Note: The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP concerning the legal status of any State, Territory, city or area, or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of their frontiers or boundaries. The document contains the views expressed by the authors acting in their individual capacity and may not necessarily reflect the views of UNEP.

For bibliographic purposes the printed version of this document may be cited as:
Greenpeace. The Transboundary Movement of Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes in the Wider Caribbean Region - A Call for a Legal Instrument within the Cartagena Convention. Edited by: Jim Puckett and Sergio López Ayllon. CEP Technical Report No. 7. UNEP Caribbean Environment Programme, Kingston, 1991.

**************************

1. Toxic waste follows the path of least resistance. The hazardous by-products of industrialization tend to move toward those areas with the least political and economic power to refuse them. The economic "gradient" defined by the contrast in disposal costs in different locations causes wastes to move. This "gradient" is determined by many factors including labour costs, land value, etc. But of crucial significance are the costs relative to the differential in comparative environmental protection legislation, and liability obligations.

2. In industrialized countries, poorer neighbourhoods or rural areas have most often been chosen as sites for toxic waste landfills or incinerators. Residents have been induced to accept hazardous wastes with the promise of revenue, jobs or electricity.

3. In recent years the public in Western industrialized countries, have begun to rebel against having their land, air and water poisoned by toxic wastes. This rising public furore has forced industrialized countries to adopt increasingly strict and costly regulations for waste disposal. The legislation has taken the form of absolute bans or phase-outs of certain types of disposal. Examples include; ocean incineration in the North Sea or landfilling of certain USA wastes, more requirements for environmental protection resulting in higher costs, or strict liability upon generators of wastes for future damages from disposal.

4. In addition, new, more encompassing definitions of hazardous waste are increasingly being implemented into legislation which require more wastes to be managed. By the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) own admission, there is a lack of hazardous waste treatment capacity in that goliath waste producing country. Despite this, the EPA has banned the landfilling of an increasing list of wastes (83 waste streams as of March 1989). This is also the case in the European Community. Recent decisions by the Oslo Commission, Barcelona Convention and the North Sea Ministers Conference have all but banned the use of ocean incineration. In addition, according to the Community Strategy for Waste Management, Brussels, 18 September 1989, the landfilling of many waste streams will be phased out within the Community.

5. This lack of "treatment capacity" combined with legal pressure to "properly dispose" of wastes has created immense pressures to export. And the pattern of waste dumping within industrialized countries is repeating itself on a global scale, as waste generators seek to export wastes to those areas most remote and poor.

6. The past several years has seen the spectacle of numerous waste brokers sending ships around the globe in quest of new dumping grounds for their hazardous cargoes. Over 78 less industrialized nations have been asked to accept massive quantities of industrial waste from the U.S. and Europe. The potential recipients of this waste are essentially asked to choose between short term economic gains and the long term health of generations of their population. Between 1986 and 1988, over three million tons of wastes were exported from the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries to non-OECD countries.