African Studies

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cast20

Toxic waste dumping in the Global South as a form

of environmental racism: Evidence from the Gulf
of Guinea

Ifesinachi Okafor-Yarwood & Ibukun Jacob Adewumi

To cite this article: Ifesinachi Okafor-Yarwood & Ibukun Jacob Adewumi (2020): Toxic waste
dumping in the Global South as a form of environmental racism: Evidence from the Gulf of Guinea,
African Studies, DOI: 10.1080/00020184.2020.1827947

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00020184.2020.1827947

Published online: 14 Oct 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 44

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cast20
AFRICAN STUDIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/00020184.2020.1827947

Toxic waste dumping in the Global South as a form

of environmental racism: Evidence from the Gulf
of Guinea
a b,c
Ifesinachi Okafor-Yarwood * and Ibukun Jacob Adewumi
a
King’s College, London, United Kingdom; bAfrican Marine Environment Sustainability Initiative (AFMESI),
Lagos, Nigeria; cWorld Ocean Council, Honolulu, HI, United States of America

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Toxic waste is chemical compounds that, when ingested or inhaled, Received 1 April 2019
can cause physiological impairment and, in extreme cases, death. It Accepted 6 March 2020
is also known for its detrimental effect on the environment when
KEYWORDS
disposed of in an unsafe manner. Yet, countries in the Gulf of Bamako Convention; Basel
Guinea continue to be targeted by Western waste-brokers Convention; Africa;
notwithstanding the existence of laws prohibiting the environmental justice;
transboundary disposal of such materials. There is also a rise in e-waste
the export of electronic waste (e-waste) from developed countries
to countries in the region, purportedly as reusable electronics,
much of which ends up in landfills. The primitive recycling
techniques of this e-waste undermines the health of the local
populations and their environment due to inadequate care of the
heavy metal and toxin content. Drawing on examples from Côte
d’Ivoire, Nigeria and Ghana, this paper argues that toxic waste
dumping in the Gulf of Guinea amounts to environmental racism.
The article makes recommendations relating to the challenges of
toxic waste dumping in the Gulf of Guinea, including the need
for countries to implement the provisions of the Basel and
Bamako conventions in their entirety, recognise acts of
environmental racism as violations of human rights, and for
young people to rise to the occasion as ‘agents of change’.

Introduction
There is no universally agreed definition for toxic waste. The inconsistency in the
definition creates a loophole in the classifications of what constitutes toxic or hazardous
waste, thereby making it difficult to measure and monitor the actual volume of the toxic
waste trade, especially in developing countries (Klenovšek & Meško 2011; Lambrechts
& Hector 2016; Ovink 1995; Saxena & Gupta 2009). Fisher provides a detailed definition
of toxic waste, noting that it is a combination of waste that, by nature of its quality,
and physical and chemical characteristics, can:
(a) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in the mortality or an increase in serious
irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; or (b) pose a substantial present or potential

CONTACT Ifesinachi Okafor-Yarwood imoy1@st-andrews.ac.uk

*Present address: University of St Andrews, United Kingdom.
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group, on behalf of the University of Witwatersrand
2 I. OKAFOR-YARWOOD AND I. ADEWUMI

hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or
disposed of, or otherwise managed (Fisher 1980, 422).

Fisher’s definition captures and highlights the environmental, as well as the physiologi-
cal, implications of toxic waste. In this article, toxic waste dumping is understood to be the
transboundary export of often illegal, hazardous waste by developed and industrialised
countries to developing countries (Ajibo 2016, 267–8).
Incidences of toxic waste dumping in developing countries, such as those in the Gulf of
Guinea, highlight the lack of capacity of governments to monitor the import of such waste
into their countries. However, such incidences have also been described by some scholars
as a form of environmental racism and/or toxic terrorism (Bullard 2002; Gbadegesin 2001;
Iadicola & Shupe 2003; Park 1998; Sende 2010), toxic colonialism and garbage imperialism
(Marbury 1995), and environmental injustice (Martinez-Alier et al. 2016; Laurent 2010;
Pellow, et al. 2002, Turner & Wu 2002) with a human rights undertone (Madava 2001;
Mmadu 2013).
Defining environmental racism Benjamin Chavis observes that it involves:
Racial discrimination in environmental policymaking and enforcement of regulations and
laws, the deliberate targeting of communities of colour for toxic waste facilities, the official
sanctioning of the presence of life-threatening poisons and pollutants for communities of
color (Chavis 1994, xi-xii).

Though Chavis’ position characterises the situation in the United States during the civil
rights era, nonetheless it is useful for understanding the contemporary cases of toxic
waste dumping in developing countries, such as those on the African continent. The
Western waste-brokers sometimes conceal the content of such waste without regard
for the physiological and environmental impact of their actions. As Rozelia Park (1998)
observes, Western governments and corporations generate hazardous waste in their
countries as by-products of manufacturing and pay less-developed countries to dispose
of said waste. The shipment of this hazardous waste from developed to developing
countries, it can be argued, amounts to environmental racism on an international scale.
While controversial, and indeed open to criticism, the fact that overzealous Western
waste-brokers specifically target developing countries in breach of international regu-
lations on the transboundary movement and disposal of toxic waste (Gbadegesin 2001;
Greenpeace & Amnesty International 2012; Koné 2014; UNODC 2009) encapsulates the
aptness of the views of Chavis and Park on the discriminatory nature of the practice.
The dumping of toxic waste in the Global South is also made possible by the active collu-
sion of government officials and local stakeholders (Nmadu 2013; Rucevska et al. 2015).
Poor government regulations have made countries in the region an attractive option
for exporters of hazardous waste from the Global North (Sende 2010).
Contributing to the argument, David Pellow, Adam Weinberg and Alan Schnaiberg
(2002) note that most of the existing research on environmental racism emphasises
legal aspects without paying attention to the driving forces behind the waste trade.
They go on to identify two factors that have contributed to the shift in the transportation
of hazardous waste to countries in the Global South (Pellow et al. 2002). First, they note
that the introduction of more stringent environmental regulations in nations in the Global
North has increased the cost of waste treatment and disposal, which has driven waste-
brokers to look to developing countries where the cost is cheaper. Second, the need
 AFRICAN STUDIES 3

for fiscal relief, rooted in a long history of colonialism and contemporary loan arrange-
ments between developing and developed countries, has led to officials in developing
countries accepting financial compensation in exchange for permission to dump toxic
waste within their borders. This practice has been described as toxic colonialism by envir-
onmentalists and African leaders (Pellow et al. 2002).
These explanations hold true for the case studies reviewed in this article. The intro-
duction of stringent environmental regulations in the United States and Europe, and the
willingness of officials in West and Central African countries to accept waste without
knowing its true content, in exchange for millions of dollars, has led to an increase
in transboundary transportation of hazardous waste into the region. Robert Bullard
affirms that such transboundary shipment of hazardous waste and ‘risky technologies’
from countries like the United States, where regulations and laws are more stringent,
to nations with weaker infrastructure and regulations, demonstrates a high degree of
duplicity (Bullard 2004). The unequal interests and power arrangements described
above have seemingly allowed the toxins of the rich to be offered as short-term ‘reme-
dies’ for the poverty of the poor, and sometimes this harmful waste is disguised as
unharmful. The disingenuous and lucrative nature of the transnational waste trade is
considered in this article as part of the reason for the continued moves by these
‘foreign powers’ to resist agitations for environmental justice by local and international
non-governmental organisations (NGOs), indigenous environmental movements, and
pressure groups (for example, the movement of the survival of the Ogoni people)
(Pellow et al. 2002).
This article proceeds to present an historical overview of toxic waste dumping and
includes case studies of contemporary incidents from across the Gulf of Guinea. It also
reviews the provisions of the Basel Convention in terms of managing the transboundary
movement of hazardous waste, including the ban of the import into Africa and the control
of transboundary movement and management of hazardous waste within Africa (Bamako
Convention) that followed. The article concludes with recommendations on the need for
implementing the provisions of the Basel and Bamako conventions to end the cycle of
indiscriminate dumping of hazardous waste in the region.

Methodology
This article draws on expert experiences and a review of scholarly literature, including
regional and international regulations on transboundary movement and disposal of
toxic waste, such as the Bamako and Basel conventions.1 Given the clandestine nature
of the toxic waste industry, the article also analyses documentary evidence from newspa-
per articles and publications by international NGOs such as the United Nations Environ-
mental Program (UNEP) and Amnesty International, as well as documents from
advocates of local organisations about environmental issues in the Gulf of Guinea
region. While the Gulf of Guinea region has been defined more broadly to include
coastal states stretching from Senegal to Angola (Okafor-Yarwood 2015), as represented
in Figure 1, the region is defined as coastal states within the Guinea Current Large Marine
Ecosystem stretching from the Bijagos Islands (Guinea-Bissau) through Cape Lopez
(Gabon) to Angola (Chukwuone, Ukwe, Onugu & Ibe 2009; Regional Project Coordinating
Centre 2003).
4 I. OKAFOR-YARWOOD AND I. ADEWUMI

Figure 1. Gulf of Guinea countries, each with their exclusive economic zone highlighted.
Sources: Flanders Marine Institute 2019; Natural Earth 2020.

This article draws on ideas from three academic disciplines, namely environmental
justice (in respect to ethics and politics), environmental history and anthropology. Ideas
from environmental justice are applied to evaluate and discuss the inequitable distri-
bution of environmental ills (Schlosberg 2001) and the subsequent environmental
racism that poor people in the case study countries endure. Environmental history
ideas are engaged to explore the roots of environmental racism in the Gulf of Guinea
region and to provide epistemological insight into the evolution of discriminatory ideol-
ogies. Finally, cultural relativist perspective and anthropological concepts are applied to
envision a world view of environmental racism involving victims and perpetrators. This
follows the recognition by the European Association of Social Anthropologists (2015)
that it is misleading to rank these different views on a scale because societies are quali-
tatively different from one another and have their unique inner logic. In the same vein,
anthropological ideas are also employed to highlight the importance of a healthy environ-
ment and ecosystem to provide services to indigenous people – what Danielle Darmofal
(2012) refers to as acknowledging the deep ancestral and cultural roots disrupted during
the periods of relentless environmental racism.
The article employs a case study approach with particular emphasis on the cross-case
research method which enables the authors to contrast toxic waste dumping situations
across these different case studies and to draw informed conclusions based on these com-
parisons. According to Samia Khan and Robert VanWynsberghe (2008), the cross-case
approach is a research method that allows for the production of new knowledge about
a specific research interest by comparing and contrasting between two or more individual
case studies. Unlike a single case study that is limited in its scope, a cross-case research
approach proves to be more representative of the issues of interest (Ruzzene 2014). This
 AFRICAN STUDIES 5

method has been applied extensively in social science research (Gerring 2013). The authors
analyse case studies from Nigeria, Ghana, and the Côte d’Ivoire to investigate the extent to
which the dumping of toxic waste in the Gulf of Guinea region might represent a form of
environmental racism. This approach appears appropriate for this study since, according to
contemporary scholarly works on environmental justice, there is a growing movement
away from a variable-centred approach towards a case-based approach (Cock & Fig
2000; Darmofal 2012; Nmadu 2013; UNEP 2018b; Vani, Bhaumik, Nandan & Siddiqui 2017).
Several limitations of the case study approach have been highlighted (Devare 2015;
Gerring 2013), including investigators often believing that they have full knowledge of
the study area, whereas knowledge is always partial. However, compensating for this
limitation is the fact that the authors of this article are from the Gulf of Guinea region
and have done extensive socio-economic and ecological research therein. Therefore,
this article is logically set out to fulfil the three phases of a case study approach as high-
lighted by Suresh Devare (2015):

1) Retrospective phase: this entails going through the historical records of illegal
dumping of toxic waste in the case studies and diagnosing any environmental
racism therein.
2) Prospective phase: refers to the current situations surrounding toxic waste dumping
and helps with understanding the scale of the physiological and environmental
impact of the issue under study.
3) Consecutive phase: proffering suggestions and remediation concerning future
development and containment of the illegal toxic waste dumping aberration in the
case studies.

This three-phase approach as indicated above also corroborates the environmental

justice framework suggested in Pellow et al. (2002). It emphasises four significant
points: 1) the importance of process and history; 2) the impact of social stratification
such as institutional racism and classism; 3) the role of multiple stakeholder relationships;
and 4) the ability of those actors with the least access to resources to resist toxins and
other hazards.
Furthermore, some of the limitations of the documentary analysis used in this article
include biased selectivity, low retrievability and insufficient details (Bowen 2009, 31–2;
Yin 2009). However, as Bowen observes, these are potential concerns a researcher
should be aware of, rather than significant limitations (Bowen 2009, 32). The researcher,
as an analyst, must decide the suitability of the documents to the subject under study. If
done appropriately, Bowen adds, the documentary analysis allows for the production of
empirical knowledge and a greater understanding of the subject under investigation
(Bowen 2009, 33).
The focus on the Gulf of Guinea is appropriate given that the region is overwhelmed by
a series of threats which undermine the environment. This includes pollution from the oil
companies operating in the region undermining the sustainability of both the marine
environment and agricultural land (Okafor-Yarwood 2018; Oshwofasa, Anuta & Aiyedog-
bon 2012). Toxic waste acts as an additional stressor by threatening the health of local
communities directly and by undermining biodiversity (Ali, Pervaiz, Afzal, Hamid
& Yasmin 2014; Thompson 2012).
6 I. OKAFOR-YARWOOD AND I. ADEWUMI

Therefore, this paper posits that the physiological and environmental effects of the con-
tinued trade (legal or illegal) in toxic waste are detrimental to the environmental security of
countries in the region and, by extension, will impede efforts to ensure sustainable devel-
opment across the region. It also argues that the manner in which waste-brokers from the
Global North take advantage of countries in the Global South amounts to environmental
racism. The article draws on ideas from environmental justice, environmental history,
and anthropology, and shines a light on the culture of non-disclosure that is inherent in
the toxic waste trade. It thereby contributes to debates on environmental racism, its
impact on communities, and the understanding of process and history as advocated in
Pellow’s conceptualisation of environmental justice case study research (Pellow 2000).

An historical overview of toxic waste dumping and case studies from

across the Gulf of Guinea
The transboundary shipment of hazardous waste from developed to developing countries
is extensive and has been continuing for decades (Clapp 1994; Koné 2014) However, it
was not until the 1980s that toxic waste dumping on the African continent by European
and American companies gained global prominence (Alao 1998). The United States began
regulating domestic movements of hazardous waste in 1976 with the passing of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, explicitly designed to control the ‘collection,
transport, separation, recovery, and disposal practices and systems’ of hazardous waste
(EPA 1976).
Europe also had early legislation dealing with the waste trade. Specifically, the Euro-
pean Commission issued directives in 1975 and 1978, much like those of the United

Figure 2. The Gulf of Guinea, with the exclusive economic zone and case study countries highlighted.
Sources: Flanders Marine Institute 2019; Natural Earth 2020.
 AFRICAN STUDIES 7

States, to prevent harm to human health and the environment (Pratt 2011; Simonsson
1994, 3). Stringent measures were required before any material deemed to be toxic
could be disposed of, making it more expensive to dispose of toxic waste within the con-
trolled regions. Safety laws in Europe and America, aimed at managing the precarious
impact of the unethical disposal of toxic waste, pushed up the cost of its ethical disposal
to an estimated USD2 500 per tonne. Waste-brokers turned their attention to the closest
unprotected shores where corrupt practices were also rife (Brooke 1988). Countries in the
Gulf of Guinea willing to receive this waste were offered as little as USD3 per tonne. These
countries do not have the facilities to enable the safe disposal of hazardous and toxic
waste, moreover, the true contents of the waste are almost always unknown to them
(Udeze 2009, 169).
The level of non-disclosure associated with toxic waste across the Gulf of Guinea region
was such that the receiving countries were ignorant of the poisonous contents of the
waste deposits. According to Abiodun Alao (1998), from 1987 to 1988 thousands of
tonnes of toxic waste were deposited in Nigeria without the consent or knowledge of
the Nigerian government. The local people contracted to dispose of the waste were
also unaware of the contents of such waste. Shrouded in deceit and coupled with the
lack of adequate facilities in ports across the region, by the end of 1988 toxic waste
had been dumped in the Benin Republic, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Nigeria and Togo, mas-
terminded by European subcontractors or countries (Alam 2008; Alao 1998). In 1988, for
example, an estimated 4 000 tonnes of toxic waste, disguised as non-explosive, non-radio-
active and non-self-combusting chemicals, were dumped in the Koko Delta State of
Nigeria. An Italian importer paid Sunday Nana a paltry USD100 per month in exchange
for storing such waste at his property. According to Nana, the contents of the drums
were not disclosed to him, and he later found that the supposed non-toxic waste was,
in fact, extremely poisonous. Although the waste was subsequently removed, the
environmental impact and damage to human health had already been felt (Alao 1998;
Brooke 1988).
There are other examples across the Gulf of Guinea, which, like the Koko incident,
have resulted in the loss of lives and depletion of the environment. It goes without
saying that the governments of the respective countries in the region have played
a major role in encouraging these practices. These governments are sometimes lured
by the prospect of generating revenue. There is, moreover, a lack of monitoring
equipment in ports, which makes it impossible to detect waste disguised as non-
harmful materials.
The case of Equatorial-Guinea makes for a useful example. As far back as 1988, Presi-
dent Teodoro Obiang Nguema approved a plan by a British company to store 10
million drums of toxic waste on the small island of Annobon (Brooke 1988). The United
States based firm, Axim Consortium Group of New York City, were also implicated in
the brokering of this agreement. The agreement involved the renting of 200 hectares
of land on the island with the intention of using the land to bury waste. Obiang’s govern-
ment received a down payment of USD1.6 million for the contract which was expected to
expire in 1997 (Koné 2014). However, following diplomatic and media outcries and objec-
tions by Nigeria due to the possible environmental and physiological implications arising
from the proximity of the two countries, the contract was said to have been suspended by
the parties (Wood 2004).
8 I. OKAFOR-YARWOOD AND I. ADEWUMI

In 1994, the Swiss press reported that Obiang’s government had made an estimated
USD200 million from a deal involving the disposal of toxic chemicals and radioactive
waste on the island of Annobon by Western waste-brokers. In the 1990s, a military block-
ade was imposed on the island. While access to foreign visitors was restricted, an eyewit-
ness account from a visiting German agronomist noted that there were indications that
radioactive materials were being stored on the coast of the island (Scafidi 2015, 178;
Wood 2004). Although there are very few accounts available about the situation on
Annobon in the 1990s, the existing evidence points to increased physiological problems
among the inhabitants, such as leukaemia, ulcers and abscesses, as well as widespread
malnutrition. Equally worth mentioning is the possible impact of the waste on the
island’s fauna and flora (Scafidi 2015, 178; Wood. 2004). It follows that, contrary to pre-
vious reports that the agreement was suspended due to objections by Nigeria, the discov-
ery in 1994 of the above facts is evidence that the disposal of toxic waste did indeed go
ahead on Annobon. What is unknown, however, is whether the actual content of the
waste was made known to the Obiang government by the American waste-brokers.
These historical cases resulted in a global outcry and brought about the adoption of
the 1989 Basel Convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous
waste and, subsequently, the Bamako Convention in 1991 on the prohibition of the
import into Africa of any hazardous (including radioactive) waste. However, as the con-
temporary example of illegal dumping of toxic waste in Côte d’Ivoire and the rise in
the export of e-waste from developed countries to Nigeria and Ghana shows, the cycle
of deceit and the indiscriminate dumping of hazardous waste in poor and indigenous
communities persists.

Côte d’Ivoire and toxic non-disclosure by Trafigura

In 2006, an Ivorian businessman entered into an agreement with Trafigura, a European-
based multinational company. The deal allowed the company access to some sites on
the Ivorian coast to dump waste, which they claimed to have identified as non-toxic.
What is unique about this example is that Trafigura only decided to dump its waste in
Côte d’Ivoire after being unwilling to pay the high cost quoted by a European country
for treating and properly disposing of the toxic waste (Koné 2014). The waste was first
transported to the Netherlands, where it would have cost an estimated EUR500 000 to
treat and dispose of the toxic materials appropriately. However, unwilling to pay these
costs, the company looked to West Africa. Following various inquiries, Trafigura success-
fully negotiated a deal with a subcontractor in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, who was willing to
dispose of the waste for a mere EUR18 500. This amount is approximately 3.7 per cent of
the cost quoted in the Netherlands to dispose of the waste adequately (Gregson & Crang
2015; Margai & Barry 2011).
Trafigura’s actions display a strong element of environmental racism in that the
company concealed the truth about the content of the waste to dispose of it in Côte
d’Ivoire. This was done without any apparent care about the potentially damaging
effect on the poor and indigenous communities there. Confirming the purported non-
toxic nature of the waste, an excerpt from an email by Trafigura to the Ivorian government
reads, ‘this is not very hazardous in the overall scheme of things, a bit of caustic in some
water with a trace of gasoline’ (BBC 2009). Trafigura was unwilling to pay the high cost for
 AFRICAN STUDIES 9

proper disposal of the waste in the Netherlands and instead chose to come to Côte
d’Ivoire to dispose of it unethically. As Sebastian Knauer, Thilo Thielke and Gerald Traufet-
ter (2006) write, ‘Europe would not take the ship’s stinking, poisonous cargo, so it sailed to
the [Gulf of Guinea] and dumped the toxic mess into a [Côte d’Ivoire] lagoon’.
Though the true content of the waste was not disclosed, there is ample evidence of
loopholes in the Ivorian waste management system. The sub-contractor paid to
dispose of the waste was able to dump it in over twelve locations without any confronta-
tion with the authorities (UNEP 2018b). Trafigura was able to dump its waste in the
country because, unlike the Netherlands, the Côte d’Ivoire did not have the human
resources or facilities in their port to test for toxicity. Also, corruption might have
played a part because members of the family of the ousted president, Laurent Gbagbo,
are alleged to have held shares in Puma Energy, the company contracted to dispose of
the waste (Knauer et al. 2006).
The Ivorian case evinces how a single action can have a devastating and lasting effect
on the environment and the lives of the local population. Specifically, following the illegal
dumping of toxic waste by Trafigura, the United Nations noted that fifteen people died, 69
people were hospitalised, and over 100 000 complained of nausea and vomiting after
inhaling fumes from the waste (UN News 2009). Alongside the health impact, this incident
also created political instability. The local government became overwhelmed by the
demand for medical services, and civil unrest was fomented by the suspicion that
corrupt government officials played a role in the dumping of the waste (Eze 2008).
Also, food security was threatened due to disruptions in agricultural activities caused
by the intensity of the disaster in the affected region (Greenpeace & Amnesty
International 2012).
Furthermore, the level of injustice and disregard for the Ivorian people is intensified by
the fact that the decontamination of sites did not commence until 2008. This delay
resulted in two more years of illness, loss of income, lack of healthcare and environmental
degradation for the people living in Abidjan and its surrounding areas (Udeze 2009; UN
News 2009). As Ibeanu explains, while the full extent of the effects of the Trafigura
waste dumping might never be known, there seems to be substantial prima facie evi-
dence that the reported deaths and adverse health consequences were directly related
to the dumping of the waste (UN News 2009). There also appears to be evidence to
support the claim that diseases new to the areas have been identified. For example,
there are high rates of cancer and a significant amount of cerebral vascular occurrences,
which specialists confirm have only been recorded since the Trafigura incident (Iob 2015).
Twelve years since the incident, a 2018 assessment of the sites by UNEP notes that some
of the affected sites still have high levels of air and groundwater pollution (UNEP 2018b).
With the continued culture of non-disclosure by Western countries and multinational
companies, it remains difficult to keep track of the extent of toxic waste dumping (Pratt
2011) or to put an end to the importation of such waste to the African continent (Barry
& Margai 2011). The situation is further compounded by the fact that many of the receiv-
ing countries often do not have the right equipment or trained personnel to identify the
exact content of the disguised toxic waste arriving at their ports (Margai & Barry 2011).
Furthermore, as the ensuing examples will show, the quest for economic revenue by
select countries in the Gulf of Guinea presents a challenge to stemming the tide on the
indiscriminate dumping of toxic waste in the region. In particular, there is an increasing
10 I. OKAFOR-YARWOOD AND I. ADEWUMI

trend in the importation of electronic waste – also known as e-waste – from the global
North into countries like Nigeria and Ghana, despite them not having the facilities for
proper disposal of such waste.

Toxic dumping of e-waste in Nigeria and Ghana

There has been a rise in the import of e-waste – comprising discarded computers, televi-
sion sets, mobile phones, microwave ovens and other such appliances that are past their
useful lives – in the Gulf of Guinea countries (Lepawsky 2015; Needhidasan, Samuel &
Chidambaram 2014; Odeyingbo, Nnorom & Deubzer 2017). According to the United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), each year an estimated 94 000 tonnes of
e-waste worth USD95 million, much of which contains heavy metals and other toxins,
makes its way from Europe and the United States into the region – mainly to Nigeria
and Ghana (UNODC 2009, 55). Still more worrying is the fact that when this waste
arrives in these countries, it is stripped of raw materials mainly by young children
working in ‘poisoned’ landfills. The children inhale the toxic fumes as the electronics
are incinerated. In stack contrast to what is obtainable in countries where this waste orig-
inates, for example in the United Kingdom, electronic waste is required to be appropri-
ately recycled and is barred from incineration and landfills (Doyon 2015; Pratt 2011;
Spaull 2015).
Misguidedly, the importation of e-waste to countries such as Nigeria and Ghana con-
tinues because it generates much needed revenue for the state and is a source of employ-
ment and income for the poor and most vulnerable people in these countries (Doyon
2015; Grant & Oteng-Ababio 2012; Mcintire 2015; Oteng-Ababio 2012). In Nigeria, for
example, e-waste generates jobs and income for many, so much so that a good percen-
tage of the imported waste ends up at the Ikeja computer village in Lagos. However, the
employment and income opportunities are far outweighed by the negative impacts.
Working conditions include the handling of toxic materials, exposure to dangerous
vapours by way of uncontrolled burning, and disassembling and disposal of non-reusable
components that cause health and environmental problems (Doyon 2015; Pellow 2007).
Moreover, discriminating between dumping and legitimate export for reuse can be
challenging, given that the country of destination uses a fraction of the reusable items.
The fact that Western companies knowingly export their e-waste to these countries claim-
ing them to be reusable electronics reinforces the culture of non-disclosure and secrecy
that is inherent in the toxic waste industry and points to the extent of environmental
racism towards poor and indigenous people in the Global South. The spate of e-waste
dumping in Nigeria is such that each month, an estimated 500 container loads, each car-
rying 500 000 of used electronic devices, many of which are beyond use and/or unsal-
vageable, enter Nigeria’s port from the United States, Europe and Asia (Lawal 2019;
Iwenwanne 2019). These unusable electronics end up being disassembled, sent to
landfills and then burnt, leading to the release of dangerous chemicals, such as
mercury and lead, into the atmosphere, soil and water sources (Mcintire 2015). The
burning of e-waste immediately pollutes the air and harms water and soil. This has
a domino effect on food supplies, animals and future land use (Kaplan 2014; Spaull 2015).
The narrative is replicated in Ghana, where a study led by the UNEP e-waste Africa
project found that around 15 per cent of second-hand electronics imported into the
 AFRICAN STUDIES 11

country in 2009 were unsellable and thus considered e-waste (Amoyaw-Osei, Agyekum,
Pwamang, Mueller, Fasko & Schluep 2011). A prominent site where most of this
e-waste ends up is called Agbogbloshie in Accra, which is near the Odaw River and
Korle Lagoon, and a settlement for an estimated 80 000 slum dwellers, most of whom sca-
venge the site for subsistence (Kaplan 2014). Once a wetland and local playground, the
area has been converted to what locals call ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’ (Adjei 2014),
serving as a landfill for unsalvageable e-waste from Europe and America.
While some of the young men who scavenge the dumpsites for reusable materials
derive a modicum of economic benefit from doing so, the negative implications on
their physiological health and the environment are irreparable and therefore not worth
the risk (Kaplan 2014; Mcintire 2015; Oteng-Ababio 2012). The fallout of the dumping
of e-waste is too high a price to pay for the residents of Agbogbloshie. In particular,
between 40 000 to 250 000 people around the scrapyard face varying degrees of elevated
environmental health risks (Grant & Oteng-Ababio 2016). These people also face unu-
sually high contamination because a fresh food market is located near the e-waste site.
What is more, e-waste in the site is blamed for blocking the waterways and aggravating
the June 2015 flood that resulted in the deaths of more than 175 people in Ghana’s
capital, Accra (Mcintire 2015).
Developed countries in Europe and America continue to enjoy the benefits and profits
of their electronic products with very little burden relating to the cost of their disposal.
Countries in the Gulf of Guinea continue to be the desired destination for the disposal
of this e-waste and are subsequently bearing the brunt of the health and environmental
consequences of derelict and hazardous e-waste (Doyon 2015). The implications are
worse for the most vulnerable populations since waste in many of these countries is
dumped in areas where the most impoverished populations are most likely to experience
the deadliest consequences (Iadicola & Shupe 2003). In the long run, the continued dis-
posal of e-waste from developed countries into Nigeria and Ghana will result in more
deaths, severe long-term environmental and health problems and, potentially, public dis-
order with no implications for the exporting countries (UNODC 2009).

Managing transboundary movement of hazardous waste, the Basel

Convention and beyond
Concerned about the increasing incidence of the indiscriminate disposal of toxic waste
across developing countries, the Basel Convention was held in 1989 and entered into
force in 1992. Its core objective is to control the illegal transboundary movement of
toxic waste (Pratt 2011, 593–595; UNEP & Basel Secretariat 2007). As of 2017, 186 countries
were party to the Convention and 56 had ratified it (Basel Secretariat, n.d.). Although the
Convention is commended for attempting to limit the impending peril of developing
countries being reduced to dump sites by Western countries, there are some loopholes
that toxic waste traders continue to utilise to advance their profits (Chaytor & Manek
2003, 31–48). A classic example of the exploitation of such a loophole is in the case of
the United States. Unlike most industrialised nations who have ratified the Basel
Convention, the United States has not, which makes it impossible for federal agencies
to prevent the export of toxic waste to non-party states (Lipman, n.d.). The implication
is that, since the United States happens to be the world’s largest generator of hazardous
12 I. OKAFOR-YARWOOD AND I. ADEWUMI

waste, environmental justice for developing countries, like those in the Gulf of Guinea,
cannot be achieved without its cooperation. In 1996, the United States government
sent a letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations, highlighting four conditions.
One of these conditions notes:
It is the understanding of the United States that the exporting State may decide that it lacks
the capacity to dispose of wastes in an environmentally sound and efficient manner if dispo-
sal in the importing country would be both environmentally sound and economically
efficient (Basel Secretariat, n.d.).

This condition highlights the attitude of the United States, and indeed other developed
countries, on the subject of toxic waste. These countries believe they cannot dispose of
such waste without undermining their immediate environment but are willing to
export the very same waste to developing countries that have less capability to
dispose of such waste. Another loophole that toxic waste traders take advantage of is
the fact that the Basel Convention does not have any enforcement mechanisms for ensur-
ing that toxic waste traders are fully accountable for all damages caused. It also does not
seek to completely ban trade in toxic waste, which makes outcomes even less favourable
for developing countries (Lipman, n.d.). In an attempt to address some of these loopholes,
the third conference of the Basel Convention in 1995 adopted a ban amendment prohi-
biting the transboundary movements of hazardous waste from developed to developing
countries (UNEP 2019).
African governments were unhappy with the provisions of the Basel Convention and
sought to devise a solution to the ongoing disposal of toxic materials in Africa by devel-
oped countries. This resulted in the implementation of the 1991 Bamako Convention
banning the import of hazardous waste into Africa and controlling the transboundary
movement of such waste within the continent; the Convention entered into force in
1998 (Chaytor & Manek 2003; UNEP 1991). The motivation for the Bamako Convention
was the failure of the Basel Convention to prohibit the trade of hazardous waste to less
developed countries and, most importantly, the realisation that many developed
countries were exporting their toxic waste to the African continent (Chaytor & Manek
2003). Specifically, the Bamako Convention does not make any exceptions on hazardous
waste – like those made for radioactive materials by the Basel Convention (UNEP
2018a; 2018c).
Compared to the Basel Convention, which is flexible, the Bamako Convention is
accused of being too rigid (Chaytor & Manek 2003). The Bamako Convention is,
however, more plausible, as it imposes on its signatories that the export of toxic waste
is only allowed on the condition that the state of origin does not have the technical
capacity and facility for disposal, recycling and reprocessing of waste. It also stipulates
that the exportation of toxic waste is allowed on the condition that the receiving
country is capable of disposing of the waste efficiently (UNEP 1991). The Bamako
Convention seems more robust when compared to the Basel Convention, but the
challenge with the former lies in identifying what might be constituted as an adequate
facility for waste disposal.
Notwithstanding the strong provisions and apparent political support, the reality is
that the parties to the Bamako Convention do not seem to have the capability or willing-
ness to implement its provisions. They appear helpless to prevent indiscriminate disposal
 AFRICAN STUDIES 13

of toxic waste in their countries (Pratt 2011). As observed by John Ovink, the huge cost, as
well as the decrease in the number and capacity of disposal sites available in developed
countries, favoured the exportation of toxic waste to developing countries, many of which
lack the technology and/or equipment to monitor activities at landfills or to detect what is
actually being disposed of (Ovink 1995). There also appears to be a general lack of interest
by countries in the Gulf of Guinea, and indeed across the African continent, to ratify the
Bamako Convention. Specifically, compared to the Basel Convention, which most
countries on the continent have ratified, the Bamako Convention has to date attracted
35 signatories and 28 party states, with Nigeria, Ghana and Equatorial Guinea (where
toxic waste incidents are prevalent) included in those that have not ratified the Conven-
tion (African Union 2019; Basel Secretariat n.d.)
It follows that when compared to the Basel Convention, the Bamako Convention
appears to be more stringent, with clear stipulations about the continent’s position on
the importation of toxic waste to member states. However, in its current state the Conven-
tion is useless for addressing the current issues if non-member states – such as Nigeria
and Ghana, which have been identified as the prime destinations for e-waste from
North America and Europe – do not become signatories and/or ratify it (Doyon 2015;
Pratt 2011; Spaull 2015; UNODC 2009, 55).

Recommendations and conclusion

By including examples from Côte d’Ivoire, Nigeria and Ghana, this article shows that
indeed toxic waste dumping in the Gulf of Guinea is not only a form of environmental
injustice but equates to environmental racism. This is based on the fact that, despite
an awareness of the possible physiological and environmental implications of the unethi-
cal disposal of such waste, Western waste-brokers target countries in the region. These
waste-brokers also frequently conceal the real content of the waste without considering
the impact of their actions on indigenous communities. The article has also demonstrated
that, although the Basel and Bamako conventions were instituted with good intentions,
the lack of implementation of their provisions has meant that developing countries
and countries on the African continent continue to be an attractive destination for
toxic waste from Europe and America.
Governments of countries in the Gulf of Guinea must stand against this cycle of exploi-
tation and injustice by developed countries. This would require non-party states such as
Nigeria and Ghana to ratify the Bamako Convention, swiftly followed by the implemen-
tation of its provisions:
[W]ithout any significant enforcement efforts dedicated to the tracking, investigation and
possible prosecution of criminals involved in illegal waste collection, illegal dumping and
related transport activities are likely to grow, as will the associated threats to human
health and environmental security (Rucevska et al. 2015: 8).

Illegal dumping of toxic waste in the Gulf of Guinea has become a significant concern,
necessitating synergy of actions, innovations and strong political will for more positive
results. This article argues that, in the interests of future generations, the governments
of the Gulf of Guinea countries must work towards a more effective implementation of
the recommendations of the 2018 Abidjan Declaration on the Bamako Convention.
14 I. OKAFOR-YARWOOD AND I. ADEWUMI

Primarily, they must remember the justifications for the establishment of the Convention,
including concerns that the Basel Convention:
[W]as merely aimed at the regulation or control, rather than the prohibition, of transboundary
movement of hazardous wastes, contrary to the spirit of the Organization of African Unity
Council of Ministers Council Resolution CM/Res.1153 (XLVIII) which determined that
dumping of hazardous wastes is a crime against Africa (UNEP 2018c).

As part of the implementation of the provisions of the Bamako Convention, party states
must equip their seaports with technologies and trained personnel to detect hazardous
waste that may have been disguised as non-toxic materials. This would also require
strengthening synergies between all the different development stakeholders to foster
support and innovative strategies to overcome the various challenges countries face pro-
tecting their critical ecosystems and people from contamination by hazardous chemicals
and waste.
To address the problem of e-waste, Nigeria and Ghana should also consider instituting
policies that would directly address the problem of importation of e-waste as purportedly
reusable electronics. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learnt from Uganda, which
implemented regulations that strictly banned the importation of used electronics –
mainly computers and computer accessories – in 2010 (Asimwe & Åke 2012; Nuwamanya
2017).
The global community, especially developed countries in the Global North from which
most of the waste originates, must do more to put an end to the disposal of hazardous
waste into the Gulf of Guinea countries. The article recognises the progress made by
the international community in stemming the tide of the transportation of hazardous
waste to developing countries through the introduction of the ban amendment. The
1995 ban amendment entered into force on 5 December 2019 following its ratification
by Croatia, (UNEP 2019), but at the time of writing it was too early to ascertain its effec-
tiveness. Challenges are likely to remain, however, as the international e-waste trade
system continues to facilitate intra-regional trade on the African continent as a way of cir-
cumventing the Basel Convention (Amuzu 2018; Grant & Oteng-Ababio 2012).
The ban amendment does not solve the problem of waste originating from the United
States as it has not yet ratified the Basel Convention and as such is not bound by its pro-
visions. There is an urgent need for an international environmental crime tribunal (comp-
lementary to demands for civil liabilities) to pass appropriate retributive justice on
companies and countries guilty of dumping toxic waste in indigenous communities.
These companies and countries must also be held accountable retrospectively for the
damages caused and should be made to carry out clean-up exercises and provide an
efficient compensation scheme for the affected communities.
Finally, environmental justice requires long-term policy creation and will not respond
to short-term measures (Darmofal 2012). Therefore, there is an urgent need for state
actors and civil society organisations in the Gulf of Guinea to deepen cooperation to
increase integrated and sound management in the fight against toxic waste dumping,
poverty and promoting sustainable development. In West and Central Africa, more
than 64 per cent of people are under the age of 24 (UNFPA 2018). These young people
in the region need to be the architects of their destinies and challenge themselves to
lead efforts to prevent the region from becoming a global ‘septic tank’ for toxic waste.
 AFRICAN STUDIES 15

Following the example of Nigerian students in Italy who learnt about the waste dump in
Koko and reported it to the authorities in the late 1980s, the region’s youths must make
their voices heard and front actions on the ground to get things changed for the better –
because environmental issues and improved livelihoods concern their future.

Note
1. Parts of the central arguments of this paper were presented by Ifesinachi Okafor-Yarwood at
the First International Conference of the African Studies Association of Africa (ASAA), themed
‘African Studies in the 21st Century: Past, Present, and Future’, held in Ibadan, Nigeria in
October 2015.

Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewers of African Studies whose feedback have
improved the manuscript. We also thank (the late) Anthony Davenport for proofreading the
article. We have been privileged to interact with communities across the West and Central
African region who continue to inspire us to contribute to environmental justice issues. We appreci-
ate their insights and lessons that have challenged us to highlight the pervasiveness and impact of
toxic waste dumping in the region.

Notes on contributors
Ifesinachi Okafor-Yarwood a lecturer in the School of Geography and Sustainable Development at
the University of St Andrews and a visiting fellow at the Centre for Strategic Research and Studies,
National Defence College, Abuja, Nigeria. Her research investigates the extent to which unsustain-
able use of the marine environment and the resources therein precipitate conflict and insecurity in
West and Central Africa.
Ibukun Jacob Adewumi is the director of programmes and partnership at the African Marine
Environment Sustainability Initiative, Lagos, Nigeria, and the West Africa liaison officer for the
World Ocean Council. He has over a decade of interdisciplinary research and professional experi-
ence on integrated ocean management, blue economy ocean governance, and climate change
adaptation on a local, regional and global scale. Ibukun holds an Erasmus Mundus joint MSc in mar-
itime spatial planning from the Universities of Venice, Seville, and the Azores, and is an associate
member at the Whitaker Institute for Innovation and Societal Change, National University of
Ireland in Galway. He is currently a member of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change/Nairobi Working Programme specialised expert group on the ocean.

ORCID
Ifesinachi Okafor-Yarwood http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4952-9979
Ibukun Jacob Adewumi http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5468-061X

References
Adjei, Asare. 2014. Life in Sodom and Gomorrah: The World’s Largest Digital Dump <https://www.
theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2014/apr/29/agbogbloshie-accra-
ghana-largest-ewaste-dump>
African Union. 2019. List of Countries Which Have Signed, Ratified/Acceded to the Bamako Convention
on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement and Management
16 I. OKAFOR-YARWOOD AND I. ADEWUMI

of Hazardous Wastes within Africa <https://au.int/sites/default/files/treaties/7774-sl-bamako_

convention_on_the_ban_of_the_import_into_africa_and_the_control_of_transboundary_move
ment_and_management_of_hazardous_wastes_within_africa.pdf>
Ajibo, Kenneth I. 2016. ‘Transboundary Hazardous Wastes and Environmental Justice: Implications
for Economically Developing Countries’. Environmental Law Review 18 (4): 267–283. <http://elj.
sagepub.com/lookup/doi/10.1177/1461452916675538>
Alam, Shawkat. 2008. Sustainable Development and Free Trade: Institutional Approach. Oxford:
Routledge.
Alao, Abiodun. 1998. ‘The Environment and African Security: Implications of Continued Neglect’. In
Africa after the Cold War: The Changing Perspective on Security, edited by Adebayo Oyebade and
Alao Abiodun, 63–90. Asmara: African World Press.
Ali, Syeda Maria, Aroma Pervaiz, Beenish Afzal, Naima Hamid, and Asra Yasmin. 2014. ‘Open
Dumping of Municipal Solid Waste and Its Hazardous Impacts on Soil and Vegetation Diversity
at Waste Dumping Sites of Islamabad City’. Journal of King Saud University – Science 26 (1): 59–
65. doi: 10.1016/j.jksus.2013.08.003
Amoyaw-Osei, Yaw, Obed Opoku Agyekum, John A. Pwamang, Esther Mueller, Raphael Fasko, and
Mathias Schluep. 2011. ‘Ghana E-Waste Country Assessment: SBC e-Waste Africa Project’. <http://
www.basel.int/Portals/4/BaselConvention/docs/eWaste/E-wasteAssessmentGhana.pdf>
Amuzu, David. 2018. ‘Environmental Injustice of Informal E-Waste Recycling in Agbogbloshie-Accra:
Urban Political Ecology Perspective’. Local Environment 23 (6): 603–618. doi: 10.1080/13549839.
2018.1456515
Asiimwe, Edgar Napoleon, and Grönlund Åke. 2012. ‘E-Waste Management in East African
Community’. In Handbook of Research on E-Government in Emerging Economies: Adoption,
E-Participation and Legal Framework, edited by Kelvin Joseph Bwalya and Saul Zulu, 307–327.
1st ed. Hershey: Information Science Reference.
Basel Secretariat. n.d. ‘Parties to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements
of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal’ <http://www.basel.int/Countries/StatusofRatifications/
PartiesSignatories/tabid/4499/Default.aspx>
BBC. 2009. ‘Trafigura Knew of Waste Dangers’. BBC, 16 September. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/
programmes/newsnight/8259765.stm>
Bowen, Glenn A. 2009. ‘Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method’. Qualitative Research
Journal 9 (2): 27–40. <http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/10.3316/QRJ0902027>
Brooke, James. 1988. ‘Waste Dumpers Turning to West Africa’, New York Times, 17 September.
<http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/17/world/waste-dumpers-turning-to-west-africa.html?
pagewanted=all>
Bullard, Robert D. 2002. ‘Confronting Environmental Racism in the Twenty-First Century’. Global
Dialogue 4 (1): 1–17. <https://search.proquest.com/docview/211519773?accountid=6724>
Bullard, Robert D. 2004. ‘Environment and Morality: Confronting Environmental Racism in the
United States’. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development <https://www.unrisd.
org/unrisd/website/document.nsf/(httpPublications)/543B2B250E64745280256B6D005788F7?
OpenDocument6B3C005BCCF9/(httpAuxPages)/543B2B250E64745280256B6D005788F7/Dfile/
bullard.pdf>
Chavis, Benjamin F. 1994. ‘Preface’. In Unequal Protection: Environ-Mental Justice and Communities of
Color, edited by Robert D Bullard, xi–xiii. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. doi:10.1177/
027046769501500454
Chaytor, Beatrice, and Mita Manek. 2003. ‘Reconciling Basel and Bamako: The Future of Hazardous
Wastes Management in Africa’. In International Environmental Law and Policy in Africa, edited by
Beatrice Chaytor, and Kevin R. Gray, 31–48. New York: Springer.
Chukwuone, NA, CN Ukwe, A Onugu, and CA Ibe. 2009. ‘Valuing the Guinea Current Large Marine
Ecosystem: Estimates of Direct Output Impact of Relevant Marine Activities’. Ocean and Coastal
Management 52 (1): 189–196. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.12.008
Clapp, Jennifer. 1994. ‘The Toxic Waste Trade with Less-Industrialised Countries: Economic Linkages
and Political Alliances’. Third World Quarterly 15 (3): 505–518 <https://www.jstor.org/stable/
3993297>
 AFRICAN STUDIES 17

Cock, Jackiyn, and David Fig. 2000. ‘From Colonial to Community Based Conservation:
Environmental Justice and the National Parks of South Africa’. Society in Transition 31 (1): 22–
35. doi: 10.1080/21528586.2000.10419008
Darmofal, Danielle. 2012. ‘Environmental Racism in South Africa: A Sustainable Green Solution’.
Student theses 2001–2013, Fordham University. <https://fordham.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1026&context=environ_theses>
Devare, Suresh. 2015. ‘Case Study: Research Method for Social Sciences’, 1 November.
SSRN.<https://ssrn.com/abstract=2684644>
Doyon, Jacquelynn. 2015. ‘The International Impact of Electronic Waste: A Case Study of Western
Africa’. In The Routledge International Handbook of the Crimes of the Powerful, edited by Gregg
Barak, 247–262. London & New York: Routledge.
European Association of Social Anthropologists. 2015. ‘Why Anthropology Matters’. European
Association of Social Anthropologists, 15 October. <https://www.easaonline.org/publications/
policy/why_en>.
EPA. 1976. ‘EPA History: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act’. <https://www.epa.gov/history/
epa-history-resource-conservation-and-recovery-act>
Eze Chukwuka N. 2008. ‘The Probo Koala Incident in Abijan Côte D’Ivoire: A Critique of the Basel
Convention Compliance Mechanism’. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on
Environmental Compliance and Enforcement, 5–11 April, Cape Town, South Africa.
Fisher, Ann. 1980. ‘The Toxic Waste Dump Problem and Suggested Insurance Programme’. Boston
College Environmental Affairs Law Review 8 (3): 421–461.
Flanders Marine Institute. 2019. ‘Maritime Boundaries Geodatabase: Maritime Boundaries and
Exclusive Economic Zones (200NM)’. <http://www.vliz.be/en/imis?dasid=6316&doiid=386>
Gbadegesin, Segun. 2001. ‘Multinational Corporations, Developed Nations and Environmental
Racism: Toxic Waste, Oil Exploration and Eco-Catastrophe’. In Faces of Environmental Racism:
Confronting Issues of Global Justice, edited by Laura Westra, and Bill E. Lawson, 187–202. 2nd
ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Gerring, John. 2013. ‘The Case Study: What It Is and What It Does’. The Oxford Handbook of Political
Science, edited by Robert E. Goodin, 1–38. <https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/
oxfordhb/9780199604456.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199604456-e-051>
Grant, Richard, and Martin Oteng-Ababio. 2012. ‘Mapping the Invisible and Real “African” Economy:
Urban e-Waste Circuitry’. Urban Geography 33 (1): 1–21. doi: 10.2747/0272-3638.33.1.1
Grant, Richard, and Martin Oteng-Ababio. 2016. ‘The Global Transformation of Materials and the
Emergence of Informal Urban Mining in Accra, Ghana’. Africa Today 62 (4): 3–20. doi: 10.2747/
0272-3638.33.1.1
Greenpeace and Amnesty International. 2012. ‘The Toxic Truth about a Company Called Trafigura,
a Ship Called the Probo Koala, and the Dumping of Toxic Waste in Côte d’Ivoire’ <https://www.
amnesty.org/download/Documents/AFR310022012ENGLISH.PDF>
Gregson, Nicky, and Mike A. Crang. 2015. ‘From Waste to Resource: The Trade in Wastes and Global
Recycling Economies’. Annual Review for Environment and Resources 40 (1): 151–176. <http://dro.
dur.ac.uk/16631/2/16631.pdf>
Iadicola, Peter, and Anson Shupe. 2003. Violence, Inequality and Human Freedom. 2nd ed. Lanham.
Boulder. New York. Toronto. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield
Iob, Emilie. 2015. ‘Ivory Coast Toxic Waste Victims Still Await Payments’. Voice of America, 12 November.
<http://www.voanews.com/content/ivory-coast-toxic-waste-victims-still-await-payments/3056111.
html>
Iwenwanne, Valentine. 2019. ‘Nigeria’s e-Waste Mountain’. Resource, 3 January. <https://resource.
co/article/nigerias-e-waste-mountain>
Kaplan, Jeremy A. 2014. ‘Welcome to Hell: Photographer Documents Africa’s e-Waste Nightmare’.
Fox News, 6 March. <http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/03/06/welcome-to-hell-photographer-
documents-africas-e-waste-nightmare.html>
Khan, Samia, and Robert VanWynsberghe. 2008. ‘Cultivating the Under-Mined: Cross-Case Analysis
as Knowledge Mobilization’. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 9 (1): 1–26. doi: 10.17169/fqs-9.1.
334
18 I. OKAFOR-YARWOOD AND I. ADEWUMI

Klenovšek, Ana, and Gorazd Meško. 2011. ‘International Waste Trafficking: Preliminary
Explorations’. In Understanding and Managing Threats to the Environment in South Eastern
Europe, edited by Gorazd Meško, Dejana Dimitrijević, and Charles B. Fields, 79–100. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Knauer, Sebastian, Thilo Thielke, and Gerald Traufetter. 2006. ‘Toxic-Waste Ship ‘Probo Koala’:
Profits for Europe, Industrial Slop for Africa’. Spiegel International, 18 September. <http://www.
spiegel.de/international/spiegel/toxic-waste-ship-probo-koala-profits-for-europe-industrial-slop-
for-africa-a-437842-2.html>
Koné, Lassana. 2014. ‘The Illicit Trade of Toxic Waste in Africa: The Human Rights Implications of the
New Toxic Colonialism’. Social Science Research Network 1–6. <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
Data_Integrity_Notice.cfm?abid=2474629>
Lambrechts, Derica, and Michael Hector. 2016. ‘Environmental Organised Crime: The Dirty Business
of Hazardous Waste Disposal and Limited State Capacity in Africa’. Politikon 43 (2): 251–268. doi:
10.1080/02589346.2016.1201727
Laurent, Eloi. 2010. ‘Environmental Justice and Environmental Inequalities: A European Perspective’.
<https://hal-sciencespo.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01069412/>
Lawal, Shola. 2019. ‘Nigeria Has Become an E-Waste Dumpsite for Europe, US and Asia’. TRT World,
15 February. <https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/nigeria-has-become-an-e-waste-dumpsite-
for-europe-us-and-asia-24197>
Lepawsky, Josh. 2015. ‘The Changing Geography of Gobal Trade in Electronic Discards: Time to
Rethink the e-Waste Problem’. The Geographical Journal 181 (2): 147–159. doi: 10.1111/geoj.
12077
Lipman, Zada. n.d. ‘Trade in Hazardous Waste: Environmental Justice Versus Economic Growth
Environmental Justice and Legal Process’. <https://www.oceanfdn.org/sites/default/files/Trade
%20in%20Hazardous%20Waste.pdf>
Madava, Tinashe. 2001. ‘Illicit Dumping of Toxic Wastes Breach of Human Rights’. Review of African
Political Economy 28 (88): 288–290. doi: 10.1080/03056240108704535
Map Library. n.d. Africa <http://www.maplibrary.org/library/stacks/Africa/index.htm>
Marbury, H.J. 1995. ‘Hazardous Waste Exportation: The Global Manifestation of Environmental
Racism’. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 28: 251–296.
Margai, Florence M., and Fatoumata Barry. 2011. ‘Global Geographies of Environmental Injustice and
Health: A Case Study of Illegal Hazardous Waste Dumping in Côte d’ Ivoire’. In Geospatial Analysis
of Environmental Health, edited by J Maantay and S McLafferly, 257–282. London & New York:
Springer.
Martinez-Alier, Joan, Leah Temper, Daniela Del Bene, and Arnim Scheidel. 2016. ‘Is There a Global
Environmental Justice Movement?’ The Journal of Peasant Studies 43 (3): 731–755, doi: 10.
1080/03066150.2016.1141198
Mcintire, Erin. 2015. ‘The International Tribunal for E-Waste : Ending the Race towards Lethal Fallout’.
Seattle Journal of Environmental Law 5 (1): 75–106.
Mmadu, Rufus A. 2013. ‘The Search for Environmental Justice in the Niger Delta and Corporate
Accountability for Torts: How Kiobel Added Salt to Injury’. Journal of Sustainable Development
Law and Policy 1 (1): 73–85.
Natural Earth. 2020. ‘Countries.’ <https://www.naturalearthdata.com/http//www.naturalearthdata.
com/download/10m/cultural/ne_10m_admin_0_countries.zip>
Needhidasan, Santhanam, Melvin Samuel, and Ramalingam Chidambaram. 2014. ‘Electronic Waste –
an Emerging Threat to the Environment of Urban India’. Journal of Environmental Health Science
and Engineering 12 (36): 9. doi: 10.1186/2052-336X-12-36
Mmadu, Rufus A. 2013. ‘The Search for Environmental Justice in the Niger Delta and Corporate
Accountability for Torts: How Kiobel Added Salt to Injury’. Journal of Sustainable Development
Law and Policy 1 (1): 73–85.
Nuwamanya, Dan. 2017. ‘E-WASTE: An Emerging Environmental Challenge in the Contemporary
Uganda’. Dispatch, 27 January. <https://www.dispatch.ug/2017/01/27/e-waste-an-emerging-
environmental-challenge-in-the-contemporary-uganda/>
 AFRICAN STUDIES 19

Odeyingbo, Olusegun, Innocent Nnorom, and Otmar Deubzer. 2017. ‘Assessing Import of Used
Electrical and Electronic Equipment into Nigeria: Person in the Port Project’ <http://collections.
unu.edu/eserv/UNU:6349/PiP_Report.pdf>
Okafor-Yarwood, Ifesinachi. 2015. ‘The Guinea-Bissau–Senegal Maritime Boundary Dispute’. Marine
Policy 61: 284–290. <http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0308597X15002274>
Okafor-Yarwood, Ifesinachi. 2018. ‘The Effects of Oil Pollution on the Marine Environment in the Gulf
of Guinea — the Bonga Oil Field Example’. Transnational Legal Theory 9 (3–4): 254–271. doi: 10.
1080/20414005.2018.1562287
Oshwofasa, B.O., D.E. Anuta, and O. Aiyedogbon John. 2012. ‘Environmental Degradation and Oil
Industry Activities in the Niger-Delta Region’. African Journal of Scientific Research 9 (2220–
9433): 444–460. <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.470.3638&rep=
rep1&type=pdf>
Oteng-Ababio, Martin. 2012. ‘When Necessity Begets Ingenuity: E-Waste Scavenging as a Livelihood
Strategy in Accra, Ghana’. African Studies Quarterly 13 (1&2).
Ovink, B. John. 1995. ‘Transboundary Shipments of Toxic Waste: The Basel and Bamako Conventions
– Do Third World Countries Have a Choice?’ Dickinson Journal of International Law 13: 281–295.
Park, Rozelia S. 1998 ‘An Examination of International Environmental Racism through the Lens of
Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes’. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 5 (2):
659–709. <https://www.jstor.org/stable/25691124>
Pellow, David N. 2000. ‘Environmental Inequality Formation: Towards a Theory of Environmental
Injustice’. American Behavioral Scientist 43 (4): 581–601. doi: 10.1177/0002764200043004004
Pellow, David N. 2007. Resisting Global Toxics, Transnational Movements for Environmental Justice.
Massachusetts, England: MIT Press.
Pellow, David N., Adam Weinberg, and Allan Schnaiberg. 2002. ‘The Environmental Justice
Movement: Equitable Allocation of the Costs and Benefits of Environmental Management
Outcomes’. Social Justice Research 14 (4): 423–439. doi: 10.1023/A:1014654813111.
Pratt, Laura A. 2011. ‘Decreasing Dirty Dumping? A Reevaluation of Toxic Waste Colonialism and the
Global Management of Transboundary Hazardous Waste’. William & Mary Environmental Law
& Policy Review 35 (2): 581–623. <https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr/vol35/iss2/5>
Regional Project Coordinating Centre. 2003. ‘Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis’. Guinea Current
Large Marine Ecosystem Project, Regional Project Coordinating Centre, Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire,
2 June. <https://www.ais.unwater.org/ais/aiscm/getprojectdoc.php?docid=393>
Rucevska, I, C Nellemann, N Isarin, W Yang, N Liu, K Yu, S Sandnæs, K Olley, H McCann, L Devia,
L Bisschop, D Soesilo, T Schoolmeester, R Henriksen, and R Nilsen. 2015. ‘Waste Crime – Waste
Risks: Gaps in Meeting the Global Waste Challenge’. A United Nations Environment
Programme Rapid Response Assessment.
Ruzzene, Attilia. 2014. ‘Using Case Studies in the Social Sciences: Methods, Inferences, Purpose’.
Rotterdam: Erasmus University.
Saxena, A.K., and Yogesh Gupta. 2009. ‘Environmentally Sound Management of Hazardous Waste’.
In Hazardous Waste Management, edited by Domenico Grasso, Timothy M Vogel, and Barth
Smets, 333–382. Oxford: EOLSS Publications.
Scafidi, Oscar. 2015. Equatorial Guinea. 1st ed. England: Bradt Travel Guides Limited.
Schlosberg, David. 2001. ‘Three Dimensions of Environmental and Ecological Justice’. Prepared for
the European Consortium for Political Reseacrh Annual Joint Sessions, Grenoble, France, 6–11
April. <https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/5ef89598-7149-4b8d-82b3-567750b392f6.pdf>
Sende, Marthe. 2010. ‘Toxic Terrorism: A Crisis in Global Waste Trading’. Anamesa, An
Interdisciplinary Journal 8 (1): 30–41.
Simonsson, Eva. 1994. ‘Hazardous Waste Management Policy in the European Union: Case of
Germany and Unification Illustrates Need to Consider Principle of Subsidiarity’. Paper prepared
for presentation at the Biennial European Community Studies Association Conference,
Charleston, South Carolina, 12 May. <http://aei.pitt.edu/7016/1/simonsson_eva.pdf>
Spaull, Jon. 2015. ‘World’s Biggest e-Dump, or Vital Supplies for Ghana?’ SciDevNet, 5 October.
<http://www.scidev.net/global/digital-divide/multimedia/electronic-waste-dump-supplies-
ghana.html>
20 I. OKAFOR-YARWOOD AND I. ADEWUMI

Thompson, Gretchen. 2012. ‘Pollution, Land’. In Encyclopedia of Consumption and Waste: The Social
Science of Garbage Vol. 1., edited by Carl A. Zimring, and William L. Rathje, 687–690. Los Angeles,
London & New York: Sage.
Turner, Robin L, and Diana Pei Wu. 2002. Environmental Justice and Environmental Racism : An
Annotated Bibliography and General Overview. Berkeley: University of California.
Udeze, Bona. 2009. Why Africa?: A Continent in Dilemma of Unanswered Questions. Bloomington,
Indiana: Xlibris Corporation.
UN News. 2009. ‘Toxic Wastes Caused Deaths, Illnesses in Côte d’ Ivoire – UN Expert’. UN News, 16
September. <https://news.un.org/en/story/2009/09/312652-toxic-wastes-caused-deaths-illnesses-
cote-divoire-un-expert>
UNEP. 1991. ‘Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import To Africa and the Control of
Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes Within Africa’. <https://
www.informea.org/en/treaties/bamako/text>
UNEP. 2018a. ‘Conference of the Parties to the Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into
Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes
within Africa “The Bamako Convention: A Platform for a Pollution Free Africa”‘. UNEP, 16
January. <https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/22665/ReportbytheSecretariat.
pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed = y>
UNEP. 2018b. ‘Environmental Audit of the Sites Affected by the Dumping of Toxic Wastes from the
“Probo Koala” <https://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/Cote%20d’Ivoire/ProboKoalaAudit2018_
EN.pdf>
UNEP. 2018c. ‘Twenty Years of the Bamako Convention: A Time for More Effective Implementation’.
<https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/22556/
TwentyYearsoftheBamakoConvention_ATimeforMoreEffectiveImplementation.pdf?sequence=
1&isAllowed=y>
UNEP. 2019. ‘Entry into Force of Amendment to UN Treaty Boosts Efforts to Prevent Waste
Dumping’. <http://www.basel.int/Default.aspx?tabid=8120> [7 December 2019]
UNEP & Basel Secretariat. 2007. ‘Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of
Hazardous Wates Protocol on Liability and Compensation’. <http://www.basel.int/Portals/4/
BaselConvention/docs/text/BaselConventionText-e.pdf>
UNFPA. 2018. ‘Adolescents and Youth Report: West and Central Africa’. <https://wcaro.unfpa.org/
sites/default/files/pub-pdf/UNFPA-WCARO-YOUTH-EN-WEB.pdf>
UNODC. 2009. ‘Transnational Trafficking and the Rule of Law in West Africa: A Threat Assessment’.
<http://www.unodc.org/res/cld/bibliography/transnational-trafficking-and-the-rule-of-law-in-
west-africa_-a-threat-assessment_html/West_Africa_Report_2009.pdf>
Vani, S.V. Santosh, Sabari Bhaumik, Abhishek Nandan, and Nihal Aanwar Siddiqui. 2017. ‘Hazardous
Waste – Impact on Health and Environment for Sustainable Development in India’. World
Scientific News 70 (2): 158–172. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2004.08.005
Wood, Geoffrey. 2004. ‘Business and Politics in a Criminal State: The Case of Equatorial Guinea’.
African Affairs 103 (413): 547–567. doi: 10.1093/afraf/adh084
Yin, Robert K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.