The Definition of Environmental Crime - Coursework Example

Essay With the rising technological developments the number of environment related crimes are also o the rise. The definition of environmental crime includes several facets in the broader form of interpretation. However, the legal definition of environmental crime includes all illegal actions and omissions that directly or indirectly cause damage to the environment. One major environmental crime that has caused severe environmental and human health related effects is the dumping of toxic wastes in the developing world by the developed nations. Toxic wastes could be released by industries, companies, agriculture, and military or by medical facilities. In addition to causing severe environmental damage, it also affects the basic right of human beings to a healthy environment (Ajunwa, 2007). Illegal dumping of toxic wastes, which are generated in developed countries such as Europe and America, in to third world countries such as Africa, South-east Asia, India and China has become a routine in the recent past. This is mainly due to the huge quantities of toxic wastes such as electronic and petrochemical wastes, asbestos and wastes from refineries and shipping industries that are being generated. Such illegal dumping has had an enormous impact on the health of people living in the developing nations especially in countries such as Africa. Reports suggest that there is an increase in the number of deaths and diseases caused by such illegal dumping of toxic wastes. Following increased dumping of waste products in the developing world, the Basel convention laid down regulations to control the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes which prevented the export of toxic wastes from the developed nation to the developing world. However, subsequent inspection of ports in the European nations reveled that nearly 47% of wastes that was destined for illegal export a recent incident being the dumping of about 550 tones of toxic wastes in the Abidjan port by the firm Trafigura Beheer BV. This situation calls for stricter policies which are required in order to prevent the use of developing nations as a dumping ground (Godoy, 2010). Hazardous wastes include solids, liquids or gases that may cause harm to both humans and the environment. Increased production of such wastes by certain multinational companies initiated the export of such wastes to countries such as Africa. This led to serious environmental damage by affecting the water and air quality that killed many children and adults. Estimates show that nearly 300 million tones of toxic wastes are generated annually of which 90% come from the developed world due to rapid advances in technology and science and population increase in these countries. Countries such as Africa were considered as an ideal choice for dumping of huge quantities of toxic wastes (Koffa, 2007). Following the dumping of nearly 4000 tones of toxic waste in the Port City of Koko in Nigeria, the Basel Convention was convened in 1989 which forbids the dumping of all forms of toxic waste by industrialized counties in to the developing nations. The regulations came in to force in the year 1992, and the European Union implemented the ban in 1998; however, several other industrialized countries such as America and Canada have not ratified with the rules laid down by the convention and continue to dump wastes in these countries (Godoy, 2010; Koffa, 2007; Ajunwa, 2007). Other international laws such as the Ban Amendment and EU Waste Shipment Regulation have also made the dumping of toxic wastes in developing countries illegal (Greenpeace International, n.d). And the recent dumping of nearly 500 tones of toxic waste such as petroleum by-products, hydrogen sulphide, mercaptans, phenolic compounds and sodium hydroxide in about 15 sites in the Abidjan port in Cote d’lvoire by the oil trading company Trafigura is a painful example of the injustice meted to Africa and its people as it has affected the lives of humans and also caused serious environmental pollution (Godoy, 2010; Koffa, 2007). Reports have emerged that explain the events that occurred prior to the dumping of the toxic wastes in Abidjan. As Trafigura is a Dutch oil trading company, they had bought oil from a Mexican company called Pemex International in the year 2006 (Greenpeace International, n.d). Reports reveal that this oil was contaminated with sulphur and that the company was hoping to make a profit of about $7m by buying the oil and processing it aboard a ship (Leigh, 2009). This oil was then purified, not by the normal methods but by using a method that was banned as the process resulted in hazardous wastes. In this process, which is referred to as caustic washing, low quality crude oil is mixed with sodium hydroxide which purifies the oil but leaves behind a toxic waste product. While the company itself states that the method has been banned in the European Union and in America, it had however, used the process to purify the oil purchased from Mexico aboard the ship, Probo Koala, which was used in the transportation process. The traders however, faced difficulties in disposing the black, stinking slurry waste product and initially they tried to treat it in the Amsterdam harbor. But when proper facilities were unavailable and with the cost of treatment also high the company looked at other options. They then decided to dump the slurry and Nigeria was considered as the first option; however, the waste was handed over to a Ivorian disposal company called Tommy in the Ivory Coast who agreed to take the wastes for a lesser amount of money. Subsequently the waste was disposed off the coast of Abidjan in about 15 sites on August 19 2006 (Koffa, 2007; Greenpeace International, n.d; Selva, 2006; Business and Human Rights, n.d; United Nations Environment Program, 2009). Such dumping of wastes along African coasts has become a common occurrence as many individuals from politicians to civilians who are interested in making quick money resort to such work (Selva, 2006). The wastes have polluted nearby water and the toxic fumes emitted have affected thousands of people. Reports of analysis of the waste samples state that it contained nearly 2 tones of hydrogen sulphide gas which has a characteristic smell of rotten eggs (Leigh & Hirsch, 2009; United Nations Environment Program, 2009). Days after the dumping of the wastes, the local residents complained of vomiting, eye inflammation, respiratory problems, diarrhea and nausea. Official reports from the Ivory Coast and the UN state that there has been 15 deaths, 69 persons hospitalized and thousands of people have taken medical consultations and prima facie evidence suggest that the deaths and health consequences are due to exposure to the toxic wastes (Leigh, 2009; Greenpeace International, n.d; Bowers, 2009). The exact role of Trafigura in the wastes dumping event was not clear immediately. The ship however, left the Ivory Coast and was blocked by Greenpeace, an independent global campaigning organization in Estonia. Weeks after the dumping of the toxic wastes was revealed, the company commissioned its own report on the dumping which is known as the Minton Report which concluded that the oil waste was potentially toxic and could cause several damaging health effects (Greenpeace International, n.d; Bowers, 2009). This report was however, not revealed by Trafigura immediately and when it was leaked three years later Minton had refuted the previously made charges. Trafigura had maintained that the waste that was dumped was harmless and that the process was handled properly (Bowers, 2009). The original statements from the company issued after the incident was leaked state that the wastes were only routine slops or dirty water that is left after tank washing (Leigh & Hirsch, 2009). However, the internal Trafigura mails, which were leaked out, have revealed that the company told traders who were contacted for disposing the wastes that they had employed the caustic washing process which had generated the toxic wastes (Leigh, 2009). In the aftermath of the incident the company was prosecuted by the Netherlands government for not revealing the exact content of the wastes and also for exporting them to the developing countries for illegal dumping which was against the European Law. The head of the Trafigura firm, Claude Dauphin and other employees were detained by Ivory Coast officials (Greenpeace International, n.d; Business and Human Rights, n.d). Several media channels and newspapers began to follow the incident and published reports on the same. The company in turn launched several lawsuits and libel cases against the news channel BBC which had begun to follow the case closely and demanded for a correction from the Times and the Guardian to delete two articles related to the issue. They also tried to threaten journalists in the Netherlands and Norway. The company defended itself stating that the information published and telecasted were defaming its reputation and that it was completely untrue that it had dumped harmful wastes in Abidjan (Leigh, 2009; Greenpeace International, n.d). In turn the BBC also filed a case suit against Trafigura stating that the company had known about the potentially toxic compounds in the wastes and that it did not furnish enough credible proof to substantiate its claims. Additionally the company was also criticized for the way it handled the issue by an employee in the UN human rights committee. Further legal action was also launched by the Greenpeace organization which stated that the pollution and subsequent harm caused to eh health of people was intentional and hence the company should take moral responsibility for its actions (Leigh, 2009; Greenpeace International, n.d). To all the cases filed against it, Trafigura maintained that death or health hazards due to fumes emanated by the hydrogen sulphide gas present in the wastes could never be possible as the gas would have never been released in the first place and that the autopsy reports could not be considered as reliable evidence (Leigh, 2009). The company also issued a statement in which they refused to divulge the chemical composition of the slops but maintained that they could not have caused the alleged health problems as proclaimed by some organizations and media. Additionally the company also offered to compensate affected individuals if they can provide substantial medical evidence stating that their health problem was caused due to exposure to the toxic wastes (Leigh & Hirsch, 2009). In addition to the above, in July 2008, three French victims of the Ivory Cost tragedy filed a case against Trafigura in Paris with charges of corruption, involuntary homicide and physical harm that lead to death (Business and Human Rights, n.d). However, in November 2006, a group of 30,000 claimants represented by a UK law firm, Leigh and Day, approached the High Court of Justice in London and argued that the wastes had a high content of caustic soda and hydrogen sulfide which had adverse effects on the health of those who lived in the areas where the wastes had been dumped. This lawsuit has its legal basis in the extra-territorial provisions of the EU under Article 2 of the Brussels Convention by which when people are domiciled in the contracting state can be sued in that state irrespective of their nationality. Since the Trafigura branch that hired the ship was domiciled in the UK, the UK law firm was able to take up the case. The lawsuit continued for about 3 years (Leigh, 2009; Greenpeace International, n.d). There were also alleged claims that Trafigura had offered money to one of the claimants and had him flown down to Morocco where he was interviewed by people from Macfarlanes who were Trafigura’s solicitors. Macfarlanes, while agreeing to have flown down the individual to Morocco and paid for his stay, denied that there was any money offered to the person and that the meeting was arranged purely due to legal reasons. In March 2009, the court hearing on this claim issued an injunction that banned Trafigura from contacting any claimants (Leigh & Hirsch, 2009; Business and Human Rights, n.d). In September 2009, after having faced several legal lawsuits and with the company’s internal emails leaked to the public, Trafigura, while still maintaining that it had exported toxic waste, agreed to pay an out-of-court settlement of $50 million to the claimants and in return wanted all the charges to be dropped. A joint agreement was then signed between the two parties and the matter was resolved with Trafigura still refusing to accept liability for the toxic waste dumping. The claimants are reported to be satisfied with the settlement (Leigh, 2009; Greenpeace International, n.d; Bowers, 2009; Business and Human Rights, n.d; United Nations Environment Program, 2009). Earlier the company had offered sum of $160 million dollars to the Ivory Coast government to initiate clean up operations (United Nations Environment Program, 2009). Greenpeace also initiated another trial in Netherlands which was the initial place considered by Trafigura for dumping the toxic wastes and the trial still continues in the court. Additionally Greenpeace also lodged a compliant against the Advertising Code Authority as several advertisements stating that the high court of London had ruled out that toxic waste dumped in the Ivory Coast could cause serious health problems were put up in Netherlands. Greenpeace argued that such advertisements were false as no such judgment had been passed by the UK court and that the company was trying to falsely propagate a judgment in its favor (Leigh, 2009; Greenpeace International, n.d). While the settlement offered by Trafigura has been accepted by the victims, Greenpeace is still pursuing its case against the company as it firmly believes that mere out- of- court settlements or compensations given by the company is sufficient enough to get itself out of the problem. The settlement will result in less support from the government to get true justice to the victims (Greenpeace International, n.d; Ajunwa, 2007). There has been a severe breach of the human right to clean environment. International legal instruments such as the Stockholm Declaration and Aarhus convention recognize the right of human beings to a healthy environment and also to demand information from the concerned company or industry about the causes that led to such damages. On similar lines the Basel Convention which was implemented in 1989 to curtail the export of toxic materials from developed to the less developed countries and called for disposal of such wastes in an environmentally friendly manner. However, the convention did not prohibit the export of toxic substances to any other country except Antarctica which is being exploited by many developed nations. An amendment that has been proposed to the Basel Convention names 29 developed countries and prohibits export of toxic wastes from them to the developing world. While this amendment has been signed by 63 member states and implemented by the European Union, the US and Canada are yet to ratify the ban. An important regional Ban adopted within Africa which prohibits import into and management of hazardous wastes within Africa is the Bamako Convention which was adopted in 1991. Incidents that occurred in Koko, Nigeria and failure of the Basel convention to prevent toxic waste exports especially to countries like Africa prompted the initiation of this convention. In the year 1995 the United Nations Human Rights Commissions affirmed that illegal dumping of toxic wastes in the developing world cases serious health and environmental effects and thus appointed a Special Rapporteur to study the adverse effects (Ajunwa, 2007). Several reasons have been cited which lead to such illegal dumping of toxic wastes and one major reason being poverty. Companies and industries engaging in such exports do so by paying the poor countries and in turn they also receive an economic incentive as the process is much cheaper compared to other means of disposal. Thus they have a dual benefit of disposing the toxic goods and at a cheaper price. Additionally there has not been proper enforcement of conventions such as the Basel and its amendment and Bamako as many prime developed nations such as the US are yet to ratify the same. Another drawback is the non-incorporation of corporate companies in the law making process as they have a major influence in decisions pertaining to human rights owing to increasing globalization. However, a corporate code of conduct has been proposed by the UN Human Rights Sub-Commission and its enforcement will bring about the desired changes in law and policy making (Ajunwa, 2007). With the implementation of the laws illegal dumping of toxic wastes by the developed world can be cut down. Reference 1. Third world used as a 2. Godoy, J. 2010. Waste headed for a third world bin. http://ipsnews.net/africa/nota.asp?idnews=34818 [19 April 2010] 3. Koffa, M.T. 2007. Africa remains a dumping site for hazardous waste. http://www.theliberiandialogue.org/articles/c020807tws.htm [19 April 2010] 4. Leigh, D. 2009. How UK oil company Trafigura tried to cover up African pollution disaster. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/16/trafigura-african-pollution-disaster [19 April 2010] 5. Greenpeace International. n.d. Trafigura. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/trafigura [19 April 2010] 6. Bowers, M. 2009. Trafigura report on dumped waste in Ivory Coast revealed. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6878956.ece [19 April 2010] 7. Selva, M. 2006. Toxic shock: How Western Rubbish is Destroying Africa. http://www.globalpolicy.org/social-and-economic-policy/the-environment/general-analysis-on-the-environment/45268-toxic-shock-how-western-rubbish-is-destroying-africa.html [19 April 2010] 8. Leigh, D. & Hirsch, A. 2009. Papers prove Trafigura ship dumped toxic waste in Ivory Coast. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/13/trafigura-ivory-coast-documents-toxic-waste [19 April 2010] 9. Business and Human Rights Resource Center. n.d. Trafigura Lawsuits. http://www.business-humanrights.org/Categories/Lawlawsuits/Lawsuitsregulatoryaction/LawsuitsSelectedcases/TrafiguralawsuitsreCtedIvoire [19 April 2010] 10. United Nations Environment Program. 2009. Africans in legal battle over toxic wastes. http://www.mea-ren.org/ecmu_list.php?id=22 [19 April 2010] 11. Ajunwa, I.Y. 2007. The Illicit Transfer and Dumping of Toxic Waste: The Adverse Effects of Toxic and Electronic Wastes on Human Rights. United Nations Council on Human Rights. http://www.humanrightsadvocates.org/images/HRC_Ajunwa_Illicit%20Transfer%20Dumping.doc [19 April 2010] Read More