Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 14 Dec 1993

Vol. 437 No. 2

Private Members' Business. - International Convention on Waste Management: Motion.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. M. Smith)

I move: That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Basel Convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal, copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 30 November 1993.

The Basel Convention was agreed under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme in 1989. The convention, which was signed by Ireland in January 1990, represents an important global agreement for the regulation of waste movements, particularly between the developed and the developing world.

Ireland has been anxious to complete its ratification of the Basel Convention, which came into operation in May 1992. However, regulation of waste movements within the European Union was already the subject of a number of complex Directives. The view taken by the European Commission was that this complexity of existing union laws, and the integrity of the internal market, effectively required participation by EU member states in the Basel Convention to be supported by a new regulation.

Drafting and agreement of this regulation were protracted and have delayed ratification of the Convention by Ireland and most other member states beyond our earlier expectations. The earliest date by which the Convention can be ratified, consistently with the EU Regulations, is 6 February 1994. This motion is presented at this time so that Ireland's instruments of ratification can be deposited at this earliest possible date.

The generation of hazardous wastes has been a major, and an environmentally problematic, consequence of industrial development. Most such wastes come from industries that are among the most important to the growth and maintenance of a modern industrial society, such as iron and steel, non-ferrous metals and the chemical industry.

While we do not have a legacy of heavy industrialisation, Ireland is nevertheless a modern economy with a wide range of manufacturing industry, including food production and the chemical and pharmaceutical sectors. We produce a range of hazardous wastes, currently amounting to more than 66,000 tonnes per annum.

Current Irish policy in relation to hazardous wastes rests on the strict enforcement of relevant EC and national legislation, in accordance with special waste management plans prepared by local authorities. There is already in place a range of regulations dealing with different aspects of waste management, namely general waste controls, toxic and dangerous waste controls, trans-frontier shipment of hazardous wastes, and controls relating to the management of specific hazardous wastes, for example, waste oils, polychlorinated biphenyls or PCB's, and asbestos.

The Government accepts, however, that Irish waste legislation needs to be developed on an even more comprehensive and systematic basis. It has recently approved my proposals for a waste Bill and this is now being drafted as a matter of urgency. Other important aspects of national waste policy are also being developed. My Department is at present engaged in a public consultation process with regard to waste prevention and promotion of clean technologies, the development of a national recycling strategy and of course the management of hazardous wastes. The Environmental Protection Agency is also being mobilised and I intend that in time the agency will play a major role in relation to hazardous waste management.

On the most recent completed statistics, Ireland generates some 66,000 tonnes of hazardous waste annually. Some 54,000 tonnes, equivalent to more than 80 per cent, is dealt with domestically, mostly by way of recycling. We rely however on export in relation to about 18 per cent, or 12,000 tonnes of our most difficult hazardous wastes, most of which are either incinerated or recovered at approved and well regulated facilities in Finland, the UK and Belgium. Considerable incineration of hazardous wastes takes place at a number of in-house incinerators attached to Irish industrial plants: in fact about two-thirds of all Irish hazardous wastes destined for incineration is disposed of at Irish plants. Two further points are worth noting. According to OECD data, apart from Luxembourg. Ireland generates the lowest volume of hazardous wastes in Western Europe. The second point is that not even the most environmentally advanced European countries are totally self-sufficient in waste recovery and disposal; for instance, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands export, respectively, 17 per cent, 23 per cent, 12 per cent and 13 per cent of their national hazardous waste arising for recovery or disposal abroad.

There are of course aspects of hazardous waste management with which I am not satisfied. I have already been frank and open on this point. Hazardous waste planning, currently the responsibility of local authorities, requires improvement. Facilities for the segregation and disposal of some specific types of wastes — for example, certain lights and batteries — are inadequate. Waste statistics are not fully up to date or satisfactory in terms of coverage. These deficiencies must be addressed in the context of the various legislative organisational and infrastructural initiatives now under way. They must not however detract from a number of well managed and creditable aspects of Irish hazardous waste management which I have also described.

Estimates of the growing volume of hazardous wastes generated worldwide are difficult to determine, but range from 350 million to 400 million tonnes per annum upwards. It is estimated that the European Union generates some 30 to 35 million tonnes of hazardous wastes annually. As waste has increased, so has the transboundary movement of these wastes. Over the past decade, in response to growing concerns, there have been a number of international or regional initiatives to control movement of hazardous wastes.

When the European Community began legislating on waste in 1975, there was no international regime controlling cross-border movements of waste, apart from some international regulations dealing with transport safety. Primarily in an attempt to control the considerable volume of waste moved internally within the Community, and in the wake of the 1982 scandal over waste missing from Seveso, Council Directive 84/361/EEC, usually know as the Transfrontier Directive, introduced a harmonised system for control of waste movements within, into and out of the EC. This Directive represented a significant legislative advance in so far as it introduced a system of pre-notification to the authorities in a receiving member state so that a prior informed judgment could be made as to whether a waste consignment was acceptable. This concept has been carried through into all subsequent international measures to properly control transboundary waste movements.

In a wider international forum, the OECD, between 1983 and 1990, adopted a number of decisions on transfrontier movements of hazardous wastes, though these were overtaken by the preparatory work on the Basel Convention which began in 1987.

Controls on the movement and disposal of hazardous wastes was not of course an issue just for the developed world. With the continuing export of many waste problems to the developing world, opposition to unregulated waste movements grew also from within many developing countries. The 1989 Fourth Lomé Convention between the European Community and African, Caribbean and Pacific countries provided for a ban on EC exports of hazardous and radioactive wastes to ACP countries, and an equivalent ban on imports by those countries. However, both the EC and ACP regimes were in the nature of regional agreements. By the late 1980s, the transfrontier movement of hazardous wastes was rightly perceived as a global issue, requiring the development of stricter controls on a worldwide basis.

The Basel Convention, developed under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme, was designed to provide this global response. The Basel Convention is intended to reduce transboundary movements of hazardous wastes to a minimum, consistent with their environmentally sound management; prevent and minimise the generation of hazardous wastes; support movement towards national self-sufficiency in hazardous waste disposal; establish the sovereign right of every country to ban the import of hazardous wastes; prevent trade in hazardous waste to or from a non-party state unless the movement is regulated by an agreement which stipulates provisions no less environmentally acceptable than those provided by the convention; and ensure the environmentally sound disposal of hazardous wastes.

Central to the Basel Convention is a procedure of prior informed written consent as a condition for hazardous waste export. An importing state must be notified of a proposed movement and of the site where such waste will be treated. The waste cannot be exported until the importing state has given its written consent. The importing state can reject the proposed consignment if it believes that the stated treatment and disposal facilities are not suitable. If a waste shipment cannot be disposed of according to the original agreement, or in an alternative environmentally sound way, the exporting state is required to re-import the waste. Any movement of waste that does not conform to the convention is regarded as illegal traffic, which must be prevented and sanctioned under the domestic legislation of contracting states. Parties are also free to make more stringent bilateral or multilateral agreements on hazardous waste movements.

The convention recognises that control and regulatory procedures are not of themselves sufficient. The development of national technical and legal infrastructures in developing countries needs to be undertaken, along with measures to enhance training, education and public awareness. Parties are requested to cooperate in technology and information exchange in relation to good waste management; the convention recognises that developed countries have a particular responsibility to developing countries in this respect and provides for appropriate funding mechanisms.

From the outset Ireland has supported the Basel Convention and pressed for the early introduction by the European Union of the necessary enabling legislation so that all member states of the Union could give full effect to the convention. The delay in EU ratification, which has attracted justified criticism, has been largely due to the technical complexity of preparing the necessary EU legislation in a manner that respects the requirements of both the convention and the internal market. The relevant Council Regulation, No. 259/93, published in February 1993, has now been adopted and there is political agreement that the European Union and member states should ratify the Basel Convention at the earliest date consistent with this regulation, that is, 6 February 1994. The convention would come into force within the Union a whole three months after this date, that is, from 6 May 1994, the date on which the EU regulation enters into force.

This EU regulation is, as such, directly applicable in all member states; in principle, further transposition into national legislation is not required. However, in order to ensure full effect for the regulation, I intend to make limited national regulations dealing with consequential matters such as designation of competent authorities, powers of enforcement and penalties. These regulations will be in place well before 6 May 1994.

As I have stated, Ireland fully supports the principles involved in the Basel Convention and the related EU regulation and no special difficulties are envisaged with regard to their implementation. I have already spoken of various policy initiatives already taken or under way to improve hazardous waste management in Ireland. National infrastructural requirements will be addressed in the context of the operational programme for environmental services now being prepared. In addition, Trinity College, Dublin, in conjunction with my Department, will hold a public conference on hazardous waste management options early next month with a view to informing public debate on these issues.

Whatever the final decision of the Government on the provision of appropriate hazardous waste infrastructure in Ireland, it will continue to be necessary to export hazardous wastes from Ireland in the short to medium term. It will also be necessary for Ireland to export certain hazardous wastes on an indefinite basis— for example, polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs and certain heavy metals which require highly specialised final disposal facilities. This is a legitimate and responsible practice which is consistent with the terms of both the Basel Convention and EU Regulation 259/93.

The convention specifically provides for the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes if the state of export does not have the necessary facilities, capacity or suitable disposal sites in order to properly dispose of the wastes in question, subject of course to their eventual disposal in an environmentally sound manner.

This provision is also reflected in the EU legislation. This empowers member states to take measures to prohibit generally or partially, or to object systematically to shipments of waste, in order to implement the principles of proximity, priority for recovery and self-sufficiency at Union and national levels. However, the regulation explicitly provides that these provisions do not apply in a case where hazardous waste is produced in a member state in such a small overall quantity that the provision of new specialised disposal installations within that state would be uneconomic. I might add that this provision is of direct consequence not only to Ireland but also to Luxembourg, Portugal and Greece.

Obviously, we cannot rule out the possibility that, in light of political or other developments in receiving countries, other member states of the EU may wish to curtail imports of hazardous wastes from Ireland. Ultimately, however, I believe that the regulation provides a fair framework with adequate safeguards for our interests.

Questions have been raised as to whether the Basel Convention and the EU regulation go far enough in protecting developing countries from waste trafficking. The regulation actually goes beyond the convention in the restrictions it imposes on waste exports. EU exports for disposal are limited to EFTA countries, which are also parties to the convention, while exports for recovery are limited to OECD countries and to other countries with which there are appropriate bilateral, multilateral or regional agreements. All exports to the 69 ACP countries are prohibited, in accordance with the Lomé Convention.

Notwithstanding this more stringent regime, there has been criticism of the EU approach on the basis that it should go further and prohibit all exports of hazardous wastes from member states to developing countries, as well as pressing for an appropriate amendment of the Basel Convention to extend this prohibition to all other developed countries. I have considerable sympathy with the concerns which have been expressed. The European Commission is currently considering the possibilities for such an absolute prohibition and Ireland is prepared to support any appropriate initiative for EU action in this regard.

The motion comes before this House because of the requirements of Article 29.5.2º of the Constitution, under which the State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge on public funds unless the terms of the agreement have been approved by Dáil Éireann. Ireland, as a signatory of the Basel Convention, has for some years made a voluntary annual contribution towards the convention budget. This year's Environment Vote contains a provision of £5,000 for this purpose. Similar annual contributions will in future arise on a mandatory basis.

In conclusion, I know that the House will share my view of the importance of the Basel Convention as a major first step on the global control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal. It is urgent that we ratify the convention in February 1994 along with other member states of the European Union and, with the approval of the House, we will be in a position to do this.

I commend the motion to the House.

Mrs. Doyle

It is interesting to note that the only reason we have an opportunity to discuss the Basel Convention is because Article 29.5.2º of our Constitution provides that the State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge on public funds unless the terms of the agreement have been approved by Dáil Éireann.

I listened carefully to the Minister's speech. As our time is limited I will refer briefly to a few points. Towards the end of his speech the Minister referred specifically to possible stricter controls on exports of waste to developing countries. It has been argued for some time that we should not speak in terms of developed versus developing countries in the context of this convention but rather that we should talk in terms of OECD versus non-OECD countries and that our responsbility in regard to non-OECD countries should be particularly guarded. I am thinking in particular of what we used to call the Soviet bloc, or Eastern European countries, given their proximity to continental Europe; they form part of the same land mass. Concern has been expressed in many quarters that the lack of environmental awareness in Eastern European countries for many years could mean that these countries will agree, for economic reasons, to take much of the hazardous waste from OECD countries and that perhaps they may not be in the best position to impose environmentally sound practices in terms of its recycling or disposal.

There is no doubt that this convention should be ratified by Ireland as soon as possible. I think that at one stage people were afraid that we would have to wait first for the ratification of the convention by the European Commission before we could ratify it, but this is not the case. To date, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Portugal have ratified the convention. As the Minister said, if Ireland did not ratify the convention before the end of December, technically speaking we would not be voting members at the meeting to be held in Geneva at the end of March; but if we deposit our ratification prior to March, we will add significant weight to our presence at that meeting.

In regard to the extension of the prohibition on the export of hazardous waste from member states to developing countries, the Minister stated:

The European Commission is currently considering the possibilities for such an absolute prohibition and Ireland is prepared to support any appropriate initiative for EU action in this regard.

Why should we always follow on the coat tails of other countries, particularly in areas where we obviously have support? The fact that we are prepared to support an appropriate initiative means that we must agree with the thrust of the point the Minister has made in terms of respecting the position of non OECD countries in this regard.

Could we lead the way on this environmental initiative and not simply support an initiative by another country? Denmark, for example, is prepared to make the appropriate initiative for EU action in this regard but rather than saying in a month or six months or two years time that we support the case being made by Denmark, I would like the Minister to lead the charge. There is little on which we can dictate the pace in Europe because of the critical mass of our country as part of the European Union and various other reasons of peripherality and our GDP. We are there with the begging bowl and we look to Europe to help us often enough. There are few areas where we can lead in Europe, but environmental practice is one area where we could lead.

Given the Minister's tacit support for the case being made in this regard I would ask him not simply to support an initiative by another Community country but to promote that initiative. I can assure the Minister of support from Fine Gael. I ask him to take an active role with Denmark and the vast majority of non OECD countries in support of a full hazardous waste export ban from OECD to non OECD countries, which is effectively what we are talking about.

We should take the position that the term "developing countries" means little following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Some of the most devastated economies are those in the new republics of the former Eastern Bloc. These countries are normally not considered developing but they must be included in this ban. That is why the language of OECD or non OECD is important if we wish to be in solidarity with the desire of these countries not to be a dumping ground for massive amounts of hazardous waste from the west or from OECD countries generally. One of the most important points the Minister made was that we are prepared to support an appropriate initiative in this area. He should take that initiative and get the other countries to support us. We should lead the way in this most important area.

The whole political opposition in Eastern Europe in the eighties, as the Minister is probably aware, was in part environmentally driven. We are inclined to forget that. The upsurge in political opposition there signalled the beginning of a new political and economic era which culminated in the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. One socialist regime after another was toppled, to be replaced by democratic governments. With these political winds of change came a parallel commitment to capitalist free market economies. Progress in the path towards a free market has, however, been hampered by many of the historical structural problems of the centrally managed Eastern European economies. In particular, the pressure for rapid industrialisation overrode concerns for environmental protection and resulted in a legacy of pollution that will haunt the region for many years to come.

The need to tackle these environmental problems head on is all the more pressing because they serve as a barrier to future industrial and economic expansion. Investors generally, concerned about substantial environmental liabilities, are wary of developing or acquiring business interests in these Eastern European countries. The massive costs of remedying historical contamination, redressing current pollution and preventing further environmental risk places a huge burden on these emerging Eastern European economies, a burden which they can ill afford to bear.

The creation of a modern industrial economy requires the development of an integrated network of facilities for the proper management and disposal of solid and industrial waste. Eastern European states, with an eye to the wider European economic and political enlargement, are conscious of the need to move closer to adopting Eastern Community environmental standards. This will represent a quantum leap in investment which could prove difficult to find when there are so many competing demands for funds.

In addition to the need for access to capital there is a more general question of access to environmental technologies and expertise from these countries. Modern, well designed specialist treatment and disposal facilities are increasingly more technologically sophisticated and require highly trained operating personnel. They are also expensive. A new hazardous waste landfill facility, for example, may cost more than $1 million per hectare to develop. A modern waste to energy plant may cost in excess of $100 million. Technology can be purchased at a price but it is not simply a matter of technology transfer; it also involves the long term commitment to managing and operating plants safely and efficiently. Qualified local employees skilled in the most advanced techniques and operating procedures are paramount to the success of any such project. Such workers are still predominantly concentrated in the western European and US environmental services sector.

The key to the success generally of ensuring that these facilities are provided in non OECD countries or the eastern part of Europe depends on many fundamental criteria being met. First, private sector environmental service companies are concerned about the long term political and economic stability, the legal and administrative certainty and achieving adequate returns on investment. However, even more importantly, it is essential for government at all levels to acknowledge and assess fully the extent of environmental pollution problems. This may appear self-evident but it is often apparently overlooked. Without having determined as accurately as possible waste generation rates, and 60 to 70 per cent of the waste may be produced by less than 10 per cent of industry, as well as the nature of the current disposal practices, it is almost impossible to evaluate properly infrastructural needs or begin effectively to regulate and control waste. It is senseless to construct a highly expensive hazardous treatment or disposal plant if the quantity of waste produced does not exist to justify this major investment.

Ratifying the Convention before us will not preclude Ireland, Portugal, Spain and some of the other smaller countries from continuing to have agreements to export our hazardous waste for treatment or recovery in one form or another. It is essential that we make this quite clear. We will shortly have a major waste Bill before the House for debate. I ask the Minister, whatever his views in regard to incineration of toxic waste and hazardous waste generally, to bear in mind the important point that if we comply with the regulations requiring the reduction in hazardous waste by cleaner technologies in industry generally, each year over the next 20 years we will be producing less toxic and hazardous waste. I do not see us reaching the point where we produce no waste — I would be delighted to be proved wrong in that regard — but given that we can assume there will be some amount of hazardous or toxic waste to be disposed of, I ask the Minister not to pursue the location of a toxic waste incinerator in our country as long as adequate and environmentally sound disposal facilities exist within easy reach, preferably within the OECD countries. If the amount of waste we produce is not enough to make an incinerator economically sound, short cuts will operate and the environment will be the loser.

Our only chance of ensuring the disposal of toxic and hazardous waste, particularly by incineration, and of ensuring that the best environmentally-sound principles are met at all times, will be to ensure that the amount of waste going into any such incinerator would render that operation economically viable. There is really no need for a small country like Ireland to embark on the construction of a toxic or hazardous waste incinerator given the quantities we now produce, or are likely to produce, in the short and medium term. Many minds would be put at ease if the Minister could accept that point. I think the Minister is half way there in terms of the following remark he made in the course of his speech:

However, the regulation explicitly provides that these provisions do not apply in a case where hazardous waste is produced in a member state in such a small overall quantity that the provision of new specialised disposal installations within that state would be uneconomic.

A toxic or hazardous waste incinerator in Ireland would most definitely be uneconomic, apart from the arguments the Minister will hear from all other quarters in relation to the location of same here. He added that this provision is of direct consequence not only to Ireland but also Luxembourg, Portugal and Greece. I ask him seriously to consider his own words before embarking on the location of a toxic waste incinerator here.

It goes without saying that I welcome the convention. I do not want to repeat what the Minister said, but I note that under Article 3.1, as a contracting party we will be notifying the secretariat of the convention of any wastes other than those listed in Annexes I and II considered or defined as hazardous under our legislation or any special requirements concerning transboundary movement procedures of such wastes in our country. Perhaps the Minister could indicate whether we are likely to produce wastes other than those listed in Annexes I and II and whether any particular requirements will be requested of Ireland by the secretariat.

Do we actually know the quantity of hazardous waste produced in this country? On what basis did the Minister provide the figures? We do not even know the quantity of municipal waste produced. We have figures from 1986 produced by An Foras Forbartha, published in 1987. By making an educated guess in terms of the increased amount each year, 3 to 4 per cent, and looking at what has happened in the United Kingdom and in Europe generally, we arrive at a figure for municipal waste. Has the Minister compiled figures on hazardous waste and, if so, on what basis? Is he sure all figures are being returned to his Department? I am quite sure they are not. Is there any movement of waste in our country which could constitute illegal traffic — to use the terminology of the convention before us — once this motion has been passed and the convention ratified? Could some operations, at present legal, be out of order once this convention is ratified?

When we talk about disposal of waste generally what must be uppermost in our minds is environmentally sound management of hazardous waste practices. The Minister referred to regulations or legislation to follow this convention, to define competent authority, penalties and other issues. Would a local authority be a competent authority? Would a local authority in Ireland be in order in coming to an agreement with a local authority in the United Kingdom, or a local authority in Spain, to take hazardous or toxic waste produced in that country? Could such competent authorities enter into arrangements without any reference to their national Government or national Department of the Environment?

To our shame, local authorities in Wexford, Kildare, Carlow and Wicklow have yet to produce the waste management plans that have been required of us for some time. Yet in the 1994 Estimates the local authority in Wexford has failed to include moneys to compile that waste management plan. We have a serious financial problem but we have yet to comply with even that minimal requirement. I would understand if the Minister felt it necessary to bring a requirement in that area to the attention of those local authorities.

In replying I should like the Minister to indicate where stands the Environmental Protection Agency vis-à-vis this convention and to say whether all the functions under this convention will be transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency. We should remember that the provisions of the Environmental Protection Agency Act brought certain waste disposal operations, including hazardous and hospital waste incineration, within the scope of integrated pollution control to be operated by the agency. However, any licensing by the Environmental Protection Agency will be done on a BATNEEC basis. I am worried that the phrase “not entailing excessive costs”, would allow an “out” in terms of many of the requirements that could be placed on industry generally. The Minister's response to that might be in order.

Waste management is no longer just about ensuring that human health is not endangered. Waste disposal can contaminate land, ground and surface water and the atmosphere. Anything we as legislators can do to ensure that developing economies do not sacrifice sound environmental principles must be supported.

I support the convention. There are many questions that need to be asked, particularly in terms of how its provisions will impact on Ireland. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Mr. Molloy

Thar cheann an Pháirtí Daonlathaigh, cuirim fáilte roimh an conradh seo a síníodh i mBasel i dtaca le rialacha idirnáisiúnta a leagadh síos d'iompar salachair a d'fhéadfadh a bheith ina ábhar contúirte, ó thír amháin go tír eile. Níl aon dabht ann ach go bhfuil gá lena leithéid de rialacha; is fada an lá ó tosaíodh ag lorg rialacha den tsórt seo agus is cúis áthais dom go bhfuil siad ag teacht anois faoi dheireadh.

The Progressive Democrats Party is very pleased to accept the Minister's recommendation this evening that we approve the ratification of the Basel Convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal. There is now a well established need for proper safety regulations to protect the health of the community and indeed the environment of the world in which we live, which is becoming ever more threatened by man's own developments, the thirst for consumer goods and the tremendous developments taking place in their manufacture. There is a price to be paid. The difficulties arising from toxic waste highlighted by scientists can no longer be ignored.

The movement of hazardous waste from one country to another always poses a very serious threat to the environment and to health. The only sensible way for governments to deal with these threats is to come together, by way of international agreement, to work out the best possible formula and then commit themselves to adhere rigidly to the necessary rules and regulations. One cannot do that until one has decided what is the best way to do these things. I have read the convention which is a very comprehensive document covering a wide range of waste products, many of which may not have been considered by the ordinary public to be hazardous.

It places a tremendous onus on the authorities in each country to ensure great vigilance if they are to comply with the terms of this convention. There has been an urgent need to set down these basic standards. The task now will be to ensure compliance with and to have proper procedures for the regulation and implementation of the convention requirements in place in each country that is party to the convention. The Minister's speech was short on what legislative proposals he intended to bring forward and what regulations he intended to implement in order to ensure that Ireland would genuinely involve itself in living up to the commitments which it will accept when it ratifies this convention.

I note the requirement in Article 3 to inform the Secretariat of hazardous waste, defined in legislation other than that set out in Annex I and Annex II. In view of the short period before this convention comes into operation the Minister should have given us more information about what work has been done in regard to preparing such a list, how extensive it might be and what other wastes might be identified as common here which are not covered in Annex I and Annex II.

Article 4 of the convention is of major concern to all of us. It is the kernel of the convention because it gives the right to any country to refuse to accept waste being exported from another country. The Minister has given his estimate of the quantities we export as about 12,000 tonnes of our most difficult hazardous waste at present. Because of the lack of adequate statistics in this area I wonder whether that is accurate but we will take it as being as close as one can get at any rate. If by any chance the other member countries, who sign this convention with us, decide at a later stage that they will not accept the hazardous waste from Ireland then we would be placed in a very difficult position.

The Minister identifies Finland, the United Kingdom and Belgium as the main countries to which we are exporting our hazardous waste. If all of those three countries, for one reason or another, were to decide that they would not accept our waste in future — and they could do so under the terms of this convention — then we would have a problem of a type which has not yet been faced up to in this country.

I note the Minister's comment that smaller countries with small amounts of hazardous waste — where it may be uneconomic — may not be expected to provide disposal facilities within their own boundaries. A difficult question arises here and this is probably the reason the Minister has referred to the hazardous waste conference, at which he will participate, which will be held in Trinity College early in January. The purpose of this conference is to assist in achieving a consensus on the way forward for a policy in Ireland for the treatment of hazardous waste. Much of this waste is currently exported, a practice which will be discouraged under EU legislation. The conference will provide a forum to address the perceived needs, potential for hazardous waste minimisation, re-use, recycling and the role of integrated pollution control and the environmentally acceptable final disposable options. The Minister made very little reference to any of those valuable alternatives. I wonder how much work has been done at departmental level to find the way forward for Ireland in regard to the situation which obtains when we have signed this convention and when it finally comes into operation.

It would be disastrous for Irish industry if we were refused permission to dispose of this waste in the countries that are now accepting it. Possibly many of our industries would be forced to close down. Certainly, in many cases goodwill could be destroyed and there would then be a danger to the health of Irish nationals and a danger to the general environment because of our inability to dispose of it. This is an urgent matter.

This convention carries heavy responsibilities for this country. We cannot glibly sign it and expect other countries will continue to accept our hazardous waste. We will have to find ways in which to deal with it here. There is also, of course, the facility in Article 4 of the convention for Ireland to refuse to accept any illegal imports from another country that may be coming in here. I do not know if that is the case and again the Minister made no reference to that. Perhaps there are not any known hazardous waste items being disposed of here either with or without permission. It certainly places a heavy responsibility on the Government to make adequate provision for our own hazardous waste disposal in the future. We have shirked our responsibilities in this area, national as well as international, because we are relying on other countries to accept this material from us.

This convention greatly expands the definition of hazardous waste. It is not just a problem for the pharmaceutical industry, with which many people associate toxic waste and waste which is generally difficult to dispose of. The definition of hazardous waste under this convention is very extensive. Local authorities will have large volumes of waste, not of a pharmaceutical origin, which will come under the terms of this convention.

Little reference has been made in the Minister's speech to the whole question of incineration. The raging debate is whether Ireland will invest in an incinerator. The Minister will acknowledge that he is on record as having stated that Ireland will have to face up to the option of building an incinerator. The Cork Examiner of Tuesday, 23 March 1993, under the heading “Plan for Toxic Waste Incinerator”, stated:

Plans to build Ireland's first toxic waste incinerator are in the pipeline, Environment Minister Michael Smith confirmed last night.

The article continues in that vein. Also the Irish Independent of 23 March 1993, under the heading “We Must Burn Our Own Toxic Waste: Minister”, stated:

Ireland will have to face up to reality and build its own toxic waste incinerator.

I am not sure what the purpose of the conference in Trinity College is if the decision has already been made. If the decision has been made — as the Minister indicated — it raises very serious questions as to why one would choose the incinerator option and whether there is not a more modern and more environmentally friendly way of disposing of this waste. The Greenpeace organisation have done very valuable work in highlighting the alternatives and the more sensible long term options.

The Minister, being the person with responsibility in this area, may have to address this question on two levels, the short term and the long term. Certainly I do not like to think he has chosen the option of incineration as the solution to both the short term and long term problems. I hope he has a more enlightened environmentally-oriented solution to the long term disposal of waste of this kind.

The disposal of waste is largely governed by the EU waste regulations of 1979 and the EU toxic and dangerous waste regulations of 1982 and various regulations that have been made under this legislation which is implemented largely by the local authorities. The track record of local authorities on the preparation of waste plans has not been good and I wonder if the Minister will inform the House whether they have all completed their waste plans.

Mrs. Doyle

All but four.

Mr. Molloy

How many of the plans have, in fact, been implemented, which is another important stage? Coming from the Galway region, I am aware that we have a long way to go to live up to the proper standards in regard to the disposal of waste. In Galway, a local authority has planning permission to operate a public refuse dump in another local authority area but it is alleged that the corporation is not complying with the conditions of planning permission under which the county council gave its permission to operate the dump. The dump is located in a very sensitive area and the water table levels have to be taken into account. There is a flow of effluent into streams that feed into the River Corrib, which is a main source of drinking water and is also a very valuable wild trout and salmon fishery.

The practice of waste management leaves a lot to be desired and I ask the Minister to concentrate some of his time and energy seeking to establish how much needs to be done in each local authority area. There seems to be haphazard and ad hoc action which could be detrimental to our environment. I understand also that the local authorities have been very dilatory in supplying the Department with waste statistics. Deputy Doyle referred in her contribution to statistics based on figures supplied by An Foras Forbartha, which has long ceased to exist thanks to the action of one of the Minister's predecessors — I think it was Commissioner Flynn — who abolished it. Indeed, the demise of that organisation has left a gap in the availability of valuable information on the environment. I hope the Environmental Protection Agency will be able to supply the vital statistics on the environment which have been lacking since An Foras Forbartha was closed down.

This reflects the lack of priority in local authorities to the disposal of waste. One must mention, however, how difficult it is for local authorities to comply with all the requirements placed on them by this House when they are not being adequately funded.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has one further minute.

Mr. Molloy

I did not expect the time to go so quickly. In my remaining time I want to emphasise the need for new waste legislation. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he had advanced this and brought it before Cabinet. Certainly we on this side of the House look forward to seeing it in the very near future.

We need to enact our own legislation because it is not satisfactory to operate under EU Directives as they cannot be tailored to meet our national circumstances. We need a modern statutory framework to underpin all aspects of waste control, including minimising the production of waste at source; ensuring that whatever waste is produced is, as far as possible, capable of being recycled. Any new legislation needs to regulate all aspects of activity relating to waste from the simple collection of domestic rubbish by the local authorities to the disposal of hazardous waste. No waste policy will work without the appropriate legal basis to give effect to it. I look forward to new legislation.

Mr. Sargent

Tá áthas orm an conradh seo a phlé agus gabhaim bhíochas leis an Aire as ucht é a thabhairt os comhair na Dála.

It will be five years next March since the genesis of this convention. The fact that we are discussing this as midnight approaches symbolises also the lateness at which we are getting around to dealing with the problem that has been with us for a long time and has caused numerous international incidents, including loss of life and long term detrimental problems to our environment.

At first glance the title is midleading: "The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal". We should realise that certain hazardous wastes are not included and that we are talking in a limited way about a limited number of hazardous wastes, extensive though the list may appear on first reading. For example, waste from ships is not included. A significant amount of waste comes from ships and we have a great deal of work to do in that area, particularly as we are an island nation. The recent oil spill off County Louth killed a great many birds, if we need to measure its effects numerically as the Braer incident, yet it was scantily covered in the media and this shows some inconsistency in what we choose to highlight.

I am certainly very concerned about plastics and whereas plastics may not seem hazardous in their raw state, once they get into the sea they are. Another aspect that is not covered is nuclear waste and that certainly does not reflect the concern in Ireland. I realise there are other conventions dealing with that matter but the fact that 46 questions about THORP were tabled last week reflects the degree of seriousness with which Deputies regard that plant.

Article 3 of the convention refers to a list of wastes and asks us to expand on it. I would be interested to know if we have done so and know the exact amount of waste involved, given that we are a prolific producer of various hazardous wastes. We have a pharmaceutical company that is second to none in that area. It also calls for a regular updating of that list and I hope that can be provided for too.

The convention has many positive aspects and, of course, it requires us to live up to our responsibilities. For example, we must inform other countries of accidents when they happen and we must ensure that we re-import our waste if problems arise when we export it. Each year we must report on all movements of toxic waste and on all incidents relating to it. I have just listed a number of responsibilities but there are many others to which I will come later. I understand that we give £5,000 to the support of the Secretariat of the Convention. I am not quite sure whether financial matters in the convention ought to be determined entirely by consensus. The convention mentions that consensus is needed for any change in the financial provisions governing it.

If a country is benefiting from trade in toxic waste and another country can veto an increase in that financial arrangement, does that mean that we can have a block on provision to deal with problems as they arise? The mechanism for amending the convention does not require consensus but a three-quarters majority. On paper the rules can be changed, but financially we could be caught in trying to live up to them. I would not like to see finance become a problem and it should be addressed.

Annex IV of the convention gives a very interesting list of the categories of waste. Category A relates to operations which do not lead to the possibility of resource recovery, recycling, reclamation, direct reuse or alternative uses. It rules out from the point of view of resource recovery, incineration on land or at sea. It has been suggested that incineration can be interpreted as a form of recovery. The convention nails that type of propaganda. Incineration is not recovery and many of the other incidents that occur with incineration highlight the fact that it is not desirable either.

Category B lists a number of activities which can be considered to be operations which may lead to resource recovery. It rules out direct incineration as a way of recovering resources, copperfastening the view.

The conference in Trinity mentioned by Deputy Molloy will be a continuation of this debate tonight and I look forward to it. Whereas I might dig deep into my pocket to pay the £200 registration fee, I wonder if the Minister believes it is possible to reach a consensus on this issue when we seem to be excluding quite a number of people who are very interested in the subject by putting an admission price of £200 on attending a relatively short conference. It reminds me of a Ben Elton plot in the book "Stark" where those with money devise wonderful environmental solutions to problems, which include going to another planet, while the meagre mortals who do not have the money have to suffer the consequences. We should not approach the problem in that way and I wonder if anything can be done to give a concession to people who are not Ministers or TDs and who are not suitably remunerated for talking the hind legs off everybody else.

I hope the area covered by Annex IV will not be changed because if it was considered that incineration was acceptable we would be open to becoming importers of waste just as Britain has become an importer of nuclear waste which causes us problems.

Going back over my faded files I noted an extract from The Irish Times of 5 July 1989 which states:

The Brazilian container ship now crossing the Atlantic towards Ireland carrying 35 tonnes of highly toxic wastes, is not bound for any Irish port, according to the Department of the Environment. Speculation yesterday that the vessel was to dump its cargo at the Aughinish Alumina plant in Limerick has been denied by the company, although the waste originated at a sister firm in South America, Alcanbrasil.

The 35 tonnes of industrial oil contaminated with highly toxic polychlorinated biphenyls are on board the Copacabana, a 27,000-tonne container ship which left the port of Santos last Thursday. It is heading for Rechem International Limited, based in Pontypool, Wales, where the oil will be incinerated in accordance with local environmental regulations, according to a Department for the Environment spokesman.

Local environment regulations sound plausible but I probably do not have to tell the Minister that Pontypool in Wales, the home of that incinerator, is a place in which there are a large number of health problems. There is documentation, including films, on this problem and Pontypool is a severe warning for us. I do not want cargo ships coming here to off-load waste for incineration as they may want to if the capacity for an incinerator would require extra waste to make it economical, whatever about efficient in other ways.

This convention looks at more than Irish problems. It is a response to the global dumping ground problem which has developed. Many people will recall the problem in 1987 when an Italian businessman who had been living in Nigeria for ten years wrote to an Italian company called Ecomar to the effect that he was willing to import their industrial waste to Nigeria where he would dispose of it. The deal agreed, he offered a local person called Sunday Nana, a small farmer in Koko, Nigeria, $100 a month to rent a portion of his land. Delighted with the deal, Nana was unconcerned as the shipments of drums began to arrive and were stored on his land. Between 1987 and 1988, five ships brought 4,330 tonnes of toxic waste and approximately 8,000 drums to Koko. The drums were exposed to the heat and tropical storms and began to deteriorate and leak. Some villagers began to empty some of them and carried them away for use as storage containers. Nana used several drums to store food and water. The drums began to smell and local people fell ill. According to one report 19 villagers died after eating contaminated rice.

The dump was discovered in 1988 when the media was tipped off by Nigerian students in Italy. There is a litany of health problems which are continuing, including premature births, cholera and respiratory failure which finally killed Nana in 1990. A certain toxic terrorism has been going on. If we are serious about stopping it we must look to our responsibility in creating the type of economy which just does not try to patch up the problems as they arise without giving this issue the priority it deserves.

We must ensure that at the very root of our economy there are ways of living and working that do not necessitate the generation of the type of waste being generated around the world and finding its way to places such as Koko in Nigeria or Pontypool in Wales.

I know the Minister is looking forward to introducing the Waste Bill, but that has been on the long finger for some time, although it may be imminent at this stage. I recall a report in The Irish Times in which Deputy Harney was quoted as announcing the imminent introduction of that Bill at a Progressive Democrats conference when she was in Government. One was invited to hold one's breath and it would appear. But that Government is no longer in office and this Government is looking on it as a new project. However, the problems are far from new; they are getting worse and the Minister is well aware of that. Ultimately, the main problem is one of education: how not to generate such waste, regardless of the methods and means for dealing with it.

If we go around with our heads in the air stating that the waste must be disposed of somewhere, we will not solve the problem; it will land on somebody else's doorstep. Some products, even those advertised as being environmentally friendly, can appear harmless; but that may not be the case. The batteries in our cars and other products we consider part and parcel of normal living contribute to the problem of hazardous waste; and until we discover how such things are used, where they end up and their effects on the environment, we will be dealing with this problem on an ongoing and worsening basis.

In the meantime we must deal with present levels of toxic waste. We must have a rule of thumb which states that detoxification of hazardous or toxic waste must be carried out on site. I am glad that is one of the objectives of the convention, but it should be given priority. At present it is a case of private companies boosting their public relations image by advertising that they take steps to detoxify hazardous or toxic waste on site; but in most cases that is a marketing exercise, not an environmental one. That will continue to be the case until proper regulations are put in place to require such detoxification methods as a matter of course.

Even if a company detoxifies such waste on site, that is not the end of the story. The product is sold and becomes the property of a person who is not the producer — in other words, a secondary processor. Our law must state that the user in such circumstances is responsible for the disposal of the waste. We must provide the means, the education and the inclination; but, ultimately, the penalty must lie with the user. The user should show similar responsibility to that which he or she might show when dealing with other issues of public health, such as, for example, driving a car. A car could be described as a lethal weapon and in many ways could be compared to hazardous waste.

We should support Denmark, who has, more often than not, provided an enlightened lead. Hence its opposition to Maastricht, because it felt the other EU countries were pulling it back and trying to make it accept the lowest common denominator standard in many areas. Denmark is calling for a ban on the export of hazardous waste to non-OECD countries and it behoves us to support it in that regard. As stated already, this not only involves Third World or developing countries, but also Eastern countries. Given that France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Portugal have ratified this convention, I hope we do so soon and go on to amend our legislation so that we are not polluters in a global context.

Mr. M. Smith

Is mian liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na Teachtaí Doyle, Molloy agus Sargent as ucht a dtacaíocht don chonradh seo. Is léir go bhfuil Teachtaí ó pháirtithe dhifriúla in ann có-oibriú le chéile uaireanta agus is maith sin.

Even though it is late at night, I am glad the Dáil has had an opportunity to approve the terms of this convention. Deputy Sargent was concerned that special consideration might be granted to non-governmental organisations to attend the conference on hazardous waste in Trinity College in early January. Special facilities will be made available in that regard and a number of nongovernmental organisations may contact Trinity College in regard to free access to that conference. Apart from a few hit and run expeditions, my relationship with non-governmental organisations has been good and I intend to ensure they have the best possible facilities in what I hope will be a very useful exercise.

Mr. Sargent

Has this anything to do with the Road Traffic Bill?

Mr. M. Smith

As one who spent 25 per cent of Dáil time in 1992 — I do not have the figures for 1993 — representing my Department in respect of legislation on housing, roads, environmental protection, electoral reform, two planning Bills, the Road Traffic Bill and the Dublin reorganisation Bill, my Department could not be accused of not giving urgency to the legislation which falls within its remit. We are progressing with the Waste Bill as quickly as possible. There has been no lethargy in that regard; it is a question of the volume of legislation we are introducing in regard to which we are maintaining a lead in this House. We have had considerable unanimity and support from all sides of the House in regard to the majority of the legislation we introduced.

In relation to exports of hazardous waste to non-OECD countries, Deputy Doyle referred to the need for caution in respect of the export of such waste to countries of Central and Eastern Europe as well as countries in the developing world. As I stated, the EU regulation limits exports of waste for disposal to the EU and EFTA countries.

There is no question, therefore, of waste being consigned for disposal from the EU region to Central and Eastern Europe. Ireland has never exported waste beyond the EU and EFTA areas. The only issue is whether it should be permissible to export waste for recovery beyond the OECD area. Ireland does not require or use this facility but some other EU member states do and the present regulation reflects the balance of political views within the Union that the option of exporting waste for recovery beyond the OECD area should remain open, at least for the moment.

Deputy Doyle suggested that Ireland should take a leading position in campaigning for the termination of waste exports for recovery beyond the OECD region. I have already made it clear that Ireland can support this position. We have already openly indicated our support for the Danish Minister within the Environment Council. However, if I were to suggest to the Danish Government that it should handle its hazardous waste by means other than incineration, given that it has taken the initiative in some areas, I hope the Deputy understands that some of the other points she made were unbalanced in this regard.

Mr. Sargent

We do not have to be slavish.

Mrs. Doyle

Why can the Minister not lead the way and follow the Danish initiative?

Mr. M. Smith

I am doing my best to ensure that there will be consistency.

Mrs. Doyle

If the Minister supports the initiative why can he not lead the way?

Mr. Sargent

I am trying to be helpful.

Mr. M. Smith

I am trying to help the Deputy and do my best.

Mrs. Doyle

I do not need that kind of patronising help. I want to see Ireland make a name for itself in Europe. The Minister should please lead the way; I have been waiting a long time.

Mr. M. Smith

Stand by for tomorrow.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should please allow the Minister to reply.

Mrs. Doyle

He is being provocative.

Mr. M. Smith

Deputy Doyle argued that Ireland should not seek to provide a central hazardous waste incinerator. I hope the Deputy noticed from the waste statistics I quoted that some 10,000 tonnes of hazardous waste are incinerated in Ireland in accordance with appropriate environmental licences. In some cases further upgrading of incineration systems will be needed within the next few years to meet the new standards required under the recent EU Directive on hazardous waste incineration. The issue, therefore, is not whether incineration per se should be permitted as a means of managing Irish hazardous waste but whether in addition to existing in-house incinerators we also need a contract waste incinerator. I am prepared to assess the merits of this matter on an open and fair basis and that is why I am looking forward to the conference debate early in January. On a number of occasions I have referred to the necessity for this country to face up to the reality of dealing with waste generated here. In endeavouring to have a self-sufficiency regime in the EU we cannot expect others to deal with the waste we produce.

Deputy Doyle raised the question of industrial pollution control licences which in the future will be issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. Like Deputy Doyle, I see the introduction of the Environmental Protection Agency licensing system as a plus factor in controlling and minimising the generation of hazardous industrial waste. The BATNEEC criteria mentioned by Deputy Doyle will have regard to the possibility of preventing or reducing waste and this will influence the way in which licences will be issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in due course.

Deputies Molloy and Doyle expressed reservations about the accuracy of hazardous waste statistics. The figures I quoted this evening are based on returns from virtually all Irish local authorities for 1998. So far as possible these have been validated with major Irish waste producers and waste companies. While there is always a margin for inaccuracy in relation to waste statistics — this is acknowledged internationally — I am satisfied that the figures are reasonably accurate and representative. However, my Department is drawing up a profile of hazardous waste statistics for 1992 and I hope to have these available shortly.

Deputies Molloy and Doyle asked for an indication of what wastes other than those included in Annex I and II would be considered hazardous in the context of the recent EU Directive on hazardous waste. The Union is to establish an agreed list of hazardous waste and this work is ongoing and is expected to be completed by the middle of next year. Ireland's position on this matter will be consistent with that of the European Union and the appropriate notification will be made in due course.

With regard to Ireland's importation of hazardous waste, we have operated a restrictive approach to such imports and this will continue to be the policy. Waste imports are centrally controlled by my Department. In practice, we have permitted the importation of hazardous waste only on a technical basis, for example, for certain laboratory purposes and as starter agents for certain sewage treatment operations. We have the sovereign right to refuse to accept cargoes of dangerous waste and no doubt we intend to continue to exercise this right.

Deputy Sargent rightly pointed out that certain wastes, for example, ships' waste and radioactive waste, are not convered by this convention. The reason for this is that other international conventions, namely, the MARPOL and Vienna Conventions, already cover these wastes. The Deputy will appreciate also that all of the conventions, including the Basel Convention, represent a political consensus on a broad international basis on how to regulate these various wastes. They are not always, for example, in the case of radioactive waste, as advanced as Ireland and as I would personally like them to be, but we would be foolish not to make the best of them.

Question put and agreed to.