[] TL: ABSTRACT-THE PROBLEM--TRADING AWAY THE ENVIRONMENT (GP) SO: Greenpeace International, Jim Puckett DT: November 30, 1991 Keywords:TOXICS HAZARDOUS WASTE TRADE EUROPE LEGISLATION FAILURES GP TOXICS GREENPEACE REPORTS EC / Since the 1950's, the European Community has been founded on the principle of economic enrichment rather than enrichment of our quality of life. Unfortunately, environmental protection has always been, and continues to be, an afterthought of EEC Treaty architects. Today, despite nearly twenty years of Community action and legislation on the environment, the subservience of the environment to economic considerations is still obvious and alarming. With the Maastricht summit and the expected signing of the European Union Treaty just days away, the concern for the quality of life has been sorely missing from the heated debates over common currency, common foreign policy and common defence. Meanwhile, the environment of the Community continues to deteriorate, and according to a study contracted by the Commission itself, that deterioration is expected to dramatically accelerate as a result of the achievement of the internal market by the end of 1992. The inability of the EC to adequately address environmental problems has been attributed to the sheer scale of inherited problems, and to the political process for legislative action which usually weakens innovative proposals. The greatest barrier however to effective Community action lies in the fact that the EEC Treaty only partially incorporates environmental considerations. The worst example of this lies in the fact that the Treaty gives precedence to market considerations, over environmental considerations. The essential problems in seeking to protect the environment in the context of the internal market, arise from the following: I. The protection of the environment is not seen as an overriding objective of the EC. All environmental action that is in conflict with free trade are only allowed as exceptions to the rule. Thus the burden of proof of validity is placed on the environment rather than upon economic activity and such exceptions will be difficult to establish in the law. II. The internal market is to be 'an area without internal frontiers' and thus the ability to restrict environmentally harmful or illegal trade will be lost. Following completion of the Internal Market border controls will no longer be available as a means for restricting the entry of harmful products, wastes or technologies into a Member States, or for even ensuring compliance with EC law. III. The EEC Treaty severely restricts the right of Member States to take unilateral actions to protect the environment. In practice, this has already meant a requirement to remove certain national measures that are stronger than the common standards provided for in Community law, where it has been decided that this is an impediment to free trade. Thus not only are governments made impotent to protect their own peoples and the environment, but innovative and creative solutions desperately needed to address global environmental problems are blocked. IV. Harmonisation legislation rarely reflects the highest or even higher national standards prevailing in the Community but rather reflects a compromise between a great range of 12 national efforts toward environmental protection. Such a compromise will fall far short of resolving the urgent global and European environmental problems we face. A CASE IN POINT--THE TRADE IN HAZARDOUS WASTES Greenpeace argues the case for a fundamental revision of the EEC Treaty by closely examining one environmental issue--the trade in hazardous and nuclear wastes. We reach the conclusion that without dramatic amendments to the EEC Treaty itself, a single European market can easily become a Single European Dump--a Europe where deadly poisonous wastes can be traded as easily as apples and oranges and nothing can prevent those wastes from being disposed of in any neighbourhood or locale in the 12 Member States. The Wallonia Case Under the EEC Treaty, Member States are not permitted to restrict imports from other Community countries. So far, it has not been clear to what extent hazardous wastes are covered by these provisions. Despite the fact that it is extremely questionable that wastes for treatment and disposal should legitimately be classified as "goods", a case presently before the European Court of Justice is likely to reach that frightening conclusion. The Advocate-General Opinion in this case which involves the attempt by the Wallonia region of Belgium to prohibit waste importation, states that as wastes are subject to financial transactions they should be treated as "goods". Facilitating or allowing a free trade in wastes is clearly in conflict with the goal of prevention of environmental problems at the source agreed to by the Community in the EEC Treaty. When an industry can easily send its wastes to countries or regions with less progressive environmental practices, there will never be an incentive to move toward the goal of clean production and waste prevention. Meanwhile those regions with less stringent environmental practices will be victimised by waste traders. If the Court follows the Advocate-General's Opinion on this point, what the future could hold is no less than the free trade in wastes within the Community, with wastes following the path of least resistance toward whatever waste "disposal" facility offers the lowest disposal price. EFTA and the EEA The architects of the European Economic Area Agreement between the seven EFTA States and the EEC has repeated the same mistakes of the past in the area of free trade and the environment. Indeed the provisions on free trade are identical in substance to those in the EEC Treaty, with the environment placed secondary to free trade concerns. We conclude that the EEA Agreement would provide for the free trade in wastes and environmentally-damaging products throughout all of its 19 member countries, estimated to make up 40% of world trade. Nuclear Wastes The prospect of nuclear wastes is even more alarming. Member States which have nuclear power programmes are developing national management strategies for their radioactive wastes. So far however, except for some low-level radioactive wastes, there are no final disposal sites for radioactive wastes currently operating anywhere in the Community. Pressures to find "solutions" for radioactive waste management are mounting. For some countries, being able to dump the "problem" on someone else by the development of "regional" or European radioactive waste repositories would be an attractive option. Meanwhile, Sweden already has an operating repository - Forsmark - and Finland is constructing a similar facility. Sweden, however, has committed itself to a phase-out of nuclear power in part because of the problems of waste management, and is therefore seeking to exclude non-Swedish waste through legislation. Finland maintains a perspective that waste is not a "good" and also seeks to bar most imports of radioactive wastes. But if the European Court of Justice upholds the Opinion of the Advocate-General, then the efforts of Sweden or Finland to be nuclear free or responsible will be impossible as soon as they join the EC or sign the European Economic Area agreement. In short, they could become the radioactive waste dumps for Europe. THE SOLUTION--GREEN THE TREATY In order to assist the necessary introduction of clean production methods and for the implementation of the prevention principle, Member States or the EC will need to be able to ban or restrict the movements of hazardous wastes, products and technologies because of undesirable environmental impacts. Currently, such logical efforts may very well be deemed illegal by the European Court of Justice. At best, such efforts will be seen as derogations or exceptions to internal market rules. The solution, to this fundamental obstacle therefore does not lie in EC legislation allowing for exceptions that are subject to court challenge by the European Court of Justice, but in amending the EEC treaty itself. Greenpeace recommends the following changes in the EEC Treaty: 1. Make environmental protection an overriding objective of all EC policies. 2. Allow Member States the right to take unilateral action to protect the environment. 3. Assure that all Community measures adopted to protect the environment will move to establish the highest level of environmental protection prevailing in any member state. So far the EC has refused to recognise the conflict between a healthy environment and free trade. They have not considered the environment to be even as important as economic growth. The EC is out of touch with the urgency of global environmental concerns and the desires of Europeans to live in a healthy environment, free of pollution and waste and in peaceful coexistence with nature. Putting the concerns of the environment in their rightful place-- above those of commerce, is not a question of making a 'trendy' green choice, but a necessity to avoid global environmental ruin. Certainly, without a green and healthy planet, trade and commerce Keywords: greenpeace hazardous waste trade europe legislation failures gp toxics nuclear are meaningless. =end= /