UNEP/CHW/OEWG/2/12

/

BC

UNEP/CHW/OEWG/3/30/Add.1

/ Distr.: General
23 March 2004
Original: English

1

1

UNEP/CHW/OEWG/3/30/Add.1

Open-ended Working Group of the Basel Convention

on the Control of Transboundary Movements of

Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal

Third session

Geneva, 26–30 April 2004

Item 16 (g) of the provisional agenda[*]

Preparation of draft decisions for consideration by the

Conference of the Parties at its seventh meeting:

national definitions of hazardous wastes

National definitions of hazardous wastes

Comments provided by Parties received after 22 February 2004deadline

Note by the Secretariat

The annex to the present note contains comments provided by Parties (Bahrain, Ethiopia, Hungary, Mexico and Oman) after 22 February 2004 on the draft standard format for reporting under article 3. Azerbaijan, Barbados, Benin, Gabon, Luxembourg and Malawi completed and returned the draft format for reporting under article 3 to the Secretariat. The comments are presented in the Parties’ own words and have not been edited by the Secretariat.

1.Further to decision OEWG-II/5 on national definitions of hazardous wastes (article 3 of the Basel Convention), the Secretariat developed a draft standard format for reporting under article 3 with assistance from Germany and sent it to Parties and Signatories for comment by 21 February 2004. Comments received from Parties as at 22 February 2004 are contained in the document UNEP/CHW/OEWG/3/30.

2.After 22 February 2004, five Parties, namely, Bahrain, Ethiopia, Hungary, Mexico and Oman sent their comments on the draft standard format, which are contained in the annex to the present note. These comments are presented in the Parties’ own words and have not been edited by the Secretariat. Six Parties, namely, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Benin, Gabon, Luxembourg and Malawi, filled out the draft format and returned it to the Secretariat but did not send comments on the draft standard format.

Annex

Bahrain

Accept the draft format for reporting under article 3 of the Basel Convention is and have no comments on it.

Ethiopia

One minor suggestion that might be included under item 1b of the draft document so that it will read as “What is the legal basis of this definition? Is this definition taken from the national law issued for the purpose of domesticating or implementing the Basel Convention?” The rationale is as indicated infra.

Country Parties have a commitment to develop a national regulatory system to domesticate the Basel Convention or to reaffirm the fact that their existing laws are adequate enough to domesticate as well as implement the BC in their own respective countries.

If a country has put in place a national law meant for domesticating and implementing the BC it is quite sure that all the particulars mentioned in the draft format will serve the intended purpose. Otherwise addressing the question “What is the legal basis of this definition?” in the absence of a national law issued to implement the BC, whether responded affirmatively or negatively, does not give any guarantee.

There are countries that have already developed a framework environmental law, which defines what is meant by hazardous waste. These definitions are only to deal with purely internal matters in connection to the management of hazardous wastes, and not for the purpose of international or transboundary movement of hazardous wastes. Added to this, a mere national definition, whether done based on the BC or not, is not sufficient unless details are regulated clearly and readily made available for implementation.

Therefore, in order to foster clarity and put in place an appropriate measure in this context, it would be good to request information whether or not that country has put in place a national law to domesticate or implement the BC and provided the definition of the word hazardous waste with reference to the said legal document.

Hungary

Comment is related to point 2. It is asked to provide “the categories of waste…” but obviously we need to provide the list of waste.

Mexico

[Translation from Spanish]

The Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources considers that it would be useful to include a box asking whether there exists a definition of “waste”, given that the definition of hazardous waste, in many cases, is based on or refers to that for waste.

In box 1, it would be useful to include the effective date of the definition of hazardous waste that is being reported, since, if this information is revised and is reported annually in accordance with article13 of the Basel Convention, one could find that the definitions are different.

The definition of hazardous wastes set out in the law on the prevention and comprehensive management of waste products accords with the list of hazardous wastes and their possible characteristics established in Mexico’s official regulation [Norma Oficial Mexicana] NOM-052-ECOL-1993 (other lists may be established in the future). This situation may be similar in other countries, in the light of which it seems advisable to ask whether countries have established lists of wastes or hazardous characteristics in their legislation that complement their definitions of wastes, and then to compare those with box 2.

In some countries, definitions of wastes could include mildly hazardous wastes, special wastes or even other categories. For this reason, it would be advisable to include a section seeking information on the existence of other types of wastes (with other definitions) which, under national law, are subject to control under the Basel Convention. For example, in Mexico, there can exist hazardous wastes that fall into the category of “special”. This category permits them to be subjected to management plans, but for purposes of export or import, the requirements of relevant international conventions will nevertheless continue to be applied.

Oman

Oman considers the content of the proposal to be clear and well structured in the context of compiling information regarding the national definition of hazardous wastes.

It may be however considered that adoption of such separate reporting form would represent a somewhat unnecessary duplication of effort towards submittal of information as it may be possible for this to be readily incorporated into either the Country Fact Sheet or the annual submittals of pre-filled questionnaire under Article 13.

______

1

[*]UNEP/CHW/OEWG/3/1.