the toxic truth - Greenpeace

60 Amnesty internAtionAl And greenpeAce netherlAnds
Chapter 5
Was the waste toxic and did
it kill people? This question
was at the heart of the media
debate in The Netherlands.
trAfigurA: viCtim of the mediA?
In the years after the dumping, Trafigura has publically denied
that the Probo Koala waste was hazardous and caused
serious injuries to health or deaths. It also complained that
the media reporting on what happened in Côte d’Ivoire has
been “biased”, “factually wrong” and “highly inaccurate”
since the beginning. 244 According to Trafigura this has led to a
“smear campaign against Trafigura from which environmental
activists, journalists and politicians were seeking to gain at
Trafigura’s expense.” 245
In the Netherlands - where the company faced criminal prosecution
over the illegal export of hazardous waste – there has
been intense debate in the media on the waste and whether
or not it was hazardous. Trafigura has maintained that the
waste was not dangerous.
In general Trafigura’s assertions about the waste have not
been seen as credible by the media. One journalist, Karel
Knip of the Dutch newspaper NRC, has supported Trafigura’s
claims about the waste and its impacts, and has, since the
news of the dumping emerged, questioned whether the
reported health effects and deaths could be attributed to the
Probo Koala waste. As far Greenpeace and Amnesty International
are aware, Knip is the only journalist who was given access
by Trafigura to reports that Trafigura has refused to make
public. Trafigura’s claims about the waste have been based on
reports it holds but which it refuses to make public; therefore
the content cannot be subject to scrutiny by scientists and
medical experts.
The Court of Amsterdam – in finding Trafigura guilty of illegal
export of waste in 2010 – made particular reference to
Trafigura’s relationship with the media, stating: “Trafigura
is naturally at liberty to adopt an aggrieved attitude in this
matter, however it is not proper behaviour to then point an
accusing finger at the outside world without shedding light
on the issue of whether or not Trafigura could perhaps
assume any of the blame for the situation in which it
found itself in July/August of 2006. In conducting
itself in this manner, Trafigura is demonstrating
its complete lack of faith in the media and in
the sincerity of journalists, although it does
make one exception, and that is with respect
to the journalist Knip. He is the only one
who understands and who - to the extent
the Court must assume this with the aid
of information from Trafigura - wrote an
article during the course of these criminal
proceedings as well as after Trafigura had
presented its arguments - describing the
relative harmlessness of the slops“ 246
Trafigura’s relationship with the media, stating: “Trafigura
is naturally at liberty to adopt an aggrieved attitude in this
matter, however it is not proper behaviour to then point an
accusing finger at the outside world without shedding light
on the issue of whether or not Trafigura could perhaps
assume any of the blame for the situation in which it
found itself in July/August of 2006. In conducting
itself in this manner, Trafigura is demonstrating
its complete lack of faith in the media and in
the sincerity of journalists, although it does
Based on the comments made by the Court,
the Dutch newspaper, Trouw, published an
article stating that the Court assumed that Knip
had published incorrect information based on
information from Trafigura. 247 Journalist Knip, submitted
a complaint against Trouw to the Journalism Advisory
Board. In response to a request from this Board, the
Court of Amsterdam confirmed that Trouw’s reading of the
court’s comments was correct 248
Based on the comments made by the Court,
the Dutch newspaper,
article stating that the Court assumed that Knip
had published incorrect information based on
information from Trafigura.
a complaint against
Board. In response to a request from this Board, the
Court of Amsterdam confirmed that
court’s comments was correct
In November 2011 – a few weeks before the start of
appeal proceedings began – a publicist, Jaffe Vink,
published a book on the case: The toxic ship – a report on
a journalistic scandal. In this publication, Vink claims that
the Probo Koala waste was not toxic and that no one had
died as a result of exposure to it. 249 The book, and newspaper
articles by Vink and Knip, stirred a public debate in The
Netherlands. They accused several media outlets (in particular
the newspaper, Volkskrant) and Greenpeace of having “hypedup”
the impacts of the waste. Greenpeace, specifically, was
portrayed as playing a dominant, even catalytic, role in focusing
attention on Trafigura and the Probo Koala case. 250 In November 2011 – a few weeks before the start of
appeal proceedings began – a publicist, Jaffe Vink,
published a book on the case:
a journalistic scandal
the Probo Koala
died as a result of exposure to it.
articles by Vink and Knip, stirred a public debate in The
Netherlands. They accused several media outlets (in particular
the newspaper, Volkskrant) and Greenpeace of having “hypedup”
the impacts of the waste. Greenpeace, specifically, was
portrayed as playing a dominant, even catalytic, role in focusing
attention on Trafigura and the
The public
debate faded out when the Court of Appeal handed down
its verdict on 23 December 2011 in which it confirmed the
hazardous nature of the
Probo Koala waste.