Monitoring The UN > The UN and Sustainable Development

Waste Management
UNA-Canada's "On the Road to Brazil" Series
-Issue Paper No.4-

Waste Management: An Introduction

Along with many benefits, economic growth has brought with it the twin perils of widespread use of chemicals in industry, business and the home and the enormous production of wastes of all kinds. These threats have an alarming potential for harming both the environment and human health. All countries face these problems, but some -- chiefly as a result of wealth and experience -- are far better equipped to deal with them than others. In many poor countries, the rapid growth of cities and industrialization have raced ahead of the government’s ability to cope with the sheer magnitude of solid wastes that are generated daily and chemicals over which they have little control.

Chemicals represent about 10% of total world trade in terms of value. An estimated 70-80,000 chemicals are now on the market -- although no complete inventory has ever been done and most have never been tested for toxicity. This situation is beginning to change as some governments move gradually towards a system of testing all new chemicals before they come to market.

Most industrialized countries, including Canada, have passed tough environmental laws to deal with both chemicals and wastes. Rigid guidelines are set for the use, storage, and disposal of dangerous and toxic substances, backed up by stringent sanctions. Depending on the severity of the violation, persons not in compliance with these standards can face stiff jail sentences or heavy fines.

Disparities in International Standards

Unfortunately, there are wide differences in standards between industrialized and developing nations. Legislation protecting the environment is generally much weaker in developing countries because of the higher premium they place on economic growth. For the same reason, technical standards for handling, storing, and disposing of toxic wastes are usually lower. In addition, most Third World countries lack the resources (laboratories, trained workers) to assess the risks of chemical use and thus they have no way to control chemicals entering their borders that may have been banned elsewhere.

The result is that a number of Third World countries -- particularly in Africa -- have become dumping grounds for industrial wastes. Unscrupulous corporations, in addition to conducting illegal dumping domestically, also export toxic and dangerous products and wastes abroad. Moreover, legislation has not been entirely effective in reducing the amount of hazardous and toxic wastes being dumped. The Third World is further exploited by deceptive marketing, unsafe operations, and double standards.

In essence, some of the most toxic and hazardous wastes in the industrialized world are being passed on to those countries least equipped to deal with them. The quantity of toxic waste exported is significant and will remain so as long as the trafficking is economically advantageous. As environmental restrictions have increased in Europe and North America, costs for waste disposal have soared. Quite recently, the government of Benin of Africa’s west coast was accepting waste for US $3 a tonne (a metric tonne = 1000 kg or 1.102 tons). In Europe and the United States, incineration can cost as much as $2,000 a tonne. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has estimated that 2.5 million metric tonnes of toxic waste originate each year in Western Europe alone. So far, laws against these exports have been difficult to enforce.

Illegal Traffic

The illegal international traffic also includes the export of goods rejected elsewhere as unsafe. Pesticides such as DDT and dieldrin, which are restricted or banned in countries with strict controls, are used extensively in developing countries. The value of such exports from the United States alone is estimated at $300 million a year. Frequently, these exports are not labelled in the language of the receiving country or they are used by illiterate or barely literate workers. In consequence, although developing countries use about one-fifth of the world’s pesticides, they account for three-fifths of global pesticide-related deaths.

The operating principle behind the illegal traffic in hazardous substances seems to be "out of sight, out of mind" -- the same principle which allowed the hazardous waste problem to proliferate in buried dump sites nearer to home. Unless high standards are set and enforced, then toxic nightmares like Love Canal are bound to be repeated around the world. It amounts to a high risk game of "juggle the poison" -- the problem is not solved; it is merely moved around, leaving the threat to the earth’s ecology intact.

International Agreements

In recent years, some progress has been made in managing the traffic in toxic wastes. More countries are clamping down on how much, if any, waste they will accept. In 1983 the United Nations published a consolidated list (the International Register of Potentially Toxic Chemicals -- IRPTC) of products which had been banned, withdrawn, severely restricted, or not approved by governments. It has since been updated twice and now includes annotated entries for some 8,000 trade names.

After a 20-month process, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) succeeded in obtaining the signatures of 116 countries for the landmark Basel Convention or, more accurately, the Global Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. It establishes four key principles:

The generation of hazardous waste should be reduced to a minimum at the source. Such wastes should be treated as close as possible to their point of generation. Hazardous wastes should be shipped only to countries with adequate treatment facilities to deal with them safely.

The export of hazardous wastes should be controlled by an international management system. This would provide accurate listing and identification of the wastes shipped, and require the prior informed consent of the countries of importation and transit. Canada signed the convention in March 1989 and is now engaged in the process of ratification, which consists of ensuring that all domestic regulations are in accord with the treaty. The Convention must be ratified by at least 20 countries before it enters into force.

The European Economic Community also signed an aid and trade agreement called Lomé 1V in December 1989 which bans exports of nuclear and toxic wastes to 66 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.

While international treaties such as these should help reduce the illegal traffic in hazardous substances, they are not enough to satisfy some environmentalists. Greenpeace and other environmental groups have called for a total ban on the export of both hazardous wastes and pesticides. This would require countries to develop and implement improved techniques to treat, detoxify or incinerate hazardous wastes within their own borders.

In the case of Canada and the United States, hazardous wastes currently go both ways and are regulated by a 1986 agreement. This bilateral agreement is based on the principle that such wastes should be treated at the nearest licensed facility, so as to minimize the distances they must travel to ensure their environmentally sound disposal. Canada does not support any bans on exports or imports of hazardous wastes, in particular those destined for recycling operation. The Canadian position is based on the following reasons.