The transport of waste material from one nation to the other has been a successful business since it was first initiated. Developed countries found ways to take advantage of this trade, by getting rid of their toxic waste into developing countries.
This incident took place on August 19th, 2006. In the middle of the night, hundreds of tons of toxic waste were secretly dumped at numerous locations throughout the city of Abidjan in Cote D’Ivoire. I was 14 years old when this happened. The chaos that followed after this incident took a toll on the nation as a whole affecting the livelyhood of Ivorians, their health, and the nature.
The aim of this research is to bring awareness and to show the consequences alongside with the regulation of the International Hazardous Waste Trade in developing countries, especially in the Ivory Coast (Côte D’Ivoire). Global production, trade, and finance have facilitated and encouraged the movement of hazardous waste for both disposal and recycling to poor countries in need of foreign exchange (Clapp,1994). The negative effects and consequences of this trade on developing countries, such as Ivory Coast (Côte D’Ivoire) are greater than the gains. It is true that the International Hazardous Waste Trade is just another way for a country to have an additional income, but the downside to this trade rely on serious environmental and health issue that shouldn’t be taken lightly.
As mentioned before the purpose of this research is to bring awareness to the International Hazardous Waste Trade. This particular topic is significant to this day because as the world becomes more and more interconnected, it is predicted that in the following years there will be an increment in the amount of waste will continue to accumulate. Alongside there will be an increase altogether in the population, urbanization, and our consumption. Since products are being created rapidly, newer models of phone for example are being generated and come out every year causing the older model to be off the market and sometimes being recycled when possible. Not only that, with the environmental issues we are currently facing, adding such trade to it will only hinder us instead of improving the situation.
Every year they are about 11.2 billion tonnes of solid waste are collected in the world. During the 1988 one tonne of disposable material was traded between the range of US$2.50 to US$50 per tonne in developing countries whereas the same ton was traded between US$100 to US$2,000 per tonne in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries which were developed. This is an improvement since there used to be little to no regulation at either the international or national level to regulate the trade in toxic waste prior to that.
The hazardous waste trade main flow is between rich countries and poorer one. The main actors of some of the developed countries are Japan, the United State of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and underdeveloped countries most African countries such as Ghana, or India. There has been numerous abuses made by developed countries toward developing countries in order to get rid of their waste material. Since the African continent is relatively poor the need for foreign exchange was valuable, thus making African nations a target to developed countries. Some of these developing countries do not have the right infrastructure to get rid of the material given to them, which then creates environmental problem and health issue to the people who were handling such waste.
Not all waste is hazardous. They are multiple types of waste such as liquid waste, organic waste, recycle waste and many more. The main point of focus is the hazardous waste trade. Hazardous waste is any sort of waste made up of dangerous pollutants that can impact anyone that comes in contact with it without the proper precaution.Examples of hazardous waste can be e-waste, Lead-Acid Batteries, mercury, etc.
The international waste trade has been perceived as an important means for efficiently allocating waste materials to specialized waste disposal and management sites that have appropriate standards, know-how and infrastructures in place. The original purpose of this trade, as mentioned, was to create a win-win situation, but it became an abused by developed countries toward developing countries. They are multiple recorded events that show the abuse. One of the most serious one occurred in 1987. This happen when multiple tons of toxic and radioactive waste were imported to Nigeria. These tons of toxic waste were labeled as “substances relating to the building trade” making it look as if they were non lethal. These materials were exported from Italy. This of course resulted in detrimental health issues to the Nigerian who were exposed to the toxic and radioactive waste. This situation caused the Nigerian government to make drastic changes to their waste trade importation. The Waste trade didn’t get international attention not until the 1980s. By 1992, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) estimated that approximately 400 million metric tons of hazardous waste was generated annually (Lipman, 2002).
It is not after seven years that a ban was placed unto this trade creating what we know today as the Basel Convention. The underdeveloped countries were frustrated by what they believed as neglectful dumping of waste done. This was created as a way of protection for underdeveloped countries. It was place in full effect in 1992 after it being endorsed by 20 countries. The Basel Convention was negotiated to establish a ‘notice and consent’ regime for the export of hazardous waste to importing countries. This ban was introduced in order to reduce the violations made by developing countries and to also to improve the regulation to this trade. The start of these dialogue marked the beginning of global cooperation on the waste trade issue.
Unfortunately, the Basel Convention was unable to ban the hazardous waste trade but instead it regulated it by making sure that there was prior consentment before a trade occurred between two countries. If the waste has been transferred illegally, the exporter would be obliged to take back the waste and pay the costs of any damages and clean-up process. The convention in a was legitimated the waste trade instead of banding it all together.
Basically, if the country you traded the wasteful material too does not have the capability to dispose of it, the trade will not be made. This gave a right for both parties to either refuse or accept the imported waste if they want to do so. The Convention imposed specific obligations on member states. These obligations are intended to ensure environmental justice for developing countries. Some of the main obligations imposed are as follows: To ensure that the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes are reduced to a minimum consistent with environmentally sound management. To recognize and observe the right of states to prohibit the import of hazardous wastes.
To prohibit the export or import of hazardous wastes to or from a non-party. To permit movement of waste only where the state of export does not have the technical capacity or facilities to dispose of the wastes in an environmentally sound manner, unless the wastes are required as raw material for recycling in the state of import. To obtain the prior informed consent of the importing country and each state of transit before shipment. To prevent exports or imports of hazardous wastes if it has reason to believe that the wastes in question will not be managed in an environmentally sound manner.
The convention established that parties should reduce their exports of toxic waste to a minimum and that waste should only be traded internationally if the exporting state does not have the capacity to dispose of them in an environmentally sound manner or if the waste constitute “raw material” (Lipman, 2011). They are presently about 170 countries, that have ratified and approved the Basel Convention. The Bamako Convention was similar to the Basel Convention but it focused more on the import of material into the African Continent.
Other countries were able to exploit the Basel convention by finding loopholes thus abusing this trade. They did so by revealing that the convention lacked a definition between the term “waste” and the term “products”. The Convention definition of “hazardous” allowed the export of hazardous waste to developing countries possible. Developing countries were now masking their substance as recyclable in order for it to be accepted.
This problem was amplified in the case of Ivory Coast (Côte D’Ivoire). Most of the waste that was dumped was in the poorer parts of the city in Abidjan. Among the dumpsites were the city’s lagoon-side main garbage dump, a roadside field beside a prison, and a sewage canal (White, 2008). The people that was affected was recorded to the tens of thousands. Some of them suffered from nausea, headaches, breathing difficulties, stinging eyes and burning skin. More than 100,000 people were treated, according to official records, but it is likely that the number affected was higher, as records are incomplete (Greenpeace, 2012). The number is greater from first hand experience. This incident clearly showed how infective the basel convention is. Eventhough as previously mentioned the Basel convention this was a great improvement to this trade, it is not enough. More improvement can be done in order to make sure such incident isn’t repeated.
The European company trafigura, was the company that was the main cause of the spillage that happened in Abidjan. They withheld important information concerning the waste they were trying to dispose. They knew that the waste would be dangerous and, thus it would require careful treatment and disposal, but they refused to pay for any sort of proper disposal when the option was offered in the Netherlands in order to avoid extra expenses.
Even though Trafigura played an important part in this matter, the rest of the blame needs to be directed toward the Ivorian governments officials who also contributed to this incident. They failed to uphold the international human rights and environmental law, as well as the law of the sea. This judgement appears damning, given Trafigura’s previous denials of any wrongdoing. The waste, which was ultimately dumped in Cote d’Ivoire, had “a huge impact on the lives of tens of thousands of people,” said Benedetta Lacey, a special advisor at Amnesty International who has visited Côte d’Ivoire and met victims of the dumping (Africanresearchbulletin, 2010).
They were serious reciprocation that the corrupted Ivorain official faced along side with the Trafigura company. Even though the lawsuit was successful, some Ivorian which were affected by this event still haven’t received compensation for the damage that was imposed upon them.
The lack of regulation within the Ivorian government resulted in this situation. This could have been a win-win situation for both parties if it was performed the right way. Because this deal was done under the table, it resulted in a catastrophe. Everyone was pointing fingers, but no one would actually take the blame for this issue. International waste trade implicates a multitude of aspects. It sheds light on the transfer of potentially polluting, repulsive, useless and unsolicited by products of our daily lives across national borders and refers to the trade in valuable raw materials and affordable second-hand goods (Gross, M.2014). It is evident that the lack of a structure played an important part in this situation. I will now go further into how this spill affected the community.
