Legal Analysis of the Consequences of the OECD Non-Consensus Determination on the Basel Plastic Amendment

The document argues that because the OECD failed to reach consensus on the Basel Plastic Amendments, plastic wastes classified as "other wastes" (Annex II) have fallen outside the scope of the OECD Wastes Trade Decision. Consequently, OECD members that are parties to the Basel Convention must apply Basel's prior informed consent (PIC) and ban mechanisms to these wastes. The analysis further concludes that recent arrangements between the US and Canada, and the EU's Waste Shipment Regulation, are invalid as Article 11 agreements because they do not provide an equivalent level of environmental protection and control to the Basel Convention.

• The OECD's inability to reach consensus on the Basel Plastic Amendments means that plastic wastes designated as "other wastes" under the Basel Convention are no longer covered by the OECD Wastes Trade Decision.
• OECD members that are parties to the Basel Convention and have not objected to the Plastic Amendments are legally required to apply Basel control and ban mechanisms to the trade of these wastes with both Basel parties and non-parties.
• The 2019 Basel Plastic Amendments significantly narrowed the scope of non-hazardous plastic waste (B3011) that can be traded without prior informed consent, requiring such waste to be almost contamination-free, unmixed (with limited exceptions), and destined specifically for recycling (R3 operation).
• The 2020 arrangement between the United States and Canada for trading plastic wastes is considered invalid as an Article 11 agreement because it is not legally binding and lacks a system for notification, prior informed consent, or tracking.
• The EU Waste Shipment Regulation (WSR) is deemed an invalid Article 11 agreement because it allows free trade of certain plastic wastes (such as PVC and PTFE) and mixtures that Basel requires to be controlled, and it permits waste to be destined for a broader range of "recovery" operations, including burning for fuel, rather than just recycling.

APA

Azoulay, D., & Eisen, N. (n.d.). Legal Analysis of the Consequences of the OECD Non-Consensus Determination on the Basel Plastic Amendment. Center for International Environmental Law. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/OECD_Basel_Legal-Analysis_FINAL.pdf

Chicago

Azoulay, David, and Nathaniel Eisen. Legal Analysis of the Consequences of the OECD Non-Consensus Determination on the Basel Plastic Amendment. Center for International Environmental Law, n.d. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/OECD_Basel_Legal-Analysis_FINAL.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Azoulay |first1=David |last2=Eisen |first2=Nathaniel |title=Legal Analysis of the Consequences of the OECD Non-Consensus Determination on the Basel Plastic Amendment |publisher=Center for International Environmental Law |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/OECD_Basel_Legal-Analysis_FINAL.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{azoulayndlegal, author = {Azoulay, David and Eisen, Nathaniel}, title = {{Legal Analysis of the Consequences of the OECD Non-Consensus Determination on the Basel Plastic Amendment}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/OECD_Basel_Legal-Analysis_FINAL.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }