TL: Toxic Trade Update-Vol 6,Iss 1 SO: Greenpeace Inteernational, Toxic Trade (GP) DT: March, 1993 Keywords: environment greenpeace hazardous waste trade toxics newsletters exports imports / - First Quarter 1993 Electronic Edition The Greenpeace Toxic Trade Update is the quarterly newsletter of the Greenpeace Toxic Trade Campaign, and is available in Spanish, French and English (Spanish and French editions not available on line). Our campaign seeks an end to the international trade in toxic wastes, toxic products and toxic technologies. We welcome submissions on this topic from environmental organizations, activists, scientific institutions and other interested parties. Articles in Toxic Trade Update 6.1 Basel Session in Uruguay - Jim Vallette TOXIC TRADE LEGISLATION Indonesia Fights Plastic Waste Imports Malaysia Rejects Dirty Industries Poland Inviting Waste Invasion? Toxic Trade Ban in Central America New Hope for Toxic Trade Ban in U.S. U.S. Defines Pesticides Exports Policy - Sandra Marquardt EC Establishes "Waste Colonialism" - Jim Puckett Switzerland Ignoring Basel Convention TOXIC WASTE TRADE European Waste Traders Target Somalia IAEA in Namibia U.S. Toxic Fertilizer in Bangladesh UNOCAL Attempts Dumping in Marshall Islands Waste Exports to Malaysia Rise Germany Retrieves Wastes from Romania German Waste is "Humanitarian Aid" for Albania Estonia and Ukraine Get "Waste Aid" from Germany Swiss Batteries Smelted in Slovenia New York Waste Traders Target Nicaragua U.S. Wastes Smuggled into Mexico Germany is Waste Trader of the Year! Australia Sends PCBs to Europe Activists Fight ReChem in the U.K. - Madeleine Cobbing Heltermaa Returns to Germany Radioactive Waste Exported to Sweden German Medical Waste Intercepted in France Denmark to Import German Waste Denmark Still Dumping in Spain - Janus Hillgaard Cito Returns to Germany TOXIC PRODUCTS TRADE Denmark's Cheminova Exports Banned Pesticides - Topsy Jewell Guest Column - Third World Network - Asian War on Pests Greenpeace Calls for Unleaded Gasoline in Uruguay TOXIC TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS Western Pyromania Moves East - Iza Kruszewska Incinerator Proposed for Pesticides in Africa Update on Mitsubishi in Malaysia Levi Strauss Polluting Poland Activists Fight CWM in Mexico Elpesa Closed by Development Bank Fruit TNCs Polluting Costa Rica RESOURCES ON TOXIC TRADE Subscribe now to the Greenpeace Toxic Trade Update. If you would like to receive by mail this comprehensive analysis of the international trade in toxics, complete with striking documentary photographs, and amusing graphics, then subscribe today. The Greenpeace Toxic Trade Update is published quarterly in three languages: English, French and Spanish. The annual subscription rate is US$20.00 standard, US$50.00 corporate, US$10.00 student. Current resources and publications are listed below. Please send a check or money order made payable to the "Greenpeace Toxic Trade Campaign" to Greenpeace Toxic Trade Campaign, 1436 U Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20009, USA. Name: Organization: Address: City: State/Province: Postal Code: Country: Telephone: Telefax/Telex: Reason for interest: Language: Other Toxic Trade Resources Desired: Name of Publication or Video: Cost: Total: Also, if you are interested in joining the campaign to stop waste exports from your community, send US$3.00 for Greenpeace's Waste Trade Free Zone: Community Action Kit. This grassroots organizing manual provides strategies for halting the export of wastes from your community. Although the kit is definitely oriented toward the international waste trade campaign, many of the skills and techniques described in the kit can be used for organizing any campaign. Greenpeace also has an activist network which enables Greenpeace supporters to get involved with various campaigns and initiatives. If you have some skill that you think would be useful for Greenpeace activities, if you want to lend your support at rallies and protests, and if you want to become more than a financial supporter of the Greenpeace mission, please send your name, address and phone number to the Greenpeace Activist Network, 1436 U Street, NW, Washington, DC 20009, USA. Toxic Trade Publications Coordinator: Heather Spalding - Greenpeace U.S. - Washington, 1436 U Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20009, U.S. Toxic Trade Campaigners: ARGENTINA - Mario Epelman - Greenpeace Cono Sur, Bartolome Mitre 226, Piso 4, 1036 Buenos Aires AUSTRALIA - Simon Divecha - Greenpeace Australia, Studio 14, 37 Nicholson Street, Balmain, NSW, 2041 CANADA - Stephane Gingras, Elizabeth Loudon - Greenpeace Canada - Montreal, 2444 Notre Dame Ouest, Montreal, Quebec, H3J 1N5 CENTRAL AMERICA - Erwin Garzona - Greenpeace Central America, 10 Calle 3-15, Zona 1, Guatemala City, Guatemala CZECH REPUBLIC AND SLOVAKIA - Antonin Mucha - Greenpeace CSFR, U Prasne brany 3, CS-110 00, Prague DENMARK - Janus Hillgaard - Greenpeace Denmark, Linnesgade 25, 1, 1361 Copenhagen K EUROPE - Julia True, Roberto Ferrigno (Acting European Coordinator), Jim Puckett, Kevin Stairs - Greenpeace International, Keizersgracht 176, 1016 DW Amsterdam, The Netherlands EUROPEAN COMMUNITY - Jackie Lilly - Greenpeace EC Unit, Vooruitgangstraat 317, 1210 Brussels, BELGIUM FRANCE - Pierre-Emmanuel Neurohr - Greenpeace France, 28 Rue des Petites, Ecuries, 75010 Paris GERMANY (Western) - Andreas Bernstorff, Ingo Bokermann, Katherine Totten - Greenpeace Germany, Vorsetzen 53, Hamburg 11 GERMANY (Eastern) - Matthias Voigt - Greenpeace Germany, Chausseestrasse 131, 1040 Berlin ITALY - Paola Biocca - Greenpeace Italy, 28 Viale Manlio Gelsomini, 00153 Roma LATIN AMERICA - Marijane Lisboa (Latin America Toxics Coordinator) - Greenpeace Brazil, Rua Pinheiros, 240, Conjunto 32, Sao Paulo MEDITERRANEAN - Mario Damato - Greenpeace Mediterranean Project, Ses Rafaletes, 13 - 1, 07015 Palma de Mallorca, SPAIN MEXICO - Fernando Bejarano - Greenpeace Mexico, La Escondida 110, Colonia Coyoacan, CP 04000, Mexico D.F. PACIFIC - Dave Rapaport - Greenpeace San Francisco, 139 Townsend Street, San Francisco, CA, 94107-1922 SPAIN - Juantxo Lopez de Uralde - Greenpeace Spain, 58 Rodriguez San Pedro, 4 Piso, 28015 Madrid SWEDEN - Rune Eriksen, Matts Knapp - Greenpeace Sweden, Box 8913, S-402 73, Goteborg SWITZERLAND - Stefan Weber - Greenpeace Switzerland, Muellerstrasse 37, 8004 Zurich THE NETHERLANDS - John Arends - Greenpeace Netherlands, Keizersgracht 174, 1016 DW Amsterdam TUNISIA - Wahid Labidi - Greenpeace Tunisia, 51 Av. Abdellaziz Thaalbi, El Manar 2, 2092 Tunis U.K. - Madeleine Cobbing, Kerry Rankine, Iza Kruszewska - Greenpeace U.K., Canonbury Villas, London, N1 2PN U.K. - Topsy Jewell, Greenpeace International Annex, Temple House, 25/26 High Street, Lewes, East Sussex, BN7 2LU U.S. - Kenny Bruno, Jed Greer - Greenpeace New York, 462 Broadway, 6th Floor, New York, NY, 10013 U.S. - Marcelo Furtado, Ann Leonard, Sandra Marquardt, Connie Murtagh, Jim Vallette (Coordinator) - Greenpeace Washington - Washington, 1436 U Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20009 UKRAINE - Alexei Kabyka - Greenpeace Ukraine, P.O. Box 500, Kiev, 252010 Circulation: 5,000 (Est.) total for Spanish, French and English editions, distributed to activists, journalists and government officials worldwide. Special Note to Readers You may come across the terms "tons" and "tonnes" when reading the Toxic Trade Update. Measurements labelled "tons" refer to English weights, while "tonnes" refer to the metric. One English ton (that is 2,000 pounds) equals 1.016 metric tonnes. One metric tonne (1,000 kilograms) equals 0.98421 English tons. Attention Electronic Mail Users! We are pleased to announce a new conference on EcoNet called haz.trade. The purpose of the conference is to facilitate discussion and information exchange about the international trade in hazardous wastes, products and technologies. Basel "Dumping" Convention Still Legalizes Toxic Terrorism By Jim Vallette The first meeting of the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal highlighted the widening gap between industrial countries trying to expand waste trade and other countries trying to halt it. But the meeting's ambiguous conclusion led Greenpeace to warn developing countries and Eastern and Central Europe to "prepare themselves for a massive waste invasion from industrial countries." "This treaty will henceforth be known as the Basel Dumping Convention," said Dr. Kevin Stairs, head of Greenpeace's delegation attending the meeting. "It continues to encourage industrial countries to dump their wastes elsewhere while wearing the 'green' mask of recycling." The Basel Convention meeting, held at the seaside town of Piriapolis, Uruguay, from November 30 to December 4, 1992, was the first ever meeting of its 35 Parties. The Convention entered into force in May 1992. Dr. Tolba's Initiative Dr. Mostafa Tolba, in one of his final acts as Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), stunned industrial delegates to the meeting by proposing a complete ban on waste shipments to developing countries and Eastern Europe. (Dr. Tolba retired from UNEP at the end of 1992.) "The Basel treaty is not a panacea for this global problem that is sometimes described as 'toxic terrorism.' Hazardous wastes will always follow the path of lower costs and lower standards," said Dr. Tolba. "The most worrying aspect is the rising number of projects by the industrial world to construct waste-to-energy plants or what are described as 'non-hazardous' waste landfills or incineration facilities in developing countries." His initiative followed growing awareness that Basel's rules requiring prior notification of waste trade schemes have done little to halt the poison trade. Many developing countries have argued that the Basel Convention does little to protect them from foreign waste imports. At least 94 countries have enacted total bans on the import of toxic wastes. Dr. Tolba's draft decision would "prohibit all exports of hazardous wastes from OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) to non-OECD countries."* This proposal gained impassioned support from developing countries -- and even a few industrial ones. The head of the India delegation, Mr. A. Bhattacharjya, said, "You industrial countries have been asking us to do many things for the global good -- to stop cutting down our forests, to stop using your CFCs -- now we are asking YOU to do something for the global good: keep your own waste." Industrial Countries Block a Ban But by the end of the week, industrial countries managed to block the bold waste trade ban initiative. These countries, particularly the U.S., Germany, Canada, Australia, United Kingdom and Japan, opposed Dr. Tolba's proposal on technical or philosophical grounds. The Australian delegation, for example, stated that "we should instead ask which developing countries want to import wastes," and accommodate them. Canada stated that they wanted to keep their toxic waste "recycling" options open. Japan questioned the legal basis for the decision. When the U.S. delegation claimed that their government had full control over their exports, making such a measure unnecessary, Dr. Stairs took the floor to note that "as we speak a boat is on its way from Hawai'i to the Marshall Islands full of contaminated soil to be dumped to fill up the ocean there. Plus the U.S. has toxic metal wastes scattered all over Bangladesh which was sent there as fertilizer. Clearly, they can't even begin to control their own policy." The German delegation stated that "we have full control over what goes for recycling" and thus it was not necessary to block such exports. Dr. Stairs reminded Germany that its present waste trade rules have allowed the country's wastes to be dumped all over the Middle East and Eastern and Central Europe, under the guise of recycling. German hazardous waste exports in 1992 included toxic wastes dumped in Romania and Albania, labeled as "humanitarian aid." Greenpeace Investigations Reveal Reality of Waste Trade In 1992, over 90% of waste trade schemes targeting developing countries claimed some sort of "recycling," "re-use" or "humanitarian" benefit. Greenpeace investigations discovered that, in 1992 alone, Western Europe and the U.S. shipped toxic wastes to Albania, Brazil, Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Estonia, Georgia, Indonesia, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Namibia, Palau, Philippines, Romania, Slovenia, Turkey and Ukraine. Greenpeace warned delegates to the meeting that this figure represented only the "first wave" of industrial waste dumping. Greenpeace distributed numerous reports to meeting delegates, including a new 12 minute video documentary titled "Wasting the World." This video, available from Greenpeace in Spanish and English, reveals the growing practice of dumping all kinds of dangerous wastes under the green word, "recycling." A Loophole is Born By the end of the week, it became clear that countries wishing to maintain and expand their waste exports faced growing opposition not only from environmental groups and developing countries, but also from many industrial states. Finland, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Italy and Sweden all endorsed a total ban on waste exports from OECD to non-OECD countries. Despite their growing isolation, a handful of heavily industrialized countries like the U.S., Germany and the U.K., forced a drastic weakening of Dr. Tolba's proposal. The final resolution adopted at the meeting simply "requests" industrialized countries to stop disposing hazardous wastes in developing countries, and opens a gaping loophole in this request by exempting exports for "recovery operations." The Basel Convention's definition of "recovery operations" includes such easily abused methods as "use as a fuel," "land treatment resulting in benefit to agriculture improvement," and "reuses of previously used oil." The compromise decision also called for a review to take place by 1994 on which to base a future decision on whether to ban exports for recycling and/or recovery. Developing countries, represented by the Group of 77, made a joint declaration expressing their deep dissatisfaction about the compromise decision. These countries called for the issue of a total ban to be revisited in 1993. A delegate from Uruguay, the host country, reflected the sadness of many people attending the meeting when he said, "The Basel Convention violates the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not dump poison on thy neighbor." No full meeting of Basel Convention is scheduled for 1993. Instead, a number of working groups will meet during the year to discuss such problems as liability of waste trade and the definition of "environmentally sound management" of hazardous wastes. Protests Mark Conclusion of Basel Meeting As the first meeting of the Basel Convention concluded at the Hotel Argentino in Uruguay, Greenpeace joined dozens of children and adults from Piriapolis to protest the industrialized world's refusal to halt waste trade. "Alto al Trafico de Desechos," read one child's poster, as they blocked traffic in the street in front of the Hotel Argentino. The protesters refused to allow anything with an engine to move past the hotel for over an hour, as they sang, "For a clean world, for a green world, we will not be moved." As the people of Piriapolis protested in the streets, Greenpeace activists from Argentina and Uruguay hung two massive banners from the hotel's roof. The banners read, in English and Spanish, "Danger: Basel Convention STILL Legalizes Toxic Terror." Greenpeace first hung the same English banner nearly four years ago, outside the Basel, Switzerland, hotel where the convention was first signed. Parties to the Basel Convention (as of 1 February 1993) Argentina*, Australia, Bahamas*, Bahrain, Brazil, Canada, Chile*, China, Cyprus, Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, El Salvador*, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, India, Jordan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Maldives, Mexico, Monaco, Nigeria*, Norway**, Panama*, Poland*, Romania*, Saudi Arabia, Senegal*, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates and Uruguay. "Observer" Countries Present In Piriapolis Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Colombia*, Congo*, Cuba, Denmark, Egypt*, Germany, Ghana*, Greece, Italy**, Japan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Netherlands, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea*, Paraguay, Peru*, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Spain, Thailand, Uganda*, United Kingdom, United States * - Countries which have banned hazardous waste trade. ** - Countries which have banned hazardous waste exports to non- OECD countries. *OECD Countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany , Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States. Toxic Trade Legislation Asia and the South Pacific Indonesia Fights Plastic Waste Invasion Total Import Ban Imminent In November 1992, Indonesia's Minister of Trade Arifin Siregar issued a decree to ban the importation of used plastic to curb pollution of the environment. Indonesia has been suffering an invasion of foreign plastic wastes, mainly from the U.S., Western Europe and Japan. Indonesia's Minister of Environment Emil Salim declared his country's intention to end all waste imports by April 1993. "Scrap imports must be banned because we don't want Indonesia to become a dump for industrialized countries' waste materials," said Minister Salim. Plastic wastes have been pouring into Indonesia over the past two years. Greenpeace found that in 1992, the U.S. exported over 14,000 tons of plastic waste to Indonesia. Greenpeace also found that the massive import of foreign plastic waste threatened the income of local waste scavengers. More than 200,000 people collect discarded materials from city garbage dumps for sale to scrap brokers. The average income of Jakarta's waste collectors fell from US$3.00 to US$1.50 a day in 1992 as the plastic waste invasion gained momentum. "The social and environmental impact of plastic recycling programs is little known by people in waste exporting countries," said Greenpeace Germany's Toxic Trade campaigner Andreas Bernstorff. "People in Germany are told that their plastic wastes are being recycled in an orderly fashion, but their so-called recycling system is turning Indonesia into a rubbish tip." Western exporters claim that all of their waste is recycled, but much of the rubbish is unusable, and actually ends up in local landfills. The manager for a plastic recycling plant near Jakarta admitted to Greenpeace that as much as forty percent of the plastic he imported would be dumped. Some foreign plastic waste lies abandoned in Indonesia ports. One hundred and sixteen unclaimed containers are sitting in Tanjung Priok, the main port in Jakarta, while authorities search for the wastes "importers." According to A. Soetomo, an Indonesian Deputy Attorney General, some companies wrote false addresses on import documents, apparently to avoid liability. Japan, Korea, the Netherlands and the U.S. sent the wastes to Jakarta in 1992. Now the Indonesia government is trying to return the wastes to their senders. "Now that Indonesia appears off limits to waste imports, waste traders are shifting their sights to other countries," said Simon Divecha, Greenpeace Toxic Trade campaigner. "It is high time for the West to take responsibility for its own rubbish and ban the export of hazardous waste." Indonesia has also taken action against other polluting industries. After complaints from Javanese residents about excessive air pollution from 10 used battery processing facilities, regency authorities from West Java Cirebon closed the factories. "The authorities refused to extend their permits and closed them to stop the air pollution they have caused," said Suparman Oleredja, an assistant to the regent. It is unclear whether the plants were importing waste batteries, but rich industrial countries routinely dump old car batteries in the Southeast Asia region, particularly in Malaysia and the Philippines. (Sources: Greenpeace Australia; The Jakarta Post, November 26, December 18, 1992.) Malaysia Rejects Dirty Industries - Almost... Responding to the growing trend to site dirty industries in Third World countries, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad stated that Malaysia will "reject low-value, dirty industries which may harm the environment... Unless they bring tremendous benefit, we will not welcome dirty industries in Malaysia." (Source: Kyodo News Service, September 8, 1992.) Eastern Europe Is Poland Inviting Another Waste Invasion? Poland was a popular target of waste traders from 1988-1990. A 1990 Greenpeace report entitled "Poland: The Waste Invasion" documented 65 waste trade schemes targeting Poland. Two-thirds of the schemes had a "recycling" or "reuse" pretext. Greenpeace's disclosure of this "waste dumping by another name" led the government in 1991 to eliminate a "recycling" loophole in its 1989 waste import ban and to tighten customs enforcement of this ban. While enforcement remains a problem, the waste invasion of Poland has slowed considerably. Now, the Polish government is considering re-instating the recycling loophole. A parliamentary commission is currently drafting legislation implementing the Basel Convention on waste trade. Various drafts of the legislation will allow waste imports under certain conditions, such as if the waste is to be used as a "secondary raw material" for industrial purposes, or if there is no "suitable, sufficient or accessible waste" in Poland. "Poland has no room for error on this issue. Its proximity to Germany, the world's waste export champion, and its existing customs enforcement difficulties, already make the country extremely susceptible to foreign waste dumping," said Iza Kruszewska, Greenpeace Toxic Trade campaigner. "Any weakening of their import ban will surely invite another massive waste invasion." (Source: Greenpeace.) Latin America Toxic Trade Ban Agreed By Central American Presidents Central American environmentalists have defeated dozens of waste import schemes into their region in the past five years. On December 11, 1992, Central American governments officially joined their fight against toxic trade. At a summit held in Panama, the presidents of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama (with Belize present as an observer) signed the "Agreement on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes in the Central American Region." The summit agreement, much like Africa's Bamako Convention signed in January 1991, bans the importation, transport, ocean dumping and ocean incineration of hazardous wastes in the Central American region. Under the new law, local authorities will have the power to prosecute offenders. Each government will appoint a liaison to communicate regularly with the Central American Commission on Environment and Development, the regional policy group largely responsible for drafting the legislation. While the law eliminates almost the entire trade in wastes between Central America and the rest of the world, it permits certain kinds of wastes to be traded under particular circumstances. Radioactive wastes, for example, are excluded from the agreement. Another shortcoming is that governments can abandon the agreement six months after denouncing it. For the agreement to become binding, each national congress must ratify it and send the decision to the Guatemalan Foreign Relations Ministry. The agreement will enter into force for the ratifying countries eight days after the third ratification is made. For other countries, the agreement will enter into force on the day that they ratify it. The agreement will be in force for a period of ten years, and must be renewed for the same period each decade.(Source: Greenpeace Central America.) North America A Fresh Start to the U.S. Toxic Trade Debate Under the leadership of former U.S. Presidents George Bush and Ronald Reagan, toxic exports from the U.S. soared. Hazardous waste exports rarely occurred before Reagan assumed office in 1981. By 1992, the Reagan-Bush era left a legacy of toxic waste dumping on every continent, from farms in Bangladesh, to a beach in Haiti, to the edge of a South African "homeland." "Presidents Bush and Reagan never had any intention of stopping their corporate friends from dumping poisons on other countries," said Sandra Marquardt, a Greenpeace Toxic Trade campaigner who organized opposition to pesticide exports during both administrations. "The new Clinton-Gore administration, however, brings a fresh attitude to the issue, and provides us with some hope that U.S. toxic exports will decline, or even end." This hope is based on the broad support demonstrated by members of the U.S. Congress, and new Vice President Al Gore, for ending toxic waste and pesticide exports. Vice President Gore helped form a coalition of environmentally concerned parliamentarians from 42 countries in 1990. Last year, the coalition, Global Legislators Organization for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE), called upon its members to urge their governments to adopt a ban on exporting hazardous wastes to developing countries. Now, Vice-President Gore is in a position to help implement such a ban. Last year, 44 members of Congress co-sponsored legislation to ban all U.S. hazardous waste exports and imports. Representative Edolphus Towns' Waste Export and Import Prohibition Act gained much more support in Congress than two rival bills. The other bills allowed waste exports to continue under U.S. standards (26 co-sponsors), and under Basel Convention standards (no co- sponsors). Rep. Towns plans to reintroduce his legislation this year. It is likely that another important piece of toxic trade legislation will be re-introduced in the U.S. Congress this year. The Circle of Poison Prevention Act (COPPA) which bans the export of unregistered pesticides, had wide support in both houses of Congress last year. The Circle of Poison occurs when pesticides too toxic for domestic use are nonetheless exported and used overseas, only to return to the U.S. in the form of residues on imported foods. Two sponsors of the legislation, former Senator Gore and former Representative Leon Panetta, are now key members of the new administration. Mr. Panetta is director of the Office of Management and Budget. Gore is Committed, But is Clinton? Greenpeace's hope for a U.S. toxic export ban is tempered by questions about how committed the Clinton-Gore administration is to achieving a ban in the short term. According to state and national environmental groups, President Bill Clinton's environmental track record as governor of Arkansas was spotty, at best. President Clinton's choice of former World Bank Chief Economist Lawrence Summers to a high level post generated considerable outrage in the international environmental community. In December 1991, Mr. Summers wrote an infamous memorandum suggesting that the World Bank should encourage more migration of dirty industries to lesser developed countries. "I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that," said Mr. Summers. Observers have also noted that President Clinton rarely addresses environmental issues during his speeches to the country. His stated priorities, for now, are the national economy and health care. "We hope that President Clinton understands that environmental solutions perfectly complement his goals of improving the country's economy and quality of life," said Greenpeace Toxic Trade Campaigner Ann Leonard. "Banning U.S. toxic exports is an environmental solution that will challenge industries to stop producing poisons, and to start employing clean technologies. The results will include an economy stimulated by the quest for clean production, and a quality of life improved by the absence of poisons." Excerpts from Earth in the Balance "[W]e have begun to create waste that far outstrips, in quantity and in toxic potential, the capacity of the natural environment to absorb or reuse it at anything approaching the rate at which it is generated.... [W]e must drastically reduce the amount of waste generated in the first place.... [W]hat used to be considered unthinkable becomes commonplace because of the incredible pressure from the mounting volumes of waste. One especially disquieting example is the idea of shipping waste across national borders." (Pages 154 and 160.) ...I started to feel wary of all chemicals that have extraordinarily powerful effects on the world around us... Are we really taking enough time to discover their long-term effects?... [O]ver the past fifty years, herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and thousands of other compounds have come streaming out of laboratories faster than we can possibly keep track of them.... [T]oo many have left a legacy of poison that we will be coming to terms with for many generations.... Pesticides... not only kill harmful pests, they kill many helpful ones as well, often disrupting the natural pattern of an ecosystem and so doing more harm than good.... Do we really need all these poisons?" (Pages 3, 4 and 141.) "[W]e now face the prospect of a kind of global civil war between those who refuse to consider the consequences of civilization's relentless advance and those who refuse to be silent partners in the destruction." (Page 294.) (Source: Albert Gore, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. First Plume Printing, Penguin Books, New York: 1993.) Greenpeace Canada and Greenpeace in the U.S. are organizing a coalition against the international trade in wastes. Greenpeace encourages anyone interested in securing a comprehensive ban on waste trade in North America to contact the Greenpeace Toxic Trade Campaign in Montreal. Write or call: Stephane Gingras or Elizabeth Loudon in Montreal at Greenpeace Canada, 2444, Notre Dame Ouest, Montreal, Quebec, H3J 1N5, CANADA. Phone: 514-933-0021. U.S. Defines New Pesticides Exports Policy By Sandra Marquardt On February 18, 1993, after two and a half years of delay, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally released its updated pesticide export policy. The policy primarily addresses changes in the way international notification takes place when companies export unregistered pesticides or when EPA announces a significant regulatory action such as the banning of a pesticide. It provides the framework for activities mandated under the federal pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA started the process of updating the policy in 1989 after a congressional subcommittee harshly criticized it for failing to provide adequate international notification under the law and a related 1980 policy. New procedures were originally due in late 1990, but were held up first when the U.S. Congress seriously considered, and almost adopted, legislation which would prohibit the export of banned pesticides. In late 1992, the policy was again held up by then President Bush's regulatory moratorium, and by internal Department of Agriculture and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) discussions about the extent of the notification requirements. EPA announced its release on the last day of the Bush Presidency, only for OMB to withhold it for another month. Rather than taking the time to ensure the policy reflected the position of the new Clinton Administration, EPA released it under the signature of Bush's EPA Administrator William Reilly. The policy bears the "free trade in toxics" orientation of that Administration. The new policy is a major step towards improved information exchange, but Greenpeace feels that ultimately notification is not enough when it comes down to the export of banned and never registered pesticides. Along with hundreds of other groups, Greenpeace believes that EPA should adopt a complete ban on the export of unregistered pesticides, enforce stronger restrictions on the export of highly hazardous pesticides, and disseminate information on nonchemical alternatives to pesticides. Greenpeace and other organizations have been working for three years towards the passage and strengthening of the Circle of Poison Prevention Act (COPPA), named for the situation which arises when pesticides too toxic for domestic use are nonetheless exported and used overseas, only to return to the U.S. in the form of residues on imported foods. These groups believe that as long as EPA works within the constraints of an inadequate law, any efforts to control overseas poisonings from or the import of foods contaminated with our exported unregistered pesticides will be inherently inadequate. U.S. International Notification Regulations Improved As noted above, the new policy essentially "cleans up" the way in which the U.S. notifies the world of the export of unregistered pesticides or regulatory actions. While the overall notification requirements are the same, the transmission and record keeping practices are now different. Below we outline these programs. Export of Unregistered Pesticides The U.S. is the only country in the world to require export notification of unregistered pesticides. Prior to the export of an unregistered pesticide, exporters must send their customers "Foreign Purchaser Acknowledgement Statements" which inform the overseas purchasers that the product is not registered for use in the U.S. That purchaser must return the statement to the exporter, who then sends it to EPA. This is where the changes start. Now, EPA: Eliminates U.S. Embassy Link in Notification System. EPA will transmit purchaser acknowledgement statements to foreign governments directly, instead of going through the U.S. embassies in importing countries. To eliminate problems arising from transshipments of pesticides through one country to another, the EPA will send the statements to "Designated National Authorities," as defined by the United Nations Environment Programme's Prior Informed Consent program, in the importing countries as well as the countries of final destination or intended use. Has Eliminated the Exemption for Pesticides "Similar in Compisition and Use" to U.S. Registered Pesticides. Under the 1980 policy, companies which exported pesticides based on active ingredients registered in the U.S. but with different amounts of active or inert ingredients were exempted from sending notification letters to international purchasers. EPA believes that the exemption should be eliminated as it creates too much confusion about what is "similar." Provides Two Possibilities for Sending Export Notices. 1. The 1980 policy required exporters to send notification statements prior to their first shipments of the year. Now, notices must be sent on a per shipment basis, and then forwarded to EPA within 7 days or before the first export, whichever comes first. (There is no such schedule for EPA when it forwards notices to importing governments.) 2. Exporters can continue to submit annual notices to EPA, but they must also submit annual summaries to agencies describing all shipments of unregistered pesticides. Summaries must include the purchasers' names and addresses, the dates and destinations of each shipment, and the names of the products and active ingredients. Quantity information will be confidential. EPA then forwards the summaries to respective government contacts in the importing countries, but again, EPA is not held to a specific schedule. Provides an Exemption for Research and Development. The policy exempts pesticides from notification requirements if they are destined for research and development programs on less than 10 acres per year per country. Expand Information Requirements. Historically, exporters have been required to provide the following information: exporter name and address; foreign purchaser name, address, signature and date; name of product and active ingredient; indication that purchaser understands the product is not registered for use in the U.S; and the destination address if it differs from the purchaser's address. Under the new policy, export statements must indicate the country of final destination, if known. The new policy does not require information on the quantity of the shipments, nor does it call for data on health and environmental effects of the pesticides. The policy classifies as confidential information about research and development products. Notification of a Regulatory Action If EPA cancels the registration of a pesticide, it is supposed to send a notice to governments around the world apprising them of the cancellation. Many countries depend on the U.S. for information on pesticide regulations and regulatory options. Yet, EPA frequently sends out notifications long after decisions are made to cancel certain pesticides. Numerous investigations conducted by Greenpeace and others over the past several years indicate that the notices rarely, if ever, arrive, or are forwarded to the appropriate authorities. EPA's new policy streamlines these procedures for dissemination of information. Below is an outline of the particular provisions which become effective immediately. EPA will: Increase the Number of Situations in Which the Agency Would Send Out Notices of a Significant Regulatory Action. The situations include: final cancellation of product registration; denial of food residue tolerance application; denial of registration application; voluntary cancellation of registration where there is evidence of health or environmental problems; voluntary withdrawal of registration application, registration, or tolerance petition, where there is evidence of health or environmental problems prior to withdrawal; reregistration decision announcement; final action to set new tolerance or exemption from tolerance or to revoke or amend tolerance; all registrations of a new active ingredient; all other actions which eliminate all or virtually all significant registrations of an active ingredient; and any other pesticide regulatory action which EPA deems to be of international significance (although this is not defined...). Publish an annual summary of all pesticide regulatory activities and will distribute the report to governments around the world. EPA transmits immediately all notifications dealing with significant health or environmental concerns. Others will be transmitted "as soon as possible." EPA will send copies directly to designated authorities in importing countries, as well as to the State Department for transmittal to U.S. embassies in importing countries. The reports will be translated into Spanish or French upon request. Send notices which meet the international definitions of "banned or severely restricted for health or environmental reasons" to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Secretariat to be included in an international data base and information exchange program. The following information must appear on the label: ingredient statement; warning or caution statements; the statement "Not Registered for Use in the United States;" the word "poison;" and a statement of practical treatment for highly toxic pesticides. The label must appear in English, in the language of the importing country, and in the language of the country of final destination. The languages will be those which are primarily used in the importing country (if other than English), as well as that in the final country of destination, if different. EPA took a step backwards by expanding what exporters can claim on a label. Exporters of unregistered products must still include the statement "Not Registered for Use in the United States." However, EPA now allows them to include an 'explanation' of why the product is not registered in the U.S. The statement, which could conceivably say "for economic reasons" when it really is for toxicity reasons, can appear on either the product label or a supplemental label (which is detachable). For further information, contact Sandra Marquardt, Greenpeace Toxic Trade Campaign, 1436 U St., NW, Washington, DC 20009. Telephone: 202-319-2472. Fax: 202-462-4507. Stephen Howie is the EPA contact for export notification information. He can be reached at the EPA Office of Compliance Monitoring (EN-342W), 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460. Telephone:703-308-8290. Deborah Hartman is the EPA contact for regulatory action information. She can be reached at the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (H-7501C), 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: 703-305-7102. Fax: 703305-6244. What You Can Do! Greenpeace urges readers to send letters to the new EPA Administrator, Ms. Carol Browner, asking her to push for legislation which would prohibit the export of all unregistered pesticides and provide information on nonchemical alternatives to those registered pesticides which are allowed to be exported. Write to: Ms. Carol Browner, Administrator, EPA, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460. Pesticides Banned and Severely Restricted in the U.S. A "Banned" pesticide is defined as a pesticide for which all registered uses have been prohibited by final government action, or for which all requests for registration or equivalent action for all uses have, for health or environmental reasons, not been granted. Banned: aldrin; benzene hexa-chloride; 2,3,4,5Bis(2butylene) tetra-hydro-2furaldehyde; bromoxynil butyrate; cadmium compounds; calcium arsenate; captafol; carbon tetrachloride; chloranil; chlordimeform; chlorinated camphene; chlorobenzilate; chloro- methoxypropylmercuric acetate; copper arsenate; cyhexatin; DBCP; decachlorooctahydro-1,3,4metheno-2Hcyclobuta(cd) pentalen2one; DDT; dieldrin; dinoseb and salts; Di(phenylmercury)dode- cenylsuccinate; endrin; EPN; ethyl-hexyleneglycol; hexachlorobenzene; lead arsenate; leptophos; mirex; monocrotophos; nitrofen; OMPA; phenylmercuric oleate; potassium 2,4,5trichlorophenate; pyriminil; safrole; silvex; sodium arsenate; sodium arsenite; TDE; Terpene polychlor-inates; thallium sulfate; 2,4,5Trichloro-phenoxyacetic acid; vinyl chloride. A "Severely Restricted" pesticide means a pesticide for which virtually all registered uses have been prohibited by final government regulatory action, but for which certain specific registered uses remain authorized. Severely restricted: arsenic trioxide; carbofuran; chlordane; daminozide; EDB; heptachlor; mercurous chloride; mercuric chloride; phenylmercury acetate; tributyltin compounds. (Source: US Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.) Western Europe EC Establishes "Waste Colonialism" As Law By Jim Puckett After almost two and one half years of debate, during a period of unprecedented E.C. waste dumping in countries like Namibia, Romania, Egypt, Turkey, Georgia, Ukraine, Poland and Albania, the twelve European Community member state governments agreed to continue legalized toxic waste exports to the Third World and Eastern Europe. The new E.C. waste trade regulation, however, may not last long. It has come under legal attack for undermining existing international agreements, including the Lome IV trade and aid agreement banning E.C. waste exports to 69 countries and the treaty that holds together the European Community. A Danish initiative to ban E.C. waste exports further threatens the new rules. Recycling Loophole Looms Large On February 1, 1993, the E.C. adopted Council Regulation (EEC) No. 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community. It establishes into law a loophole that allows the export of all forms of hazardous waste as long as a recycling destination is claimed. The importing country must either be a party to the Basel Convention on waste trade, or have a bilateral agreement with the E.C. or any of its member states. Greenpeace research in 1992 revealed that 90% of all waste trade schemes that year claimed some form of recycling or re-use for the exported toxic wastes. Many of the "recycling" projects amounted to little more than waste dumping, according to Greenpeace. "Recycling" under the new law can include such dangerous categories as waste incineration as long as some energy, including facility heat, is recovered. It can also include storage for eventual recycling. Greenpeace fears that all waste traders will now simply call themselves "recyclers." De-Regulating the "Green" Listed Wastes The EC adopted the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) "Red, Amber, Green" regime which deregulates wastes identified by the Basel and Lome IV Conventions whenever recycling is involved (see related article in Waste Trade Update, 5.1, page 9). The OECD's "red, amber, green" regime was only meant to apply to OECD countries, but the EC extended this definition for waste trade with all countries of the world. The new E.C. regime completely excludes from regulation such "green" listed wastes as lead, cadmium and plastics. Legal advisers claim that this exclusion makes the E.C. regulation completely incompatible with the Basel and Lome IV conventions. The Basel and Lome conventions, to which E.C. member states are party, respectively regulate and ban the trade in the same wastes which are excluded from the E.C. regulation. For a full critique on the OECD regime, read Greenpeace Interna- tional's report, "When Green is Not" -- please see order form on page 35. Lome IV Agreement Undermined Under the 1989 Lome Convention, the EC supported a full waste export/import ban on waste exports from the EC to the 69 former European colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP). The EC, however, failed to extend this waste trade ban to approximately 70 other less industrialized countries not covered by that agreement. The EC further weakened the integrity of the Lome agreement by unilaterally deciding not to regulate wastes on the OECD's "green" list, many of which are very hazardous and are banned under the Lome Convention. In effect, the ACP states, which never were party to the establishment of the OECD "red, amber, green" de-regulation decision, may now be forced to receive the very same wastes they thought had been banned in 1989 under the Lome IV agreement. While the regulation obliges the European Commission to query all non-OECD countries as to whether they agree to accept the "green" listed wastes without control, Greenpeace feels that this can hardly be considered a legal means of amending existing international law. The E.C. regulation is expected to come into force in May of 1994. European Parliament to Take Legal Action The European Parliament has pointed out another legal flaw in the new EC regulation. The Parliament, which has consistently called for a ban on all EC waste exports except for a limited time to OECD countries, has threatened to contest the legal basis of the regulation in the European Court of Justice. The Council of Member States changed the legal basis from Articles 100a (internal market) and 113 (commercial affairs) of the EC Treaty to Article 130s (environment). European Parliamentarians argued that this change robbed them of any chance to alter the regulation. If the Parliament delivers the legal challenge to the court as promised there is a good chance that the regulation could be re-opened. Danes Call for a Commitment to a Ban The Danish government announced at the First Meeting of the Basel Convention held in Uruguay late last year (see related article in this issue on page 2) that it would use its presidency of the EC in the first half of 1993 to seek a commitment to a full waste export ban from OECD to non-OECD countries. The recently formed government in Denmark is prepared to break ranks with its EC partners on this issue, perhaps even more than their predecessors in power during the Uruguay meeting. The Danish Presidency has stated that it will present a proposal at a March 23, 1993, Environment Council meeting to draft a declaration calling for a commitment to a ban to be adopted before the end of the Danish Presidency. "We are very pleased to see the Danes take a leadership role to end the EC toxic waste dumping habit," said Janus Hillgaard, Greenpeace Toxic Trade campaigner in Copenhagen. "We urge all EC countries to join the Danes in this effort to end waste colonialism by taking the responsibility to prevent waste production at home." National Bans in the EC Now that the regulation has been adopted under the legal basis of 130s, member states have the right to implement it with national laws that are stronger than the regulation itself (i.e., banning imports under the justifications of the proximity principle and self-sufficiency). Pressures are building on many E.C. countries to implement national waste trade bans. In the meantime Greenpeace will continue to expose EC waste dumping and continue to force the wastes back to the exporting country (see article on Romania on page 15). (Sources: "Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of February 1, 1993 on the supervision and control of waste within, into and out of the European Community, Official Journal of the European Communities No L 30/1 - 30/28; "EC Council Initial Regulation Covering Shipments of Waste for Disposal", International Environmental Reporter, February 10, 1993; Johnston, Stringer and Puckett, "When Green is Not: The OECD's "Green" List as an Instrument of Hazardous Waste De-regulation, A Critique and Scientific Review", Greenpeace International, November 10, 1992; "EC Environment Ministers' Approval of Waste Regulation Gets Mixed Reception", International Environmental Reporter, November 4, 1992; "Legal Dispute Threatens EC Waste Trade Accord," Environment Business, October 21, 1992; "Content of the Regulation on Waste Transfers", Agence Europe, October 24, 1992; "Waste Shipments: Move Towards Legal Action in EC Court of Justice", Europe Environment, January 19, 1993; Greenpeace International; Greenpeace Denmark.) Switzerland Exports More Toxic Wastes Than Cheese or Chocolate! Over the past few years, Greenpeace has documented dozens of waste export schemes from Switzerland. Export figures from the ministry of environment indicate that Switzerland exports approximately 130,000 tonnes of toxic wastes annually. The Swiss decree on the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes, implemented in 1987, allows companies to export wastes with a special permit from the Ministry of Environment. The decree is very "export-friendly" and does more to provide the Ministry with waste export statistics than it does to curtail waste exports. Many of the waste trade deals approved by the Ministry still involve shady brokers, who flagrantly disregard the loose regulations that are in place. Switzerland is the host country to the Basel Convention which became legally binding on May 5, 1992 and which requires that all members of the Convention trade wastes only with other members unless they have special bilateral agreements. (For more information on the Basel Convention, see page 2). Although this trade restriction is one of the main tenets of the Convention, Switzerland continues to export wastes to many non-member countries. Germany and the U.K. have not ratified the Basel Convention, but Switzerland continues to send wastes to them on a regular basis. Swiss waste traders are not about to let environmental regulations stand in the way of major waste disposal contracts with its two biggest waste importing countries. Switzerland also recently exported wastes to Belgium, Finland, France, Italy, Portugal and Slovenia. One of Switzerland's most active waste exporting firms is Chiresa AG, based in Rudolfstetten. Chiresa exports all kinds of wastes, including chlorinated solvents, color sludges, CFC's, obsolete pesticides and pesticide residues, fly ashes, and PCB- contaminated wastes to name a few. Although Chiresa has never had an official permit to collect or export wastes, the company regularly sends wastes to facilities in Finland, Germany and the U.K. Chiresa's foreign clients include Ekochem in Riihimahki, Finland, Leigh Environmental and Collier Industrial Waste Ltd. in the U.K., and Sued-Muell and Freiberger NE-Metall GmbH in Germany. Chiresa enjoys a special privilege, annually approved by the Ministry of Environment. Rather than applying for permits for international trade in wastes, Chiresa assumes the role of "waste transporter with full power of its clients" and uses its clients' collection and export permits to deal in wastes. No other waste trading firm in Switzerland operates in this manner. Another case of illegal waste exports from Switzerland involves the Swiss company Centre de Ramassage et d'Identification (CRIDEC) and the Belgian company Societe Traitement Produits Industriels (STPI). From February to August 1992, CRIDEC sent STPI over 1,700 tonnes of solvents and waste oils mixed with wood scraps to use as "substitution fuel" for STPI's cement kiln. Although there is a similar cement kiln much closer to CRIDEC in Switzerland, Swiss law prohibits the burning of the wastes. That is why CRIDEC sends its toxic waste to Belgium. STPI stores its "substitute fuel" in huge black piles at a site it rents from the Hydrometal company in Engis, Belgium. Hydrometal has another waste trading partner in Switzerland. A metal smelting company in Buchs called Blockmetall, exports fly ash from its scrubber system to Hydrometal for "recycling." The fly ash is highly contaminated with dioxin. Reports of dioxin contamination around the Blockmetall plant prompted Swiss authorities to investigate the facility. The investigation has been underway since November 1992. Waste trade between Switzerland and Belgium is illegal because there is no bilateral agreement on waste trade between the two countries, and because Belgium has not yet ratified the Basel Convention. Not only do exports of waste from Switzerland often defy international environmental regulations, but they also demonstrate clear double standards. For example, Refonda AG, an aluminum recycling plant owned and operated by Alusuisse, has consistently exported aluminum salt slags to facilities in foreign countries that would never meet Swiss environmental standards. Since 1987, Refonda sent approximately 20,000 tonnes of aluminum salt slags to a "recycling" facility in Portugal called Metalimex. The dangerous wastes have been stored in the open air since then, and the Portuguese Environment Ministry has called on Switzerland to take back the slags. Several municipal waste incinerators send fly ash and filter dusts to landfills operated by Leigh Environmental and Collier Industrial Waste Ltd. in the U.K. Swiss law would never allow such wastes to be indefinitely stored in the open air, much less dumped in the ground where they threaten the safety of water systems. Greenpeace Switzerland's Toxic Trade Campaigner Stefan Weber said, "The fact that a rich, industrialized country like Switzerland keeps it's 'clean' image by dumping toxic wastes in neighbor countries with less environmental awareness, controls and legislation is simply a shame!" On October 8, 1992, Member of Parliament Hanspeter Thuer, also leader of the Green Party in Parliament, confronted the Parliament about waste exports from Switzerland and the government's position on illegal waste exports. The next day, MP Thuer proposed to change and enforce the waste export regulation to avoid such scandals in future and decrease waste exports. MP Thuer's proposal calls for a ban on waste exports from Switzerland if the importing country cannot manage the waste according to Swiss regulations, and if the waste generator cannot prove that it took all possible precautions to avoid producing the waste in the first place. The proposal would also remove an existing loophole that automatically grants permission for a waste export proposal if the Ministry of Environment does not reject it in 20 days. MP Thuer also called for publication of all foreign companies receiving Swiss wastes. (Source: Greenpeace Switzerland.) Toxic Waste Trade Africa European Waste Traders Target Somalia The Organization of African Unity (OAU) has condemned European waste traders for "inhumane" actions in Somalia, following the disclosure of a scheme to dump millions of tonnes of toxic wastes there. Government investigations into the companies involved in the scheme are continuing in 1993. On September 4, 1992, Dr. Mostafa Tolba, then director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), stunned the world when he announced that he believed European firms were trying to ship toxic wastes to war-torn Somalia. Documents obtained by UNEP revealed that a Swiss company called Achair Partners and a Somali public health minister had signed a contract to ship various kinds of wastes to Somalia over a 20 year period. The former Somali health minister, Dr. Nur Elmy Osman, issued the license on December 5, 1991. Dr. Osman no longer lives in Somalia. The irrevocable license allowed Achair Partners to import 500,000 tons annually of hospital and industrial wastes into Somalia to be treated, incinerated and landfilled at a planned "Treatment Center." A proposal drawn up by Achair described the location of the project as "three hundred twenty five hectares of industrial- destined [sic] area; positioned on a coastline, nearby to port installations. Such area shall be leased to Achair at no cost whatsoever for a period of no less than fifteen years." While the license mentioned no specific financial agreements, Dr. Tolba estimated in a September 9, 1992, press release that "shipments þeach of 100,000 to 150,000 tonnes þ were to have yielded a profit of US$8-10 million each...[Achair Partners] was to take a profit of US$2-3 million per shipment." Also on September 9, Greenpeace revealed that the Livorno, Italy- based company Progresso s.r.l. was actually dealing waste through Achair Partners. UNEP and Greenpeace revelations prompted the governments of Italy and Switzerland to launch investigations into Progresso and Achair Partners, and possible illegal wastes exports to Somalia. Further details about the wastes and players involved in the scheme remain as murky as the political situation in Somalia. In Africa, Somalia's neighboring countries of Kenya and Ethiopia expressed outrage and concern for the health and safety of the people. A spokesperson from the Ethiopian Foreign Ministry described the proposed scheme as "an act of callously disregarding the lives of the Somali people... posing the greatest single environmental threat not only to Somalia but also to other countries in the region including Ethiopia." Kenya's president Daniel Arap Moi similarly criticized the proposed dumping stating "poverty had reduced Africans to a state where they compromised their own dignity in order to survive." Waste exports from Italy and Switzerland, and from all other EC countries, to Somalia, or to any other former European colonies in Africa, the Caribbean or the Pacific (ACP countries), are actually prohibited under Article 39 of another international trade agreement, the Lome IV Treaty. It says: "The community prohibits every direct and indirect export of such waste (hazardous and radioactive) while the ACP countries prohibit the direct or indirect import into their territory of the same wastes originating from the Community or from every other country." In June 1989, Italy actually adopted Europe's most prohibitive waste export law which bans municipal, special, toxic and hazardous wastes from being exported from Italy to any non-OECD country. The government adopted this regulation after ships carried Italian wastes to Nigeria, Lebanon, Syria, Venezuela, the U.K., France and elsewhere only to be rejected by each country. The European waste traders also exhibited blatant disregard for the OAU's Bamako Convention which strictly prohibits the import of wastes of all kinds to any OAU territory. The OAU denounced the actions of the Swiss and Italian waste traders as "inhumane" at a press conference on September 24. The official OAU statement read, "Those responsible exhibit their contempt for the helpless victims of the protracted civil war in Somalia." (Sources: Greenpeace Italy; Greenpeace Switzerland; Press Release from UNEP Headquarters in Nairobi, September 9, 1992; Xinhua English Language News Service, September 18, 1992; Inter Press Service International News, September 24, 1992.) IAEA Searches for Dumpsites in Namibia Namibia has asked representatives from the International Atomic Energy Agency as well as United Nations envoys to investigate the possible dumping of foreign wastes in the country's vast desert. Prime Minister Hage Geingob stated that Namibia has been approached with multi-million dollar deals to import waste since the country gained independence in 1990. "We are not interested in this money as we know this kind of dumping will destroy our posterity," said Mr. Geingob. Namibia, as all countries in the Organization of African Unity, prohibits the import of wastes of all kinds into its territory. (Source: Agence France Presse, September 22, 1992.) Asia/Pacific U.S. Toxic Waste Sold As Fertilizer in Bangladesh The last issue of the Toxic Trade Update (5.2, pg. 17) reported that toxic waste from the U.S. had been secretly mixed into fertilizer and shipped to Bangladesh. Subsequent investigation reveals that much of this waste "fertilizer" was distributed and sold to farmers throughout Bangladesh, and that some farmers had already spread it on their fields. Last year, the Bangladesh government purchased more than 3,000 tons of fertilizer from a U.S. company with money provided by the Asian Development Bank. Stoller Chemical Company of South Carolina, allegedly mixed 1,000 tons of toxic copper smelting furnace dust into the fertilizer prior to shipping it to Bangladesh. The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control conducted tests of the fertilizer which indicated hazardous levels of lead, which causes neurological problems in children, and cadmium, which causes kidney problems and cancer. In June 1992, the U.S. government indicted Stoller and three other corporations involved in the scandal for the illegal treatment and export of hazardous waste. But, the U.S. government has allowed the waste to remain in one of the world's poorest countries. In November 1992, representatives from Greenpeace and the Dhaka- based UBINIG (Policy Research for Development Alternatives) tracked the hazardous waste fertilizer and found that it was still being distributed and sold throughout Bangladesh. The groups visited a number of farms where farmers had unknowingly applied the waste to their fields. Almost a year after both the governments of the U.S. and Bangladesh learned of the contamination, the waste was still available in the market. Greenpeace and UBINIG researchers purchased a bag of the toxic fertilizer for US$4.00 at a market in Dinajpur in northwestern Bangladesh. "The fact that I can walk into a fertilizer shop here and buy a bag of U.S. hazardous waste shows again that international waste trade cannot be regulated and must be banned outright," said Ann Leonard of Greenpeace's Toxic Trade Campaign. "The U.S. government can not track and control hazardous waste even within our own borders, why do they think they can do better overseas?" "The toxic fertilizer should have been stopped even before it was unloaded from the ship," said Farida Akhter, Executive Director of UBINIG. "The U.S. EPA informed the U.S. Embassy in Bangladesh long ago but warnings from the Embassy were not strong enough and measures taken in Bangladesh to examine the fertilizer were questionable. It is clear that waste export has to be stopped at its source if tragedies like this are to be prevented," she said. The Bangladesh government reportedly stopped distribution of the toxic fertilizer after one-third of it was sold. The remaining 2,000 tons is presently in storage in Bangladesh. The Bangladesh government has established a commission to examine the circumstances surrounding the fertilizer's import and distribution, and to make recommendations regarding the unused portion. Meanwhile, environmental groups in Bangladesh and the U.S. have joined together to call for the waste fertilizer to be returned to the U.S. "As long as the U.S. government leaves the toxic waste fertilizer in Bangladesh, they are sending a message to potential waste traders that it is acceptable to us other countries as our dumping ground. We urge the new President and Vice-President instead to re-import the waste and show that this immoral trafficking in wastes will no longer be tolerated," Ms. Leonard said. (Source: Greenpeace in the U.S.; UBINIG (Policy Research for Development Alternatives.) Petrochemical Corporation's Wastes Take Two Month Pacific Cruise The Pacific narrowly avoided its first major incident of foreign toxic waste dumping late last year, after governments and activists forced a waste trade ship to return to the U.S. On November 16, 1992, the transnational oil company, UNOCAL, a US$10 billion company based in Los Angeles, loaded 8,000 tons of petroleum-contaminated soil on a barge in Honolulu. The barge, called the Pacific Trader, carried the waste across the Pacific Ocean for several weeks as UNOCAL executives frantically tried to arrange for the wastes to be dumped in the Marshall Islands. After weeks of protest from environmentalists and government officials across the Pacific, UNOCAL ordered the barge to return its wastes to Hawai'i. Greenpeace obtained documents indicating that two small Hawaiian companies, Consolidated Environmental Inc. (CEI) and Luber Engineering, brokered a plan to collect contaminated soil from UNOCAL's petroleum stations in Hawai'i and ship them to the Marshall Islands. UNOCAL claimed that the Kwajalein Atoll Development Authority (KADA) in the Marshalls planned to use the waste to build a causeway between two atoll islands. Dumping of contaminated soil in this way would not have been allowed in Hawai'i, but State environmental officials were powerless to stop it, as was the federal government. UNOCAL's petroleum- contaminated soils were exempt from federal hazardous wastes export regulations, which require prior consent from the importing country. Under U.S. law, this kind of toxic trade is perfectly legal. Environmental activists from Greenpeace and Hawaiian organizations gathered in protest of the dangerous scheme. Police in Honolulu arrested ten people who were trying to prevent the export. One of the protesters, Hayden Burgess, was arrested with his wife and two children. "This is injustice, for a giant company like UNOCAL from a rich country like the U.S., to dump its wastes on our neighbors in the Pacific," said Burgess. "Pacific Islanders have had our lands taken, our way of life destroyed, and now we are becoming the world's waste dump." The documents obtained by Greenpeace also revealed that CEI planned to build toxic waste incinerators on Likiep Atoll in the Marshall Islands, and in the Pacific country of Tonga. A well informed source told Greenpeace that CEI planned to ship wastes to 10 other Asian and Pacific countries. A Greenpeace report entitled, "Pacific Waste Invasion!: The Many Schemes of Consolidated Environmental Inc.", is available from the Washington, DC office. Please see order form on page 35. Bruce Huddleston, a Senior Environmental Engineer at UNOCAL's Western Marketing Branch in Honolulu masterminded the scheme. Greenpeace investigators discovered that Huddleston not only worked for UNOCAL. He was also a director of CEI. On November 20, 1992, a UNOCAL spokesman announced the company had suspended Huddleston while it "investigated the matter and looked for any possible ... violations of the company's conflict- of-interest policies." The spokesman said the conflict-of- interest policies covered "an employee, for his own interest, influencing the way he handles company business." Greenpeace welcomed the investigation, and called on UNOCAL to immediately stop the shipment, and all plans to export toxic wastes in the future. As the waste barge traveled toward the Marshall Islands, opposition to its voyage grew throughout the Pacific. The barge arrived in Guam on December 10, where it awaited permission from the Marshall Islands' government, but Guam officials ordered it to leave. The Marshall Islands also rejected the shipment, claiming that UNOCAL had never negotiated in good faith and that a formal agreement to accept the waste had never been made. On December 13, UNOCAL announced that it had "re-evaluated the project" and ordered the Pacific Trader to retreat to the U.S. "UNOCAL tried to trick the Marshall Islands into believing their petroleum-soaked soil was not toxic. Fortunately, the people of the Marshall Islands refused to fall for the oil corporation's dirty tricks," said Greenpeace Toxic Trade Campaigner Dave Rapaport. "We realize the Marshall Islands has difficulty obtaining construction material, but shipping them toxic waste is not the answer." On January 6, 1993, the Pacific Trader returned to Honolulu. During its 50 day journey, the Pacific Trader carried its toxic cargo over 7,500 miles. (Sources: Greenpeace Pacific Campaign; Honolulu Star Bulletin, November 12, 1992; Honolulu Advertiser, November 13, 1992; IPS, December 18, 1992.) Waste Shipments to Malaysia Rise The Plastics Recycling Update recently reported that Plastic Pellet Industries, a plastic waste trader, is setting up Malaysia's largest scrap plastics processing operation, and wants new plastic waste suppliers. Greenpeace found that over a five month period in 1992, Malaysia imported almost 700 tons of plastic wastes from the U.S. (See Toxic Trade Update, 5.2, pg. 28.) Greenpeace also visited plastics "recycling" facilities throughout Southeast Asia and discovered countless abuses of human and environmental health. At every facility inspected, workers with no protective clothing, gloves, or masks sorted through the plastic waste, much of it packaging from toxic pesticides and household cleaners. They also inhaled toxic fumes from melting plastic in poorly ventilated rooms. Several European and Asian firms are targeting Malaysia with another waste "recycling" scheme. This one proposes to construct a secondary aluminum smelter with an annual capacity of 7,500 tonnes of aluminum ingots. Feedstock in the form of aluminum waste will be imported. The investors are working together under the name of Johor Aluminum Processing. They include Malaysia's Johor State Economic Development Corporation (35% ownership), Finland's Kuusakoski Oy (27.5% ownership), the Finnish Fund for Industrial Development (27.5% ownership), Singapore's Celtrad Metal Industries (5% ownership) and Japan's Nakadaya Company (5% ownership). Greenpeace urges the Malaysia government to adopt a strict and comprehensive ban on waste imports including wastes bound for so- called recycling facilities. (Sources: Greenpeace U.S., Metals Week, July 6, 1992; Plastics Recycling Update, October 1992.) Asia Waste Trade Coalition Forming! Over one hundred environmental, human rights and other groups in Asia and elsewhere, have joined forces to stop waste imports into the Asia region. If you would like to be a part of the informal coalition, please write to the following Greenpeace Toxic Trade Campaigner nearest you: Simon Divecha - Greenpeace Australia, Studio 14, 37 Nicholson Street, Balmain, NSW, 2041, AUSTRALIA. Madeleine Cobbing - Greenpeace U.K., Canonbury Villas, London, N1 2PN, U.K. Ann Leonard - Greenpeace in the U.S., 1436 U Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20009, USA. Eastern Europe Germany Finally Retrieves its Wastes from Romania In early March 1993, the German Government began an unprecedented operation to recover 425 tonnes of German waste that had been dumped in Sibiu, Romania. The wastes, comprised of obsolete pesticides and other toxic chemicals, have been sitting in storage sheds for over a year. Responding to a Greenpeace ultimatum issued in February 1993, the German Environment Ministry paid approximately US$3 million for the repacking and retrieval of several thousand leaking and rusting barrels of pesticides. "This is the first time that a non-governmental organization, through non-violent lobbying, has been able to force a rich, industrialized country to take full responsibility for toxic waste exports to a poor country and take the waste back altogether," said Andreas Bernstorff, leader of Greenpeace's Toxic Trade Campaign in Germany. The scandal in Romania was exposed in May 1992 (see Waste Trade Update, issue 5.1, pg. 14), when Greenpeace along with local environment groups in Transylvania discovered 11 sites where outdated or illegal pesticides had been dumped. Local people staged a series of demonstrations in protest. The pesticide barrels were piled in stinking heaps next to water sources, in apple orchards and in yards next to schools. Many of the barrels were damaged. Most of the chemicals were illegal for use both in Germany and Romania. The brokers responsible for importing the pesticides to Romania had cleverly exploited a loophole in German legislation. Under German law, any waste bound for 're-use' or 'recycling' can be labelled as a commodity, and therefore exported without controls. Local farmers in Sibiu had been told the pesticides could be re- used. The scandal erupted in May and soon became a diplomatic issue between Bonn and Bucharest. In June, the Romanian Government announced it would ban such imports of toxic waste, and called on the German Government to take the pesticides back. German Environment Minister Klaus Toepfer had agreed in May to take back what he regarded as the most toxic chemicals. In September, Greenpeace brought 12 barrels back to the German border, demanding the German government take responsibility for them. On February 1st, Greenpeace warned Mr. Toepfer that if he did not announce definite plans to take back the waste by February 15th, Greenpeace would return the pesticides itself. Greenpeace's ultimatum was supported by local activists in Transylvania, who have maintained a protest vigil in front of the local German Consulate. While the German government continued to stall, Greenpeace activists took the most urgently needed safety measures to prevent more of the chemicals leaking into the environment. In the freezing Romanian winter, many of the toxic waste containers burst. Recognizing that a thaw could melt the wastes and allow them to leak into the groundwater, Greenpeace specialists in February took chemical absorbing material and 150 barrels to the storage site and secured the frozen poison. "These scandals will continue to occur so long as German legislation provides a loophole for waste bound for recycling, which means it can be labelled as a simple commodity," Mr. Bernstorff warned. "Until a complete ban on waste exports is enforced, it will always be the German taxpayer who will pay for the retrieval and not the responsible exporting company." A Greenpeace report entitled "Romania: The Toxic Assault" is available from the office in Hamburg. See order form on page 35. (Source: Greenpeace Germany.) German Waste Traders Dump "Humanitarian Aid" in Albania Taking advantage of unstable political and economic conditions in Albania, a joint venture of waste traders in Hannover, Germany, called Schmidt-Cretan exported approximately 465 tonnes of outdated and banned pesticides there last year. While Albania tries to rid itself of this wastes, a U.S. firm is trying to convince the Albanian government to sign a deal to burn 850,000 tons of European and U.S. wastes each year. The 463 tonnes of pesticides shipped to Albania are regulated as extremely hazardous wastes under German law, but the German waste exporters labeled them as "humanitarian aid." Lawful disposal of the chemical wastes in Germany would have cost between US$3,000 and US$7,000 per tonne. German law bans most of the pesticides exported to Albania, and classifies all of the pesticides unsafe for any sort of use. The wastes came from the Landhandel Guestrow company, a German company dealing in agricultural products. The importing companies in Albania were the Albania state companies Agroimport, and Eksimagra, both based in Tirana. The companies apparently obtained an agreement for the import from the Chief Inspector for the Protection of Plants in the Albanian Ministry for Agriculture, Mr. Neitan Kodra. The Albanian government later dismissed Mr. Kodra from his post in the Ministry. In March 1992, Agroimport and Eksimagra told Schmidt-Cretan to cease exporting the pesticides to Albania because they had determined that the "humanitarian aid" was expired, not properly packed and of poor quality. They then sent 91 tonnes of the wastes to an army base in western Albania. Despite the plea from the importers to stop the shipments, Schmidt-Cretan sent three more deliveries of obsolete pesticides in 17 rail cars, totalling approximately 175 tonnes. This time, the consignments were personally addressed to Mr. Kodra. Albanian authorities returned the wastes to Germany, but German authorities subsequently repackaged the pesticides and resent them to Albania. They are now sitting in a rail station in Bajza, protected by armed guards. "These pesticides have entered Albania at a very politically unstable time and we think that some employees of our country may be involved in these imports for profit," said Nevruz Maluka, chairperson of the Green Party of Albania. The U.S.-based Satra Group has also proposed a waste trade deal to Albania in the form of a hazardous waste incinerator. Greenpeace obtained a copy of the Satra Group proposal which offered Albania US$500 million in assets over a five year period if Albania agreed to import 850,000 tons annually of European or U.S. hazardous wastes and burn them in the incinerator. Satra Group claims that the incinerators will produce 90 megawatts of "dependable electrical energy to the nation at no cost." The proposal further states that "the useful utilization of the waste materials is considered a true recycling and its practice is stimulated in the U.S. by tax incentives." Volund Miljoteknik A/S of Copenhagen, Denmark, a subsidiary of the Italian conglomerate Ansaldo, would provide the technology for the incinerator. Neighboring countries to Albania have expressed concern that the Balkans will become a dump for the rest of Europe. The newly appointed Deputy Minister for the Environment in Greece, George Voulgarakis, stated that his government firmly opposed the idea of a waste incinerator in Greece, and was concerned about such a development in Albania. "Albania is already living in a horrifying economic and environmental nightmare," said Mr. Lirim Selfo, Chairman of the National Committee for the Protection of Environment of Albania. "Please do not send us any more misery packed in barrels." (Source: Greenpeace Germany; Greenpeace Greece; Reuter, October 18, 19, 1992.) Wastes Dumped in Albania by Schmidt-Cretan Melipax (33% halogenated solvents) - 142 tonnes Melipax concentrate - 40 tonnes Trizilin (dioxin-contaminated) - 57 tonnes Ditox - 46 tonnes Malzid - 25 tonnes Olpisan - 9 tonnes Falisan (containing mercury) - 45 tonnes DNOC - 40 tonnes Polycarbazin - 18 tonnes Helbacin - 11 tonnes Other pesticides - 140 tonnes Germany Exports Wastes as "Aid" for Estonia and Ukraine Two more German companies, ATG and Rimex, have engaged in a new form of "philanthropy," sending useless, hazardous wastes to Eastern Europe, under the guise of charitable donations. ATG has reportedly signed a contract with the government of Estonia to deliver between 500,000 and 800,000 tonnes of used tires annually. ATG told the Estonians that the waste tires can be burned to generate energy for heating homes. But, instead of being shredded and used for energy, 5,000 tonnes of these waste tires burned in the open air at the port of Tallinn after a heated debate in the Estonian parliament on the issue of waste imports. Rimex has attempted sending 78 barrels of used machine oil to Ukraine under the pretext of donating paraffin to the Red Cross Committee Centre for Biosphere Research. Apparently, Rimex attempted to send the wastes through Poland, but Polish customs authorities seized the cargo and prohibited the transfer of wastes through their territory. (Source: Greenpeace Ukraine; Greenpeace Germany; Agence France Presse, September 3, 1992; Vetsherni Kiev, January 27, 1993.) Swiss Batteries Smelted in Slovenia A problem in the waste management industry in Switzerland is what to do with used car batteries. Swiss battery recyclers claim that car battery recycling is well organized, but in fact, only one half of all used car batteries are recycled domestically. Greenpeace and television reporters found in July 1992 that many of the car batteries that Metallum AG in Pratteln cannot recycle are exported to smelters in other countries. Dietiker Metall, Switzerland's largest exporter of car batteries, claims to send batteries only to countries for which they have waste export permits including Germany, France and the former Yugoslavia. Because disposal costs for the batteries are higher in Western European countries than in Eastern Europe, Dietiker opted to send its waste batteries to Metalurgija, Plastika, Inzeniring d.o.o. (MPI) in Mezica, Slovenia. MPI recycles the batteries at a lead smelter in a region locally known as "Death Valley." No trees grow there because the soil is so contaminated with lead and other pollutants. MPI stores the Swiss batteries in the open air, exposed to rains which carry acid into the groundwater. Swiss law would never allow the domestic storage of such highly toxic wastes. Many MPI laborers suffer the effects of lead poisoning. One told the Swiss television reporters,"The sickness is heavy, you feel tired, pain in your bones. Of course, you get temporary employment elsewhere but if they don't have enough people at the old place, you return, still ill, to work with lead." The Environmental Ministry of Slovenia advises local people not to consume too much produce grown near the smelter or too much meat from cows that graze nearby, but people do so anyway. The Basel Convention on the international trade in wastes requires all member countries to trade wastes only with other member countries. Because Slovenia has not ratified the Basel Convention, the export of waste batteries from Switzerland to Slovenia has been illegal since May 1992 when the Convention became legally binding. On April 1, 1992, the Swiss Ministry of Environment informed Dietiker of the impending regulation making waste trade with Slovenia illegal. But, the Ministry approved of Dietiker's waste export proposal and allowed the illegal trade to continue after May. The investigation by Swiss television reporters prompted the Swiss Ministry of Interior to halt the export of Swiss waste car batteries to MPI in September. Philip Roch, director of the Ministry of Environment, stated "I will never permit such exports again, if the situation doesn't change fundamentally. Now that we know about these problems, we will ensure that we have full control next time there is such an export permit request." "Senior officials in the Environmental Ministry claim they are simply not able to ensure control of nearly a thousand waste export requests per year, but it's their policy to collaborate with industry rather than force them to respect the laws," stated Stefan Weber of the Greenpeace Toxic Trade Campaign. In a letter to Dietiker Metall, the Swiss Ministry of Environment allegedly claimed that they would "try to get such a bilateral agreement with Slovenia as soon as possible." Mr. Weber said, "This clearly demonstrates that the Ministry will do whatever it can to facilitate waste exports to the cheapest dumping grounds. Since 1987, when the Swiss waste decree entered force, not one single waste trading company has been denounced by the Ministry although there have been dozens of cases of illegal exports." (Source: Greenpeace Switzerland.) Latin America New York Companies Trying to Export U.S. Waste to Nicaragua Two New York companies, Solid Waste Management Corporation and Small Business Network Council have offered a waste trade proposal to Nicaragua. The scheme involves the construction of a waste incinerator and the importation of U.S. wastes. The Nicaraguan Environmental Movement reports that the project would be located in the North Atlantic Autonomous Region. (Source: Greenpeace Central America.) U.S. Wastes Smuggled Over the Mexican Border The Mexican Ministry of Social Development reported that two "cut-rate" companies had smuggled 6,500 drums of toxic waste over the Mexico/U.S. border in July 1992. Although the source of the wastes is not known, the two Mexican companies involved are Mexaco and Solvex. The Ministry claimed that the companies planned to dispose of the waste "in a completely illicit way, damaging the ecology and the health of the population in the North of the country." The two companies earned approximately US$455,000 for disposing of the wastes. (Source: Reuter Business Report, July 29, 1992.) Notable Quotation "The Northern agencies want to limit and localize laws for the protection of people and universalize laws for the protection of profits." - Vandana Shiva, a leading environmental scientist in India. Western Europe Germany is Waste Trader of the Year - 1992 As two special German government trains pulling 25 wagons each rolled across the Romanian border in March 1993, bound for the rural Transyl-vanian town of Sibiu, Germany's Environment Minister Klaus Toepfer admitted that Germany's title of "world waste trade champion" was causing foreign relations problems. "Germany has started this mission to prevent further deterioration of Germany's reputation abroad," he said. Mr. Toepfer apologized on Radio Buchareset to the Romanian people for the waste dumping scandal. Germany's Favorite Waste "Tourism" Destinations in 1992 Germany has truly earned its reputation as the world's waste trade champion. Here is just a sample of some of the countries to which Germany shipped its wastes in 1992. More details on these schemes can be found in this and preceding issues of the Toxic Trade Update. ALBANIA - Approximately 500 tonnes of expired pesticides from the former East Germany have entered Albania since 1991. These pesticides were declared as "aid" for use in Albania's agriculture. Albania has demanded that the wastes be taken back. EGYPT - Over 2,000 tonnes of toxic battery scrap were sent to Egypt by the German waste broker, Taurus Umwelttechnik. Egypt forced the return of these wastes to Germany. Taurus also tried to ship expired pesticides to Egypt, also without success. Taurus' manager was convicted of fraud in 1990, and was sentenced to two years imprisonment in December 1992. Proceedings under environmental law are still pending. ESTONIA - Five thousand tonnes of old German tires were piled up in the port of Tallinn. The tire pile burned to the ground under dubious circumstances. INDONESIA - Millions of kilos of plastic waste from German recycling programs were sent to Jakarta, where much of the waste is either dumped or burned. NAMIBIA - Unknown quantities of poisonous copper slags from Germany entered through the port of Windhoek. ROMANIA - Since September 1991, 2,000 tonnes of expired pesticides from former East Germany have been shipped to Romania. In March 1993, Germany agreed to re-import the toxic wastes. Other German wastes discovered in Romania in 1992: expired paints, plastic wastes and used tires. TURKEY - After Turkey rejected the import of toxic filter dusts from German steel works, the ship Heltermaa cruised the waters of the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea for several months, searching for a willing importer. Cyprus, Bulgaria, Russia and Georgia all rejected the Heltermaa's cargo. The wastes returned to their generator in Hamburg on August 14, 1992. UKRAINE - One thousand tonnes of plastic wastes were shipped to Kiev for "recycling." The Kiev firm's management complained that it was only able to recycle only 20% of the delivered quantities, while the rest had to be dumped or burned. Another ship carrying plastic wastes to Kiev left German Bavaria in February 1993. Australian PCBs and the Voyage of the Maria Laura In early July 1992, Greenpeace Australia informed Greenpeace France that Australian Environment Minister Bob Pearce was heading to France to negotiate the export of an estimated 1,000 tonnes of PCB waste and pesticide waste. Pearce hoped that France would incinerate Australia's mounting pile of toxic waste in its incinerator in Saint Vulbas. While PCBs are extremely hazardous to human health and the environment, incineration of PCBs produces dioxin and furan pollutants which are even more toxic than the PCBs. This was the beginning of a waste trade saga involving five countries on three continents. Greenpeace France immediately contacted the Ministry of Environment about the waste trade deal and inquired whether the Ministry had yet approved of it. The Ministry refused to confirm or deny the story. On July 29, 1992, the Panamanian flagged container ship MSC Maria Laura left Fremantle, Australia bound for France. The vessel carried 18 tonnes of toxic polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and met public protest in several ports of call along the way including Durban, South Africa; Antwerp, Belgium; Felixstowe, U.K.; and finally Le Havre, France. The Ship's Unruly Reception in South Africa After the Maria Laura slipped out of Fremantle, Greenpeace alerted environmental ally Earthlife Africa in South Africa. South African dockworkers and environmentalists greeted the vessel in Durban and Capetown with protests. Under public pressure there, the owner of the ship, the Mediterranean Shipping Company, signed a statement saying that it would never carry toxic waste on any of its ships again. The Durban city council expressed anger over the entry of the cargo to their port and passed a resolution calling on city officials to investigate the issue. The South African government then filed an official complaint with Australia for violation of the Basel Convention. Australia and France are parties to the Basel Convention, which requires that countries provide prior notification to all transit countries used in hazardous waste shipments. European Activists Prepare for Arrival of the Maria Laura Greenpeace hand delivered a letter to French Environment Minister Segolene Royal on August 25, 1992 asking her to consider the shipment as illegal traffic as defined by the Basel Convention. Two French unions, the Force Ouvriere (FO) and the Confederation Francaise Democratique du Travail (CFDT), also pleaded with Ms. Royal to reject the scheme and send the wastes back to Australia. The Maria Laura Arrives in Belgium On September 1, the Maria Laura arrived in Antwerp, Belgium. Activists from Greenpeace chained themselves to the cranes and cargo onboard the vessel, immobilizing the controversial load of Australian PCBs. When dockworkers realized the nature of the shipment they had unloaded, they joined Greenpeace in requesting the containers be returned to Australia. 36 hours later, the Belgian Minister of Environment announced that Belgium could not be used as a transfer route for the hazardous cargo. The containers were reloaded on the Maria Laura, and the vessel set out for the U.K. to deliver some other cargo it was carrying. Toxic Cargo Moves on to the U.K. Two days after the protest in Antwerp, the Maria Laura reached the U.K. port of Felixstowe. Greenpeace activists met the toxic trade ship with banners saying "Stop Toxic Trade". Swimmers and inflatable boats surrounded the ship as it made its way to the dock. Greenpeace U.K.'s Toxic Trade Campaigner Madeleine Cobbing said, "Europe is enough of a toxic waste dump already. Australia must accept responsibility for its own waste, accept this shipment back, and stop future exports." On the afternoon of September 4, 1992, the Maria Laura set out for Le Havre, France, the intended offloading port for the deadly cargo. French Government Position Waivers On September 5, Ms. Royale, announced that France was breaking its contract with Australia for the importation of the PCB waste. Ms. Royale said that the shipment onboard the Maria Laura would be the last. Environmental activists protesting the ship's arrival were elated by Ms. Royale's announcement. "This is a victory for world opinion against the international waste trade," said Katia Kanas of Greenpeace France. But, just days after Ms. Royale's landmark decision, the French environment minister reversed her position saying France would continue to import Australian wastes. When the Maria Laura and its PCB cargo finally arrived in Le Havre, French police used brute force to break up a two hour Greenpeace blockade. As French authorities arrested 18 Greenpeace activists, the PCB container was loaded onto a truck, which sped from the port under heavy police escort. "It's disturbing to see how far the French government is prepared to go in order to force the import into France of hazardous waste," said Ms. Kanas. "It's like a military operation with the objective to ensure that the French people and countryside remain hostage to the private interests of waste traders." (Sources: Greenpeace Australia; Greenpeace Belgium; Greenpeace France; Greenpeace U.K.; Earthlife Africa.) Avoiding PCB Incineration Burning PCB's is one of the most environmentally unsound ways of dealing with them. Incinerating halogenated hydrocarbons such as PCB's always creates emissions of furans and dioxins, among the most toxic chemicals in the world. But there are alternatives to the quick, relatively cheap fix of incineration. In fact, in Australia, the company HCD Technologies already has a process for chemical destruction of PCBs that it claims is being ignored by Australian authorities who prefer to use the less expensive method of burning the waste in France. Even if such a technology were not in place, Greenpeace advocates above ground, monitored, and retrievable safe storage for all PCB wastes. Mothers and Children Appeal for Help to Lift Toxic Shadow from Welsh Valley By Madeleine Cobbing The future of ReChem, the UK's most notorious waste importer, hangs in the balance under new UK environmental regulations. ReChem's toxic waste incinerator in Pontypool, South Wales, has been operating for twenty years and has been the destination of thousands of tonnes of highly toxic wastes, especially polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), from all over the world. As a result, local people have called the plant the "PCB capital of the world," and have campaigned vigorously against countries that continue to send their waste to ReChem. The U.K. Government's new Environmental Protection Act requires ReChem to apply for re-authorization, and this gives local groups a chance to step up the pressure. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution has advised that ReChem's existing static hearth incinerator does not meet the new guidelines which state that static hearth incinerators are not suitable for burning highly toxic wastes. ReChem's application includes the old static hearth incinerator as well as a proposal for a new rotary kiln incinerator to be attached to the old plant. The incinerator has to comply with new requirements to use the "best available techniques." However, before the decision is made there is a period of consultation which the government inspectors have extended until the end of May 1993. "The inspectors have given us a stay of execution; they could choose to sentence us to another twenty years of pollution from ReChem, or they could force ReChem to close," said Sarah Preece from the local campaign group "Mothers and Children Against Toxic Waste" (MACATW). The plant is situated close to residential areas, in a valley where toxic emissions hang in the stagnant air. Over the years local people have complained continually about dark smoke and noxious smells from the plant. Independent scientific investigations have confirmed raised levels of PCBs and dioxins surrounding the plant. A parliamentary committee investigated problems at ReChem in 1990 and recommended that "major incinerators are not in future located near residential areas." The UK Government has consistently refused calls for a public inquiry into the plant. ReChem has stifled a full public debate about the plant, and has issued libel suits against media outlets, a local campaigner, and Greenpeace. This action has intimidated residents of Pontypool from speaking out against the incinerator. MACATW calls for international support for its campaign, especially from people in countries which regularly send toxic waste to ReChem. "We are calling on all people fighting the toxic trade around the world to help us in our fight by writing to the Inspectors to register their protest," said Ms. Preece. Until ReChem closes, the people of Pontypool will continue to suffer the deadly impact of other people's industries. Greenpeace has just learned that ReChem has agreed a contract to burn one thousand tonnes of dioxin contaminated wastes from the Boehringer plant in Germany which once manufactured Agent Orange. Boehringer has been unable to get German waste management companies to incinerate the waste. Canada agreed to stop sending waste to ReChem, Pontypool after PCB exports hit the headlines in 1989. The Netherlands and Sweden have also stopped sending waste to ReChem, Pontypool. Both Australia and Switzerland have now been prevented from sending waste to the UK by the government which has refused to enter into contracts. Countries which have regularly sent waste to ReChem in the past include: Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. Countries which have sent occasional shipments include: Singapore, Jamaica, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, France, Portugal, Finland, Venezuela, Greece, Malaysia, Brazil, Norway, Philippines, Uruguay, and Iceland. What You Can Do! If you support the local people's objections to ReChem's proposals and their call for a full public inquiry into the contamination of the environment, please write to: J L Barnett, HM Principal Pollution Inspector Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution 11th Floor, Brunel House 2 Fitzalan Road Cardiff, CF2 1TT U.K. If possible, send a copy of your letter to MACATW, to show that you are supporting them: Sarah Preece Mothers and Children Against Toxic Waste 97 Chester Close New Inn Pontypool Gwent NP4 0LU U.K. Heltermaa Returns German Wastes to Sender On August 14, 1992 toxic waste from the Hamburg Steelworks was finally returned to its sender. The Estonian flagged vessel Heltermaa had been carrying 3,564 tonnes of air pollution control filter dusts since April 23, 1992. The ship had been plying the waters of the Mediterranean and Black Seas for a place to dump the cargo, and called on ports in Cyprus, Georgia, Romania and Bulgaria. Greenpeace Germany Toxic Trade Campaigner Andreas Bernstorff described the "return-to-sender" incident as a great victory for the environmental movement. "The voyage of the Heltermaa is symbolic of the bankrupt environmental policies of the European Community governments. The only way to solve the waste problem is by eliminating waste generation at the source." (Source: Greenpeace Germany.) Radioactive Waste From The Baltic Republics Appears in Sweden A ship sailing from Estonia and carrying 28 tonnes of radioactive copper waste arrived in Stockholm, Sweden on August 4, 1992. Officials from the Swedish Radiation Protection Institute could not determine the exact origin of the wastes, but suspected they came from a former Soviet submarine, and had been used near a nuclear reactor. The Swedish Radiation Protection Institute measured the radiation and determined that it contained cobalt 60, mangan and cesium 137, measuring 20 times higher than normal background levels of radiation. According to Ann-Christian Sandin from the Institute, this was the first time that customs officials had found imported radioactive material. Swedish customs officials sent the wastes back to Estonia, as it was impossible to find the country of origin in any of the documents that accompanied the shipment. The Estonian State Metal Export Company is now storing the wastes. The Swedish government is proposing that nuclear waste imports for final disposal be prohibited. Sweden fears that its radioactive waste facilities might have to be opened up to countries in the European Community (EC) if Sweden becomes a member. In the Government proposal, Sweden states that each country should be responsible for the radioactive waste it produces. As there are no EC regulations on final disposal of radioactive wastes, the proposal appears compatible with EC law. (Sources: Greenpeace Sweden; International Environment Reporter, July 29, September 9, 1992; Svenska Dagbladet, August 6, 1992.) French Customs Officers Intercept German Medical Waste In August 1992, French customs officials stopped three trucks carrying medical waste from Germany. The wastes included syringes and blood bags from former East Germany and were hidden underneath what appeared to be regular household trash. The truck drivers informed the customs officials that they were taking the wastes to a plastics recycling facility. Although France imports many kinds of wastes from other countries around the world, it requires a permit for the import of contaminated hospital waste, and imposes a penalty of two months to two years in prison and fines ranging from US$400-24,000. In 1990 France imported 797,000 tonnes of household waste from Germany. Virtually all of this waste is either landfilled or incinerated. France received an additional 234,532 tonnes of hazardous or special wastes from Germany and elsewhere in 1990. "The only way out of this legal and environmental mess is for France to immediately ban all household waste imports," said Greenpeace France Toxic Trade campaigner Pierre-Emmanuel Neurohr. (Source: Green-peace France; Reuter, August 11, 1992.) Denmark to Import German Waste The Egvad Recycling Center (ERC) in Jutland, Denmark, plans to build a combined recycling and incineration facility in Tarm, Denmark. Unnamed German and U.S. businesses will invest almost US$54 million into the project. The Tarm facility will have an annual waste processing capacity of 200,000 tonnes. Germany will supply ERC with the wastes, comprised of used tires, used plastics and car scrap polluted with PCBs and PVC plastic. The German Duales System Deutschland, will supply the used plastic, while Hamburg-based Eckhardt & Co. will supply car fragments. The German companies have already exported ten thousand tonnes of waste to the building site. Egvad Reycling Center says there is room for 80 similar centers in Europe and that they have been in contact with people in Bulgaria, Spain and USA about the building of similar centers. (Source: Greenpeace Denmark.) How Does Denmark Intend to Keep its Environment Clean? It "Recycles" Its Waste in Spain by Janus Hillgaard Denmark has a reputation as one of the world's cleanest countries. But the case of a massive Danish steel mill show how this reputation has been gained at the expense of another country's environment. Staalvalsevaerket (Det Danske Staalvalsevaerk, or DDS) is a secondary steel mill that produces about 619,000 tonnes of steel annually from 635,000 tonnes of scrap and 90,000 tonnes of pig iron. The plant is situated in the Roskilde Fjord on the shores of the Baltic Sea and has been dumping its slag wastes on the shoreline for years. Filters in the chimneys at the DDS plant trap an estimated 10,000 tonnes of filterdust containing heavy metals and organic pollutants such as dioxins. Since the 1970's, DDS has exported its filterdust, and since 1987 the Spanish "waste recycling" facility ASER in Bilbao has imported it. In June 1991, Greenpeace published a report entitled "Dumping by Another Name" about the environmental devastation caused by the export of non-ferrous metals waste to ASER. The report named DDS as one of ASER's major foreign waste suppliers. Greenpeace sent the report to Denmark's Environment Minister Per Stig Moeller, and pointed out that: * 70% of the waste from DDS is not recycled. * a May 1990 report from the World Health Organization (WHO) shows that cancer is the most frequent cause of death among men and the second most frequent among women in the Basque country, where Bilbao's strongly polluting industry is situated. The cancer ratio in the area where ASER "recovers" the Danish waste is greater than the Basque Country average. * annually, 12.6 million tonnes of industrial waste is produced in the Basque country. Almost all the waste is disposed with no control. * there are industrial dumpsites in densely populated areas and near river banks. Many of the dumpsites pollute the area's drinking water. * WHO points out that the dumpsites constitute a serious health risk. * the rivers are actually a source of air pollution. The Castanos River has burst into flames several times, having ignited itself. The Ria del Nervian Estuary, which receives water from the rivers of the area, is so acidified that it causes corrosion problems for the shipping industry. The acid water releases heavy metals from the sediments. 80 tonnes of iron waste with heavy metals are released to the estuary each day. * the level of heavy metals in the Asua River near Bilbao's industrial center is astronomical. Especially near the ASER plant, where the content of lead, cadmium, and zinc is greatest - a "fingerprint" of the filter dust, that is treated at ASER. Local residents relate that the river can change color three or four times a day. This is the environment that DDS dumps its waste on. After Denmark's Environment Minister Per Stig Moeller received the document, he wrote to Spanish authorities asking for comments on the Greenpeace report and information on the environmental impact of the Danish waste. After a few reminders, the Spanish authorities sent a copy of the EC notification forms that DDS had sent them. The forms contained nothing relevant to the criticism presented by Greenpeace. On July 27, 1992, Mr. Moeller wrote again to the Director General for Environmental Politics in the Spanish Ministry of Public Works and Urbanism: "DDS is the biggest exporter of waste from Denmark and hence these shipments have been subject to special attention. Following the publication of the Greenpeace report "Dumping by Another Name", according to which the claimed recycling of the exported filter dust from DDS has just been an excuse for disposal of 75% of the filter dust somewhere else, there has been an increasing public attention in Denmark to the matter, and it is hence necessary for the Danish environmental authorities to establish whether there are any environmental problems connected to the DDS exportation of filter dust. For that reason our ministry in October 1991 asked the Spanish competent authority for further information about the recycling plant ASER. In January 1992 the Danish Environmental Protection Agency received copies of transportation documents covering 1991. We would, however, appreciate more detailed information from your ministry: * what is the fraction of recycled material in the waste? E what is happening to the residual? * is it deposited in Spain or is it shipped to another country? - if the waste is landfilled in Spain, is the landfill under control of the Spanish authorities? * what is your opinion of the criticism from Greenpeace that the ASER company has contaminated the surroundings of the plant (river, soil, air)? Our Minister takes this matter very seriously and the public discussion in Denmark is still going on. We therefore hope that we can receive an answer from you soon." On August 27, Spanish environmental authorities finally sent a reply to Mr. Moeller, who received an 8 page letter on September 10. After having considered the letter for a week, the minister wrote to Parliament that in the view of the EPA, the information gave no cause to interfere in the transports from DDS. The Minister would thus "not pursue the matter." Spanish environmental authorities indicated that DDS recovered 94.6-98.5% of the zinc, lead and cadmium, and sold the residual waste, the slag, as construction material. Gerolf Werning, a spokesman for ASER's German owner, Berzelius Umwelt-Service (BUS), told the Danish daily newspaper, Information, "it is true that in Spain they cannot use all the slag at present." Information asked, "How large a share of the slag cannot be sold?" and Mr. Werning responded, "I don't know offhand." Spanish authorities said that the slag was not landfilled. If this were to be the case in future, it would only be on approved for controlled dumpsites, but "such a case has not yet presented itself." Greenpeace suspects that Spanish authorities only communicate with managers of official and controlled dumpsites and therefore do not know that the majority of the slag from ASER is dumped on uncontrolled dumpsites, a fact which is common knowledge in Bilbao. The legality of this export is now a major question. In Mr. Moeller's July letter to Spain, he points to the fact that Danish legislation does not allow for the indiscriminate export of waste for recycling. The ministry writes: "According to the EEC-directive 84/631 on transfrontier movements of hazardous waste it is the competent authority in Spain who shall receive a notification of the transportation. According to Danish legislation, however, the transportation depends on an exemption from the environmental authorities which can only be given, if it is substantiated that the waste is removed and dealt with in an environmentally sound way." Danish legislation is not precise on defining what "environmentally sound way" means. Environmental authorities in the municipalities in Denmark do not have the resources or knowledge to evaluate each proposal for an exemption. In the case of DDS, which is the largest employer in the municipality of Frederiksvaerk, it took the environmental authorities one day of work to approve the exemption according to Danish legislation and thus pave the way for continued export to Spain. On August 25, 1989, the Danish Environment Ministry rushed an exemption for DDS to allow for an impending waste shipment. The Ministry substantiated the exemption with a few rather meaningless papers from DDS which contained no information about environmental standards employed, controls performed or the fate of residual waste. One enclosure in the DDS application came from the German firm BUS, the principal owner of ASER, explaining that ASER recovered 100% of the waste recycled in its plant. While the factory owners indirectly admit that Greenpeace is right in saying that slag is dumped, Spanish authorities say the opposite. The Danish environmental minister chooses for diplomatic reasons "not to pursue the matter." (Sources: Greenpeace Denmark; Greenpeace Spain; Information, September 11, 1992.) High levels of lead and cadmium have been found in sediments in the Roskilde Fjord near the DDS plant. Lead levels exceed Danish EPA guidelines by 55 times and cadmium by 33 times. On the basis of analyses of mussels from some critical locations around the plant, the local health inspector published a warning stating that the shellfish were so highly contaminated with heavy metals as to be unfit for human consumption. Greenpeace Blocks Steel Dust Waste Exports to Spain On August 19, 1992, the German waste trading vessel Lass Sun arrived in Frederiksvaerk, Denmark, to load a shipment of toxic steel waste bound for Spain. Attempting to prevent the waste export, Greenpeace activists blocked the loading cranes by chaining themselves to the crane and the ship for several hours. The Greenpeace vessel Moby Dick arrived the next day and anchored outside the private port facilities of DDS. That evening, the Moby Dick slipped inside the port, anchoring ten meters from the Lass Sun. At five o'clock in the morning on August 21, 1992, the police arrived taking control of the Moby Dick and arresting its captain and the activists chained to Lass Sun. Immediately after the arrival of the police and the arrests, Lass Sun sailed quickly into the narrow channels in the fjord - only to become stuck in a shallow area. The German captain of the Lass Sun was in such a hurry to escape that he did not wait for the pilot who knew the waters. Two and a half days later various sized tugboats finally managed to free the Lass Sun from the ocean floor. By then Greenpeace had called off further actions for safety reasons as "the captain apparently is not in his right mind." Eleven days later "Lass Sun" arrived in Bilbao escorted by two vessels from the Civil Guard. Two hours before the arrival, about one hundred Basque environmental activists ended a 10 hour blockade of the channel in the harbor leading to the ASER plant. The blockade was called off for the night for safety reasons. Both the action in Denmark and the activities by Greenpeace and the Basque groups in Bilbao spurred intensive debate in the Basque region, with the ASER-plant accusing Greenpeace of hampering industrial activities in the region. Update on the Cito Waste Trading Vessel The saga of the toxic waste ship Cito, which carried 950 tonnes of German toxic waste to Egypt only to be rejected, came to an end in November 1992. (For a full account of the journey of the Cito see Toxic Trade Update 5.2, pg. 12.) Germany has taken responsibility for the toxic wastes and has begun landfilling them in the German region of Hesse. The Metallgesellschaft Frankfurt, the largest European metal holding company, hired Taurus Umwelttechnik over a year ago to dispose of its mounting waste pile which consisted of plastic battery housings contaminated with lead and carcinogenic antimony oxide dusts. Since April 9, 1992, the Cito had been docked in the German port of Emden. Laborers from Lehnkering Montan-Transport AG, dressed in full body protective gear and gas masks, unloaded the toxic cargo from the ship, and sent it to the Herfa-Neurode hazardous waste depository in Hesse. The waste disposal site is actually a 700 meter deep salt dome. Hessian environment authorities demanded that the wastes from the Cito be packed into square meter metal boxes, an enormous, time consuming task. Day after day, workers from Lehnkering laboriously shoveled the wastes into the metal boxes, and loaded them on the train to Hesse. In its original proposal to Egypt for the disposal of the toxic waste, Taurus suggested the wastes be hand sorted partly for recycling and partly for burning in a cement kiln near Alexandria. "This procedure clearly shows how rich industrialized countries use double standards each day to dump toxic wastes on poorer nations unaware of their dangers," said Greenpeace Toxic Trade Campaigner Andreas Bernstorff. The general manager of Taurus, Ulrich Frommherz, was imprisoned in mid-October 1992, for failing to pay 1.1 million deutschmarks (US$661,650) in federal taxes. The Taurus company dissolved by the managers and allegedly reestablished in Switzerland under another name. The public prosecutor of Koblenz, near the town where the waste was generated; closed the file against the local Metallgesellschaft branch which had generated the waste and had tried to broker them to Egypt by saying, "We cannot sue [Metallgesellschaft] because in Egypt there are no environmental and work protection regulations." Greenpeace feels that the inverse of this argument is correct. "Because Egypt has no environmental regulations, Germany should never allow such exports to countries where environmental and health effects are unknown," said Mr. Bernstorff. (Sources: Greenpeace Germany; Emder Zeitung, August 11, 1992.) Toxic Products Trade Denmark: World Leader in Export of Deadly OP Pesticides By Topsy Jewell The Danish government is attempting to clean up and protect its environment by imposing stricter regulations on its polluting industries and requiring those industries to modernize antiquated dirty technologies. Unfortunately, these laws do not prevent Danish companies from profiting from weaker regulations elsewhere. Extremely toxic pesticides, some of which cannot be used in Denmark, are legally manufactured there and exported for use in other countries around the globe. Recently, Denmark forced the chemical company Cheminova to spend US$30 million on pollution control devices for its main production facilities.1 Cheminova leads the world in production of parathion ethyl and a number of other hazardous organophosphorus (OP) pesticides including parathion methyl, malathion and fenitrothion. The Cheminova facility is located in Jutland, in a remote part of Denmark approximately 20 kilometers away from the nearest large town, Lemvig. In the 1950s, the local municipal authority forced Cheminova to relocate from a site outside Copenhagen because the factory had severely polluted the surrounding area. Today, the local authority at the new site is spending taxpayers money to continuously pump up and clean ground water polluted by the factory to prevent spread of the pollution to nearby drinking wells. Recently, the Danish government ordered Cheminova to renovate its manufacturing technologies out of concern for its fragile coastal waters. Phosphorous effluent from the production of OP pesticides including parathion ethyl, one of the deadliest pesticides in use today, was threatening the waters and marine life of the nearby Lim Fjord. Scientists developed OP pesticides during the World War II while researching nerve gases. Organophosphorus compounds are among the most potent nerve gases known to science. The German company Bayer AG produced parathion in the 1940s, the first organophosphorus compound to be marketed as an insecticide. The use of OP pesticide increased when they were substituted for the dangerous organochlorine insecticides like DDT which was largely responsible for the decline of many bird populations including that of the peregrine falcon. But OP pesticides have not proven to be a safe alternative to their organochlorine predecessors. In fact, some OP pesticides are the most acutely poisonous chemicals ever used on farms. They have caused more human deaths from pesticide poisonings than any other pesticide.2 In 1986, more than 20,000 birds died in the Donana National Park in Spain. Biologists linked the die-off to parathion methyl which local farmers had spread on their rice crops.3 While OP compounds can be freely traded in commercial products, wastes containing OP compounds are considered so dangerous that international agreements prohibit or severely restrict the trade in such wastes. Wastes containing OP compounds are defined as hazardous waste by many international conventions including the Basel Convention, the Bamako Convention, the Central American waste trade agreement, and the Lome IV trade and aid treaty. Industrialized countries are concerned about the environmental risks posed by OP compounds and are seeking to significantly reduce inputs of these substances. Governments party to the International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea (which includes Denmark) agreed in 1990 to reduce emissions of several OP pesticides by 50% or more by 1995, including those OP pesticides manufactured by Cheminova.4 This follows an earlier European Community directive enacted to reduce or eliminate discharges into groundwater of hazardous substances, including a number of OP pesticides.5 In Denmark, parathion methyl is not registered for domestic agriculture. The Danish chemical industry voluntarily withdrew the registration of parathion ethyl in 1988 (although a number of formulations are still available on the market). In fact, most European Community (EC) countries either prohibit the use of parathion, malathion, fenitrothion, and other OP pesticides or have placed them on priority lists to be reevaluated for safety. Globally, at least 23 countries ban, severely restrict or refuse to re-register parathion.6 The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates pesticides poison at least three million people annually, and kill some 20,000.7 Studies carried out by a joint WHO/UNEP working group conclude that OP pesticides are the main group of pesticides responsible for the deaths.8 Parathion alone causes more occupational and accidental poisonings and deaths than any other pesticide. In fact, according to the WHO, OP pesticides have significantly raised the risks of ill health in developing countries.9 The WHO/UNEP report also predicts that the use of OP pesticides in developing countries will double by the year 2000 and states that "if the public health problems associated with the use of pesticides are correlated with the amounts used, these figures may indicate the extent of future problems."10 Despite the myriad bans and restrictions on use of OP pesticides, Cheminova exports 99% of the OP pesticides it produces. The U.S. is the company's biggest single market, accounting for a third of its sales. But Cheminova has also created markets for its hazardous chemicals in less industrialized countries in the South and Eastern Europe. A third of its sales go to Asia and another third to Europe and Africa.11 Realizing widespread distaste for OP pesticides, many of Cheminova's competitors have discontinued marketing them. Monsanto Chemical Co., for example, discontinued production in the U.S. in 1987. But, instead of following the lead of other chemical companies, Cheminova is seizing its competitors' production facilities, and promoting its poisons in poor countries around the globe. In 1991, Cheminova acquired American Cyanamid's malathion business in the U.S. It recently established an office in Hungary to expand its sales in Eastern Europe. It is considering setting up further subsidiaries in other key markets. Cheminova recognizes that its financial security lies in the markets of the Third World and Eastern Europe. Many governments have recognized that they cannot always trust the industrialized world to provide them with safe products and technologies. Many have adopted legal mechanisms to prevent such toxic colonialism. For example, in 1991 the Organization of African Unity adopted the "Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa." The Bamako Convention not only prohibits import of toxic waste but also the import of substances which have been banned or voluntarily withdrawn in the country of manufacture. (For a full account of the Bamako Convention, see Greenpeace Waste Trade Update, Issue 4.1, pg. 1, March 1991.) Central American governments have recently adopted a similar regional waste trade policy, the "Agreement on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes in the Central American Region," (see related article on page 5 in this issue) that includes prohibitions on the import of products banned in the country of origin. Another mechanism providing countries with the autonomy to refuse dangerous substances is the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and UNEP's Prior Informed Consent (PIC) program for banned and hazardous substances. Under this information exchange plan, countries can refuse the import of substances listed on an "alert" list. Parathion is on the PIC alert list. The countries of the Mediterranean have adopted the most farsighted action against OP pesticides. (See related box.) In 1991, eighteen Mediterranean countries agreed to phase out organophosphate use by the year 2005, despite the fact that the pesticides are the mainstay of the region's agricultural production.12 Farmers and citizens groups are also successfully fighting against OP pesticide use. Last year a group of 1300 indigenous farmers in Mexico managed to halt a government programme to aerial spray 31,000 liters of 95% malathion solution over 39,000 hectares of fruit and coffee zones to control a pest known as the Mediterranean fruit fly (medfly).13 The Government agreed not to spray malathion, and to instead initiate trials for a new, cheaper pest management strategy based on biological controls, including the release of medfly natural enemies and sterile male medflies. Nonetheless, as long as Cheminova continues production of OP pesticides, human and environmental health around the world will remain at risk. If Denmark wants to extend its environmental concerns beyond its own shores, then it must prohibit Cheminova's production and export of OP pesticides. References 1. Agrow, No. 155, March 13, 1992. pp.6-7. 2. WHO/UNEP Working Group (1990) "Public health Impact of Pesticides used in Agriculture", WHO, Geneva. 3. Agrow, No. 60, March 25, 1988. p. 7. 4. Final Declaration of the Third International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea, 7-8 March, 1990, The Hague. 5. European Commission (1976) Council Directive on Pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community, 76/464/EEC, OJ no. L 129/23-27. 6. United Nations Consolidated List of Products whose Consumption and/or Sale have been Banned, Withdrawn, Severely Restricted or not Approved by Governments. 7. WHO/UNEP Working Group (1990) op. cit. 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. 11. Agrow, No. 155, March 13, 1992. pp.6-7 12. UNEP (1991) Report of the Seventh Ordinary Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution and its Related Protocols, UNEP(OCA)MED IG.2/4, UNEP, Athens, pp.18-19. 13. Global Pesticide Campaigner, Vol 2, No. 4, November 1992. Mediterranean Countries Phase Out OPs Mounting evidence about the serious environmental and health effects of OP pesticides has led 18 Mediterranean countries to phase out their use by 2005. The governments have also agreed to promote environmentally sound pest control practices with an emphasis on non-chemical methods. This precedent setting decision was made at the meeting of the Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution (Barcelona Convention) held in Cairo, Egypt in October 1991. Member countries of the Barcelona Convention include: Albania, Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Monaco, Morocco, Spain, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, and Yugoslavia. The European Community is also a party. The agreement states that each party will "promote measures to reduce inputs into the marine environment and to facilitate the progressive elimination by the year 2005 of organophosphorus compounds hazardous to human health and the environment."[1] The Mediterranean countries have agreed to "ensure that products containing OP compounds shall not be used in their territory unless it has been proved that there is no direct effect on human and animal health and no unacceptable impact on the environment." The decision is based on the "Precautionary Principle," a guiding principle adopted by a number of international and regional bodies including the Governing Council of UNEP and the Barcelona Convention. It calls for preventative measures when a potentially harmful substance is released into the environment, even if there is no conclusive evidence available to demonstrate that the substance causes harm. A UNEP study found that Mediterranean agriculture has applied large quantities of OP pesticides in recent years, although details of amounts used are scarce for most countries.[2] In a study commissioned by Greenpeace it was found that in Morocco 1,150 tonnes of OP pesticide active ingredients are applied to an average of one million hectares of land every year. Another study for Greenpeace showed that the Greek government had issued permits for the use of 2,870 tonnes of OP pesticide active ingredients in 1989.[3] There is increasing evidence of contamination by OP pesticides in the region. Scientific studies have detected OP pesticides and their metabolites in air, sea water, drinking water, and as residues on food.[4] One study in Italy even found parathion and malathion residues in mothers' breast milk four days after the women in the study had given birth.[5] And according to studies commissioned by Greenpeace in the Mediterranean countries of Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and Greece, OP pesticides are responsible for most of the occupational pesticide poisonings and deaths in those countries.[6] References 1. UNEP (1991) Report of the Seventh Ordinary Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution and its Related Protocols, UNEP(OCA)MED IG.2/4, UNEP, Athens, pp.18-19. 2. UNEP (1991) Assessment of the State of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Organophosphorus Compounds, UNEP, Athens. 3. Jewell, V.T. and P.A. Johnston (1991) The Use and Environmental impact of Organophosphorus Compounds in the Mediterranean Region,Greenpeace International, Amsterdam. 4. Ibid. 5. A. Bianchi, F. Tateo, C. Nava, S. Tateo, L. Santamaria, F. Berte, and G. Santagati (1988) Presence of Organophosphate and Organochlorine Pesticides in the Milk of Women, Med. Biol. Environ. Vol 16. pp. 931-942. 6. Jewell, V.T. and P.A. Johnston (1991) op. cit. The Health Effects of OP Pesticides OP pesticides like parathion can be rapidly absorbed through the skin. In the human body, the chemicals or products of their decay bind irreversibly to the essential nervous system enzyme, cholinesterase (ChE). This causes an interruption of the normal transmission of nerve impulses. Symptoms occur within hours of exposure, and can be delayed for up to two or three weeks. Symptoms include slurred speech, loss of reflexes, vomiting and blurred vision. Death is caused by respiratory failure due to paralysis of the central nervous system. A recent scientific study shows that damage to the nervous system can also last for years after single incidents of OP pesticide poisoning. Agricultural workers examined two years after a single severe exposure to OP pesticides had impaired language, attention, memory and motor abilities. The study concluded that OP pesticide exposure is associated with a persistent decline in neuropsychological functioning.1 Danish scientists also recently studied a community in Denmark and determined that normal consumption of fruits and vegetables during the OP pesticides spraying season was sufficient to depress ChE activity in study group.2 While the intake of small amounts of OP pesticides or their metabolites may not be acutely hazardous to humans, the authors of the study point out that it remains to be determined whether dietary OP pesticide residues can be a source of carcinogenic or reproductive toxicity. References 1. Rosenstock, L., M. Keifer, W. Daniell, R. McConnell, and K. Claypoole (1991) The Lancet, Vol 338, July 27, pp. 223-227. 2. Lander, F. A. Brock, E. Pike, and K. Hinke (1992) Chronic Subclinical Intake of Dietary Anticholinesterase Agents During the Spraying Season, Fd Chem. Toxic in press. Asia Asia's Chemical Warfare on Pests Backfires Guest Column Millions of farmers throughout Asia are finding out that the expensive pesticides they have been using in the hope of increasing farm yields have not only left them poorer, they have made the crops more vulnerable to diseases. This article by Kunda Dixit comes to us from Third World Network Features, c/o Consumers' Association of Penang, 87 Cantonment Road, 10250 Penang, Malaysia. A potent insecticide Asian farmers have been using over the past decade is a chemical identical to the nerve gas stockpiled during the Gulf war. Organophosphates, as they are called, are among hundreds of poisonous chemicals that farmers have been persuaded to spray on their fields with the promise of a better crop. Millions of farmers across Asia are finding out the hard way that their chemical warfare on pests has backfired. Buying expensive pesticides has not only made many poorer, but scientists say it has bade their crops more vulnerable to disease. "Our research had shown that most pesticides make no difference on crop yield," says Dr. K.L. Heong, a Malaysian entomologist at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) near Manila. For every bad bug they zap, pesticides destroy many more good bugs which are natural predators of harmful pests. The chemicals also end up in the food chain with long-term impact on human health. But except for a few countries, pesticide use is soaring. World sales grew from $8 billion in 1972 to $18 billion in 1991, and most of the growth occurred in developing countries. Worrisome to environmentalists is the effect of the chemicals on the ecosystem. Beneficial pests like spiders and ladybirds are being wiped out, while many harmful weeds, insects and parasites are increasingly developing resistance to chemicals. The most devastating for Asia has been the "brown plant hopper," an insect with a voracious appetite that devours the rice plant. In large enough numbers the brown plant hopper can eat the entire paddy harvests of nations. Agronomists say outbreaks of the brown plant hopper in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand in the past three years and most recently in Cambodia and Vietnam were directly caused by indiscriminate pesticide use which eliminated the enemies of this rice pest. The brown plant hopper feasts on new varieties of high-yield hybrid rice which the "green revolution" of the 1970s brought to most parts of Asia and which does not have the built-in resistance of natural varieties. In an ideal situation, predators of the pest would keep their numbers in check, but when paddy fields come under chemical attack, both good and bad insects perish. The green revolution quickly made countries like Indonesia and the Philippines self- sufficient in rice, but also made them more vulnerable to pests which developed resistance to chemicals. Epidemics of the brown plant hopper nearly wiped out the Philippine rice crop in the mid-1970s. Indonesia lost over 350,000 tonnes of rice in 1977 to the insect. But most governments, agro-chemical transnationals and farmers did not learn the lesson. Pesticide use in South And Southeast Asia zoomed as governments subsidized pesticides and untrained farmers used them thinking they would work miracles. The brown plant hopper struck again. Indonesia had another attack in 1986, when the insect munched away 75,000 hectares of rice fields in central Java. It quickly spread through neighboring Malaysia to Thailand where by 1990, 300,000 hectares of rice fields were affected. Scientists say the brown plant hopper is now rampaging through the rice fields of the Mekong delta in Vietnam and in Cambodia. In 1987 Indonesia said enough is enough and banned 57 brands of pesticides, slashed government subsidies for farmers and launched a nature-friendly way to manage pests. Agronomists in the region doubt if other countries can take such bold measures because it will clash with political lobbies with interests in agro-chemicals. But they say such action in urgent. Following Indonesia's lead, Vietnam's ministry of agriculture issued a directive in September against the use of organophosphates and other deadly pesticides. The Food and Agriculture Organization has been working since 1981 on a project in over 10 South and Southeast Asian countries to make integrated pesticide management (IPM) more popular among farmers and acceptable to governments. The project's director, Peter Kenmore, says awareness about IPM is growing as farmers realize that the main reason for the brown plant hopper epidemic was their own indiscriminate use of insecticides. "More and more rice-bowl areas in Asian countries are using less and less pesticides," says Kenmore. "Farmers have realized that half the insects they had been killing were actually protecting their rice plants." But agro-chemical transnationals are spending an estimated $75 million every year just on promoting their poisons and regional agro-experts are not sure they will give up the lucrative business. Latin America Greenpeace Calls for an End to Leaded Gasoline in Uruguay Last year, Greenpeace started a campaign to stop the sale of tetraethyl lead (TEL) in Latin America. TEL is used as an additive for gasoline to make automobiles run more smoothly. Starting in 1975, the U.S. government began a phase-out of the additive in the U.S. due to environmental and health concerns. Greenpeace Toxic Trade Campaigner Mario Epelman said, "The Greenpeace campaign has been successful in Argentina, where motorists can now buy lead free gasoline. Greenpeace is bringing its campaign to Uruguay." (Source: Greenpeace Cono Sur.) Toxic Technology Transfers Feature Editorial Western Pyromania Moves East By Iza Kruszewska People always have had a few basic methods of disposing of waste: burning it, burying it, or dumping it into the sea. Incineration is now western industry's preferred "high technology" solution to waste disposal. Shiny industrial units with massive smoke-stacks are a common feature of many industrial landscapes. But incineration is going out of fashion. Any proposal to build an incinerator these days is characterized by immediate, often organized protests from the local community. No one wants an incinerator in their back yard, so now, incinerator manufacturers are turning their sights toward new markets, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe. The Western Mistake In the early 1970s, John Hanrahan was a successful Irish dairy farmer in Clonmel, County Tipperary. In 1985, over 220 of his prized dairy cows were dead. Three years later, in 1988 the Supreme Court of Ireland unequivocally blamed the nearby hazardous waste incinerator, operated by the pharmaceutical company Merck Sharpe and Dohme, as the cause of the pollution that destroyed his dairy herd. In the Netherlands, the AVR municipal incinerator near Rotterdam caused such excessive dioxin contamination of milk of the dairy cows grazing nearby that the authorities condemned the same milk for disposal in the very same incinerator. "People forget that incineration does not destroy toxic substances present in waste," says Dr. Paul Johnston, an environmental scientist at the University of Exeter in the U.K. "It just redistributes them into the air, land and water. And frequently, the incomplete products of combustion can be even more toxic than the original waste." In some regions, protestors have found political support. Australia and the Canadian province of Ontario have introduced moratoriums on all construction of incinerators. The waste management industry in Spain has not been able to site an incinerator of any type since 1990. The American Public Health Association has raised concerns about potential health problems associated with waste incinerators. Numerous communities in the U.S. have rejected incinerator proposals including Dakota County in Minnesota, and the cities of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Bridgeport, Connecticut to name but a few. Recently, a U.S. District Judge in Little Rock, Arkansas ruled that incinerators burning dioxin waste can release no more than 1 part per million of unburned emissions. This ruling halted the burning of dioxin at the Vertac Incinerator in Jacksonville, Arkansas. As a result of this widespread public and federal opposition to waste incineration, western companies promoting and selling incineration technology are searching for new markets. Ideal candidates are those communities where environmental awareness is low, democratic structures are fragile and the economy is weak. Incineration Moves East The countries of Central and Eastern Europe fulfil all of these criteria. When borders to the West were opened, western waste and incinerators were some of the first "commodities" to move across the borders. Western waste management firms targeted East European countries from Poland to Romania to Bulgaria, with proposals to construct waste incinerators for free. A common condition attached to the proposals is that the facilities have to import 50% of the wastes to be burned. Concerted pressure from local environmentalists and international groups like Greenpeace slowly persuaded these countries to reject the opportunity to become the Western European dumping ground. One by one they implemented waste import bans, and then turned to the pressing issue of their own "historical" waste. Waste management consultants, funded by western governments or multilateral 'aid' programs, such as the European Community (EC) Phare, have prepared complex waste management programs to deal with the escalating problems of disposal. Virtually all of the plans, feasibility studies and strategies arrive at the same conclusion: incineration is the panacea to all the waste problems in the region. Product Control Ltd., a British/Swedish joint venture, is promoting disposing waste through its "new pyrolysis technology" in Hungary. In the neighboring Czech Republic, CEVA International Inc., a U.S. firm specializing in cement kiln technology, wants to burn hazardous waste there as "fuel" in cement kilns. And the French Compagnie Generale de Chauffe is promoting its "waste-to-energy" technology throughout the region. Also in Hungary, the THERMIE Programme Activity sponsored by the EC, has been "investigating the municipal solid waste management situation and waste combustion potential in Hungary, as a case study for Eastern Europe." The very name of the programme and phrasing of the objective of this study reveals a clear bias towards incineration. A Japanese consulting firm, commissioned by the Japanese government to conduct a study of Budapest's solid waste management, is constructing at least two incinerators in Hungary. And on October 27, 1992, the Italian company De Bartolomeis signed a contract with the Hungarian communities of Rudabanya, Szuhogy and Izsofalva to construct an incinerator capable of burning 30,000 tonnes of waste annually. The incineration industry commonly uses the terms "pyrolysis," "fuel," and "waste to energy" to mask the inherently dangerous nature of its business. Each of these types of incineration will inevitably discharge enormous amounts of toxic emissions into the surrounding environment. Pyrolysis: This kind of incineration burns extremely hazardous wastes at a relatively low temperature. Its proponents claim that pyrolysis produces no toxic emissions but in fact pyrolysis of hazardous wastes can form compounds such as dioxin and furans that are difficult to destroy and may be more toxic than the original waste. Pyrolysis can also produces emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as toluene, benzene, xylenes, ethylbenzene. "Fuel" For Cement Kilns: In the U.S., many waste disposal companies ship toxic wastes to cement manufacturers, who burn the waste to produce heat for the manufacture of cement. These companies call this process "recycling," but waste-burning kilns emit poisons which pose acute and long-term threats to public health and the integrity of local and global ecosystems. Toxic releases to the air from waste-burning kilns include uncombusted hazardous wastes, highly toxic polychlorinated dioxins and furans, heavy metals such as lead and cadmium, and other dust particles which cannot be captured by pollution control devices. "Waste-to-Energy": This term is routinely attached to proposals to burn household garbage. Waste management companies entice communities into building garbage incinerators under the premise that their technologies will produce free energy. Again, the companies are turning to "green" phrases to hide dirty technologies. "Waste-to-Energy" plants routinely discharge high levels of mercury and other heavy metals into the atmosphere. They also create an extremely toxic residual ash that must be dumped into landfills. The toxics in the ash will then migrate into surrounding surface and ground water drinking supplies. Poland is now building four industrial waste incinerators, and is negotiating seven more in conjunction with Italian, French and Danish partners. Proposals range from burning industrial waste in cement kilns in Opole and Nowiny, to burning organochlorine waste at the Nitrogen Plant in Wloclawek, the largest producer of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) in Poland. Western scientific literature has extensively documented that incineration of chlorinated waste such as PVC creates dioxin, one of the most deadly substances known to science. To compound the problem, most incinerator proposals currently being considered do not provide for disposal of highly contaminated ash and effluent from pollution control devices. Communities there are likely to dispose of the incinerator ash at rubbish dumps. A test case for the future is emerging in Poland's capital Warsaw, where Italian companies are proposing construction of a US$18 million municipal waste treatment facility. Polish environmentalists fear that the construction of a new incinerator in the capital could send a signal to other Polish communities that incineration is the most appropriate solution to the waste problem. Poland would therefore resign itself to taking the easier option in the short term, the western solution, rather than developing its own long term solution to the waste crisis. If all proposed facilities are built in Poland, in ten years there will be a surplus of incinerator capacity. As a prospective new member of the EC, and therefore also of the open market in which many categories of 'waste' are still considered a commodity, Poland and its eastern neighbors could once again be threatened with becoming western Europe's dustbin. Incineration: Enemy of Waste Prevention, Friend of Waste Trade The powerful Western industrial lobby threatens to overwhelm opponents of incineration. Their success could unleash a new wave of foreign waste dumping in Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Once these incinerators exist, they will require a steady stream of wastes to burn, to remain economical. Observers predict that if all proposed facilities are built in Poland, there will be a surplus of incinerator capacity there. It is far more likely that the Polish government would prefer to import wastes to fill excess capacity of multimillion dollar incinerators, rather than to dismantle the incinerators, or have them operate at a loss. The new investment ventures in the region provide a unique opportunity for this part of Europe to implement clean technologies, which prevent and minimize waste. But, in its rush to burn, Central and Eastern Europe is failing to consider the one sound solution to the waste crisis, that is waste prevention. Governments should always try clean production first, before creating a waste disposal infrastructure that requires a massive, constant input of toxic wastes. Rather than building incinerators, these governments should first identify the non- toxic parts of the waste stream, and start recycling and re-using them. There is no environmentally sound way of retrieving or disposing of toxic parts of the waste stream, so for these, the only solution is to phase-out the use of toxic production processes. "We should be separating at source all the paper, metals and wood that it is possible to recycle," says Dr. Johnston. "And we should be taking out all the chlorinated waste like PVC which produce dioxin. And in the long term we will have to recognize that incineration is an outdated technology." Iza Kruszewska is a campaigner for the Greenpeace Toxic Trade Project. She has been researching the export of hazardous wastes, products and technologies from the West into Eastern Europe with a particular focus on Poland. Africa Obsolete Pesticides to Burn in Southeastern Africa? A regional effort to deal with increasing industrial waste in Southern Africa may result in the purchase of a European incinerator. For the past ten years, a fifty tonne stockpile of toxic waste has been lying in the open air in Lusaka, Zambia. The waste is comprised mainly of obsolete pesticides no longer wanted by the National Agricultural Marketing Board in Zambia. Western countries donated most of the pesticides to the region as agricultural aid. Jowie Mwiinga, a correspondent for Inter Press Service (IPS) in Lusaka, reported that many of the pesticides were inappropriate for the country and that others were "procured by unscrupulous government officials who knowingly imported dangerous pesticides banned in the West for a kickback from the suppliers." The exact composition of the waste is unknown. Environmental officials from Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe met to discuss their common problems of waste management. Despite the inherent environmental and health dangers associated with burning wastes, the regional committee concluded they needed to purchase an industrial waste incinerator. The officials considered the possibility of burying the wastes in an abandoned mineshaft or burying it under concrete to contain it. They also considered storing the wastes in sealed containers to "arrest contamination." The committee rejected all these options. The IPS report did not indicate whether or not the environmental officials had considered the option of returning the wastes to the donor countries. (Source: Inter Press Service International News, August 11, 1992.) Asia Update on Mitsubishi in Malaysia Greenpeace reported in Toxic Trade Update 5.2 that a Malaysian court had ordered Asian Rare Earth Sdn. Bhd. (ARE), in which Mitsubishi had 35% ownership, to shut down on July 11, 1992, due to environmental and health damage caused by its facility. ARE was regularly exposing villagers from Bukit Merah to radioactive and chemical wastes from its industrial mining operations there. On July 23, 1992, ARE successfully appealed the closure ruling, and gained permission from the Supreme Court to resume operation. A hearing was scheduled for August 3, 1992, to present arguments relating to the interim suspension. But, an estimated 3,000 protesters picketing outside the courthouse forced the Judge to postpone it. Many of the protesters were villagers from Bukit Merah who had traveled all night on buses to attend the protest. Two days later, despite the massive protest, the Malaysian Supreme Court issued a stay of execution for ARE to resume operation. Many organizations in Asia have joined forces to objecting to Mitsubishi's environmental destruction in Bukit Merah. One Malaysian environmental group, called the Perak Anti-Radioactive Committee, launched a campaign to boycott Mitsubishi products. And many lawyers, activists, consumers unions, and religious groups in Japan have formed a coalition called "Stop! Mitsubishi Kasei's Export of Pollution Campaign Committee". The coalition conducts monthly demonstrations against Mitsubishi Kasei in front of Mitsubishi headquarters in Tokyo. At the request of the Japanese coalition, the Japanese Diet (Parliament) formed a working group on November 19, 1992, to deal with Mitsubishi's operation in Malaysia. The working group, Japanese Parliamentarians on the ARE Problem, visited the Mitsubishi Kasei facility in Bukit Merah with intentions of shutting down the plant, cleaning up the environment, compensating the victims, and encouraging the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry to stop export of pollution from Japan. Due to widespread public protest of Mitsubishi's operation in Malaysia, Mitsubishi has chosen not to resume operation at ARE until a final decision is handed down by the Supreme Court. It is unclear when the decision will be made. (Sources: Kyodo News Service, July 28, August 5, September 8, 1992; International Environment Reporter, July 29, 1992; Reuter News Reports, August 3, 1992.) What You Can Do The Stop! Mitsubishi Kasei's Export of Pollution Campaign Committee is organizing a letter writing campaign to protest pollution and environmental contamination at the ARE facility in Bukit Merah, Malaysia. Please join them in their efforts to permanently close the ARE facility. Write to Mitsubishi and express your concern for the villagers and the environment of Bukit Merah. Mitsubishi Kasei Corporation 5-2 Marunouchi 2 Chome Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100 JAPAN If possible, send a copy of your letter to: Stop! Mitsubishi Kasei's Export of Pollution Campaign Committee Bunkyo Sogo Law Office 3rd Floor TY Building 3-18-11, Hongo Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113 JAPAN Eastern Europe Levi Strauss Polluting Poland's Environment The U.S. clothing manufacturer Levi Strauss is setting up a factory in the town of Plock in Poland. Levi Strauss is one of many Western firms moving into Eastern Europe to expand business markets. According to a report in the Polish newspaper Glos Poranny (Morning Voice) however, the firm has not followed through on many of its promises and has generated pollution many times above the legal limit. "It's not known what is done with their waste," stated the head of the environmental police, Andrzej Hasa. He described the factory management's approach to environmental protection as "completely nonchalant." The factory manager explained that the company was in a starting up phase that would last half a year. Local residents fear that Levi Strauss bypassed some of the regulations and bureaucracy in order to begin operations sooner. Glos Poranny reported that "the local population and councilors are considering why it is that 'the chosen ones' should be able to put themselves above the law, whilst others are penalized for the most trivial offense." (Source: Glos Poranny, June 1, 1992.) Latin America and the Caribbean Chemical Waste Management Seeks Control of Mexican Waste Market Public protest over potential environmental and human health problems associated with waste disposal has prompted the state government of Jalisco, Mexico to stop two Chemical Waste Management (CWM) facilities including a proposed US$24 million toxic waste treatment facility in Jalostotitlan, and an existing "non-hazardous" waste facility in Zapopan-San Cristobal de la Barranca. Public opposition to CWM's activities in Mexico is not new. In 1991, citizens living near the ecologically sensitive Lake of Texcoco outside of Mexico City, barred CWM from constructing an incinerator there. Public protest led by a local group of women, forced the Mexican government to revoke a CWM license to operate a PCB incinerator in Tijuana. A rural community in Veracruz also rejected a CWM proposal to construct an incinerator. And in December 1992, the community of Merida on the Yucatan Peninsula refused to host a CWM municipal waste treatment facility. CWM is presently fighting in Texas courts for the right to develop a hazardous waste landfill in the Texas border town of Dryden. The landfill proposal is in direct violation of the La Paz Convention signed by the U.S. and Mexico in 1983, which defines the land within 100 kilometers of the border as an ecological zone. Despite widespread public opposition to the many hazardous waste schemes of CWM in Mexico, the company is managing to find willing customers for its toxic technologies. CWM is investing US$2 million in a plan to expand a landfill in the city of Hermosillo, in the state of Sonora. Ford Motor Company once owned the landfill. CWM is taking control of the toxic waste market in Mexico, not only in the maquiladora regions but in principal industrial zones as well. The company's latest proposal is to develop both a landfill and an incinerator in Polotitlan. CWM would construct the waste facility 25 meters from the Polotitlan community water well. "Community rights to participate in discussions affecting health and the environment must be assured in Mexico," stated Fernando Bejarano, Toxic Trade Campaigner for Greenpeace. "Public participation should be part of a national effort to adopt a Precautionary Principle which would reduce toxic waste at the source. Without a Precautionary Principle, industrial investments in Mexico predicted by the North American Free Trade Agreement will exacerbate Mexico's growing pollution problems." (Source: Greenpeace Mexico; La Jornada, p. 16, March 9, 1993.) Elpesa Closed by Development Bank The Elpesa chloralkali plant in Managua, Nicaragua has finally been shut down. The Movimiento Ambientalista Nicaraguense (Nicaraguan Environmental Movement) announced on September 4, 1992, that the Central American Economic Integration Bank had done what others could not: permanently close one of Central America's most polluting facilities. Elpesa is one of Central America's most notorious polluters. Mercury cell technology used in the plant's production of caustic soda and chlorine has created some of the worst mercury pollution ever recorded. Elpesa has a chlorine and caustic soda production capacity of 17,000 tons per month, but actually produces 12,000 tons monthly. Much of the chlorine gas is released into the air, and because Elpesa is able to sell only 5,000 tons of its product each month, it disposes of the remainder in a community dump which is surrounded by several poor neighborhoods. The Research Center for Aquatic Resources (CIRA), part of the Nicaraguan Autonomous University, reported that Elpesa dumped over 90 tons of mercury into Lake Managua over a period of 30 years. UNEP has declared Lake Managua one of the world's most polluted bodies of water. In early 1981, the Bank loaned the Elpesa subsidiary Pennwalt SA US$4.4 million for development of the facility in Managua. In early May, 1992, the Bank took legal action against Pennwalt trying to recover the debt owed by Pennwalt. As Pennwalt could not repay the debt, the Bank foreclosed on the facility. The Bank has refused to take any responsibility for the environmental devastation caused by Elpesa. Greenpeace Toxic Trade Campaigner Erwin Garzona said, "Although this is not technically an environmental victory, we are happy that Elpesa will be permanently closing its doors." Although Elpesa will no longer contribute to the horrible environmental contamination in Nicaragua, other companies located in the same industrial complex continue to exacerbate the situation. Hercasa, a chemical company that manufactures organochlorine pesticides, is still operating in the neighborhood, as is an oil refinery. (Source: Movimiento Ambientalista Nicaraguensa; Greenpeace Latin America; Managua University.) Transnational Fruit Companies Destroying Environment and Human Health Three transnational fruit companies, looking to expand banana production in Costa Rica, are wreaking havoc on the environment. Since coffee production in Costa Rica overtook the banana industry in 1984, the U.S.-based transnational corporations (TNCs) Standard Fruit, the Banana Development Company and United Fruit, have been trying to make up profits. In early 1992, the TNCs purchased almost 20 square miles of land from smaller fruit companies. Costa Rican biologist Rocio Lopez explained that such expansion by transnational fruit companies in Costa Rica "means a large increase in deforestation because they do not even respect the zones set aside to protect rivers." In addition to stripping away forests in Costa Rica, the fruit companies have been subjecting residents to enormous amounts of pesticides. The banana industry in Costa Rica accounts for 35% of the pesticide use and causes 70% of the countries poisonings. Banana workers from Costa Rica recently sued Standard Fruit Company in a Texas court because the pesticide, DBCP, which they used on banana plantations in the province of Limon left them sterile. (Source: Agence France-Presse, July 29, 1992.) Resources on Toxic Trade Adverse Impact of Export-Oriented Industrilisation on Third World Environment and Economy - This report is one of the latest features from Third World Network. It examines the negative impact of export-oriented industrialization on agriculture and urbanization and on the environment. It also analyses the fragile, dependent character of this mode of development. Finally, the main feature of the latest phase of export-oriented growth in East Asia, the dominance of Japan, is considered. Available from Third World Network, c/o Consumers' Association of Penang, 87 Cantonment Road, 10250 Penang, Malaysia. Annotations By Greenpeace International On the Agenda of the Meeting: Prepared for the First Conference of Parties to the Basel Convention, November 30 - December 4, 1992, Piriapolis, Uruguay -This paper evaluates the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes. It includes stark examples of the failure of "Prior Informed Consent," and the need for a total ban. It also includes several examples of actual waste trade contracts signed by government officials. Available in English and Spanish from Greenpeace Toxic Trade Campaign, Greenpeace International, Keizersgracht 176, 1016 DW Amsterdam, THE NETHERLANDS. Clean Production: Eliminating Toxic Waste, Technologies and Products -This Greenpeace fact sheet discusses a new environmentally sound approach to societal activity, including agriculture, water distribution, energy distribution, transportation, and manufacturing goods. Clean production systems are described as non-polluting and sustainable. Copies are available in Arabic, Catalan, Dutch, English, French, German, Russian and Spanish for US$1.00 from the Greenpeace International Chlorine Campaign, 16 North Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603, USA. Green Fields, Grey Future: EC Agricultural Policy at the Crossroads -Greenpeace evaluates EC agricultural policies as an industrialized system that consumes large amounts of energy and is dependent on inputs of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Greenpeace calls for an environmentally sound restructuring of agriculture in Europe. Available from T. Jewell, Greenpeace International Annex, Temple House, 25/26 High Street, Lewes E. Sussex, BN7 2LU, U.K. Also available from that address is a related report entitled, "The Use and Environmental Impact of Organophosphorus Compounds in the Mediterranean Region," by V.T. Jewell, and P.A. Johnston, (1991). Long Distance, Short Life: Why Big Business Favours Recycling - This article by Simon Fairlie appeared in the November/December 1992 issue of The Ecologist. It provides the reader an excellent critique of how industry is profiting from and promoting the recycling of wastes such as glass bottles, plastic bags and aluminum cans, instead of supporting reusable packaging. Contact The Ecologist, Agriculture House, Bath Road, Sturminster Newton, Dorset DT10 1DU, U.K. Pacific Waste Invasion! The Many Schemes of Consolidated Environmental Inc. - This Greenpeace investigative report describes a plan to export contaminated soils from UNOCAL gas stations in Hawai'i to the Marshall Islands in the Pacific. Copies are available for US$10.00 from Greenpeace Toxic Trade Campaign, 1436 U Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20009. PVC Pack - This is a series of fact sheets detailing the environmental implications of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). The packet is divided into ten fact sheets, providing overviews of the PVC industry and efforts to phase out the use of PVC. Copies are available in Dutch, English, French, German, Italian and Spanish from the Greenpeace International Chlorine Campaign, 16 North Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603, USA. The cost is US$10.00. Romania: The Toxic Assault - Greenpeace Germany produced this report which illustrates the illicit dumping of West European wastes in Romania. The report is available in English and German from the Greenpeace Toxic Trade Campaign, Greenpeace Germany, 2000 Hamburg 11, Vorsetzen 53, GERMANY. 30 Years After Silent Spring: The Poisoning Continues - The Greenpeace Toxic Trade Campaign produced this fact sheet which describes the environmental and health damage caused by pesticides since Rachel Carson alerted the public to the dangers of the chemicals in 1962. Copies are available in English, French, Italian and Spanish from the Greenpeace Toxic Trade Campaign, 1436 U Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20009, USA. The cost is US$1.00 per fact sheet. U.S. Hazardous Waste Dumping in Bangladesh: The Toxic Fertilizer Crisis -Greenpeace and the Dhaka-based organization UBINIG (Policy Research for Development Alternatives) produced this report which documents the export and dumping of lead- and cadmium-contaminated fertilizer from the U.S. in Bangladesh. Available from the Greenpeace Toxic Trade Campaign, 1436 U Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20009, USA. The cost is US$10.00. Waste Attacks on the New Baltic States: Waste Export Projects of Western Companies to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia 1989 - 1992. Greenpeace documents 19 waste export schemes involving the Baltic Republics. Copies available in English and German from the Greenpeace Toxic Trade Campaign, Greenpeace Germany, 2000 Hamburg 11, Vorsetzen 53, GERMANY. Wasting the World - The Greenpeace Toxic Trade Campaign produced this video which explains how the Basel Convention and other regulatory mechanisms on the international trade in wastes continue to legalize toxic terrorism. Greenpeace campaigners and photographers visit some of the most polluted regions of the world and present hard evidence of environmental devastation caused by the "recycling" of western wastes. The investigators visit waste importing facilities in Romania, Slovenia, Indonesia and Mexico, and present evidence of environmental devestation from waste imports in many other places around the world. The 13 minute video is available in English and Spanish from Greenpeace Communications, 5 Baker's Row, London, EC1R 3DB, U.K. When Green is Not: The OECD's "Green" List As An Instrument of Hazardous Waste De-Regulation - This document provides a scientific and policy review of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's recently adopted Red, Amber Green policy. Available for US$10.00 from Greenpeace Toxic Trade Campaign, 1436 U Street, NW, Washington, DC 20009, USA.