Distr.
inf3add1 xx0300/...
UNEP/CHW/OEWG/2/INF/7
GENERAL
UNEP/CHW/OEWG/2/INF/7
17 September 2003
ENGLISH ONLY
1
UNEP/CHW/OEWG/2/INF/7
OPEN-ENDED WORKING GROUP OF THE BASEL
CONVENTION ON THE CONTROL OF
TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENTS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTES AND THEIR DISPOSAL
Second session
Geneva, 20-24 October 2003
Item 12 of the provisional agenda
Partnership with environmental non-governmental
organizations and with the industry and business sectors
BASEL CONVENTION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMME
Industry and non-governmental organization comments on the draft work programme
1.Decision OEWG-I/6 invited environmental non-governmental organizations, industry and the business sectors and others to submit suggestions for the draft work programme by 30 June 2003.
2.In addition to positive comments from many businesses, substantive comments were received from one environmental non-governmental organization and two industries:
(a)International Precious Metals Institute, 7 August 2003
(b)Bureau of International Recycling, 12 August 2003
(c)Basel Action Network, 21 August 2003
These are reproduced below.
International Precious Metals Institute
7 August 2003
Milton Catelin
Senior Programme Officer
Basel Convention Partnerships
Secretariat of the Basel Convention
Re: Work Programme with Industry, Business and Environmental NGOs
Dear Milton:
I have read Draft 2 of the Work Programme document, and understand that, in addition to all other aspects of the relevant COP decisions, you are trying to promote greater participation by industry. I have the following suggestions.
Point 1:
The following statement from page 3 is very accurate:
Growth in partnerships is hindered by the broad perception that the Basel Convention deals only with hazardous wastes and/or only with the transboundary movement of such waste. This is particular acute when the Convention seeks to engage industry in the end-of-life implication of products which during their life are not hazardous or a waste. Conversely, considerable potential exists with a broader interpretation of the role of the Basel Convention, which takes into account the important relationship between economic development and waste generation;
Most responsible businesses, the kind whose participation is desired, still perceive the Basel Convention as concerned with unilateral private (i.e. non-governmental) dumping of hazardous waste in developing countries. This was, in fact, the reasoning and motivation for the creation of the Convention. Such businesses concur that dumping of waste in developing countries is wrong, and they simply declare that they never have and never will engage in such conduct. They are thus not threatened, or do not perceive themselves as threatened, by any actions that the Basel Convention might take, including the trade ban. Unfortunately for the Basel Convention, such businesses then have no further interests that the Convention appears to restrict or promote.
The Basel Convention should promote an understanding that businesses want to invest, and should invest, in developing countries that have infrastructures that are capable of managing waste in an environmentally sound manner. And if a developing country does not have such an infrastructure, businesses should then invest in partnerships with that country, together with the Basel Convention and its regional centres, to create or improve its waste management infrastructure. The improvement can be directly related to the business and investment interests of the private industry partner (provided, of course, that it is also of some broader societal benefit). A business that is engaged in such a partnership may also improve its working relationship with a host developing country’s government, particularly with its competent environmental authority, and with its civil society, making its overall investment and economic development more efficient and beneficial from other points of view.
Point 2:
The following statement from page 2 conveys an incorrect impression:
This task has become more important and complex since the establishment of the Convention, with an increasing trend for developed countries to export their end of life equipment to those least able to cope, in the developing world.
A continuation of this trend threatens the benefits, and increases the negative impacts, of globalisation on vulnerable communities, families and individuals around the world. At its essence, the challenge is no less than to find and develop practical, sustainable solutions to de-link economic development and the waste it traditionally generates.
This statement seems to continue the focus of the Convention on unilateral private dumping of hazardous waste. Exports of end-of-life equipment are paralleled by imports of that equipment. This is trade, and it is at least potentially beneficial, and perhaps very beneficial, to people in the receiving country. People in developing countries can buy working, relatively modern equipment from developed countries at very low prices, import them very cheaply, and then can use or resell them. Or they can extract raw materials, and sell those. They can earn a living, and may improve their societies. To be sure, trade in used goods has sometimes been abused, and it probably always has potential environmental problems, some of which may be substantial and immediate, such as those graphically depicted by BAN with regard to personal computers. But the Basel Convention should not treat all of this type of trade as if it were unilateral dumping of waste, because it isn’t. And the direction of the Convention should improved management of the problems created by such trade. Developing countries need better infrastructures to deal with this type of trade, to reduce damage while retaining benefits. This may include trade restrictions, including country-specific and material-specific trade bans. But it should also include notice and consent by the receiving country based on specific information about materials and destinations. The Basel Convention should assist developing countries in managing this kind of trade, and these kinds of businesses. And here too, there should be a business interest that can be expressed in partnerships with developing countries, the Basel Convention, and regional centres. All of these kinds of business and trade are extensively practiced in developed countries, and some of these businesses should be interested in participation in growing markets in developing countries.
I hope that these suggestions may be of some use. Please let me know if you have questions or would like additional information.
Very truly yours,
John Bullock
Bureau of International Recycling
12 August 2003
Dear Milton,
Thank you kindly for the text re partnerships. There were two minor bullet points to comment on:
(1) - increased ENGO participation would encourage broader understanding and interest in the Convention from governments, industry and broader civil society;
Here this assumes ENGOs increase industry understanding and interest, we would argue that for our industry sector we at BIR keep our members informed more than the ENGOs - current or future, as we directly communicate with our recyclers after every major meeting. One might suppose that the term industry here could be construed to mean manufacturing industry, or the retailing industry, if so perhaps some elaboration is needed? The same argument might apply re ENGOs encouraging a broader understanding and interest from governments, as Governments are Parties to the Convention.
Suggest to use "- increased ENGO participation would encourage broader understanding and interest in the Convention from the wider society;"
..... is not industry and government both part of society?
(2) . Initiatives that focus on practical projects, with measurable performance measures, are more likely to interest further partners.
Suggest to use ". Initiatives that focus on practical projects, with performance attainments and benefits to participants highlighted, are more likely to interest further partners."
..... only because of the repetition of measure.., also thought that 'benefits to participants' might be an attraction to others"
We are still waiting to see re the Mobile Phone Initiative whether there is space for our recycling sector's involvement, we have over the last year highlighted this issue to our members, yet see no take-up, has any recycler expressed interest to the Secretariat directly (besides the few metal smelters)?
Otherwise we do not at the moment see anything else contentious in the document and little that we could use as an attention grabbing headline.
Still we consistently maintain our interest and will come back on any future suggestions or proposals that our members express a wish to us to take up.
With best regards,
Ross Bartley
Environmental & Technical Director
BIR - Bureau of International Recycling
Tel: +32 2 627 5770
Fax: +32 2 627 5773
E-mail: <mailto:>
<
Comments of Basel Action Network (BAN) on
the Basel Convention Proposed Work Programme with
Industry, Business, and Environmental
Non-Governmental Organisation 2003-2004
(August 21, 2003)
General Comments:
The Basel Action Network (BAN) strongly supports greater cooperation among various stakeholders - industry, business sector, and other segments of civil society in tackling, as the Work Programme describes, the daunting task of protecting human health and the environment against the adverse effects, which result from the generation, movement of waste.
BAN, however, views the draft Work Programme judiciously as the document seems to provide little in the way of new ideas with the exception of attempting to frame new criteria by which “partnerships” are established.
The creation of a set of criteria or standards seems to possibly serve at least one dubious purpose -- the exclusion of stakeholders from particular projects. In the ever-daunting task it faces, it would be wise to err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion.
There is also the question that if indeed these criteria or standards of cooperation must be instituted, by what process will they be established? Will the process be open and transparent, or must there be a further exclusion experienced?
All these concerns ultimately point to the dangerous slope on which the Convention will be placing itself, if it creates barriers to cooperation called criteria or standards.
Specific Comments:
- Page 2, 3rd Paragraph
The Work Programme accurately states the crucial need of de-linking economic development and waste production. We suggest that the following sentence be added to elaborate on existing alternatives to the problem:
“Alternative development models, however, do exist, as industry has begun to embrace clean production technologies and extended producer responsibility which places built-in incentives for greener, less wasteful production and products.”
- Page 2, second bullet
BAN takes strong exception to the pronouncement made in the 2nd bullet. To place responsibility over the lack of resources the Basel Convention has in tackling the daunting task of wrestling with global trade in hazardous wastes to the fact that only two ENGOs are currently active, is hardly accurate. How can the fate of a United Nations Convention that has 160 member countries and numerous industrial stakeholders, be squarely placed on the limited presence ENGOs?
It is not acceptable, through implication, to place blame on a lack of ENGOs for the larger question of Convention resources. Further, by not citing the contributions of these ENGOs that have been within the Convention from the very beginning and have brought over the course of the years, the primary source of documentation of the abuses of waste trade and proposals for solutions to these abuses, around which the Convention’s primary activities to date have addressed, is insulting.
It should be noted that these are ENGOS that have since 1987 spent enormous amount of resources, with respect to getting to the meetings and expending countless hours in preparing and responding to the subject matter of the Convention and its meetings (all without any supplemental funding from UNEP).
This bullet point as is, serves only to evade the tougher questions which the Convention itself must address to get at the root of the problem of resources.
This bullet point is especially out of line when there is no comment made at the rather surprising lack of contributions made by industry toward Convention projects. For example, the mobile phone initiative, which has been launched in large part with the pointed exlusion of ENGOs to the working group, is primarily by and for the mobile phone industry, and yet to our knowledge has yet to attract any industry funding beyond their existent staff time and expenses.
Much as the Convention now seeks cooperation among all stakeholders, it is likewise important that all stakeholders must hold themselves responsible to the success of the Convention.
If there is any blame at all on the part of ENGOs for lack of participation, it can equally be said that the Convention has on numerous occasions in the past rebuffed proposed initiatives of NGOs and have not fully utilized the abilities and capabilities of ENGOs present (e.g. we have only once been invited to speak and present or take part in meetings and workshops held at regional centers).
BAN, thus, respectfully suggests that unless fundamentally altered in accordance with the concerns above, the second bullet paragraph be deleted.
- Page 3, 1st bullet
There is a reference to “the potential to deliver early environmental successes” as a criteria for undertaking a project. However, no definition is given for “environmental successes”. We would like to see this linked to the Aims of the Strategic Plan.
- Page 3, 4th bullet
We commend the inclusion of this bullet, and agree to its retention without any modifications.
- Page 3, 5th bullet
The criteria “measurable performance measures” is used, but undefined. Again we would like to see this linked to the goals of the Strategic Plan. Also, it is important to note that the success or progress of a project that deals with environmental and social issues is often reflected in intangibles, and not only on monetary or technical terms.
- Page 3, Partnership Programme, Point 1
We would prefer this point to be redrafted as follows:
“Initiate and oversee practical project activity in priority areas including ratification and implementation of the Convention and its decisions, protocols and amendments, and in the promotion of environmentally sound management with an emphasis on waste prevention.”
- Page 4, Stakeholders
Our earlier general remarks regarding the establishment of criteria to exclude stakeholders are pointed at this segment. The bullets speak of “Demonstrated Commitment”, “Demonstrated Expertise”, “Demonstrated engagement in meaningful dialogue, and cooperation” yet these are subjective criteria that are difficult to substantiate and easy to manipulate to exclude stakeholders of certain viewpoints. There is also a threshold question of who determines that a stakeholder has “Demonstrated” commitment or expertise? Does a stakeholder who has participated in meaningful dialogue and cooperation in the Convention for more than 10 years, demonstrably more committed than a stakeholder who only started participating 2 years ago?
It is highly ironic that while complaining about the lack of stakeholder involvement, the main thrust of the paper presents criteria to limit and exclude active participation. The Convention should be looking to expand its tent, not in shrinking it.
These criteria serve only to confuse and exclude. We, thus, suggest eliminating them altogether and allowing for openness and transparency within these projects for stakeholders of various capacities and viewpoints to participate, in line with the principles of cooperation under the United Nations system.
- Table 1
There is a pointed lack of work done on the legal aspects of the Convention which is in fact primarily what the Convention is: a legal document with a need for ratifications and implementation. We believe that stakeholders such as ENGOs can play a vital educational role in promoting the Convention among other ENGOs, and more importantly among politicians, parliamentarians, and policy-makers.
One of the Key Activities should focus on continuously informing and updating parliamentarians and policy-makers about the relevance of the Basel Convention, its amendment and protocols, and their ratification. We suggest, a new Key Activity to be added:
Conduct ENGO driven regional workshops, in coordination with the Basel Convention Regional Centers, on the Toxics Treaties, with an emphasis on the Basel Convention, its amendment, as well as the Stockholm Convention and their relevance to the priority waste streams of concern under Basel.
Likewise, the first activity regarding waste streams must focus, as part of environmentally sound management on minimizing their generation and transboundary movement.
Thus, we would like to see this added to the objective and performance indicators of Point 1.
END
-----
1
UNEP/CHW/OEWG/2/1