space Press Releases, News Stories

by AIM, Mozambiue News Agency

The matter came to light when the environmental organisation Greenpeace published the authorisations earlier this month, as part of an ecological campaign to prevent the incineration of obsolete pesticides in the furnaces of the Mozambican cement company in the southern city of Matola.

Environment Minister Bernardo Ferraz told Metical that the 1996 authorisations "had nothing to do with the planned Matola incineration". The obsolete pesticides were already in Mozambique, some of them had been in the country for over 15 years, and he was convinced that "incinerating them was the best and cheapest technology we can use".

He said he did not want to wage a battle with Greenpeace, but found it annoying that Greenpeace mounted this attack when the Danish government proposed to finance the destruction of obsolete pesticides, but had never said anything about the problem during the previous 15 years.

Ferraz revealed that Mozambique had asked for assistance from Greenpeace over the severe oil spill from the Maltese-registered (but Greek-owned) tanker, the "Katina-P" in 1992. Greenpeace refused to help, he said, and the battle for compensation from the ship's owners, Katina Shipping and their insurers, dragged on for five years.

Mozambique claimed 10.7 million US dollars in damages, but eventually had to settle for only 4.5 million.

As for the 1996 authorisations, Ferraz said that when the consortium of the Argentina-registered International Waste Group and the Mozambican company Amodel, asked for authorisation to import and export waste, Mozambique had not yet ratified the Basle and Bamako conventions prohibiting such activities.

After the authorisations were given, he added, the companies were told they should look at the international conventions, which they would have to follow since Mozambique had signed them (ratification was thus presumably just a matter of time).

They should draw up a detailed project, and make an environmental study which his ministry would approve or reject, said Ferraz.

As far as I know, these companies, with a provisional licence, never imported wastes, Ferraz told the paper. He thought the authorisations should be cancelled. The companies were not using them, and in principle companies granted such investment authorisation should start working on their project within 120 days. "That time limit has passed", said Ferraz.

Asked if the government had studied the international conventions to see whether such authorisations could be granted, Ferraz claimed it was the companies who should undertake such studies.

He admitted that the authorisations had not yet been revoked. He did not think they had ever been used but added "someone should investigate whether they were used". In other words, the man in charge of Mozambique's environment was publicly admitting that he did not really know whether any toxic waste had been imported into the country under a document which he had signed just two and a half years ago.

As for Planning and Finance Minister Tomas Salomao, he had difficulty in remembering the 1996 authorisation. Asked if he had signed a document allowing the import of toxic waste, Salomao expressed surprise, and said "the only thing I know is that it's not about importing wastes. It's an enterprise for the collection and destruction of domestic toxic waste in the main urban centres".

"Do you think I would really be capable of authorising the import of toxic waste ?", he asked the reporter.

Apparently he was, for when Salomao looked through the papers in his office, he found the authorisation he had signed, and it was the same text as published by Greenpeace.

The document does indeed talk about "the collection, treatment and recycling of domestic, hospital and industrial residues and wastes", but it also specifically mentions "the import and treatment of residues and wastes from other countries" (though it adds that this must take place in conformity with the country's environmental legislation).

After discovering the document, Salomao declined to give a categorical yes or no as to whether he had authorised the import of toxic waste.

Like Ferraz, he pointed out that the project had died because the time limits had not been respected. "The project was cancelled", he declared.

One person who did give a straight answer to "Metical" was prominent Frelimo parliamentarian Teodato Hunguana, who had once been a shareholder in Amodel. He said the company never advanced, and its activities did not even begin.

He declared that he was "viscerally opposed" not only to the import of wastes, but also to the Matola incineration. He admitted a personal interest in this, since he lives in Matola, close to the cement factory.

"I am absolutely against importing waste. It is urgent that we legislate to implement the conventions we have ratified", he said.

The consul in the Danish embassy in Maputo, Peter Jul Larsen, told "Metical" that the Danish government was fully aware of the 1996 authorisations, but believed that the Mozambican government would comply with its obligations under the Basle and Bamako conventions which prohibit the import of waste.

He said that the Mozambican government had informed Denmark that the companies who requested the authorisation had been told that no waste imports would be permitted. As a result, plans to set up an industrial capacity for the treatment of toxic wastes in Mozambique had been abandoned.