Vol. 426 No. 5
5 Mr. Dukes asked the Minister for the Environment his views on the European Parliament's proposal for a ban on EC exports of waste, including dangerous re-cycled materials, to countries other than OECD countries which are parties to the Basle Convention; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
An EC Regulation on transboundary waste shipments was adopted on 1 February 1993. The regulation does not reflect the opinion of the European Parliament that exports of waste for recovery should be limited to OECD countries which are parties to the Basle Convention. Subject to a review by 1996, it permits such exports on a wider basis, but in accordance with conditions which fully respect the Basle Convention.
The provisions of the new EC Regulation represent the balance of views within the Community on a series of complex arrangements necessary to permit implementation of the Basle Convention. While Ireland does not export waste beyond the EC/EFTA region, and could have accepted a more restrictive export regime, we have joined in the consensus for the new regulation in the wider interests of accelerating ratification of the Basle Convention by the Community and its member states.
Would the Minister not agree that it is, to say the least, cynical of the European Community, if not immoral, to allow the export of waste to countries that have not signed the Basle Convention and that have no provisions in their national law or in their national administrations for dealing with the waste in question? Is the Minister aware that member states are now exporting highly toxic waste to countries in East Africa where the very existence of that waste cannot subsequently be determined and where there are no facilities for treating it?
As I explained, Ireland did not advocate the inclusion of this facility in the new regulation but it is in accordance with the Basle Convention, the main purpose of which is to regulate and control the movement of waste both within the Community and outside. The Deputy will also be aware that the key safeguards which are now being established in a wider way to control hazardous waste — that is waste for recycling or recovery — are much stronger now and cover a range of controls which will provide for the type of safeguards which he is seeking and to which I also subscribe.
Will the Minister explain why Ireland has adopted this view and departed so far from a position of principle? Does he agree that the terms of this regulation leave the field wide open to the commercial exploitation of the environment of very vulnerable States by unscrupulous firms within the European Community?
Is the framing of this regulation not in direct contravention of a very specific recommendation adopted at the Rio de Janeiro summit?
I do not agree with the Deputy. Deputy Dukes is missing the point. One of the purposes of the Basle Convention is to control the management of hazardous waste in developing countries. The key safeguards in terms of transparency, compliance with multilateral, bilateral or other agreements that would have to be put in place in tandem with the Basle Convention are quite new and regulatory and will be enforced. The question of international facilities in an economic sense that are available for the management of hazardous waste and the re-use of the raw material is a significant factor in some places where there are good facilities for that purpose. We are not departing from any principle. One could hold out in negotiations for extreme positions which would, in effect, mean that the Convention would not be ratified. While neither we nor the Commission advocated this change there were countries who would not be a party to the overall agreement unless these facilities could be provided. In the interests of consensus and getting the control measures which will follow from that Convention in the context of the developing countries it was felt judicious to go ahead.
Would the Minister agree——
There are two remaining Priority Questions to dispose of within the stipulated time limit.
I would recommend to the Minister that he re-read the resolutions adopted at the Rio de Janeiro summit. Would the Minister agree that the fact that this European Community action which is limited in scope to the countries that have signed the Basle Convention represents nothing more and nothing less than a very cynical expression by the European Community of the nimby principle, not in my back yard? In other words, the countries to the Basle Convention are very concerned not to have this waste dumped in their countries but they could not give a damn about what happens in Africa.
Clearly, the Deputy is losing sight of what happens in the Community to hazardous waste.
I am telling the Minister what is happening to the waste.
What happens to hazardous waste from this country? It does not go to any third country——
They are dumping it in Somalia.
——it goes either to the Community or the EFTA countries.
Countries where people cannot do anything to protect themselves.
Let us have the facts about this. The Deputy should not try to crystalise something into a major Community action which is detrimental to Third World or developing countries.
That is what is happening.
Hazardous waste from Ireland goes either to the Community or to an EFTA country and not outside of it.
It is arriving in Somalia every week of the year.
