the toxic truth - Greenpeace

110 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenpeAce netherlAnds
Chapter 9
Foreseeable risk to
human health
The Dutch authorities had more than enough
information before them to reasonably
conclude that the material being carried by
the Probo Koala was hazardous, since they
knew the material was highly contaminated
and needed special treatment. They also
knew that there were forseeable risks to
human health, both because of the highly
contaminated nature of the material
and because people in Amsterdam had
experienced health impacts, after even limited
exposure to the material. They did not need
to rely solely on the description of the waste
provided by the Captain of the Probo Koala and
nor should they have, given their obligations
under Dutch law. Both the need for specialist
treatment and the symptoms experienced by
people at the docks were inconsistent with
the description of the waste given by Trafigura
and its agents, and this should have triggered
further investigation.
The Dutch authorities had two additional
pieces of information that were relevant to
their decision-making prior to the departure of
the Probo Koala:
» They did not know where the waste was to
be delivered.
» They had the anonymous fax sent on 3
July 2006 which alleged that waste would
be dumped at sea – a fax they clearly took
seriously, since they asked the Estonian
port authorities to measure the waste to
ensure it was all still on board when the
Probo Koala arrived at Paldiski.
Foreseeable risk of improper
disposal of the waste
The authorities had evidence to suspect
that proper, safe disposal of the hazardous
material was not guaranteed. The company
was leaving Amsterdam with the waste
because it was not willing to pay the costs
involved in proper disposal in the Netherlands.
If an appointed port reception facility in the
Netherlands was unable to deal with the
waste, this should have raised questions
about where Trafigura intended to dispose of it.
Additionally, the Dutch authorities were
clearly concerned that the waste might be
dumped at sea. Nonetheless they let the
ship leave without any information on where
safe disposal of the waste would take place.
In summary, dangerous waste was in the
possession of an actor about whom the Dutch
had questions with regard to safe disposal.
The information that the authorities in
Amsterdam had over the period of 2-4 July
2006 was sufficient to provide a basis and
rationale for action, at least to investigate
the waste further before allowing it to leave
the Netherlands. As will be described further
below, the relevant legal frameworks are
based on precisely the risk to human health
and the environment that confronted the
Netherlands: hazardous material on board
a ship, being removed from the jurisdiction
in circumstances that provide a reasonable
basis for concern about the intention of the
owner and holder of the material.