DRAFT TECHNICAL GUIDELINES ON TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENTS OF USED ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT AND E-WASTE

(Version8 May 2012)

COMMENTS BY THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COLOMBIA

15-06-2012

The Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development of Colombia wishes to express its appreciation for the progress obtained in the development of the technical guidelines on transboundary movements of used electrical and electronic equipment and electronic waste (e-waste) as well as for the opportunity given to the countries to send comments and suggestions on the document.

Comments on the introduction:

• We would suggest to find a more specific wording for paragraph 2 in order to clarify that the guidelinesfocus on thewhole equipments (that is e.g. a computer, a refrigerator, a cell phone, etc.) and do not consider materials removed from the equipment on which there could be consensus that they are e-wastes (e.g., activated glasses of screens, cables, etc.).

  • To be consistent with the text of the Convention, it is suggested to modify the wording of paragraph 17 to clarify that subparagraphsc), d), and e) refer to the obligations in Article 4, paragraph 9 of the Convention, while subparagraphs a) and b) are related to Article 4, paragraphs 10 and 11.
  • Colombiaagrees with the comments K3, K5, K6, K8, and K10. However, we do not support the proposal of the United States of America expressed in comments K2 and K4, taking into consideration that in our opinion the purpose of the guidance is not to facilitate the trade, but to clarify the control procedures for the transboundary movements of used equipment and e-waste.

Specific comments:

Section III: Distinction between “waste” and “non-waste” of used equipment

We agree with the statements in paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 and with the fact to declare “non-waste” the whole used equipment destined for direct reuse or if it is sent back for repair to the producer “under warranty” with the intention of receiving it

back for reuse. The foresaid does not include the practice of “refurbishment”, the “hardware updating” and the “repair” that are not under warranty.

In accordance with this, we suggest that the definition of “direct reuse” contained in the glossary (page 17) be revised, as it makes reference not only to the “equipment" but also the “components”,and according to the scope of the guidance it only focuses on the whole equipment.

On the other hand, we agree with the suggestion made by the EU (K29) to replace the verb “would” with “should” in the relevant paragraphs, as well as with the suggestion made by BAN (K14) on the definitionof “fully functional” and the comment (K30) about the need to separatethe activities “evaluation” and “testing”.

Section IV: Procedures for transboundary transport of used equipment that is

not waste”.

  1. The requirements and the procedure established in paragraphs 29 to 34 are considered appropriate, however, it is important to note that, as it is not considered to be "a waste", it is not subject to the control and procedures set out in the Basel Convention; for this reason, this procedure becomes of voluntary nature, and in the case that the governmental authorities request back up information on an specific case, where the exporter should be in condition to provide evidence, but not being a regulated procedure it becomes an informationon a voluntary basis that is difficult to verify in practice.
  1. According to the approach of the guide, the exporter is the main responsible for providing documentation and for performing the tests. However, it would be helpful if the guidelines provide advice on how the importer could be involved in the fulfillment of the requirements listed in the guidelines.
  1. We agree with the proposal made by the EU and Norway (K35) to delete the Section IV B and to make the waste control proceduresapplicable to all movements of used equipment destined for repair or refurbishment. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it would be necessary to establish clearly which waste control procedure is proposed by the EU, and to include it in the guidelines, because it must not be necessarily the procedure established in the Basel Convention that applies, but for example another procedure that is being applied in the EU according to the Regulation 1013/06, but that is not regulated in the developing countries.

Section VA. Transboundary movements of e-waste

The proposals contained in paragraphs 47 and 48 are considered to be clear and in a certain manner obvious, i.e. there is consensus that if the e-waste is “hazardous” the procedure under the Basel Convention will apply for its transboundary movement. The procedure under the Basel Convention applies also when the exporting or the importing country considers that an e-waste is hazardous.

What is not yet clear enough is which e-waste (whole equipment) is consideredto be hazardous and which is not. In this case it would be necessary to ask each country (prior to the export) if it considers the e-waste as hazardous or not, in order to know whether the control procedure under the Basel Convention or other procedure applies, which makes the process somethingtime-consuming.

Section V B. Distinction of "hazardous waste" and "non-hazardous waste”

Regarding this section of the guidance, it is to note that:

  • We do not agree with the comment made by the EU (K51) about deleting “printed circuits boards” from subparagraph d) of paragraph 51 just because they are explicitly mentioned in entry B1110. As is well known in the technical field, “printed circuits boards” containing lead solders (Pb) in amounts that exceed the maximum permissible limits of the TCLP test for toxicity are considered to be hazardous waste and many countries such as Colombia, use this test as a criterion for classifying a waste as hazardous.
  • We suggest to include a new paragraph reminding the countries that the “hazardousness” of a waste depends on its intrinsic properties and physico-chemical components and that "hazard" is not a property that depends on the waste management or disposal process to which the waste is submitted. Therefore this must be the scientific and technical criterion for deciding whether an e-waste is hazardous or not.
  • Taking into account that the list of substances or components presented in paragraph 51 does not contain maximum permissible concentration levels to determine whether they meet one of the Annex III characteristics, an alternative to unify criteria globally in order to be clear about whether thecontrol procedure under the Basel Convention applies or not, could be to include in the guidance indicative (but non-exhaustive) lists of those whole equipments (e-waste) that may fall in one or another classification.

SECTION V. Guidance on the control of transboundary movements of used equipment and e-wastes

A matter of concern is the statement expressed in paragraph 55 in relation with the fact that when e-waste is exported as non-hazardous waste the exporters should always ensure that it isaccompanied by evidence of appropriate testing or assessments to demonstrate it. This makes necessary that the exporter permanently possess evidence of the non-hazardous nature of the waste. These tests may be in some cases expensive and difficult to perform, and sometimes there is no common understanding on how they should be performed in an electronic waste. In this sense, Colombia suggests the need to look for more effective tools that do not involve excessive costs for the exporter, and to this end we present our proposal for consideration that is contained in the Appendix prepared by the Secretariat, concerning the development of an indicative list that includes the e-waste that are hazardous or alternatively those that are not (for whole equipment).

Comment on the Annexes:

Annex II: This annex represents an important progress in the identification of hazardous substances present in the components of e-waste. However, its implementation for making decisions by the authorities on the control of transboundary movements is limited because such information is indicative but not conclusive about the dangerousness of the e-waste (whole equipment).

Annex III: This annex is also an important progress in the identification of the tariff items related to the e-waste. However, it is obvious that based on this information most of the e-wastes could be included in the lists of both annexes (Annex VIII ofhazardous wastesand Annex IX of non-hazardous wastes), therefore the classification of the e-waste as whole equipment remains ambiguous.

Final comment:

Finally, we suggest that the technical guidelines or the procedures to be established in these guidelinesbe oriented primarily to meet the needs of the developing countries, taking into consideration their difficulties related to the customs control and the lack of legislation on e-wastes in those countries.

A call is also made to the Secretariat of the Basel Convention to develop strategies that involve developing countries and countries with economies in transition to much greater extent in the review and discussion of these guidelines, and that highlight the importance of the participation of these countries in sending their comments or suggestions on the latest version of the proposed text (version 8 May 2012).