Montevideo Program of the United Nations Environment - Report Example

Critically assess the contribution made by the 1989 UN Convention on the Trans-boundary Movement of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal (Basel Convention) in addressing environmental challenges raised in connection with the international waste trade. Introduction In the year 1981, United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) launched Montevideo Program emphasizing the need to regulate the disposal of hazardous waste through international law and international cooperation. In 1986 three countries imposed ban on the import of hazardous waste. In August 1986, a cargo ship from Philadelphia, USA took 14,000 tons of toxic waste material and started dumping on the seas after some initial dumping in Haiti across five continents for 27 months with change of names several times. Greenpeace alerted all the likely ports which repeatedly turned away the ship. It is suspected that ship offloaded the remaining material in Indian Ocean. In November 1986, a Basel based pharmaceutical factory had a fire accident that resulted in an outflow of contaminated water into the Rhine River with some thirty tones of highly toxic material entering the river along with the contaminated water. This led to the Swiss based companies pushing for the Basel Convention so as to reverse the damage to the public relations caused by the contamination. In March 1987, a New York based ship carried 3,186 tons of solid waste and tried in vain to dump the waste in 6 U.S. states. By September 1987, the ship had traveled about 6,000 miles across Mexico, Belize and Bahamas and came back to its own base in New York without being able to unload the cargo of waste anywhere. By June 1987, the UNEP Governing Council in its 14th session brought out Cairo Guidelines and chalked out a programme to convene a global convention on the control of transboundary transport of hazardous waste. In June 1987, it was discovered by Greenpeace that traders in waste had tried to export more than 163,000,000 tons of waste by 1986. In August 1987-May 1988, Italian business firm sent eight thousand drums of hazardous chemical waste to a Nigerian port town mislabeling the drums as “relating to the building trade” and “residual and allied chemicals”. In their efforts to send the material back to Italy, the Nigerian factory workers experienced severe burns, nausea, vomiting blood and partial paralysis leading to Nigeria to recall its ambassador to Italy .and seized the ships to pressurize Italy to remove the wastes. After series of such incidents, by March 1989 Basel Convention was signed with Greenpeace denouncing it and Africa walking out. The U.S. opposed the ban to developing countries despite repeated requests of developing countries to impose the ban.1 Originally 116 parties signed the Convention which provides a global framework for transboundary movement of hazardous waste 2 It is equally concerned about the protection of global environment.3 The Single market in the EU introduced in 1993 regulates transboundary movement of goods including wastes.4 Three aims of the convention With the membership of 170 countries which do not include the U.S.A 5,the Convention’s three main aims are 1) reduction in hazardous waste generation, 2) reduced transboundary movements of hazardous waste and 3) hazardous waste management conducive to environment.6 Environmentally Sound Management (ESM) refers to treatment (management) of hazardous and other wastes in such a manner that human health and environment are protected from the adverse effects of the said wastes.7 In the context of Basel Convention, “wastes” refer to substances or objects that are disposed of, meant for disposal or those required to be disposed of, under national law. Management in the context of ESM involves collection, transport and disposal of wastes including hazardous ones and the management also includes taking care of sites where the wastes are disposed. Disposal is referred to as actions contemplated under Annexure IV to the Convention document. Transboundary movement is characterized by two states being involved in the movement whereby hazardous and/or other wastes are moved from one national jurisdiction to or through another national jurisdiction or to or through another area not falling under any national jurisdiction. Important feature is that there must be at least two states.8 General obligations The Convention sets out certain general obligations (as many as 13) on Parties to it by Article 4. 1) Parties deciding to prohibit import of wastes into their respective states should inform of their decisions to the other co-Parties/Signatories to the Convention as required under Article 13. (1a) Similarly Parties are required to ban export of the said wastes for disposal to other Parties who have so prohibited and duly notified Parties of the prohibition under Article 13. (1b) Even if Parties have not prohibited import of the said wastes, the exporting parties shall not permit export without the importing parties’ consent in writing. (2a) Each Party shall not generate the said wastes more than the bare minimum keeping in view “social, technological and economic aspects”. (2 b) There shall be sufficient facilities for disposal consistent with ESM of the said wastes located within the State. (2c) Each person in charge of management of the said wastes is responsible to take steps to prevent pollution from the said wastes by virtue of the ESM and in the event of pollution, the person in charge must minimize the adverse effects of the pollution inconsistent with human health and environment. (2d) There shall be minimum transboundary movement of the said wastes as contemplated by the efficient ESM practice in such a way that they do not affect human health and environment. (2e) No export of the said wastes shall be permitted to a State or group of States especially developing countries having no facilities for ESM of such wastes or have prohibited such imports by legislation. (2f) The likely effects of the said wastes subject to transboundary movement on the human health and environment as required under Annexure VA to the Convention, should be provided.( 2g) Parties should prevent import of such wastes if they think they cannot be managed according to ESM practices. (2h) there shall be free circulation of transboundary movement of the said wastes among the Parties so as to achieve ESM and prevent illegal traffic. (3) Parties shall recognize that illegal traffic in the said wastes is a crime. (4) Parties must make measures to implement the provisions of the convention including prevention and punishment for violating the provisions of the convention. (5) No hazardous waste or other wastes shall be exported to a non-party or imported from a non-party. (6) Parties shall not export the said wastes for disposal in an area south of 60 degrees South latitude regardless of their transboundary movement. (7a) Transboundary movement of the said wastes shall not be performed by unlicensed persons. (7b) All the said wastes of transboundary movement shall be packaged, labelled, and transported as per internationally recognized standards and practices. (7c) All the transboundary movement of the said wastes shall be accompanied by back up documents from the State of origin to the State of arrival. (8) Parties shall ensure that export of the said wastes shall be managed by parties in accordance with ESM practices, (9a) Transboundary movement of the said wastes shall be allowed only if the exporting States lack in the expertise of treating the said wastes according to ESM practices. (9b) Parties may allow if the said wastes are required by the importing State to be used as a raw material or for use in recovery industries. (9c) The criteria for transboundary movement decided by the parties shall not be different from the Convention objectives. (10) The obligation of an exporting state for the said wastes generated therein for management in accordance with ESM practices should not be transferred to the importing State for any reasons. (11) In the interest of safeguarding human health and environment, a party is free to impose additional requirement that is not inconsistent with the Convention or international law. (12) The provisions of this Convention should not affect the sovereign rights and other rights under international law for individuals. (13) A periodical review shall be made with a view to minimize the effects of pollution especially in developing countries 9 . Two main provisions in the form of obligations above are, 1) that there shall be no trade on hazardous waste and other wastes between Parties and Non-parties to the convention and 2) that it shall be the sovereign right of any State to prohibit import of hazardous and other wastes. The essence of the convention objective is that an exporting State can do so only if there is no technical capacity and suitable disposal sites within the exporting State or when the importing State requires the waste for use as raw materials for recycling or recovery industry purposes. As per obligation 2 f above, the notification to be given by an exporting State as per annexure VA should provide as many as twenty pieces of information that shall include full description of the waste under transport and details of parties concerned with the transboundary movement. The importing State should reply to the notification in writing either consenting for the transboundary movement with or without conditions, declining to consent or calling for further particulars. Exporting State must not allow transboundary movement until such information is received. The illegal traffic stated above shall include transboundary movement without prior notification or consent and consent obtained fraudulently or through misrepresentation or the materials specifications actually transported or received does not match with specifications mentioned on the document.10 The “Ban Amendment” There was a decision taken in the second Conference of the Parties (COP) in March 1994 to adopt a ban on the transboundary movement of hazardous waste for final disposal and to phase out trade in hazardous waste for reuse or recovery both between the developed and developing countries by 31st December 2007.11 This amendment allows circulation of hazardous wastes amongst OECD countries, the parties mentioned in the Annexure VII and those complying with Article 11 conditions. Hazardous waste movement across international borders other than these conditions has been banned.12 This decision has not been made part of the convention text till now for want of 2/3rd majority ratifying the decision i.e even 19 years. Immediately after 1994 ban, there was a controversy whether such a decision would bind on the parties. Therefore the COP 3 in 1995 adopted the ban by consensus pursuant to a proposal moved by EU , This ban came to called as “the Ban Amendment”, or ‘the Ban’13 Although the 1995 Ban was similar to 1994 decision, it defined developed countries in Annexure VII of the Convention, comprising of OECD countries, EU and Lichtenstein. The Ban has not been ratified by 2/3rd majority. As on 20 August 1999, only 65 out of 172 have ratified the ban. Those who have not ratified are U.S. and Japan as well developing countries such as India, Pakistan who import hazardous waste. The ratification by 2/3rd majority may never be achieved due to the political deadlock aggravated by a legal dispute regarding the number of ratifications necessary for an amendment to be brought into force.14 The Abidjan disaster On 19 August 2006, the port of Abidjan in West Africa received a ship from Dutch 500 tonnes of toxic waste which was dumped at sixteen sites across Abidjan city. The waste contaminated the ground drinking water, soil and fisheries. More than 10 people have died and more than 100,000 people received medical treatment due to reactions caused by the dumped waste. This accident is almost similar to Koko incidents of 1988 that was prior to the Basel Convention. Official enquiry held by the Government found that attitude of their corrupt officials was partly responsible for the Abidjan disaster. The Abidjan incident is a stark reminder that the Basel convention is only on paper. 15 The Bamako Convention Due to the inadequacies of Basel convention in spite the Ban, regional agreements followed and one of them was the Bamako Convention organised by the members of Organisation of African Unity in 1991 in order to enforce a complete ban on the transboundary trade in hazardous waste. This was to counter the failure of the Basel convention to impose a total ban on trade in hazardous waste resulting in the Basel member nations’ choosing African nations as their dumping ground for hazardous waste. 16, 17. This convention envisages outright ban on import of hazardous wastes into Africa from non-contracting parties which will be treated as illegal and criminal.18 Convention’s failure Prior informed consent Despite the strong provisions against transboundary movement of hazardous waste, the Convention has failed to safeguard the poor from harmful effects of hazardous waste which is attributed to “fundamental weaknesses in the Convention’s institutions and procedures. One weakness is found in the prior informed consent (PIC) procedure and self-verification process. The prescribed procedure does not show how an exporting country is able to verify that the importing county have facilities for waste management.19 Developing countries often are attracted by developed countries’ offer of toxic waste. Guinea Bissau was offered by a group of US and European private companies $ 600 million to import their toxic waste. The amount of $ 600 million was five times their annual Gross National Product.20 Developing countries vie with one another in the importation hazardous and other waste. There has been a stiff competition among India, China, Pakistan and Bangladesh for ship breaking contracts from developed countries and recently Supreme Court of India has allowed dismantling of a ship knowing very well it contains highly toxic asbestos and other toxic waste materials 21, 22Although the Basel convention’s objective is to prevent or regulate its members’ importation of hazardous wastes , the members are ready to surrender their sovereignty in return for higher economic considerations in importing toxic wastes. These factors make PIC not effective at all with the local officials giving false reports about their capabilities to cope with the hazardous waste sought to be imported23, 24. Convention’s inability to monitor compliance Although there are compliance mechanisms in place pursuant to the establishment of an Implementation and Compliance Committee which first met on 19 October 2003 25 as part of the Strategic Implementation Plan in 200226 duly adopted by the members, there are no penalties for non-compliance except under Kyoto Protocol27 The Committee’s task is merely to assist parties to meet Convention obligations and secure implementation and compliance through facilitation, promotion and monitoring.28 However, there has been just one submission regarding non-compliance of one party and no submissions about a Party’s own non-compliance. Probable reason for this is that Parties do not want to attract retaliatory measures by the party complained against including straining of diplomatic relationships.29 The Committee has no power other than issuing “non-binding recommendations” to “non-compliant” parties so as to ensure their compliance!.30 The non-confrontational and collaborative approach to enforce the convention is in the spirit of negotiation and consensus, the general characteristic of multilateral environmental treaties.31 This seems to be a better approach to ensure compliance than traditional penalties for non compliance especially in respect of subjects of this nature wherein parties’ non compliance is attributed to lack of technical and legal expertise and financial constraints and not due to intentional violations, as posited by Kravchenko. 32. On the other hand, Fagbohun argues that non-compliance is not due to any such weaknesses but due to the fact that the developing countries find the international convention conflicting with their own interests. Failure by Parties to send their annual reports as required Article 13 undermines the effectiveness of Compliance committee. Besides, Convention’s own lack of financial resources has rendered the Convention not so effective in ensuring compliance.33 Absence of Liability Mechanism Although the Basel Protocol on Liability and Compensation was adopted after six years of protracted negotiations, only nine out of 20 parties have ratified it in the last ten years as of 2009. The Protocol envisages strict liability due to transboundary movements of hazardous wastes resulting in loss of life, personal injury, loss or damage to property, loss of income and replacement costs. The Protocol also imposes fault based liability for causing damage through “wrongful, intentional, reckless acts or omissions”. The protocol also prescribes minimum penalty according to the tonnage of shipment. The protocol is yet to be ratified as of 2009. It is the case of the developing countries that there are several loopholes for developed countries for escaping the liabilities as quoted by an NGO that the Protocol is a “text with as many loopholes and exclusions as Swiss cheese”.34 One loophole is that an exporter is discharged once the importer takes over the waste without any aftercare service. Another one is that the protocol exempts from liability a party who has bilateral or multilateral agreement under article 11 which meets or exceeds the liability under protocol.35 Lack of funding for technology transfer As one of the nine strategies in support of Convention’s aims, regional centres for technology transfer known as Basel Convention ‘s Regional Training Centres for Transfer of Technology (BCRCs) have been established through the cooperation among the parties. But there is no regular funding mechanism with the result technology transfer has not been proper rendering the developing countries incapable of safe handling of hazardous waste. BCRCs are financially weak because the sources of finance are developing countries with financial constraints and voluntary donations from Parties. For example BCRC Egypt catering to Arab states received $ 1 million from Finland which is inadequate given the enormous task faced by the BCRC. 36 Recycling as a loophole Convention’s weakness lies in the definition of waste stated as “substances or objects which are disposed of or are intended to be disposed of or are required to be disposed of by the provisions of national law”37 According to the Basel Action Network most of the waste dispatched to developing countries in the name of recycling do not undergo recycling but only are dumped or burnt by the importer that only adds to environmental pollution and health risks of workers.38 The so called e-waste comprising of electronic equipments such as computers and telephones which has grown enormously in recent years adds to the problem.39 Performance of the Convention cannot be accurately measured in the absence of data on legal and illegal transboundary movements of hazardous waste. However, the disasters mentioned and growth of e-waste show that there is letup in the growth of hazardous waste being exported to developing countries. Self verification concept is under heavy abuse making a mockery Prior Informed Consent. Increasing illegal traffic in hazardous waste and non ratification of the Ban by all the parties are the two key features of weakness of the Convention. There is no universal support for the Ban as it is seen as an infringement of sovereignty. For developing countries such as India, Pakistan and Brazil for whom the materials imported are not mere waste but a source of revenue and reused raw materials Evaluation and conclusion Basel convention only regulates the hazardous waste trade that gives rise to transboundary movement of hazardous waste, The convention does not seek to impose an absolute ban on the movement across international borders. The aim is ensure disposal of waste to the nearest possible place to the site of generation. Notice and consent procedure and oversight mechanism are the two drivers with which the convention has to operate. The exporting State has to send a written notification to the importing State about its intention to ship hazardous waste. If the latter agrees to the shipment, the oversight board of the Convention will examine the notification and approve or refuse to permit the shipment. Refusal may be on the ground of the intended shipment being a prohibited hazardous waste. If the intended shipment is clean, the Convention board approves the trade and stipulates a condition that the shipment must be accompanied by a document called “movement document”. This notice and consent formality should be observed in respect of any such transboundary movement regardless of the recipient State being a signatory to the convention. This proved to be costly for the exporter State and such a procedure was feared to be a source of hindrance to receive much needed materials by the importing State. As treaties are living documents, Basel convention also underwent 103 formal decisions within the next ten years and resulted in what is now called Basel Ban Amendment that imposed ban on the export of hazardous waste for ultimate disposal or recycling from Annex VII to non-Annex VII countries. The former represents parties to the Basel Convention. In spite of it, the convention has not been so effective at controlling trade in hazardous waste mainly for three reasons. First, the U.S. has not ratified the both the Convention as well as the Ban Amendment. Second, existing loophole that it is permissible to transport waste if it is meant for recycling. Third, the blatant contravention of the convention by the ratifying parties themselves. The effect of the Convention has been minimal as the exporters continue to send their hazardous waste to African countries. Countries like U.S.A. who are not signatories to the convention need not even bother about the loophole and can openly trade in waste by virtue of being a non-signatory. The U.S. and China must lead by example in ratifying the Basel Convention and other related and ancillary conventions. Basel convention has been the forerunner in establishing the principle in the international and EU law that it is not right for the nations to dump their unwanted and discarded waste on other countries. But it not yet clear that everything is under control. Experience and compulsions suggest that the wastes must be classified as good waste and bad waste and the law should prevent bad waste trade without hampering good waste trade. However, the fact remains that the Basel and its ancillary Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions not only aim at protecting human health and environment from the hazardous waste but also hazardous chemicals and their signatories have established International Panel on Chemical Pollution (IOCP) in 2008 as part of their assistance to countries in management of chemicals during their life cycle stages. The Basel Convention secretariats are stated to be working on a more holistic approach in the sound management of waste since 2012. 75 % of hazardous waste generated comes from Annex VII countries and generation of waste in non-Annex VII countries are growing. Majority of transboundary movement has taken place amongst Annex VII countries Non –Annex VII countries represent only 1 % of total waste hazardous movements and only 7 % represent waste movements among non-Annex VII countries. This goes to show that Basel convention has been able to garner support and adherence from majority of countries producing and using hazardous waste. Basel convention is timely in that it addresses reasons for transboundary movements which are economic, legal and ineffective enforcement and raising of awareness. However, the Basel convention’s road ahead is still challenging given the fact that a recent inspection report of the INECE Seaport Environmental Security Network (SESN) reveals that countries reported 116 illegalities or infarctions in 1,016 containers. Illegal waste found included plastic waste, paper/cardboard waste, scrap mental and e-waste. The main recommendation of the report emphasizes the need to step up capacity development in inspection methodologies and capacity building in the institutional structures.40,41 . References Treaties The Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa, Bamako, Mali, 30 January 1991, available at< http://www.africaunion. org/root/au/Documents/Treaties/Text/ hazardouswastes.pdf > , accessed 25 March 2013 The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal, Basel, 22 March 1989, 28 Int’l Leg. Mat. 657 (1989) Kummer, K. The Basel Convention: Ten Years On, 7/3 Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 227,228 (1998) in Note 10 below Alan UNEP, BASEL Convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal, 1989 and decisions adopted by the first (1992), Second (1994) and Third (1995) meetings of the conference of the Parties, (BASEL Convention Series / SBCNo.97/012 < Geneva, 1997) 7 in Note 10 below Alan Books Louka E., Overcoming Natural Barriers to International Waste Trade 209 (London: Graham & Trottman, 1994). In note 10 above Alan Andrews Klabbers, J ‘Compliance Procedures’, in D Bodansky, J Brunnee and E Hey eds, The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law 996 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). In note 10 above Alan Andrews Journals Andrews Alan, Beyond The Ban – Can The Basel Convention Adequately Safeguard the Interests of The World’s Poor in The International Trade of Hazardous Waste? 5/2 Law, Environment and Development Journal, p 167 < http://www.lead-journal.org/content/09167.pdf > accessed 26 March 2013 Bogale Tesfaye Zelalem E-Responsibility: E-Waste, International Law And Africa’s Growing Digital Wasteland, UC Davis Journal of International Law and Policy, 2011 < ilp.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Volume%2018.1/Bogale_PDF.pdf >, accessed 25 March 2013 vol 18:1 David P. Hackett, “An Assessment of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal." American University International Law Review 5, no. 2 (1990): 291-323. Friman H. and. Richard P, The Illicit Global Economy and State Power 96 (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999).In Alan Andrews Beyond The Ban – Can The Basel Convention Adequately Safeguard the Interests of The World’s Poor in The International Trade of Hazardous Waste? 5/2 Law, Environment and Development Journal, p 167 < http://www.lead-journal.org/content/09167.pdf > accessed 26 March 2013. In Note 10 above Alan Andrews Kravchenko S. , ‘The Aarhus Convention and Innovations in Compliance with Multilateral Environmental Agreements’, 18/1 Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law 1, 28(2007) In note 10 above Alan Andrews Pelsy, F. ‘The Blue Lady Case and the International Issue of Ship Dismantling’, 4/2 Law, Environment and Development Journal 137, 139 (2008) in Alan Andrews In Note 10 above Sundaram S Muthu, Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes: Total Ban Amendment, Pace International Law Review, vol 9 (1) 1997 Webster-Main A., ‘Keeping Africa Out Of the Global Backyard: A Comparative Study of the Basel and Bamako Conventions’, 26/1 Environs: Envtl. L. & Pol’y J. 63, 68 (2002). In Note 10 above Alan Andrews Widawsky L. , ‘In My Backyard: How Enabling Hazardous Waste Trade To Developing Nations Can Improve the Basel Convention’s Ability to Achieve Environmental Justice’, 38/ 2 Environmental Law 577, 604 (2008) In Note 10 above Alan Andrews Reports Basel Action Network (BAN), Hazardous Waste Recycling: No Justification for Toxic Trade (Seattle: Basel Action Network, Briefing Paper 7, 2007). In Note 10 above Alan Andrews Decision II/12, in Report of the Second Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, UN Doc. UNEP/CHW.2/30 (1994). In Note 6 above Alan Andrews Decision III/1, in Report of the Third Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention on theEuropean Environment Agency, Movements of waste across the EUs internal and external borders, EEA Report No 7/2012 OIOS, Audit Report, Audit of the Secretariat of the Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, (2012) < usun.state.gov/documents/organization/199028.pdf > , accessed 25 March 2013 Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, UN Doc. UNEP/CHW.3/35 (1995). In Note 6 above Alan Andrews Report of the first session of the Implementation and Compliance Committee, UN Doc. UNEP/CHW/CC/1/3 (2003). In Note 10 above Alan Andrews Strategic Plan for the Implementation of the Basel Convention (2000-2010), Sixth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, UN Doc. UNEP/CHW.6/3 (2002), accessed 25 March 2013 In note 10 above Alan Andrews Terms of Reference of the Implementation and Compliance Committee, annexed to Decision VI/1 2, UN Doc.UNEP/ CHW/OEWG/1/3 (2003) In Note 10 above Alan Andrews Wendell, Katelyn J, Improving Enforcement Of Hazardous Waste Laws: A Regional Look At E-Waste Shipment Control In Asia, (Ninth International Conference on Environmental Compliance and Enforcement 2011) Websites Appasamy Paul P, International Conventions On Hazardous Chemicals, accessed 25 March 2013 (2006) p 166-167 Basel Action Network, About the Basel Ban accessed 21 March 2013 in Note 10 Alan Friman H and Richard, P, The Illicit Global Economy and State Power 96 (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999).In Alan Andrews Beyond The Ban – Can The Basel Convention Adequately Safeguard the Interests of The World’s Poor in The International Trade of Hazardous Waste? 5/2 Law, Environment and Development Journal, p 167 < http://www.lead-journal.org/content/09167.pdf > accessed 26 March 2013. In Note 6 above Alan Andrews Hsing Hao-Jan, Wang Fang-Kuo, Chian Pen-Chi g, Yang Wan-Fa, Hazardous wastes transboundary movement management: a case study in Taiwan < http://www.aseanenvironment.info/Abstract/41013994.pdf>, accessed 25 March 2013 (2002) 331 INECE Seaport Environmental Security Network, (2012) Second International Hazardous Waste Inspection Project At Seaports: Results And Recommendations < inece.org/seaport/INECESESNIPReport_final.pdf >, accessed 25 March 2013 INECE, Capacity Development Key to Stopping Illegal Trade in Hazardous and Electronic Waste . , accessed 25 March 2013 Ogunlade Adebola, Can The Bamako Convention Adequately Safeguard Africa’s Environment In The Context Of Transboundary Movement Of Hazardous Wastes?, University of Dundee , U.K. (2011) < www.dundee.ac.uk › ... › CAR (CEPMLP Annual Review)> , accessed 25 March 2013 Pruzin D., ‘Hazardous Waste Agreement on Liability Protocol Reached at Basel Conference of Parties’, Press release, Basel Action Network, 10 December 1999, available at < http://www.ban.org/ban_news/hazardous3.html>, accessed 25 March 2013 Rachmawaty E and Perrez F , Presentation of the Context and the Concept of the CLI (Presentation given at the First Meeting of the Indonesian-Swiss Country-led Initiative on an informal process to improve the effectiveness of the Basel Convention, Bali, 15-17 June 2009). Slides from presentation available at , accessed 25 March 2013 Read More