Intro



[pic]

P.O. Box 5675, Berkeley, CA 94705 USA

The Human Rights Impact of the Illicit Transfer and Dumping of Toxic Wastes and Dangerous Substances: E-Waste, Sham Recycling, and the Need for Effective Regulation

Human Rights Council

7th Session

Agenda Item 3: Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development: Special Rapporteur on the Illicit Transfer and Dumping of Toxic Wastes and Dangerous Substances

Contact Information:

Elena E. Gil, Frank C. Newman Intern

gilelena@

Representing Human Rights Advocates through

University of San Francisco School of Law’s

International Human Rights Clinic

Professor Connie de la Vega

Tel: +1-415-422-6961

I. Introduction

Explosive levels of consumption and rapid technological advances have magnified the need to find ways to dispose of its consequential waste. Electronic waste or e-waste, in particular,[1] contains toxic chemicals that, when disposed of improperly, damage the environment and health of its inhabitants. These effects are felt more in developing countries than in developed countries, the principal creators of e-waste. [2] As the landfills in developed countries fill up and disposal costs associated with stricter regulations rise, there is increasing pressure to dispose of the waste elsewhere and as inexpensively as possible. The search for the cheapest method of disposal has created a race to the bottom, in which developed nations ship their toxic wastes to countries with ineffective environmental regulation and limited capacity to safely handle toxic waste.

This report will illustrate the devastating impact of the illicit transfer of toxic and dangerous substances on human rights, highlighting China’s e-waste recycling industry. It will also address the need for creation and enforcement of uniform regulation among states calling for standardization of what constitutes “hazardous” and “recycling,” implementation of e-waste tracking systems, recycler certification programs, producer responsibility laws, and procedures through which citizens can quickly file grievances and receive compensation if needed. Stronger regulation and enforcement will also help ensure accountability of any entity, whether government or corporation, taking part in the illicit toxic trade resulting in violations of human rights.

Furthermore, this report will call for the continued support and expansion of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur to include not only the illicit transfer and dumping of toxic and dangerous substances but also the legal transfer and dumping of such substances. Without the standardization of key terms such as “recycling” and “hazardous,” there will be inevitable adverse impacts on human rights, even if a particular transfer is legal. This is because what is considered hazardous in one country may not be considered hazardous in another, even though the impact on the environment and human rights is the same. Thus, the Rapporteur should be mandated to address human rights violations resulting from both illicit and legal toxic transfers.

1. Impact of Toxic Transfers on Human Rights

The Human Rights Commission recognized and reaffirmed that the illicit traffic in and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes constitutes a serious threat to human rights, including the right to life, the enjoyment of highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, water, food, adequate housing and work.[3]

The transfer of toxic and dangerous substances not only impacts human rights but also threatens the environment in numerous ways. The United Nations and other international entities have increasingly recognized and supported the concept of a human right to a healthy environment. The Stockholm Declaration of 1972 provides that “Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations.[4] Principle 1 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development provides that “[h]uman beings are at the center of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature”[5] The African Charter of Human and People’s Rights, declares that “[a]ll peoples shall have the right to a general satisfactory environment favorable to their development.”[6] The American Convention on Human Rights upholds everyone’s “right to live in a healthy environment and to have access to basic public services.”[7] The UN Draft Declaration of Principles on Human Rights and the Environment, recognizes that “[a]ll persons have the right to a secure, healthy and ecologically sound environment.”[8] All this reflects important work and a continuing dialogue that should not be ignored in recognizing the right to a healthy environment.

Moreover, over 99 national constitutions recognize a government’s duty to protect the environment from harm.[9] Over fifty recognize either the right to a healthy environment or duty of the government to provide for one.[10] Whether a right to the environment is derivative or fundamental, the urgency and call for action is the same: the environment must be protected. Whether the end is protection of the environment in and of itself or whether it be protection of the environment to protect human rights, nation-states have increasingly recognized and should unite in implementing measures that protect the environment, especially when they impact human rights.

Because of the global nature of the environment and the transboundary consequences of environmental pollution, environmental standards, particularly as they relate to the toxic trade, must be standardized and equally enforced. Without standardization of environmental regulations, the race to the bottom that compels the search for the cheapest way to dispose of hazardous waste will continue to burden countries without the resources to implement and/or enforce environmental regulations that would protect their citizens from harm. Only through multilateral efforts, will the race to the bottom for the cheapest waste dump cease and will human rights, regardless of geographic location, be protected.

II. THE HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACT OF RECYCLING E-WASTE

E-waste is an especially noxious form of hazardous waste that disproportionately burdens developing countries, adversely impacting the human rights of their citizens. Ironically, however, e-waste has also created a burgeoning recycling industry that has created jobs in these countries. Thus, although this toxic industry has negatively impacted the human rights to life, health, water, food, work, and housing, inter alia, the workers and families living off the industry have become perversely dependant upon it. Furthermore, with the growth of a middle class propelled by industries such as e-waste recycling, the consumption of electronics will continue to rise, further exacerbating the already serious problem of finding safe e-waste disposal.

Section II will address the negative impact the electronic waste industry has on human rights, using China as an example. Previous reports submitted by the HRA to the Human Rights Commission/Council have all documented the problem of e-waste in China.[11] Still, it is useful to highlight China because it is the biggest receptor of e-waste and has a growing middle class that has the potential to surpass the developed world’s current consumption levels, which would aggravate the e-waste problem.

1. Guiyu: A Chinese E-Dump

Eighty percent of U.S. “recycled” electronic waste ends up in the small town of Gùiyǔ (贵屿), a one-industry town in the southern province of Guangdong, China, filled with enterprises called “recyclers.” About eighty percent of families work in the Gùiyǔ recycling industry and recover copper, gold, and other valuable materials from electronics all without adequate, if any, protective equipment— all for $1 to $3 a day.[12]

The fifteen million tons of e-waste entering the town impact residents’ and industry workers’ right to health.[13] Hazardous chemicals are released from e-wastes through disposal or improper recycling processes, threatening the health of local residents through direct exposure or contamination of the environment. For example, in Nigeria, another e-waste receiving country, toxic heavy metals found in cathode ray tubes (CRTs) in computers, such as lead, barium and cadmium, where found to be very harmful to health if they entered the water system, damaging human nervous and respiratory systems.[14] Similarly, people in the Guiyu area suffer from health effects including brain-damage, lung-burning, skin damage, headaches, vertigo, nausea, chronic gastritis, gastric and duodenal ulcers, and birth-defects resulting from exposures to toxins like lead, mercury, cadmium and bromated flame retardants.[15] Guiyu is also plagued by dioxin levels up to 56 times World Health Organization standards.[16]

E-waste also impacts the rights of a child to health.[17] About 82 percent of children under 6 around the Guiyu area suffer from lead poisoning as lead enters their systems through food, water, air, and soil.[18] The impact multiplies when considering that lead has disastrous effect on the development of children’s central nervous systems that will impede their learning abilities and thus on their right to education.[19]

E-waste also affects the rights to water[20] and work[21] in an interrelated way. Heavy toxic metals have rendered Guiyu’s drinking water useless, with once potable water now able to dissolve a coin in a few minutes.[22] Consequently, water is abnormally expensive in this town and must be imported from other villages thirty miles away. Without water, the villagers cannot seriously consider either growing their own food or having alternative sources of income other than “e-recycling.” In order to survive, they have become perversely dependent on an industry that continues to harm them in many ways.[23] What makes this worse is that most are peasant migrant workers who do not even know of the health consequences resulting from handling toxic wastes.[24] Thus, the toxic waste dumping has seriously violated their right to information[25] and to free, prior and informed consent.[26]

The dumping of many tons of e-waste material and process residues into workshops, yards, roadsides, open fields, irrigation canals, riverbanks, ponds, and rivers has caused Guiyu to become conspicuously polluted.[27] Now known as “trash town,”[28] Guiyu’s air is black and foul-smelling and its streams visibly pungent.[29] Several studies have reported the soaring levels of toxic heavy metals and organic contaminants in samples of dust, soil, river sediment, surface water, and groundwater of Guiyu.[30] At this rate, it is not speculative to predict that the town will one day become uninhabitable, displacing residents and impacting their human rights to work[31] and to housing.[32]

There are many ways that nation-states can help with the adverse impacts of the toxic trade on human rights. The next section will highlight the importance of having regulations in place that ensure government and corporate accountability and through which a victim can immediately file a grievance and receive compensation as necessary.

III. The Need for Effective Regulation as a Way to Address the Adverse Impacts

of the Transfer and Dumping of Hazardous Products on Human Rights

All countries, especially those producing the most waste, must take responsibility in ensuring respect for human rights regardless of borders. There is a domestic interest in ensuring the proper disposal of hazardous and toxic wastes in other countries. Because of the transboundary nature of environmental contamination, its effects on human rights are felt across many borders. For example, environmental pollution in China can ultimately lead to asthma and other problems affecting the right to health in the Americas.[33] Likewise, the leaking of toxic substances into the ground gets into the stream of water that knows no boundaries. As a result, people on one side of the globe can consume contaminated fish and other products that were originally polluted somewhere else. The impact on human rights of the improper transfer and dumping of toxics, thus, has a potentially global impact, far bigger than the geographically isolated dumpster area that many consider places such as Guiyu to be.

Leading waste-producing and developed countries have a responsibility to ensure that its waste is disposed of properly and without adverse impacts on human rights.[34] For example, while Guiyu is the world’s leading e-dump, the U.S. is the world’s leader in generating hazardous wastes, producing 279 million tons in 1995 and exporting 226,000 tons of that figure.[35] In terms of e-waste, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) estimates that the U.S. produced about 2 million tons of e-waste in 2005.[36] The full amount of e-waste that the U.S. exports is hard to determine because the EPA has only studied figures for CRTs.[37] In 2005, the U.S. collected and exported about 107,500 tons of CRT monitors and TVs for remanufacture or refurbishment.[38] It also sold another 24,000 tons of CRT glass to markets abroad for glass-to-glass processing.[39] Even now, most e-waste ends up in landfills but many U.S. states have recently instituted new laws prohibiting disposal of some types of e-waste like computer monitors in landfills.[40] With other U.S. states surely following, the amount of e-waste collected for recycling and exported abroad for final disposal will increase.[41] Waste-producing nation-states must ensure that they implement and enforce regulations aimed at properly recycling mounting electronic waste.

1. The Need for Domestic Regulations Addressing the Prevalence of Sham Recyclers

While an increase of government recycling initiatives is commendable, governments must take into account a private recycler’s environmental practices when deciding what company to use or recommend. For example, the U.S. EPA admits that only business practices, not environmental practices of private recycling companies are evaluated for inclusion on the U.S. General Services Administration’s (“GSA”) Environmental Services Schedule.[42] The Schedule facilitates the contracting process by providing a list of service providers that have a regular relationship and pre-negotiated prices with the government.[43] If environmental practices are not considered and because competitive prices plays a role in inclusion on the list, then it is likely that some of these companies may actually be “sham recyclers.”[44] With the U.S. federal government purchasing approximately $66 billion worth of information technology equipment and services annually[45] and looking to increase that figure to $71 billion in 2009,[46] it should use its buying power to demand that the recyclers they use are in fact not harming the environment.

The prevalence of “sham recyclers” is a real threat to efforts to manage waste.[47] After the adoption of the Basel Convention,[48] a multilateral treaty that seeks to control the dumping of hazardous wastes into developing countries, many U.S. exporters began posing as recyclers rather than dumpers.[49] A 2005 Government Accountability Office report found that "it is difficult to verify that exported used electronics are actually destined for reuse, or that they are ultimately managed responsibly once they leave U.S. shores."[50] By exporting waste abroad, U.S. “recyclers” not only avoid the cost of environmentally sound disposal domestically, but also earn money from selling the wastes to places like China, India, and Africa.[51] All governments should share responsibility for any environmentally irresponsible conduct by a private recycler it recommends or with whom it contracts.

There are three things governments should do to promote responsible recycling and prevent waste from going to sham recyclers. One is to implement a publicly-accessible tracking system for e-waste that traces ownership through the stages of recycling, including downstream vendors.[52] Another is to execute a government certification program whereby the government, adhering to international treaties and domestic legislation, certifies recycling companies based not only on their good business practices, but on proven sound environmental practices.[53] Certification should be made contingent upon each recycler’s accountability to the practices of any subcontracted company or second-hand recycler. Third, governments should hold sham recyclers accountable and prosecute them for failing to abide by domestic and foreign law.[54]

2. The Need for Multilateral Regulations that Standardize Key Terms

Because of inconsistent environmental standards and because what constitutes a “hazardous transfer” differs from country to country, the legal transfer of toxic substances can also impact human rights. Because of these different laws, the same exact transfer may be illicit in one context and not another, even though the adverse effects are identical.

One way to protect human rights irrespective of geographic location is for nation-states to standardize and enforce the definitions of “hazardous” and “recycling.” The problem and malleability of what is considered recycling is alarming: By 1994, ninety percent of hazardous waste exports were destined as “recycling.”[55] Since recycling is defined as “further use”, it can be used as a pretext for exporting hazardous wastes, particularly to poor countries, for energy production and as road-building or construction material.[56] For example, the definition of recycling is broad enough to include the use of polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) as fertilizer and piles of waste to raise the ground level of South Pacific islands.[57] Furthermore, many hazardous waste operations, like incineration plants, lead recycling factories, export of plastic residues containing hazardous substances, export of ships for recycling operations, are allowed to call themselves recyclers under the current fuzzy definition.[58] One European initiative to standardize the definition of “recycling” excludes “recycling” to non-material forms, such as combustion, chemical energy, or waste-to-fuel processes.[59]

Similarly, lack of a standard definition of “hazardous” actually encourages a race to the bottom, with entities shopping for places that do not consider their toxic goods “hazardous”[60] and governments offering lax definitions in order to attract businesses. Even the definition of hazardous in a multi-lateral agreement like the Basel Convention has not led to a uniform standard. This is because that definition is subject to different interpretations and also because national laws are allowed to add hazardous wastes to the scope of the Convention.[61] The treaty states that a hazardous waste is one that is “capable, by any means, after disposal, of yielding another material, e.g., leachate, which possesses any of the characteristics” listed in Annex III, including toxicity.[62] Canada has interpreted this definition to mean “hazardous [only] if it is displaying hazardous characteristics at the time of exportation.”[63] Other developed nations have deemed a waste hazardous if it could leach toxins at any point after disposal.[64] By standardizing the definition and interpretation of the word, governments can help stop the race to the bottom.

3. Ensuring Corporate Accountability

Because of the nature of the lifecycle of wastes— its passage through many hands from production to use to disposal—it is sometimes difficult to ascertain how to assign percentages of culpability for human rights violations resulting from illicit toxic transfers. Nevertheless, the role of corporations is too great to ignore.

That 51 out of the 100 largest economies in the world are global corporations demonstrates the powerful influence these international entities can exert vis-à-vis a developing nation.[65] For example, in 1988, the government of Guinea-Bissau was reportedly offered an amount that equaled more than four times its GNP in exchange for accepting fifteen million tons of toxic waste.[66] It is even easier for a corporation to exert influence over an individual. For example, while China has regulations prohibiting the importation of these wastes, it often does not take much to convince a corrupt official to allow e-wastes in.[67]

Besides being influential, corporations receive many benefits from electronics including productivity gains and banking services.[68] Manufacturers of electronics receive even more direct benefits. Thus because of these advantages, corporations should use their influence to ensure adherence to laws prohibiting e-wastes imports and to ensure responsible e-waste recycling.

First, manufacturers should take responsibility for the recycling of their own products, including costs associated with it. Extended Producer Responsibility, as this policy solution is called, will provide the incentive for the manufacturer to use non- or less toxic materials in the production process and to design the product to last longer and be more easily disassembled and recycled.[69] Less toxic materials in electronics will ultimately make them less expensive and much safer to recycle.[70] Manufacturers should also invest in the recycling industry with the aim of making it safer and more environmentally friendly. For example, they can provide funds earmarked for providing recycling industry workers with adequate protective gear to use when disassembling the manufacturers’ products.

Second, all corporations should sign agreements promising not to dump toxic e-waste on developing countries and not to dispose of e-waste in landfills or incinerators, including waste-to-energy incinerators.[71] To achieve this, businesses should use only licensed or permitted recyclers and always ask where a recycling company intends to recycle the material. Furthermore and in order to avoid sham recyclers, businesses should incorporate a system in which they pay half of the recycling fees to the recycler up front; then they pay the remainder after they see a receipt from a legitimate recycler, processor or disposal site.[72] Moreover, all corporations should provide consumers with full transparency and disclose who their recycling vendors are, including downstream vendors and the final disposition of these materials.[73]

4. The Need for Grievance Procedures and Regulations Facilitating Compensation

The lack of procedure and regulation often makes it difficult for toxic trade victims to address their grievances and receive compensation.[74] Only an adequate procedural infrastructure and efficient regulatory scheme will protect victims’ right to remedy.[75]

IV. Conclusion and Recommendations

Electronics provide governments, corporations, and consumers with a wide range of benefits that include educational systems, health services, productivity gains, banking services, and entertainment.[76] Thus, everyone has a responsibility to ensure responsible e-waste recycling.

Human Rights Advocates urges the Human Rights Council to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxics and dangerous substances and products.[77]

1. Furthermore, because exposure to toxic wastes, whether resulting from an illicit or legal transfer, causes the same devastating effects, Human Rights Advocates urges the Council to expand the mandate to include legal transfers and dumping of toxics.

Human Rights Advocates urges the Council to recommend all Member States to:

1. Assume responsibility for private recycling companies with whom they contract and prosecute sham recyclers. Align domestic environmental standards with international obligations and enact domestic environmental legislation and waste management practices that prohibit the export of waste to “recycling” centers abroad that lack standards for its safe disposal, and create and implement:

a. A strict international standard for “recycling” and “hazardous;”

b. A publicly-accessible tracking system for e-waste;

c. A government certification program, adhering to international and domestic standards, that certifies recycling companies based on good business and environmental practices.

2. Hold corporations accountable for any non-compliance with the laws of the importing country, and when necessary, hold them accountable for their actions under the law of their home country if its standards and regulations are stricter.

3. Institute an adequate and efficient procedural and regulatory infrastructure that provides victims with immediate access to grievance mechanisms, compensation, and administrative and judicial proceedings in the exporting State.

-----------------------

[1] In 2005, used or unwanted electronics in the United States amounted to approximately 1.9 to 2.2 million tons. U.S. Env’tl Prot. Agency, eCycling, (last visited January 20, 2008).

[2] The UK, for example, produces 400 million tons of waste a year. Global Footprints, Waste, (last visited January 20, 2008). The EU and the US produce the most waste. Fiona Harvey, Waste and the Environment: Reduction Should be the Target, Financial Times, Apr. 18, 2007, available at (last visited January 20, 2008).

[3] Comm. on Human Rights Res. 2004/17, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/RES/2004/17 (April 16, 2004).

[4] Declaration of the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment, princ. 1 (June 16, 1972) U.N. Doc. A/.CONF.48/14/Rev.1 (1973) [hereinafter Stockholm Declaration], available at ? DocumentID=97. See also Barry E. Hill, Human Rights and the Environment: A Synopsis and Some Predictions, 16 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 359, 375 (Spring 2004).

[5] U.N. Conference on Environment and Development: Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/5/Rev.1 (1992), reprinted in 31 I.L.M. 874.

[6] African Charter of Human and People's Rights, June 27, 1981, art. 24, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982).

[7] Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 17, 1988, art. 11, 28 I.L.M. 156, 161.

[8] Draft Declaration of Principles on Human Rights and the Environment, U.N. Hum. Rts. Comm. (May 16, 1994) [hereinafter Draft Declaration], available at (last visited Feb. 22, 2004).

[9] Hill, supra note 4, at 381, citing Earthjustice, Human Rights and the Environment Report 23-24 (2003), available at .

[10] Id.

[11] See Human Rights Advocates, Inc., The Impact of Toxic Wastes on Human Rights, ¶ 5–6, E/CN.4/2003/NGO/187, March 17, 2003; Human Rights Advocates, Inc., The Adverse Effects of the Illicit Movement and Dumping of Toxic Wastes on the Enjoyment of Human Rights, ¶ 4–5, E/CN.4/2004/NGO/93, March 3, 2004; Human Rights Advocates, The Adverse Effects of the Illicit Transfer of Toxics on Human Rights, ¶ 2, 5–9, E/CN.4/2005/NGO/192, March 4, 2005; Human Rights Advocates, Inc., Effects of and recommendations for the eradication of the Illicit Transfer and Dumping of Toxics, ¶ 1, 7–9, A/HRC/4/NGO/1, March 2, 2007.

[12] Terry Allen, China is Our E-Waste Dumping Ground (Jan. 5, 2008), In These Times, available at .

[13] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 25.1, Dec. 10, 1948, G.A. Res. 217 A(III), U.N. Doc. A/810, at 71 (1948) (hereinafter Universal Declaration of Human Rights); International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, art. 12.1–12.2, G.A. Res. 2200 (XXI), U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966) [hereinafter International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights]; International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, art. 5., G.A. Res. 2106 (XX), Annex, at 47, U.N. Doc. A/6014 (1966) [hereinafter CERD].

[14] Efem Nkanga, Combating the Danger of E-Waste in Nigeria, This Day (Nigeria), January 16, 2008, available at (last visited January 20, 2008).

[15] Allen, supra note 12; Xia Huo et al. Elevated Blood Lead Levels of Children in Guiyu, an Electronic Waste Recycling Town in China, at 1113, 1113, Environmental Health Perspectives, July 2007, available at .

[16] Huo, supra note 15, at 1113.

[17] Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 24, Nov. 20, 1989, 28 I.L.M. 1448 (entered into force Sept. 2, 1990) [hereinafter Convention on the Rights of the Child].

[18] Huo, supra note 15, at 1113.

[19] Convention on the Rights of the Child, supra note 17, art. 28.

[20] U.N. Econ. & Soc. Council, Committee on Econ., Soc., and Cultural Rights, General Comment 15: The Right to Water, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2002/11.

[21] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, supra note 13, art. 23.

[22] Greenpeace, Toxic Tea Party (July 23, 2007), (last visited January 20, 2008).

[23] Allen, supra note 12.

[24] Greenpeace, supra note 22.

[25] See G.A. Res. 59 (I), U.N. Doc. A/64/Add.1 (1947); Universal Declaration of Human Rights, supra note 13, art. 19; American Convention on Human Rights, art. 13, Nov. 22, 1969, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123 (entered into force July 18, 1978); Open Society Justice Initiative, International Tribunal Makes Landmark Ruling on Access to Information (Oct. 12, 2006), (last visited February 26, 2008) (Inter-American Court of Human Rights declaring that all people have right to access of information).

[26] See International Labour Organisation [ILO], Convention (No. 169) Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, arts. 2, 6, 15, June 27, 1989, 28 I.L.M. 1382 (entered into force Sept. 5, 1990).

[27] Huo, supra note 15, at 1113.

[28]E-dump, (last visited February 10, 2008) (skip intro, click on “Trash Town” link, then click on “Guiyu”).

[29] Id; Greenpeace, supra note 22.

[30] Huo, supra note 15, at 1113.

[31] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, supra note 13, art. 23.

[32] Id. art. 25; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, supra note 13, art. 14; CERD, supra note 13, art. 5.

[33] Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery, Editor’s Note, Mother Jones (Jan./Feb. 2008), available at .

[34] Developed countries should not use their economic prowess to exchange pollution for development. For example, Japan has been attempting to negotiate “economic partnership agreements” with the Philippines to exchange Japanese toxic waste exports for promised access to domestic and nursing labor markets in Japan. Basel Action Network, Japan “Twisting Arms” of Asian Neighbors to Take Toxic Waste (Feb. 22, 2007), (last visited Mar. 1, 2008). It has made similar agreements with Singapore, Malaysia, and Mexico. Id.

[35] Lawrence McGlinn, Spatial Patterns of Hazardous Waste Generation and Management in the United States, 52 The Professional Geographer 11 (February 2000); Environmental Protection Agency, International Trade In Hazardous Waste: An Overview, Doc No. EPA-305-K-98-001 available at .

[36] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, e-Cycling, Frequent Questions, (last visited February 10, 2008).

[37] Id.

[38] Id.

[39] Id.

[40] The following states have passed laws banning some types of e-waste from landfills and incinerators: Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and North Carolina. Electronics Takeback Coalition, Tools for Legislators and Advocates: States Where You Can’t Throw E-Waste into the Trash, (last visited Mar. 1, 2008).

In addition nine states plus New York City have passed laws creating “producer responsibility” e-waste recycling programs, requiring manufacturers to pay for recycling: Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York City, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. Electronics Takeback Coalition, Tools for Legislators and Advocates: State Legislation on E-Waste, (last visited Mar. 1, 2008).

[41] Human Rights Advocates, The Adverse Effects of the Illicit Transfer of Toxics on Human Rights, ¶ 7, E/CN.4/2005/NGO/192, March 4, 2005.

[42] EPA, Recycling of Electronic Equipment 3 (2006), available at .

[43] GSA, Environmental Services, GSA Schedule 899, at 2, available at .

[44] Sham recycling is on the rise overall and legitimate haulers are losing business to their cheaper sham counterparts. Brent Champaco, It’s a Sham Shame (Dec. 1, 2007), The News Tribune, available at ; see, e.g., Department of Justice, Press Release, Yazoo City Hazardous Waste Operator Pleads Guilty (Nov. 15, 2007), . The U.S. District Court sentenced this sham recycler to 41 months in prison and three years probation. Environment News Services, Sham Mississippi Hazwaste Operator Jailed (Feb. 7, 2008), .

[45] Federal Electronics Challenge, (last visited January 20, 2008).

[46] E-Gov, Budget Highlights, (last visited Feb. 10, 2008).

[47] Electronic Take Back Coalition, Responsible Recycling, (last visited Feb. 29, 2008).

[48] Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, Mar. 22, 1989, 28 I.L.M. 649, 1673 U.N.T.S. 125, available at .

The United States still has not ratified this treaty.

[49] Allen, supra note 12.

[50] Id.

[51] Allen, supra note 12.

[52] An e-waste tracking system is a proposed project in Sri Lanka. Open-ended Working Group of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, Implementation of Decision VIII/2 on Creating Innovative Solutions Through the Basel Convention for the Environmentally Sound Management of Electrical and Electronic Wastes, Jul. 2, 2007, U.N. Doc. UNEP/CHW/ OEWG/6/21.

[53] The U.S. EPA has convened with electronics recyclers, manufacturers, retailers, state and local governments, and nongovernmental organizations to discuss adopting best standards and practices and a certification program from electronics recyclers and processors. Joe Truini, Stamp of Approval: New E-Waste Recycling Effort Focuses on Certification (Feb. 27, 2006), Waste News, available at . Thus far, nothing has resulted, however.

[54] See, e.g., Department of Justice, supra note 44.

[55] Jen Baggs, International Trade in Hazardous Waste 9 (May 2001), available at *+dump*+and+italy (last visited Jan. 21, 2008).

[56] Fatma-Zohra Ouchachi-Vesely, Special Rapporteur on Toxic Wastes, Comm. on Human Rights, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Adverse Effects of Illicit Movement and Dumping of Toxic and Dangerous Products and Wastes on the Enjoyment of Human Rights, at 13 ¶ 25, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2001/55 (Jan. 21, 2001) [hereinafter Special Rapporteur 2001]; See Greenpeace International, Toxic Trade Update, No. 6.4, 1993, at 26.

[57] Baggs, supra note 54, at 9.

[58] Special Rapporteur 2001, supra note 56, at 13–16.

[59] Appeal, Sham Recycling needs to be Avoided 1 (May 25, 2007), available at .

[60] See Jennifer Clapp, Toxic Exports: The Transfer of Hazardous Wastes from Rich to Poor 88 (2001).

[61] Rachel Ross, Toxic Exportation (Jan. 3, 2005), Toronto Star, available at ; Basel Convention, supra note 48, arts. 1, 3.

[62] Ross, supra note 61; Basel Convention, supra note 48, Annex III (List of Hazardous Characteristics).

[63] Ross, supra note 61.

[64] Id.

[65] Cyril Uchenna Gwam, Adverse Effects of the Illicit Movement and Dumping of Hazardous, Toxic, and Dangerous Wastes and Products on the Enjoyment of Human Rights, 14 Fla. J. Int’l L. 427, 469 (2002) (citations omitted).

[66] Baggs, supra note 54, at 8.

[67] Alastair Iles, Mapping Environmental Justice in Technology Flows: Computer Waste Impacts in Asia, 4.4 Global Environmental Politics 76, 99 (Nov. 2004); Allen, supra note 12.

[68] Iles, supra note 67, at. 87.

[69] Electronics Take Back Coalition, Producer Responsibility as a Policy Solution, (last visited Feb. 29, 2008).

[70] Id.

[71] See, e.g., Manufacturer’s Commitment to Responsible E-Waste Recycling, (last visited Feb 28, 2008). The prohibition of the U.S. practice of prison labor in e-waste recycling is also included in this agreement. Id.

[72] Champaco, supra note 44.

[73] Electronics Take Back Coalition, Responsible Recycling, Manufacturers Commitment to Responsible E-Waste Recycling, (last visited Feb. 28, 2008).

[74] For example, it took ten years for 356 Chilean residents in Arica to be compensated for health problems due to toxic metal exposure from a company’s illegal dumping practices. Daniela Estrada, Chile : Pollution Victims Win Court Battle For Compensation, Inter Press Service, (June 4, 2007). See also Mike Hager, Chile Must Pay US$5.4 Million to Aricans Living Amid Toxic Waste, Santiago Times (June 1, 2007), available at .

[75] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, supra note 13, art. 8; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, part II, art. 2(3), Dec. 16, 1966, U.N. Doc. A/RES/2200 A (XXI).

[76] Iles, supra note 67, at 87.

[77] Having a Special Rapporteur on Toxic Wastes is necessary in order to investigate little documented problems. For example, there has recently been a report that Italy has illegally shipped toxic wastes to Croatia. Karmen Horvat, Croatia Italian Toxic Waste Dump Site? (Jan. 7, 2008), [pic]” (last visited Jan. 20, 2008). Having a Special Rapporteur on Toxic Wastes investigate this alleged dumping is paramount verifying its veracity and impact on human rights.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download