Highlights of Programs/Actions/Cooperation
Ecosystem
Protection: Landmark
Citizen
Suit filed to clean up Manila Bay
In
a landmark class action law suit, Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed
suit in the Fourth Judicial Region against the Philippines Government, all
the polluting corporations and citizens who are discharging their wastes
into the waterways of Manila Bay. The
suit seeks to hold them jointly liable for the pollution of Manila Bay and
jointly 
responsible for
its cleanup. Specific
demands were made on
six
government departments
including the Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources, Metro Manila
Development Authority, the
Metropolitan Waterworks
and Sewerage System, the Philippine Ports Authority in an attempt to move
the government to clean up Manila Bay.
In the complaint, the Citizens asked for cleanup of the Bay,
installation, operation and maintenance of adequate sewage systems, waste
water treatment facilities, waste and recycling and disposal facilities,
hazardous and toxic waste treatment facility, health studies, information
and education campaigns, restocking with native fish, enhancing monitoring
of illegal fishing operations, cleanup and proper monitoring of port and
harbor facilities, compliance with septic and sludge removal rules, a
cessation of dumping of industrial wastes and oils.
In each case the citizens have sought a plan of action, schedule
and budget which the court could approve and monitor for compliance and a
substantial sum in damages. The
parties are in court on several legal issues as to government immunity
from suit, standing to sue, cause of action, proper venue, failure to
exhaust administrative remedies. The
citizen suit documents what is described as the incalculable damage, risks
and hazards to public health that present a clear and present danger to
residents of Manila Bay. Manila
Bay is world famous for its beauty. In
better days, prior to World War II, Manila Bay was a clean clear body of
water where families could picnic, swim and fish in abundance.
Now fishing is banned, people reportedly get sick and die of
related diseases, high concentrations of heavy metals are a threat and the
waterbody is described as a public nuisance which poses serious public
health hazards. (Contact
Antonio Oposa via e-mail at aoposalaw@oposa.com)
Water
Basin Clean-up: New Enforcement
Efforts in China
Until last year, regulatory requirements for water pollution have not been well enforced. Pollution in water bodies, especially in urban areas, is a very serious problem for water supply, economic growth, and human health. In 1996, China initiated a clean-up program in the most polluted water basins, including three river and three lake basins (Huai, Hai, Liao Rivers, and Tai, Dianchi, Chao Lakes), so the program was named “three rivers and three lakes clean-up program.” By the end of year 2000, all industrial wastewater must meet national or provincial discharge standards, and cities over half million population must establish sewage treatment facilities. The comprehensive approach to environmental enforcement include planning, financial assistance, inspection and binding requirements. In the “three rivers and three lakes,” wastewater management and pollution control plans have been made and budgets allocated. Some industrial processes have been banned or phased out following warnings and lesser enforcement actions. Education programs have been initiated and well organized in many places. An environmental media campaign across the country involved more than 6,000 journalists disclosing environmental degradation in more than 48,000 separate news items published national, provincial and local media. The public and non-governmental organizations play an increasing role. Huai River and Tai Lake are first to implement this program with closing more than 5,000 enterprises with high pollution levels. By the end of 1997 and 1998, all of the industrial discharges in Huai River and Tai Lake basins met the national or provincial standards respectively and COD discharges have been reduced by an estimated 40%. Clean-up in the other four basins are also in process.
Enforcement and Tourism
July
21, 1999. Royal
Caribbean
Cruises Ltd.,
operator of one of the
world’s largest cruise
lines,
agreed to pay a 18
million dollar criminal fine
for violating U.S.
environmental laws, representing the largest fine ever paid by a cruise
company for polluting U.S. waters. In a 21 felony count plea agreement
filed in six federal districts, Royal Caribbean admitted to routinely
dumping waste oil and hazardous chemicals, such as those produced by photo
processing equipment, dry cleaning operations, and printing presses, in
the harbors and coastal areas of six U.S. cities (Miami, New York City,
Los Angeles, Anchorage, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, and San Juan,
Puerto Rico). It also pleaded guilty to making false statements in oil
record books presented to the U.S. Coast Guard.
Under the terms of the plea agreement, Royal Caribbean must assist
the government in its prosecution of employees involved in the illegal
activities and must follow a five year court-supervised environmental
compliance plan.
CFC:
International Cooperation
to Combat Illegal Trade
May 29, 1998. The U.S. District Court for the District of Bangor in Maine sentenced two Canadian citizens for violations of the U.S. Clean Air Act. Larry Joseph LeBlanc owned and operated City Sales Ltd., an automobile dealership in Fredricton in New Brunswick, Canada and employer of Ann Marie LeBlanc. Violating a specific directive from Environment Canada prohibiting City Sales from exporting CFCs, an ozone depleting substance, to the United States, the LeBlancs shipped 75 tons of CFCs to automotive shops in the U.S. on eight occasions. For their criminal activity, Joseph LeBlanc must serve a 15-month prison term and pay a $28,000 fine and Ann Marie LeBlanc must pay a $1,500 fine. The investigation leading to the LeBlancs prosecution was a bi-national effort undertaken by Environment Canada, Canada Customs Service, USEPA’s Criminal Investigation Division and the U.S.Customs Service.
Economic
Instruments: Industrial
Compliance in Thailand
Currently, the Department of Industrial Works under the Ministry of Industry in Thailand is in the process of amending the Factory Act of 1992, which is used to prevent disturbances, damage, and danger to the public and the environment by factories. Changes are being made by adding sections that will empower the Department to apply and enforce economic instruments in accordance with the “polluter pays principle.”
At the present time, the Act includes such measures as addressing permitting issues; encouraging the clustering of factories in particular areas to prevent disturbances in communities; and setting forth the privatization of factory and machinery audits and inspections. The Factory Act also plays an important role in promoting Cleaner Production (CP) by empowering the Department of Industrial Works with the ability to prescribe certain environmentally sound industrial processes in their permits. It also calls for the monitoring and inspection of factories with violators of the Act being subject to corrective orders, possible factory closure, permit withdrawal and criminal liability including fines and possible imprisonment.
The first economic instrument to be added is the collection of emission charges followed by an effort to collect up-front pollution management fees. This fee will be equal to the cost of the installation of a waste treatment facility and will provide the incentive for Cleaner Production. If a factory chooses to apply CP techniques to minimize waste, their pollution management fee will be reduced, and if the company installs a waste management facility, most of the fee can be withdrawn. According to the Act, the Department is currently entitled to use the Environmental Fund to install waste treat-ment facilities or make improvements to existing facilities if they refuse to do so, as the Department sees fit. The consequences to this are that the factories are obliged to pay back the whole cost of the changes plus a penalty of 30% per annum.
Bonaire’s
Economic Controls
on Public Event Littering
The littering at public events poses an environmental problem in Bonaire, the Netherlands Antilles as well as other parts of the world. Regardless of how conscious the attendees are of not littering, public outdoor events often result in refuse scattered throughout the surrounding site. During the heat of festivities, attendees become too inebriated to be concerned about the destination of their empty beer cans, plastic cups, and foam plates to the event’s grounds. Furthermore, since public event organizers have attained an unconditional permit that fails to stipulate any environmental regulations, organizers essentially “have a permit to litter” and therefore, cannot be held legally responsible for any subsequent litter from the event. In response to these situations, the “assurance proposition law” was created by the Government Department of Legal and General Affairs and the environmental police at Selibon, N.V., Bonaire’s waste management and disposal company. The law specifies that public event organizers have to sign a cleaning contract with Selibon N.V. or pay a deposit for cleaning the area of the event. The deposit amount is usually 10% of the calculated costs for the cleaning afterwards and is also based on the type of event being organized. If the event organizers clean the event area to the standards of the environmental police, Selibon N.V. will return their deposit. This system has been in effect since January and despite some protests early on, organizers have realized the benefits of stimulating public environmental awareness. The less the public litters the less the organizers have to clean up.
Enforcement for Clean Vehicles has International Impact
October 22, 1998. Marking the largest U.S. Clean Air enforcement action in history, seven diesel engine manufacturers settled with the U.S. Department of Justice and Environmental Protection Agency for over 1 billion dollars for collectively selling 1.3 million heavy duty diesel engines installed with emission-control defeating devices. The devices allowed an engine to meet EPA emissions requirements during testing but to exceed those limits during highway use by altering the engine’s pollution control equipment. As a result, engines built with such devices emitted up to three times the legal limit of NOx, a powerful greenhouse gas. Per the terms of the settlement agreement, the settling companies, Caterpillar Inc., Cummins Engine Company, Detroit Diesel Corporation, Mack Trucks, Inc., Navistar International Transportation Corporation, Renault Vehicules Industriels, s.a. and Volvo Truck Corporation, were required to pay 83.4 million dollars in civil penalties, 109.5 million dollars to develop new emission-control technology, and 850 million dollars to introduce cleaner new engines, rebuild older engines to cleaner levels, recall pickup trucks equipped with defeat devices and conduct new emissions testing. Although 1.3 million tons of excess NOx were emitted in 1998 due to the devices, the settlement will prevent the illegal emission of 75 million tons of NOx. in the U.S. by 2025.