P.O. Box 5675, Berkeley, CA 94705 USA
Chris Young
March 10, 2005
Commission on Human Rights
61 st Session
Agenda Item 10
Contact Information:
Chris Young, Frank E. Newman Intern chrisyoung72@yahoo.com
Representing Human Rights Advocates through
University of San Francisco School of Law’s
International Human Rights Clinic
Connie de la Vega
2130 Fulton Street
San Francisco, CA 941117
Tel: 415-422-6752

Several Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) have been enacted to address the international transfer of waste, toxics and chemicals. However, few of them focus on the human rights implications of the illicit transfer of toxics and wastes. An exception is the Aarhus Convention, which allows individuals to demand information sharing on projects or industries that affect the environment, or human rights. Regional treaties have been formed in areas of particular need, such as the Bamako Convention, a fundamental intention of which is to raise awareness of the “risk of damage to human health and the environment caused by transboundary movements of hazardous wastes.” 1
Article 9 of the Bamako Convention defines “illegal” waste trafficking as the “deliberate disposal of hazardous wastes in contravention of this Convention and of general principles of international law
.” 2
The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Illicit
Transfer of Toxics is essential to address growing problems with the international movement of toxics, and how that movement goes against the general principles of international law. The Special Rapporteur can thus add a human rights perspective to
MEAs such as the Rotterdam, Stockholm and Basel Conventions.
This report focuses on two themes which fall under the mandate of the Special
Rapporteur, and which contribute to continuous and systemic abuses of human rights.
First, the disposal of electronic waste is a mounting problem that must be addressed from the perspective of the human rights to life, health, work, water, food and housing.
Second, the harm caused by pesticides throughout the world must be addressed from the same human rights perspective. Electronic waste and pesticide disposal are both ostensibly part of the “legal” transfer of toxics. However, common practices of multinational companies trading in e-waste and pesticides do not adhere to the principles of international law, creating grave human rights situations in the countries where these toxics are imported. While the illegal action of a private party, in violation of international human rights, is usually insufficient to impute that action to the State, at least one human rights body has found circumstances where the State is responsible:
“…the State will incur responsibility for the illegal acts of private actors when it has permitted such acts to take place without taking adequate measures to prevent them or
1 Bamako Convention, Preamble(3). The Bamako Convention has entered into force in 20 countries, out of
36 member countries of the Organization of African Unity: http://www.ecolex.org
.
2 Bamako Convention, Article 9(1)(e), Illegal Traffic. Emphasis added.
2

subsequently to punish the perpetrators.” 3
Commercial operations are at the discretion of the State, and failing to regulate industry so that it abides by human rights norms can therefore become an issue where the State itself is held accountable, both before a human rights violation occurs, and after.
I. Electronic Waste
Electronic waste (e-waste) is a major contributor to violations of the right to a healthful work environment. Used electronic products are the most rapidly growing toxic waste problem in the world due to their quantity, rapid obsolescence, and toxicity.
4
Americans alone dispose of 2 million tons of electronic products a year, including 50 million computers and 130 million cell phones, and by 2010, the nation will be discarding
400 million electronic units annually.
5
Computers, televisions and other electronic devices contain many neurotoxins and carcinogens, such as lead, mercury, cadmium and beryllium metal.
6
Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) computer monitors contain an estimated 4 kilograms of lead each, which, if not properly disposed of will potentially contaminate ground water, directly affecting the rights to clean drinking water, health, and food.
Contaminated areas near landfills become unfit for human habitation, displacing communities and affecting the human right to adequate housing. Improper disposal of ewaste can cause respiratory illness, skin infections, stomach disease and nervous system conditions, directly affecting the human right to health. Take for example the following accounts of some of the effects of e-waste processing:
In Guiyu Township, Guangdong Province where residents and laborers have conducted extensive computer scrapping, water in local rivers and lakes and even groundwater turned brown and became non-drinkable. . . .
Analysis of sediment samples showed severe contamination.
In the town of Yandang, where chemical processes have been used for extracting gold from waste computers for more than ten years, 80% of the wells have been contaminated. Many of the areas’s trees have withered; fish and shrimp have become extinct; polluted crop lands lie in waste.
3 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in
Colombia at 1-8, O.A.S. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102, doc. 9 rev. 1 (1999).
4 Product Stewardship Institute, http://www.productstewardship.us/prod_electronics.html
.
5 Id.
These figures are the result of a study conducted by the International Association of Electronics
Recyclers.
6 Nautiyal, Kanak Kriani, E-waste: Send to Trash?
, Times News Network, January 25, 2004.
3

90% of workers surveyed suffered from red edema, and 50% from asthma.
7
Many states have begun to enact legislation, yet the problem continues to worsen.
Under MEAs, most notably the Basel Convention, the transfer of toxic e-waste is addressed, yet the restrictions on export of e-waste are easily undermined. Under the
Basel Convention, the movement of any hazardous waste requires prior written notification and consent from both the importer and the exporter.
8
According to
Canada’s National Office of Pollution Prevention, Canada produced 158 thousand tons of electronic waste in 2002.
9
Yet the government agency Environment Canada doesn’t track the export of e-waste, because they generally don’t consider e-waste to be hazardous. Consequently, the e-waste is then shipped to the country which will “recycle” it at the lowest price. Environment Canada only considers the e-waste hazardous if it is displaying hazardous characteristics at the time of export. Even though the used electronics contain numerous toxics, the used electronics are not considered hazardous unless they are broken, thus displaying the potential to leach toxics into the environment.
10
Toxics that do leach into the surrounding environment affect the rights to water and food.
The Basel Convention defines e-waste as a hazardous material. According to the
Basel Action Network, e-waste is deemed hazardous if it could leach toxins at any time after disposal.
11 The Australian and British governments support this view. The government agency Environment Australia decided in 1999 that even if the language of the Basel Convention is ambiguous, computer monitors and various other electronics should be deemed toxic.
12
The text of the Basel Convention lists toxics which are deemed hazardous, and specifically states that the waste is “capable, by any means, after disposal, of yielding [a material] . . . which possesses any [listed] characteristics.”
13
7 Lin, Catherine K.; Yan, Linan; Davis, Andrew; “Globalization, Extended Producer Responsibility and the
Problem of Discarded Computers in China,” 14 Geo. Int’l Envtl. L. Rev. 525, 553-54, 2002.
8 Ross, Rachel, Toxic Exportation , Toronto Star, January 3, 2005.
9 Id.
10 Id.
Lyne Monastesse, a manager of Canada’s department of transboundary movement explained
Canada’s position.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Basel Convention, Annex III, 9H13.
4

There is an international standard which defines this language in the Basel Convention, and governments should be wary of misinterpretation.
A. E-waste Leglisation
Solving disposal problems may require more specific guidelines for categorization of e-waste. Many states are currently enacting legislation to further regulate e-waste disposal. The European Union has issued the Waste Electrical and
Electronic Equipment (WEEE) directive in order to regulate how companies and consumers are to recycle and dispose of e-waste.
14 Under the directive, member states are to set up a centralized management system for the collection and recycling of e-waste.
The details of the WEEE are still being worked out, and at present the responsibility for stewarding e-waste has been placed on the “producer.” This definition remains too obscure, and should be clarified to include the economic impact on manufacturers, importers and retailers. The European Union Electrical Wholesalers (EUEW) are calling for more concrete language in the directive to guide member states in implementing legislation.
15
Without more specific proposals, the WEEE risks creating loopholes which will be easily exploited in the recycling of e-waste.
Although there is a growing focus on regulating e-waste, systems such as the
WEEE need to be tailored to provide the most effective eradication of the problem. EU countries, in an effort to implement the WEEE directive, need to remain focused on the goal of proper disposal. Creating a costly regime to end dumping e-waste can have the counter effect of creating a greater illicit transboundary trade. Economic forces must be considered if regulations are to have an impact.
In the United States, several individual states have considered e-waste legislation, but only a handful have passed meaningful bills. A bill drafted in Texas (requiring export only to other Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) states) failed to even get introduced.
16 However, a success occurred in California in late 2003,
14 Waste Directive: WEEE Will Overcome , Computer Reseller News, September 27, 2004. The directive will take effect August 13, 2005, and will then require implementing legislation in each member state.
15 Quinn, John Paul, European Market , Electrical Wholesaling, October 1, 2004.
16 The requirement that e-waste only be exported to other OECD states is a very restrictive measure. The
Basel Ban Amendment also requires that hazardous waste exported from OECD states only be transported to other OECD states, to minimize the impact of developed world consumption on the developing world.
While this goal is well founded in moral norms, a far-reaching ban will have the opposite effect on the
5

with the passage of e-waste legislation that can serve as a model to future regulations.
17
First, the law requires manufacturers to meet several standards, including take-back schemes at no cost to the consumer. Manufacturers are given many alternatives in meeting the requirements, including the option to pay the State to take care of the recycling. Further, the law requires manufacturers to meet graduated recycling goals, ending in recycling 90% of the amount of products sold on the market by 2010. Civil penalties are included as well. Most substantial for the international community is that manufacturers must meet a dual requirement for exporting. First, manufacturers must notify the state and demonstrate that all devices sent to foreign destinations will be handled in a manner that is at least as protective of public health and the environment as laws, regulations, and ordinances applicable to the recycling and disposal of such devices in the state. Second, manufacturers must demonstrate that the country of destination does not prohibit the importation of hazardous electronic waste.
B. E-waste Recycling Operations
Still troubling, however, is the continued emphasis on exporting e-waste as a solution to the mounting problem. If California’s law has the effect of increasing reliance on domestic recycling operations, then it is a step in the right direction. Recycling operations in the developing world where e-waste is commonly shipped, notably China,
India, Bangladesh and Pakistan, must be monitored to ensure that recycling neither exposes workers to hazardous conditions nor degrades the environment. There are few monitors to ensure that workers are properly trained or provided with adequate protective clothing and equipment. As a result of the new California law, any exports coming from
California must be disposed of per California regulations. But how will Chinese monitors know California laws, ordinances and regulations dealing with recycling of toxics? The responsibility to monitor the operation should follow California law: the manufacturer should be responsible for ensuring adequate recycling facilities and disposal of e-waste. ground. Either the legislation will not be passed, as in Texas, or its extremely restrictive norms will be subverted, thus encouraging further illicit transfer of toxics.
17 Cal Health & Saf Code § 25214.9 et seq. The e-waste legislation also provides “emergency” power to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control to implement rules necessary to protect public health, a further control over immediate problems stemming from e-waste disposal.
6

Recycling processes must be monitored in two specific areas in order to comply with international human rights standards. The first area is the secondary waste, or the components left over after electronics have been stripped of their valuable components.
These operations, when located near water supplies for the surrounding community, can produce short and long term harmful effects on the drinking water of the community.
Adequate safeguards need to be addressed in disposing of the byproducts of the recycling process. The second area is the process of extraction itself, which can include melting plastics or submerging circuit boards in acid to remove valuable components. The acid is then dumped into the soil, resulting in contamination of the surrounding area and seepage into the groundwater. Workers melting plastics inhale toxic fumes. Workers dismantling
CRT monitors are exposed to lead, cadmium, and harmful toxic residues released into the air when the vacuum casing is broken open.
Proper handling and recycling of e-waste must be encouraged. Ultimately, corporations must also be encouraged to use environmentally friendly substances in the electronics they produce, given the massive increase in the production of electronics.
The European Union has issued a directive on Restrictions of the use of certain
Hazardous Substances (RoHS), to become effective next year. The legislation effectively bans the use of six major toxins from most electronics. Manufacturers are already anticipating these requirements, and have begun to look for alternatives to highly toxic materials. The California law mentioned above also creates a deadline of 2007 for eliminating toxics in production, to be determined by the state agency in charge of toxic substances control. The EU and California regulations are already having a tangible, positive effect. The demand for toxic-free electronics is creating greater competition among manufacturers, spurring competition to produce the most environmentally sound components.
18 China, one of the world’s largest electronics manufacturers, is currently considering legislation in line with that of the EU.
19 As the world markets produce greater volumes of electronics to meet exploding demand, toxic-free manufacturing and safe end-life recycling have become the most important methods of improving the human rights impact of e-waste processing.
18 Forsberg, Birgitta, “Component Compliance,” San Francisco Chronicle, E1, February 27, 2005.
19 Id.
7

II. Toxic Effects of Pesticide Use in Developing Nations
Over the past century, especially after World War II, farmers all over the world have profited from pesticide use through increased crop yields.
20
The weight of scientific evidence now points to an “unforeseen and disastrous environmental consequence” to such pesticide use.
21 “In the United States alone, approximately five hundred thousand kilograms of six hundred distinct pesticide chemicals are utilized every year, while the world applies 2.5 million tons.” 22 The US promulgated the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to address the widespread consequences of the use of pesticides, while nations around the world struggle with fewer resources to counter the threat of environmental degradation due to pesticides.
Pesticides have their greatest detrimental impact on the developing world. Every year, three million cases of acute pesticide poisoning are reported, resulting in 220,000 deaths.
23
Ninety-nine percent of the reported cases occur in the developing world, despite the fact that these countries account for only 20% of worldwide pesticide use.
24
For example, in 2000 Brazil’s Ministry of Health estimated the country had 300,000 poisonings that year, resulting in 5,000 deaths.
25
A. The Problem of Pesticide Stockpiling
“Developing countries are holding stocks of more than 100,000 tons of obsolete pesticides . . . and leakage, seepage and various accidents related to pesticides are quite common and widespread.”
26
Many pesticide containment facilities do not meet international standards, resulting in seepage into the soil, contaminating the groundwater and the surrounding environment. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations has found that most stockpiles of pesticides are in the centers of urban areas or
20 Robinson, Natasha C., Pesticides: What Will the Future Reap?
, 28 W M .
& M ARY E NVTL .
L AW & P OL
’
Y
R EV .
1, Fall 2003.
21 Id.
22 Id.
at ii.
23 EJF.2003.What’s Your Poison? Health Threats Posed by Pesticides in Developing Countries,
Environmental Justice Foundation, London, UK. Note that these are only the reported cases. There are untold numbers of cases which go undiagnosed each year. The true number of cases are surely considerably higher.
24 WHO/UNEP Working Group, 1990, Public Health Impact of Pesticides Used In Agriculture , World
Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; PANAP, 1999, Annual Report , PAN Asia Pacific, www.poptel.org/uk/panap/ .
25 Bensugan, N. 2000. Agrotoxicos: situaçao extramamente grave pode piorar ainda mais. Noticias
Socioambiantais Brazil.
26 http://www.fao.org/News/1996/960607-E.HTM
.
8

close to human settlements. Developing nations are overburdened with pesticide leftovers, due to several reasons. Once a pesticide is banned as too dangerous for use, the stockpiles are left in storage with only costly disposal alternatives. Pesticides have a short shelf life, and over-accumulation often results in products that have expired, and are that are still dangerous, yet inefficient to be used on crops.
Pesticides have often been included in aid packages from developed countries to developing countries to promote agriculture and to combat locusts. In 2002, the
Organization of African Unity estimated that $200 million would be needed to remove and destroy obsolete pesticides in Africa, as well as another $75 million to establish a mechanism to prevent future surpluses.
27
There are almost no incineration facilities in
Africa, and few financial resources to combat the problem.
Japan has contributed to the clean-up efforts directly, after having provided over
$33 million in pesticide aid to Mozambique, by promising to provide funding for cleanup in Mozambique.
28
The FAO has implemented a program to assist poor nations in the effort to dispose of stockpiles of pesticides as well. Both donor governments and pesticide producers must do all they can to assist the FAO in funding this essential program.
B. Pesticides and the Human Rights to Work and Health
A recent United Nations study found that 88% of farmers surveyed in Cambodia had suffered from symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning.
29
The majority of cases of pesticide poisoning come from direct contact through production or application of pesticides. Agricultural workers in the developing world are directly impacted by pesticide use. Studies in Kenya, Nigeria, Indonesia and Vietnam have shown that farmers in developing nations lack the resources to adequately handle these dangerous chemicals.
30 Using pesticides in a safe manner requires expensive protective clothing, which is often uncomfortable to wear in tropical countries with warm climates. Further, the user must be adequately trained to handle the material safely. Labeling of pesticides
27 U.N. Wire, http://www.unwire.org/UNWire/20020315/24676_story.asp
.
28 U.N. Wire, http://www.unwire.org/UNWire/20020717/27698_story.asp
.
29 Sodavy, P., Farmer’s Awareness and Perceptions of the Effects of Pesticides on Their Health , FAO
Community IPM Programme Field document, April 2000.
30 http://www.fao.org/News/1998/DGiht-e.htm
.
9

is often in a foreign language, and even when the warning labels are in the language of the country of import, the potential exists for transport of the pesticide to communities that do not understand the warning. Realistically, many agricultural workers lack basic literacy skills, making warning labels entirely useless.
Inadequate pesticide labeling can have tragic consequences to human rights well beyond the risks to the user. In 1999 in Peru, twenty-four children were killed by a school breakfast that was contaminated by the pesticide methyl parathion.
31 Bayer, the producer, was subjected to an investigation by a Peruvian Congressional Subcommittee, which found that Bayer had breached its duty to adequately label the pesticide to warn of its danger. The pesticide, an odorless white powder resembling powdered milk, was marketed in small plastic bags, labeled in Spanish and displaying a picture of vegetables.
There were no danger symbols of any kind, and the great majority of rural farmers in
Peru speak only Quechua. The tragedy was followed by a public outcry, which Peru responded to by suspending the registration of WHO class Ia and class Ib pesticides.
32
The affected families, however, have yet to be awarded any compensatory or punitive damages.
Once pesticides are determined to be too hazardous to human health and are banned in developed countries, they should be taken off the world market. However, use of banned pesticides in developing countries often continues. A case filed in Los
Angeles last fall on behalf of Costa Rican banana workers seeks to hold pesticide producers responsible for health conditions resulting from the use of banned pesticides on the crops.
33
The pesticide, DBCP, is suspected of causing sterility, miscarriages, birth defects, cancer and liver damage. It was banned in 1979 in the United States, yet DBCP continued to be used on banana crops in Costa Rica. Dow, one of the producers named in the complaint, claimed that Dow stopped selling the pesticide after it was banned in the
United States. Whether or not the defendants in the suit are found liable, the
31 http://www.panna.org/resources/panups/panup_20020830.dv.html
. Methyl parathion is a WHO Class Ia
(extremely hazardous) pesticide.
32 The Peruvian National Agrarian Health Service, February 2002, located at http://www.panna.org/resources/panups/panup_20020830.dv.html
. See footnote 27 infra .
33 Costa Rica Banana Workers Sue Over Pesticide , http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/27572/story.htm
. October 7, 2004.
10

consequences to the victims are real, and have been directly linked to the use of DBCP.
34
Once a pesticide is banned, it should also be removed from the market, including any stored quantities. Governments must regulate pesticides, and hold pesticide corporations accountable for protection of economic, social and cultural rights.
In Chile, the Latin American Pesticide and Alternatives Network has alleged that field workers are exposed to “unacceptable conditions,” including a lack of training in handling pesticides, sanitation procedures and unacceptable levels of pesticide poisoning.
35 Citing statistics from the Chilean Ministry of Health, the organization notes that 565 cases of acute pesticide poisoning were reported between January and
November, 2004, resulting in two deaths. Many pesticides utilized in Chile are included in the World Health Organizations list of “highly dangerous” and “extremely dangerous” pesticides,
36
and have known hazards such as cancer, neurological damage and reproductive problems. However, the Chilean problem lies not only in the pesticides used, but also in the lax enforcement of use standards. Over sixty percent of workers do not have work contracts with the farms themselves. Increased oversight of the use of pesticides is necessary to ensure that workers in Chile and elsewhere work in safe environments.
The effect of pesticide use in Chile is tangible. “In 1993, 44 children were born with congenital malformations in the Curicó Regional Hospital [Chile]. The same thing happened to a large proportion of children in 1994. Almost all the parents of these children had been exposed to pesticides, due to the fact that they worked in fruit orchards, packing plants, or lived close to them,” reports Dr. Norman Merchak, the hospital director.
37 This case shows that not only are workers affected by pesticide use, but their immediate families are often in danger as well.
C. Environmental Exposure to Pesticides and the Human Rights Impact
Most studies have monitored pesticide exposure of workers, but what of the communities surrounding farmland? One study conducted in rural El Salvador found
34 Id.
35 “Unacceptable Work Conditions In Chile’s Fields,” Tierramerica, http://www.tierramerica.net/2005/0212/iacentos2.shtml
, last accessed 2/18/05.
36 Class Ia (extremely dangerous) and Class Ib (highly dangerous). The WHO classifies pesticides according to toxicity. The FAO recommends that developing countries not use Class Ia or Ib pesticides, nor Class 2 pesticides (moderately hazardous).
37 Newbold, J., Chile Pays the Price for Exports , Pesticides News 37, 8 (1997).
11

30% of non-farmers had detectable levels of pesticides in their urine.
38
These tests included family members of farmers, who may have been exposed through direct contact with the pesticide residues on the worker or the worker’s clothing. While the occupational hazards of pesticide use are clear, the health risks stemming from environmental contamination are less clear. However, there are still many detectable methods of toxic exposure, including pesticide drift during spraying of fields or contamination of drinking water supplies, not to mention pesticide residues left on the food itself. Long-term effects of pesticides can be seen in humans who were never even directly exposed to the pesticides. A recent study revealed pesticide residues present in new-born humans 25 years after use of the pesticide ceased.
39
Pesticides in the developing world have a direct effect on the human right to food and the human right to clean drinking water. Food safety is a major concern in India, where government tests have found that at least half of food and drink products on the market are contaminated by pesticides.
40
The Indian Supreme Court ordered Coca-Cola and Pepsi to place pesticide warnings on their soft drinks late last year, in acknowledgment of tests conducted in August 2003 by the Centre for Science and
Environment in New Delhi, finding pesticide residues in soft drinks averaging 30 times the acceptable European limits.
41
The report concluded that groundwater in India is severely contaminated by pesticides. Pesticides found in the soft drink supply included
Lindane,
42
which causes central nervous system problems, and Chloropyrifos, which has been found to cause birth defects. A Coca-Cola spokesman claimed the company only
38 Azaroff, L., Biomarkers of exposure to organophosphorous insecticides among farmer’s families in rural
El Salvador: Factors associated with exposure, Environmental Research , 80, 138-47 (1999).
39 Hong, Z., Meconium: Potential Fetal Exposure to Organochlorine Pesticides, Ecotoxicology and
Environmental Safety 51:60-64 (2002).
40 “Coke, Pepsi Say India May Demand Pesticide Warning,” Planet Ark, http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/28472/story.htm
, last accessed 2/20/05.
41 “Lessons for Other Companies from Coke’s Indian Pesticide Debacle,” World Business Council for
Sustainable Development, http://www.wbcsd.org/Plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?strDocTypeIdList=240&DocType=240&StrCharVal
List=&DateStart=01.01.1753&DateEnd=31.12.9999&MenuId=ODQ&DocId=6722&URLBack=%2Ftempl ates%2FTemplateWBCSD4%2Flayout%2Easp%3Ftype%3Dp%26MenuId%3DODQ%26doOpen%3D1%
26ClickMenu%3DRightMenu , last accessed 2/21/05.
42 Lindane was also implicated in the death of an 8 year old British girl in 2002, who died shortly after swallowing a minute amount of lindane ant poison. PAN-UK, Pesticides Action Network, UK Press
Release, March 11, 2002.
12

used quality, treated water to make their beverages.
43
If, even after treatment of water, there remains an unacceptable concentration of pesticides in the end product, the water used by the surrounding communities is bound to contain higher concentrations of toxic pesticides. The blame is thus shared by the soft drink corporations for failing to test their product safety, and the Indian government for failing to enact standards for safe levels of pesticides in ground water.
A main solution to the pesticide problem is an agricultural system that moves to an organic model. “Chinese and Indian farmers who have switched from synthetic fertilizers back to healthier traditional forms of organic farming have earned more and achieved a higher standard of living,” according to the United Nations Fund for
Agricultural Development.
44
Organic farming brings rural farmers a higher price for their goods, while at the same time reducing the amount of toxic chemicals used in the process, protecting not only the worker handling the pesticides, but the surrounding environment from pesticide contamination. While large organic farms can absorb the extra costs of producing organic goods, national agricultural organizations must provide assistance to smaller farmers in the storing, processing, certification and export of organic goods. Domestic markets for organic produce in developing countries are very limited, and helping small farmers access the international organic market should be a priority to help increase the use of organic production methods.
Organic farming alone will not eradicate the human rights violations resulting from pesticides. Agricultural workers need education on the dangers of pesticide misuse as well as organic alternatives. Developing nations need assistance to inventory and dispose of the stockpiles of expired and dangerous pesticides. Nations that have donated pesticides as aid and pesticide manufacturers must jointly take action to provide funding and technical assistance in the proper disposal of unused and obsolete stocks of pesticides.
III. Corporate Responsibility and the Need to Adopt a Corporate Code of Conduct
With increasing globalization, corporations have become powerful members of the world community, able to shape policy and to operate across national boundaries,
43 Planet Ark, supra note 19.
44 UN News Centre, “Organic Farming Points Way to Reducing Rural Poverty,” January 25, 2005, last accessed 2/19/05, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=13122&Cr=farm&Cr1 .
13

limiting the capacity of individual governments to consistently regulate corporate activities. More importantly, multinational corporations (MNCs) have considerable power over policy-making processes in both the developed and developing worlds.
45
Developed nations are encouraged to enact fewer regulations controlling corporate behavior in order to attract increased investments from MNCs.
Traditional human rights law places the burden of protecting human rights on state actors. Yet human rights law must evolve to keep pace with globalization. “The effects of human rights violations upon the individual are the same whether perpetrated by states or private actors.” 46
Since MNCs wield such great economic power, resulting in influence on state governments, international law must recognize the responsibility of corporations in protecting and promoting human rights. The Basel Convention has recognized this dynamic, and imposes liability “directly on individuals, including corporations, and requires signatory states to enact domestic regulatory measures to punish offenders.” 47
The Commission should recognize that the environment of globalization requires an evolution in liability for human rights protection, including norms for MNCs to provide enforceable consequences for violations of human rights.
Current voluntary codes of corporate conduct don’t effectively regulate corporate behavior. A universal declaration of corporate responsibility is needed to promote economic, social and cultural rights.
The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights already applies to businesses in such areas as food,
48
water,
49
and health.
50
A corporate conduct code, such as the proposed UN Norms, would apply to a business’s “spheres of activity and influence,” thereby making their obligations consistent with their activity and profits around the world. Many laws already exist holding corporations liable for their products
45 Aguirre, Daniel, Multinational Corporations and the Realization of Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights , 35 Cal. W. Int’l L.J. 53, 55 (Fall 2004).
46 Id.
47 Weiler, Todd, Balancing Human Rights and Investor Protection , 27 B.C. Int’l Comp. L.Rev. 429, 443
(Spring 2004).
48 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 12, Right to adequate food, UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/5.
49
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 15, The right to water, UN Doc. E/C.12/2002/11.
50 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 14, The right to the highest attainable standard of health, UN Doc. E/C.12/2000/4.
14

across the supply chain, and from production to disposal, such as the California e-waste legislation mentioned above. Additionally, the idea of norms for corporate practice is not novel, but merely a collection of laws and norms that are in place into one legal document that can be easily referenced. Adoption of the a code of corporate behavior will allow member states to concentrate on their “spheres of activity and influence,” while assuring that corporations are doing the same.
IV. Conclusion and Recommendations
Unregulated, or under-regulated, trade in e-waste and pesticides contributes to numerous human rights abuses. Human Rights Advocates urges the Commission to continue to emphasize the impact of the transboundary movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and waste. The Commission should reiterate the need to stop the export of banned substances and pesticides completely, including proper monitoring and disposal of subsequently banned materials. Further, the Commission should continue to urge compliance with treaties governing hazardous wastes, including assessments of human rights at all stages of disposal. Significant controls have been envisioned by the
Rotterdam, Stockholm, Aarhus and Basel Conventions. Finally, the Commission should emphasize the impact of fraudulent waste recycling programs on human rights, by encouraging strict interpretations of international MEAs that regulate the transboundary movement of wastes and toxics. Gaps in the effectiveness of international regulations, such as those highlighted by the trade in e-waste, must be emphasized. While regulation of trade under existing MEAs is an important step, corporations profiting from the trade in e-waste and pesticides should be held accountable for the protection of human rights as well. Adoption of a corporate code of conduct would allow for internalization of the costs of protecting human rights, a cost which developing countries are unable to bear on their own.
15