Senate review of JPEPA diplomatic notes urged

Public health and environmental groups have raised suspicion that the exchange of diplomatic notes between the Philippines and Japan on the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) may just be a "palliative that is insufficient in scope" to address the continuing concern over toxic and radioactive wastes and materials dumping.

The Magkaisa Junk JPEPA coalition has been holding sectoral consultations to elaborate on the issues surrounding the toxic and radioactive wastes they feared would be dumped on the Philippines under JPEPA.

The two countries exchanged diplomatic notes on May 22 and 23 supposedly to reiterate Japan’s commitment not to export toxic wastes to the Philippines as defined by Philippine and Japanese law in accordance with the Basel Convention.

"The exchange of diplomatic notes is simply a reiteration of the status quo gift wrapped in a new package. The Philippines is still open to the dangerous wastes from Japan in the guise of ‘recyclable materials’," said lawyer Richard Gutierrez of the Basel Action Network, Asia Pacific. "The Basel Convention, by itself, does not prohibit toxic wastes exports. If Japan were truly sincere, why doesn’t it simply ratify the Basel Ban Amendment and put real legal weight on its commitment?"

The coalition questioned the binding power or enforceability of the exchange of notes on Japan. The group urged the Senate to request for a clarification of the provisions and scope of the exchange of notes in order to address its relationship with the JPEPA and to address vague areas in the notes, such as the interpretation of what constitutes toxic wastes, which seem to depend on the definitions of an unidentified Japanese law.

Gutierrez cited data of toxic waste dumping from companies in Japan to the Philippines, China, Thailand, and India. He also highlighted the cases of toxic waste dumping within Japan that continues unabated, putting to question Japan’s ability to deal with its own toxic wastes within its borders and Japan’s lethal policy of allowing toxic laden end-of-life vessels to end up in poorer countries. "There is a strong history of Japanese toxic waste dumping in Asia, in spite of their laws, the Basel Convention, and the laws of the country they dumped on," said Gutierrez. "The Philippine government should make it more difficult for Japan to export its toxic wastes, and ratify the Basel Ban Amendment immediately and join the ranks of China, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei here in Southeast Asia."

Other pressing concerns were also raised, particularly the radioactive wastes and materials favored under JPEPA. "The government seems to have forgotten the matter of radioactive wastes and materials being preferentially treated under JPEPA," said Beau Baconguis of Greenpeace Southeast Asia.

"The same market incentives driving toxic wastes will also apply to radioactive wastes and materials peddled by JPEPA. The threat to Filipino public health and environment posed by Japanese radioactive wastes is equally as grave as that posed by toxic wastes and is not addressed at all in the exchange of notes."

The Basel Convention covers the export of toxic wastes, but specifically excludes radioactive wastes and materials from its scope. The civil society groups are also wary of the implications the lowered tariff on radioactive materials could bring, especially with renewed talks on the use of nuclear energy re-surfacing in the archipelago. Without any national mandate obtained through a transparent and democratic process, no incentive should accrue to the nuclear energy sector by reason of any agreement, directly or indirectly, noted the environmental groups.