How much must the polluter pays in Tanzania?
Bird’s – eye view to “Polluter-pays principle”
 |
| http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/16/world/air-pollution-killing-study/index.html |
By Henry Kazula, Environmental scientist, analyst & activist Enviro-Forum, Jielimishe Kwanza! SE _____________________________________________________ The principle of Environmental management – “polluter-pays principle” in Tanzania as highlighted in her Environment Management Act (EMA) of 2004 adopted from Act No. 3 of 2003 means a mechanism whereby the cost of cleaning up any element of the environment damaged by pollution, compensating victims of pollution, cost of beneficial uses lost as a result of an act of pollution and other costs that are connected with or incidental to the foregoing, is to be paid or borne by the person convicted of pollution under this Act or any other applicable law. That is to say, those who produce pollution to the environment from their own activities and benefit should bear the costs of managing it for the good of preventing human health and environment for sustainable development.
It has been insisted in EMA (2004), 7(3)(d) that “any person causing adverse effect on the environment to pay in full social and environmental costs of avoiding, mitigating, and or remedying those adverse effects”. The effect to the environment must be adverse for a polluter to pay the costs. In case there is minor effect to the environment that lead to adverse effects in future, there is no problem according to law. Also, the directory for the quantification of social and environmental costs is a point for argumentation i.e. what determine the costs of be compensated for any social and environmental damage? In that context, it is synonymous to the commodification of environment. It is not feasible to monetize and compensate environmental and social damage.
Arguing to the “polluter- pays principle” in a dim-light of the understanding of the word “pollution” is unfair to you and me. The word “Pollution” as applied and defined in EMA (2004) “means any direct or indirect alteration of the physical, thermal, chemical, biological, or radio-active properties of any part of the environment by discharging, emitting, or depositing of wastes so as to adversely affect any beneficial use, to cause a condition which is hazardous to public health, safety or welfare, or to animals, birds, wildlife, fish or aquatic life, or to plants or to cause contravention of any condition, limitation, or restriction which is the subject to a licence under this Act”. It can also be taken from UK law in simple translation to easing understanding of word “pollution”- as contamination of the land, water or air by harmful or potentially harmful substances. Although, a definition of “pollution” from EMA (2004) seems to be more descriptive and inclusive but same understanding.
I would like to argue that, how much must the polluters pay in Tanzania? Asking this question in order to see exactly the sharp and strong teeth of “polluter-pays principle” in our context when dealing with “any person”(polluter) causing “any effect” not “adverse effect” to the “our home”(environment). It has been such a contracting situation on implementing the principle, as no specific figures of costs are open to the public and to whom the polluter must make the payment? Something is not right, and something urgent must be done for the same.
Also, there are no specific guidelines to identify exactly who is a polluter beyond from saying “any person” i.e. big fish or small fish? In most cases, taking a context of Tanzania, “big fishes” are people with large investments and industries, and sometimes involve people with authority in the government. No one can deny that the big fishes own industries and are the major contributors of pollution we are talking about.
Their major intention is to maximize profits and less attention to the destruction of commons. Whereas, “small fishes” are ordinary people; literate and illiterate, in one way or another have contributions to the pollution of the commons, as poverty and environmental degradation pertaining to pollution are twins of same fertilized egg. I wonder if there is a “red-line” to separate the two groups of “fishes” in bearing the costs resulted from pollution.
Another astonishing phenomenon is that of costs to be bared for polluting the “common pool” i.e. air and water…what are the boundaries and techniques used in Tanzania to curb those polluting the “common pool” what are the specific costs to be bared? And who is in charge to measure the amount of emission from unwanted gases and discharge of wastes into the common pool? What are mathematical calculations to quantify the extent of pollution for the costs to bear by the polluter?
It came to my attention that, something important is missing and I tempted to agree with a wise statement of Chinua Achebe when said in one of his proverbs …”Those who do not know where the rain began to beat them cannot say where they dried their bodies” I think, it’s better to know where the historic perspective of “polluter -pays principle” originated and it’s operation before we adopt and enforce it.
“Polluter-pays principle” recognized as International Environmental Law. It is a fundamental principle of environmental policy, a first mention of the Principle at the International level founded in the 1972 of both the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Community. You may guess the major intention of the principle…commodification of the environment!
In another context of development, the “polluter -pays principle” as stipulated in the article-“What is the ‘polluter pays’ principle?” (Monday, 2nd July 2012) written by Bob Ward and Naomi Hicks of the Grantham Research Institute at LSE in collaboration with the Guardian is part of a set of broader principles to guide sustainable development worldwide (formally known as the 1992 Rio Declaration) and the “polluter- pays principle” has also been applied more specifically to emissions of greenhouse gases which cause climate change and it is possible to implement the ‘polluter pays’ principle through a so-called carbon price. Does this principle operate the same in the context of Tanzania or Tanzania in global arena?
Apart from being a principle for “commodification of the environment” and controlling greenhouse emission leading to climate change, can be applied at very ground level in the context of Tanzania (not Tanzania in global arena…it is not the intention of this paper) to control waste disposals and other form of pollution as it is from minor pollution of the “commons” over successive period of time can lead to adverse effect at global level.
In some extent there are some towns in Tanzania like Moshi in Kilimanjaro region tried to make a fixed cost of 50,000Tsh (fifty thousand shillings) -a penalty on the spot as a regulation protecting any littering (pollution on land) in town. This regulation is very successful in Moshi municipal as it is implemented in action not sweet words in writings. Moshi municipal have been receiving awards for being the cleanliest town in Tanzania for successive number of years. I applaud the take of Moshi Municipal Council to “polluter -pays principle” at least they know the meaning and how to implement the principle in action in a context of Tanzania. Although, any form of pollution made to the environment is quantified for a penalty of 50, 000Tsh on spot to pollution.
Lots of fruits of achievements in addressing environmental issues can be reaped from “polluter -pay principle” by knowing exactly the level of pollution i.e. not underestimating that at ground level, identifying exactly who pollute the commons and taking actions using sharp and strong teeth of law.
Also, identifying the fixed costs to be bared by a polluter without discrimination, bearing in mind that the costs should be that which touches the inner heart of polluter and make him/her feels the pinch of his/her action to human health and environment.
The regulatory bodies of “polluter-pays principle” should provide no loop- hole for people to pollute i.e. it should stress prevention of pollution to occur rather than waiting a person as a “polluter” to pay the costs of pollution- leading to adverse effects to human health and environment.
The principle should not be taken as a source of revenue to feed the “stomach” and ignoring the intention of restoring the damage /effect done by a polluter. Contrary to that we are not going to reap the benefit and intention of “polluter-pay principle” for the goodness of human health and environment for sustainable development.
Further Readings
No comments:
Post a Comment