Toxic Waste:
The politics of dumping
by Richard Sherman* In the aftermath of huge toxic disasters in the 1980s, many governments in the developed world responded by adopting costly regulations for the disposal of hazardous wastes. To avoid these regulations and the costs of reducing dangerous pollution, many waste generators opted for a much cheaper and easier way to dispose of their hazardous waste. They simply exported their waste to other countries, mostly in the developing world, where there is less stringent environmental legislation and compliance. In 1991, an internal memo of then World Bank Chief Economist Lawrence Summers was leaked to the world press. In the memo, Summers stated that "the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to the fact that ... under-populated countries in Africa are vastly under-polluted". The developed world produces over 300 million tonnes of hazardous waste each year. The problem arises when companies have to dispose of their waste. If it is dumped in landfills or storage pits, poisons inevitably leak out and contaminate underground water tables and impact on air quality. If it is burned it leaves a toxic residue and emits hazardous gases. Since 1986, more than 1,000 attempts to export waste all over the globe have been documented. The classes of waste range from sewage sludge to medical waste to radioactive to industrial incinerator ash to banned and outdated pesticides. Toxic waste deals have resulted in the dumping of thousands of tonnes of hazardous waste in places as diverse as Nigeria, South Africa, Lebanon and Thailand. In such cases, waste dealers have confronted developing countries with hard choices. For example: Guinea Bissau was offered four times the country's GNP (twice its external debt) in exchange for accepting 15 million tonnes of foreign industrial waste. While Guinea Bissau refused the offer, the example highlights the unfair position facing developing countries — that of having to make a difficult choice between poison and poverty. In other examples northern industries have simply relocated to developing countries and established local industries to import and process waste for the developed world. At the Thor Chemicals factory, outside Cato Ridge in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa, three warehouses stand full of drums of toxic mercury waste. The waste was imported in the 1980s by the apartheid government and originates mainly from the USA, but also from Britain, Singapore and Indonesia. More than 2,500 drums of mercury waste was shipped to Thor Chemicals between 1991 and 1994. Outside the plant is a toxic dam containing 2,500 tonnes of contaminated sludge. Research has indicated that the levels of mercury found in the Umgeni River about 50 km from Thor, are 1,000 times higher than the World Health Organisation's standards. The international waste trade also reflects the social and economic imbalance between importer and exporter. Since there is a very close correlation between income/consumption levels and pollution levels, it is not surprising to discover that those who've been making the mess are also those who have been making the money. The production of hazardous waste and its ultimate fate is but one symptom of an inherently unjust system both locally and globally, which results in the privileged being able to accumulate excess goods, squander resources and displace the pollution problems on those who can least afford them. If these wastes are too dangerous to dump in highly industrialised countries, certainly they must be too dangerous to dump in the developing world, where in most cases governments lack the adequate capacity to ensure effective environmental monitoring, protective equipment, emergency response and health care. Within this context, it has been difficult to get the developed world to agree on controlling their waste exports. After a series of notorious "toxic cargoes" from industrialised countries drew public attention to the dumping of hazardous wastes in developing and East European countries, a unique coalition of developing countries, environmental groups and European countries succeeded in achieving agreement on banning the waste trade. The BASEL Convention entered into force in May 1992 and now has 123 signatories. Once ratified by 62 member states, it will go into force and will become international law. Environmentally sound waste management is an important part of the Convention and forms the very basis of the waste export ban. However, the over-arching objective of the BASEL Convention is to reduce the generation of hazardous wastes to a minimum. This is undoubtedly the most effective way of protecting human health and the environment. In the age of globalisation, trade issues, especially those regulated under the World Trade Organisation (WTO), are gaining greater precedent over social and human agendas. This will ultimately lead to a situation whereby people and the environment will be regarded as commodities that are bought and sold by the rich and powerful. In the final analysis, the ultimate market incentive remains unchanged — profit. Those who stand to gain from exploiting loopholes and the weakness of international agreements, have no motive to abandon their markets and technologies. Some governments and business organisations in developed countries are still trying to overturn, circumvent or undermine the full implementation of the BASEL Ban. The short-term profits from hazardous waste generating activities depend on the possibility of avoiding the disposal costs by exporting them. As long as the generators of hazardous waste are not being held responsible for their waste, they will never reduce its generation. They persist in turning a blind eye to the very causes of the hazardous waste crisis: their own production technologies that generate hazardous waste.* * * *Richard Sherman is from the Group for Environmental Monitoring (GEM), South Africa.* * * Umsebenzi