Pena: Export, import of hazardous waste
THE news about the inclusion of hazardous waste trade in the recently signed Japan/Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (Jpepa) has stirred a lot of controversy and solicited a lot of protests from local and international environmental groups.
When the news came out in a major daily newspaper, it was the hot topic of the day in media commentaries. Ironically, it was the day I was attending a conference/workshop for government agencies on combating the illegal trade of ozone depleting substances.
On my way to the convention site in Olongapo, I was listening to the commentaries of seasoned broadcasters in a leading AM station. I was bothered at the way the hosts handled the discussion. They asked several well-known personalities, including a bishop, if they agree with the import of hazardous waste. Naturally, no Filipino in his right mind would agree to such a proposal.
What I find disappointing is that prominent people, who can influence public opinion, are "forced" to take sides and comment on a sensitive issue without knowing the details. This, I think, will prematurely generate negative reactions and may cause undue panic. It may add spark to our highly charged environment.
I am against the export of hazardous waste to the Philippines. We still have problems treating and disposing our own waste. But before I make any comments in public, I would first seek the opinion of technical people from the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB). My first inquiry is whether a waste export agreement is allowed by law.
It would be best to read the contents of Republic Act (RA) 6969, the Toxic and Hazardous Waste Act of 1990, and the Basel Convention, the international agreement on the trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste. I'm sure that these two laws will be the major references for discussion on the legality of the hazardous waste clause, if any, of Jpepa.
Both Japan and the Philippines are signatories to the Basel Convention. This agreement is a global attempt to regulate and monitor the international transport of hazardous waste. It was the response to the growing practice of dumping toxic waste by rich countries to less developed counties for a fee. It is suppose to be economically beneficial to both, since it is cheaper for the exporter to dump than to treat waste in its own backyard, while the importer gets substantial revenue from the deal. The problem however is that developing countries are often ill equipped to dispose the waste properly, causing damage to the environment.
The United Nations Environment Programme (Unep) took the first step in 1987 to curb unsound waste disposal practice. It adopted the Cairo Guidelines and Principles for the Environmentally Sound Management of Hazardous Waste, which contains recommendations concerning the export of hazardous waste. Unep wanted to enlarge the scope of this international directive by creating a convention to formalize regulation procedures into international law. The result is the Basel Convention, which was signed in Budapest, Hungary in October 1987. It is now signed by 116 countries and went into force on May 5, 1992.
The control system under the Basel Convention is based on prior notification and consent. It also called on signatories to reduce the amount of hazardous waste they generate, actively promote and use cleaner technologies and production methods, and improve technical and institutional capabilities on managing hazardous waste, especially for developing countries.
Meanwhile, our own law, RA 6969 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), doesn't allow the importation of hazardous waste as defined in the Act and in the IRR. However, importation of materials containing hazardous substances for recycling, recovery and reprocessing maybe allowed, but only upon the written approval of the DENR Secretary.
It would be interesting to observe the debate on this issue once Jpepa is submitted to the senate for ratification. By Rox Pena , E-ssue
When the news came out in a major daily newspaper, it was the hot topic of the day in media commentaries. Ironically, it was the day I was attending a conference/workshop for government agencies on combating the illegal trade of ozone depleting substances.
On my way to the convention site in Olongapo, I was listening to the commentaries of seasoned broadcasters in a leading AM station. I was bothered at the way the hosts handled the discussion. They asked several well-known personalities, including a bishop, if they agree with the import of hazardous waste. Naturally, no Filipino in his right mind would agree to such a proposal.
What I find disappointing is that prominent people, who can influence public opinion, are "forced" to take sides and comment on a sensitive issue without knowing the details. This, I think, will prematurely generate negative reactions and may cause undue panic. It may add spark to our highly charged environment.
I am against the export of hazardous waste to the Philippines. We still have problems treating and disposing our own waste. But before I make any comments in public, I would first seek the opinion of technical people from the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB). My first inquiry is whether a waste export agreement is allowed by law.
It would be best to read the contents of Republic Act (RA) 6969, the Toxic and Hazardous Waste Act of 1990, and the Basel Convention, the international agreement on the trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste. I'm sure that these two laws will be the major references for discussion on the legality of the hazardous waste clause, if any, of Jpepa.
Both Japan and the Philippines are signatories to the Basel Convention. This agreement is a global attempt to regulate and monitor the international transport of hazardous waste. It was the response to the growing practice of dumping toxic waste by rich countries to less developed counties for a fee. It is suppose to be economically beneficial to both, since it is cheaper for the exporter to dump than to treat waste in its own backyard, while the importer gets substantial revenue from the deal. The problem however is that developing countries are often ill equipped to dispose the waste properly, causing damage to the environment.
The United Nations Environment Programme (Unep) took the first step in 1987 to curb unsound waste disposal practice. It adopted the Cairo Guidelines and Principles for the Environmentally Sound Management of Hazardous Waste, which contains recommendations concerning the export of hazardous waste. Unep wanted to enlarge the scope of this international directive by creating a convention to formalize regulation procedures into international law. The result is the Basel Convention, which was signed in Budapest, Hungary in October 1987. It is now signed by 116 countries and went into force on May 5, 1992.
The control system under the Basel Convention is based on prior notification and consent. It also called on signatories to reduce the amount of hazardous waste they generate, actively promote and use cleaner technologies and production methods, and improve technical and institutional capabilities on managing hazardous waste, especially for developing countries.
Meanwhile, our own law, RA 6969 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), doesn't allow the importation of hazardous waste as defined in the Act and in the IRR. However, importation of materials containing hazardous substances for recycling, recovery and reprocessing maybe allowed, but only upon the written approval of the DENR Secretary.
It would be interesting to observe the debate on this issue once Jpepa is submitted to the senate for ratification. By Rox Pena , E-ssue
posted by OlongapoCity Zambales at
6:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home