecting the health of workers and the public, the industrialists of the North found a simple way to dispose of their poisons while protecting their profits: dump them on the developing world. For decades, the world's less industrialised countries were used as an 'out-of-sight-out-of-mind' disposal facility for the poisonous by-products of the rich world's industries.
Poisonous wastes were simply piled into huge ships, exported halfway across the world and unloaded, along with a 'disposal fee', on unscrupulous 'businessmen' who promised to 'dispose of it' or 'recycle' it. Often it was simply dumped. Industrial poisons have been found dumped in out-of-the-way places all over the developing world: on beaches in the Pacific, in disused huts in Papua New Guinea, in fields in the Philippines, in old factories in Russia.
Those that were not dumped were 'recycled'. Such 'recycling', argued the toxic waste exporters was one reason why the trade should not be banned - 'recycling', they said, was good for the environment. In fact, many of the wastes sent for 'recycling' were simply dumped quietly, or 'recycled' in dirty, inadequate, inefficient facilities that often proved as dangerous to people and the surrounding environment as a toxic waste dump itself.
The toxic waste trade not only damages the environment and public health in receiving countries, it discourages investment in clean production, recycling and disposal methods in exporting countries. Few industrialists will invest in clean methods of production or disposal when they can just send their poisonous wastes overseas instead, at a much lower cost.
What has been done to try and end it?
In 1989, persuaded that the global trade in poisonous wastes was both unjust and environmentally damaging, the world's governments gathered in the Swiss town of Basel to sign the first ever global agreement to control the toxic waste trade. But the 'Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal' was the victim of an international campaign by waste-exporting industries and governments to try and scupper any significant international legislation on the matter.
Rather than simply banning the waste-trade from industrialised to less industrialised countries, the Convention instead set up a 'notification and consent' procedure under which the toxic waste trade was allowed to continue as long as the importing country's government agreed to it. This was widely regarded as a triumph for the waste-exporters.
However, in the years following the 1989 meeting, individual nations began to erect their own legal barriers against the toxic waste imports, and the international objections to the trade grew. By the time the third meeting of the 'Conference of the Parties' of governments that had signed the Convention took place - in 1994 -the world's developing nations had decided among themselves that they wanted to see a final end to the toxic waste trade. At that meeting, despite attempts by some governments and industries to undermine any further agreements, it was decided by a vast majority of states to finally ban, once-and-for-all, the trade in poisonous wastes.
In 1995, as a result, the Basel Convention was amended: the trade in toxic wastes for final disposal was banned with immediate effect, and the trade for 'recycling' was banned from 1st January 1998. This agreement only banned the export of poisonous or hazardous wastes - non-toxic wastes can still be exported for recycling or disposal.
What problems remain today?
We now have the greatest opportunity in history to end the toxic waste trade for good. But there are still problems. Though the 1995 amendment to the Basel Convention has been agreed and signed by governments, it has not yet entered into international law. For that to happen it has to be ratified by the national parliaments oftwo thirds of the 82 countries that agreed to it. Only then will it become internationally binding.
But even then, unfortunately, the matter will not be closed. Some governments and industrialists have been working hard since the amendment was signed to undermine the whole thing. Various tactics have been tried. Some governments have been trying to get around the ban using 'bilateral agreements' which they claim are allowed under the Basel Convention. In other words, they say that if they can persuade the government of a developing country to agree to import their poisonous wastes, then this overrides the Basel amendment. In fact, this is legal nonsense.
Other methods the toxic traders have used include attempting to amend the list of wastes banned by the Basel Convention, so that some wastes are removed, and their export can continue. Some industrialists have also been attempting to 'redefine' the meaning of the word 'hazardous', to achieve the same result.
Finally, of course, even if all these attempts to undermine the Basel ban are defeated, it is still up to individual governments to enforce it in their own countries - this in itself will be a significant challenge.
What needs to happen now?
Clearly the most important thing that needs to happen now is for governments to ratify the 1995 amendment to the Basel Convention in their national parliaments. Ratification is usually a slow process, and so far, none have done so. When two thirds of the 82 governments who agreed to the amendment have ratified it, it will become binding international law, and the waste traders will have their backs to the wall.
One of the most important elements in getting this to happen is pressure on the world's governments from their own citizens. Once the toxic waste trade becomes a political issue governments will be swifter to act to do something about it.
As well as this, national governments have to tackle the problems described above. Developed countries should not attempt to undermine the Convention by attempting to amend the list of banned wastes or in any other ways, and developing countries should not respond to pressure from rich countries or industrialists to ignore or attempt to avoid the ban.
The Basel ban amendment is here to stay - it must be supported by all, and enforced everywhere. When that happens, the world will be a safer, cleaner place.
KEY FACTS
115 governments signed the original Basel Convention in 1989. So far, 100 of them have ratified it, and it has entered into international law.
82 governments so far have signed the 1995 amendment to the Basel Convention, which bans all toxic waste exports from OECD to non-OECD countries, even for recycling. As of July 1996, none of them have ratified it.
The USA, one of the world's biggest exporters of industrial toxic wastes, has not even ratified the original Basel Convention.
Over 90% of the toxic wastes that are currently exported from OECD to non-OECD countries are exported on the pretext that they will be 'recycled' at their destination. This will be banned from January 1st1998.
KEY QUESTIONS TO ASK YOUR GOVERNMENT
Has the government yet signed and ratified the 1989 Basel Convention? If not, why not, and when does it plan to do so?
Has the government signed the 1995 amendment to the Basel Convention. If so - why has it not been ratified yet by our parliament? If not - why not, and when does it plan to do so?
What steps is the government taking or planning to ensure that the1995 amendment to the Basel Convention, when it is signed, will be fully enforced in this country?
Can the government guarantee that it will strongly resist the attempts by some governments and corporations to 're-define' hazardous wastes listed under the Basel Convention, or to remove from the list any wastes banned for export from OECD to non- OECD countries?
Countries that have signed and ratified the Basel Convention, as of July 1996: If your government is not on this list, ask them to explain why not.
OECD COUNTRIES
Australia
Luxembourg
Austria
Mexico
Belgium
Netherlands
Canada
New Zealand
Czech Republic
Norway
Denmark
Portugal
Finland
Spain
France
Sweden
Germany
Switzerland
Greece
Turkey
Iceland
United Kingdom
Ireland
Italy
Japan
NON-OECD COUNTRIES
Africa
Comores
Nigeria
Côte d'Ivoire
Senegal
Egypt
Seychelles
Guinea
South Africa
Malawi
Tanzania
Mauritius
Tunisia
Morocco
Zaire
Namibia
Zambia
Asia and Pacific
Bahrain
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Papua New Guinea
China
Philippines
Federal States of Micronesia
Qatar
India
Republic of Korea
Indonesia
Saudi Arabia
Iran
Singapore
Jordan
Sri Lanka
Kuwait
Syria
Lebanon
United Arab Emirates
Malaysia
Uzbekistan
Maldives
Vietnam
Oman
Yemen
Central and Eastern Europe
Bulgaria
Poland
Croatia
Romania
Estonia
Russian Federation
Hungary
Slovak Republic
Latvia
Slovenia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Antigua and Barbuda
Guatemala
Argentina
Honduras
Bahamas
Panama
Barbados
Paraguay
Brazil
Peru
Chile
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Costa Rica
Saint Lucia
Cuba
Trinidad and Tobago
Ecuador
Uruguay
El Salvador
Western Europe
Cyprus
Israel
Liechtenstein
Monaco