.png)
The Basel Ban Amendment (“Amendment”) is a crucial addition to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (“Basel Convention”) to address the issue of hazardous waste shipments from developed countries to developing countries. The primary aim of the Amendment is to prohibit the export of hazardous wastes from countries listed in Annex VII of the Basel Convention (i.e., OECD countries, EU countries, and Liechtenstein) to non-Annex VII countries (essentially, most of the Global South countries). The Amendment aims to provide a sustainable solution for the Global South by encouraging domestic waste management practices. However, its effectiveness hinges on increased international cooperation, improved infrastructure, and enhanced technology transfer. This piece explores the sustainability of the Basel Ban Amendment from a Global South perspective and recommends potential avenues for its effective implementation.
Background
The Basel Convention itself was adopted in 1989 and came into force in 1992. Its primary objective includes regulating the transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and ensuring their environmentally sound management to protect human health and the environment against the adverse effects of such wastes. The hazardous wastes under the Convention are categorised based on factors such as origin or composition, while also regulating “other wastes” such as household wastes, incinerator ash, and certain plastic and electronic wastes. However, concerns about the ongoing shipment of hazardous waste from wealthier countries to poorer countries, where it might be disposed of improperly causing severe damage to the environment and human health around the area, led to the proposal of the Amendment. The Amendment was adopted by the Parties to the Basel Convention in 1995 and entered into force in 2019.
The Ban Amendment specifically prohibits two measures. First, it prohibits all transboundary movements of hazardous wastes intended for final disposal operations from Annex VII countries to non-Annex VII countries. Second, it prohibits all transboundary movements of hazardous wastes intended for recovery or recycling operations from Annex VII countries to non-Annex VII countries. Implementing the Ban Amendment is expected to reduce the environmental and health risks associated with the improper handling and disposal of hazardous wastes in developing countries. It encourages developed countries to manage their own hazardous wastes domestically, thereby fostering better waste management practices and promoting the development of recycling and disposal technologies.
Sustainability in International Environmental Law
Sustainability in international environmental law is one of the core concepts that aims to balance environmental protection with economic development and social well-being for present and future generations. The Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment 1972 (“Stockholm Declaration”) introduced the concept of environmental sustainability, which serves as a foundational framework for interpreting and implementing the Amendment. According to Principle 2 of the Stockholm Declaration, nations must safeguard the natural resources of the earth for the benefit of present and future generations through careful planning or management. Again, Stockholm Principles 13 and 14 advocate for rational management and planning that consider both development and environmental protection, reflecting sustainability's focus on balancing economic progress with environmental well-being.
In the context of the Amendment, sustainability implies an equilibrium between human progress and environmental health, ensuring that economic activities are conducted in a way that minimises environmental damage and ensures that resources are available for future use. Nations should not deplete resources or degrade the environment to the point where it hinders the ability of future societies to meet their own needs. Furthermore, sustainability recognises the interconnectedness of environmental, social, and economic systems. Actions taken in one area can have cascading effects on the others. For instance, the mishandling of hazardous waste can harm ecosystems, impacting food production and the livelihoods of hundreds in the affected areas.
Sustainability Under the Basel Ban Amendment for the Global South
The Basel Ban Amendment, while aiming for a noble goal of protecting developing countries from hazardous waste dumping, has sparked debate about its long-term sustainability for the Global South. Before the Amendment, developed countries often shipped hazardous waste (e.g., electronics wastes, chemicals) to developing countries due to lax regulations and lower disposal costs. This resulted in environmental damage and health risks for these countries. Several high-profile incidents, where toxic waste caused widespread illness, highlighted the dangers of unregulated waste dumping. One such incident was the Abidjan disaster in 2006. The ship Probo Koala, registered in Panama and chartered by a Singaporean-based oil and commodity shipping company, carrying toxic waste illegally dumped its contents in various locations around Abidjan, a major city in the Ivory Coast. This caused widespread illness among the population, with estimates of over 100,000 people seeking medical attention. The incident resulted in an outcry for stricter regulations on hazardous waste dumping, ultimately contributing to the Basel Ban Amendment. Another key incident to refer to in this case is the Koko Incident (1988) in Nigeria, which triggered the adoption of the Basel Convention itself. In the Koko incident, a ship carrying hazardous waste from Italy was abandoned in the port of Koko. The waste was later dumped on land, leading to widespread contamination and public outcry. Thus, these incidents fuelled support for the Basel Ban Amendment.
Now, pertaining to the question of the sustainability of the Amendment for the Global South, proponents argue that by stopping waste imports, the Amendment safeguards developing countries from environmental degradation and associated health problems. It also incentivizes these countries to develop their own waste management infrastructure, fostering self-reliance and potentially creating new jobs in the recycling sector.
The opponents of the Basel Ban Amendment, on the contrary, argue that the Amendment is inconvenient due to the limited infrastructure of many developing countries that lack the technology to safely manage their own hazardous waste, raising concerns about increased stockpiles and improper local disposal. They also suggest that a complete ban on waste trade could limit income opportunities for some developing countries that have established recycling industries. They further opine that the ban might incentivize illegal dumping as some countries struggle to manage their waste internally.
Pertaining to achieving the highest sustainability for the Global South, proponents emphasise the need to protect developing countries from environmental degradation and associated health risks while also considering the crucial concerns regarding limited infrastructure, potential economic drawbacks, and the rise of illegal dumping highlight the complexities of achieving sustainable waste management in the Global South. Nevertheless, achieving full sustainability goes beyond just addressing waste import bans. It necessitates a multifaceted approach that considers factors such as responsible consumption patterns of the nations producing hazardous waste, circular economy development, integration of social aspects, and capacity-building for environmental monitoring and enforcement.
Recommendations
Recognising the legitimacy of both sides' arguments, a multifaceted approach can be adopted to maximise the Basel Ban Amendment's long-term sustainability and effectiveness. Developing countries may need significant international aid to afford the investment needed to build proper waste management facilities. For this, technology and expertise transfer from developed nations is crucial for the Global South to implement sustainable waste management practices. Again, the Amendment might not address the informal sector in some developing countries, where hazardous waste may still need to be properly handled. Supporting the development of alternative livelihoods for those previously involved in informal waste sectors can ease the transition in the Global South. Moreover, responsible consumption patterns should be promoted by governments to encourage people to buy fewer products, use products with longer lifespans, and choose products with minimal packaging in order to reduce waste generation. Next, a circular economy, i.e., sharing, leasing, reusing, repairing, refurbishing and recycling existing materials and products as long as possible, should be developed to keep products and materials in use for longer periods to encourage practices like repair, reuse, and remanufacturing. By closing the loop on resource use, circular economies can significantly reduce waste generation. More broadly, developing cleaner waste processing technologies involving technologies for low-energy composting or decentralised recycling facilities is crucial. Finally, effective regulation is necessary to ensure compliance with environmental standards and prevent illegal waste disposal. Strengthening the capacity of local environmental agencies is essential for achieving this.
Conclusion
Considering the arguments surrounding the sustainability of the Amendment, a nuanced approach can address their concerns and maximise the implications. Proponents rightly emphasise environmental protection but concerns about limited infrastructure can be mitigated through international cooperation on capacity building and technology transfer. Similarly, potential economic drawbacks can be addressed by fostering responsible recycling industries in developing countries, creating new jobs and economic opportunities. By addressing these concerns, the Amendment becomes more sustainable in the long run. Developed countries can provide critical support to build robust waste management systems in the Global South, ensuring the ban does not lead to increased stockpiles or illegal dumping. It is crucial to remember that achieving full sustainability goes beyond the import ban itself. Promoting responsible consumption patterns, developing circular economies, and fostering public awareness all play a vital role in reducing waste generation at the source. Therefore, by working collaboratively to address the concerns raised by both sides and implementing a comprehensive waste management framework, the Basel Ban Amendment can become a powerful tool for promoting a more sustainable future for the Global South.
Comments