Unep/Chw/Oewg/7/Inf/3

UNEP/CHW/OEWG/7/INF/3

UNITED
NATIONS / /

BC

UNEP/CHW/OEWG/7/INF/3
/ Distr.: General
16 March 2010
English only

UNEP/CHW/OEWG/7/INF/3

Open-ended Working Group of the Basel Convention

on the Control of Transboundary Movements of

Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal

Seventh session

Geneva, 10–14 May 2010

Item 5 (a) of the provisional agenda[(]

Strategic issues: Strategic Plan and new strategic framework

New Strategic Framework 2012-2021 for the implementation of the Basel Convention

Note by the Secretariat

Background

By its decision IX/3, the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties decided that a new Strategic Framework (NSF) for the implementation of the Basel Convention is required for a ten-year period so that the Basel Convention will promote the environmentally sound management of waste and will play a decisive role in highlighting the links between waste management and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and human health and livelihood. This document is presented pursuant to paragraph 17 of document UNEP/CHW/OEWG/7/3.

I. The context

The Basel Convention has an important role to play in contributing to building a sustainable future. The NSF will take the Convention's agenda forward. The two pillars of the NSF are the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and other wastes, and the environmentally sound management of these wastes. The NSF is conceived in such a way as to respond to changes that occurred in the past and accommodate future developments, and to reflect the different economic and social circumstances, waste management specificities or geographical particularities.

The implementation of the Basel Convention takes place in the context of evolving environmental policies and changing patterns of consumption and production. Worldwide, efforts to minimize the amount of waste produced, to making more efficient use of resources, to encourage the manufacturing of goods and products from sustainable raw materials and recycled materials, to drive increases in recycling and composting, to put in place the required waste management facilities or to encourage the development of markets for secondary materials have an impact on the way the Basel Convention is implemented and on its role in contributing to the protection of human health and the environment.

The environmentally sound management principles applied to hazardous wastes and other wastes, namely to minimize the quantity of wastes, to reduce transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and other wastes to a minimum, to reuse and recycle wastes, to minimize hazardous constituents in goods and products, represent a baseline for aiming at reducing the potential harmful effects of any waste and for progressing in the transformation of wastes into valuable materials or resources.

The draft of the NSF prepared through the process outlined in document UNEP/CHW/OEWG/7/3 is designed in such a way as to consider the needs of all Parties, to promote synergies among the chemicals and waste conventions, to link up to and support those international activities supporting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and to connect to thematic strategies or programmes, especially the UNEP proposed Global Platform on Waste Management, the UNEP Green Economy Initiative, the UNEP Medium Term Strategy, the work on sustainable consumption and production (Marrakech process), the UNIDO cleaner production programme, and the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and the outcome of CSD19[1]). The draft NSF recognizes that hazardous wastes matters are complex issues which are relevant to a large number of stakeholders. The necessity to provide clarity about the role of the Basel Convention as a legally binding instrument within such a diversity of actors and processes is emphasized.

II. Structure of the draft NSF

The draft NSF as set out in the annex is composed of the following sections:

(a) Vision;

(b) Guiding principles;

(d) Means of implementation.

Three overarching strategic Goals constitute the draft NSF, namely:

(a) Goal 1: Effective implementation of Parties' obligations on transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and other wastes;

(b) Goal 2: Strengthening the environmentally sound management of wastes;

(c) Goal 3: Promoting the integration of the environmentally sound management of wastes into national development strategies and poverty eradication plans to contribute to sustainable livelihood and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.

A set of specific Objectives deepen the strategic Goals 1 and 2.

A series of Means of Implementation are identified as critical to put into effect the draft NSF. These cover:

(a) Cooperation and partnerships with public and private stakeholders;

(b) Cooperation and coordination among the chemicals and waste conventions and programmes as well as with other waste-related MEAs, organizations, institutions and programmes;

(d) Mobilization of resources.

III. Some preliminary remarks regarding the formulation of indicators

Decision IX/3 (operational paragraph 10) invites Parties to submit, among other things, their views on the New Strategic Framework (NSF), including on indicators of achievement and performance. The main purpose, as proposed in the present paper, would be to help report on and review advancement in the implementation of the NSF. At this stage, due to lack of or insufficient quantitative data and statistical quality trends, it is felt that general indicators could be used while working on the development of more precise or performance indicators that would require a more robust and comprehensive set of data. General indicators could provide useful information for helping Parties in reporting and in setting priorities or focusing on policies that facilitate the implementation of the Basel Convention.

At this point in time, it may be premature also, at the international level, to aim at developing indicators that would serve as tools to convert hazardous waste data into information for sound management due to, in particular, weaknesses in the current state of reporting under the Basel Convention.

The scope of the proposed indicators would be global with possibilities to identify sub-indicators of relevance to be used at the national level.

A. A methodological pathway developed internationally

A lot of work has been conducted internationally on the development of environmental indicators (i.e.: UN Commission for Sustainable Development, OECD and EU/ETC). The methodologies propose similar models, e.g.: UNCSD DSR (Driving force-State-Response), OECD PSR (Pressure-State-Response).

In regard to hazardous waste, four global environmental indicators have been retained:

(a) Pressure indicator - Generation of hazardous waste (tonnes/year);

(b) State indicator – Imports and exports of hazardous waste (tonnes/year);

(d) Response indicator – Expenditure on hazardous waste treatment (US$/year).

It flows from the above that the agreed indicators are dealing essentially with downstream measures and end-of-pipe management practices. In addition, some indicators may not be so useful or adequate (e.g. contaminated areas). Experiences by countries progressively bring new information on the testing of these indicators and it would be important to benefit from the building of such knowledge in the use of the above-referred indicators. Such process would be relevant and useful to the ongoing efforts to streamline and improve the reporting functions under the Basel Convention and to the development of national performance indicators applicable in the context of the NSF.

B. The specificity of hazardous waste

In the spirit, intent and purpose of the Basel Convention, the following goals and tools are promoted for hazardous waste:

(a) Prevent generation in the first place (minimization);

(b) Ensure environmentally sound and efficient management (ESM);

(d) Control and reduce transboundary movements to a minimum compatible with ESM;

(e) Implement prohibitions of exports or imports;

Today, data and statistics on minimization, generation, prohibitions and ESM practices (whether for recycling or final disposal) are deficient, some time inconsistent, at the global level.

Hazardous waste management represents a small portion of the waste management infrastructure but may necessitate high-level capacity to deal properly with them as well as sophisticated disposal facilities. Countries, being at different levels of economic development and having a diversity of industrial set up, experience specific hazardous waste management challenges; the amount and composition (chemical and physical characteristics) as well as the fate (disposal, treatment, recycling) of hazardous waste vary widely depending on the economic profile, the future development of each country and global economic trends. Consequently, the pressures and responses may differ from one country to another.

C. Pointers used for developing indicators

The drivers that lead to hazardous waste generation are represented mainly by:

(a) Economic development, growth or recession;

(b) Characteristics of the waste market and commercial trading patterns;

(d) Production and consumption patterns;

(e) Public awareness;

(f) Type of energy production, transport and use;

(g) Type of waste and anti-pollution operations (incineration, co-incineration, landfill, biochemical and physical treatment, remediation, gas or liquid effluents cleaning, ...);

(h) Modes of transport;

(i) Military development.

The pressures deriving from these drivers include:

(a) Increase in industrial production (or its slow down);

(b) Increase in construction and building (or its slow down);

(d) Increase in health care services;

(e) Increase in consumption of goods and energy (or its slow down);

(f) Increase in urbanization;

(g) Increase in agriculture (surface);

(h) Increase in environmental pollution and contamination;

(i) Increase in cleaning up operations (remediation, mitigation of pollution).

All these factors will lead to increasing the generation of hazardous waste (per capita) and waste intensity (in kg. per million of US$); in some cases stabilization and reduction could be witnessed when there is economic recession.

The State response may include, depending on the specific situation and capacity of each country:

(a) Export or import for the purpose of recycling or recovery;

(b) Export or import for the purpose of final disposal (e.g. contaminated soils);

(d) Prohibition of landfilling of hazardous waste;

(e) Prohibition of export or import;

(f) Improvement of treatment on site;

(g) Introduction of low-waste technologies or processes;

(h) Separate collection of hazardous from non-hazardous waste;

(i) Development of interim storage facilities;

(j) Policy for waste avoidance and economic incentives to promote minimization and recycling;

(k) Education, training and public awareness;

(l) Etc.

D. Type of indicators used

Two types of indicators are widely used:

(a) Global indicators:

(i) Total or global generation of hazardous waste;

(ii) Decoupling hazardous waste from GDP;

(iii) Identifying and quantifying hazardous waste streams.

(b) Sub-indicators

(i) Generation of hazardous waste per capita;

(ii) Hazardous waste intensity;

(iii) Treatment of hazardous waste.

Currently, it would be difficult to replicate these indicators in the context of the NSF. There is not a solid enough basis for this yet. The production of clear and solid aggregated information is not available. Additionally, indicators will remain weak in the absence or limited quantitative objectives.

E. Possible interim approach

The development of commonly agreed indicators to measure countries' environmental performance in the domain of hazardous waste would be both relevant and useful to assess the implementation of the Basel Convention, taking into account that several sets of indicators could perform the agreed tasks, serving different audiences and purpose. As a first step, agreement could be reached on a logical, coherent and comprehensive framework based on the ongoing work done at the international level. While such course of action may be pursed, Parties may agree to develop some interim indicators to help them review progress under the NSF until more sophisticated indicators become available.

In the context of the NSF, Parties may wish to measure or review progress in:

(a) Meeting the basic needs for effective implementation of the Basel Convention;

(b) Raising environmentally sound management capacities and capabilities of Parties;

As it will be noted, the proposed indicators go beyond the four categories agreed internationally with a view to trying to capture more up-stream measures and factors. As said at the beginning the ambition, here, is limited to trying to identify some indicators that may help Parties to review the advancement of the implementation of the NSF. The indicators are presented as possible illustration of the kind of indicators that could be both useful and pertinent. The following indicators are proposed for the purpose of discussion. They are neither comprehensive nor exhaustive.

As a next step Parties may wish to discuss the possibility to formulate more precise indicators with measurable deadlines and quantitative targets (e.g. “x number of Parties have done something by the year ...” or “ % of Parties accomplished some action on a yearly basis”).

Draft New Strategic Framework

I. Vision

Protection of human health and the environment by controlling the transboundary movements of hazardous waste and by strengthening the environmentally sound management of waste as a contribution to promoting sustainable livelihood and to achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

II. Guiding principles

The principles guiding the implementation of the NSF are inspired by and based on the Environmentally Sound Management principles adopted by the Conference of Parties with emphasis on:

(a) The waste management hierarchy;

(b) The sustainable use of resources;

(d) Waste minimization;

(e) The reduction of hazardous waste and other waste;

(f) Integrated waste management;

(g) The life-cycle approach;

(h) The polluter pays principle;

(i) The extended producer responsibility;

(j) The precautionary principle;

(k) The proximity principle;

(l) Partnerships, cooperation and synergies;

(m) Flexibility to respond to emerging issues.

III. Strategic goals and objectives

A. Goal 1: Effective implementation of Parties' obligations on transboundary movements of hazardous waste and other waste

Possible indicators (high aggregated level to measure goal implementation):

(a) Clear understanding of the requirements contained in articles 3. 4, 6 and 13 enabling effective compliance with these requirements.

(b) .....