Side deal on toxic wastes won’t wash, says lawyer.

but, lest it be discounted, economic gain must not sacrifice health and environmental safety issues. it is therefore deemed important to reiterate Basel Action Network’s press release ten days ago:

“The truth has not been told about Japan’s true intentions to utilize bilateral free trade agreements such as JPEPA to project their vision of a free trade in waste particularly between Japan and its developing country neighbors,” said Richard Gutierrez of the Basel Action Network’s new Asia Pacific office in Manila. “Not only is this very dangerous for the sustainability of the Philippines, but the JPEPA is a direct attack on the goals and decisions of the Basel Convention—a landmark treaty designed to protect developing countries and already accepted by over 160 countries,” he said.

Much is revealed in the policy brief entitled Networking International Recycling Zones in Asia. In it, a two leg strategy is projected to override the “cumbersome procedure” of the Basel Convention which “has become a barrier to international trade of recyclables.” First, the strategy advocates utilizing the Japanese G8 project known as the “3R Initiative” which under the name of promoting recycling promotes the elimination of trade barriers to wastes. Second, the Japanese strategy advocates the use of bilateral free trade agreements (such as JPEPA) to eliminate trade barriers in waste and in particular make use of the “comparative advantage” of developing countries…

“It is well known that Japan has no intention of ratifying the Basel Ban Amendment and is taking steps to prevent its neighbors from implementing it as well,” said Richard Gutierrez of BAN. “To Japan the JPEPA is a very important opening gambit in a global chess game to undermine the Basel Convention and its principle of not allowing waste colonialism.”

…and their recommendations:

1. Immediate removal of all waste trade liberalization provisions from the JPEPA.

2. Japan and the Philippines must ratify the Basel Convention’s Ban Amendment at the earliest possible date as they have been urged to do since 1995.

3. A full impartial multi-stakeholder inquiry into how these provisions survived the negotiation process.

4. Japan must completely remove from the 3R initiative all references to eliminating or reducing trade barriers for wastes and cease efforts to liberalize waste trade globally.

5. Japan and the Philippines must embark on a serious program to prevent hazardous and other wastes at source via toxics use reductions, elimination of excessive packaging and planned obsolescence.

—–

finally, malacañang has transmitted to the senate for scrutiny the controversial pact sans amendments. i hope if ever it may be ratified the important revisions/amendments in the provisions, particularly regarding trade of toxic wastes, would already be done.

dubious…considering (1) Japan and the US (two of the biggest proponents of 3R) are well known for their opposition to the Basel Convention’s call for national self-sufficiency in hazardous waste management and the Basel Ban Amendment – a decision by the Basel Parties to ban all exports of hazardous wastes from rich to poorer countries; (2) both countries were involved in the illegal trade of eWaste (hazardous electronic waste) to developing countries; and (3) that one of the primary goals of the initiative is to “Reduce barriers to the international flow of goods and materials for recycling and remanufacturing, recycled and remanufactured products, along with cleaner, more efficient technologies, consistent with existing environmental and trade obligations and frameworks.”

emphasis on Recycling defeats the purpose of Reducing waste. this is especially true as volume of waste produced in the US and Japan seems to be rising in recent years. they are going about their usual business of producing goods (with concomitant production of waste)…anyway, waste can be recycled and can hopefully help other nations where the recycling can be done…regardless whether its harmful or not to those lowest wage countries of the world!

the addition of a fourth R, which is Responsibility, could spell a difference…

the foregoing is detailed here and here…please read on.

—–

“The government of Japan has an established legal framework based on the Basel Convention and has been enforcing strict export/import control, which does not allow any export of toxic and hazardous wastes to another country, including the Philippines, unless the government of such a country approves such export.”

…and JPEPA approves such an export…tsk, tsk, tsk…

I also find the statement from the Japanese government, courtesy of its embassy here, cryptic. The exact quote below is from an inq7 report:

“The government of Japan has an established legal framework based on the Basel Convention and has been enforcing strict import/export control, which does not allow any export of toxic and hazardous wastes to another country, including the Philippines, unless the government of such a country approves such export.”

If Japan was serious about its Basel Convention commitments, it should be unequivocal about it, without having to qualify it with the clause: “unless the government of such a country approves such export.

Which is also the point being argued by today’s Inquirer editorial.

if indeed it is now Japan’s current government expanded policy treating wastes as export commodity, the more reason Pinoys (and not only environmentalists, often miscontrued as commies, leftists, etc. by some myopic bloggers) scoff at their government and prevent JPEPA from being inserted with provisions hazardous to health.

the Senate, as treaty ratifier, must shake GMA and her gang of squatters, down to the last info on provisions which may become part of such.

and more importantly, even before the Senate tackles the issue, citizens must get their acts together in probing importers who may have been already engaged in facilitating entry of these wastes.

in addition to earlier enumerated list, please add Central Bank (importers are required to secure a CB clearance) and import brokerage houses (companies facilitating release of container vans from the ports) in the watchlist.

Japan

The Government of Japan declares that nothing in the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal be interpreted as requiring notice to or consent of any State for the mere passage of hazardous wastes or other wastes on a vessel exercising navigational rights and freedoms, as paragraph 12 of article 4 of the said Convention stipulates that nothing in the Convention shall affect in any way the exercise of navigational rights and freedoms as provided for in international law and as reflected in relevant international instruments.

although, legal experts warn that RP-Japan pact could override existing laws.

a review of this JPEPA treaty is therefore in order…
in order to avoid it to become a cheapepay deal!

—–

you’re welcome, alecks.

The incident brought shame to Japan as a member of the international community and paved the way for a high-level liaison coordination meeting between the two countries (also here) for the purpose of quickly resolving the case and preventing its recurrence. we hope BY NOW they have already crafted more effective legislation and harmonization of polices to safeguard against the traffic of hazardous waste.

it is to be noted also that the Basel Ban is NOT YET entered into force despite a total of 62 ratifications. an ambiguity of interpretation in Article 17 paragraph 5 of the Basel Convention is the reason. i think this would not in any way diminish the purpose of the Convention, it’s just that member Parties may deviate from the provisions due to lack of the badly-needed consensus on the matter.