European Peace University

The Lucrative Global Waste Trade

network and its intoxicating effects on

developing countries A case study on Somalia

Lecturer: Hans-Joachim Heintze By Lorna Balie

1 | P a g e

Contents

1. Introduction… 2

2. History of the Global Waste Trade… 5

3. Piracy: protecting a Failed State from dumping 5

4. Consequences of the Global Waste trade: Human Rights Violations 8

5. International Law, treaties and conventions… 10

5.1 London Convention 10

5.2 Basel Convention 11

5.3 Bamaoka Convention 13

5.4 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1950 and 2020 13

6. Foreign Waste Trade Networks 14

7. Conclusion… 15

Bibliography 17

2 | P a g e

Introduction

Hazardous waste such as toxic industrial, nuclear and radioactive waste has been dumped off the

coast of Developing countries found in the Mediterranean, South East Asia and African countries

such as Somalia. These coastlines were exploited due to weak governance, less resistance from

civil society, lower environmental standards and corruption. Waste management is a lucrative

industry, creating a profit of nearly $124 billion and 1.2 to 1.5 million jobs. Western companies

pay African companies surprisingly low sums of money to dump hazardous waste on their land.

Developing states have campaigned against such action. Little action has been taken by

governments to identify who is in charge of these operations (Redfern 2010).

Global waste (i.e. organic chemicals and hazardous waste) has increased from 7 million metric

tons to 250 million metric tons during 1950 and 1985. Due to the proliferation of waste,

producers are stuck with the problem of finding a location to dispose of this waste, which has led

to the exportation of waste for illegal treatment, disposal and even incineration at sea in a

different country to its origin. Disposal facilities are scarce in developed countries and none of

these states want to dispose of the waste on their own territory as disposal regulations and

standards are much stricter and much financial loss could be incurred. These standards have led

companies to resort to dumping waste in developing countries‟ land and ocean, which is much

more cost-effective with costs of $2.50 per tonne compared to $ 1000 per tonne in Europe

(Gwam 2000:186).

Greenpeace has investigated this issue deeply and delivered a comprehensive report about the

trade and its actors. During 1988 – 1994 Greenpeace have exposed a sum of 94 attempts and

actual cases of hazardous waste dumping that were transported to developing countries such as

Equatorial Guinea, Lebanon, Somalia, Nigeria, Congo and Haiti. About 10 million tons of toxic

residues were transported to Africa. Some projects went further and developed local waste

management facilities, incinerators and landfills in these countries. The Oceanic Disposal

Company (ODM) project selected 16 countries for dumping its hazardous waste. There were also

similar projects of a much smaller scale. Ships carrying suspicious cargo have been sunken in the

Mediterranean Sea. No crew members were found neither was any mayday signals reported.

These sunken ships have not yet been located. It is suspected that Italian and foreign industries

3 | P a g e

have acted in cahoots with networks of organized crime and even government agencies to carry

out these dumping operations (Greenpeace 2010: 4).

European countries and the US are the largest exporters of hazardous material. Europe produces

1.3 billion tonnes of waste per annum of which 40 million tonnes are hazardous. The EU‟s waste

management sector creates about €100 billion profit. The Organisation for Economic

Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimated that the waste produced in Europe will

increase to 45% by 2020. Waste management and prevention has been a serious issue on the

European agenda for 30 years as the dramatic increase in waste displays the failures of the

current environmental policy (Greenpeace 2010:29).

Sources of radioactive waste that could infect the marine ecosystem were identified by the

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA 1999:4). They are:

“disposal at sea of radioactive waste; accidents and losses at sea involving radioactive

materials; controlled coastal discharges of low level radioactive liquid effluents;

fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapon testing and releases from underwater

testing; and accidental releases from land based nuclear installations.”

The waste that is dumped on Somali shores includes uranium radio-active waste, lead, cadmium,

mercury, industrial waste, hospital waste and chemical waste. European Countries have had the

difficulties of managing and disposing of nuclear waste for more than 30 years. One outlet of

dealing with this difficulty is transporting this problem to developing countries with weaker

governance, law enforcement and legislature mechanisms. Developed nations are therefore

committing a transnational crime against developing nations. The effects of this dumping include

marine environmental degradation, health issues, human rights violations and weakening

government systems. Legislation was adopted by these European countries to deter hazardous

dumping to developing countries, however law enforcement mechanisms have not put enough

pressure for these to be implemented resulting in a dramatic increase in shipments. In 1996 the

European Commission filed a complaint to the European Parliament and Member States about

the weak enforcement provisions of the illegal shipments (Abdullahi 2008; Greenpeace 2010:4-

5).

4 | P a g e

The waste trade is strongly connected to networks of organized crime and criminal activity

according to a United Nations report from the office of Drugs and Crime. Greenpeace has

observed and researched links between companies, governments and organized crime members

in the Italian waste management sector between 1994 and 1997 (Greenpeace 2010:5-6). This

network disposed of hazardous waste in Guinea, Brazil, El Salvador, Lebanon, Nigeria,

Mozambique, Paraguay, Romania, Somalia and Venezuela. 26 companies were involved,

exporting 3000 tonnes of waste per day valued at $4.8 million. The network is guilty of a series

of crimes such as “declassification of hazardous waste, illegal dumping, forged shipping papers

and waste registers, fraud, and conspiracy.” In addition, these networks have a large influence as

they have contacts with governments from intergovernmental organizations‟ such as the OECD

(Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). They have even attended and

participated in European research projects on nuclear waste disposal and signed deals with waste

management multinational corporations. They have also been accused of smuggling nuclear

material and for involvement in the arms trade.

Somalia as a case study shows the extent to which these dumping of toxic waste have affected

the locals and even inspired a reaction of vigilantism which developed into criminal action

known as piracy. The paper will therefore focus on the illegal actions of the international

community rather than those of the pirates since much research has already been done in this

area. It is important to understand why some Somali‟s have originally resorted to piracy. The

theoretical framework I will be using is that of a liberal perspective with a focus on human

rights. The questions I would like to explore are who are the companies and individuals involved

in the waste dumping and why has none of them been punished, held accountable or brought to

justice. My hypothesis is that the nexus of powerful and high profile political individuals,

companies and criminals provides sufficient protection and prevents further disclosure of actors

involved. This ties into to the international justice system and the lack of implementation of the

international laws regarding waste dumping. I will answer these questions in the following order:

first, the history of the global waste trade will be discussed up until its current actions; second,

Somalia as a case study of the detrimental effects of this trade; third, the human rights violations

resulting from this trade; fourth, international law regarding the global waste trade and its

implementation; and finally, the network of waste traders involved in these dumping.

5 | P a g e

History of the Global Waste Trade

Industrial and nuclear waste dumping have taken place since 1946 and recorded until 1993,

although dumping has still continued since then. The first dumping operations that were recorded

was carried out by the US. Greenpeace only started its investigation of Italian shipments of

hazardous waste between 1987 and 1989. Workers at the Marina di Carrara and Chioggia ports

tipped off local Green councillors and media about ships that were being loaded with industrial

waste bound for Romania and Africa. Calls to the local authorities, magistrates, and the Italian

government were made in order to stop the ships from departing. However, the calls were

ignored. Police even asked the port operators to hasten the process to avoid demonstrations from

environmentalists. There were no laws prohibiting transportation of industrial and nuclear waste

to countries outside of the European Union. This legislature omission led to exploitation by

waste dealers and brokers proposing that European Chemical industries sign deals to ship tonnes

of waste to developing countries. The proposers included Swiss lawyers and trustees, Swiss and

British companies, brokers and waste dealers. Many ships departing the Italian and European

ports were bound to developing countries. Also many ships were mysteriously sunken in the

Mediterranean Sea. For example, a former member of the ‟Ndrangheta, a mafia group, told

investigators that he had sunk a ship containing radio-active waste on the orders of the

‟Ndrangheta (Greenpeace 2010:6-7; Willan 2009).

Piracy: protecting a Failed State from dumping

Somalia is a recipient country of this trade and is located in the horn of Africa along its east coast

with a coastline of 3,025 km- the largest in Africa. It borders Djibouti in the north, Ethiopia in

the west, Kenya in the southwest and the Gulf of Aden on the North and the Indian Ocean in the

east. Somalia‟s capital is Mogadishu. The country has a population of 9, 6 million (Gilpin

2009:5; Trading Economics 2013). There is no central government governing the entire territory

effectively and has therefore been classified as a failed state.

Siad Barre was overthrown as president in Mogadishu in 1991 due to a major civil war and the

loss of control of parts of Somalia. The country was in a state of anarchy due to warring factions.

Neither conflicting groups provided a solution or a leader to replace Barre. Barre„s position still

6 | P a g e

remains void leaving Somalia with a collapsed state “status”. The previously owned British

protectorate, Somaliland located in the North-western part of Somalia, declared itself

independent in 1991. Puntland, located on the North-eastern part declared itself semi-

autonomous in 1998. Local leaders based in Baidoa, in April 2002, announced the formation of

a South-western State of Somalia. A national federal government was put in place in 2003

however it remains ineffective. Different regions of Somalia are governed by traditional and

regional authorities. Armed Conflict continued fighting after Barre‟s removal in different parts of

the country. Warring factions have funded their activities and received guns and ammunition

through accepting the toxic and hazardous waste in exchange for arms and ammunition. The

dumping had therefore been a driving factor behind the armed conflict in Somalia. The ships that

hand over the ammunition and weapons or dump the waste then become trawlers, exploiting the

national waters. The conflict has also been fueled by international crimes such as illegal

smuggling of arms, illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) overfishing by foreign companies.

These factors contribute to the war economy and the instability in the region (Hussein 2010:3-4;

Milton 2009).

Due to lack of strong governance and ruling authorities after Barre‟s oust from power, foreign

companies and governments are exploiting the void of power. No effective authorities govern the

waters of Somalia. Government officials are bribed to allow the dumping. Toxic waste dumping

has however been taking place in the mid 1980s, long before the overthrow of Barre. The

Transnational Federal Government has a limited capacity to secure the waters and prosecute the

pirates. Somali waters are therefore being used as an international garbage dump. The 2004

Tsunami exposed the illegal and dangerous dumping operations by washing up and breaking

barrels filled with hazardous waste including nuclear waste. The Greenpeace Delivered a

comprehensive report of this occurrence. The UN Development Program (UNDP) confirmed the

dumping of toxic waste through an independent investigation in 2005. 15 containers stranded on

the coastline were found containing nuclear and chemical waste by a local NGO, Daryeel Bulsho

Guud who conducted a survey. In addition to illegal waste dumping, illegal fishing by European

and Asian firms has emerged as reported by the UN special envoy for Somalia, Ahmedou Ould

Abdallah in 2008 (Abdullahi 2008; Greenpeace 2010:20-21; Milton 2009; United Nations

Security Council 2011: 2).

7 | P a g e

This history of the dumping of hazardous material coincides with the history of piracy. Piracy is

defined as:

“any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for

private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and

directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on

board such ship or aircraft;

(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any

state;

• any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with the

knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft; and

• any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in the two bullets”

(International Expert Group on Piracy off the Somali Coast 2008:23).

The decline in central authority, political upheaval, economic downturn and disregard for sea

laws has contributed to the onset and rise of piracy. The World Bank reported that 40% of the

population live off less than a dollar a day and 75% of households live off less than $2 a day.

Two-thirds of the population is unemployed. Piracy is a consequence of a variety of causes such

as conflicts between clans, corruption, weapons trade, extremism and weak judiciary. The men

who engage in piracy are usually from clan-based militia, unemployed and poor youth, and

forced recruits from fishermen. Land related crime eventually moved to sea. However, this crime

of hijacking, taxing and fining foreign vessels was first a form of extreme activism purposed to

protect Somali waters from foreign pollutants and poachers. There are several pirate groups that

call themselves “the Central Somalia Coast Guard, the National Volunteer Coast Guard, and the

Somali Marines”. These attacks on foreign vessels increased in 2008 with 111 attacks and 47

hijackings (Gilpin 2009).

Foreign navies state that the accusations stating that they are protecting illegal dumping vessels

are unfounded. Commodore Michiel B Hijmans, former commander of NATO‟s anti-piracy

mission Ocean Shield claims that they have seen no evidence of this trade, especially in the

8 | P a g e

recent years. He also stated that these allegations were to misinform the international

community. Nick Nuttall, spokesman for UNEP said that proper studies to get to the bottom of

these allegations have failed to be conducted due to security reasons and the challenges of

finding an expert scientific team. Even the “proof” document compiled by Mahdi Gedi Qayad is

questionable. Even the toxic waste barrels stranded on shores of Somalia after the tsunami were

not scientifically proven to contain any toxic waste. Somali pirating is therefore to be viewed as

a purely criminal activity under these accusations, to gain nothing but cash. The Somali pirates

target more than just dumping and poaching vessels, but also yachts, and oil-tankers. Ahmedou

Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy to Somalia also stated that the pirates were not interested in

protecting their environment (Abdullahi 2008; Somalia Report 2011). Even so, there still seems

to be evidential dire effects of the illegal dumping.

Human Rights Violations

The receiving countries of hazardous including toxic waste especially African countries

represented in the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) have vehemently opposed these actions

of Developed countries. The first initiative to consider the adverse effects on human health and

their overall rights came to be in 1989 when the Subcommission on Promotion and Protection of

Human Rights advised the 53-member United Nations annual Commission on Human Rights

(CHR) to convene and adopt a resolution concerning the dumping of hazardous and toxic waste.

Resolution 1990/43 was adopted in March 1990. UNEP entered into negotiation with the OAU

to develop more solutions on this problem. A special Rapporteur on “Human Rights and

Environment” was also appointed from the Subcommission on Human Rights to study the effect

of the dumping of Hazardous and toxic waste on Humans. A final report was delivered at the

close of the mandate in 1995 (Gwam 2006:187). Voting on Resolutions was always an issue. Of

the 5 regional groups of the CHR only 3 (Africa, Asia, Grulac) voted in favour, 1 (Europe)

abstained while the US voted against. The US argued that toxic waste should not be addressed at

the Human Rights Forum since UNEP already deals with this issue and other resolutions and

conventions such as the Basel convention deals with this issue. The US delegation blatantly

disregards the adverse effects of hazardous and toxic waste on human beings around the

dumping areas. However, not many agree with them. The purpose of the Human Rights

commission is to address, condemn and prohibit any action that endangers the lives and right of

9 | P a g e

people. Most resolutions passed by the CHR were mostly condemnatory of Western countries

with a few recommendations and little international media coverage. But there still remain no

enforcement mechanisms (Gwam 2006: 187-188).

The Human Rights Council adopted the first Resolution in 1995 that deals with the illicit

movement and dumping of toxic waste and its adverse effects on Human Rights. There was a

major increase in illicit dumping of toxic and hazardous waste in developing countries. A special

rapporteur, Ms. Fatma-Zohra Ksentini was therefore appointed to investigate the effects of the

illicit dumping and transportation of this toxic waste and its effects on human rights, including

monitoring, examining communications and collecting information, make recommendations and

proposals to control, reduce and eradicate these illegal disposals, create a list of victims and

perpetrators involved in these international crimes without duplicating any of the mandates by

the other bodies of the UN. The current special Rapporteur is Mr. Okechukwu Ibeanu who was

appointed in July 2004. The special rapporteur is appointed to analyse existing problems (Sensi

2009:4-6)

In the case of Somalia, the effects of toxic waste have negatively affected the health, livelihood,

food, water and the environment and long-term development in the area. The Human Rights

according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that are being violated and infringed

upon, namely: the right to life, the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental

health, right to safe and healthy working conditions and participatory rights. First, according to

the right to life, the state is obligated to take all necessary measures to manage toxic and

hazardous waste safely and prevent any possibility of the loss of life as well as punish or redress

the loss of life resulting from these toxic dumping. Second, the right to the highest attainable

standard of physical and mental health several cases of the violation of this right has been

reported by the special rapporteur, such as permanent and temporary disabilities and injuries,

diseases such as lung diseases and cancer. Third, the right to safe and healthy working condition

are also at risk. Appropriate legislation and policies needs to be implemented to safeguard

workers and prevent work-related injuries. Fourth, participatory rights, the right to information

and participation are important to carry out the other rights. The people affected by the toxic and

hazardous waste dumping should be informed about adverse effects of the products on health,

10 | P a g e

the environment and properties. This information should be available at the disposal of those

concerned, as its their right to be informed of what may negatively affect their livelihoods (Sensi

2009: 6-8).

Health issues that have been reported were “acute respiratory infections, heavy dry coughing,

mouth bleeding abdominal hemorrhage and unusual chemical skin reaction”. In 1994 a large

number of cancer cases such as thyroid, tongue and colon cancer were reported, and incidences

of miscarriages, and child malformation were reported along the Merka, a coastal city. There

were a very high number of malformed babies reported in the capital, Mogadishu. Dr Omar, the

head of the maternity ward says that the cause of this strange pattern was due to the toxic waste

dumping close to the capital (Hussein 2010:13). The following efforts were made in order to

protect human life and the environment.

International Law – Treaties and Conventions

London Convention 1972

The London Convention of 1972, also known as the Convention on the Prevention of Marine

Pollution by Dumping of Waste and Other Matter was requested by the IAEA (International

Atomic Energy Agency) member states. The purpose of the convention was to create an

inventory to keep track of radioactive waste and accidents infiltrating the marine environment.

The Convention adopted principles from the Report of the United Nations Conference on Human

Environment in order to protect the environment including marine life through assessment and

control of pollution. The collection of data stored in the inventory was stored between 1946 and

1993 (the period of the practice for the disposal of radioactive waste) and it is being utilized to

assess and compare changes in marine life. The London Convention was enforced in August

1975 by the IAEA. The member states pledged to control the sources of hazardous waste that is

harmful to people, other living organisms and the marine environment. The IAEA was

responsible for classifying radioactive waste into those which are permitted to be dumped and

issue permits for waste that is not permitted. Hazardous waste not permitted to be dumped

include “radiated reactor fuel; liquid wastes from the first solvent extraction cycle of chemical

11 | P a g e

reprocessing of irradiated reactor fuel, or equivalent processes; and solidified forms of such

waste” etc (IAEA 1999: 1-2).

Basel Convention

Due to the illegal waste trade and the transportation of hazardous waste from European countries

and the US to developing countries, 33 countries convened in 1989 in Basel, Switzerland. The

Basel Convention on the Control of Trans-boundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their

Disposal was convened under the supervision of the United Nations Environment Programme.

Legislature developed from this meeting to limit the exportation of hazardous waste from

developed to developing countries – something that did not exist before. The Organisation of

African Unity (OAU) declared these acts a crime against Africa and its people. The main

purpose of the Convention was to assist developing countries by providing technical and

regulatory support to prevent the rise of exportation of hazardous waste from developed

countries. Negotiations did not favour any nation (Gwam 2000:186).

States agreed that if there is no disposal facility in the sending country, it may be exported to

another nation on the basis of approval. Exportation to countries that have not signed the

Convention banned importation of waste and is not equipped with disposal and treatment

facilities are not obliged to give their consent to dumping. The Convention monitors the

“generation, transportation, storage and disposal” of waste in 173 countries that ratified the Basel

Convention excluding the US. In 1995 the US stated that they will ratify the Convention if they

keep the right to export recyclable material, however most things can be recycled which doesn‟t

place much limit on their trade. The US, Afghanistan and Haiti have only signed, but yet to ratify

the convention. The Convention was criticised by developing countries and Greenpeace for

allowing the export of hazardous waste rather than stopping the trade entirely. However, they

still helped to achieve the goal of the Convention.

The decisions and precepts made at the Basel convention – the Basel Ban, regarding

transportation of all type of hazardous material from 29 developed countries from the OECD to

developing countries came into force only in 1998 (Gwam 2000:186; Ogunlade 2010:5).

12 | P a g e

The following regulations emerged from these conventions namely, Regulation EC 259/93 which

guards the supervision and control of waste carrying ships. In 1998 Regulation 259/93 was

modified to ban exports of hazardous material to developing nations. This has been a great

achievement; however toxic loaded ships still travel from Europe and the US to Africa and Asia

every day. The major reason for the continued shipping is the lack of enforcement mechanisms

as there are fewer incentives to do so. It is more profitable for governments and business to avoid

the responsibility of implementing the regulations. This is common within Europe.

The individual member states of EU do not have a unified policy for environmental inspections

and implementation of the regulations. The only actors involved in implementation are Non-

governmental Organisations which are coordinated by the European Commission such as The

European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law

(IMPEL) (Greenpeace 2010:29-31, 33).

The Legal framework for Sea regarding fishing, dumping and the marine environment is

contained in the 1882 of the Sea Convention which describes customary international law.

These treaties describe coastal states‟ sovereign right to explore, exploit, conserve and manage

its natural resources within its jurisdictional waters. The states have the right to enforce this law

and it must coincide with the law of the sea. In addition, the coastal state should create laws to

prevent, and control dumping and the damaging of marine life. Dumping should not be carried

out without the permission of the designated authorities. Applying these laws to Somalia is

impossible due to its status as a failed state. Somalia has also not signed any international treaties

nor have domestic legislation that applies to the protection of its environment and piracy. The

decentralized authority and law enforcement mechanisms are unable to protect Somalia waters

and marine environment. Vigilante action therefore attempted to bring justice and punishment to

illegal and therefore criminal activity from foreign vessel. Although, later this vigilantism

developed into a criminal activity and even targeted innocent vessels en route to other

destinations, kidnapping innocent civilians and demanding ransom. A Ukrainian ship holding

tanks and military hardware was hijacked by the Somali pirates and demanded $8 million in

ransom in order to clean up the shores. Januna Ali Jama, a spokesman for the pirates, said that

this was their reaction for 20 years of toxic waste dumping along the Somali shores.

Neighbouring countries, namely Djibouti, Kenya, Tanzania and are signatories of some of the

13 | P a g e

international treaties mentioned earlier. They have implemented these laws however; its effects

are not strongly known (Abdullahi 2008; International Expert Group on Piracy off the Somali

Coast 2008:24-25). The Rotterdam Convention and Stockholm convention also addresses the

regulation of the international trade of hazardous chemicals and pesticides, and the protection of

the health of human beings and the environment respectively (Sensi 2009:3).

Bamaoka Convention

The Basel Convention allows for countries to enter into bilateral, multilateral and regional

agreements based on and bound within the statutes present/ displayed/ in the Basel Convention.

African countries feared that the Basel Convention was not comprehensive enough to protect

African countries. African countries‟ initial position was a complete ban of the transnational

movement of waste, but the Basel Convention is merely a regulation thereof. In addition,

African countries are not technologically equipped to monitor, regulate and control the

movement of waste within their borders. The OAU (Organization for the African Unity) argued

that African countries are more susceptible to accepting toxic and hazardous waste due to profits

that can be accrued that otherwise would not be detected due to political instability and

corruption. The Cairo Guidelines was therefore passed by the ministers of the OAU in 1988. In

addition, a request was made to African countries to reach consensus on their position for the

sake of unified action against the inadequacies of the Convention. Member states therefore

refused to sign the draft between 1989 and 1990. A draft of the Convention to ban toxic and

hazardous waste importation to African countries and its regulation within Africa was drawn.

The Bamaoka convention was thereafter adopted in 1991(Ogunlade 2010:5-6).

United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1950 and 2020

The UN Security Council Resolution 1950 (2010) and 2020 (2011) recognises that the instability

in Somalia contributes to the upsurge in piracy. It therefore invites the international community

which include neighbouring and regional states and the International Maritime Organisation

(IMO) to enhance security for the prevention of piracy. The Resolution also recognises and

emphasises respect for Somalia‟s natural resources on land and off shore especially with regard

14 | P a g e

to fish. Emphasising the prevention and ending of illegal fishing and dumping which illegal

dumping of toxic waste (United Nations Security Council 2011:2).

The UN Security Council has passed several resolutions dealing with the prevention and

prosecution of piracy, namely: UNSC Resolution 1814 (2008), 1816 (2008), 1838 (2008), 1846

(2008), 1851 (2008), 1897 (2009), 1918 (2010), 1950 (2010), 1976 (2011), 2015 (2011), 2020

(2011), S/RES/2036, S/RES/2060, S/RES/2067, S/RES/2072, S/RES/2073, S/RES/2077,

S/RES/2093 and S/RES/2102 (One Earth Future Foundation 2012; United Nations Security

Council 2011: 1).

Little to no UN Security Council resolutions has been passed that deals directly and

comprehensively with the trade of hazardous waste. A few paragraphs in Resolution 1950 (2010)

and 2020 (2011) have dealt with this issue, but on a superficial level. Little emphasis has been

placed on the toxic waste trade within the UN Security Council. The United Nations

Environmental Programme however, specialises in the environmental issues and based on the

previously mentioned conventions these issues are addressed directly and comprehensively with

legally binding statutes (UNEP). There still seems to be loopholes in these international and

regional legislatures that makes it possible for illegal trade networks to flourish.

Foreign Waste Trade Networks

During the early and late 80s dumping had occurred unscrupulously from European countries to

developing states. The trade was handled by mostly European waste dealers and brokers, Swiss

lawyers and trustees, Swiss and UK based companies, dealers and waste brokers. Waste trade

flourished as an industry due to the solicit networks, lack of environmental legislation that was

exploited and corruption in developing countries. The enforcement of the Basel Convention was

the turning point of the industry. However, there still existed well-organised networks and

companies that carry out illegal activities including creating “slush funds, tax avoidance, fraud

and corruption” (Greenpeace 2010:7,12).

There were 25 Large European waste management firms who employed about 130 000 people.

15 | P a g e

Many Italian companies were responsible for exporting toxic and hazardous waste to the shores

of Somalia. An investigation had found that Italy had exported 35 million tonnes of waste to

Somalia for $ 6, 6 billion. Swiss firms were also leading the race by organizing millions of

tonnes of shipments to African Developing countries. French firms such as Veolia/Onyx and

Sita/Suez, German firms such as Remondis/Rethmann and Spanish firms such as Construcciones

y Contratas and companies registered in Lichtenstein were also involved (Greenpeace

2010:25,29; Milton 2009).

The Oceanic Disposal Company (ODM) was also actively searching for clients in need of getting

rid of toxic and radioactive waste at sea. Greenpeace presented its evidence of this at the London

Convention Consultative meeting in 1995. The secretariat of the London Convention wrote a

warning to ODM 1996 opposing their plans. The IAEA unfortunately did not make a similar

stand against them even though it was requested by the parties of the London Convention

(Greenpeace 2010: 20).

Other networks are also involved in the industry such as the Italian Mafia. The Mafia controls

30% of the waste disposal industry. Strong ties to Italy may be because its Somalia‟s former

colonial power. The Greenpeace report says that the Italian mafia group named Ndrangheta

worked with the Somali government and warlords to arrange the dumping of the waste. Nur

Elmi, the Somali minister for Health and Social Affairs is closely connected with Ali Mahdi

Mohamed, a warlord in control of Mogadishu. Elmi signed an agreement in Rome in 1992,

allowing Interservice Srl to export 2 tonnes of ferrous scrap metal worth $76 million. Ali Abdi

Amalow, governor of the central bank of Somalia signed the power of attorney which allowed

Roberto Ruppen and Ferdinando Dall‟O who represented Interservice Slr. They could then “the

releasing of Cooperation Funds of Somalia State proprietorship, as well as other Funds intended

to humanitarian aids and extraordinary assistance”. Other types of waste such as industrial and

hospital waste were also shipped to Somalia (Greenpeace 2010:21; Somalia Report 2011).

Conclusion

The general problem with all preventative mechanisms of the London Convention, the Basel

Convention and the Bamaoka Convention is that the law enforcement mechanisms are weak.

16 | P a g e

There is neither control nor enough information about the waste exports. The upsurge of waste

exportation is due to its cost effectiveness. The European Union has been reluctant to adopt a

unified standard for environmental inspection, waste shipments and enforcement mechanism for

waste law for the past 25 years, requested by the European Parliament. It therefore makes the law

enforcement mechanism practically powerless.

The only enforcement mechanisms are from NGO‟s and activists. There are a few actors who

have enough influence in implementing legislature and monitoring the actions of toxic

shipments. For example, an NGO who works in close relation with government agencies and

also coordinates with the European Commission. IMPEL is also a non-profit association of

voluntary states of the European Union. IMPEL assists policy makers and environmental

inspectors and enforcement officers to improve their practices and enforcement mechanisms.

There are still problems facing the work of the NGO such as the documentation of all the

shipments – it is hard to know the content and movement of the ships. It is also difficult to

investigate and follow. The reason however, for these shipments still remains – they are

motivated by lower costs, and lower or no environmental standards, supervision and enforcement

(Greenpeace 2010: 33-34).

Somalia has been victimised, exploited and been made a dumping area by these illegal and toxic

practices international waste management companies, corporation and criminal organisations

even before 1990 due to its weak statehood. This practise ties in with other international crimes

such as arms trafficking, bio-piracy and money laundering which flourishes in this fragile state.

Human security, well-being, and future development are severely negatively affected. There are

therefore serious, continual Human Rights violations, directly and indirectly on Somalians that

have been neglected for the benefit of corporations‟ profit making and waste ridding schemes.

These issues are not addressed as seriously as it should by the perpetrators (Hussein 2010: 13-

14). There is therefore lots of work to be done to protect the Somali people.

17 | P a g e

Bibliography

Abdullahi, Najad. 2008. “'Toxic waste' behind Somali piracy Pirates say $8m ransom is reparation

for years of hazardous waste dumping by firms.” Al jazeera, October 11. Accessed 22

October, 2013.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2008/10/2008109174223218644.html.

Gilpin, Raymond. 2009. “Counting the Cost of Somali Piracy”. United States Institute for Peace Working

Paper.

Greenpeace. 2010. “The Toxic Ships: the Italian hub, the Mediterranean and Africa.”

Gwam, Cyril Uchenna. 2000. “Toxic Waste and Human Rights.” Summer/Winter 7(2):186-187.

Hussein, Bashir Mohamed. 2010. “The evidence of Toxic and Radioactive waste dumping in Somalia and

it‟s impact on the enjoyment of Human Rights: a case study”. Paper presented at the United Nations

Human Rights Council (Geneva) 14th Session. Geneva, Switzerland. June 8th.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1999. “Inventory of radioactive waste disposals at sea”.

Vienna, Austria.

International Expert Group on Piracy off the Somali Coast. 2008. “Piracy off the Somali Coast”.

Workshop commissioned by the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the UN to

Somalia Ambassador Ahmedou Ould Abdallah, Nairobi. November 10 -21.

Milton, Chris. 2009. “Somalia used as toxic dumping ground.” Ecologist, March 1st. Accessed

October 22nd, 2013.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/268581/somalia_used_as_toxic_dumping_ground

.html.

Bowden, Anna and Basnet, Shikha. 2011. “The Economic Cost of Somali Piracy 2011”. Working Paper

One Earth Future Foundation. 2012. “Oceans Beyond Piracy”.

http://oceansbeyondpiracy.org/matrix/activity/united-nations-security-council-unsc.

Redfern, Paul. 2010. “EU, US dumping toxic waste in Africa”. The East African. July 5th.

http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/EU%20US%20dumping%20toxic%20waste%20in%

20Africa/-/2558/951790/-/sphccy/-/index.html.

Sensi, Stefano. 2009. “The Adverse Effects of the Movement and Dumping of Toxic and Dangerous

Products and Wastes on the Enjoyment of Human Right.” Paper presented at the High Level

18 | P a g e

Expert Meeting on the New Future of Human Rights and Environment: Moving the Global

Agenda Forward Co-organized by UNEP and OHCHR Nairobi, 30 November-1 December .

Somali Report. 2011. “Toxic Dumping: Pirate Excuse or Ongoing Abuse?” Somalia Report. April 8th.

Accessed October 22nd

, 2013. http://www.somaliareport.com/index.php/post/1287.

Trading Economics. 2013. “Somalia Population”.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/somalia/population.

United Nations Security Council. 2011. “Resolution 2020”.

Willan, Philip. 2009. “Establishment hit by fresh accusations in toxic waste scandal” Herald Scotland,

September 20th. Accessed October 22nd, 2013. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/world-

news/establishment-hit-by-fresh-accusations-in-toxic-waste-scandal-1.920980.