MANAGING HAZARDOUS WASTE ACROSS AFRICA: CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transboundary movement and management of hazardous waste remain critical sustainability challenges with profound implications for human health and the environment. Since the large-scale dumping of hazardous wastes in African countries in 1988, global and regional efforts have sought to regulate the production, movement, and disposal of such wastes through treaties, protocols, and declarations. This paper critically examines the international and regional legal frameworks governing hazardous waste, highlighting their objectives, mechanisms, and enforcement provisions. It explores the definition, classification, and sources of hazardous wastes, as well as their environmental and health consequences, emphasizing the urgent need for effective governance and compliance. The study analyses how international conventions, such as the Basel Convention, and regional instruments, provide preventive measures, remedial actions, and sanctions for non-compliance. Challenges in implementation, including weak enforcement, lack of resources, and cross-border coordination difficulties, are also discussed. By evaluating these frameworks, the paper identifies lessons and best practices for strengthening hazardous waste management, ensuring accountability, and mitigating environmental risks. The findings underscore the importance of harmonized policies, capacity-building, and collaborative enforcement to protect both communities and ecosystems from the adverse effects of hazardous waste. This research contributes to the discourse on sustainable waste management in Africa and globally, offering insights for policymakers, regulators, and environmental practitioners seeking to enhance compliance, promote sustainability, and safeguard public health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".