Ignoring International Environmental Treaties

Who wants toxic waste dumped in their neighborhood? How about a chemical dump leaking toxic chemicals into the soil near your local playground and into your groundwater supply? Raise your hands, please.

We want the latest technology, cheap electricity, and the convenience of disposable cleaning supplies, but we don’t like the consequences that come from fulfilling such demands. The Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) defense is a powerful force behind dumping hazardous material from developed countries in poor countries. The cost to the environment, human health, and public opinion, however, can be high. How high became clear in the 1980s when the extent of toxic dumping in Africa and other poor countries became well known. The worldwide reaction was, predictably, outrage.

What followed was the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes. Its stated goal is “to protect human health and the environment against the adverse effects of hazardous wastes.” The United States signed the agreement, but it hasn’t been ratified by the U.S. Senate. This means the U.S. isn’t legally bound to comply with the terms.

This doesn’t mean the U.S. is ignoring the principles of the agreement or any other environmental treaty awaiting ratification, according to Maria Ivanova, associate professor in the Department of Conflict Resolution, Human Security, and Global Governance at the University of Massachusetts Boston. Of the 1,100 multilateral environmental agreements in place, only 12 of them are international in nature, and the U.S. has yet to ratify most of them, she says.

“(If) you look at what the United States is doing domestically, it has most of these laws in some variant,” says Ivanova. “For example, the United States has not signed onto the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, but it has incredibly well developed domestic legislation that pretty much puts all of these requirements in place. It just has not ratified because the government at that time said, ‘We will not accept the provisions of a supra-national body telling us which chemicals to regulate.’ The U.S. often uses that exact rationale to say it won’t ratify a convention.”

An additional reason is that these treaties are perceived as burdensome, another layer of unnecessary regulations. Ivanova calls this a misconception that disregards an important point.

“They level the playing field by allowing all countries to pursue the same goals,” she says. “They’re actually ensuring other countries will have the kinds of regulation and legislation that the United States has.”

Young boys’ hands sift through broken CRT glass on the road from Alaba International Market, one of the largest markets for electronic goods in West Africa. The road, which passes the waste dump at the market, is covered with this glass. Old and broken electronic goods such as TVs and computers come in to the market via Lagos harbor from the U.S., Western Europe and China.
Photo courtesy of ©Greenpeace / Kristian Buus

The Making of a Treaty

An international governing body, such as the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), identifies an emerging environmental concern and brings together scientists to explore and clarify the problems. If the threat is real, the scientists make recommendations designed to help governments create regulations and legislation to respond at the national and international level. A treaty—which can be called a convention, protocol or called a host of other names—is “an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law,” per the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. These environmental agreements usually have a core provision or obligation for the creation of national legislation, regulation, and a plan of implementation. All countries are invited to sign, but the terms can’t be legally enforced. Even though there’s no mechanism for reward or punishment, most countries signing do participate, according to Ivanova.