space Press Releases, News Stories

THE NEW STRAITS TIMES

Parties to the Basel Convention had, during the recent Meeting of the Fourth Conference of Parties in Kuching, agreed to ratify the amendment for the ban.

Despite the positive outcome which environmentalists hailed as a victory, one issue which almost caused a further delay to the ban remained unsettled.

It is the proposal to expand the Convention's Annex VII which currently consists of states which are members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Community and Liechtenstein.

It started with Monaco and Israel requesting to be included in the list. Slovenia had submitted its proposal just before the conference began.

The proposal is strongly supported by developed nations but condemned by developing countries. However, opposition among a few developing nations, including Malaysia, had slackened of late.

They have instead suggested the establishment of a set of criteria by which to judge countries wanting to be included in Annex VII. As such, the conference had decided to keep the issue open. As a compromise for the ban, the conference had agreed to analyse the implications of allowing other countries to be included in Annex VII. This means the issue will be discussed again at the Fifth Conference of Parties in two years.

Why has the issue of Annex VII become so important? Environmentalists said developed nations were pushing for the expansion of Annex VII as a ploy to delay the implementation of the ban. They want to create a loophole in the Convention so that they are able to continue dumping their hazardous wastes in Third World countries. It is extremely expensive to dispose of wastes in their own countries.

For developing nations, environmentalists said the change of heart could only mean these countries planned to circumvent the ban so that they could continue to receive wastes from developed countries. The ban only applies to the export of hazardous wastes from countries listed under the Annex VII to countries not listed. It does not prohibit movements of hazardous wastes among countries in the list or among countries outside the list.

Department of Environment deputy director-general Rosnani Ibarahim denied that Malaysia planned to import hazardous wastes from developed countries.

"We do not import any hazardous waste and we do not plan to do so in future," she said.

Malaysia does import metal scraps, though, such as copper, lead and steel scraps for recovery. In fact Malaysia, like a few other developing countries, was earlier reluctant to ratify the amendment to the ban because it was afraid these raw materials would be affected.

It was confirmed at the conference that most of the metal scraps would not be affected by the ban. What is the reason, then, behind Malaysia's support for the setting of criteria for Annex VII?

Science, Technology and Environment Minister Datuk Law Hieng Ding said the move was to ensure a country did not automatically qualify for Annex VII just because it became an OECD member.

"What we are concerned about is whether the country has the capability to handle hazardous wastes safely. We should set a criteria stating that a country has to be capable of handling wastes in an environmentally sound manner before it can join Annex VII," he said.

From the business point of view, Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers' committee member Lim Cheng Sang who represented the local industry said Malaysia should support the expansion of Annex VII to keep its option open for future needs.

"We may not need it now because we do not generate hazardous wastes. What about when we have become a developed nation in the year 2020? We will be generating hazardous wastes then and we may want to trade wastes with the OECD countries," he said.

Lim said the country might also need to set up its own hazardous waste treatment plant. When this happened, the country might need to import wastes to ensure the running of the plant was economically viable.

Greenpeace International's Marcelo Furtado from Brazil said Slovenia wanted to join Annex VII because it was concerned about its lead acid battery plant which was designed to work at a much higher capacity. The capacity is more than what the country generates, therefore it needs to import wastes.

Singapore's Environment and Health Minister Yeo Cheow Tong said a country that has the capacity should not be prevented from receiving wastes for treatment.

"What is more important is that developing countries must ensure they have the capability to treat wastes. We must not be dogmatic but pragmatic in our approach," he said.

Greenpeace's legal adviser in the political unit Kevin Stairs said the proponents of criteria were putting the focus on waste treatment instead of on the prevention of waste generation. Every country should be responsible for treating their own wastes.

International Chamber of Commerce's chairman of Waste Working Group Dr Harvey Alter said however, preventing waste trade would hamper industries from building up on their environmentally sound management system.

"In this context, the Convention went off tangent by concentrating on the ban. The Convention already provides a system of control. It has the prior informed consent, the liability protocol and environmental management system to ensure safe handling of hazardous wastes," he said.

Under the Convention, transboundary movement of hazardous wastes can only take place upon written notification to the state of import, export or transit.

Alter, who is also the United States Chamber of Commerce's resources policy department manager, said it was the responsibility of the importer and exporter to ensure their wastes were treated in the proper facility and handled safely. "What is the ban serving - waste organisations, environmental protection or waste resources? The answer is none of these.

"How do we manage wastes so that the people and environment can be protected? One way is to recycle. We do not want to bury metal residues in the ground because they can cause leaching. We can recycle them and recover metals," he said.

Alter said Malaysia, for instance, has a big electronics industry and wastes generated from it should be recycled. He said even the United Nations under its sustainable development programmes promoted recycling. He said the Basel Convention was against recycling because waste products and raw materials were misunderstood terms.

Environmentalists said developed nations were using recycling as an excuse to continue dumping their toxic wastes in Third World countries. Jim Puckett, the secretary of the newly-formed Basel Action Network (BAN), said recycling was good only if it did not involve hazardous wastes.

Toxic wastes can never be recycled safely even in the best of conditions. Puckett said many lead recycling plants in the US had been shut down because they were contaminating the environment. This, he said, was the reason why such plants had appeared in developing countries.

He said there were 38,000 contaminated sites in the US which would cost billions of dollars to clean up. Environmentalists accuse developed nations and their business sector of treating hazardous wastes like a commodity and turning the Convention into a trade for recyclables to suit their own means.

"Recycling is a problem and not part of the solution. The solution is to minimise wastes and this can be done via clean production and technology.

Environmentalists said parties to the Convention should not even consider the expansion of Annex VII which could undermine the ban. Environmental Protection Society of Malaysia's adviser Gurmit Singh said instead of focusing on recycling, parties should start talking about clean production.

He said the Basel ban would encourage the development of clean technology and would give the people a basis to demand clean production.

United Nations Environment Programme's newly elected executive director Klaus Topfer concurred. He said there was need for an overall change in production. For this, he said, political and industrial will is needed.