LONDON/NEW DELHI: Garbage is literally flying and hitting the roof thousands of kilometres away. A TV report about household waste collected weekly across Britain for recycling being shipped and dumped in India has the green brigade up in arms.
As part of Britain's efforts to go green and improve the environment, UK councils ask households to carefully separate waste into different categories: plastics, metal, paper and glass so that they can be recycled.
But, according to an investigation by a British TV channel, these bags are shipped to India on the waste black market, which is cheaper. It costs up to £148 (Rs 12,000) to recycle a tonne of rubbish once it is separated but only £40 (Rs 2,800) to ship it to India.
The investigation found that a receipt put into a paper recycling bin in Essex turned up at the top of a stinking rubbish mound in Tamil Nadu. It was traced to the Walton-on-the-Naze home of Geoff Moore.
His receipt for CDs was found by investigators at a sprawling rubbish heap in Tamil Nadu. They also found juice cartons, British newspapers, Walkers crisp packets, UK school reports and plastic bags.
"International waste follows the path of least resistance just like water. India has little resistance to imports of waste," said Gopal Krishna, environmental health researcher at Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University. "In fact in India there has been an attempt to alter the very definition of waste in order to keep the waste streams flowing. In the last meeting of the Basel Convention, which bans export of hazardous waste from rich to poor countries, the Indian government said that it encouraged trade in recyclable 'metal scrap'. They defined the problem in a way as to justify its continuation."
India has still not ratified the Basel Convention (Ban Amendment to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal) which would have made it mandatory for India to change its domestic laws and stop this nefarious and dangerous trade.
Syamala Mani, director of waste and resource management group at the Centre for Environment Education describes it as dangerous and harmful. "In the garb of municipal waste we end up with dangerous chemicals like plastics and containers that have been used for hazardous chemicals."
Mani said unscrupulous traders grind this and reproduce recycled containers that could then be used to carry food items causing immense risk to public health.
"Biomedical waste and heavy metals too find their way into India through this waste. And we don't even have a single formal metal recovery waste unit in India. All of it is done cheaply in the unregulated sector, which releases the polluting by-products in the air we breathe and the water in our rivers."
Groups in Tamil Nadu have been trying to fight imported waste that’s steadily piling up in the state.
According to a report, about 180 tonnes of US waste was dumped into farm wells near Coimbatore and another 1,000 tonnes is rotting in Tuticorin port. Two cases relating to waste dumping have come up in TN courts recently — one challenging a panchayat decision to cancel a license given to White Star Fibres Ltd for sorting waste paper.
All UK councils are required to recycle. But after householders separate their rubbish and bin workers collect it, councils pass it on to waste firms, who in turn use subcontractors. They are under no obligation to reveal what they actually do with it.
European Union bans sending waste abroad for dumping but allows it to go overseas if it has already been separated and provided that it is actually recycled.
After the TV report, Britain's Environment Agency promised to investigate the matter. Paul Bettison of the Local Government Authority Environment Board called for a change in the law and said, "If a contractor refuses to reveal where materials are being sold it can undermine the whole process."
9 Sep 2008
The Times of India
Note: India has ratified Basel Convention. But it does not have much value because it has not ratified the Ban Amendment to the Basel Convention that effectively banned as of 1 January 1998, all forms of hazardous waste exports from the 29 wealthiest most industrialized countries of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to all non-OECD countries
Brief: Following its adoption in 1989, the Basel Convention was denounced as an instrument that served more to legitimize hazardous waste trade rather than to prohibit what many felt was a criminal activity.Finally, in 1994, a unique coalition of developing countries, and some from Eastern and Western Europe managed to pass by consensus what has come to be known as the Basel Ban (Decision II/12).
This victory for international environmental justice was achieved despite powerful opposition from such countries as the United States, Australia, Germany, Canada, Japan and the United Kingdom.
The Basel Ban decision effectively banned as of 1 January 1998, all forms of hazardous waste exports from the 29 wealthiest most industrialized countries of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to all non-OECD countries.
Following this decision, opponents of the ban argued that the 1994 decision was not legally binding unless it became part of the Basel Convention through amendment. Thus in 1995 the ban decision had to be fought and won again despite massive opposition from such countries as the United States, South Korea, Australia and Canada and a very vocal industrial lobby. The second decision to amend the Convention (Decision III/1) was also passed by a consensus of the Basel Convention Parties.
Unfortunately,the Basel Ban is still under serious attack and needs to be vigilantly protected against further efforts at sabotage primarily by the United States, Australia, Canada and such industrial lobby groups as the United States Chamber of Commerce, and the International Chamber of Commerce. Further, in order for the amendment to enter the force of law it will need to be ratified by 62 of the Basel Parties.
Pursuant to a the phrase "Parties having accepted them" found in Article 17, paragraph 5 of the Basel Convention, it is clear that the Parties intended a "fixed time" approach, regarding entry into force of amendments. Thus three-fourths (3/4) of the Parties that accepted the amendment at COP3, need to deposit their instrument of ratification, approval, formal confirmation or acceptance with the Depositary for the amendment to enter into legal force.
82 Parties were present at the Third Conference of Parties (COP3) of the Basel Convention when the ban amendment was accepted by consensus decision. 3/4 of 82 Parties is 61.5, or 62 Parties. Therefore, 62 Parties that were present at COP3 need to deposit their instrument of ratification with the depositary for the ban amendment to enter into force.
Currently 63 Parties have deposited their instrument of ratification of the ban amendment with the depositary. However, of these 63 Parties, 44 of them were present at COP3 when the ban amendment was accepted and adopted. Consequently, 18 additional Parties present at COP3 need to ratify the Ban amendment for its entry into force.
A conversation with Dr. Gordon Edwards: contemporary issues in the Canadian nuclear industry, and a look back at the achievements of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR), http://www.ccnr.org/ Montreal, August 25, 2018 - Contents A conversation with Dr. Gordon Edwards: contemporary issues in the Canadian nuclear industry, and a look back at the achievements of the Canadia...