PART II: Case Examples from Central and Eastern Europe

Toxic Waste Importation in Burgas

Bulgaria

Alexander Kodjabashev

Background

Instead of adopting the project as planned, the head of the harbor of Burgas - as a local authority - allowed the BISI company to use the harbor's facilities and services to dispose, convert and discharge the household and industrial waste. The Ministry of Environment, however, in September 1991, did not give the necessary permission for this change, but formulated eight questions concerning the project that had yet to be clarified by the investors.

Problems/Effects

• the import of toxic waste under the guise of household waste;
• the import of toxic waste from countries where the movement of toxic waste was not adequately controlled by environmental legal regulations, such as the former Union of Independent States;
• imports from an unknown company registered in Australia;
• inconsistent behavior by the authorities, including contradictory permits and documentation.

The authorities did not cooperate with each other, communication was poor, as was information supplied to the public. The head of Burgas' harbor allowed the firm to discharge, convert and dispose the industrial waste. The affected citizens were misinformed by the investor; the company declared that it would treat only household waste. Meanwhile, the firm tried to get permission to discharge industrial waste. The initial documentation submitted by BISI included information that toxic waste would be imported from the former Soviet Union.

The origin of the waste created another set of problems. Because the bulk of the waste came from the former Soviet Union - where the control of toxic waste is very weak - authorities were unable to determine the composition of the waste.

In October 1991, further complicating the situation, the Minister of Environment gave permission for the construction of a plant for "waste conversion" with three conditions. This was already a step-down in the Ministry's position compared to the previous stand. In the spring of 1992, BISI started the preparatory activities for the project without sufficiently answering the questions formulated in the Ministry's letter of October 1991 and request from the previous year. So, besides the illegal behavior of the firm, the uncertain and inconsistent behavior of the Ministry was a problem.

Strategies Employed

Representatives of Ecoglasnost began to organize a media campaign against the project and arranged a press conference, inviting BISI to answer questions from the public. In the meeting it became clear that the firm had not prepared an environmental or economic analysis. The media (television, radio, newspapers) also played an important role, both in providing the public with information and helping Ecoglasnost organize protests. Even the press in France carried the events.

Ecoglasnost successfully acquired information about the Australian firm/importer and its background from the Australian public register. They informed the public in Burgas about the firm and their aims. The public started to organize civil protest actions.

Ecoglasnost and the Ministry of Environment held several meetings involving public participation. In addition, Ecoglasnost used its position as the largest national environmental organization in Bulgaria to lobby members of parliament, a move crucial to the success of the protests.

Outcome

As a result of the public protest and Ecoglasnost's actions, the authorities did not give the final permit for the construction of the plant and the project was stopped. Included in defense of the action was the fact that the firm did not meet the conditions set by the MoE, but the public concern did also play an important role in their decision. The Australian company was forced to withdraw from the project.

Lessons Learned

1. NGOs and the public used various non-formal instruments (public protests, meetings, media campaign, press conference, etc.) to put pressure on the authorities and helped to enforce existing national legislation. The first step in addressing environmental problems involving international or transboundary elements is to use the possibilities given by national legislation.
2. The public is often misinformed about the true intentions of projects by industry. NGO's can be a successful "watchdog" for the public.
3. Information should be gathered from wherever possible. In this case, Ecoglasnost acquired some of its information on BISI from Australian public records.
4. The government should not always be perceived by NGOs as the enemy. In this case, some members of the Ministry of the Environment also opposed the project and shared information with Ecoglasnost. This exchange of information, the cooperation, benefited both the government, the NGOs and the public.
5. Local, national and international media involvement can facilitate public awareness of both the problem and plans to protest against a particular project.
6. Support from within the government enhances the legitimacy of lobbying efforts with parliament and other political authorities.