Effective policing needed as Asia becomes waste dumping ground
By Eliza Teoh
DESPITE efforts to stem the flow of toxic wastes into Third World countries, errant industries and companies are finding innovative ways of trying to circumvent laws prohibiting the import of such wastes.
For instance, in 1990, an entrepreneur tried to Import waste films into Bangladesh, claiming his project would attract foreign investment.
He claimed he was setting up a disposable razor factory and would need waste film from Finland as raw material to produce the razors and for the recovery of silver.
But disposable razors are made from styrene rather than the cellulose used to make film. Also, silver is found only in trace amounts in film. One tonne of film can yield as little as 100 g of it.
The Bangladeshi Board of Investment decided, in the end, that it would not approve the project.
In a similar incident In May 1986, the United States subsidiary of a Danish company went bankrupt and closed its lead battery plant in Oregon.
The company attempted to operate as a waste battery broker but was unsuccessful In getting the governments of Pakistan, South Korea and Taiwan to import the lead battery wastes.
It then came up with another plan and opened a lead battery recycling plant in Saraburi, Thailand. Solid waste samples gathered by researchers from the surrounds of the plant revealed the samples all contained high levels of lead and manganese.
A report by the environmental group, Greenpeace —Lead Astray: The Poisonous Lead Battery Waste Trade —says that lead Is one of the most pervasive and toxic of all environmental contaminants, exposure to which can result in neurological, neuropsychological and metabolic disorders.
What makes matters worse is that many governments to date still do not distinguish clearly whether shipments represent wastes or products. For example, lead acid battery wastes are often exported under the label "batteries", and toxic metal dust-’is labelled as "fertilizer".
According to a Greenpeace report, over 10.4 million tonnes of toxic waste in the form of industrial affluence, chemical by-products, plastics, used batteries and even radioactive substances from the Organisation for Economic~ Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries have been exported to Asia since 1990.
Between 1990 and 1993, Australia, Canada, Germany, Britain and the US shipped more than 5.4 million tonnes of toxic wastes to countries in Asia including China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand. (See chart.)
It has also been reported that 98 per cent of the world’s hazardous wastes are generated by the 24 OECD countries.
The recent "invasion" of Asian countries is a result of increased awareness in other Third World countries of the potential hazards of importing toxic wastes. The West used to send Its wastes to Africa and Latin America, but these countries now prohibit waste imports. Thus, internal waste brokers are having to look elsewhere.
In 1986, only three countries had banned waste imports. As of last year, the number has risen to 103. But Asia still 4emain~ the final frontier for the West to dispose of its waste.
In 1989, the United Nations Environment Programme initiated the Basel Convention on the control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. September this year has been set for the - next full meeting of ¶he Basel Convention parties.
At that meeting, it is anticipated that the ban on wastes for recycling and recovery will come into force and be written into the convention.
Although the convention calls for a complete ban on the movement of hazardous material destined for recycling operations from OECD to non-OECD states by Dec 31, 1997, enforcement still poses a problem.
The toxic trade campaigner for Greenpeace, Ms Phyllis Campbell, said in a telephone interview from Brisbane, where she is based, that the convention would rely on OECD countries amending their legislation to make the export of hazardous wastes illegal.
"And, really, the onus is on the exporting country, and that’s the way that the convention is framed. Like any law, it needs to be policed. For instance, in Australia, the ‘egislation that will come into effect in terms of regulating the trade will make company directors directly responsible for illegal traffic.
The point of all this is $hat companies need to take responsibility for their wastes 1 at home through adherence to’ the Basel Convention."
THIS means that the countries generating the waste will have to deal with their own waste within their own borders. Thus, new recycling plants that adhere to environmental and health standards need to be built.
All this will have to be gone at a great cost to governments and industries. For example, proper treatment of wastes such as polychiorinated byphenyl (PCBs) might cost US$3,000 (S$4,170) a tonne as compared with exporting it at US$2.50 a tonne.
But, despite the high cost, the effort may just help prevent the further depletion of the environment and the health of many people.
Source : The Straits Times, 21st June 1995
Recycling Point Dot Com
(C) 2000 All Rights Reserved