disposal

Letters

Hazardous waste disposal

Madam, It’s a problem that just won’t go away - getting rid of the mountains of haz ardous waste produced in the industrial world. In recent years there have been at least 10 different schemes by waste brokers to ship hazardous materials to Pacific countries for land-fill or incinera tion or just out-of-sight, out-of-mind stor age.

As a result, Papua New Guinea initiat ed the idea of a regional hazardous waste convention at the 1992 South Pacific Forum in Honiara. When signed and brought into effect, the convention (known as the Waigani Convention) will represent a collective “no” to future haz ardous waste import schemes.

As with most agreements dealing with global environment problems, the issue of technology transfer is important in the waste trade debate. The Waigani Convention is no exception.

Industrialised countries such as Australia have argued that if it can assist with or ensure a hazardous waste reprocessing facility built in a developing country is up to standard acceptable to both exporting and importing government,

then this type of technology transfer should not only be allowed but could be encouraged as a form of development.

Obviously, if a developing country is encouraged, with foreign assistance, to invest in capital intensive facilities for reprocessing imported hazardous waste, a continuous stream of hazardous waste imports is necessary to justify the investment. This leaves the developing country with toxic by-products, residues, emissions and removes any incentive for industry to reduce the pro duction of hazardous waste at source.

While several Pacific countries on the working group of the Waigani Convention argued for a commitment not to export hazardous waste to other developing countries outside the Forum region (in recognition of the global regime established under the Basel Convention), Australia was adamant the international decision should not be reflected in the regional convention.

There is one more meeting scheduled to finalise the regional convention before it is due for signing at the next Forum meeting in September. There are three outstanding issues to be decided at the meeting. □ The Waigani Convention preamble still makes reference to the globally agreed Basel ban. While Australia is expected to try to have this reference deleted, it should be retained. □ The original proposal by PNG includes a ban on imports of hazardous substances and products which cannot legally be used in the country where

they are produced. In 1991, for exam ple, 42 pesticides which had been banned, restricted or unregistered for use in the US, were available in the Pacific islands. □ Another suggestion, from the US observer, would exempt military and other aircraft and vessels run by govern ments from outside the region from adhering to the Waigani Convention.

The Basel Convention does not impose such a double standard and neither should the Waigani Convention.

The Waigani Convention is critical to protecting the South Pacific region from damage by imports of hazardous waste.

It also plays an essential role in closing off options for cheap disposal of haz ardous waste by its generators.

PNG deserves congratulations for recognising the threat to this region and initiating action within the South Pacific Forum. The Forum deserves congratula tions for taking up the challenge and keeping it moving.

It is now in the hands of the Forum working group to ensure the spirit and integrity of the Waigani Convention is defended in the home stretch of negoti ations.

Noni Keys,

Greenpeace Pacific Campaigner, Canberra, Australia