Stop Wildlife Poisoning

Category: Uncategorized | Date: Aug 20 2008 | By: Claudia Hodkinson

During our meeting yesterday Angela from WWF told us about the problem of pesticide dumping in Africa constitutes one of the most serious environmental crimes that she is working on. The implications for Wildlife are enormous. Africa it seems, is Europe’s most popular dumping ground for radioactive waste and toxic chemicals. Although the European Union agreed in 1988 to implement a ban that prohibits the export of hazardous wastes from developed countries to the developing world, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand refused to sign up. There’s big money in dumping and this breeds corruption.  It is claimed that each month more than 500 container loads, of 400,000 dead computers, arrive in Nigeria to be processed. The problem of waste dumping hit me in the gut when I realized how it affects individual people. You may have heard about the dumping of petroleum products in the Ivory coast 2 years ago by a Dutch firm.

In August 2006 a local company hastily fly-tipped truckload after truckload of chemical waste at around 15 locations around the city. The United Nations says the dumping of the 500m tonnes of waste led to at least 16 deaths and more than 100,000 other victims needing medical treatment.

The legal case against Trafigura, the Dutch multi national shipper company that dumped the residue, was dropped in an out of court settlement in early 2007 when they agreed to pay the Ivorian government around $200m (£100m) in one of the largest ever payments of its kind. This money was to pay for the clean up and for compensation to the victims who each received approximately 500$

The waste, which contained a mixture of gasoline, water, caustic washings and the poisonous gas hydrogen sulfide, was unloaded in Abidjan from the vessel Probo Koala on August 19 2006 and then dumped in open air sites throughout the densely populated city. According to this news article Abidjan may lose up to 1,000 more people as a result of the toxic dump which is emitting choking fumes. Local authorities claim that over 70 people have so far died from inhaling the fumes; most of them children and the aged. Figures from the World Health Organization indicate that 135,000 people have sought medical treatment for various ailments arising from the toxic dump. The Ivorian Health ministry puts the figure at 131,113. A thousand deaths will mean plucking out one fifth of the population of Akouedo, one of the worst affected communities. It is believed that this is a conservative estimate, the casualties are likely to be much greater.

To me it’s obvious that Trafigura accepts responsibility for the crisis although they claim ‘officially’ that the payment is not an admission of liability but that it was ‘made out of sympathy for Ivorian people, and it also disputes whether the chemical slops were the cause of the large number of medical cases’.

The multinational, which specialises in trading oil and metals, undertook to identify and clean up any sites which could still contain toxic waste linked to its shipment. The deal is good for everyone except the people of Africa. the Ivory coast cannot pursue Trafigura of any further charges, and the two French executives of Trafigura, Claude Dauphin and Jean-Pierre Valentini, were released and never charged. The Ivory Coast government agreed not to pursue Trafigura for any further compensation as part of the deal.

The bad guys include officials who endorsed the dumping and Ivory Coast’s prime minister responded by dissolving his 32-member cabinet as a result.  Understandably the public are still angry and they set fire to the home of the Abidjan port director and attacked the country’s transport minister.

That was the 18th August 2006. Well, it’s two years later and guess what? The money has been paid and the waste is still there and people are still dying.

While Trafigura cannot be charged in Ivory coast the world is not standing back. This week an Amsterdam court will start hearing evidence relating to the Probo Koala waste scandal. This case is about the Probo Koala and does not affect the dump in the Ivory coast but their handling in Amsterdam. It now emerges that Trafigura, chartered a vessel, which at first attempted to have the waste processed in Amsterdam, but the company it contracted for this rejected the cargo because of its odour. Trafigura later ordered the Probo Koala to set sail for Ivory Coast where a local company registered only a few days earlier had promised to do the job.

Meanwhile British lawyers have mounted the largest class action yet lodged in the UK courts for up to 30,000 Africans allegedly poisoned by this toxic waste dump. This action is being brought against Trafigura, a London-based multinational, over the dumping in 2006 of 400 tonnes of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast.

According to Times online Martyn Day, senior partner with Leigh Day & Co stated “That we can bring a case with 30,000 claimants from a far-off land to trial within three years of the events shows that in England we have a system for group claims that is second-to-none in the world in holding multinationals to account for their actions,”

The law firm was brought in by Greenpeace, which in turn was asked to help by the Ivorean Government. Until 2006 Day was chairman of Greenpeace UK and is still on the executive of the Greenpeace Trust. By bringing the claims under the ‘no win, no fee’ scheme Greenpeace we can develop a treasure chest to help to finance large cases like this.

So you’d think like Trafigura has learned a lesson right? Wrong!

According to Afrol News on 24th June this year a vessel from the shipping company Trafigura, “High Land”, landed in the Nigerian port of Lagos where it was observed off loading allegedly dangerous and poor gasoline, aimed at West African consumers. The vessels previously stopped in Tema, Ghana, where it may also have loaded off bad gasoline.
Trafigura is the world’s third largest independent oil trader. According to their own figures, last year’s turnover amounted to US$ 51 billion. The company so far has denied any wrongdoings and claims to operate by strict ethical guidelines.

This article explains that “The Basel Convention was adopted in 1989 largely due to African outrage over dumping incidents and schemes such as the infamous Koko beach dumping in Nigeria in 1987. The original Basel Convention which demanded controls on such exports however was seen by most countries as being far too weak to control the toxic waste trade which can involve great profits and potential therefore for corruption. Thus in 1995 the Convention Parties decided to create the Basel Ban Amendment – a total prohibition on all forms of toxic waste exports from OECD/EU countries to the rest of the world.

This amendment however, while implemented by the European Union, has not yet entered into global force and ironically many of the countries that are currently having their workers and environmental health severely impacted by hazardous waste have failed as yet to ratify it. These countries include, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Philippines, and Cote D’Ivoire. Some countries like the United States, Canada, Australia and South Korea have openly opposed the global ban. Worst of all the US, the nation that produces the most hazardous waste per capita, has failed to ratify the original Basel Convention let alone the Basel Ban Amendment”.

Share This

Tags: Africa, Martyn Day, Poisoning wildlife, Probo Koala, Toxic waste dumping, Trafigura

2 responses so far

Category: carbofuran | Date: Aug 19 2008 | By: Claudia Hodkinson

Hi Everyone, this is Paula. We sat in a meeting today with members of the Stop Wildlife Poisoning Task Force to discuss progress, or should I dare say ‘lack of progress’???

The Agricultural Association  of Kenya is the only government agency that has responded  to our letters calling for a ban on Carbofuran in Kenya. But it’s not the response we really wanted - they are basically denying that there is any proof that carbofuran is dangerous, and that the poisoning of wildlife is an issue of “misuse” not dangers due to “proper use” … read ‘it’s not our fault’.  They want us to address wildlife pest control issues with the Kenya Wildlife Service.

We’ve been trying to reach the Kenya  Wildilfe Service who initially told us that they would press for a ban on carbofuran but seem to have since gone totally mum.  In fact I’ve recently seen evidence to show that KWS has hired the company that imports and distributes Carbofuran for its construction work. Another suggestion of conflict of interest amongst stakeholders and regulators in this sorry story.

Remember we toled you a couple of weeks ago about a KWS meeting with FMC  (the producers of Carbofuran) well, we are being told that we cannot get access to the meeting minutes as it was a ‘closed door meeting!’. Why do they need to be so secretive?

So where does this leave us? Well, I don’t know about the others in the team, but I’m REALLY ANGRY!!!

The news coming out of USA about the ban on carbofuran is a bit more hopeful - some press say Carbofuran residues have been banned but they have only announced an intention to ban it.

The EPA have changed tact from cancelling carbofuran’s registration, a regulatory path that determines whether a product  can be sold in the United States, because of the hazards it poses to workers who apply it as well as to birds and other wildlife. This ban on residues essentially is revoking the regulations that allow carbofuran residues in food. I.e it would affect local production as well as imported goods. I think it’s a brilliant strategy and we applaud the EPA.

But I don’t understand where the manufacturer FMC gets off. Rather than addressing the concerns, they have been fighting the move in federal court, arguing that the agency must prove that the chemical represents a public danger. I wonder what staff of FMC think and feel - they must know how dangerous and damaging Carbofuran is. Imagine selling your soul for a salary! If I worked for them I would resign. FMC is the first pesticide manufacturer in 20 years to resist cancellation of a registered pesticide! FMC spokesman James Fitzwater said his company will push to keep selling the product. He sounds like a really nice guy.

Friends we have work to do.

The EPA’s July 30th tolerance revocation proposal is subject to a 60-day comment period.  So far there has been much praise for the strong stand taken by the EPA but the American corn growers have indicated that the ban goes too far and are hoping for a limited use of the pesticide to protect corn  I hope that the comments being received are all in support of the ban. In Australia a big user of Carbofuran, farmers see the EPA decision as a sign of things to come. We have our fingers crossed for Africa too. We need to help get carbofuran banned in USA in order for it to have a ripple effect in other nations that supply USA - like my beloved Kenya.

Here is the full document from the EPA website. Please submit your comments to the revocation proposal.

Tolerance Revocation

Tolerance Revocation Proposal

• Carbofuran; Proposed Tolerance Revocations

Public comments on EPA’s carbofuran tolerance revocation proposal are due to EPA by September 29, 2008 - July 31, 2008 FR Notice. How to submit comments.

Due to considerable risks associated with carbofuran in food and drinking water, EPA is revoking the regulations that allow carbofuran residues in food. Because dietary exposures to infants and children are of particular concern, the Agency is moving to revoke carbofuran tolerances first, before cancelling carbofuran registrations. This approach provides the most direct and timely means to realize protection of children from dietary risks. It also allows multiple stakeholders an additional opportunity to comment.

Even though carbofuran is used on a small percentage of the U.S. food supply and therefore the likelihood of exposure through food is low, EPA has identified risks that do not meet our rigorous food safety standards. The Agency is taking the necessary steps to address these risks to ensure we have the safest food supply possible. The U.S. has a safe and abundant food supply, and children and others should continue to eat a variety of foods, as recommended by the federal government and nutritional experts.

In a Federal Register notice published on July 31, 2008, EPA is proposing to revoke all U.S. carbofuran tolerances. The Agency specifically is requesting comment on whether any individual carbofuran tolerances, or group of tolerances, meet the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act safety standard. It is possible that one or more individual carbofuran tolerances could be maintained, if information is provided to demonstrate that the tolerance(s) would be safe.

Revoking carbofuran tolerances is part of a broader series of Agency actions to cancel all uses of carbofuran in the United States due to human dietary, occupational, and ecological risks of concern. The cancellation process requires the development of several documents, including this proposed tolerance revocation. After moving to revoke carbofuran tolerances, EPA subsequently plans to publish a Notice of Intent to Cancel all carbofuran registrations.

EPA establishes tolerances for pesticides that may be found on foods, and can also revoke tolerances to better safeguard public health and the environment. The Agency must modify or revoke any tolerance that it determines is unsafe, that is, that does not meet the safety standard of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The Agency is proposing to revoke all tolerances for carbofuran because exposure through food and drinking water does not meet the FFDCA section 408 (b)(2) safety standard. For further information on this process, see Revoking Pesticide Tolerances.

How to Submit Comments

July 31, 2008, FR Notice - Comments will be accepted on EPA’s carbofuran tolerance revocation proposal until September 29, 2008. All comments should be identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0162.

Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at Regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket.

Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:

• Regulations.gov Open the docket and find the docket item for the July 30, 2008, Federal Register Notice proposing revocation of carbofuran tolerances. In the far right column titled Add Comments, select the yellow balloon icon and follow on-screen directions. This icon will only be functional during the comment period.
• Mail To: Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.
• Hand delivery - During normal hours of operation, 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, deliver comments to OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.

Please do not e-mail or fax your comments. For questions or assistance, contact the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at (703) 305-5805.

Share This

Tags: Carbofuran ban, carbofuran revocation proposal, EPA, furadan, wildlife poisoning

33 responses so far