Sustainability • Volume 8 • Number 13 • 11th July 2008

Basel Parties Discuss Health Impacts of Hazardous Waste

Do More

See also

A recent meeting of the Basel Convention on imports and exports of hazardous waste met in Bali, Indonesia, to tackle the health impacts of toxic waste. Despite an ambitious agenda and the adoption of over thirty decisions, the 14-year deadlock on the so-called ‘Ban Amendment’ – which would bring into force a global ban on the import and export of toxic waste to developing countries – remained intractable.

The ninth Conference of the Parties (COP-9) to the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal was held from 23-27 June. “Waste Management for Human Health and Livelihood” was the theme of the meeting, and remained the focus throughout. In addition, delegates addressed issues of electronic waste (e-waste), ship dismantling, draft technical guidelines for used tyres and mercury waste, the role of Basel Convention Regional and Coordinating Centres (BCRCs) in the convention’s overall Strategic Plan and greater cooperation with the Stockholm and Rotterdam chemicals conventions.

The Ban Amendment and Article 17(5)

Under the Ban Amendment, developed countries would be prohibited for exporting hazardous waste to developing countries, be it for final disposal, recovery or recycling. First proposed in 1995, the Ban Amendment has been a bone of contention among the parties, which remain divided over its merits and the number of ratifications required for its entry into force.

This discord stems from ambiguous language in Article 17, Paragraph 5 of the Basel Convention.
The relevant part of the paragraph states that amendments “shall enter into force between Parties having accepted them on the ninetieth day after the receipt by the Depositary of their instrument of ratification, approval, formal confirmation or acceptance by at least three-fourths of the Parties who accepted them.” This section has been interpreted in two ways.

According to the “fixed time” approach, championed by the EU and Norway, which would like to see the Ban Amendment enter into force as soon as possible, the number of ratifications required is three-quarters of the original members, or 62 out of the original 82 parties. Currently, there are 63 ratifications; however, since some of these ratifications are not from original members to the convention, some argue that not all ratifications should be calculated into the final count.

The “current time” approach, advocated by Canada, Japan and the US, requires three-quarters of current parties to the convention, or 128 of 170, to ratify the amendment. These non-signatory countries have challenged the amendment several times, fearing that it would considerably curb their recycling industries.

Without a settlement for the legal interpretation of Article 17(5), it is very unlikely that the Ban Amendment will come into force.

In its Bali Declaration, the conference failed to make any reference to the Ban Amendment. However, Rachmat Witoelar, Indonesian Minister for the Environment and president of the convention, did produce a non-paper on a “Way Forward” for the implementation of the Ban Amendment. In it, he urged parties to initiate and expedite the process by formulating “enabling conditions” that would be amenable to the amendment once it would garner enough ratifications.

“The Bali meeting has finally made a step forward [with respect to the Ban Amendment],” Witoelar said. “With the formation of a working group, we will start discussing all the practical issues relating to the Ban Amendment.”

Some were not so optimistic. Dr. O.O. Dada, of the Nigerian delegation, was “shocked” that the COP did not endorse the ban outright, and said that African nations will now look for regional agreements to regulate toxic imports.

E-products: friend or foe?

According to a report by the Global e-Report Initiative, advances in information and communication technologies (ICT) could cut global greenhouse gas emissions by fifteen percent by 2020, especially through energy efficiency schemes. Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), was quick to note that this rapid growth also leads to e-waste problems and as such “represents a major challenge to the international community in terms of human health and the environment.”

In the fast-paced world of electronics, where yesterday’s must-have gadget are today’s wayside refuse, waste production is a serious problem. It is estimated that some 50 million tonnes of e-waste – from mobile phones, computers and television sets, among others – are produced annually.

Despite 16 years of the Basel Convention, export in toxic waste – especially electronic waste and old ships – has actually increased. This is not surprising when you look at some statistics: current studies estimate that there are 3 billion mobile phones worldwide, and personal computers are projected to double by 2015 to two billion. With disposable incomes rapidly rising in emerging and developing countries, such growth is not likely to decline in the near future.

“Developing countries suffer enough from the ravages of hunger, poverty, infant mortality and disease,” Kevin Stairs of the Seattle-based Basel Action Network, said. “Sending them our toxic waste amounts to a cruel throwing of salt in the wounds, undertaken simply to increase profits at the expense of developing countries, their people and the global environment.” However, some developing countries welcome imports of used electronic products for recycling, as this provides opportunities for employment and economic development.

The environmental impacts of used and end-of-life products have received much attention lately due to a recent environment ministers meeting in Kobe, Japan in the run-up to the G-8 Summit (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 30 May 2008, http://www.basel.int/meetings/frsetmain.php?meetingId=1&languagId=1; also, see Bridges Trade BioRes, 15 December 2006, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/06-12-15/story1.htm).

Funding and capacity-building

COP-9 also considered funding, capacity-building and ways to enhance its effectiveness. Like many multilateral agreements based on voluntary and member contributions, the Convention faces problems with funding, implementation and insufficient capacity in developing countries that hinders combating toxic waste.

Jim Puckett of Basel Action Network shared many words of concern with the parties. “The convention risks becoming a paper tiger if its Parties cannot implement and enforce its own rules,” he said in specific reference to a site visit to Guiyu, China, where illegally imported e-waste had increased dramatically in the past few years.

Executive Secretary Katharina Kummar Peiry suggested a ten percent increase in budgeting for the Convention to help address these problems. This was met with apprehension. The EU tabled a proposal to institute a one-time, three-year budget that would be not only cost-effective, but would also bring its budget in line with the Stockholm Convention and UNEP.

COP-9 further decided that the Convention’s effectiveness would be evaluated at COP-11, especially in light of Article 15(7) which states that the “Conference of the Parties shall, [every six years]… undertake an evaluation of its effectiveness and, if deemed necessary, to consider the adoption of a complete or partial ban of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and other wastes in light of the latest scientific, environmental, technical and economic information.”

The co-chairs of the Ad Hoc Joint Working Group (AHJWG) on Enhancing Cooperation and Coordination between the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions presented a set of recommendations that they thought would improve implementation at the national, regional and international levels; raise the political profile of each convention; contribute to international environmental governance discourse; and hopefully be more cost-effective by working more synergistically. Several parties expressed satisfaction for the AHJWG’s work, and many considered it to be the key success of the meeting.

The next Conference of the Parties of the Basel Convention is scheduled for 2011, at a location to be determined.

Background

The Basel Convention was adopted in March 1989 and entered into force on 5 May 1992, after the mishaps of several “toxic ships” in the late 1980s. It requires countries to obtain consent from the country of exportation before moving hazardous waste and allows countries to deny entry of waste products into their country. The Convention takes a three-step strategy to combating hazardous waste: minimising waste generation at the source, treating waste as close to its point of generation as possible and reducing the international movement of hazardous waste.

All three pillars, either implicitly or explicitly, have important trade-related aspects and implications.

Additional resources

The COP-9 documents are available at http://www.basel.int/meetings/frsetmain.php?meetingId=1&languagId=1.

For a full report of the meeting see IISD’s Earth Negotiations Bulletin at http://www.iisd.ca/basel/cop9/.

ICTSD reporting; “IT waste a ‘major challenge’ to human health: UNEP,” AFP, 26 June; “Toxic waste export harder to control, despite Basel Convention,” DAILY NEWS, 1 July; “UN conference won’t ban toxic waste exports,” AP, 27 June 2008; “United Nations waste treaty postpones long awaited toxic waste dumping ban,” BAN, 27 June 2008; “Your laptop’s dirty little secret,” TIME, 29 June 2008.