just the facts...environmental racism

Environmental racism refers to any government, military, industry or other institution's action, or failure to act, which has a negative environmental impact that disproportionately harms, whether intentionally or unintentionally, Indigenous, African descended, Latino, Asian, migrant or other ethnic minorities or the places where they live. As a consequence of this discrimination, the residents of these communities may suffer shorter life spans, birth defects, higher infant or adult mortality, poor health, poverty, diminished economic opportunities, substandard housing or an overall degraded quality of life. Environmental racism, as it applies to Indigenous Peoples throughout the world, is an historical extension of the colonial genocidal policies imposed upon them by states and transnational corporations. The application of colonial principles promulgated in the international law of states is intended to deny the right of Indigenous Peoples to self-determination and sovereignty.

Environmental racism, although not new, is a recent example of the historical double standard as to what is acceptable in certain communities, villages or cities and not in others. One example of this double standard is the environmentally devastating methods of extraction of natural resources, utilized by multinational corporations in developing countries. This has been the case with U'wa people in Northeast Columbia, the Ogoni and other peoples of the Niger Delta in Nigeria, the Tohono O'Odham in Mexico, the Amungme of West Papua, Indonesia, and the African descendant and Indigenous peoples in Ecuador. Another example is that waste from both high and low-tech industries, much of it toxic has polluted groundwater, soil and the atmosphere. The globalization of the chemical industry is increasing the levels of persistent organic pollutants, such as dioxin, in the environment. Further, the mobility of corporations has made it possible for them to seek the greatest profit, the least government and environmental regulations and the best tax incentives, anywhere in the world.

The situation

• In 1993, people of color in the United States were 47 times more likely than whites to live near a commercial hazardous waste facility and three times as likely to live in a community with multiple facilities or one of the largest hazardous waste landfills.[1]
• Between 1989 and 1994, it is estimated that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and development (OECD) countries exported 2,611,677 metric tons of hazardous wastes to non-OECD countries.[2]
• Products such as pesticides and other chemicals banned or severely restricted by the United States, Western Europe and Japan because of their acute toxicity, environmental persistence or carcinogenic qualities are still regularly sent to the Third World.[3]
• Approximately 2,000 maquiladoras line the U.S.-Mexican border. There is no "right to know" law in Mexico, so both workers and communities are denied information about the toxins to which they are exposed. Toxic waste, which should be returned to the US or other countries by law, is often stored on site, posing a health risk to both workers and surrounding communities.[4]
• In a lawsuit against Texaco, it is charged that they improperly dumped large quantities of toxic byproducts into the local rivers (in the Oriente region of Ecuador), contrary to the prevailing industry practice of pumping the substances back into the emptied wells.[5]

Developments

• A Working Paper on Globalization and Racism that was submitted to the 51st Session of the Sub-Commission notes, "Racism and globalization come together in the environment, with the phenomenon referred to as 'global environmental racism' - a manifestation of a policy which has found domestic expression in countries like the United States, but which also has a global dimension.[6]
• The Special Rapporteur on the Illicit Dumping of Toxic Wastes has been asked to examine racially motivated discrimination practices in relation to the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes.[7]

Next Steps

• We urge that the issue of environmental racism, an example of a newer manifestation of racism, be thoroughly discussed at the WCAR and that specific action plans be included in both the NGO and governmental documents.
• We encourage the UN Commission on Human Rights to expand the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Illicit Dumping of Toxic Wastes to include the essential connection between human rights and the environment.
• We urge governments to adopt and guarantee the enforcement of legislation and policies that protect society from environmental racism, guarantee community participation in equality of conditions in environmental decision-making, educate society about environmental racism, require environmental impact studies for all public and private works, and use precautionary measures to promote sustainable economic practices, and offer compensatory resolutions and reparation to affected communities, in order to guarantee a healthy and sustainable existence for all members of society.
• We demand multinational corporations to abide by international safety norms and offer compensatory measures to affected communities and guarantee a healthy and sustainable existence for all members of society
• We recommend that civil society develop Environmental Justice Networks in each region to 1) increase NGO awareness of how environmental racism is manifest in the region, 2) share information, strategies and lessons learned to combat environmental racism, 3) develop advocacy strategies that link the environment (including environmental racism) to human rights, and 4) engage in mutual solidarity actions.

1 Benjamin A. Goldman & Laura Fitton, Toxic Wastes and Race Revisited (Center for Policy Alternatives, 1994) p. i.

2 Greenpeace, The Database of Known Hazardous Waste Exports from OECD to Non-OECD Countries, 1989-March 1994, Washington, DC: Greenpeace, 1994.

3 Joshua Karliner, The Corporate Planet: Ecology and Politics in the Age of Globalization, San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1997, p.152.

4 Corporate Watch, La Linea: Gender, Labor and Environmental Justice on the US-Mexico Border, www.corpwatch.org/trac/feature .

5 Marcia Coyle, Suits test environmental jurisdiction: Can U.S. courts treat rain forest damage like genocide", National Law Journal, February 1, 1999.

6 Oloka-Onyango, "Working Paper on Globalization and Racism", submitted to the 51st Session of the Sub Commission on the Protection of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/8).

7 United Nations Commission on Human Rights, 56th Session, Resolution on the Illicit Dumping of Toxic Wastes (E7CN.472000/L.97)