TL: HOW TO IDENTIFY THE ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE THE BAN - A QUICK GUIDE SO: GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL, (GP) DT: FEBRUARY, 1998 "HAZARDOUS WASTE IS GOOD FOR YOU" The ban on exports of hazardous waste from OECD to non-OECD States was requested in 1992, decided in 1994 and transformed into an amendment in 1995 - by consensus of all Parties to the Basel Convention. Nevertheless, a very few governments are being heavily influenced by certain waste businesses and free-trade zealots who bluntly refuse to accept the global consensus. Desperate to re-establish the "golden" days of hazardous waste dumping where poverty gave waste traders a splendid opportunity to get rid of their poison, these few governments do not cease to try everything possible to undermine the ban. These attempts come in different disguises, but they all pursue the same objective: continue to make substantial profits at the expense of others by avoiding responsibility for one's own hazardous waste. The following is intended to help identify the most common attempts to undermine the ban. These can be broken down to four "classes": arguments which a) are no longer valid, b) twist the facts c) are pure fantasy or d) are subversive. It is clear that the subversive ones are the most dangerous ones. Class 1 Everdirties Description Arguments that are no longer valid as they have been superseded by the ban amendment (lex posterior), an amendment without any exceptions or caveats. Examples * "The Basel Convention provides for bi-and multi-lateral agreements for trade in Art. 11. The ability for sovereign states to voluntarily enter into Art. 11 agreements must be preserved" (BIR et al. ). * "The Basel Convention provides that countries may (at their own decision) accept imports of wastes required 'as a raw material for recycling or recovery industries' (Art. 4.9b). This ability must be preserved" (BIR et al.). Explanation You cannot preserve what is not valid anymore. Class 2 Twistings Description Misinterpretation of the provisions of the Convention. Examples "The application(s) of Israel … make[s] clear that...[it has] the ability to manage [hazardous wastes] in an environmentally sound manner. For [this reason] it would be highly inappropriate for the Basel Convention Parties to determine that Israel … should not be allowed to join Annex VII" (US). Explanation This turns the meaning of environmentally sound management (ESM) on its head. ESM is a general obligation on all Parties on the responsibility for the waste you generated ("taking all practicable steps...") and not how others have to treat your waste in order to be allowed to import it. An OECD State, which wants to export hazardous waste to Non-OECD States, does not comply with ESM. ESM is the very reason for the ban and can therefore not be used as a justification to circumvent it. Class 3 Pure fantasy Description Claim things that a) never happened or b) lack all foundation, and then turn them into precedents. Example a. "Each member country had the opportunity throughout the process to be included on Annex VII based on self assessment, as demonstrated by the listing of Liechtenstein. Reasons other than a party's own capability of ESM may exist for the accession of Parties...to Annex VII" (Canada). b. "The application(s) of … Monaco make[s] clear that … [it has] a need to maintain [its] imports of hazardous wastes… For [this reason] it would be highly inappropriate for the Basel Convention Parties to determine that …Monaco should not be allowed to join Annex VII " (US). Explanation * There was never a "tour de table" of self- assessment. Liechtenstein got included mainly due to its customs union with an OECD State (Switzerland) and furthermore so as to close a loophole to the ban, but not due to ESM (see class 2). Any other reason for accession to Annex VII is in violation of the provisions of the Convention. * The urban principality of Monaco (area of <2 km2) has no interest in importing hazardous waste. Class 4 Subversives Description Attempts to undermine the ban in the name of preserving or strengthening it. Example a. "A country that starts a case under the Dispute Settlement Regulation of the WTO under these provisions has a large chance of winning this case and publicly damaging the export ban decision before this decision had an opportunity to prove itself" (Netherlands). b. "For any country, placement on Annex VII means that …this country may import hazardous wastes from any other Annex VII country, but it is prohibited to export hazardous wastes to countries not included in Annex VII. As some non-OECD countries are developing very strongly, is in the interest of protecting other vulnerable developing countries to have an export ban of hazardous wastes established from these developed non-OECD countries to other developing countries" (Netherlands). Explanation * This calls for rushing ahead with obedience, although such obedience is neither required nor demanded. * This argumentation is paradoxical: it admits the damage from hazardous waste imports and promotes them at the same time. It pretends to seek protection for developing countries, while the actual motivation is to enlarge the possibilities for OECD States to export their hazardous waste.