|
space Press Releases, News Stories |
|
Basel Action Network
Press Release
The developing countries' revolt ensued when they were surprised by the revelation that many member states of the EU (European Union) and the OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development) wished to be excluded from the requirements of the protocol and instead make use of bilateral, or multilateral agreements with add-on, or national, liability provisions of their own making. These provisions could be weaker than those of the Protocol itself. The rift was exacerbated further by the unwillingness of these same rich countries to commit to the creation of a fund to provide compensation in instances when the courts cannot and also to fund preventative measures. This fund is viewed by developing countries as one of the pillars of the proposed agreement. Developing countries and environmental organizations alike, accused the OECD countries of negotiating in bad faith as those richer countries spent many sessions working steadily to successively weaken the protocol and then, in what was to be the last session, revealed their clear intentions to circumvent it. Germany and Austria even claimed on the floor that they never wanted the protocol and without an opt-out provision would not ratify. But developing countries voiced concerns that if the developed countries opted-out, there would be no incentive for them to ratify and without their contributions there would never be an adequate fund. "First, the richest and most powerful countries reduced the Protocol to a few limp strands of spaghetti," said Basel Action Network (BAN) coordinator, Jim Puckett, «then, once that mission was accomplished, they said this is not for us, but rather its for you developing countries." BAN and other environmental organizations have condemned the protocol draft as it allows producers of hazardous wastes to avoid liability simply by passing toxic wastes to brokers for export - a move which contradicts both the "Polluter Pays Principle," and would in fact provide actual incentives for industry to export its waste to avoid domestic liability. Such incentive flies in the face of the Basel Convention's objective to reduce global waste trade. They have likewise denounced an exemption for longer-term damage such as that caused by leaking landfills or residues from recycling etc. - the more common source of damages from hazardous waste disposal. In the meeting's final day, Colombia, representing the non-OECD, developing countries stated that they would seek a "meaningful" protocol at the 10th Anniversary Basel Convention Conference of the Parties (COP5), scheduled 6-10 December 1999 in Basel, Switzerland. There, they hope that the ministers will be able to salvage a worthy agreement for all countries from the unraveling nine year effort. "Countries like Canada, USA, Australia, and Germany must move from protecting the interests of their industrial lobbies to the Protocol's original intent - protecting victims of toxic waste," said Waldemar Braul, BAN legal advisor from Canada's West Coast Environmental Law Association (WCELA). "Without fundamental strengthening, the Basel Liability Protocol will be a global embarrassment and a dangerous precedent for other international efforts for providing protection to victims of industrial hazards." For more Information Contact: Jim Puckett, Basel Action Network
Coordinator Waldemar Braul, Legal Counsel More News |
|
|