UNITED 

NATIONS E 

Economic and Social 

Council 

Distr. 

GENERAL 

E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

10 January 2003 

Original: ENGLISH 

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 

Fifty-ninth session 

Item 10 of the provisional agenda 

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS 

Adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous 

products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights 

Report of the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Fatma-Zohra Ouhachi-Vesely 

Addendum 

MISSION TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA*

(3-14 December 2001) 

 

* The executive summary is being circulated in all languages. The full report, annexed to the 

executive summary, is being circulated in the language of submission only. 

GE.03-10229 (E) 260103 
E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

page 2 

Executive summary 

 At the invitation of the Government, the Special Rapporteur undertook a two-week 

mission to the United States of America in December 2001. The principal aim of the mission 

was to learn more about the law, policy and practice of the United States regarding the illicit 

traffic in toxic and dangerous products and wastes and the enjoyment of human rights. During 

the mission, the Special Rapporteur met with a large number of interested actors, including 

federal and State agencies, representatives of the federal legislature, non-governmental 

organizations and academic research institutes. 

 While expressing her satisfaction that federal and State legislation relating to toxic and 

dangerous products and wastes is highly developed (thus demonstrating the importance attached 

by the Government to the issues under her mandate), the Special Rapporteur identified and raised 

with the Government six areas of concern: ratification of international instruments relevant to 

the mandate; shipbreaking; the export of pesticides banned from use within the United States; 

toxic waste exports to maquiladoras; the export of spent lead acid batteries; and the effects of 

regional efforts at trade liberalization. Three further matters were brought to her attention during 

the mission: issues relating to migrant workers, claims of environmental racism and the 

particular vulnerability of indigenous peoples. 

 As a result of her mission, the Special Rapporteur has addressed a number of 

recommendations to the Government, encouraging it (not in order of priority) to: 

 (a) Ratify the Basel Convention and its Ban Amendment, the Stockholm Convention 

on Persistent Organic Pollutants, and the PIC Convention; 

 (b) Amend its categorization of toxic and dangerous products and wastes in order to 

harmonize it with the Basel Convention; 

 (c) Increase resources provided to the Federal Environmental Protection Agency to 

allow it to better fulfil its mandate in this area, in particular to allow it to implement the 

recommendations set forth in this report; 

 (d) Address issues of impunity through increased reliance on criminal prosecutions in 

relation to breaches of the law; 

 (e) Facilitate the prosecution of United States corporations whose subsidiary entities 

in Mexican maquiladoras are responsible for failing to deal with both imports of toxic and 

dangerous products and wastes and such wastes generated in the finishing process, in accordance 

with United States, Mexican or international law; 

 (f) Seek innovative ways of ensuring repatriation of illicitly exported toxic and 

dangerous products and wastes, either through obliging the exporter to repatriate, or (where the 

exporter cannot be pursued) by establishing a public fund to pay for repatriation; 
 E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

 page 3 

 (g) Increase its efforts to coordinate its institutional action to ensure that relevant 

material exported from the United States is sent to the designated destination for the designated 

purpose; 

 (h) Prohibit the export of pesticides unregistered for sale or use within the 

United States; 

 (i) Subject exports of spent lead acid batteries for recycling to export regulations; 

 (j) Make permanent the moratorium on the foreign scrapping of American 

Government-owned ships, and extend the recovery scheme to private shipping, the cost being 

borne by the shipowners; 

 (k) Pay closer scrutiny to the movement of inactive private ships abroad in order to 

ensure that export regulations on toxic and dangerous products and wastes are enforced; and 

 (l) Ensure that the reduction of trade barriers will not be construed as allowing the 

illicit traffic in toxic and dangerous products and wastes. 
E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

page 4 

Annex 

 REPORT OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON THE ADVERSE 

 EFFECTS OF THE ILLICIT MOVEMENT AND DUMPING OF 

 TOXIC AND DANGEROUS PRODUCTS AND WASTES ON THE 

 ENJOYMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ON HER MISSION TO THE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (3-14 December 2001) 

CONTENTS 

 Paragraphs Page

Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 - 5 5 

 I. THE LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT .................... 6 - 18 6 

 A. Institutions ........................................................................... 7 6 

 B. Law and practice ................................................................. 8 - 12 7 

 C. Bilateral and regional frameworks ...................................... 13 - 14 8 

 D. Enforcement ........................................................................ 15 - 18 8 

 II. ASSESSMENT OF LAW, POLICY AND PRACTICE .............. 19 - 57 9 

 A. Overall assessment .............................................................. 19 - 21 9 

 B. Ratification of international instruments ............................. 22 - 24 10 

 C. Shipbreaking ........................................................................ 25 - 31 10 

 D. The export of pesticides banned from use within 

 the United States .................................................................. 32 - 40 12 

 E. Maquiladoras ...................................................................... 41 - 47 15 

 F. Export of spent lead acid batteries ...................................... 48 - 53 16 

 G. Trade liberalization ............................................................. 54 - 57 17 

 III. OTHER ISSUES ........................................................................... 58 - 62 18 

 A. Migrant workers .................................................................. 58 - 60 18 

 B. Environmental racism ......................................................... 61 19 

 C. Indigenous peoples .............................................................. 62 19 

 IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... 63 -78 19 

Appendix: Organizations with whose representatives the Special Rapporteur 

 met during her mission to the United States of America ................................ 25 
 E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

 page 5 

Introduction 

1. In accordance with the mandate given to her by the Commission on Human Rights in 

resolution 1995/81 and subsequent resolutions, the Special Rapporteur undertook a mission to 

the United States of America from 3 to 14 December 2001. The mission was the result of an 

invitation extended by the Government of the United States, and followed previous missions to 

Africa in 1997, to Central and South America in 1998, and to Europe in 1999. 

2. The aim of the mission was to consider issues arising in the United States with regard to 

the illicit traffic in toxic and dangerous products and wastes and the enjoyment of human rights. 

In particular, the purpose of this mission was: 

 (a) To hold consultations with representatives of governmental (both federal and 

State), and non-governmental organizations; 

 (b) To study the laws in force at both federal and State level; 

 (c) To learn more about governmental policy; 

 (d) To exchange views with the authorities regarding specific allegations of illicit 

exports of toxic and dangerous products to developing countries; 

 (e) To consider trends in the transboundary movement of toxic waste and hazardous 

materials; 

 (f) To study national and regional measures to prevent and punish illicit activities; 

 (g) To learn about technical cooperation in the area undertaken by the United States; 

and 

 (h) To sensitize the United States authorities to the importance of her mandate from 

the human rights perspective, and to the complementarity of her work with that of the secretariat 

of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and 

Their Disposal (Basel Convention), as well as with other United Nations bodies. 

3. The Special Rapporteur is grateful to the federal Government of the United States and its 

agencies for the full cooperation and the assistance they extended to her during her mission. She 

also wishes to thank State authorities in Texas and the large number of non-governmental 

organizations (NGOs) who made themselves available for consultations and who supplied her 

with a large amount of information. She would also like to thank the staff of the United Nations 

Information Centre in Washington, D.C. for the logistical support given to her mission. 

4. The Special Rapporteur’s visit was characterized by the high number of consultations she 

held and the breadth of the range of people and organizations with whom she met. In total, she 

met with over 120 individuals. Among the federal agencies, she met with representatives of: the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the Department of Labor; the Federal Bureau of 

Investigations (FBI); the Department of State; Naval Sea Systems Command; the Department of 
E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

page 6 

Defense; the United States Maritime Administration (MARAD); and the Department of Justice. 

She also held talks with representatives of the United States Congress (Energy and Commerce 

Committee) and the United States Senate (Subcommittee on Superfund Toxics, Risk and 

Waste Management). At the State level, she met with representatives of the Texas National 

Resource Conservation Commission. She held meetings with almost 50 NGOs from across the 

United States, including human rights and environmental groups, research centres, academics 

and representatives of indigenous peoples. In addition to individual meetings, consultations with 

large groups of NGOs were held in Washington, D.C., El Paso, Texas, and San Francisco, 

California. 

5. The Special Rapporteur visited Washington, Austin, El Paso and San Francisco. At the 

end of the mission she returned to Washington for the purpose of debriefing the Government on 

issues which arose during her visit. The mission took place shortly after the terrorist attacks 

of 11 September 2001, as a result of which the Special Rapporteur was unable to undertake a 

planned visit to an export facility on the United States-Mexico border. Additionally, measures 

taken in the face of anthrax attacks via the postal system resulted in the documentation of the 

mission being delayed by a number of months. Consequently, the report of the mission was not 

available in time for the fifty-eighth session of the Commission on Human Rights. 

I. THE LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT 

6. The United States legal and institutional framework relating to toxic and dangerous 

products and wastes is highly complex. Although primary responsibility in many areas rests 

with the federal Government, the individual States continue to have important roles in regulating 

the generation, storage and disposal of these substances. The import and export of such 

substances is, however, a federal responsibility. In addition, a growing number of bilateral and 

multilateral initiatives at the regional level (particularly involving Canada and Mexico) are 

having an effect on the national law and practice of the United States in this area. 

A. Institutions 

7. Institutional responsibility is spread across a number of actors including: 

 (a) The Council on Environmental Quality; 

 (b) The Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human 

Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, State and Transportation; 

 (c) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and 

 (d) State departments and agencies. 

Of these, the most relevant to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur is the EPA, which has 

responsibility (among other things) in the area of air and water pollution, solid and hazardous 

waste, radiation, pesticides, toxic substances, and environmental education. The agency is 

specifically mandated under the most important federal legislation outlined below. 
 E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

 page 7 

B. Law and practice 

8. The regulation of toxic and dangerous products and wastes is largely within the sphere of 

competence of the federal Government. Although the principal pieces of legislation in the area 

are federal, State agencies may be involved in their application. At the federal level, regulation 

of the movement of toxic and dangerous products depends upon their categorization. Most solid 

and hazardous waste is regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976) 

(RCRA), which provides a “cradle to grave” programme for its management. Important 

exceptions to RCRA’s definition of hazardous waste are household waste, nuclear waste, and 

wastes discharged to water. Each of these is dealt with by other legislation. Additionally, some 

hazardous wastes are not considered as such after having been recycled or if en route to a 

recycling facility. In addition to RCRA itself, the EPA has developed a number of regulations 

relating to the law’s application. The agency issues guidance documents and policy directives 

provide further advice to transporters, stowers and exporters. The movement of toxic substances 

is dealt with by a number of pieces of legislation such as the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) concerning the generation, use and export of, inter alia, pesticides, and 

the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 

9. Regulation of the export of toxic and dangerous products and wastes is part of a wider 

framework dealing with the movement and storage of these substances. The laws and 

regulations are complex and depend upon the type of substance involved. The categorization of 

toxic and dangerous products and wastes under United States laws differs in important respects 

from categorizations both at the international level (for example, under the Basel Convention) 

and in other countries (for example, Mexico). The authorities say that these differences hamper 

efforts to harmonize action in the area of toxic and dangerous products and wastes between the 

United States and other countries, and underlie the failure of the United States to ratify core 

international agreements in the area. 

10. In general terms, the regulation of the export of toxic and dangerous products and wastes 

in the United States is based on two broad principles: those of tracking and of prior consent. 

11. In respect of tracking, the Government has set in place a number of systems which allow 

shipments to be tracked from their source until they leave the United States, including periods of 

storage. Components of this tracking system include: the obligation to have a written manifest 

accompany the shipment at all times; requirements that the transporter within the United States 

be registered; submitting notices of intent to export to the EPA; and storage and compilation of 

the collected data by the EPA into annual and biennial reports. Tracking of shipments ends at 

the point of departure from the United States.a

 It is thus impossible to know whether a shipment 

ever reaches its nominated recipient. This is important in a number of respects. First, because 

the identification and consent of the recipient is central to the system of regulation (see below). 

Second, because some export requirements are based on the end-use of the shipment. For 

example, if hazardous waste is being exported for the sole purpose of being recycled, less 

stringent regulations can apply to it depending on whether or not it has been specifically 

identified in legislation. An inability to verify whether recycling occurs renders this system of 

regulation less effective. 
E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

page 8 

12. Beyond the border, the system relies on the prior consent of the recipient. An exporter’s 

notice of intention to export is sent to the receiving country.b If consent is received from that 

country, then the export is allowed, otherwise it is prohibited. The authorities state that they 

carefully compare the description of the shipment in the consent notice with that in the manifest 

deposited when the shipment leaves the United States. If the shipment is bound for a country 

that has ratified the Basel Convention, then the exporter is made aware of that Convention’s 

requirements. Modifications to this general position apply in respect of a number of countries 

with whom bilateral agreements have been signed (for example, Canada and Mexico) or 

multilateral cooperation exists (for example, in respect of members of the Organization for 

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)). The Special Rapporteur notes that bilateral 

agreements with non-OECD developing countries (Costa Rica, Malaysia and the Philippines) 

provide only for the import of hazardous waste into the United States, and not for its export. 

C. Bilateral and regional frameworks 

13. Bilateral and regional frameworks play an increasingly important role. A number of 

bilateral agreements have been negotiated by the Government which impact on the export of 

toxics and waste. The Special Rapporteur notes that such agreements with developing countries 

only permit the import of toxic and dangerous products and wastes into the United States.c

 In 

addition the United States is a member of the OECD and has participated in that organization’s 

Control System for Transboundary Movements of Wastes since 1992.d The United States is not, 

however, a party to the principal international agreements relating to transboundary movements 

of hazardous and dangerous substances, in particular the Basel Convention (see below). 

14. Regional efforts at trade liberalization have important ramifications for the ability of 

States in the region to export and import these substances (see below.) 

D. Enforcement 

15. Enforcement of laws and regulations relating to the export of toxic and dangerous 

products and wastes is the responsibility of a number of agencies and relies on their acting in 

cooperation.e The principal agencies in this respect are the EPA, the Department of Justice, the 

United States Customs Service, the FBI, the State Department, the Department of 

Transportation, the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency and the United States Coast Guard. State 

agencies, and authorities in the importing country may be involved. As noted above, states can 

and do play a role in enforcement. For example, RCRA can be enforced by individual states in 

cases where the EPA has delegated the RCRA programme to those States. 

16. Enforcement actions may be criminal or civil/administrative or both. The primary 

criminal provision under RCRA states that anyone who knowingly exports a hazardous waste 

without the consent of the receiving country (or where there is an international agreement, not in 

conformity with that agreement), is liable to two years’ prison or a fine of US$ 50,000 per day of 

violation. Prosecutions under RCRA are handled by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the 

United States Attorney with background work provided largely by the EPA. The DOJ’s 

Environment and Natural Resources Division includes the Environmental Crimes Section, which 

is responsible for prosecuting individuals and corporations that have violated RCRA (among 
 E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

 page 9 

other laws). Although there remain a number of serious cases in which only a financial fine was 

levied, there appears to be an increased readiness on the part of prosecutors and courts to impose 

custodial sentences in serious cases, particularly in sending directors of delinquent corporations 

to prison. 

17. Civil or administrative cases arising from the illegal export of toxic and dangerous 

products and wastes are handled by both the DOJ and EPA directly. The DOJ’s Environmental 

Enforcement Section is responsible for bringing civil judicial actions under RCRA (among other 

laws), usually on the referral of the EPA. The EPA itself brings administrative actions. Some 

enforcement in this area is carried out by State agencies. In parallel with judicial enforcement, 

the EPA has a broad range of “compliance assistance”, “compliance incentives” and 

“compliance monitoring” programmes. Problems in this area arise when the defendant is a 

corporation which has declared itself insolvent and thus unable to pay any remedy or restitution 

ordered against it. This is particularly acute where the remedy involves the costly repatriation to 

the United States of illegally exported substances. The Special Rapporteur notes that ratification 

of the Basel Convention would reinforce the authorities’ ability to order such repatriation. 

18. Particular difficulties arise in the case of United States corporations with manufacturing 

facilities in the “maquiladoras” along the United States-Mexico border. Toxic products and 

wastes move across the border in each direction. Where there is a failure of a United States 

owned entity operating in a maquiladora to repatriate this material under the terms of the 

maquiladora programme it remains difficult to bring the United States parent corporation to 

account (for example, by the enforcement of Mexican judgements in the United States or through 

involvement of United States authorities in Mexican investigations).f

 On the other hand, where 

these products move illicitly from the United States into Mexico (often to maquiladoras), similar 

problems arise in ensuring the products are repatriated to the United States. In this case it is the 

control of cross-border movements and enforcement of United States laws which is at issue. 

II. ASSESSMENT OF LAW, POLICY AND PRACTICE 

A. Overall assessment 

19. The United States’ regime governing the traffic in toxic and dangerous products and 

wastes seems to be very complex and sophisticated. NGOs with whom the Special Rapporteur 

met expressed their concern that this complexity does not benefit those adversely effected by 

these substances. For their part, the officials expressed their genuine desire to ensure the safe 

management of toxic substances and wastes. They underlined the fact that the vast majority of 

toxic substances and wastes remains within the United States and is processed there. In addition, 

the United States imports a large amount of toxic waste from abroad, including from developing 

countries. They reiterated the intention of the Government to pursue bilateral agreements that 

allow only imports of such substances from developing countries, rather than exports to 

developing countries. 

20. The Special Rapporteur was also briefed about the technical assistance offered by the 

United States to other countries, particularly in the area of hazardous solid waste. The 

Government’s policy of information sharing has resulted in a wide array of publications, training 
E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

page 10 

programmes, and Internet sites designed to assist importing countries in handling toxic and 

hazardous materials. In addition the United States financially supports initiatives in this area by 

multilateral organizations such as the OECD and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the 

United Nations (FAO). 

21. During her mission, a number of issues of concern were brought to her attention. The 

scope of the mission and of this report does not allow the presentation of every laudable aspect 

of the law and practice of the United States in areas relevant to her mandate. Nor does the 

Special Rapporteur aim to identify every shortcoming. However she would like to underline 

nine areas of concern drawn to her attention. 

B. Ratification of international instruments 

22. All the representatives of civil society with whom the Special Rapporteur met expressed 

their deep concern about the fact that the United States has not ratified the main international 

instruments governing the issue of wastes and toxics. Government officials explained that the 

Government’s policy is only to accept international obligations when it has already amended its 

law and practice in order to conform with new international obligations. They also explained the 

domestic political process through which accession to international texts must pass. 

23. The Special Rapporteur emphasized the importance to proceed to ratification of the three 

principal conventions in the field, none of which to date counts the United States as a party: 

 (a) The Basel Convention with its Ban Amendment; 

 (b) The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants; and 

 (c) The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent procedure for Certain 

Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (“the PIC Convention”). 

The Special Rapporteur believes that ratification of these treaties would make a positive impact 

on many issues of concern raised in this report. 

24. A number of officials indicated that the procedure for ratification of all three conventions 

was well under way. However, the Government has indicated its intention to seek ratification of 

the Basel Convention without the Ban Amendment.g

 NGOs for their part expressed their strong 

disagreement with this “ regressive and minimalist” position, considering that ratification of the 

Basel Convention without the Ban Amendment “does more to legitimize international waste 

dumping than it does to prevent it”. 

C. Shipbreaking 

25. The global shipbreaking industry has been a matter of concern for some time.h

 While the 

aims of shipbreaking are to dismantle the vessel and recover valuable metals (principally steel), 

the procedure must also deal with the large amounts of hazardous materials contained in each 

vessel. As the cost of safely dealing with these materials is very high, and the overall procedure 
 E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

 page 11 

highly labour-intensive, it has been attractive for shipowners to send their ships to developing 

countries to be scrapped. The effect of unregulated shipbreaking on the health of workers and on 

the environment in these developing countries has been documented.i When such ships destined 

for shipbreaking perform a transboundary movement of a Basel Convention-regulated hazardous 

waste, they are subject to the Basel Convention. 

26. United States Navy and government ships have been scrapped abroad in the past. An 

example is that of the U.S.S. Bennington, a World War II-era aircraft carrier decommissioned 

in 1970. Although sold for scrapping in the United States, the purchaser obtained permission to 

export the vessel. It was then sold through an intermediary in the United Kingdom before being 

resold to an Indian shipbreaking company in 1994. It was then scrapped on a beach in Alang, 

India.j

27. The Special Rapporteur met with representatives of the Department of Defense (DOD) 

and of the United States Maritime Administration (MARAD). The DOD outlined its Ship 

Disposal Project for the disposal of inactive United States warships, while MARAD outlined its 

Ship Disposal Program for non-retention government ships over 1,500 gross tons including navy 

non-combatants. Each programme is relatively new.k The Special Rapporteur noted the high 

level of attention paid to the scrapping of ships in the United States. 

28. While it was asserted that naval vessels were not “normally” exported for scrapping 

owing to military reasons, other government ships were, until 1994, routinely sold abroad for 

scrapping. Since that time there has been a suspension of scrapping abroad, but this suspension 

is not permanent. While this suspension would prohibit the sale of a Government-owned ship 

for the explicit purpose of shipbreaking, it still appears possible under current American law for 

a government ship in active service on leaving the United States to be scrapped abroad. 

29. The regimes of the DOD and MARAD governing shipbreaking do not apply to privately 

owned vessels, government vessels under 1,500 gross tons or non-United States flagged vessels, 

all of which can still be sent abroad for shipbreaking. Even normal export regulations governing 

hazardous waste do not strictly apply to obsolete vessels destined for scrapping. The Special 

Rapporteur notes that normal export regulations (including those in respect of solid hazardous 

wastes) would apply to the export of a private ship for shipbreaking. However experience has 

shown (as documented in the past reports of the Special Rapporteur) that fraud is often involved 

in the export of ships for shipbreaking: be it a pretence that the ship is being sold for active 

service, or is on routine scheduled voyage. 

30. The enormous costs associated with the scrapping of a ship under the DOD and MARAD 

programmes (as impressed on the Special Rapporteur by officials) clearly indicate that it would 

be almost impossible for many importing countries to be able to scrap a ship to the same 

standards as these programmesl

. 

31. The Special Rapporteur encourages the Government to focus more closely on the export 

of privately owned United States-flag ships abroad for scrapping, in particular with a view to 

enforcing currently laws and detecting fraudulent schemes. 
E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

page 12 

D. The export of pesticides banned from use within the United States 

32. Pesticides for use within the United States must be registered in accordance with FIFRA. 

Registration is dependent upon a determination that the product does not have unreasonable 

adverse effects on the environment or human health, although the EPA undertakes no 

independent testing of substances and relies on information supplied by the manufacturer. 

Pesticides that are not registered (either because they have failed the registration process or 

because they have never been submitted for registration) cannot be used or sold in the 

United States. They can, however, be produced in and exported from the United States to other 

countries.m

33. The conditions governing the export of pesticides not registered for use within the 

United States are laid down by FIFRA as: 

 (a) The substance be labelled as being unregistered for use within the United States; 

and 

 (b) The exporter submit to the EPA a “signed statement acknowledging that the 

purchaser understands that such pesticide is not registered for use in the United States and cannot 

be sold in the United States”. A copy of this statement is to be sent by the EPA “to an 

appropriate official of the government of the importing country” (section 17 (a) (2), FIFRA), 

though this notice is not required to be sent before the shipment leaves the United States. 

Furthermore, United States law does not appear to regulate the situation where the purchaser of 

the pesticide is the subsidiary of the exporting party. This opens the possibility of consent not 

being made at arms-length, and of exports on a fraudulent basis.n

34. The Government supports its policy of allowing the export of banned or non-registered 

pesticides using a number of arguments:o

 (a) That it is not for the United States to decide what is unsuitable for other countries;

 (b) That unilateral United States action in prohibiting the export of these pesticides 

would be of little effect without similar action by other exporting countries; and 

 (c) That the reasons for a pesticide being unregistered may be relevant: for example 

it may only be harmful in conditions relevant to the United States, or the producer has never 

sought registration because of a particular pesticide has no use in the United States.

35. The law and practice of the United States on pesticides explicitly favours education and 

provision of information to users over the banning of exports. Such an approach was said by 

officials to coincide with the “overall” trade policy of the United States which favours means 

other than bans of exports to deal with problems related to trade in goods. To this end, the EPA 

has developed programmes to disseminate information on the safe use of banned pesticides. 

Their purpose is to complement the few obligations on exporters imposed by FIFRA. These 

programmes include the provision of information on the Internet targeted at importing countries, 

a joint programme with the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) aimed at 
 E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

 page 13 

providing training via the Internet on safety with pesticides, assistance to importing countries 

with legislation regulating the use of pesticides and other chemicals, and a conference involving 

the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations and UNEP on destruction of stockpiles of obsolete 

pesticides. The attention of the Special Rapporteur was also drawn to the work of the 

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Technical Working Group on Pesticides. 

This Working Group’s goals, however, seem to be focused on regulatory harmonization to 

facilitate the trade of pesticides between the United States, Canada and Mexico.p

36. According to a report: 

United States Customs records reveal that 3.2 billion pounds of pesticide products were 

exported in 1997-2000, an average rate of 45 tons per hour. Nearly 65 million pounds of 

the exported pesticides were either forbidden or severely restricted in the United States 

[...]. In the 1997-1999 period, shipments of banned products were found in Customs 

records [...] 57 per cent of these products were shipped to a destination in the developing 

world. Nearly half of the remaining 43 per cent were shipped to ports in Belgium and the 

Netherlands. Though it is not possible to make a final determination from available data, 

it is likely that the final destinations of a large number of these shipments were also 

developing countries.q

 In the same report, it is noted that: 

[B]etween 1996-2000, the United States exported nearly 1.1 billion pounds of pesticides 

that have been identified as known or suspected carcinogens, an average rate of almost 

16 tons per hour [...] these figures have particular import in regard to children in 

developing countries. According to the International Labour Organization, 65 to 

90 per cent of the children estimated to be working in Africa (80 million), Asia 

(152 million) and Latin America (17 million) are working in agriculture. Evidence that 

children have heightened susceptibility to the carcinogenic effects of pesticides has even 

greater significance for developing countries. There, children live and work in conditions 

that involve almost continuous exposure, ranging from contact in fields to contaminated 

water, pesticide-contaminated clothing, and storage of pesticides in homes.r

37. While the United States has signed the PIC Convention, it has not yet ratified it.s 

Application of the PIC Convention would in effect allow Governments to notify the 

United States that they are not prepared to accept imports of certain chemicals without the need 

for a shipment-by-shipment approach as laid down in FIFRA. Although the list of substances to 

which PIC currently applies does not contain all banned or non-registered pesticides exported 

from the United States, ratification and implementation of the PIC by the United States would 

see the halt in exports of some of the most dangerous pesticides. 

38. According to officials at the EPA, the United States pesticide industry now voluntarily 

applies the principles of the PIC Convention by agreeing not to export a pesticide to a country 

which has supplied a “no consent to export” decision to the PIC secretariat. It also appears that 

some industry groups also encourage compliance with the PIC Convention among their 
E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

page 14 

members. The sole manufacturer of one unregistered pesticide (chlordane) has voluntarily 

decided to halt production even though an export market continues to exist. While these 

measures are voluntary, unenforceable and thus of limited use when compared to the obligations 

assumed by ratifying the PIC Convention, they do indicate that there is a growing realization that 

the current policy of allowing the export of banned or non-registered pesticides is not acceptable. 

Further evidence of this might be found in reports that according to United States Customs 

records, for the year 2000, no banned pesticide export was recorded and exports of pesticides 

subject to the PIC treaty decreased 97 per cent from the 1997 total of nearly 3 million pounds.t 

39. Despite these reports of positive progress, the export of hazardous pesticides remains 

intolerably high from the public health, human rights and environmental protection perspectives. 

On the other hand, the export of domestically banned pesticides from the United States to 

developing countries remains a matter of serious concern to the Special Rapporteur. The scope 

for such pesticides adversely effecting the human rights of individuals in importing countries has 

been illustrated by a number of specific cases appearing in the Special Rapporteur’s annual 

report to the Commission on Human Rights under the mandate, and reported widely in the 

media.u In particular, the right to life, the right to health, the right to found a family, the right to 

a private life are most commonly violated by the effects of pesticide use. 

40. Despite the technical assistance programmes run in parallel, the defects in the 

United States policy in allowing the export of such substances are quite apparent. In particular 

the policy: 

 (a) Places the burden on the importing country of deciding whether or not use of the 

pesticide should be allowed in that country. This makes a series of assumptions about various 

capacities of the importing country. In particular it assumes that the importing country has: 

(i) the technological capacity to assess the dangers of the pesticide; and 

(ii) the regulatory capacity to ensure that the pesticide is used in make 

accordance with the safety measures prescribed. 

In relation to many developing countries, these assumptions are false; 

 (b) Focuses in the first instance on the importer of the pesticide rather than addressing 

appropriate warning to a public authority in the importing country. As the potential dangers of 

such toxic substances lie not only for the purchaser but for the community as a whole, the notice 

of import should be directed to the Government in the first instance; 

 (c) Makes a series of assumptions about the ultimate user of the pesticide, 

particularly the individual’s literacy, language, access to equipment necessary for the safe use of 

the pesticide, and access to the Internet. A number of documented cases brought to the Special 

Rapporteur’s attention involving the injury or even death of residents in importing countries 

attest to the fragility of these assumptions; and 
 E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

 page 15 

 (d) Is based upon an untenable premise that pesticides deemed unacceptable for the 

residents and environment of the United States are somehow acceptable in other countries. 

Clearly, countries often choose to offer their citizens a higher degree of protection than others in 

many areas. One of the most common reasons for doing so is to acknowledge different levels of 

economic and social development among States. However this disparity is difficult to justify in 

respect of pesticides found to be so dangerous that they are banned from sale or use. 

E. Maquiladoras

41. In November 1998 the Special Rapporteur undertook a mission to Mexico during which 

she visited the maquiladoras in the export-processing zones along the United States-Mexico 

border, in particular in the State of Chihuahua.v In that report the Special Rapporteur raised the 

issue of repatriation to the United States of waste generated in the maquiladoras. During her 

mission to the United States the Special Rapporteur visited the same border from the 

United States side, around the city of El Paso, in the state of Texas. 

42. Maquiladoras are manufacturing plants established by transnational corporations in 

Mexico under that country’s Border Industrialization Programme. Initiated in 1965, the 

Programme now counts over 3,700 maquiladoras. The Programme allows foreign-owned 

manufacturers to benefit from Mexico’s comparatively low wage rates while avoiding customs 

duties levied on raw materials imported into Mexico. Waste generated in the “finishing” process 

in the maquiladoras must be repatriated to the country from where the raw materials were 

imported. This is overwhelmingly the United States. Statistics provided by the United States 

authorities and comments by observers suggest that only a percentage of this waste is actually 

repatriated.w 

43. A number of issues identified by the Special Rapporteur in this report impact on the 

maquiladoras. Beyond these specific issues (spent lead acid batteries (SLABs), banned 

pesticides and enforcement issues), the maquiladoras are an issue of concern for the Special 

Rapporteur because of (a) the illegal movement of toxic and dangerous products and wastes from 

the United States to the maquiladoras; and (b) the role of United States companies in the 

maquiladoras and the question of repatriation of waste outlined earlier. 

44. The volumes of vehicles and goods crossing the United States-Mexico border each day 

are enormous. One official spoke of around 8,000 truck-crossings each day at just the Laredo 

border crossing in Texas. Total tracked hazardous waste exported to Mexico has averaged 

around 250,000 tons over the past five years.x

 The Special Rapporteur learnt of the large number 

of programmes designed to monitor these cross-border flows, and the difficulties caused by the 

enormity of the situation. The Special Rapporteur was briefed on the initiatives taken by the 

authorities (the EPA and United States Customs in particular, and most recently the State of 

California) to enhance monitoring of cross-border movements. While encouraging these 

initiatives (especially those in cooperation with Mexican authorities), she notes that some of the 

problems relate to the partial regulation of certain hazardous wastes by the United States 

(an example are SLABs). 
E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

page 16 

45. The majority of maquiladoras are connected to foreign companies, usually through a 

parent-subsidiary status. According to many NGOs, in the years during which maquiladoras 

have grown strongly, it has become apparent that a number of their operators have fled Mexico 

for the United States to escape prosecution for environmental offences.y Some of these offences 

relate to the failure to adequately deal with materials imported from the United States. In some 

cases, contaminated sites in Mexico are abandoned by the operator, posing a threat to workers in 

other neighbouring maquiladoras and adjacent communities. 

46. The Special Rapporteur places a high priority on examining questions of impunity. This 

priority is shared by the Commission on Human Rights which, in renewing the Special 

Rapporteur’s mandate in 2001, invited her to: 

include in her report to the Commission [...] comprehensive information on [...] [t]he 

question of the impunity of the perpetrators of these heinous crimes, including racially 

motivated discriminatory practices, and to recommend measures to bring them to an end.z

47. Individuals and corporations which export toxic and dangerous products and wastes from 

the United States and fail to deal with the substances in a manner provided for by United States 

or international law should be held accountable within the United States for their actions. The 

Special Rapporteur thus encourages the Government to explore means of ensuring accountability 

in this area. 

F. Export of spent lead acid batteries 

48. The United States exports a large number of spent lead acid batteries (SLABs) for 

reclamation. As they are destined for recycling, such exports are not subject to the general 

export requirements imposed by RCRA on the export of other hazardous or toxic waste to 

countries including OECD member States.aa Shipments within the United States do not even 

require a manifest to accompany the SLABs for export. 

49. SLABs are hazardous waste under the Basel Convention,bb and their export for recycling 

to non-Annex VII States would be halted were the United States to ratify the Ban Amendment to 

the Convention.cc

50. While most exports of SLABs from the United States are to Canada, a large number are 

bound for Mexico. Of such exports to Mexico, EPA officials say that the vast majority of 

SLABs go to a single modern reclamation facility at Monterrey. Other exports, however, are 

destined for smaller, unregulated and less modern facilities set up within the maquiladoras. 

Because the exports of SLABs are not subject to RCRA export regulation, it is impossible to 

know what quantity of SLABs is leaving the United States, nor its destination. Most 

importantly, officials are unable to say what proportion of exported SLABs end up in the 

maquiladoras. 
 E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

 page 17 

51. The toxicity of SLABs arises from both their lead and corrosive acid components. The 

dangers posed to human health by the recovery of lead in unregulated environments is widely 

accepted. As the Executive Director of UNEP said at the launch of the Basel Technical 

Guidelines for the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Lead-Acid Batteries in 

May 2002: 

The recycling of lead-acid batteries is one of the greatest potential sources of risk, 

especially for exposed workers in the informal sector in many developing countries. The 

safe recycling of these batteries requires strict environmental and occupational standards 

that can only be ensured by specialized firms, of which only a few are found in 

developing countries.dd 

52. The possible effects of SLABs exports to maquiladoras were highlighted by the case 

of Metales y Derivados, a United States-owned maquiladora established in Tijuana in the 

late 1980s. The company imported SLABs from the United States and exported new batteries in 

return. It is widely believed that Metales y Derivados obtained its Mexican environmental 

operating permits with false statements in its application, and possibly by bribing local 

environmental officials. At the time, Mexican legislation required foreign companies to return to 

the country of origin any hazardous waste created from or by materials imported. Instead 

Metales y Derivados deposited hazardous waste on the company property, much of it leaking 

through the barrels contaminating the area. Metales y Derivados was closed by Mexican 

authorities in 1995. The owner abandoned the company, returning to the United States where he 

declared bankruptcy.ee

53. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that the United States system does not impose 

export regulations on SLABs destined for recycling. This is particularly perplexing when 

SLABs are considered hazardous waste within the United States. While the export of SLABs for 

recycling in modern facilities may pose few problems, the lack of export regulation makes it less 

possible for United States authorities to ensure that shipments of SLABs do not ultimately end 

up in unregulated environments in which they pose a risk to the health of workers and 

communities. 

G. Trade liberalization 

54. As noted earlier, regional trade liberalization initiatives are having an increasingly 

profound impact on the export policies of the United States. These regional initiatives follow a 

worldwide trend towards the lowering of barriers to trade in goods and services. Regional 

initiatives appear to be gaining in importance with current proposal for the Free Trade Area for 

the Americas. 

55. The North American regime is to be lauded for attempting to foster cooperation on 

environmental issues in parallel with trade liberalization measures through the North American 

Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAEEC). In addition, NAFTA itself accepts the 

precedence of the Basel Convention and bilateral agreements over its own provisions.ff
E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

page 18 

56. Concern has been expressed however that there exists a danger that the drive to reduce 

barriers to trade in goods might lead to a pressure on countries to relax their export and import 

regulations on toxic and dangerous products and wastes. While the NAFTA Agreement 

expressly allows its States parties to adopt and enforce measures aimed at protecting the 

environment,gg the attention of the Special Rapporteur has been drawn to developments which 

cause concern. A number of “investors’ rights” cases pursued under chapter 11 of NAFTA 

increasingly challenge States parties ability to restrict the import or export of substances believed 

to be harmful to human health.hh The developing jurisprudence under chapter 11 appears to 

suggest that domestic environmental regulations can be considered “trade-restrictive” in the 

context of NAFTA. 

57. Considering its leading role in these trade liberalization initiatives, the Special 

Rapporteur impresses on the Government the need to ensure that the reduction of trade barriers 

will not be construed as allowing the illicit traffic in toxic and dangerous products and wastes. 

III. OTHER ISSUES 

A. Migrant workers 

58. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur focuses on the impact of exported toxic and 

dangerous products and wastes on the human rights of individuals living and working in the 

importing countries. During her mission to the United States, the Special Rapporteur became 

aware of a parallel to this trend, in which foreign nationals brought into the United States to 

work were having their health endangered by the illegal use of toxic and dangerous products, in 

particular pesticides, within the United States. Two specific instances of this practice were 

brought to the Special Rapporteur’s attention. 

59. The first is the seasonal Mexican farm workers employed in the agricultural industries 

along the United States-Mexico border. Often brought into the United States illegally, and with 

no healthcare or protection of workplace health and safety legislation, these workers are prone to 

injury arising from the unregulated use of pesticides in the fields in which they work. The 

second involves reports that Mexican nationals working illegally in the shipbreaking industries 

of Brownsville, Texas are similarly exposed to toxic and dangerous products with no protection. 

60. The Special Rapporteur was briefed about the efforts of the Government to address these 

problems.ii However, it seems that the root of the problem lies in the status of these workers 

within the United States: status that denies them health and safety protection afforded to other 

workers in the United States. The migrant workers with whom the Special Rapporteur met 

underlined the fact that they were not able to enjoy existing legal protection for obvious reasons 

such as the threat of losing their jobs, their inability to understand the complicated rules of 

procedure and the impossibility of accessing information establishing the link between the illegal 

use of pesticides and dangerous products and the damage they suffered. The Special Rapporteur 

encourages the Government to focus on improving the access of these workers to occupational 

health and safety protection and to health care as well as to efficient ways of recourse. 
 E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

 page 19 

B. Environmental racism 

61. The Special Rapporteur was intensively briefed by representatives of NGOs, members of 

civil society and academia on issues relating to “environmental racism” within the United States. 

Allegations of the citing of polluting industries or waste dumps near Afro-American and Latino 

communities within the United States were drawn to her attention. Two international 

ramifications of this internal problem were identified. First, the fact that some products 

prohibited for use within the United States continue to be produced in that country for export, 

with all the risks associated for the workers in the United States, the populations living in the 

vicinity of the factories, and the users in the importing countries. Second, that foreign 

companies were taking advantage of the United States legislation (which permits the production 

for export of products prohibited of use within the United States) in order to operate factories 

producing prohibited substances near communities of marginalized groups. The Special 

Rapporteur, who was briefed by the officials on the efforts made in order to face the internal 

problem of environmental justice,jj encourages the Government to look also at the international 

ramifications mentioned here. 

C. Indigenous peoples 

62. The Special Rapporteur received numerous testimonies from indigenous peoples, villages 

and tribes representatives who met with her at the International Indian Treaty Council 

headquarters in San Francisco, and in Washington, D.C. They explained to her their particular 

connection to and custodianship of their territories (both land and water) as the fundamental 

basis for their physical and cultural existence. They reaffirmed their rights to self-determination 

and to own, control and manage their ancestral lands and territories, waters and other resources. 

They expressed their concern over the activities of multinational corporations which have caused 

immense health problems for their people, affected the environment and undermined their 

culture. They presented several documented cases on the impact on indigenous peoples of: 

toxic dumping (including nuclear waste) and mining issues in the United States and Canada; the 

impact of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and military toxics dumping in Alaska; the impact 

of banned pesticides use on health and child development, particularly in Mexico and 

Guatemala; and the export of banned pesticides from the United States. The Special Rapporteur 

feels that the concerns expressed by indigenous peoples should be taken into account by the 

concerned Governments and dealt with by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human 

rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people recently nominated by the Commission 

on Human Rights.kk

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

63. The mission to the United States allowed the Special Rapporteur to learn more 

about the policy, legislation and practice of that country concerning issues under her 

mandate. She had the opportunity to discuss openly with government officials and the 

representatives of civil society. 
E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

page 20 

64. The Special Rapporteur notes with satisfaction that federal and State legislation 

relating to toxic and dangerous products and wastes is highly developed. The institutional 

framework is likewise very elaborate. This demonstrates the importance attached by the 

Government to the issues under the Special Rapporteur’s mandate. However, it seems that 

efforts should be made for better coordination between the numerous institutions having a 

responsibility on the matter.

65. Bilateral and regional frameworks are playing an increasing role, a positive trend 

which should be encouraged while paying attention to the threats accompanying 

cooperation between countries which have different levels of development. In that regard, 

technical cooperation and assistance is vital.

 

66. The Special Rapporteur notes with interest that enforcement of laws relating to the 

export of toxic and dangerous products and waste may involve prosecution through civil, 

administrative and even criminal law. However, and despite the increased readiness of 

prosecutors to impose custodial sentences, it remains difficult for a victim to have access to 

information, and to pursue a legal remedy, particularly against private corporations. In 

addition, in many serious cases only financial fines are levied. According to a report, “over 

90 per cent of all federal cases, including environmental cases, are settled by mutual 

agreement or otherwise or without a trial”.ll

67. Without being exhaustive, the Special Rapporteur mentioned nine main areas of 

concern brought to her attention during the mission: ratification of international 

instruments; shipbreaking; export of domestically banned pesticides; maquiladoras; export 

of spent lead acid batteries; risks associated with trade liberalization; migrant workers; 

environmental racism; and indigenous peoples. 

68. In light of the issues raised in this report, the Special Rapporteur presents the 

following comments and recommendations:

69. International treaties: the Special Rapporteur encourages the Government of the 

United States of America to ratify the Basel Convention and its Ban Amendment, the 

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, and the PIC Convention. 

70. Legislation: the Government is encouraged to amend its categorization of toxic and 

dangerous products and wastes in order to harmonize it with the Basel Convention.

71. Institutions: the Special Rapporteur encourages the Government to increase 

resources to the EPA to allow it better to fulfil its mandate in this area, in particular to 

allow it to implement the recommendations set forth in this report. In this respect, the 

Special Rapporteur is disheartened to learn of a 4 per cent reduction in the agency’s 

budget earlier in 2002.

72. Enforcement:

 (a) The Government is encouraged to continue its increased reliance on criminal 

prosecution together with civil or administrative actions in relation to breaches of the law 
 E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

 page 21 

in the area of toxic and dangerous products and wastes; to improve the procedural rights 

of the victims and to pay particular attention to the issue of impunity; 

 (b) The Special Rapporteur is concerned at reports that the Government intends 

to reduce resources to the EPA’s enforcement mechanisms; 

 (c) In relation to the maquiladoras, the Government is encouraged to facilitate 

the prosecution of United States corporations whose subsidiary entities in Mexico are 

responsible for failing to deal with imports of toxic and dangerous products and wastes in 

accordance with United States, Mexican or international law. To this end, the Government 

should: 

(i) seek the cooperation of the Mexican authorities in investigations, and 

in representation in court proceedings; 

(ii) facilitate the enforcement of Mexican judgements within the 

United States; and 

(iii) consider extraterritorial jurisdiction in these matters; and 

 (d) Repatriation of illicitly exported toxic and dangerous products and wastes 

remains a problem. The Government is encouraged to seek innovative ways of ensuring 

repatriation of this material, either through obliging the exporter to repatriate, or (where 

the exporter cannot be pursued) by establishing a public fund to pay for repatriation. 

73. The Special Rapporteur encourages the Government to increase its efforts and to 

coordinate its institutional action to ensure that material exported from the United States is 

sent to the designated destination for the designated purpose. 

74. Pesticides:

 (a) The Special Rapporteur recommends that the export of pesticides 

unregistered for sale or use within the United States be prohibited; and 

 (b) Until such export is prohibited, the EPA should ensure that the attention of 

the Government in the importing country is drawn to the export before the shipment leaves 

the United States. 

75. Spent lead acid batteries: SLABs should be, at least, fully regulated when exported 

for recycling, thus making them subject to manifesting and export requirements.

76. Shipbreaking:

 (a) The moratorium on the foreign scrapping of United States 

Government-owned ships should be made permanent; 
E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

page 22 

 (b) The laudable regimes established in respect of Navy and government 

shipping should be extended to private shipping, the cost being borne by the shipowners; 

and 

 (c) Closer scrutiny should be paid to the movement of inactive private ships 

abroad in order to ensure that export regulations on toxic and dangerous products and 

wastes are enforced. 

77. Trade liberalization: the Special Rapporteur reiterates the need to ensure that the 

reduction of trade barriers will not be construed as allowing the illicit traffic in toxic and 

dangerous products and wastes.

78. The Special Rapporteur invites the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of 

racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, the Special Rapporteur 

on the human rights of migrant workers and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of 

human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people to pay particular attention 

to the specific issues raised in this report related to their respective mandates.

Notes 

a

 A partial exception is the HAZTRAKS Programme, which allows (inter alia) the tracking of 

hazardous waste and hazardous material exported from the United States to Mexico through the 

sharing of information between Governments. 

b

 Note that in respect of pesticides, the exporter must submit to the EPA a “signed statement 

acknowledging that the purchaser understands that such pesticide is not registered for use in the 

United States and cannot be sold in the United States”. See the discussion below. 

c

 Importantly, the agreement with Mexico allows for export to Mexico but only for the purposes 

of recycling. 

d

 See OECD Council Decisions C(92)39 and C(2001)107. 

e

 For example, there is a Memorandum of Understanding between the EPA and the 

United States Customs Service. 

f

 The case of Metales y Derividos, discussed below, is an example. 

g

 See Decision III/1 of the Third Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (1995). 

h

 See E/CN.4/2001/55 (paras. 30-31) and E/CN.4/2000/50 (para. 120). 

i

 See papers presented to the Ship Recycling 2001 Conference held in Philadelphia, 

United States, 9-12 September 2001. 

j

 Hazardous materials had been removed and the ship “demilitarized” in the United States. 
 E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

 page 23 

k

 Until as recently as 1994 non-military government ships were routinely sold abroad for 

scrapping. 

l

 The risks associated with shipbreaking are recognized in the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration’s National Emphasis Program on Shipbreaking which was adopted “because of 

the continuing high incidence of injuries and illnesses related to shipbreaking operations” 

(Directive CPL 2-0.129). 

m Unregistered pesticides may also be imported into the United States if for eventual re-export. 

See Pesticide Registration Notice 99-1 (01.03.99) at http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR

Notices/pr99-1.html. 

n

 Export of unregistered pesticides may even take place without the purchaser’s 

acknowledgement if for approved “research and development” purposes. See the EPA Pesticide 

Export Policy, vol. 58, Federal Register No. 31, 9062 (18 February 1993). 

o

 The first-mentioned goal of the EPA in its international pesticide activities is “to ensure the 

safety of the American food supply”. EPA Pesticide Export Policy, ibid. 

p

 See the Milestone Report of the NAFTA Technical Working Group on Pesticides 

(September 2001) pp. 1-2. 

q

 See Carl Smith, “Pesticide Exports from US ports, 1997-2000”, vol. 7 International Journal of 

Occupational and Environmental Health (2001), 266-274. 

r

 Smith (2001) ibid. 

s

 Although it appears that the process for ratification has been under way since February 2000. 

t

 Smith (2001) at p. 268. 

u

 See E/CN.4/2001/55/Add.1, paras. 13-14, 23-24, 46-48, 83-84, 120-121, 123, 129-130. 

v

 See E/CN.4/1999/46/Add.1, paras. 80-82. 

w For example, figures provided by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

(TNRCC). 

x

 Figures provided by the TNRCC. 

y

 The case of Metales y Derivados, discussed below, is but one example. 

z

 Commission on Human Rights resolution 2001/35, para. 13. 

aa 40 CFR Part 266.80. 
E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

page 24 

bb Annex VIII list A. 

cc Decision III/1. 

dd UNEP Press Release, 17 May 2002. See also Section 3.2 of the Guidelines themselves 

(Environmental Risks Associated to the Improper Management of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries). 

ee For an overview of the situation see: North American Commission for Environmental 

Cooperation, Metales y Derivados: Final Factual Record prepared in accordance with 

article 15 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (SEM-98-007) 

(February 2002). 

ff Article 104, although the precedence is couched in the following terms: ... such obligations 

shall prevail [over the NAFTA Agreement] to the extent of the inconsistency, provided that 

where a Party has a choice among equally effective and reasonably available means of 

complying with such obligations, the Party chooses the alternative that is the least inconsistent 

with the other provisions of this Agreement. 

gg Article 1114. 

hh See the cases concerning Metalclad v. Mexico, Ethyl Corporation v. Canada, Methanex v. 

USA, S.D. Myers v. Canada and TECMED v. Mexico. 

ii An example is the Bilateral Programme on Agricultural Worker Protection within the 

framework of the NAFTA Working Group on Pesticides. 

jj See also the third report of the United States to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial 

Discrimination of 10 October 2000 (CERD/C/351/Add.1). 

kk See also the report of the first session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues 

(E/2002/43). 

ll OECD, Environmental Performance Reviews: the United States (1996), 17-39, at 31. 
 E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

 page 25 

Appendix 

 ORGANIZATIONS WITH WHOSE REPRESENTATIVES THE 

 SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR MET DURING HER MISSION TO 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Federal Government of the United States of America 

 FBI

− Governmental Fraud Unit, Integrity in Government/Civil Rights Section, Criminal 

Investigative Division 

 Environmental Protection Agency 

− Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances 

− Office of Solid Waste (DC and San Francisco) 

− Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

− Office of International Activities 

− Region IX, Waste Management Division 

− Haztracks Regional Border Team 

− United States-Mexico Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup 

 Department of State

− Bureau of International Organization Affairs 

− Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor 

− Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs 

 Department of Justice

− Environmental Enforcement 

− Environment/Policy Section 

− Environmental Crimes Section 

 Department of Labor

− Office of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) 
E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

page 26 

 Legislators

− Senator Barbara Boxer (Legislative Assistant Bettina Poirier) 

− Committee on Energy and Commerce 

 United States Maritime Administration

− Ship Disposal Program Office 

 Department of Defense

− Naval Sea Systems Command, Inactive Ships Program Office 

State government 

Texas State government

− Border Office of the Texas National Resource Conservation Commission 

Civil society 

− Greenpeace 

− Environmental Justice 

− Amnesty USA 

− Texas Environment Center 

− Texas Center for Policy Studies 

− Earthjustice 

− Human Rights Advocates 

− Environmental Forum of Marin 

− Greenaction 

− Jennifer Attmen Foundation 

− As You Sow Foundation 

− Nautilus Institute 

− National Heritage Institute 

− National Institute for Security and Sustainable Development 

− Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) 

− Pesticide Action Network North America 
 E/CN.4/2003/56/Add.1 

 page 27 

− Global Environmental Resources, Inc. 

− W. Haywood Burns Environmental Education Center 

− Arbor Hill Environmental Justice Inc. 

− Northeast Environmental Justice Network 

− International Possibilities Unlimited 

− Sierra Club 

− American Association for the Advancement of Science 

− Essential Action 

− Friends of the Earth US 

− Alianza para el desarrollo comunitario 

− Alianza internacional ecologista del Norte 

− Indigenous Environmental Network 

− Shanna Project Underground 

− Yoementekia 

− U’wa Defense Project 

− Alaska Community Action on Toxics 

− International Indian Treaty Council 

− Gros Ventre Nation 

− Comité Campesina del Altiplano 

− Mujer Obrera 

− Sin Fronteras Border Agricultural Workers Project 

- - - - -