WASTE TRADE For the past three decades, poor African nations have been used as the dumping

sites for hazardous toxic waste materials from developed countries who are out to reduce the costs of disposing or recycling these by-products of industries. Caught in a stranglehold by economic hardship, many African nations have been lured by the potential financial gains (which in some cases have exceeded the GDP of many poor countries), of importing hazardous waste from the West. The dumping of toxic waste materials poses a grave environmental threat to African people, many of whom are not aware of the dangers and are not equipped to handle the ensuing consequences. The magnitude of the problem has become a major international environmental and trade issue, and has prompted two global and regional attempts to regulate and monitor the international transport of hazardous wastes. Signed in 1987, the Basel Convention is the first global attempt to regulate and monitor the transboundry movement of hazardous waste. The second is the United Nations Environment Program's adoption of the Cairo Guidelines and Principals for the Environmentally Sound Management of Hazardous Waste. Equally important and perhaps more significant on a regional level, is the Organization of African Unity's (OAU) voting of a resolution banning the acceptance of waste materials by all member countries. Despite these significant worldwide attempts to curb the lucrative but hazardous business, clandestine waste trading still continues. For the past three decades, poor African nations have served as the dumping ground for toxic hazardous waste materials, i.e. raw sewage, sludge, incinerated ashes, contaminated oils, chemical substances, acids, poisonous solvents ejected by chemical, pharmaceutical, and fertilizer producing plants in the industrialized world. High regulatory standards (although marred by regulatory loopholes) and the equally high costs of disposing the industrial byproducts in the West, have brought about the growth of a secondary and very lucrative waste dumping industry. Where are these by-products being shipped off to? They are clandestinely being shipped off to poor developing nations. The major destination has been the vast amount of used and unused land available in many African countries. Why is it that a number of African countries (independent business owners and some governments) have ignored the long-term and obvious dangers associated with untreated and therefore hazardous waste materials? The

predominant driving force behind the importation of these waste materials has been the desperate need for these countries to earn income in the form of hard currency in an attempt to alleviate the economic hardships and high poverty levels prevalent in all developing countries. Furthermore, the greed of a few African business owners with the desire to make a relatively enormous amount of money in foreign currency, in a relatively short amount of time, have also had a significant role in the growth of the waste dumping industry in African countries. Reports of individual African business owners signing deals to import waste materials for a fraction of the cost of recycling or disposal in the West, have been made public in a number of countries, (See Benin, Nigeria and Somalia cases). Uncontrolled dumping of toxic wastes in Africa has been traced back to the early 1970s, when reports of clandestine deals between African countries and companies in the United States, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Italy and the former U.S.S.R. began surfacing. Rumors of toxic waste sites in different African countries (predominantly in West Africa) were soon substantiated by evidence such as leaking barrels (see Nigeria case), and aerial photographs of a constructed dumping site, (see Benin case). The high growth of industries in developed countries has been accompanied by an equally high increase in the production of by- products which are often toxic and hazardous to land, air, water and all living beings, if not treated and disposed of as required under the guidelines of environmental safety regulations, which attempt to ensure the least negative impact on the environment. In 1947, the worldwide generation of waste was estimated at 5 million metric tons, (See Basel Case). By 1988, the total amount of waste production had risen to 300 million metric ton, (See Nigeria case). Because industrial by-products contain many chemicals and substances that cannot be recycled nor disposed of very easily, one of the biggest challenges for the major industrialized countries has become the disposal of waste materials, as more and more industrialized countries fill up their landfills, and the price of processing the waste materials continues to increase. The cost of disposing waste products in any given industrialized nation can reach $3000 a ton, whereas selling untreated waste to an African nation reportedly is as low as $5 a ton. That is approximately one thousandth of the cost of processing the waste in

any given industrialized country, which tends to have stricter requirements for waste recycling and disposal .These figures translate to enormous profits for the exporting businesses. While it is also true that from an African nation's perspective, waste importing African governments and\or independent business owners make a relatively hefty bundle of hard currency in the short-term, the cost of cleaning up the effects of the toxic dumping, outweigh the long-term costs and environmental effects on the people and the economy. The majority of the waste trade destined for cheap dumping locations in Africa, is conducted clandestinely. Waste is bought and sold just like any other commodity and traded as a liability."Toxic commodity brokers" operate in the shadows from a number of operating sites. Identified sites include Gibraltar, the Isle of Man, and Liechtenstein. The ships' destinations are often not disclosed, and the contents of the cargo are usually identified as harmless items such as fertilizer or building materials. The process is reportedly very simple. It begins with registering a private company. The second step is to buy waste materials with no questions asked. The most challenging part is finding a dump site. Renting a ship and hiring a crew follows and is considered relatively easy to do. The easiest part is watching the money come in. The magnitude of the problem has become a major international environmental and trade issue prompting two global attempts, and an African effort under the auspices of the Organization of African Unity, to regulate the transboundry movement of waste materials from the industrialized countries to developing countries. The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) initiated the first global attempt against irresponsable waste trading. In 1987, it adopted the Cairo Guidelines and Principals for the Environmentally Sound Management of Hazardous Waste which contained recommendations concerning the trading of toxic waste. Under the guidelines, the exporter is responsible for ensuring that the disposal site meets the safety requirements of national and international regulations. The 1987 Basel Convention an offspring of the UNEP Cairo guidelines and the first international effort to formalize regulation of hazardous waste procedures into international law, was signed by 116 nations. The convention sought to regulate the transboundry movement of hazardous waste. Twenty-nine articles and six annexes regulate cross inational border shipping and trading of hazardous material. Equally important, and with more regional significance

was the voting of a resolution by the Organization of African Unity (OAU) to ban member countries from accepting industrial waste products. Despite the OAU's attempts to ban member countries from waste trading, a number of countries have violated the ban. The reasons for doing so are based on economics; the need to generate substantial amounts of revenue to alleviate the economic hardships faced by African countries. Caught in a stranglehold by economic hardship, many African nations have been and continue to be lured by the potential financial gains, which in some cases exceed the GDP of many countries, of importing hazardous waste from the West. African countries accepting waste products from the developed countries have done so under crisis situations, i.e. severe balance of payment deficits, external loan payment defaults, civil war created by among other factors, their weak income earning power on the global market. In the past decade, a number of country specific African cases have served to heighten global attention to the transboundry movement of toxic wastes, but also raised many questions about the effectiveness of regulations made by the UNEP guidelines, the Basel Convention and the OAU ban against hazardous waste trading. As members of the Organization of African Unity, Benin, Guinea-Bissau, Nigeria, Somalia and Zimbabwe are just a few of the countries which have violated the OAU ban against importing toxic waste trading. In 1987, the infamous Koko deal in Nigeria took place. A deal was signed between an Italian waste broker and a Nigerian business man, that would allow the Italians to store waste products on his land for $100 a month, (see Nigeria Case). In 1988, the Benin government negotiated a bilateral deal with the French government to import radioactive and industrial waste for an advance of $1.6 million and 30 years of economic assistance (see Benin case). It defended the decision to import the waste as a matter of survival. For an extremely impoverished country like Guinea-Bissau, the prospect of earning $20million, a substantial added percentage to national income was too difficult to pass up. However, public outcries led to the cancellation of the deal. It has been suggested that Guinea- Bissau would have earned its entire gross domestic product from toxic waste trade. During the Somali civil war, a deal was made with one of the warring sides to dump hazardous material in the country. International media reports drew outrage from the international and local community which stopped the deal, (see Somali case). In all these cases,

accepting the dangerous by- products has been determined by, and the dangerous consequences superseded by the need to make money, whether it is for the genuine need to earn much needed income or the simple fact of accumulating wealth. Both the exporting and importing counterparts violated international treaties to which these countries are signatories. These cases are just a few which demonstrate the ineffectiveness of global and regional attempts to regulate an industry, which appears to have significant monetary gains (short-term though they may be) that overshadow its very hazardous impacts. This factor has been the basis for the international call to go beyond regulating waste material trading. Environmental groups such as the Greenpeace Movement have called for the outright ban, which would do away with the legitimacy regulations give to the industry. How beneficial is this do-or-die method of income generation? Even though waste importation may be an alternative solution to the desperate search for revenue, it is clear African countries are ill-equipped to dispose of the waste properly. The dumping of toxic waste materials poses grave environmental and health threats to African people, many of whom are not aware of the dangers and are not equipped to handle the ensuing consequences. Evidence of the potential harm from toxic material has already been identified, (see Benin and Nigeria cases). Africa is a viable alternative for waste dumping because it demands low disposal fees and entails a disposal process that includes nothing more than finding a site (suitable or unsuitable), and burying the dangerous substances without processing them, and with no adherence to the international and local environmental regulatory standards. The low public awareness of the dangers involved, and the willingness of some African local officials and individual business owners to ignore the dangers in exchange for financial gains, further facilitate the process. Does poverty and the desperate need to get out of it, circumvent the potential far-reaching harm, toxic waste can ultimately have on the environment and the African people? Does the end (short-term gains in this case) justify the means? Toxic waste importing African countries have yet to realize that in reality, it is the exporting countries who stand to gain the most from the deals. By using

Africa as a dumping site, industrialized countries avoid the high costs of incinerating and recycling its wastes according to the Common Market laws, and Africa picks up the cost of cleaning the damage caused by the wastes, thereby nullifying the entire attempt to generate revenue to alleviate poverty