Parties to the Basel Convention

Status of RatificationsClick on the map located in the left to view an interactive world map showing the current status of ratifications, or scroll down to see the information in a table format.

Note: The boundaries shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the Secretariat of the Basel Convention, the United Nations Environment Programme or the United Nations.

List of Parties and Signatories

Entry into force:

5 May 1992, in accordance with article 25(1).

Registration:

5 May 1992, No. 28911

Text:

United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1673, p. 57; and depositary notifications C.N.302.1992.TREATIES-9 of 25 November 1992 (procès-verbal of rectification of the original English text) (see End Note 2) C.N.248.1993.TREATIES-7 of 7 September 1993 (procès-verbal of rectification of the authentic French text); C.N.144.1994.TREATIES-4 of 27 June 1994 (procès-verbal of rectification of the authentic Arabic, Chinese, English and Spanish texts); C.N.15.1997.TREATIES-1 of 20 Februrary 1997 (procès-verbal of rectification of the authentic Russian text); C.N.77.1998. TREATIES-2 of 6 May 1998 (amendment to annex I and adoption of annexes VIII and IX) (see End Note 3) C.N.245.2003.TREATIES-4 of 27 March 2003 [proposal of corrections to the original text of the Convention (authentic Chinese text)] and C.N.321.2003.TREATIES-5 of 29 April 2003 [Corrections to the original of the Convention (authentic Chinese text)]; C.N.399.2003.TREATIES-9 of 20 May 2003 (Proposal of amendments to Annexes VIII and IX of the Convention) and C.N.1314.2003.TREATIES-12 of 20 November 2003 (Entry into force of amendments to Annexes VIII and IX of the Convention); C.N.119.2005.TREATIES-2 of 23 February 2005 [(Proposal of corrections to the original text of the Convention (authentic Spanish text)] and C.N.406.2005.TREATIES-6 of 25 May 2005 [(Corrections to the original of the Convention (Authentic Spanish text)]; C.N.263.2005.TREATIES-4 of 8 April 2005 (Proposal of amendments to Annexes VIII and IX of the Convention) and C.N.263.2005.TREATIES-4 of (Re-issued) of 13 June 2005 (Proposal of amendments to Annexes VIII and IX of the Convention) and C.N.1044.2005.TREATIES-7 of 10 October 2005 (Entry into force of amendments to Annexes VIII and IX of the Convention); C.N.1038.2007.TREATIES-5 of 14 November 2007 (Proposal of corrections to Annexes VIII and IX of the Convention) and C.N.119.2008.TREATIES-1 of 26 February 2008 (Corrections to Annexes VIII and IX); C.N.125.2008.TREATIES-2 of 26 February 2008 (Proposal of Correction to Annex IX of the Convention) and C.N.243.2008.TREATIES-3 of 7 April 2008 (Correction to Annex IX of the Convention); C.N.397.2008.TREATIES-4 of 27 May 2008 (Proposal of Correction to Annexes VIII and IX of the Convention) and C.N.609.2008.TREATIES-8 of 28 August 2008 (Corrections to Annexes VIII and IX of the Convention); C.N.644.2008.TREATIES-9 of 18 September 2008 (Proposal of correction to Annex IX of the Convention) and C.N.778.2008.TREATIES-10 of 28 October 2008 (Corrections to Annex IX of the Convention); C.N.284.2011.TREATIES-2 of 18 May 2011 (Proposal of correction to the original text of [the] Convention (French version) and to the certified true copies) and C.N.359.2011.TREATIES-3 of 20 June 2011 (Correction to the original text of Convention (French version) and to the certified true copies); C.N.760.2011.TREATIES-6 of 28 November 2011 (Proposal of correction to Annex VIII of the Convention) and C.N.824.2011.TREATIES-7 of 30 December 2011 (Correction to Annex VIII of the Convention).

Note:

The Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, was adopted on 22 March 1989 by the Conference of Plenipotentiaries which was convened at Basel from 20 to 22 March 1989. In accordance with its article 21, the Convention, which was open for signature at the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland in Berne from 23 March 1989 to 30 June 1989, was open thereafter at the Headquarters of the United Nations in New York until 22 March 1990, by all States, Namibia, and by political and/or economic integration organizations (see End Note 4).

Status:

Number of Signatories:

Number of Parties:  1

 

Participant Signature Approval(AA), Formal confirmation(c), Acceptance(A), Accession(a), Succession(d), Ratification
Afghanistan 22/03/1989 25/03/2013
Albania 29/06/1999 (a)
Algeria

Algeria

Declaration:

The Government of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria declares, with regard to article 20, paragraph 2 of the [Convention], that in every case, the agreement of the all parties concerned is necessary to submit a dispute to the International Court of Justice or to arbitration.

15/09/1998 (a)
Andorra 23/07/1999 (a)
Antigua and Barbuda 05/04/1993 (a)
Argentina 28/06/1989 27/06/1991
Armenia 01/10/1999 (a)
Australia 05/02/1992 (a)
Austria 19/03/1990 12/01/1993
Azerbaijan 01/06/2001 (a)
Bahamas 12/08/1992 (a)
Bahrain 22/03/1989 15/10/1992
Bangladesh 01/04/1993 (a)
Barbados 24/08/1995 (a)
Belarus 10/12/1999 (a)
Belgium 22/03/1989 11/01/1993
Belize 23/05/1997 (a)
Benin 04/12/1997 (a)
Bhutan 26/08/2002 (a)
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 22/03/1989 15/11/1996
Bosnia and Herzegovina 16/03/2001 (a)
Botswana 20/05/1998 (a)
Brazil 01/10/1992 (a)
Brunei Darussalam 16/12/2012 (a)
Bulgaria 16/02/1996 (a)
Burkina Faso 04/11/1999 (a)
Burundi 06/01/1997 (a)
Cambodia 02/03/2001 (a)
Cameroon 09/02/2001 (a)
Canada 22/03/1989 28/08/1992
Cape Verde 02/07/1999 (a)
Central African Republic 24/02/2006 (a)
Chad 10/03/2004 (a)
Chile

Chile

Declaration:

The Government of Chile considers that the provisions of this Convention [. . .] help to consolidate and expand the legal regime that Chile has established through various international instruments on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal, whose scope of application covers both the continental territory of the Republic and its area of jurisdiction situated south of latitude 60oS, in accordance with the provisions of article 4, paragraph 6, of the present Convention.

31/01/1990 11/08/1992
China 5 6  22/03/1990 17/12/1991
Colombia

Colombia

Upon signature:

It is the understanding of Colombia that the implementation of the present Convention shall in no case restrict, but rather shall strengthen, the application of the juridical and political principles which, as [was] made clear in the statement [made on 21 March to the Basel Conference], govern the actions taken by the Colombian State in matters covered by the Convention -- in other words, inter alia , the latter may in no case be interpreted or applied in a manner inconsistent with the competence of the Colombian State to apply those principles and other norms of its internal rule to its land area (including the subsoil), air space, territorial sea, submarine continental shelf and exclusive economic maritime zone, in accordance with international law.

Upon ratification:

The Government of Colombia, pursuant to article 26, paragraph 2, of the [said Convention], declares, for the purposes of implementing this international instrument, that article 81 of the Political Constitution of Colombia prohibits the bringing of nuclear residues and toxic wastes into the national territory.

22/03/1989 31/12/1996
Comoros 31/10/1994 (a)
Congo, Democratic Republic of the 06/10/1994 (a)
Congo, Republic of the 20/04/2007 (a)
Cook Islands 29/06/2004 (a)
Costa Rica 07/03/1995 (a)
Côte d´Ivoire 01/12/1994 (a)
Croatia 09/05/1994 (a)
Cuba

Cuba

Declaration:

The Government of the Republic of Cuba declares, with regard to article 20 of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, that any disputes between Parties as to the interpreta- tion or application of, or compliance with, this Convention or any protocol thereto, shall be settled through negotiation through the diplomatic channel or submitted to arbitration under the conditions set out in Annex VI on arbitration.

03/10/1994 (a)
Cyprus 22/03/1989 17/09/1992
Czech Republic 7 30/09/1993 (d)
Denmark

Denmark

Declaration made upon signature:

Denmark's signature of the Global Convention of the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal does not apply to Greenland and the Faroe Islands.

30 April 2008

Declaration:

Denmark deposited its instrument of approval to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal on 6 February 1994. This instrument did not confirm the territorial exclusion concerning the application of the Convention with respect to Greenland and the Faroe Islands, which had been made upon the signature of the Convention on 22 March 1989. The approval of the Convention in 1994 therefore includes both Greenland and the Faroe Islands.

22/03/1989 06/02/1994 (AA)
Djibouti 31/05/2002 (a)
Dominica 05/05/1998 (a)
Dominican Republic 10/07/2000 (a)
Ecuador

Ecuador

Upon signature:

The elements contained in the Convention which has been signed may in no way be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with the domestic legal norms of the Ecuadorian State, or with the exercise of its national sovereignty.

22/03/1989 23/02/1993
Egypt 8 08/01/1993 (a)
El Salvador 22/03/1990 13/12/1991
Equatorial Guinea 07/02/2003 (a)
Eritrea 10/03/2005 (a)
Estonia 21/07/1992 (a)
Ethiopia 12/04/2000 (a)
European Union 22/03/1989 07/02/1994 (AA)
Finland 22/03/1989 19/11/1991 (A)
France 22/03/1989 01/07/1991 (AA)
Gabon 06/06/2008 (a)
Gambia 15/12/1997 (a)
Georgia 20/05/1999 (a)
Germany

Germany

Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:

It is the understanding of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany that the provisions in article 4, paragraph 12 of this Convention shall in no way affect the exercise of navigation rights and freedoms as provided for in international law. Accordingly, it is the view of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany that nothing in this Convention shall be deemed to require the giving of notice to or the consent of any State for the passage of hazardous wastes on a vessel under the flag of a party exercising its right of innocent passage through the territorial sea or the freedom of navigation in an exclusive economic zone under international law.

 9
23/10/1989 21/04/1995
Ghana 30/05/2003 (a)
Greece 22/03/1989 04/08/1994
Guatemala 22/03/1989 15/05/1995
Guinea 26/04/1995 (a)
Guinea-Bissau 09/02/2005 (a)
Guyana 04/04/2001 (a)
Haiti 22/03/1989
Honduras 27/12/1995 (a)
Hungary 22/03/1989 21/05/1990 (AA)
Iceland 28/06/1995 (a)
India 15/03/1990 24/06/1992
Indonesia

Indonesia

Declaration:

Mindful of the need to adjust the existing national laws and regulations, the provisions of article 3 (1) of this Convention shall only be implemented by Indonesia after the new revised laws and regulations have been enacted and entered into force.

20/09/1993 (a)
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 05/01/1993 (a)
Iraq 02/05/2011 (a)
Ireland 19/01/1990 07/02/1994
Israel 22/03/1989 14/12/1994
Italy

Italy

Declaration made on 30 March 1990 and confirmed upon ratification:

The Government of Italy declares ... that it is in favour of the establishment of a global control system for the environmentally sound management of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes.

 *

Italy

The Government of Italy, in expressing its objections vis-à-vis the declarations made, upon signature, by the Governments of Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Uruguay and Venezuela, as well as other declarations of similar tenor that might be made in the future, considers that no provision of this Convention should be interpreted as restricting navigational rights recognized by international law. Consequently, a State party is not obliged to notify any other State or obtain authorization from it for simple passage through the territorial sea or the exercise of freedom of navigation in the exclusive economic zone by a vessel showing its flag and carrying a cargo of hazardous wastes.

22/03/1989 07/02/1994
Jamaica 23/01/2003 (a)
Japan

Japan

Declaration:

The Government of Japan declares that nothing in the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal be interpreted as requiring notice to or consent of any State for the mere passage of hazardous wastes or other wastes on a vessel exercising navigational rights and freedoms, as paragraph 12 of article 4 of the said Convention stipulates that nothing in the Convention shall affect in any way the exercise of navigational rights and freedoms as provided for in international law and as reflected in relevant international instruments.

17/09/1993 (a)
Jordan 22/03/1989 22/06/1989 (AA)
Kazakhstan 03/06/2003 (a)
Kenya 01/06/2000 (a)
Kiribati 07/09/2000 (a)
Korea, Democratic People´s Republic of 10/07/2008 (a)
Korea, Republic of 28/02/1994 (a)
Kuwait 22/03/1989 11/10/1993
Kyrgyzstan 13/08/1996 (a)
Lao People´s Democratic Republic 21/09/2010 (a)
Latvia 14/04/1992 (a)
Lebanon

Lebanon

Upon signature:

[Lebanon] declares that [it] can under no circumstances permit burial of toxic and other wastes in any of the areas subject to its legal authority which they have entered illegally. In 1988, Lebanon announced a total ban on the import of such wastes and adopted Act No. 64/88 of 12 August 1988 to that end. In all such situations, Lebanon will endeavour to co-operate with the States concerned, and with the other States parties, in accordance with the provisions of this treaty.

22/03/1989 21/12/1994
Lesotho 31/05/2000 (a)
Liberia 22/09/2004 (a)
Libya 12/07/2001 (a)
Liechtenstein 22/03/1989 27/01/1992
Lithuania 22/04/1999 (a)
Luxembourg 22/03/1989 07/02/1994
Madagascar 02/06/1999 (a)
Malawi 21/04/1994 (a)
Malaysia 08/10/1993 (a)
Maldives 28/04/1992 (a)
Mali 05/12/2000 (a)
Malta 19/06/2000 (a)
Marshall Islands 27/01/2003 (a)
Mauritania 16/08/1996 (a)
Mauritius 24/11/1992 (a)
Mexico

Mexico

Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:

Mexico is signing ad referendum the Basel Convention on the Control of the Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their disposal because it duly protects its rights as a coastal State in the areas subject to its national jurisdiction, including the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf and, in so far as it is relevant, its airspace, and the exercise in those areas of its legislative and administrative competence in relation to the protection and preservation of the environment, as recognized by international law and, in particular, the law of the sea.

Mexico considers that, by means of this Convention, important progress has been made in protection of the environment through the legal regulation of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes. A framework of general obligations for States parties has been established, fundamentally with a view to reducing to a minimum the generation and transboundary movement of dangerous wastes and ensuring their environmentally rational management, promoting international co-operation for those purposes, establishing co-ordination and follow-up machinery and regulating the implementation of procedures for the peaceful settlement of disputes.

Mexico further hopes that, as an essential supplement to the standard-setting character of the Convention, a protocol will be adopted as soon as possible, establishing, in accordance with the principles and provisions of international law, appropriate procedures in the matter of responsibility and compensation for damage resulting from the transboundary movement and management of dangerous wastes.

22/03/1989 22/02/1991
Micronesia (Federated States of) 06/09/1995 (a)
Moldova, Republic of 02/07/1998 (a)
Monaco 31/08/1992 (a)
Mongolia 15/04/1997 (a)
Montenegro 10 23/10/2006 (d)
Morocco 28/12/1995 (a)
Mozambique 13/03/1997 (a)
Namibia 15/05/1995 (a)
Nauru 12/11/2001 (a)
Nepal 15/10/1996 (a)
Netherlands

Netherlands

17 February 2010

Declaration:

The Kingdom of the Netherlands declares, in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 20 of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, that it accepts both means of dispute settlement referred to in that paragraph as compulsory in relation to any Party accepting one or both means of dispute settlement.

 11
22/03/1989 16/04/1993 (A)
New Zealand 12 18/12/1989 20/12/1994
Nicaragua 03/06/1997 (a)
Niger 17/06/1998 (a)
Nigeria 15/03/1990 13/03/1991
Norway

Norway

Norway accepts the binding means of settling disputes set out in Article 20, paragraphs 3 (a) and (b), of the Convention, by (a) submission of the dispute to the International Court of Justice and/or (b) arbitration in accordance with the procedures set out in Annex VI.

22/03/1989 02/07/1990
Oman 08/02/1995 (a)
Pakistan 26/07/1994 (a)
Palau 08/09/2011 (a)
Panama 22/03/1989 22/02/1991
Papua New Guinea 01/09/1995 (a)
Paraguay 28/09/1995 (a)
Peru 23/11/1993 (a)
Philippines 22/03/1989 21/10/1993
Poland

Poland

Declaration:

With respect to article 20, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Polish Republic declares that it recognizes submission to arbitration in accordance with the procedures and under the conditions set out in Annex VI to the Convention, as compulsory ipso facto.

22/03/1990 20/03/1992
Portugal 5 26/06/1989 26/01/1994
Qatar 09/08/1995 (a)
Romania

Romania

Declaration:

In conformity with article 26, paragraph 2, of the Convention, Romania declares that the import and the disposal on its national territory of hazardous wastes and other wastes can take place only with the prior approval of the competent Romanian authorities.

27/02/1991 (a)
Russian Federation

Russian Federation

Understanding:

The definition of "Territory" in the Cairo Guidelines and Principles for the Environmentally Sound Management of Hazardous Wastes (UNEP Governing Council decision 14/30 of 17 June 1987) to which reference is made in the preamble to the Convention is a special formulation and cannot be used for purposes of interpreting the present Convention or any of its provisions in the light of article 31, paragraph 2, or article 32 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties or on any other basis.

22/03/1990 31/01/1995
Rwanda 07/01/2004 (a)
Saint Kitts and Nevis

Saint Kitts and Nevis

Declaration:

With respect to article 20, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis declares that it recognizes submission to arbitration in accordance with the procedures and the conditions set out in Annex VI to the Convention, as compulsory ipso facto.

07/09/1994 (a)
Saint Lucia 09/12/1993 (a)
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 02/12/1996 (a)
Samoa 22/03/2002 (a)
Sao Tome and Principe 12/11/2013 (a)
Saudi Arabia 22/03/1989 07/03/1990
Senegal 10/11/1992 (a)
Serbia 13 18/04/2000 (a)
Seychelles 11/05/1993 (a)
Singapore

Singapore

Declaration:

The Government of Singapore declares that, in accordance with article 4 (12), the provisions of the Convention do not in any way affect the exercise of navigational rights and freedoms as provided in international law. Accordingly, nothing in this Convention requires notice to or consent of any State for the passage of a vessel under the flag of a party, exercising rights of passage through the territorial sea or freedom of navigation in an exclusive economic zone under international law.

02/01/1996 (a)
Slovakia 7 28/05/1993 (d)
Slovenia 07/10/1993 (a)
Somalia 26/07/2010 (a)
South Africa 05/05/1994 (a)
Spain

Spain

Declaration:

The Spanish Government declares, in accordance with article 26.2 of the Convention, that the criminal characterization of illegal traffic in hazardous wastes or other wastes, established as an obligation of States Parties under article 4.3, will in future take place within the general framework of reform of the substantive criminal legal order.

22/03/1989 07/02/1994
Sri Lanka 28/08/1992 (a)
Sudan 09/01/2006 (a)
Suriname 20/09/2011 (a)
Swaziland 08/08/2005 (a)
Sweden 22/03/1989 02/08/1991
Switzerland 22/03/1989 31/01/1990
Syrian Arab Republic 11/10/1989 22/01/1992
Tanzania, United Republic of 07/04/1993 (a)
Thailand 22/03/1990 24/11/1997
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 16/07/1997 (a)
Togo 02/07/2004 (a)
Tonga 26/03/2010 (a)
Trinidad and Tobago 18/02/1994 (a)
Tunisia 11/10/1995 (a)
Turkey 22/03/1989 22/06/1994
Turkmenistan 25/09/1996 (a)
Uganda 11/03/1999 (a)
Ukraine 08/10/1999 (a)
United Arab Emirates 22/03/1989 17/11/1992
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon ratification:

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland declare that, in accordance with article 4 (12), the provisions of the Convention do not affect in any way the exercise of navigational rights and freedoms as provided for in international law. Accordingly, nothing in this Convention requires notice to or consent of any state for the passage of hazardous wastes on a vessel under the flag of a party, exercising rights of passage through the territorial sea or freedom of navigation in an exclusive economic zone under international law.

 6 14 15 
06/10/1989 07/02/1994
United States of America 22/03/1990
Uruguay

Uruguay

Upon signature:

Uruguay is signing ad referendum the Convention on the Control of the Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal because it is duly protecting its rights as a riparian State in the areas subject to its national jurisdiction, including the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf and, as appropriate, the superjacent air space as well as the exercise in such areas of its standard-setting and administrative competence in connection with the protection and preservation of the environment as recognized by international law and, in particular, by the law of the sea.

22/03/1989 20/12/1991
Uzbekistan 07/02/1996 (a)
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

Upon signature:

Venezuela considers that the Convention [as] adopted properly protects its sovereign rights as a riparian State over the areas under its national jurisdiction, including its territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, and, as appropriate, its air space. The Convention also safeguards the exercise in such areas of its standard-setting and administrative jurisdiction for the purpose of protecting and preserving the environment and its natural resources in accordance with international law, and in particular the law of the sea.

22/03/1989 03/03/1998
Viet Nam 13/03/1995 (a)
Yemen 21/02/1996 (a)
Zambia 15/11/1994 (a)
Zimbabwe 01/03/2012 (a)


Declarations



Objections



End Notes

1. For the purpose of entry into force of the [Convention/Protocol] , any instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession deposited by a regional economic integration organization shall not be counted as additional to those deposited by member States of that Organization.
2. On 16 September 1992, i.e., after the expiry of the 90-day period from the date of its circulation (i.e., 10 June 1992), the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland communicated the following with respect to the corrections proposed by the Government of Japan to article 7 of the Convention:

"The United Kingdom Government has no objection to the first of the . . . suggested amendments since this represents the correction of a typographical error rather than a substantive change. With regard to the second proposed change, however, the UK Government would wish to lodge an objection on the following grounds:

i) Since the Convention was negotiated predominantly through the English language version of the draft Convention, to amend the text of this version to accord with the text of the other language versions would be to align the original version with translations, rather than vice-versa, which would appear to be more appropriate;

ii) Tthere is a general presumption that a legislative provision should be construed, if at all possible, so as to give it meaning and substance. If the amendment proposed by the Japanese Government was to be accepted, article 7 would confirm what is already explicit in article 6.1 of the Convention (as read in conjunction with article 2.13 which defines the term 'the states concerned'). If, however, article 7 remains un-amended, it will continue to add to the scope of article 6.2 and therefore retain a specific meaning;

iii) The United Kingdom is of the view that the Basel Convention should require of Parties the maximum level of prior notification possible. In the case of a proposed movement of a consignment of hazardous waste from the Basel Party to a second Basel Party via a non-Party, we would wish the second Basel Party to send a copy of its final response regarding movement to the non-Party. Article 7, as presently worded, ensures that this takes place. The amendment proposed by the Government of Japan would, however, have the effect of limiting, albeit to a small extent, the amount of prior notification by Parties to the agreement in question.

In view of these objections the government of the United Kingdom agrees to the first of the proposed adjustments of the English text, but not to the second."

On 11 January 1993, the Government of the United Kingdom notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the objection to the second modification proposed by the Government of Japan to article 7 of the Convention.
3. At the Fourth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention, held in Kuching, Malaysia, from 23 to 27 February 1998, the Parties proposed an amendment to Annex I and adopted two new Annexes (VIII and IX).

In accordance with paragraphs 2 (c) and 3 of article 18, on the expiry of six months from the date of their circulation (on 6 May 1998), the amendment to Annex I and the adoption of Annexes VIII and IX became effective for all Parties to the Convention which had not submitted a notification in accordance with the provisions of article 18, paragraph 2 (b), that is to say on 6 November 1998.

In this connection, the Secretary-General had received from the Governments of the following States, notifications on the dates indicated hereinafter:

Austria (30 October 1998):

"Austria is not in a position to accept the amendment and the annexes to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Basel Convention) which were adopted by decision IV/9 of the fourth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention.

This objection under Article 18 para. 2 (b) of the said Convention has to be raised on purely technical grounds, due to the necessary parliamentary procedure in Austria, and will be lifted immediately once Parliament has accepted the amendment to Annex I as well as the new annexes VIII and IX.

In this context, due note should be taken of the fact that Austria is legally bound by the "Council Regulation on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community". An amendment to Annex V of this Council Regulation has been decided with the support of Austria on 30 September 1998 in order to take into full consideration those wastes featuring on any lists of wastes characterized as hazardous for the purposes of the Basel Convention.”

The amendment to Annex I and the adoption of Annexes VIII and IX took effect for Austria on 26 Octo 199the date of deposit of its instrument of acceptance with the Secretary-General.

Germany (4 November 1998):

At the Fourth Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention held in Kuching, Malaysia from 23 to 27 February 1998, Germany agreed to the amendments and the new Annexes. However, under the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany formal approval by the legislative bodies is required before the amendments to the Convention enter into force. Unfortunately, it will not be possible to conclude this process within the six-month deadline.

For this reason and in conformity with Article 18 (2) (b) of the Basel Convention, the Federal Republic of Germany declares that it cannot at present accept the amendments to Annex I and the new Annexes VIII and IX to the Basel Convention.

The amendment to Annex I and the adoption of Annexes VIII and IX took effect for Germany on 24 May 2002, the date of deposit of its instrument of acceptance with the Secretary-General.
4. Such an organization is defined under article 2, paragraph 20, of the said Convention as "an organization constituted by sovereign States to which its member States have transferred competence in respect of matters governed by this Convention and which has been duly authorized, in accordance with its internal procedures, to sign, ratify, accept, approve, formally confirm or accede to it".
5. On 28 June 1999, the Government of Portugal informed the Secretary-General the the Convention would also apply to Macau.

Subsequently, on 9 and 15 December 1999, the Secretary-General received communications concerning the status of Macau from the Governments of the Portugal and China (see also note 3 under "China" and note 1 under "Portugal” regarding Macao in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume). Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Macao, China notified the Secretary-General that the Convention with the will also apply to the Macao Special Administrative Region.
6. On 6 and 10 June 1997, the Secretary-General received communications concerning the status of Hong Kong from the Governments of the United Kingdom and China (see also note 2 under "China" and note 2 under "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" regarding Hong Kong in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume). Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, China notified the Secretary-General that the Convention will also apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
7. Czechoslovakia had acceded to the Convention on 24 July 1991. See note 1 under “Czech Republic” and note 1 under “Slovakia” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
8. On 31 January 1995, the Government of Egypt informed the Secretary-General that its instrument of accession should have been accompanied by the following declarations:

First declaration: passage of ships carrying hazardous wastes through the Egyptian territorial sea:

The Arab Republic of Egypt, upon acceding to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, which was done on 22 March 1989 and is referred to hereafter as "the Convention", and, in accordance with article 26 of the Convention, declares that:

In accordance with the provisions of the Convention and the rules of international law regarding the sovereign right of the State over its territorial sea and its obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment, since the passage of foreign ships carrying hazardous or other wastes entails many risks which constitute a fundamental threat to human health and the environment; and

In conformity with Egypt's position on the passage of ships carrying inherently dangerous or noxious substances through its territorial sea (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1983), the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt declares that

1. Foreign ships carrying hazardous or other wastes will be required to obtain prior permission from the Egyptian authorities for passage through its territorial sea.

2. Prior notification must be given of the movement of any hazardous wastes through areas under its national jurisdiction, in accordance with article 2, paragraph 9, of the Convention.

Second declaration: imposition of a complete ban on the import of hazardous wastes:

The Arab Republic of Egypt, upon acceding to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of HazardousWastes and their Disposal, which was signed on 22 March 1989 and is referred to below as "the Convention", and

In accordance with article 26 of the Convention, declares that:

In accordance with its sovereign rights and with article 4, paragraph 1( a ), of the Convention, a complete ban is imposed on the import of all hazardous or other wastes and on their disposal on the territory of the Arab Republic of Egypt. This confirms Egypt's position that the transportation of such wastes constitutes a fundamental threat to the health of people, animals and plants and to the environment.

Third declaration:

The Governments of Bahrain, Belgium, Benin, Côte d'Ivoire, Denmark, Egypt, the Federal Republic of Germany, Finland, France, the German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Namibia, Netherlands, Niger, Norway, the Philippines, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Senegal,Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as well as the Commission of the European Union, which will sign the Convention and/or the final document referring to the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (referred to hereinafter as "the Convention"),

Concerned that the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes constitutes a great danger to the health of both humans and the environment,

Considering that the developing countries have a limited ability to manage wastes, especially hazardous wastes, in an environmentally sound manner,

Believing that a reduction in the production of hazardous wastes and their disposal in environmentally sound conditions in the country which exports them must be the goal of waste management policy,

Convinced that the gradual cessation of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes will undoubtedly be a major incentive to the development of appropriate national facilities for the disposal of wastes,

Recognizing the right of every State to bane import to or export from its territory of hazardous wastes,

Welcoming the signature of the Convention,

Believing it necessary, before applying the provisions of the Convention, to impose immediate and effective control on transboundary movement operations, especially to developing countries, and to reduce them,

Declare the following:

1. The signatories to this Convention affirm their strong determination that wastes should be disposed of in the country of production.

2. The signatories to this Convention request States which accede to the Convention to do so, by making every possible effort to effect a gradual cessation of the import and export of wastes for reasons other than their disposal in facilities which will be set up within the framework of regional cooperation.

3. The signatories to this Convention will not permit wastes to be imported to or exported from countries deficient in the technical, administrative and legal expertise in administering wastes and disposing of them in an environmentally sound manner.

4. The signatories to this Convention affirm the importance of assistance to develop appropriate facilities intended for the final disposal of wastes produced by countries referred to in paragraph 3 above.

5. The signatories to this Convention stress the need to take effective measures within the framework of the Convention to enable wastes to be reduced to the lowest possible level and to be recycled.

Note:

Belgium considers that its declaration does not prejudice the import to its territory of wastes classified as primary or secondary materials.

These declarations were not transmitted to the Secretary-General at the time the instrument of accession. In keeping with the depositary practice followed in similar cases, the Secretary-General proposed to receive the declarations in question for deposit in the absence of any objection on the part of any of the Contracting States, either to the deposit itself or tothe procedure envisaged, within a period of 90 days from the date of their circulation (i.e., 17 July 1995).

In this connexion, the Secretary-General received the following objections on the dates indicated hereinafter:

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (9 October 1995):

"The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland cannot accept the first declaration of Egypt (passage of ships carrying hazardous wastes through the Egyptian territorial sea) [...]. Not only was this declaration out of time, but like all other declarations to similar effect, it is unacceptable in substance. In this connection the United Kingdom Government recalls its own statement upon signature confirmed upon ratification:

[For the text of the statement, see under "Reservations and Declarations".]

Finland (13 October 1995):

... "In the view of the Government of Finland the declarations of Egypt raise certain legal questions. Article 26.1 of the Basel Convention prohibits any reservation or exception to the Convention. However, according to article 26.2 a State can, when acceding to the Convention, make declarationsor statements `with a view, inter alia , to the harmonization of its laws and regulations with the provisions of this Convention ...'.

Without taking any stand to the content of the declarations, which appear to be reservations in nature, the Government of Finland refers to article 26.2 of the Basel Convention and notes that the declarations of Egypt have been made too late. For this reason the Government of Finland objects to the declarations and considers them devoid of legal effect."

Italy (13 October 1995):

... The Italian Government objects to the deposit of the aforementioned declarations since, in its opinion, they should be considered as reservations to the Basel Convention and the possibility of making reservations is excluded under article 26, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

In any event, article 26, paragraph 2, stipulates that a State may, within certain limits, formulate declarations only “when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving, ... confirming or acceding to this Convention”.

For these reasons, the deposit of the aforementioned declarations cannot be allowed, regardless of their content.

Netherlands (13 October 1995):

"While the second and the third declarations do not call for observations by the Kingdom, the first declaration establishing the requirement of prior permission for passage through the Egyptian territorial sea is not acceptable.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands considers the first declaration to be a reservation to the (Basel) Convention. The Convention explicitly prohibits the making of reservations in article 26 par. 1. Moreover, this reservation has been made two years after the accession of Egypt to the (Basel) Convention, and therefore too late.

Consequently the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers the declaration on the requirement of prior permission for passage through the territorial sea made by Egypt a reservation which is null and void."

Sweden (16 October 1995):

"The Government of Sweden cannot accept the declarations made by the Government of Egypt [...].

First, these declarations were made almost two years after the accession by Egypt contrary to the rule laid down in article 26, paragraph 2 of the Basel Convention.

Second, the content of the first of these declarations must be understood to constitute a reservation to the Convention, whereas the Basel Convention explicitly prohibits reservations (article 26, paragraph 1).

Thus, the Government of Sweden considers these declarations null and void."

In view of the above and in keeping with the depositary practice followed in such cases, the Secretary-general has taken the view that he is not in a position to accept these declarations for deposit.
9. The German Democratic Republic had signed the Convention on 19 March 1989. See also note 2 under “Germany” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
10. See note 1 under "Montenegro" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.
11. For the Kingdom in Europe.
12. With a declaration of non-application to Tokelau "until the date of notification by the Government of New Zealand that the Convention shall so extend to Tokelau".
13. See note 1 under "former Yugoslavia" and note 1 under "Yugoslavia" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.
14. On 14 September 2007, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland informed the Secretary-General that it "wishes the United Kingdom's ratification of the Convention ... to be extended to Jersey for whose international relations the United Kingdom is responsible.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland considers the extension of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal ... to Jersey to take effect from the date of deposit of this notification , ... ."

"In accordance with Article 5, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the competent authorities designated by the United Kingdom for Jersey are:

Minister for Planning and Environment: Assistant Director, Environmental Protection, Howard Davis Farm, La Rue de la Trinite, Trinity, Jersey JE3 5JP."
15. In respect of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the British Antarctic Territory.

Subsequently, on 30 October 1995, the Government of the the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland notified the Secretary-General that the Convention shall apply to Hong Kong, being a territory for whose international relations the Government of the United Kingdom is responsible.

On 6 July 2001, the Secretary-general received from the Government of Argentina, the following communication:

Following the notification by the Environment Agency of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of the possible transit of a cargo of hazardous wastes, the Government of Argentina rejected the British attempt to apply the above-mentioned Convention to the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, as well as to the surrounding maritime spaces and to the Argentine Antarctic Sector.

The Argentine Republic reaffirms its sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime spaces and rejects any British attempt to apply the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal of 22 March 1989 to the said Territories and maritime spaces.

It also wishes to recall that the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25, which recognize the existence of a dispute over sovereignty and request the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to initiate negotiations with a view to finding the means to resolve peacefully and definitively the pending problems between both countries, including all aspects on the future of the Malvinas Islands, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Further, on 12 December 2001, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland informed the Secretary-General that “the Convention shall extend to the Isle of Man for whose international relations the Government of the United Kingdom is responsible” (on 27 November 2002: designation of authority: Department of Local Government and the Environment, Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SF).

On 27 November 2002: on behalf of the Bailiwick of Guernsey. (designation of authority: “Board of Health, David Hughes, Chief Executive, States of Guernsey Board of Health, John Henry House, Le Vauquiedor, St Martin’s, Guernsey, GY4 6UU).

On 6 September 2006: in respect of Akrotiri and Dhekelia.

"In accordance with Article 5 paragraph 2 of the Convention, the competent authorities designated by the United Kingdom for the Sovereign Base Areas of Dhekelia and Akrotiri are:

Sovereign Base Areas:

Competent Authority for the Western Sovereign Base Area: Area Officer (Mr Kyprianos Matheou), Area Office, Akrotiri, BFPO 57 (telephone 00357 2527 7290).

Competent Authoriy for Eastern Sovereign Base Area: Area Officer (Mr Christakis Athanasiou), Area Office, Dhekelia, BFPO 58 (telephone 00357 2474 4558).

British Forces Cyprus:

Competent Authority: Defence Estates Support Manager (Mr P Pashas), Block D, Headquarters, British Forces Cyprus, Episkopi, BFPO 53 (telephone 00357 2596 2329).

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, United Kingdom, is the focal point for the purposes of Article 5 of the Convention."
16. On 13 March 1996, the Secretary-General received from the Government of the United States of America, the following communication:

"(1) It is the understanding of the United States of America that, as the Convention does not apply to vessels and aircraft that are entitled to sovereign immunity under international law, in particular to any warship, naval auxiliary, and other vessels or aircraft owned or operated by a State and in use on government, non-commercial service, each State shall ensure that such vessels or aircraft act in a manner consistent with this Convention, so far as is practicable and reasonable, by adopting appropriate measures that do not impair the operations or operational capabilities of sovereign immune vessels.

(2) It is the understanding of the United States of America that a State is a 'Transit State' within the meaning of the Convention only if wastes are moved, or are planned to be moved, through its inland waterways, inland waters, or land territory.

(3) It is the understanding of the United States of America that an exporting State may decide that it lacks the capacity to dispose of wastes in an 'environmentally sound and efficient manner' if disposal in the importing country would be both environmentally sound and economically efficient.

(4) It is the understanding of the United States of America that article 9 (2) does not create obligations for the exporting State with regard to cleanup, beyond taking such wastes back or otherwise disposing of them in accordance with the Convention. Further obligations may be determined by the parties pursuant to article 12.

Further, at the time the United States of America deposits its instrument of ratification of the Basel Convention, the United States will formally object to the declaration of any State which asserts the right to require its prior permission or authorization for the passage of vessels transporting hazardous wastes while exercising, under international law, its right of innocent passage through the territorial sea or freedom of navigation in an exclusive economic zone."


This interactive map uses Flash® 8 technologies which are not compatible with iPhones® and iPads®. If you are not using an iPhone® or an iPad®, then you need to upgrade your Flash Player from here.

To view the information presented in this map kindly scroll down to view the Status of Ratifications table on this page.