By F. Andrew Wolf
It took some time, but shortly after African nations gained their independence, they realised something.
Colonialism on the continent was not limited to resource exploitation – Africa was to become the Global North’s dumping ground – for toxic waste.
The practice is officially called “transboundary disposal,” but the more appropriate term is toxic colonialism, a phrase Greenpeace coined in 1992 to describe the “dumping of industrial wastes of the West on territories of the Third World.”
More broadly, it is environmental racism, in which a wealthier, more powerful nation preyed on the vulnerabilities of a less-developed region.
A variety of hazardous and toxic materials, including electronics, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), industrial waste, municipal solid waste, radioactive waste, and other toxic elements are shipped from the Global North to the Global South.
It's About the Money
By the 1980s, the practice of transnational corporations dumping nuclear and industrial waste onto the continent was quite common. The industrialized countries from the Global North prohibited such behaviour within their own territories.
During the decade of the ‘80s, the average cost of disposing 1 ton of hazardous waste in Africa ranged from $2.50 to $50 – in the Global North it was $100 to $2,000.
The council of Ministers (of what eventually became the African Union) took action. In May 1988 it adopted a resolution on the dumping of nuclear and industrial wastes; the practice was declared a crime against Africa and the African people and condemned all corporations and enterprises from pursuing such activity on the continent.
Hypocrisy of the Global North
Yet, foreign government officials – clearly aware of the issues – continued to pursue business ventures in furtherance of the practice. To make matters worse, some African leaders signed agreements to accept nuclear waste in their countries.
Although these deals did not materialise, they include the 1985 Sudanese president’s agreement to receive high-level nuclear waste from West Germany, Austria, and Sweden in exchange for $4 billion; in 1988 the government of Gabon granted rights to Canada’s Denison Mines Corporation to dump nuclear waste from its Colorado uranium mines.
The transnationals were also in a position to take advantage of a distinct lack of civic education regarding the issue.
The small fishing village of Koko, Nigeria, made international headlines in 1988 when it was discovered that two Italian firms had arranged for the storage of 18,000 drums of hazardous waste with Koko residents. The containers were disguised as building materials and offloaded into a local man’s vacant yard for $100 per month. As a result over 3,884 tons of hazardous toxic waste, disguised as fertilizer, was “imported” into Nigeria between June 1987 and May 1988. By the time Nigerian authorities identified the scheme, the drums were leaking and people were getting sick.
An independent analysis of the material by a British environmental group determined that toxic waste contained PCBs, dimethyl formaldehyde, and asbestos fibers. Locals exposed to the toxic waste suffered nausea, paralysis, and premature births.
Assuming legal going rates internationally at the time, Sunday Nana, the farmer who agreed to take the waste should have received $9,710 to $194,200 – he was paid $1,200.
This brings into specific relief the hypocrisy of the Global North as they routinely lecture others on issues of human rights and the environment.
Larry Summers is a classic example of the Western corporate view of toxic dumping. The one time US Secretary of the Treasury, Summers is quoted in a 1991 memo to have remarked:
“Just between you and me, shouldn’t the World Bank be encouraging more migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Least Developed Countries]? […] A given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.”
Assault on Africa Continues
Today, it costs about $400 or more to treat one ton of toxic waste in the Global North; it costs a tenth of that ($40) to treat that same waste in the Global South.
Environmental racism continues to exist – it remains pervasive regarding the treatment of Africa. And this occurs despite its prohibition as a criminal enterprise against the African people. It isn't that the corporations engaging in this toxic trafficking are unaware of the deleterious effects of their behavior; rather, it's because the cost savings and profits are so rewarding.
Of some concern is the growing amount of e-waste produced worldwide every year. E-waste is defined as “anything with a plug or a battery” – smartphones, monitors, refrigerators, solar panels. When electrical and electronic equipment is disposed of, it creates a waste stream containing hazardous and valuable materials.
The uncontrolled transboundary movement of e-waste, with 65% of the 5.1 billion kg shipped from high-income to low-income countries in 2022, highlights the urgency of the problem.
Africa accounts for most of the uncontrolled e-waste imports. Much of the global e-waste is accumulating in open dumpsites in several African countries. As reported by the authors in SN Appl Sci. 2022, the total e-waste in Africa (locally produced plus imported e-waste) for 2019 was between 5.8 and 3.4 metric tonnes (Mt). The main African recipients of e-waste are Nigeria, Ghana, and Tanzania, with Kenya, Senegal and Egypt featuring as countries of concern. The lack of proper waste management in the recipient developing countries, leads to environmental contamination, human exposure and health issues.
While several African countries (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia) have enacted initial e-waste regulations, significant gaps persist around implementation and enforcement capabilities. The majority of e-scrap continues to be crudely processed informally resulting in health and environmental risks.
The AU needs to enhance enforcement, and it has the authority to do so. Dumping other countries’ waste onto the African continent without proper documentation is in violation of its constitution. It states in part: the African Union has the right to intercede in respect to grave circumstances, namely: war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.
Toxic colonialism is a crime against humanity as a form of environmental racism.
* F. Andrew Wolf, Jr is director of The Fulcrum Institute, an organization of current and former scholars, which engages in research and commentary, focusing on political and cultural issues on both sides of the Atlantic.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
IOL Opinion