The Basel Convention to control the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes… its pros and cons
Basel Convention to Control the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes…its Pros and Cons
Basel Convention It is an international treaty, signed in 1989; With the aim of preventing the transfer of hazardous waste from developed countries to developing countries, 187 countries have signed the treaty. The Basel Convention, which deals with the control of cross-border movement of waste and its disposal, is considered the most comprehensive agreement. Because it is a global environmental agreement regarding everything related to the transport, handling and disposal of hazardous materials and waste.
Day after day, the rates of generation of hazardous and non-hazardous waste, including household waste, are increasing, which has major negative impacts on the environment, human health, and other living organisms. The Basel Convention aims to protect human health and the environment against the harmful effects resulting from the generation, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes.
For the most part, most things that are viewed as waste in the developed world can be valuable raw materials; Then it can be recycled and reused elsewhere, as the life cycle of waste does not end when it is disposed of, and the profits that may result from its recycling and use have made developing countries a major destination for large quantities of waste. Waste.
What’s wrong with her
With increasing international concerns about human health and the environment as a result of the lack of an agreed-upon formal legal framework for managing hazardous waste; The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal was negotiated in 1989 and finally ratified in 1992.
Although the agreement does not impose a complete ban on the movement of hazardous materials between borders, it explicitly aims to reduce the generation of hazardous wastes and promote the environmentally friendly management of these wastes wherever they are disposed of. It also aims to regulate and ensure that cross-border transport of waste is reduced to a minimum, and it also aims to ensure that appropriate measures are taken when transporting waste. To preserve human health and the environment in the importing country as much as possible.
The benefits of implementing the Convention on a widespread scale are primarily the protection of human health andthe environment, in addition to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and reducing poverty, as the Convention regulates the transfer of transboundary hazardous wastes and others, The parties involved in this are obligated to a set of procedures; To ensure waste management and disposal in an environmentally sound manner.
It is also important to note that the Basel Convention has recently been amended in favor of developing countries through better regulation of plastic waste. To ensure safer management of human health and the environment, in 2019, amendments to Annex II, VIII and IX of the Convention were adopted; With the aim of strengthening control over the cross-border movement of plastic waste and clarifying the scope of the agreement in terms of its application to these wastes.
But due to lack of environmental regulations, lack of public awareness, and lack of knowledge about health effects,developing countriesfollow a relatively low-cost method of waste disposal; Which makes it an attractive target for many developed countries to export their waste to.
What’s wrong with it
When reading the terms of the agreement, we must carefully study the words and language used to determine the restrictions and rules that waste exporters must follow. When contemplating many of the phrases and words, we will find that the ambiguous language in which some clauses were written allowed exporters to find loopholes in the Basel Convention and continue exporting toxic waste to developing countries in a fully legal manner.
Due to the lack of uniformity in the definitions of terms such as: “hazardous” and “waste”, the requirements are left to be determined by each party according to what it wants, and this gives exporters the flexibility to continue exporting waste to developing countries under the pretext that it is “goods”, and in this way the matter ends More toxic waste is collected in developing countries by local workers, affecting the health of their surrounding environment.
As mentioned previously, much of the so-called “waste” may have value elsewhere whether for reuse or recycling. Therefore, exporters are allowed to ship their waste to developing countries under the condition that Sending it there to be recycled rather than dumping it, but in reality we could call that “sham” recycling, which is another way to handle hazardous waste legally. Even when that waste is recycled, many developing countries lack the facilities and technology to safely dispose of the resulting toxic materials. Which again leads to harmful effects on human health and the environment.
Political size and its impact on the approach of the agreement
It is also important to note that the majority of these developing countries and environmental NGOs voted for a complete ban on the transport of hazardous waste while developed countries preferred a more flexible approach, and given that historically richer countries have an attractive More politically, the decision was issued in its favor, leaving developing countries to deal with the problems that arise from hazardous waste being shipped to their shores while exporters continue to find loopholes in the system.
While the United States has signed the Basel Convention, it has not ratified it, which means that the world’s third-largest waste producer is not bound by the convention’s rules and objectives to try to reduce and prevent the export of hazardous waste from developed countries to developing countries.
This raises concerns that the United States is unethically prioritizing the ability to dispose of its toxic waste at the lowest possible cost over the impacts it will have on society and the environment in the importing country. If the United States does not adhere to an agreement designed specifically to protect developing countries, the impact of this agreement may not be as effective as it would be, and in addition, it could encourage other developed countries to adopt the same methodology.
While it can be said that waste-importing developing countries depend on importing waste and recycling it as a source of income, the short-term financial benefits should not outweigh the long-term costs that society and the environment may bear.
Excessive flexibility and lack of obligation
The shortcomings of the Basel Convention are summed up in the unfair influence that developed countries enjoy over developing countries, in addition to the prioritization of the private interest of many developed countries over the future and interest of many poor countries, in addition to the lack of awareness of the dangerous consequences that result from receiving these countries. For these large quantities of waste.
Moreover, allowing flexibility in the terms and phrases of the Basel Convention encourages exporters to find loopholes in the terms of the agreement, allowing them to export hazardous waste to developing countries legally, which contradicts the noble goals of this agreement, in addition to the fact that the United States – one of the largest waste producers – It is the only industrialized country that has not ratified the Basel Convention, which would greatly undermine the agreement.
In conclusion, the Basel Convention depends on the alignment of countries’ policies with the broader objectives of the Convention, as well as the capabilities of countries to implement relevant policies that would help them achieve the objectives of the Basel Convention. While the agreement is a step in the right direction, especially with regard to formal coordination between the parties, leaving member states alone to implement the terms of the agreement reduces its overall effectiveness.
