TL: THE BASEL CONVENTION - WHAT IS IT ALL ABOUT? SO: GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL, (GP) DT: FEBRUARY, 1998 Ban pollution transfer, implement pollution prevention Tackle the causes, not the symptoms Take responsibility for your activities 1. A RECAPITULATION Since the first negotiations of the Basel Convention in 1988, developing countries and environmentalists alike intended to establish a ban on the exports of all hazardous waste from OECD to non-OECD States. But in 1989, when delegates initially adopted the Convention, the language of the treaty fell far short of a ban on international hazardous waste trade. Since the Convention intended to monitor transboundary movements, rather than to prevent them, many developing countries refused to sign or ratify it - they did not want to support a convention that legalised what actually constituted a crime. Thanks to a steadfast coalition made of the G-77, China, Central and East European countries, the African group, the Latin American group, the Nordic group and finally also the European Community, the ban, initially requested at the First Conference of the Parties in December 1992 (Decision I/22), became a reality in March 1994 at the Second Conference of Parties (Decision II/12). All transboundary movements of hazardous wastes destined for final disposal from OECD to non-OECD States were banned as of that date, and transboundary movements of hazardous wastes destined for recovery from OECD to non-OECD States were to be phased out by 31 December 1997. This Decision was based on the acknowledgement that a trade ban was the only possibility to protect the non-OECD States from the hazardous wastes of the OECD States, given the failure of the prior informed consent procedure and substantial problems of developing countries to control and enforce national bans on the imports of hazardous wastes. It was only after the Parties of the Basel Convention had decided to ban the hazardous waste trade from OECD to non-OECD States that many developing countries ratified it. Since Decision II/12 in March 1994, the number of Parties to the Basel Convention rose to almost the double, from 65 to currently 117. In September 1995, the Third Conference of the Parties decided to amend the Convention to enshrine Decision II/12 into the Convention so as to leave no doubt to its legal certainty. In keeping with the repeatedly well justified and commonly accepted rationale of an OECD to non-OECD trade restriction, a new Annex VII was created, only to allow the explicit mentioning of the European Community as a separate entity within the OECD. Furthermore, Liechtenstein, although not an OECD country, was added to Annex VII due to its special geopolitical situation. As Liechtenstein shares a customs union with Switzerland, Liechtenstein is not able to control its borders and could therefore represent a loophole for the export ban. Liechtenstein never expressed any interest in importing hazardous waste. ALL Parties have agreed twice by consensus to the ban. Any attempts to undermine or misinterpret these unambiguous decisions therefore have to be immediately rejected as acts in bad faith. 1. GENERAL OBLIGATIONS As part of the general obligations, Parties of the Basel Convention shall take the appropriate measures: * to reduce the generation of hazardous wastes to a minimum (Art. 4.2.a), * to ensure self-sufficiency of adequate disposal facilities for environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes (Art. 4.2.b) * to prevent pollution from the management of hazardous wastes (Art. 4.2.c) * to reduce the transboundary movements of hazardous wastes to a minimum (Art. 4.2.d) 2. ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND MANAGEMENT The Convention defines environmentally sound management as "taking all practicable steps to ensure that hazardous wastes or other wastes are managed in a manner which will protect human health and the environment against the adverse effects which may result from such wastes"(Art. 2.8). Hazardous waste trade from OECD to non-OECD States is entirely motivated by the profits that can be made from exploiting different protection standards. Waste traders try to save the higher disposal costs in OECD States caused by higher protection standards at the expense of the human health and the environment in non-OECD States with lower protection standards. Therefore, an OECD country is simply NOT taking all practicable steps to protect human health and the environment when it allows the exports of its hazardous wastes to non-OECD States. It was in its pursuit of environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes that the Basel Convention decided to ban transboundary movements of hazardous waste from OECD to non-OECD States (new Article 4A), "recognizing that [these] … have a high risk of not constituting an environmentally sound management (new preamble paragraph)". 3. MINIMIZATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION Environmentally sound management is an important part of the Convention and forms the very basis of the waste export ban. However, the overarching objective of the Basel Convention is to reduce the generation of hazardous wastes to a minimum (Article 4.2a). This is undoubtedly the most effective way of protecting human health and the environment – prevention is better than cure. However a few rich OECD States are systematically ignoring this primary general obligation. They persist in turning a blind eye on the very causes of the hazardous waste crisis: their very own production technologies that generate hazardous waste. They pretend that the disposal of hazardous waste is only a matter of the appropriate end-of-pipe technology. However, in insisting on exporting their waste instead of disposing of it back home with the allegedly appropriate technology, they implicitly acknowledge the inherent failure of the end-of-pipe measures. The short-term profits from hazardous waste generating activities depend on the possibility to avoid the disposal costs by exporting them. As long as the generators of hazardous waste are not being held responsible for their waste, they will never reduce its generation. This damages human health and the environment both in OECD and non-OECD States. It is overdue that these few OECD States start to understand the huge long-term benefits that lie in the shift to clean production instead of desperately trying to maintain their short-term profits at the expense of human health and the environment abroad. 4. THE GAINS The hazardous waste export ban does not intend to hamper industrial operations as such. On the contrary, it helps to shape industrial operations towards clean production - the only way to sustainable development. It gives a strong incentive for OECD States to switch to clean alternatives while it avoids pollution transfer to non-OECD States. Non-OECD States could immediately benefit from these clean production technologies so as to leapfrog the hazardous waste producing activities and the failed end-of-pipe "remedies". Instead of repeating the mistakes of the OECD States that have led to a seriously degraded environment with tremendous clean-up costs, these countries would avoid damage and costs by not creating the problem in the first place. 5. CONCLUSIONS It is crucial that we put the issue of hazardous waste exports from OECD to non-OECD States behind us so that we do not delay any further the work that must be done to ensure sustainable development both in OECD and non-OECD States. Greenpeace therefore urges the Fourth Conference of Parties to act with determination to keep the ban on hazardous waste exports from OECD to non-OECD States firm and make it operational, thus freeing the way to shift the focus from stopping the worst to achieving the best for the global future. The proper implementation of the clear OECD to non-OECD hazardous waste export ban is imperative: * to stop the transfer of pollution from the wealthy industrialised OECD States to non-OECD States, * to keep closed the "escape valves" (i.e. bilateral agreements, Annex VII expansion) for OECD industries that avoid the minimisation of the generation of hazardous waste, so as to ensure that the OECD States assume full responsibility for their own hazardous waste (> 80% of total generated globally), * to move towards a cleaner future both in OECD and non-OECD States based on clean production.