Industrial Waste Exports
I. Abstract
Industrialization has been good for the West. Increased
economic power, quality among classes, and a higher standard of
living can all be attributed to industrialization. Increasingly,
however, the West is coming face to face with some of the
negative consequences of the process. Perhaps the greatest of
these problems is that of industrial waste, namely how to dispose
of it. It is obvious that the West will do anything it can to
remove waste products from its borders. The problem is in the
clearly visible trend toward final disposal. The Third World, and
now the developing countries of Eastern Europe, are the last
destination for these products, to the dismay of environmental
interest groups. Encompassed in the idea of a "dumping ground" are
a number of factors, particularly cultural bias in the part of the
West, and economic problems in the receiving countries. An
examination of several cases illustrates this developing trend.
II. Issue Background
The industrialized countries of the West are exporting their
environmental problems to underdeveloped countries. The
recipients have gained the reputation of being the West's
"dumping ground" as a result of this practice. Albania was only
one country to receive this label when it accepted a shipment of
expired pesticides from Germany (1). It is clear that a new
disparity is emerging between industrialized and non-industrialized
countries, between those who can afford to ship their problems
beyond their borders and those who have little choice but to accept
them.
Countries such as Albania, which are categorized as non-
industrialized, already suffer from a weak economy. Accepting a
questionable shipment of industrialized by-products is an
excellent opportunity to generate hard currency. In the long-term,
however, this solution tends to create more problems than it
solves. The fact that these countries have more or less avoided
industrialization means that they have preserved the natural beauty
of the environment. In theory, this could be an excellent
marketing tool to attract tourists and build an
industry. The leakages and spillages associated with toxic
dumping, though, drive tourists away.
In reality, the only parties who benefit from this practice
are the exporters. Not only are they relieved of environmental
hazards, but they also save a tremendous amount of money.
Recycling and disposal are much cheaper when performed in a less
developed region. The recent export of fuel substitute from West
Germany to Turkey is an excellent example of this concept. The
fuel substitute, which contained hazardous chemicals, would have
cost the German company 1.2 million deutschmarks for every 1,500
tons incinerated in Germany. In Turkey, however, the process cost
less than one-sixth the German price. By exporting 100,000 tons to
Turkey, Weber of Salach, the German company, saved a great deal of
money.
A number of other cases illustrate the extent of the toxic
waste trade between developed and developing countries. Since the
1970s, for example, France has led Western Europe in shipping
industrial waste to Africa. France translated the relationship it
had established under colonization into a new era of control over
underdeveloped countries. While African nations are now
politically independent, they still need Western Europe's support
to survive economically.
The new industry of waste disposal has not been rejected by
developing countries because of the perceived economic benefits
they will accrue. The environmental and health hazards with this
type of trade pale in comparison to the benefits of attracting hard
currency. In addition, when shipments involve pesticides, the
recipients believe that agricultural production will thrive,
thereby boosting the economy. Developing countries are generally
oblivious to the dangers involved and thus use them without
question. They cannot afford to buy Western pesticides at market
value for widespread use. As a result, any received at a
discount are welcomed.
Until recently, most cases involved waste from the
industrialized West being disposed in Africa and Asia's
undeveloped countries. The dispute between Schmidt-Cretan of
Germany and the Albanian government, however, gives some
indication of a disturbing new trend. During the height of the
Soviet empire, there was no question that Eastern Europe and the
West did not trade with one another, least of all in the area of
industrial waste. Ties between the West, Africa and Asia were much
stronger, plus these countries were not ruled by communist regimes.
As a result, they became ideal receptacles for Western industrial
waste.
The collapse of the Soviet Union, and subsequent fall of Enver
Hoxha's regime in Albania, changed this scenario
dramatically. As Eastern Europe opens to Western investment and
trade, it is increasingly apparent that economic conditions in
these countries mirror those in the underdeveloped regions of
Africa and Asia. Western Europe has thus found a dumping ground in
its backyard where before there was only a Communist bloc.
In its search for hard currency, Eastern Europe is only too willing
to accept waste shipments as readily as Africa and Asia did in the
past. Coupled with an uproar over the problems in Africa and Asia
as a result of past trade, the West has turned to Eastern Europe.
Beginning in the late 1980s, after a series of unauthorized waste
dumpings in Africa and Asia, the international environmental
community began to investigate the situation which decreased the
number of shipments. The Organization for African Unity even took
the position that hazardous waste dumping in Africa was a criminal
act. 1989 was also the year of the Basel Convention which set
limits on the amounts and types of waste shipped from OECD to non-
OECD countries. It had become clear that the toxic waste trade was
in danger of failing. For these reasons, the new territories of
Albania and other Eastern
European countries became that much more appealing.
III. Relevant Cases
BENGALI case
In 1992, a U.S.-based company, Stoller Chemical, shipped
approximately 3,000 pounds of a toxic mixture to both Australia and
Bangladesh. Stoller intentionally added cadmium and lead
contaminated dust it had received from another U.S. company, Gaston
Copper Recycling Corporation, with its own fertilizer. The
resulting mixture contained hazardous levels of lead, which can
cause neurological problems in children, and cadmium, which has
been linked to cancer and kidney problems. The lack of impoundment
laws in Bangladesh meant that the shipment was
allowed to enter uninspected. By October of 1992, the fertilizer
has been distributed throughout the country and was being used by
the agricultural sector. Nothing could be done to mandate a return
of the shipment to the United States, despite evidence that the
materials could pose serious health risks to those people unaware
of the dangers.
TURKEY case
A 1987 case involving the West German company Weber of Salach
and the Turkish government led to the importation of 100,000 tons
of fuel substitute mixed with hazardous materials into Turkey.
The shipment contained paint and enamel sludge, and was to be
burned in Isparta. The Isparta Chamber of Commerce authorized the
import but apparently did not have the right to do so.
Nevertheless, the export of industrial and domestic waste to Turkey
as industrial fuel of for storage was apparently a common practice
up until this point. The Weber of Salach case, however, prompted
the Turkish government to call for stricter regulations on waste
imports. In 1988, Parliament voted to ban the import of industrial
waste.
NIGERIA case
Similar ties have been established between Nigeria and Italy.
Italian businessmen, in 1987, made a large shipment of toxic waste
generated by Italian industry to Nigeria. The
material was to be stored in the backyard of a Nigerian
businessman who only identified it as miscellaneous construction
materials. A scandal broke months later when the barrels used for
storage began to leak into the surrounding area. The result
brought about an investigation into the practice of using African
countries as waste disposal, and unearthed similar situations in
other countries. Guinea-Bissau, for example, agreed to import
500,000 tons of waste from Switzerland for $40 per ton. In purely
economic terms, such an arrangement could only benefit both parties
as Guinea-Bissau would earn $20 million and the Swiss company
escaped the cost of recycling according to the EC's rules. The
result has been stronger safeguards against toxic trade in Nigeria
and other African countries.
JELLYWAX case
Between September 1987 and June 1988, the Italian firm
Jellywax shipped 2,400 tons of chemical waste to Lebanon. The
Lebanese government had not approved the shipment, but it found its
way into Lebanon anyway through ports outside of the
government's control. Once the barrels of waste were discovered,
government officials made every effort to pressure Italy to remove
them and pay the cleanup costs, but Lebanese Prime
Minister Hoss refused to do so. The only action taken by the
Italian government came in the wake of a threat by a Lebanese
terrorist organization to attack Italian interests in Lebanon. At
the end of 1988, the shipment finally returned to Italy, but some
Lebanese observers still maintain that part of the shipment remains
lost in Lebanon.
ALBANIA case
A German company named Schmidt-Cretan was particularly active
in exploring the new avenue for industrial waste opened up as the
Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. As a result of the
scandals previously generated around such shipments to Africa and
Asia, Schmidt-Cretan used the term "humanitarian aid" to
distinguish its exports. The case began in 1991 when Schmidt-
Cretan sent 480 tons of hazardous chemicals it could no longer use
to Albania. The Albanian government did not object as the shipment
was intended to benefit its flailing agricultural
sector, but it became quickly apparent that the shipment was not
only completely useless, but also posed a serious health risk. The
World Bank and EC have made similar gifts to Albania under the same
pretense, but the reality is that more harm than good is being done
to the country. International pressure brought about the return of
the German shipment, and stricter rules have been formulated to
prevent this from occurring in the future, but the lure of hard
currency remains a temptation to the Albanian
government.
IV. Compare and Contrast
In analyzing each of these cases, it is clear that several
factors are common to all. Perhaps the most outstanding, though,
is the fact that each dispute is categorized as a bilateral one.
This is significant because it indicates that only two parties have
been involved. By examining who these parties have
traditionally been, it is easier to understand the true scope of
the problem.
Each case involves a Western company and the government of a
less industrialized state. Aside from the BENGALI case, which
centered around the U.S., all of these companies were based in
Western Europe, namely Germany and Italy. In contrast, none of the
importers were located in the industrialized world. Rather, the
exports were clearly made to countries as far away from the West,
and Western Europe, as possible. The dumping sites range from
Africa, to the Middle East, to Asia. The lone exception being, of
course, Albania in Eastern Europe.
However, Albania's close proximity to Western Europe is truly
only in a geographical sense. A variety of factors have combined
to make Albania a world away from its Western neighbors, and
therefore much closer to underdeveloped regions of the world (2).
Albania maintained a strictly orthodox communism and
isolated itself completely from other countries, Communist as well
as non-Communist. When the Communist empire collapsed, Albania was
worse off than the rest of Eastern Europe. It was the only
formally atheistic state in Europe and had remained predominantly
agricultural and rural. Its literacy rate and GNP per capita were,
and still are, among the lowest in Europe (3). In many ways,
Albania could be characterized as a Third World nation.
The fact that Western companies have chosen countries such as
Albania to be a dumping ground for their industrial waste indicates
a continuing bias by the industrialized West toward non-
industrialized countries. Admittedly, the greatest incentive in
this decision is the fact that a huge savings is involved in this
type of disposal. However, there must also be an overlying factor
which would allow the West to proceed with this
arrangement. The products in question cause a host of
environmental problems and taint the area where they are
disposed. By exporting them to non-industrialized countries, the
West has made it clear that it has little respect for these states.
The West does not want to handle its own problems, so it exports
them to countries which it cares little about. The countries lack
the political and economic clout to object and force cleanup
efforts.
However, in most cases, the non-industrialized world is
willing to accept the shipments for the perceived economic
benefit. It has become obvious, though, that any economic
benefit is canceled by the long-term environmental problems which
have arisen. Each country involved has reported some type of
pollution, whether land or sea, as a result of accepting the
shipments. Poor packaging and untrained handlers are mainly
responsible as leakages contaminated the land and individuals
handle material unprotected (4).
Select TED cases
| Case Number |
Link |
Environmental Problem |
Urgency & Lifetime |
|
BENGALI case |
POLL |
LONG and 100s of years |
|
TURKEY case |
POLL |
LONG and 100s of years |
|
NIGERIA case |
POLL |
LONG and 100s of years |
|
JELLYWAX case |
POLS |
LONG and 100s of years |
|
ALBANIA case |
POLL |
LONG and 100s of years |
As a further illustration of the apparent bias, one should
note that clean up efforts have not been readily addressed by the
exporting companies or their countries of origin. In the
JELLYWAX case, the Italian government eventually offered to pay $3
million of the cost. However, the total far exceeded this amount
and it fell to the Lebanese government to shoulder most of the
burden. Only international pressure from environmental groups has
had an effect on the status quo. In Albania, for instance, the
toxic materials from Schmidt-Cretan were forced back to Germany,
but only after they had damaged the environment. In most cases,
though, the problems remain unresolved. The U.S. shipment to
Bangladesh is still in Bangladesh, and part of the materials
imported into Lebanon have been lost there.
The main difference between the ALBANIA case and the rest is
the official reason for the shipment. Prior to ALBANIA, there was
no question what was being shipped, and what the final
destination was. All parties understood what was expected of them;
they were accepting industrial or domestic waste products to be
stored or recycled. The ALBANIA case indicates a new trend toward
couching the true purpose in softer language. Albania received
expired pesticides to supposedly help the agricultural sector, but
the real goal was the same: Western Europe needed to dispose of
unwanted material.
The West clearly cannot look to Africa and Asia as its dumping
ground any longer. Each of the cases involving countries in these
regions resulted in an import ban and stricter trade regulations.
Germany thus seized on the idea of using Albania in this capacity.
The Albanian government was unprepared with import regulations to
prohibit such shipments, and Europe did not regulate exports.
However, the Schmidt-Cretan case helped to instigate a broader
measure designed to protect Eastern Europe, and the rest of the
world, from hazardous Western European exports. While Albania
itself has not instituted an import ban, it may be aided by the
regulations of the Basel Convention, assuming they are heeded. The
1994 agreement requires that all transboundary shipments of
hazardous materials by OECD countries must be
undertaken in an environmentally sound manner. They must be
approved by the exporter, importer, and all intermediaries in an
attempt to prevent further exploitation of non-OECD countries. In
addition, these materials must not be shipped for final
disposal, and will not be allowed for recycling purposes either by
1997.
The Basel Convention is currently the only protection
Albania, and other non-industrialized countries, have against
further contamination. In theory, it appears to be an excellent
means of ending exploitation. The Basel Convention places a number
of regulations on the waste trade, which did not exist previously,
to ensure that each party's interests are observed. In
reality, though, there is still no meaningful treaty or agreement
in effect. While it is true that 116 countries agreed to the
provisions of the Basel Convention in 1989, only a handful have
actually ratified the treaty. Chief among the non-ratifying
nations is the United States. Without the leadership of the U.S.,
non-industrialized countries have little hope for real protection.
If the Basel Convention had the full weight of the U.S. behind it,
it would stand a greater chance of adherence among the signatories. Bibliography
"Albania." U.S. Department of State Dispatch. 18 March 1991.
Greenpeace. Press Release. March 2, 1994.
Harrison, Joseph W. "Albania Begins the Long Road Back from
Serfdom." Business America, 27 January 1992.
"Nice Place to Visit." Future Watch, CNN Transcript Number 109,
April 30, 1994.
References
(1) "Nice Place to Visit." Future Watch. CNN Transcript
Number 109, April 30, 1994.
(2) Harrison, Joseph W. "Albania Begins the Long Road Back
From Serfdom." Business America, 27 January 1992, 12.
(3) "Albania." U.S. Department of State Dispatch. 18 March
1994, 197.
(4) Greenpeace Press Release. March 2, 1994.