After 23 years of ratifying the Basel Convention, regarding the transfer of hazardous wastes across borders and their proper disposal, and in the midst of the countries’ preparation to hold it 12th conference in May, and after all the progress achieved in the field of combating illegal traffic of hazardous wastes, and the limitations imposed on the transfer of wastes between states, including the non-hazardous wastes, the world is circulating news today, about the transmission of 50 waste containers from Canada to the Philippines illegally. This raises a big question about the extent of the advanced industrial countries’ commitment to the Convention and its rules, especially in the field of transferring wastes to developing countries.
This incident is one of the biggest violations of the Basel Convention in recent months. It is surprising that Canada, the country that is very active in implementing this Convention, refuses to adhere until now, in restoring these wastes, as provided in the Convention and its supplements. On the other hand, Canada refuses to proceed with the prosecution of those responsible for the illegal shipment, which falls under the provisions of the illegal trafficking of the Convention, and which is classified as a criminal act accordingly. Despite the urgent demand by the Pilipino government and civil society organizations in this developing country, and the solidarity of global environmental organizations, the Canadian Government is still dawdling on retrieving the illegal shipment, which was carried out by Canadian institutions.
In order to justify this unreasonable reluctance, the government says: “There are no local laws in Canada, which can be applied to force the shipper to retrieve the waste laden containers to Canada.” This excuse seems worse than the mistake. How can Canada be an active state party in the Basel Convention since its ratification, and lacks a local law which translates the obligations of the Convention, which states on the Government’s responsibility for the retrieval of illegal waste shipments, issued from it to another country. This seems unreasonable nonsense.
If this is true, then it shows a major weakness in the adaptation of national laws with the obligations of the Convention, and does not constitute, in any case, a legitimate excuse for this blatant breach of the Convention, and evasion of responsibility. The agreement states, in this case, that Canada not only has the right to retrieve the illegal cargo, but its duty also includes retrieval without hesitation or reluctance under any pretext. It should not rely on the shipper to retrieve his containers, but, as a party member of the Basel Convention, the government should do so by itself.
In this context, we recall the containers, which were coming from Germany and Belgium in 1996, while the governments of Germany and Belgium committed to the restoration of these illegal shipments, pursuant to the provisions of the Basel Convention.
It is worth mentioning, that Canada was a State Party in the convention since 1992, and in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, States should monitor shipments exported from then, and take responsibility for any illicit trafficking cases, and they are obliged to restore them, even if these wastes were classified in Annex 2 of them, any “other waste”, as provided in Article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
