Home Page

1For 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 October 1999, the 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.

4On 9 March 2020, the Secretary-General received a notification from Canada in accordance with article 18 (2) (b) of the Convention relating to the amendments to annexes II, VIII and IX circulated by depositary notification C.N.432.2019.TREATIES-XXVII.3 of 24 September 2019. (See C.N.92.2020.TREATIES-XXVII.3 of 10 March 2020 for the notification.)

Subsequently, on 29 December 2020, Canada notified the Secretary-General of its acceptance of the amendments to Annexes II, VIII and IX to the Convention. (See C.N.573.2020.TREATIES-XXVII.3 of 29 December 2020 for the notification.)



On 23 March 2020, the Secretary-General received a notification from China in accordance with article 18 (2) (b) of the Convention relating to the amendments to annexes II, VIII and IX circulated by depositary notification C.N.432.2019.TREATIES-XXVII.3 of 24 September 2019. (See C.N.115.2020.TREATIES-XXVII.3 of 27 March 2020 for the notification.)

Subsequently, on 10 December 2020, China notified the Secretary-General of its acceptance of the amendments to Annexes II, VIII and IX to the Convention with the following declaration:

In accordance with the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China and the Basic Law of the Macao Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, the Government of the People’s Republic of China decides that the above amendments apply to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Macao Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

(See C.N.555.2020.TREATIES-XXVII.3 of 11 December 2020 for the notification.)



On 24 March 2020, the Secretary-General received a notification from Turkey in accordance with article 18 (2) (b) of the Convention relating to the amendments to annexesII, VIII and IX circulated by depositary notification C.N.432.2019.TREATIES-XXVII.3 of 24 September 2019. (See C.N.109.2020.TREATIES-XXVII.3 of 25 March 2020 for the notification.)

Subsequently, on 10 February 2022, Turkey notified the Secretary-General of its acceptance of the amendments to Annexes II, VIII and IX to the Convention. (See C.N.51.2022.TREATIES-XXVII-3 of 14 February 2022.)

5On 14 November 2024, the Secretary-General received a notification from Canada in accordance with article 18 (2) (b) of the Convention relating to the amendments to annexes II, VIII and IX circulated by depositary notification C.N.220.2014.TREATIES-XXVII.3 of 1 July 2024. (See C.N.467.2024.TREATIES-XXVII.3 of 15 November 2024 for the notification.)

6 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".

7 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.

8 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.

9 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.

10 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.

11 The German Democratic Republic had signed the Convention on 19 March 1990.  See also note 2 under “Germany” in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.

12 See note 1 under "Montenegro" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.

13For the Kingdom in Europe.

14 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".

15See note 1 under "former Yugoslavia" and note 1 under "Yugoslavia" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume.

16 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."

   

On 14 September 2007, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britainand 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."    

   

On 11 April 2013: "… the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland wishes the United Kingdom’s  ratification of the Convention as amended be extended to the territory of Gibraltar 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 aforesaid Convention as amended to Gibraltar to take effect on the ninetieth day after the date of deposit of this notification ..."

   

On 6 May 2015: In accordance with Article 5 paragraph 2 of the Convention, the Government of the United Kingdom declares that for the Isle of Man the competent authority shall be:

Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture

The Slieau Whallian

Foxdale Road

St Johns

Isle of Man

IM4 3AS

17 On 1 November 2013, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Spain the following communication with regard to the Territorial Application by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to Gibraltar:

1. Gibraltar is a Non-Self-Governing Territory for whose international relations the Government of the United Kingdom is responsible and which is subject to a process of decolonization in accordance with the relevant decisions and resolutions of the General Assembly.

2. The Gibraltarian authorities are local in character, and exercise competences exclusively over internal affairs that originate in and are based on the powers allocated to and conferred on them by the United Kingdom, in accordance with its domestic legislation and in its capacity as the sovereign State upon which depends the said Non-Self-Governing Territory.

3. Consequently, any involvement by the Gibraltarian authorities in the implementation of this Convention shall be understood to take place exclusively within the framework of the internal affairs of Gibraltar and shall not be considered to affect in any way the content of the two preceding paragraphs.

4. The procedure envisaged in the Arrangements relating to Gibraltar authorities in the context of Mixed Agreements, which was agreed by Spain and the United Kingdom on 19 December 2007 (together with "Agreed Arrangements relating to Gibraltar authorities in the context of European Union and European Community Instruments and Related Treaties" of 19 April 2000) applies to the present Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Basel, 22 March 1989) and to the Amendment to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and theirDisposal (Geneva, 22 September 1995).

5. The implementation of the present Convention and the Amendment thereto in Gibraltar cannot be interpreted as recognition of any rights or situations involving matters not included in Article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht of 13 July 1713, signed by the crowns of Spain and Great Britain.

18 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."