Around 280 million tonnes of plastic are manufactured globally each year, yet just 10 percent of this is thought to be recycled. Credit: Lucyin/cc by 2.0

By Carey L. Biron
WASHINGTON, Jun 23 2014 (IPS)

The environmental cost of the plastics used by corporations producing consumer goods likely mounts to more than 75 billion dollars a year, according to a first-time valuation released Monday by the United Nations and others.

This estimate is based on the cost of everything from greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the production of plastics to the eventual impact on wildlife and ecosystems – particularly in the oceans – of the resulting trash. The environmental ramifications are also influenced by the cost of lost resources when plastic products are thrown away rather than recycled.“Innovation can come from individual entrepreneurs, but also from the companies themselves – if they come under pressure to do so." -- Daniella Russo

Researchers say these estimates, broken down among 16 sectors, stand as a warning to corporate executives and their shareholders. Several industries are shown to be particularly vulnerable to potential new regulation, consumer demand or resource crunches regarding the future use or availability of plastic.

In order to insulate themselves from such shocks, companies are being urged to engage in a new era of disclosure around their use of plastics. In order to do so, corporate executives will first need to have an accurate understanding of the amount of plastics their companies are using in the first place – for some, a potentially new set of considerations.

“The research unveils the need for companies to consider their plastic footprint just as they do for carbon, water and forestry,” Andrew Russell, director of the Plastic Disclosure Project, an advocacy group that co-sponsored a new study on the issue, said Monday.

“By measuring, managing and reporting plastic use and disposal … companies can mitigate the risks, maximise the opportunities, and become more successful and sustainable businesses.”

The release of the findings coincided with the inaugural session of the United Nations Environment Assembly, in Nairobi. The assembly, comprising some 1300 government and industry leaders, constitutes the highest-level body the U.N. has ever brought together to discuss green issues.

“Plastics have come to play a crucial role in modern life, but the environmental impacts of the way we use them cannot be ignored,” Achim Steiner, the head of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), said in a statement.

“[R]educing, recycling and redesigning products that use plastics can bring multiple green economy benefits – from reducing economic damage to marine ecosystems and the tourism and fisheries industries, vital for many developing countries, to bringing savings and opportunities for innovation to companies while reducing reputational risks.”

Efficiency competition

For the study, UNEP and the Plastic Disclosure Project collaborated with Trucost, a British consultancy that works to price natural resource use and did the related number-crunching. They say that transparency around plastics use – and, subsequently, greater efficiency in its use – could become a point of competition between corporations.

“As the impacts of plastic gain more prominence, companies may be expected by their stakeholders to improve rates of disclosure,” the report, released Monday, states.

“For example, this information is useful to inform institutional investors interested in protecting the value of their investments. Asset managers could engage with these companies to find out how they plan to manage the risks and opportunities of plastic.”

The food and soft drinks industries have the largest “natural capital” costs in terms of their plastics use, the research finds, constituting more than a third of the total. As such, these companies could be most vulnerable to risks to their reputation or sourcing.

On the other hand, toy companies, followed by manufacturers of athletic goods and footwear, have the highest proportion of their business based around plastic. Thus, they stand to experience the greatest potential economic impact from plastics-related problems.

Yet public disclosure on corporate plastics use remains poor, with only half of the 100 companies studied reporting on even a single related metric. Further, there is little pattern in terms of which corporations have made the decision to go public with this information.

“Currently, there is no correlation between a sector’s disclosure rate and its plastic intensity or absolute natural capital cost due to plastic,” the report notes.

“This means that sectors which face the most significant risks to their revenues … need to consider being more transparent about how they are managing the potentially material issue. It also suggests that disclosure may be more driven by external factors, such as legislation and reputation, rather than an internal understanding of risks and opportunities.”

Innovation opportunities

Around 280 million tonnes of plastic are manufactured globally each year, yet just 10 percent of this is thought to be recycled.

A huge amount of the resulting trash is ending up in the oceans, causing some 13 billion dollars’ worth of damage, according to new estimates from the United Nations. Just last week, President Barack Obama’s administration hosted a first-ever summit on ocean sustainability, with a key focus on plastics pollution.

For its part, the new report does not attempt to weigh out the use of plastics versus other materials, in terms of transport weight or ancillary impact on important goods such as food. Nor does it propose any great trend away from the use of plastic, urging rather that the material be used simply in the most efficient and sustainable manner possible.

Such a view is being applauded by the plastics industry. The American Chemistry Council, a leading lobby group here, “endorsed” the conclusion Monday, noting that the report overall “provides one data point that companies that manufacture and deliver a range of valuable consumer goods can use when assessing their products and processes.”

Yet some worry that the plastics industry is too fixed and insular to lead any process of innovation.

“The industry is represented by a very small set of companies that are heavily entrenched. They make most of the packaging we use, and they’re not very open to innovation and entrepreneurship,” Daniella Russo, the head of Think Beyond Plastic, a forum that pushes researchers and start-up companies to come up with new ways to address plastic pollution, told IPS.

Russo says it’s important to remember that some plastics present significant environmental challenges while others do not.

For instance, she notes, single-use packaging represents some 50 percent of plastics production and yet is destined purely for the landfill. Indeed, the UNEP report identifies such disposable packaging, along with Styrofoam, as the most significant problem plastics.

Yet Russo says that these also offer the most important innovation opportunities.

“This is a huge market, ripe for the taking,” she says. “Innovation can come from individual entrepreneurs, but also from the companies themselves – if they come under pressure to do so.”

Riachuelo river keeps its iron bridges and its muddy waters. Credit: Juan Moseinco/IPS

By Marcela Valente
BUENOS AIRES, Feb 12 2013 (IPS)

The process of cleaning up the Matanza-Riachuelo river, which runs through the Argentine capital, shows remarkable progress. But the biggest challenge is purifying the water in the basin, which has been damaged by centuries of neglect.

“We cannot yet see chemical changes in the river,” admitted biochemist Oscar Deina, chief executive of the Matanza-Riachuelo Basin Authority (ACUMAR), which was established in 2006 and is comprised of representatives of the national government, the autonomous city of Buenos Aires and 14 adjoining districts of the province of the same name.

Since ACUMAR began to clean up the river, the banks are clear of garbage and slum housing, and the woodlands have grown back.  The junk in the bed was removed, and systematic checks of industries and construction works are conducted to treat wastewater.

Gone are the islands of floating trash and rusted ship skeletons. But the water still has the same level of pollution as when measurements began five years ago. Oxygen is short, and nitrate, phosphorus, oils, hydrocarbons and heavy metals like arsenic, lead, chromium and copper are abundant.

The river begins with the name Matanza and runs through the northeast of the province of Buenos Aires, changing its name to Riachuelo when it reaches the borders of the Argentinian capital, and flows into the Rio de la Plata, near the famous neighborhood of La Boca.

The 64-kilometre extension of this watercourse and its 232 tributaries form a basin of 2,240 square kilometres, where about six million people live alongside 25,000 commercial and industrial establishments.

The steady polluting of this river’s plains has gone on for more than 200 years.  It has been fed garbage, industrial effluents and untreated sewage, making it the most toxic waterway in the country.

But a 2006 ruling by Argentina’s Supreme Court, which ordered a restoration of the environmental situation of the basin and an improvement in the quality of life of the most affected communities, marked a turning point.

The court appointed Judge Luis Armella to be in charge of enforcing the judgment and periodically reporting on the progress of the cleaning process, though he was subsequently embroiled in a corruption scandal and removed from the case.

Notwithstanding these obstacles, the recovery plan is moving ahead, and non-governmental organisations monitoring the process have recognised progress.

But more than six years after the ruling, the lack of progress in improving the quality of the river remains a concern.

This month, Greenpeace released a report entitled, “Las aguas siguen bajando turbias” (The waters continue to grow murky), which reviews the results of the checks performed on the 60 monitoring points installed by ACUMAR.

The study goes into an analysis of the Association of Residents of La Boca, which recognised that “it is the first time in the disastrous history of two centuries of pollution that improvements (have) materialised in the basin”, but also noted continued pollution.

The study, which denounces ACUMAR’s rules as “very lenient” with industrial wastes, points out that Greenpeace’s analysis indicates that little progress has been made on improving the quality of surface water.

The report also questions the lack of ambition of the recovery plan, which aims to achieve a “passive recreational use” of the river, working just to improve the landscape between those navigating the course or walking along its banks, but not making it possible to have some form of contact with the water.

“There are points where you can see an improvement (in water quality), but these gains are reversed in subsequent tests, meaning that the trend is not favorable,” Riachuelo’s campaign coordinator for Greenpeace, Lorena Pujó, told IPS.

The expert believes ACUMAR should study the ability of the river to purify itself and the level of effluent that it can tolerate, adding that if weak standards are implemented, industries can get away with simply diluting pollutants, and the river will continue to be polluted and remain devoid of oxygen.

“The idea is not that companies go to pollute somewhere else, but that they change the way they produce, starting with the largest ones, because that will generate the greatest impact,” said Pujó. She acknowledged that change cannot come overnight but predicted that, if the right work is undertaken now, progress will be visible in 25 years.

Even the CEO of ACUMAR, Oscar Deina, told IPS that the objectives of the plan are “under review”.

“Aiming for recreational use (of the river) was the first stage…but now we aspire to much more. It is true that in the watercourse we still fail to see chemical changes, but we took out piles of junk, lumber and garbage. We have rebuilt the river banks and slopes, and cleaned the image,” Deina added.

“The industrial issue is the most difficult for us because we have to achieve the reconversion,” he acknowledged. Deina said 1,700 of the more than 25,000 registered establishments were polluters, and that around 800 had almost finished works required to conform to the reconversion efforts, but more needed to be done.

“We’re talking to companies so they know that the requirements are a first step, but later, depending on the location of the company and the flow of the river, in each case we will determine how much they can pour in,” he explained.

According to Deina, there are records of ecosystems recovering in the basin’s upper section, but he admitted that sector is the least affected by pollution. “In the middle and lower basin complications are greater,” he said.

He also assured that uses of the river could be re-categorised and modified. He said parameters surrounding the permitted dumping of hazardous materials could be narrowed, adding that such a process requires a better understanding of the “flow and dynamics” of the river basin.

In May, a team of experts from universities located in the basin will study what to do with the sludge, which accounts for most of the pollution in the riverbed.

“There are four to six metres of sediment. Some say that we should not touch it so it does not interact with the water column, but others claim it can be taken out. We have to analyse it,” Deina said.

The Coatzacoalcos river basin in southern Mexico is so polluted that you can sense the mercury in the air, feel it and breathe it, and the population living in the area is only too aware of its undesirable neighbours: refineries and petrochemical complexes that emit this toxic element into the air and water.

“People are concerned about the situation and want solutions. We are talking to the communities in order to take strong action,” activist Isaúl Rodríguez, head of the Tatexco Ecological Producers Association (APETAT), told IPS from the affected area.

This NGO has some 2,500 members whose livelihoods are affected by their location close to the petrochemical plants and refineries established in the basin, in the southeastern state of Veracruz.

Their plight illustrates the problems associated with emission and management of mercury faced by Mexico, just as the fifth and final round of negotiations for an International Treaty on Mercury is being held Jan. 14-18 in Geneva. This will be the first legally binding global treaty to limit mercury emissions.

A study released on Jan. 9 about the petrochemical industry in the Coatzacoalcos river basin, which has implications in the context of ongoing international treaty negotiations, was eloquent in stating reasons for concern.

The average mercury level in the samples of human hair from the Coatzacoalcos basin was 1.7 times the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reference dose of one part per million.

The results “make us worry about the problem we face. People wonder whether they are going to die, or what will happen if they seek medical treatment. It’s a difficult social and economic problem,” Lorenzo Bozada, head of Ecología y Desarrollo Sostenible en Coatzacoalcos (Ecology and Sustainable Development in Coatzacoalcos), an NGO, told IPS.

Bozada took part in taking samples and writing the research report, together with two other independent organisations: the Mexican Centre for Analysis and Action on Toxins and their Alternatives (CAATA) and the Arnika Association of the Czech Republic.

The report is part of the Global Fish and Community Mercury Monitoring Project, coordinated by the International Persistent Organic Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN) and the U.S. Biodiversity Research Institute (BRI).

The study covered 25 municipalities, with a population of close to two million people and economic activities that include fishing, livestock raising and cultivating maize, squash and fruit.

The state General Lázaro Cárdenas refinery, which processes 285,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, is located at Minatitlán, on the banks of the Coatzacoalcos river, while in the nearby city of Coatzacoalcos, on the same river, is the state Pajaritos petrochemical complex, in whose grounds a private chlor-alkali plant operates, using mercury in its manufacturing process.

Exposure to mercury, which is naturally present in air, soil and water, can harm the nervous, immune and digestive systems, the skin, lungs, kidneys and eyes. It is also harmful to foetal neurological development.

Bacteria and other microorganisms convert mercury to methylmercury, which can accumulate in the food chain, especially in fish.

The toxic element enters soil and water through the use of fertilisers, small scale artisanal gold mining, the use of mercury thermometers, and energy saving light bulbs.

The case of the Coatzacoalcos river basin does not appear to be unique in the country, although there are not enough data to be sure.

A 2012 study, “Patterns of Global Seafood Mercury Concentrations and their Relationship with Human Health,” conducted by David Evers, Madeline Turnquist and David Bucks, all researchers at the BRI, indicates that the highest mercury concentrations are found in the Gulfs of California and Mexico, on the border with the United States.

“Mexico’s policies are inadequate. There is a need for a more systematic programme on the presence of mercury at the national level, and for more work on critical areas, like this river basin,” the head of CAATA, Fernando Bejarano, told IPS before travelling to Geneva for the final negotiations of the treaty, which has been promoted since 2009 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Mercury Watch, an international alliance, says that small scale artisanal gold mining emitted 7.5 tonnes of mercury in Mexico in 2010, when the country exported 134.24 tonnes of mercury and imported 13.89 tonnes, almost all from the United States.

The Mexican Mercury Market Report for 2011, prepared by José Castro for the Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America, estimates there are nearly 27 million tonnes of mercury waste, accumulated in mines and the chlor-alkali industry.

Trade in mercury is a challenge for Mexico because the European Union has banned exports since 2011, while the United States has prohibited exports of elemental mercury effective Jan. 1, 2013, making it difficult for Mexico to acquire the metal.

Mexican policy has focused on studying domestic issues related to mercury and withdrawing its use from hospitals, as shown in the letter sent to the UNEP in August 2010, when Mexico joined the Mercury Products Partnership. But it does not address recycling.

In another letter sent on Aug. 31 by the Directorate General for Global Issues of the Office of the Undersecretary for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights, to the UNEP Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, the Mexican government stated that the minimum limits for reporting emissions and transfers of mercury and its compounds are one and five kilogrammes a year, respectively.

“PEMEX (the Mexican state oil company) must take responsibility for reducing and monitoring mercury emissions, and it has a historic environmental debt towards the people who live in this region. The Health Secretariat (ministry) should carry out a clinical and epidemiological assessment of the impacts and take steps to reduce exposure,” Bozada said.

The IPEN network is critical of the draft treaty on the table because it does not demand clean-up of contaminated sites, payment for bio-remediation or compensation for accident victims. It also absolves the oil and gas sector of responsibilities.

“Mexico should achieve a higher commitment in these sectors,” said CAATA’s Bejarano about the treaty, which, if all goes as planned, will be signed in October by the 128 states participating in the negotiations.

But for producers like Rodríguez, the head of APETAT, the treaty is a pipe dream and there are few other options. “To begin with (there) could be a ban fishing, so that fishers are not exposed to mercury, and then it is essential that the polluting companies help the people,” he said.

(END)

Air monitoring equipment near the beach on Grand Isle, Louisiana. Credit: US EPA photo by Eric Vance

By Matthew Charles Cardinale
ATLANTA, Georgia, Dec 19 2012 (IPS)

With Barack Obama’s re-election last month as U.S. president, key environmental protections escaped a likely Republican chopping block, and new regulations are expected when his second term begins in January.

Environmentalists say the situation would be much different had former governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, the Republican nominee, been elected president. Romney had sworn to roll back many, if not all, of the regulations enacted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during Obama’s first term.

Asked which of those EPA rules Romney would have likely overturned, Jenna Garland, associate press secretary for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign, responded: “All of them.”

Romney’s attitude towards the environment was perhaps epitomised during his speech accepting the nomination at the Republican National Convention in August 2012.

Romney mocked Obama for wanting to address climate change warming: “President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans. And to heal the planet,” Romney said, pausing to allow laughter from the audience.

“My promise is to help you and your family,” he said.

On Dec. 14, the EPA strengthened the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particles, or soot pollution, to 12 microgrammes per cubic metre. The previous limit, which had been in place since 1997, was 15 microgrammes per cubic metre.

Sources of soot pollution include power plants, diesel trucks, and buses.

Stephanie Stuckey Benfield, executive director of the non-profit group GreenLaw, considers the rule to be the first environmental victory of Obama’s reelection.

“They (fine particles) are deadly. Any amount is bad. But this is a good step in the right direction,” Benfield told IPS.

Upon request by IPS, the EPA prepared a document outlining the agency’s major accomplishments for clean air and water covering the years 2009 to 2012.

“If Romney had been elected, he was on record during the campaign saying he would roll back critical clean air and clean water protections, and politicise public health by giving Congress more power over Clean Air and Clean Water Act standards. That would be one of the most damaging things we have seen for public health and environment in decades,” Garland said.

“For instance, certain (Republican) Congressional leaders have gone after… the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. Just recently, this is the first time the federal government has regulated one of the most potent neurotoxins known to man… Congressional leaders and Mitt Romney wanted to limit the EPA’s ability to regulate neurotoxins like mercury, even though courts including the Supreme Court have upheld the EPA’s right and duty to regulate,” she said.

The EPA proposed its new carbon pollution standard for new coal and gas plants on Apr. 13, 2012.

That rule is currently undergoing a one-year public comment period, and is expected to go into effect on or around Apr. 13, 2013. That too would have likely been cancelled under a Romney administration.

“This is really important because carbon pollution threatens our climate, it does threaten our health and well-being. This is a critical step, if we’re going to address carbon pollution head-on instead of always responding. It means coal plants will no longer have a blank cheque,” Garland said.

“Mitt Romney denies that human activity contributes to climate destruction,” she added.

Activists also pointed to Obama’s selection of Lisa Jackson as EPA administrator as a crucial part of his governance as it relates to the environment.

“A lot of it has to do with who gets appointed to the EPA, the overall tone over there. The overall climate of the EPA is definitely a lot more supportive of pro-environment issues,” Benfield said.

“Appointing the EPA administrator is pretty political. Mitt Romney could have easily appointed someone to the EPA who does not take seriously human health, and could have instructed that administrator not to enforce” various recent EPA standards, Garland said.

But Obama has his shortcomings on the environment too, said the activists.

“We certainly have our problems with the Obama Department of Energy supporting nuclear and so-called clean coal projects that aren’t doing so well,” Garland said, noting that, still, “under the Obama administration we have seen tremendous growth of renewable energy.”

Obama has supported so-called clean coal, something that environmental advocates warn does not exist; in addition to nuclear power.

Garland also criticised Obama for shelving a proposed ozone standard during his first term because, she believes, it was found to be too political. However, the ozone standard is something that she hopes will be revisited now that he was won reelection.

“We would like for Obama to be a lot stronger on these issues,” Benfield said.

“You have to look at the dynamics. He’s not perfect, a lot of environmentalists would like to see him be a lot stronger. A lot of us are hoping, it’s his second term and he’s not concerned about being elected, that he’ll be proactive, and now he’s looking at leaving his legacy. A second term is a time to reflect on his legacy. What does he want his legacy to be? And climate change has to be part of that, I’m hopeful,” Benfield said.

Sierra Club anticipates that several new EPA rules will come out over the next four years, including a NAAQS rule for sulfur dioxide; a carbon pollution rule for existing pollution sources; and a Clean Water Act standard to address toxic discharge from power plants in waterways.

Azerbaijani officials appear to buy into the idea that taxation policy can be an effective way of managing the environment.

While environmentalists are generally supportive of a government idea to introduce a “green tax” on companies, some experts voice concern that such a provision would be prone to manipulation.

Despite various clean-up efforts over the past decade, Azerbaijan wins few international accolades for the state of its environment. Problems range from pollution of the Caspian-Sea’s coastline to large-scale deforestation and inadequate wastewater treatment facilities.

Azerbaijani environmental specialists name the oil-and-gas sector, petrochemical factories, large-scale corporate farms, and cement and concrete plants as among the worst polluters.

The government, with international assistance, has addressed some of the damage. And now officials plan to do more via a “green tax” on companies that pollute.

“Taxes related to the environment are one of the most effective tools for economic and environmental policies,” wrote Akif Musayev, head of the Ministry of Taxes’ Department of Tax Policy and Strategic Research, in an August 2012 article in the ministry’s Vergiler (Taxes) newspaper.

The tax would be paid directly into the state budget rather than into the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources’ State Environmental Protection Fund. As yet, other details about the tax are not known. Musayev could not be reached for additional comment.

Azerbaijani environmental activists welcome the idea. With Azerbaijan’s industrial output regaining some muscle and gas production on the rise, they argue that it is time to do more to encourage Azerbaijani companies to use cleaner technologies and to develop a “green economy.”

Under current Azerbaijani regulations, each year companies pay fees of between 100 and 400 manats (about 127.39 to 509.55 dollars) per tonne of “allowable” atmospheric or water pollution into the Ministry of Environment’s off-budget State Environmental Protection Fund.

Fines for exceeding pollution quotas, based on annual inspections, can range from 75,000 to 100,000 manats (about 9,554 to 12,739 dollars).

In 2011, the Fund collected 1.16 million manats (1.478 million dollars) through such means, according to the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. The monies are intended for various environmental-protection measures, ranging from water-purification stations along the Caspian Sea to woodland conservation.

No public monitoring exists for the fund, and its management structure has a reputation for being opaque. Data on particular fines paid by companies, for example, is not publicly known.

The State Oil Company of the Azerbaijani Republic (SOCAR), one likely candidate, claims that in late 2011 its oil & gas production department was fined 21,420 manats (about 25,000 dollars) and its Absheron-peninsula drilling department paid 12,490 manats (about 15,000 dollars) for alleged excessive pollution.

Foreign energy companies have not been ignored, although they are fined at far lower rates. In 2011, the environmental ministry fined the foreign oil consortium Garasu about 9,550 dollars and the Lukoil-Azerbaijan joint stock company 1,116 dollars over their allegedly polluting practices.

One economist warns that, as with environmental regulations in Russia and in Kazakhstan, a “green tax” could be manipulated to defend government interests against foreign energy companies, or against other companies seen as threatening the interests of government-friendly corporations.

On Oct. 11, for the first time in public, President Ilham Aliyev criticised BP for missing badly on projected oil production targets; a miscalculation that cost state budgets eight billion dollars, according to the president. Aliyev indicated that “serious measures” would be taken in response to the shortfall. Whether or not such measures would include “green pressure” is impossible to tell.

A Ministry of Taxes official, who asked not to be named, told EurasiaNet.org that, for now, the “green taxes” are just an idea, and that changes to legislation are not expected soon.

Environmental expert Samir Isayev said the challenge for Azerbaijan’s environment goes beyond tougher taxes on pollution. The country requires a “complex fiscal policy” that would mean that companies that use environmental-friendly technologies “should be freed from customs duties and some taxes for the import of new, cleaner equipment,” he said. “This would really lead to both a better environment and more competitive industries; in other words, to economic growth.”

Farida Huseynova, chairperson of the Greens Movement, a Baku-based non-governmental group, agreed. “Those companies which comply with environmental standards and introduce more ‘green’ technologies should get tax benefits from the government,” Huseynova said.

For now, local observers can only wait and see how far Azerbaijan’s “green tax” will go, or whether it will ever materialise at all.

“(It) is too early to make assumptions,” said Baku-based economist Natik Jafarly.

*Editor’s note: Shahin Abbasov is a freelance reporter based in Baku.

This story was originally published on Eurasianet.org.

Hudiara drain winds through thick foliage of shrubs and trees, in the border village of Burki. Credit: Irfan Ahmed/IPS

By Irfan Ahmed
LAHORE, Jul 25 2012 (IPS)

At a time when spiraling input costs and perennial shortages of irrigation water are breaking countless farmers’ backs, a small village community on the outskirts of Lahore appears to have been spared.

The village of Hudiara, situated close to the Wagah border, falls in the way of a natural storm water channel called the Hudiara Drain, which originates in Batala in India’s Gurdaspur District and flows for nearly 55 kilometres before entering Pakistan.

The farmers here say the drain ensures them of year-round irrigation. What they won’t tell you – either because they don’t know it, or refuse to believe it – is that the water is poisoned.

Hundreds of factories located along the length of the canal dispose of their untreated industrial waste into it. This includes discharge from textile processing and dyeing units, carpet industries, tanneries, dairy plants, food, beverage and oil processing plants and ghee production units.

Municipal wastes are added along the way and the water that finally flows out of farmers’ pumps and into their fields is a toxic cocktail of pollutants.

Farmers and the local municipality are now locked in a fierce battle – with farmers ignoring countless warnings and taboos on the use of the water to irrigate farmland.

“The water is free, its supply regular and its ingredients strong enough to replace fertilisers. Only a fool will reject this deal,” Amanat Ali, a vegetable farmer who distributes his produce to the large population in Lahore, told IPS.

He is not worried about the toxic impact of heavy metals in this water.

“Flowing water can never be harmful; it’s the stagnant water that’s bad,” he said confidently when asked about the effects of the water on his agricultural produce and its consumers.

Impact of poisoned water

It is unsurprising that farmers are reluctant to heed official warnings. Less rainfall and the never-ending construction of roads and housing projects are exhausting ground water supplies, according to Dr. Muhammad Yaseen, associate professor of soil fertility and plant nutrition at the University of Agriculture in Faisalabad.

Yaseen, co-author of a report on heavy metals and their uptake by vegetables in adjoining areas of Hudiara, told IPS very little has been done at the government level to improve the situation in the village.

His team declared the drain water suitable for irrigation only during the monsoon, when rainwater dilutes the effluents to safe levels.

Though the report was released in 2009, farmers continue to use the water for irrigation all year round.

Citing the report, Yaseen told IPS that crops irrigated using poisonous water contained metals in higher than desired concentrations. For example, zinc concentration in ghia tori (a type of gourd) was 10 times higher than safe levels.

Brinjals and spinach samples from the village contained iron in higher concentration than the stated guidelines. Nickel content in all the crops except for brinjals were higher than prescribed levels. Cadmium concentration in almost all the plants exceeded the safe limit.

According to the report, food crops quickly absorb cadmium, which is one of the reasons why vegetables grown in Hudiara are oversized.

Naseem-ur-Rehman Shah, director of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the Punjab Environment Protection Department (EPD) told IPS the irrigation department is about to start a process of lining Hudiara Drain to stop seepage of toxic water into the ground.

He said this process was of the utmost importance since locals are in the habit of drilling for subsurface drinking water, leading to the spread of waterborne diseases such as hepatitis and diarhhoea.

Environmentalist Ahmed Rafay Alam told IPS that according to the findings of another study, the drain contains extremely low levels of oxygen and cannot support any form of aquatic life.

Citing an investigative study conducted by the World Wildlife Fund in Pakistan nearly a decade ago, MUAWIN, a community organisation in Lahore, reported that, “the rate of abdominal pains, paralysis of limbs, joint pains and prevalence of arsenic toxicity and eye infection was greater in the respondents of a village along Hudiara Drain.”

Cattle take a dip in Hudiara Drain. At times, they drink the polluted water. Credit: Irfan Ahmed/IPS

“Domestic animals like cows and buffaloes are also seen wallowing and watering in the wastewater drains thus increasing the risk of water pollutants, mainly heavy metals, (entering) our food chain through the consumption of milk and meat of these animals.”

More than ten years later, experts are agreed that the situation today is much worse.

Furthermore, environmentalists fear that the drain, which eventually empties into the River Ravi after travelling 63 kilometres through Pakistani territory, will also poison the river with toxic elements.

Rafay, who is currently vice president of the Pakistan Environmental Law Association (PELA), says industries situated along the canal should take concrete steps towards reducing pollution rather than push the burden onto the farmers.

“All these sectors need different technologies to treat their effluents and must install plants immediately,” he stressed.

Water at any cost

Though the practice has been going on for years, the government has only made a few half-hearted attempts to change farmers’ behaviour before eventually surrendering to powerful industrialists.

Former Punjab chief minister Pervez Elahi ordered the closure of over 100 water pumps installed along Hudiara Drain in an effort to save crops and livestock but the initiative did not succeed.

“There was immense pressure from locals who feared loss of livelihood if this happened,” Raza Butt, an elected member of the local government of Lahore, told IPS.

Despite numerous studies showing that vegetables produced here contain metals in concentrations higher than prescribed levels, farmers have not heeded the warnings, he said.

Shah told IPS that the EPD has instructed all 130 industrial units along the drain to install water treatment plants without delay, which would make the water suitable for irrigation.

So far only 22 of these operations have complied, and even these were largely due to pressure from importers of their goods.

“The problem is that most (owners of industrial units) cannot afford to install these plants individually,” said Shah.

Still, he says, the burden of cleaning the environment lies with the polluter. Now, with the landmark introduction of Green Benches in Pakistan’s high courts, polluters will be forced to take environmental concerns more seriously.

Shah suggests that more industries follow the example of the 307 tanneries in Sialkot, who got together to buy a large chunk of land on which they set up a combined treatment plant.

The government provided the collective with a soft loan worth 300 million rupees (roughly 3.2 million dollars).

(END)