SOUTH'S FARMERS, WORKERS ARE VICTIMS OF NORTHERN TOXIC EXPORTS

by Someshwar Singh

Geneva, 5 May 2000 -- At least one worker dies every day in the ship-breaking industry and the health of many other ordinary farmers and workers in the developing world is directly threatened by exports of toxic and dangerous products from the developed countries, says a report published just before the recently concluded six-week session of the UN Human Rights Commission.

The report on the illicit movement and dumping of toxic waste, prepared by the Special Rapporteur Mrs. Fatma-Zohra Ouhachi-Vesely of Tunisia (E/CN.4/2000/50/Add.1) was made available only towards the end of the Commission's session.

During the session, a number of NGOs had raised the issue of the trade in toxic and dangerous wastes and, while praising the report, had complained it was not available officially. The Special Rapporteur had said that the preliminary state of her report, with all typos and other mistakes, was a matter of concern to her, while the cursory state of her findings as summarised reflected the lack of resources available for carrying out her mandate.

Responding to the comments of NGO observers and others, who had been referring to the non-official versions of the report, Mrs Ouhachi Vesely said the problem could not be solved without the cooperation of member states, and the human rights mechanisms created should be given the necessary financial means, for missions and mandates, whether in the field or not. All the human rights mandates were noble and indivisible, and the Commission should take steps to redress the balance in human rights, and focus not only on denunciations and sanctions, but assistance and rehabilitation of victims. The Transnational Corporations had also a role to play in promotion of human rights, the protection of the environment and sustainable development, she added.

In the official report, that became available long after the discussion in the Commission, the rapporteur said that as a follow-up to her visits to Africa in 1997 and Latin America in 1998, Mrs. Fatma-Zohra visited the Netherlands and Germany - the first to accede to her wish to visit industrialized countries. The purpose of her visit was to elicit responses from the two governments regarding specific allegations of illicit exports of toxic and dangerous products to developing countries.

Germany, however, had opposed her mandate originally.

Apart from the specific cases against Dutch and German firms, the report sheds light on dangers posed by the ship-breaking industry, disposal of PVC wastes and the increasing threat to human health and the environment from millions of tonnes of pesticides finding their way into the agricultural sector in developing world.

In her exchanges with NGOs in both Germany and the Netherlands, Mrs.Ouhachi-Vasely's attention was drawn to the health and environmental dangers posed by the exports to Asia of old ships contaminated by dangerous substances. These ships originate in OECD member states, including the Netherlands and Germany.

India is apparently the prime importer of ships destined for scrap (70% of the total, providing 15% of the country's steel needs), followed by Bangladesh, Pakistan, China and the Philippines.

Ships destined for ship-breaking contain significant quantities of asbestos, PCBs, hydraulic fluids, paints containing lead, and/or other heavy metals, tributylin or TBT anti-fouling coatings, contaminated holding tanks and other substances rendering them hazardous waste and extremely dangerous to human health and the environment when scrapped in the existing ship-breaking yards.

According to information provided by Greenpeace, 40,000 people are employed in the ship-breaking industry, working in conditions that are particularly dangerous for their life and health.

For example, at Alang in Gujarat State, the largest ship-breaking yard in the world, workers are allegedly exposed on a daily basis, both at work and at rest, to asbestos, dioxin, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in paints, plastic products, felt gaskets, machinery mounts, adhesives and electrical cable insulation on board the ships.

They also inhale dangerous substances when they demolish the ships's hulls using blow-torches or when they burn irrecoverable items in the open. Fungicide paints applied to the hull and lead-containing paint also represent a health-hazard and a threat to the environment.

It is estimated that at least one worker dies every day and that 25% of the workforce develops cancer in the medium-term. Others are killed by explosions caused by the ignition of flammable gases trapped within the ships. It is reported that soil, air, and water in and around Alang are polluted as a result of the ship-breaking which takes place directly on the shoreline.

Conditions are said to be similar at the ship-breaking yard in Mumbai (Bombay) and around Chittagong in Bangladesh. Greenpeace believes that working conditions might be better in China, although they are not entirely risk free.

Though a lot of Indian laws contain the necessary strictures, these have long been ignored and have scarcely begun to be enforced, according to Greenpeace.

For instance, Indian law prohibits the import of toxic waste from OECD countries; it also outlaws ship-breaking along its coastline. In May 1997, the Indian Supreme Court decided that no import should be made or permitted by any authority or any person of any hazardous waste which is already banned under the Basel Convention or to be banned hereafter with effect from the date specified within.

The 10 February 1991 Coastal Regulation Zone Notification prohibits the following activities within the Coastal Regulation Zone: manufacture or handling or storage or disposal of hazardous substances; discharge of untreated wastes; end effluents from industries.

Moreover, the Central Pollution Control Board states in its Environmental Guidelines for Ship-breaking Industries that "Old vessels containing or contaminated with PCBs, waste asbestos dust and fibres, lead compounds are accordingly classified as hazardous materials. The customs authority and/or the concerned State Maritime Board should ensure this and issue a certificate to this effect that the vessel is free from prohibited materials."

Under the Basel Convention, ships destined for the breaker's yard are deemed to be wastes and, to the extent that they contain dangerous substances, they are treated as hazardous wastes. In the case that such ships move from an OECD country to a non-OECD country, the Basel ban applies and the movement is prohibited.

Moreover, under the Basel Convention, a transboundary movement from any State party to any of the ship-breaking operations in non-OECD countries is prohibited because, due to the conditions in the ship-breaking yards, it would not constitute "environmentally sound management" as requited by the Convention.

However, a potential problem exists with regard to a transaction that simply indicated a sale of ship, for e.g., to an owner in a non-OECD country; and after the ship is in that country, it is determined to be destined for ship-breaking. In such a case, no transboundary movement of "waste" would appear to have occurred. This scenario represents a possible legal loophole which needs to be addressed.

There is also the legal problem of the large number of ships flying Liberian, Maltese, or Panamanian flags of convenience. When these vessels are sent to the breaker's yard, they are not legally covered by the prohibition on the export of dangerous wastes for disposal or recycling to other States parties by member states of OECD, the European Union and Liechtenstein.

This is an issue that needs to be addressed within the framework of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), for example by establishing the responsibility of the owner of the vessel between its original purchase and its sale for scrap; in most cases this ship owner has registered offices in an OECD country.

In June 1999, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) mandated the Basel Convention's technical working group to collaborate with IMO on the preparation of environmentally-friendly ship-breaking guidelines.

Export of plastic wastes, on the other hand, represents a potential danger for life and health, says the report. Because of the emission of large amounts of dioxins and the release of heavy metals like lead and cadmium, burning of PVC-covered cables is forbidden in the Netherlands.

Allegedly, each year 15,000 tonnes of PVC waste from cables are created in the Netherlands. There are also indications that a considerable amount of cable waste is imported from Germany and Eastern European countries.

In the Netherlands, the biggest cable waste processor and dealer is the Van Hout Group. They own companies at several locations in the Netherlands, and also in Germany, the United Kingdom and South-East Asia; in China they have a joint venture with the name Jan-Hout Metal Recycling.

The Van Hout Group processes in the Netherlands 25,000 tonnes of cables a year. According to Van Hout, all cables are mechanically stripped, in China as in the Netherlands. The copper fraction is sold (fetching around 1,000 Dutch Guilders/1,000 kg).

The mixed plastic fraction has a negative value: it is dumped or burned. The costs for dumping are 200FL/1,000 kg, and burning 200-300 FL/1,000 kg. Several tests are conducted to separate the plastic mixture into the different plastics (PVC, PE, and rubber), but in the Netherlands this is not economically profitable.

The Van Hout Group exports the cable waste to China. Also other processing or trading companies confirmed that cables are exported mainly to China and that Van Hout is the biggest exporter. Pakistan was also named, but the export figures were considerably less than the ones for China. According to the firm, in 1998, Van Hout exported 5,000 tonnes to China. In the past, they exported far more - 15,000 to 20,000 tonnes.

The special rapporteur was also informed that each year 80,000-100,000 tonnes of cables are exported by all Dutch companies together.

Export is economically interesting because in China the PVC-containing residue can be sold for 60/70 cents/kg, according to Van Hout. The value of secondary PVC in the Netherlands is 25-50 cents/kg. But the main reason for Chinese companies to buy cables is the copper content.

According to informants, cables are exported to several companies in China, including the Changsu Yuebo Copper Industry in Jiangsu (near Shanghai) and Signma Metals in Shanghai, which are among the biggest importers; both factories have copper smelting facilities. Interviews with workers at the factories revealed that they are exposed to hazardous fumes emanating from the burning of cables containing PVC. Sooner or later, a lot of people working for these plants acquire health problems affecting kidneys, lungs and liver.

The Signma factory is a big plant that looks clean and well-organized from the outside. But even for this big company it is unclear what happens inside. The stories of the workers are alarming. In the poor Chuangdong area south of Hong Kong, there are also many small family companies which buy cables from small traders; no doubt these small companies take hardly any safety measures and just burn cables.

According to European legislation, cable waste is "green list" waste, i.e. non-hazardous. This means that the export of cable waste is legal in the Netherlands, to whatever country, as long as it is recycled there. Nevertheless, the effect on the environment and human health resulting from poor recycling processes, is a matter for concern.

All the NGOs the special rapporteur met with were of the opinion that the incalculable consequences for life, health and the environment resulting form the trade in and use of pesticides, particularly in the developing countries, were likely to become one of the major problems of coming decades.

Some 5 million tonnes of pesticides are released into the environment every year.

Despite the adoption in September 1998 of the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (better known as prior informed consent (PIC), and the elaboration of legislation in a number of countries to regulate the export, import and use of pesticides, the situation in many developing countries is still a matter of concern owing to the existence of obsolete pesticide stocks. Moreover, there has been a sharp increase in the use of pesticides in these countries, which are unable adequately to control the use of especially dangerous products.

As a result, transnational companies should be held responsible not only for their exports, but also for the way in which their products are used, says the rapporteur. But this is in sharp contrast to the position held on this issue by a representative of the German chemical company Bayer. The report notes "Regarding the use of chemicals in lax safety conditions, and having regard to the climate in Third World countries, Bayer does not believe that the improper use of chemicals in developing countries is the responsibility of the manufacturer."

According to the representatives of the NGO Pesticide Action Network (PAN), the statements by major German companies such as Bayer, BASF or Hoechst that developing countries no longer import products which cannot be sold or used in Germany, and that they do not import obsolete products, must be treated with caution.

These companies apparently abide by the laws of the importing country and ensure that they do not export products that are outlawed in those countries. The Bayer corporation claims that it is company policy not to export dangerous chemicals to countries lacking the proper legislation.

However, the Special Rapporteur's attention was drawn to the situation on the ground - the existence of illicit trafficking in pesticides and the injury to life and health resulting from the improper use of these products in certain developing countries.

Cambodia has been cited as an example. Over 50 kinds of dangerous pesticides and organo-phosphorous compounds such as parathion methyl, mevinphos, methamidophos and monocrotophos are apparently being illegally exported to Cambodia through Thailand and Vietnam. One of these products, Folidol, is an extremely dangerous pesticide manufactured by Bayer A.G.; another, Thiodan, is manufactured by the German firm AgrEvo.

The pesticides find their way on to all markets in the capital city of Phnom Penh, as well as in the provinces. The labels are incomprehensible to Cambodians as they are printed in Thai or Vietnamese. In Phnom Penh, the products are sold on market stalls specializing in goods used in agriculture. But even here the traders have little knowledge of the pesticides they offer. In provincial towns, the situation is slightly different: a wide range of pesticides are sold in less specialized stalls which sell a varied range of goods.

One can find small bottles of Folidol among instant coffee and milk powder, medicine and drug-store articles.

The speed and effectiveness of organophosphates convince farmers to buy. Pesticides are put to use with no knowledge of target cultures, target pests, dosage, risks and protective measures. Hardly any farmers use the chemicals in the correct way. Different products are often mixed together without knowledge of the intrinsic properties of the mixture.

Even if the labels were printed in Khmer, only a few would be able to read them. Should the users be able to read and understand the labels, most of them would find it difficult to adhere to the recommended protective measures.

Protective clothing is expensive and unbearable to wear in the humid tropical heat. Wearing rubber boots and storing products in a locked place is also unrealistic for many users. Clothing worn while applying pesticides is not necessarily changed or washed, but is treated just as any other piece of clothing. Instructions to leave a period of time between the last pesticide application and the harvest are not followed, so that sometimes the crop is sprayed the day before the harvest. It is even common for pesticides to be used to kill fish either for private consumption or to be sold on the market.

In view of the extremely poor conditions under which pesticides are used, PAN informed the Special Rapporteur that it had requested Bayer to ensure that Folidol, which plays an important role in the Cambodian pesticide market, is not sold under those conditions in Cambodia.

Responding to the Special Rapporteur's concerns on allegations that there has been an increase in the illicit trade of obsolete pharmaceuticals and chemicals which are banned in industrialized countries but which continue to be exported freely to the developing countries, the Netherlands authorities stated they enforce European legislation which stipulates that only end products permitted in Europe may be exported. The Netherlands authorities also said their policy conforms to the standards set by the World Health Organization (WHO), for example - compliance with the WHO list of export-prohibited medicines.

However, "there is no restriction on the export of starting materials destined for the manufacture of medicines in other countries. It is the responsibility of the authorities in the importing country to check the quality of imported products, a role performed in the Netherlands by a Ministry of Health Inspectorate."

During her visit to the port of Rotterdam, a transit port for goods exported onwards to a wide variety of destinations, the UN official learnt from the port authority figures that about 500 unlawful attempts to export dangerous waste products are exposed every year.

Many of the consignments are bound for developing countries (Ghana, China, Malaysia). In Asia-bound cargoes, these attempts chiefly involve plastic wastes containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). More than 5 million containers pass through the port annually and approximately 80 a day are X-rayed. The images obtained are compared with the description of the product on the consignment note. If the images are suspicious, the container is opened to check its contents. Thus, in a Ghana-bound container with a purported consignment of car parts, customs officers were able to discover freon-filled refrigerators.

The specific case raised with the Netherlands refers to the death of Haitian children after ingesting an anti-pyretic syrup made from glycerine unsuitable for medical use, which had been exported to Haiti by a Netherlands-based company. In 1996 and 1997, at least 48 children in Haiti allegedly died of acute kidney failure after taking contaminated liquid acetaminophen (trade name: Afebril) made by Pharval, a pharmaceutical company in Haiti. The Haitian acetaminophen was contaminated with an automobile antifreeze ingredient called diethylene glycol.

It is alleged that the Netherlands company Vos BV knew that the medication delivered to Haiti in 1995 and which caused the death of Haitian children was not pure. An investigation revealed that the company had sent a sample of the glycerine to a laboratory for analysis prior to delivery. Although the results showed that the glycerine was unsuitable for medical use, it was still sold, through a German company, with a "pharmaceutical quality" certificate.

After questions were raised about its role by the Netherlands Ministry of Public Health, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the competent government bodies, Vos stated in 1997 that the glycerine had not been tested by a laboratory. However, the glycerine does in fact appear to have been tested in late February 1995 by SGS Laboratory Services in Dordrecht, around the time it was transported from Amsterdam to Haiti, says the human rights report.

"According to employees of SGS Laboratory Services, that laboratory had carried out research for Vos 'for years.' According to the laboratory report compiled by SGS, the glycerine was only 53.9% pure, whereas according to international pharmaceutical standards, glycerine must be at least 95% pure. Vos BV had posted labels on the barrels of glycerine bearing the certificate 'GLYCERINE 98 PCT USP': the designation 'USP' (United States Pharmacopoeia) is an internationally recognized certification in the pharmaceutical industry.

The affair came to light in July 1997 after dozens of children had died in Haiti after taking paracetamol syrup for fever, sore throat and headache. The syrup, in which the glycerine delivered by Vos was an important ingredient, had been produced by the Haitian pharmaceutical company Pharval. In 1997, the Haitian government requested help from the FDA to carry out an investigation to discover the origins of the glycerine. FDA investigators visited different countries, including the Netherlands, and their subsequent report revealed that the glycerine had been mixed with the antifreeze diethylene glycol. In high does, this product is fatal for children.

As regards progress on this case, it appears that the legal proceedings are still on. "In March 1998 the Netherlands government briefed the Special Rapporteur on the progress of the investigation launched on 4 August 1997. The conversation she had with Mr. Gert Haverkate, the prosecutor handling the case, enabled her to note the stage reached in the enquiry. However, information which remains confidential at this stage cannot be revealed."

The report adds that "the Special Rapporteur stressed that the matter should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, without sacrificing the interests of the victims or the search for the truth in favour of an amicable solution with the enterprise implicated in the affair." She also emphasized that the handling of this case would form a precedent in terms of encouraging or discouraging illicit trade in dangerous substances.

In the case of Germany, when asked about the possibility of helping to resolve the case of the barrels of toxic waste stored at the port of Asuncion in Paraguay, officials stated that the German government "would look favourably upon any request submitted to it in this matter. But for reasons of morality and efficiency, they believed it was important to try to establish the truth by determining the origin of the product involved and prosecuting those responsible."

For cases of illicit traffic in dangerous wastes - such as occurred with certain German exports to Albania, Portugal and Romania - there is a procedure and a special fund to secure their repatriation. The fund, set up in 1996, is maintained by contributions from all enterprises involved in waste management. It currently contains DM 16 million. Contributions are reimbursed to enterprises which commit no offenses within a three-year period. This incentive has apparently led to a decline in illegal exports from 12 cases in 1996 to 2 in 1999.

Of the legal exports of wastes from Germany, the report contains tables which show that Germany has been exporting over a million tonnes of wastes annually between 1995 and 1997. Of these exports, the percentage of dangerous wastes (as per Basel Convention) exported were 740 thousand tonnes in 1995, 321 thousand in 1996 and 600 thousand tonnes in 1997. According to the report, "the only wastes exported are those destined for recycling in countries which allow their importation and posses the appropriate processing capability."

Thus, for instance, German exports of sundry electronic refuse (e.g. circuit boards) to China are meant for recovery of metals or metal compounds; of plastic packaging materials, rubber and synthetic fibre refuse, and shredded plastic to India is meant for recovery of organic substances. Similarly, clothing is exported to Costa Rica for 'recovery of organic substances' and 10,634 tonnes of shredded plastic were exported to the Philippines in 1998 for 'recovery of sundry inorganic substances.'

Responding to the Special Rapporteur's concern over allegations that Western firms do not apply the same standards in developing countries as in industrialized countries (working conditions for local employees; lower production standards; improper use of chemicals prohibited in Western countries which are exported produced or employed without restrictions; transfer of heavily polluted industries; illicit export of dangerous wastes, etc.), a Bayer representative said that the company applied the same standards in developing countries as it demanded for its operations in industrialized countries.

For example, in India and Latin America (Brazil, Mexico and Colombia), Bayer has installed exactly the same kind of incinerators, to exactly the same standards, as the ones which it operates in Germany. "Moreover, in developing countries such as Pakistan it is endeavouring to recover obsolete stocks of pesticides or plant-health products from its factories in order to destroy them. To this end, the German Cooperation and Development Agency is working with Bayer to pinpoint the whereabouts of existing stocks." (SUNS4662)

The above article first appeared in the South-North Development Monitor (SUNS) .

[c] 2000, SUNS - All rights reserved. May not be reproduced, reprinted or posted to any system or service without specific permission from SUNS. This limitation includes incorporation into a database, distribution via Usenet News, bulletin board systems, mailing lists, print media or broadcast. For information about reproduction or multi-user subscriptions please contact < suns@igc.org >