REPORT ON THE BASEL CONVENTION 15th TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP and 2nd CONSULTATIVE SUB-GROUP of LEGAL and TECHNICAL EXPERTS

Geneva, 12-16 April 1999

Report by the Basel Action Network (BAN)

Note: The following report will cover only those issues especially targeted for action by the Basel Action Network. For the official report of the meeting please contact the Secretariat of the Basel Convention (website: http://www.unep.ch/basel/). A BAN report on the liability protocol meeting which took place from 19-23 April will be available soon.

General Summary of Both Meetings

The meetings were marked by a conspicuous degree of harmony. Efforts were made by all parties and in particular by those countries that have in recent meetings aggressively tried to undermine the Basel Ban Amendment (Australia, Canada, USA, India, New Zealand) to avoid acrimony and contentious language. The good faith shown by all was in marked contrast to the previous meeting of the TWG and Consultative Sub-Group held in Pretoria last November and to the Conference of Parties held last year in February. This time there was transparency and a genuine effort to arrive at a position that most reflected the majority of the parties.

This welcome harmony was apparent in the two issues of most potential controversy and the two issues most important to BAN: 1) The terms of reference of the study of Annex VII of the Basel Ban Amendment; and 2) The introduction of the shipbreaking issue. The text of both of the final papers produced on these issues is progressive and as good as we could have hoped for. They are attached to this document in their entire (unofficial) form below.

Without explicitly saying that working ships destined for breaking fall within the scope of the Basel Convention, shipbreaking has for the first time been placed on the future agenda of the Basel Convention and a specific request for cooperation has been made to the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

The terms of reference of the study on Annex VII (the list of countries to which the hazardous waste export ban applies) which had been called for as part of the compromise achieved at COP4 (Decision IV/8), and which many feared could have been dangerous to the ban, was concluded with innocuous or excellent language. Surprisingly, the hallway drafting efforts took much of the environmental NGO language verbatim for inclusion.

Most significantly, the Basel Ban seemed to have much more solid and broad based support than ever before. It now appears to be regarded as a fait accompli with opponents laying less hope on being able to reverse it or dilute it in the near future.

Finally, for BAN the meeting was very important as it was the first time that we firmly established ourselves as respected participants in the meeting, receiving numerous compliments both for our papers and interventions on the floor. Greenpeace and BAN were both very active and complementary environmental NGO observers and were for the most part treated with deference and respect in contrast to recent meetings.

Technical Working Group

Draft Technical Guidelines on Medical Wastes

The draft guidelines submitted had been reworked since the Pretoria draft, primarily by Germany. BAN, armed with the excellent materials prepared by the Health Care Without Harm (HCWH) campaign, decided to try and influence the rather flawed draft. We had hoped to have a slide presentation for the delegates but were barred for "security reasons" from doing so. But we had prepared a document (a joint effort of Ravi Agarwal (BAN, Srishti) and Glenn McRae (a consultant of HCWH) entitled "Clinical Waste in Developing Countries." We also put on the table the document "Eleven Recommendations for Managing Medical Waste" in English, Spanish and French. As BAN was coming in late to the Basel discussion, we were uncertain of what we would be able to accomplish. We were hoping that the document would not be finalized and that we could have a substantial input into changing the next draft. Ravi Agarwal of BAN led off the interventions by saying that the document that was primarily designed for developing countries nevertheless did not reflect the realities of developing countries (it was entirely prepared by OECD country experts). He further criticized the undo emphasis on incineration and not enough on separation and avoidance. Ruth Stringer of Greenpeace brought home the need to harmonize the classification of clinical wastes with Basel Y Categories. Afterwards several delegates including from the USA and Netherlands, praised the report and intervention, and agreed that the proposed guidelines were not oriented toward developing countries.

The chair decided to set up an ad hoc working group at the meeting, chaired by Germany and supported by Switzerland to formulate areas for change in the text. These changes were presented as CRP11. About 60% of that document was based on BAN's suggestions. Also members of the ad hoc group were invited to send their written comments to the chair by the 31st of May 1999. As a result work will progress on the document and a new draft will be readied for consideration at the COP5.

The H13 Hazard Characteristic

BAN had earlier with Greenpeace presented a paper on this subject to the European Commission who together with Egypt had been charged with further developing guidelines on H13 (Capable by any means after disposal of yielding another material which would have an H1-H12 hazardous characteristic). This issue is of major importance to both Greenpeace and BAN as it encompasses numerous wastes which after combustion processes might produce dioxins and furans and other products of incomplete combustion. However some parties have conspired so far to give this hazardous characteristic definition only the most limited scope (only applying to leachate).

As it turned out the European Commission and Egypt had done no further work on the issue for presentation to the floor (due to lack of time and overwork by the responsible delegates). Thus there was only a short discussion on H13 which further revealed contention. Many were of the view (especially Austria) that the Basel Convention can only deal with intrinsic hazard of wastes and therefore utilizing knowledge about the disposal process involved to determine whether or not a waste was hazardous was not in their view appropriate. However others including Chile (which even prepared a paper on the subject) correctly pointed out that the Convention clearly requires in H13 a departure from intrinsic hazard. BAN intervened and stated that it was time to move beyond leachate and look at other major concerns such as dioxins and furans arising from plastics and secondary metals smelting. When the final report came up for adoption however this comment had been diluted to "it was also recognized that other testing methods than leachate should be considered to progress with an issue that is very complex." We intervened at the report adoption and asked that this be changed to "one expert noted that other materials, (e.g. dioxins) should be considered to progress with an issue that is very complex." As the final report was not available by meetings end we are not certain which language prevailed. The EU Commission representative told us they would try to proceed with the issue to have something to present by the coming Ad-Hoc meeting in June and would welcome our further help on the issue.

Plastics and Tires Wastes -- Guidelines for Environmentally Sound Management

Unfortunately these two papers which were prepared by industry were adopted. The tires one was not horrible but did make too much reference to incineration. However the plastics waste paper was a disaster. Greenpeace was able to get all reference to PVC being harmless removed from the paper, as that very subject is pending before the TWG, but the paper is full of incineration mythology such as the fact that burning mixed plastics produces no more dioxin than burning anything else. The paper is an embarrassment to a convention that pretends to be about the environment. But unfortunately we came late into the discussion and were unable to impact the document.

Shipbreaking

BAN had placed on the table a report entitled "Shipbreaking and its Response in India" and had hoped to provide a photo display but were previously barred from doing so. A group of all interested parties including major players such as Norway, India, USA, EU, Germany, Greenpeace and BAN convened early in the hallway prior to the floor discussion on Shipbreaking which had been introduced earlier by Germany and appeared on the agenda under "Other Matters". It was clear from that meeting and many bilateral ones before that, that almost all experts with the possible exception of India and the USA knew that the Basel Convention does apply to ships for scrap -- that is they are hazardous wastes under the Basel Convention. It was also clear that with the exception of India, Pakistan and China, it was considered to be an issue of some urgency. All except the aforementioned also agreed that it was a matter for both the Basel Convention and the IMO. However, it was agreed to not, at this juncture, reflect any legal conclusions but only to place the issue solidly on the Basel agenda and to establish a linkage with the IMO.

A draft CRP (conference room paper) prepared by Germany produced in consultation with BAN/Greenpeace and Norway was introduced. When the discussion came to the floor, the first intervention was made by Ravi Agarwal of BAN and set the moral tone for the issue, urging immediate action and informing the Parties that Indian civil society including trade unions were themselves horrified by the conditions at the shipbreaking yards and hoped for international action. Others echoed this sentiment.

The draft paper was adopted and forwarded onto the Consultative Sub-Group of Legal and Technical Experts. It was at that meeting where India with the assistance of China and Pakistan attempted to weaken the resolve of the Parties to deal with the issue as a matter of urgency (see below).

Basel's Relationship to the POPs Treaty Negotiations

BAN noted with keen interest a proposal to include work on the disposal and management of wastes containing persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Now placed on the programme of work of the TWG is the following:

a) Provide technical guidance to the Secretariat of the Basel Convention on matters pertaining to coordination among intergovernmental bodies responsible or involved in developing legally binding instruments for hazardous chemicals to ensure there is overlap with, and are no gaps between these instruments and the Basel Convention.

b) Issue guidance notes or materials as necessary to the organizations involved in PIC and POPs on the classification and hazard characterization of wastes within the framework of the Basel Convention.

India's Surprise -- Waste/Non-Waste Debate Raised?

Much to the amazement of the many assembled delegates, India occupied about one hour of the floor time insisting that copper mill scale be taken off of the Annex of non-hazardous wastes -- Annex IX. The Indian delegate had previously submitted two poorly drafted papers directly from industrial corporations in India -- one on copper mill scale and one on PVC coated cables. India wished to have both of these wastes taken off of Annex IX. She explained that the material is inert and does not exhibit any Annex III hazardous characteristics. Many experts took the floor and explained that removal of copper mill scale from Annex IX would result in uncertainties as to its status when it is traded as a waste. It was also emphasized that things appearing on list B are not always a waste but can be.

Nobody was quite sure what the Indian delegate wanted exactly, as clearly the waste, by being on Annex IX, would, unless contaminated, fall outside of the scope of Basel regulation. Some surmised that she wanted to open up the tired and always contentious debate on what is a waste and what is not a waste. Australia offered to produce an information paper on the subject of waste and non-waste which was a rather alarming proposition as this debate which has already raged through the OECD Waste Management Policy Group with much paper, dollars and time spent, without a real conclusion, is a dangerous one particularly in the Basel Context. However the final report resulted in the rather benign language "one expert suggested that an information paper could be prepared relating to the purpose of the list of wastes in Annex IX." It was decided to leave the copper mill scale on Annex IX and the Secretariat will prepare the above-mentioned paper. The PVC coated cables was deferred to a later time when the Secretariat would have concluded its full report on PVC waste as per the Greenpeace application for submission to Annex VIII (hazardous). The most surprising thing was the unrelenting refusal by India to accept the consensus until the very end. The incident did provide the only real entertainment of the meeting.

Consultative Sub-Group of Legal and Technical Experts

There were but three issues of interest on the agenda of the meeting: a) The Terms of Reference of the Annex VII Study; b) Shipbreaking, and; c) The Guidelines on Bilateral and Multilateral Agreements. But another issue -- the proposal by Senegal to hold an international workshop on Environmentally Sound Management (ESM) also entered the agenda and will be discussed below.

The Terms of Reference of the Annex VII Study (2nd Part, non-statistical)

Coming into the meeting, the second part of the Annex VII study was BAN's greatest concern. Following the fight in Pretoria over whether or not the study could or could not reference changes to Annex VII and if so, in what way, we were fully prepared for another assault from USA, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia and an effort by these countries to use the study as a pry bar to open Annex VII. BAN had prepared very extensive comments on the question in a document entitled "Comments on Decision IV/8: Regarding Annex VII" as well as two updated briefing papers on Annex VII Expansion and the Basel Ban. These three papers were put on the table and were rapidly devoured by delegates during the TWG. By the time of the Sub-Group meeting in the latter half of the week our paper had been read and digested. The paper cut at the heart of the ban opponent's arguments and their very limited framing of the "environmentally sound management" debate as being strictly an issue for importing countries' technical capacity rather than a responsibility of exporting countries to practice preventative measures as required in the Convention. Further, Wally Braul of Canada (BAN and West Coast Environmental Law), gave fair warning to Canada that their position was outside the mandate of Decision IV/8, and was not supported by Canadians.

Whether or not these preemptive efforts were effective or not, it quickly became clear that there was no wish on the part of the USA, Canada, Australia etc. to engage in a Pretoria like fight at this meeting. Rather, in a very laudable and inclusive way, Canada approached us and asked for our language and made liberal use of it. Likewise, representatives of the Arab and African group asked for our language and adopted it. Thus the two main drafting bodies, rather than being at odds with each other, with an expected compromise paper coming as a result, ended up both writing excellent draft terms of reference including language provided by NGOs. Indeed, even some of the ambiguous, weak language that resulted from the fights during the Pretoria meeting ("shall not examine any criteria for changes to Annex VII in general and technical elements for such changes in particular") was forgotten and was not referenced in the final document.

There were but two small matters of contention. First, was the fact that ban opponents wanted to examine the relationship of Annex VII with trade agreements. This was a problem for many European countries and the European Commission. BAN was of the view that such an examination if done fairly, will not hurt the Basel Ban and it is better that such a discussion takes place in the Basel context than in the frame of the OECD or WTO. But the issue was of enough concern to enough parties that the language was altered to only reference "international agreements" and not "trade agreements."

Second, and more of a concern to us was the lack of explicit, unambiguous language in the terms of reference saying that the "study must explore how to assist Parties to ratify the ban Amendment" (the best result from Pretoria). Instead, the matter was reflected in the preambulatory language of the document:

"The purpose of Part II of this analysis is to explore, in a transparent, objective and comprehensive manner, health, environmental, social, economic and other issues related to Annex VII that are considered important to the Conference of Parties and to assist Parties to ratify the ban amendment."

And then in a more veiled way in the actual terms as:

"Evaluate the steps to be taken to implement decision III/1 including its relationship with international agreements relevant to the transboundary movements of hazardous wastes in order to assist Parties to ratify the Amendment."

But these were not major departures. Given the fact that a study must take place due to the Decisions IV/8, we could not have a more benign terms of reference. Indeed, it now looks like the usefulness of the study as a tool to undermine the ban is greatly diminished and the study is looking more and more irrelevant. This is particularly true from the oft repeated assertion by the Secretariat and others that there is no money to accomplish such an ambitious undertaking. However it will be very necessary to have great transparency in the drafting process and this point was made strongly by Greenpeace on the floor. The study will be conducted by the same group that is doing the first part of the study (statistical) -- Environmental Resources Management Ltd. of London (see below).

The Terms of Reference of the Annex VII Study (1st Part, statistical)

At the meeting the first draft of the statistical part of the study prepared by ERM Ltd. was released. While it represented only about 1 months work, it was the source of a great deal of concern on the part of the delegates. At the outset of the discussion about it, BAN intervened to say that they had real concerns about the fact that there was no effort made to distinguish Annex VIII wastes from non Annex VIII wastes and was thus destined to provide skewed information that would be of no use to reflecting on Annex VII or the ban and would likely lead to another industry panic as experienced previously. Further BAN stated that again there was an overemphasis on downstream waste management rather than upstream preventative measures. Finally, we noted that they had erroneously used Australia as a case example of a country with an export ban! when in fact they did not have one and further no effort was made to present case studies of countries with import bans. We pointed out that Norway and Italy had the longest standing export bans and named numerous countries with longstanding import bans. Greenpeace pointed out that they had not been consulted and their voluminous data had not been referenced at all. They pushed for a transparent open process for informing the consultancy's work. Many delegates then intervened and also supported BAN in saying that the study must differentiate as far as possible, Basel hazardous wastes and not include all wastes. Further, many delegates expressed dismay that they had not been consulted at all. It appeared that the consultant had most extensively contacted UNCTAD and Australia -- two delegations that are very well known to be opposed to the Basel Ban Amendment.

The discussion went on for about an hour and thus it was very surprising that at the final adoption of the report NONE of the comments by BAN, Greenpeace, or any other delegation were included. When BAN intervened and said that we had a long discussion which had two main themes -- more consultation and distinguishing hazardous wastes from all wastes, the Secretariat coordinator, Ms. Iwona Rummel-Bulska, took the floor and replied that there wasn't enough money to have all delegations consulted and then further stated that it was impossible to distinguish hazardous wastes from non-hazardous wastes in the statistics. Her statement seemingly and remarkably put an end to the discussion until Switzerland stated that he thought the report should reflect that countries wanted to be consulted. The impression received by many of the delegates was that the Secretariat did not think the study was very important but was merely a paper exercise to be gone through as quickly as possible. It was revealed privately that the consultant had already been paid $50,000 for the first draft. BAN will be putting in detailed comments in writing on this very alarming first draft.

Shipbreaking

The paper produced by the TWG was sent onto the Consultative Sub-Group for further deliberation. There it was countered by a new, alternative paper presented by India, supported by Pakistan and China, and aided and abetted by Willem Scott, the chair from South Africa. The chair introduced the paper saying that it was worked on simultaneous to the previous one (everybody knew this was not true and indeed it contained many elements directly copied from the other) and he further went on to say there was really no difference between the two when their clearly was.

The India version pointedly left out all reference to submitting the work to COP-V and further it did not explicitly and clearly explain the relationship with the IMO. India said they wanted to move in a stepwise fashion (slowly). Norway astutely and diplomatically pointed out the differences and the fact that they were significant making the original text superior. BAN made the point that for those countries that believed the two papers were identical they could just as easily support the original and those that believed that COP5 was necessary in order to get a mandate to really work on the issue, and that IMO cooperation was also essential, they could also support the original paper. Surprisingly, Australia said that the issue was a very urgent matter and thus a stepwise approach was not appropriate.

The the chair asked that Norway, Germany and India and China get together to draft out a compromise text. The result of this session was that India was allowed to add the words regarding the legal implications "of ships in working condition". However in the final discussion on the compromise paper, these words were taken out as being unnecessary.

Interestingly, the country of Barbados insisted that the words "full and partial dismantling" be inserted everywhere to take into account the use in the Caribbean region of ships for artificial reefs which must first be stripped of certain toxics (oils etc.). The final unofficial text is attached below and is really quite excellent for the purpose of launching overdue international action on the issue.

Guidance Elements for Bilateral, Multilateral Agreements

The paper entitled "Guidance Elements for Bilateral, Multilateral and Regional Agreements or Arrangements" remains one of the most dangerous papers on the table. Little was able to be done about it either in Pretoria or in this latest meeting. It is clear that the consultant that prepared the paper was more concerned with facilitating waste trade than preventing it and thus it is full of waste trade promotional language and false information. During the brief discussion on this topic, Australia and USA reiterated their belief that Article 11 allowed them a means to circumvent the ban. However it was decided that the work on the paper should go to the Ad Hoc meeting in June. Again it looked like every effort was made to push off potential fights to future meetings. BAN will prepare detailed comments on the paper.

Dakar II -- An International Workshop on Environmentally Sound Management?

One of the more dangerous issues discussed with respect to the Basel Ban was the renewal of the old proposal by Senegal to convene a workshop on Environmentally Sound Management (ESM). The danger of this is due to the fact that ban opponent countries have for a long time wished to frame the definition of ESM in terms of only pertaining to downstream, non-OECD importer country management and not the upstream obligations of OECD exporter countries. They claim that as long as a country has ESM then they should be allowed to receive wastes via joining Annex VII or via a bilateral agreement. And with this weak, limited definition of ESM, its just a matter of developing some criteria for ESM which could then be applied to bilateral agreements in circumvention of the Ban Amendment or for adding countries to Annex VII.

Senegal had been the willing catalyst in the past for another expensive extra-curricular Basel workshop supported financially by industrial and governmental BAN opponents. Also worrisome was the known fact that the former influential Basel delegate from Senegal, Bakary Kante, had recently been published in industry journals stating that it is time to forget "trade barriers" and move toward developing ESM. (Note: It was revealed that Bakary Kante is no longer working for the Senegal government but has landed a general policy job with UNEP in Nairobi). Indeed the Dakar - II Concept Paper presented was of great concern, and included a discussion on "harmonization procedures of the Basel Convention and the WTO," and "Creation of regional and sub-regional centers for the treatment of specific hazardous wastes (PCBs etc.).

At the meeting, Senegal delegate Ibrahim Sow introduced the concept paper and stated that this was the last time they would be offering up the idea. In a moment of unusual candor for such a meeting, the chair asked Senegal how much money they were looking for. Mr. Sow replied that originally they were seeking $250,000 to hold the meeting in the 5 star hotel as before but said that it could be done elsewhere for $125,000. The United States said that they allocated some money for it but that it was "not fully funded by any means". Gambia said they supported the idea as long as the conference was also designed to "promote ratification of the Ban Amendment". Australia indicated that they might be interested in giving money as long as there is a formal detailed agenda drawn up. Canada suggested that the bureau deal with the issue. The meeting is slated to take place in September / October if at all.

Next Steps

It appears that the Ad Hoc meeting, which is to wrap up issues and prepare the agenda for COP5, will be in June in either Casablanca, Morocco or in Geneva. This meeting will be important with respect to assessing the work of the consultancy, addressing the Bilateral Guidance paper, H-13, etc. but probably most importantly the finalization of the draft liability protocol may take place. The liability issue appears to be shaping up to be the big issue of COP5 (see separate report). It is likely that at COP5 there will be no further attempts by countries to reverse Decision IV/8 to await entry into force of the ban before suggesting changes to Annex VII. However it is essential that we all stay vigilant to that possibility. COP5 is scheduled for Basel, Switzerland as a 10th Anniversary meeting from 6-10 of December.

END

UNITED NATIONS

ENVIRONMENT

PROGRAMME

UNEP/CHW/WG.4/LSG/2/CRP.8

15 April 1999

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

Joint meeting of the Technical Working Group with the Consultative Sub-group of Legal and Technical Experts of the Basel Convention

Second session

Geneva, 14-16 April 1999

DISMANTLING OF SHIPS

Following the discussions, the Joint meeting of the Technical Working Group with the Consultative Sub-group of Legal and Technical Experts of the Basel Convention:

(a) Requests the Secretariat of the Basel Convention to collect and compile all the studies and data concerning the full and partial dismantling of ships made available by Parties and Signatories of the Basel Convention, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations.

(b) Also requests the Secretariat of the Basel Convention to send a representative to the next Marine Environment Protection Committee of IMO, that will meet from 28 June to 2 July 1999, to make a statement regarding the cooperation and to report to the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties on progress in cooperation.

(c) Invite IMO to inform the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties of its ongoing work at the Marine Environment Protection Committee.

(d) Invites the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, taking into account work ongoing at the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the further consideration of this issue during the preparatory segment (technical group) of the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, to consider giving a mandate to the:

(i) Technical Working Group to collaborate with the IMO on the subject of full and partial dismantling of ships and to prepare guidelines for the environmentally sound management of the dismantling of ships.

(ii) Joint meeting of the Technical Working Group with the Consultative Sub-group of Legal and Technical Experts of the Basel Convention to discuss the legal aspects under the Basel Convention relating to the issue of the full and partial dismantling of ships.

(Unofficial Text)

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME

UNEP/CHW/WG.4/LSG/2/CRP.7

15 April 1999

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

Joint meeting of the Technical Working Group with the Consultative Sub-group of Legal and Technical Experts of the Basel Convention

Second session

Geneva, 14-16 April 1999

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR PART II OF THE STUDY ON

IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISION IV/8 - ANNEX VII ISSUES

1. Aware of the growing international concern about the need to reduce the generation and the transboundary movement of hazardous waste to the minimum consistent with environmentally sound and efficient management of such waste.

2. Recalling Decision IV/8: which requests the Technical Working Group in cooperation with the Consultative Sub-Group of Legal and Technical Experts to provide Parties with a detailed and documented analysis that would highlight issues related to Annex VII; and states that Annex VII should be left unchanged until the amendment contained in Decision III/1 enters into force, and confirms that this work should not prejudice any future decisions concerning Annex VII.

3. Referring to the extensive discussions that took place at the Joint meeting of the Technical Working Group with the Consultative Sub-Group of Legal and Technical Experts that has been held in Pretoria, 1998 and centered on the scope of the terms of reference and the agreement on the preliminary elements to be undertaken in regard to the analysis.

4. Referring to the comments on the elements of the analysis submitted by the Parties to the Secretariat.

5. The purpose of Part II of this analysis is to explore, in a transparent, objective and comprehensive manner, health, environmental, social, economic and other issues related to Annex VII that are considered important to the Conference of Parties and to assist Parties to ratify the ban amendment.

Elements of Evaluation:

6. The countries hereby submit that analysis shall be restricted to investigate the following elements at Annex VII and non-Annex VII countries:

Examine the implications of Annex VII with regard to environmental, economical and other aspects.

Evaluate the institutional and legal framework for the implementation of decision III/1.

Evaluate the implications of Annex VII on the obligations of countries to reduce hazardous waste generation and transboundary movements; the current efforts and results of waste minimization programs; and, waste management infrastructure.

Evaluate the means to implement paragraph 21 of the preamble to the Basel Convention to promote assistance to non-Annex VII countries (capacity building) for the sound management of hazardous wastes and other wastes generated in their countries including the provision of financial and technical assistance.

Analyze the risk to human health and the environment associated with the disposal, recycling or recovery of hazardous waste and the indicators that assess those risks.

Evaluate the steps to be taken to implement decision III/1including its relationship with international agreements relevant to the transboundary movements of hazardous wastes in order to assist Parties to ratify the Amendment.

Evaluate the cost-benefit/effectiveness for hazardous waste recycling versus health risks and environmental damages. Examine the implications of Annex VII in terms of furthering the objectives of the Convention including minimization of the generation and transboundary movement of hazardous waste.

END