Following the previous blog post on Guiyu, we learnt of the existence of the Basel Convention, which was introduced as an international agreement to ban transboundary shipment of e-waste. For this post, we delve deeper into the functions of the agreement, and critically evaluate its effectiveness.

The Basal Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal opened for signatures in 1989, and came into force three years later in 1992. It is a multilateral agreement negotiated under the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), calling for environmentally sound management of exported and imported waste, especially in developing countries. As of November 2020, there are 187 parties to the convention. Parties under the convention are not allowed to export or import any substances that are marked as hazardous under the convention, until the receiving nation agrees to importing the waste. Hence, Basel does not enforce a ban but rather regulates the transshipment of hazardous waste.

Although a good start to tackling waste pollution, the Basel Convention is still unable to fully curb the issue of illegal dumping. Firstly, the Basel Convention is a voluntary international treaty. This means cities get to choose whether they wish to abide by the laws of the treaty. This thus poses the issue of the efficiency of the treaty; what if large waste exporters choose not to sign? Alas, this indeed happened with America, who signed the Convention but has yet to ratify it. This means that America has not made internal legislative changes to reflect the conditions of the treaty, and can technically still export hazardous waste overseas with or without proper consent.

Another flaw of the Basel Convention is the lack of enforcing tools and proper monitoring systems. As the treaty relies heavily on the communication of permits between the importing and exporting country, any lapses in the treaty is dealt with by these two nations. This makes accountability an issue, as wealthier countries have greater means of avoiding penalties. Dispute between countries can be brought up to the International Court of Justice, but oftentimes the cases are dismissed due to lack of environmental cases to base judgement off, as well as again lack of enforcing power.

Albeit the apparent shortcomings of the Basel Convention, it is still a notable attempt by the world to come together and tackle transboundary pollution. This treaty will enhance communication and the exchange of information, and kickstart the journey of accounting for each city’s toxic waste.

References

Hackett, D. P. (1990). Assessment of the basel convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal. American University Journal of International Law and Policy, 5(2), 291-324.