Every year, the industries of the world's richest countries producemillions of tonnes of highly poisonous waste products. From mercury to leadscraps, from asbestos to battery acid, from PCBs to dioxins; thousands ofdifferent toxic wastes are constantlyin production. In recent years, forced to contend with increasingly rigorous environmental laws in their own countries, and strong regulationsprotecting the health of workers and the public, the industrialists of theNorth found a simple way to dispose of their poisons while protecting theirprofits: dump them on the developing world. For decades, the world's less industrialised countries were usedas an 'out-of-sight-out-of-mind' disposal facility for the poisonousby-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', onunscrupulous 'businessmen' who promised to 'dispose of it' or 'recycle' it.Often it was simply dumped. Industrial poisons have been found dumped inout-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', arguedthe toxic waste exporters was one reason why the trade should not be banned - 'recycling', they said, was good for theenvironment. In fact, many of the wastes sent for 'recycling' were simplydumped quietly, or 'recycled' in dirty, inadequate, inefficient facilitiesthat 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 publichealth in receiving countries, it discourages investment in cleanproduction, recycling and disposal methods in exporting countries. Few industrialists will invest in clean methods of production ordisposal when they can just send their poisonous wastes overseas instead,at a much lower cost.
In 1989, persuaded that the global trade in poisonous wastes was bothunjust and environmentally damaging, the world's governments gathered inthe Swiss town of Basel to sign the first ever global agreement to controlthe toxic waste trade. But the 'BaselConvention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal' was the victim of aninternational campaign by waste-exporting industries and governments to tryand scupper any significant international legislation on the matter.
Rather than simply banning the waste-trade from industrialised to lessindustrialised countries, the Convention instead set up a 'notification andconsent' procedure under which the toxic waste trade was allowed tocontinue as long as the importing country's government agreed to it. This was widely regarded as a triumph for thewaste-exporters.
However, in the years following the 1989 meeting, individual nations beganto erect their own legal barriers against the toxic waste imports, and theinternational objections to the trade grew. By the time the third meetingof 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 theywanted to see a final end to the toxic waste trade. At that meeting, despite attempts by some governments and industries to undermine anyfurther agreements, it was decided by a vast majority of states to finallyban, once-and-for-all, the trade in poisonous wastes.
In 1995, as a result, the Basel Convention was amended: the trade in toxicwastes for final disposal was banned with immediate effect, and the tradefor 'recycling' was banned from 1st January 1998. This agreement onlybanned the export of poisonous or hazardous wastes - non-toxic wastes can still be exported for recycling ordisposal.
We now have the greatest opportunity in history to end the toxic wastetrade for good. But there are still problems. Though the 1995 amendment tothe Basel Convention has been agreed and signed by governments, it has notyet 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 becomeinternationally binding.
But even then, unfortunately, the matter will not be closed. Some governments and industrialistshave been working hard since the amendment was signed to undermine thewhole thing. Various tactics have been tried. Some governments have beentrying to get around the ban using 'bilateral agreements' which they claim are allowed under the BaselConvention. In other words, they say that if they can persuade thegovernment of a developing country to agree to import their poisonouswastes, then this overrides the Basel amendment. In fact, this is legal nonsense.
Other methods the toxic traders have used include attempting to amend thelist of wastes banned by the Basel Convention, so that some wastes areremoved, and their export can continue. Some industrialists have also beenattempting to 'redefine' the meaning of the word 'hazardous', to achieve the same result.
Finally, of course, even if all these attempts to undermine the Baselban are defeated, it is still up to individual governments to enforce it intheir own countries - this in itself will be a significant challenge.
Clearly the most important thing that needs to happen now is forgovernments to ratify the 1995 amendment to the Basel Convention in theirnational 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 becomebinding international law, and the waste traders will have their backs tothe wall.
One of the most important elements in getting this to happen ispressure on the world's governments from their own citizens. Once the toxicwaste trade becomes a political issue governments will be swifter to act todo something about it.
As well as this, national governments have to tackle the problems describedabove. Developed countries should not attempt to undermine the Conventionby attempting to amend the list of bannedwastes or in any other ways, anddeveloping countries should not respond to pressure from rich countries or industrialists to ignore orattempt 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.
115 governments signed the original Basel Convention in 1989. Sofar, 100 of them have ratified it, and it has entered into internationallaw.
82 governments so far have signed the 1995 amendment to the BaselConvention, which bans all toxic waste exports from OECD to non-OECDcountries, even for recycling. As of July 1996, none of them have ratifiedit.
The USA, one of the world's biggest exporters of industrial toxicwastes, has not even ratified the original Basel Convention.
Over 90% of the toxic wastes that are currently exported from OECDto non-OECD countries are exported on the pretext that they will be'recycled' at their destination. This will be banned from January 1st1998.
Has the government yet signed and ratified the 1989 BaselConvention? If not, why not, and when does it plan to do so?
Has the government signed the 1995 amendment to the BaselConvention. If so - why has it not been ratified yet by our parliament? Ifnot - 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 fullyenforced in this country?
Can the government guarantee that it will strongly resist the attempts bysome governments and corporations to 're-define' hazardous wastes listedunder the Basel Convention, or to remove from the list any wastes bannedfor export from OECD to non- OECDcountries?
Countries that have signed and ratified theBasel Convention, as of July 1996: If your government is not on this list, ask them to explain why not
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
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
