Доклад об осуществлении решений, принятых Конференцией Сторон на ее шестом совещании
жүктеу/скачать 1.41 Mb.
|
- Бұл бет үшін навигация:
- Part II. Compilation of written comments on the issue submitted to the Secretariat in advance of the third session of the of the Open ended Working Group Australia
- Egypt 1. General comments
- 2. Examination of the environmental, economical and other implications of annex VII, paragraph 12
- 3. Evaluation of the institutional and legal framework for the implementation of decision III/1 – paragraph 16
- 4. Evaluation of capacity building assistance to non-Annex VII countries – paragraph 23
- 5. Evaluation of the steps taken to implement decision III/1 – paragraph 30
- ISRAEL: Comments on issues related to the analysis of Annex VII – Phase II, Presented to the Secretariat of the Basel Convention according to Decision OEWG-II/6
- I. Examination of the environmental, economical and other implications of Annex VII. 1.
- II. Evaluation of the steps taken to implement decision III/1 3.
- Basel Action Network (BAN)
- Specific Comments III. A.
- Substance Best estimate* Low estimate* High estimate*
БиблиографияПри подготовке проекта доклада использовались следующие документы:
Part II. Compilation of written comments on the issue submitted to the Secretariat in advance of the third session of the of the Open ended Working Group Australia January 2004 In Decision OEWG-II/6, the Open-ended Working Group, considering the first draft of the analysis of issues related to Annex VII prepared by the Secretariat, invites Parties and others to submit to the Secretariat, by 31 January 2004, any further technical or specific comments or information taking into account, as appropriate, the points contained in Annex III to the report of the second session of the Open-ended Working Group that would not reopen discussion or raise new issues. Australia, taking into account the point contained in paragraph 12 of Annex III to the report of the second session of the Open-ended Working Group, wishes to submit the specific comments set out below. Paragraph 12 states: “The issue of the existing structure of Annex VII as a potential obstacle to the ratification of the Ban Amendment was raised by some Parties.” Australia has consistently argued that the distinction between Annex VII and non Annex VII countries will remain problematic until environmental criteria are developed under the Basel Convention to distinguish between the two groups of countries. In this context, we note that paragraph 17 of the first draft of the analysis of issues related to Annex VII prepared by the Secretariat, document UNEP/CHW/OEWG/2/7, states:
We do not regard the issues described above as problematic so far as the capacities of Annex VII countries are concerned. If an Annex VII country lacks the capacity to manage hazardous wastes in an environmentally sound manner, other Parties must not allow hazardous wastes to be exported to that country, in accordance with paragraphs 8 and 10 of Article 4 of the Convention. Paragraph 8 of Article 4 states: “Each Party shall require that hazardous wastes or other wastes, to be exported, are managed in an environmentally sound manner in the State of import or elsewhere”. Paragraph 10 of Article 4 states: “The obligation under this Convention of States in which hazardous wastes and other wastes are generated to require that those wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner may not under any circumstances be transferred to the States of import or transit.” The issues described in paragraph 4 above are problematic, however, if a non Annex VII country has a capacity for the environmentally sound management of hazardous and other wastes. An Annex VII Party that has ratified the ban amendment must not allow hazardous wastes to be exported to a non-Annex VII country, but if the importing country has the relevant capacity, such a prohibition would not be based on the lack of capacity to manage hazardous wastes in an environmentally sound manner. It would be based only on the fact that the importing country in question was not listed in Annex VII. This would raise questions about how and why countries were listed in Annex VII. It should be noted that the Parties have done nothing, in the more than eight years since Decision III/1 adopted Annex VII on 22 September 1995, to develop a process to ensure that listing in Annex VII is based on considerations that are demonstrably linked to environmental competency. Despite this lack of a Basel Convention process, the membership of Annex VII has expanded and is continuing to do so. In 1995, Annex VII contained 26 member countries of the OECD: today it contains 30. This year it will also contain six member states of the European Community who are not members of the OECD. In just over eight years, the number of countries listed in Annex VII will have increased from 27 to 37 without any oversight by the Parties to the Basel Convention. It should also be noted that the Parties have been able to develop a capacity to oversight amendments to Annexes VIII and IX. In February 1998, Decision IV/9 incorporated List A, identifying wastes characterized as hazardous and List B, identifying non-hazardous wastes, as Annex VIII and Annex IX respectively. Less than two years later, in December 1999, Decision V/24 adopted a procedure for reviewing and adjusting these lists of wastes. Less than five years later, in December 2002, Decision VI/35 adjusted the lists for the first time. The fact that good progress has been made in developing a procedure for adjusting Annexes VIII and IX raises further questions as to why no progress has been made with Annex VII. Of course, Decision IV/8 decided to leave Annex VII unchanged until the amendment contained in Decision III/1 entered into force, but this does not preclude the development of a procedure for amending Annex VII, even if such a procedure is not yet in use. Canada Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3 January 22, 2004 Ms. Sachiko Kuwabara-Yamamoto Executive Secretary Basel Convention Secretariat 15, Chemin des Anemones 1219 Chatelaine (Geneva) Switzerland RE: Canadian Input on the Analysis of Issues Related to Annex VII Paper prepared by the Basel Secretariat: Dear Ms. Kuwabara-Yamamoto: At OEWG 2 held in Geneva last October countries were asked to submit comments on the Basel secretariats paper "Analysis of Issues Related to Annex VII". Canada feels that the secretariat paper presented at OEWG 2 appears to be a balanced and a representative view of positions taken by various parties on the Annex VII issue. It is for this reason Canada's comments, at this time, reflect minor changes focusing primarily on attachments to the paper rather than substantive changes within the paper. In order to keep the number of documents referenced within reasonable limits, Canada suggests UN and OECD documents only be used. Canada believes that referencing the following documents would be useful in assisting countries in answering questions related to the Ban amendment:
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require further information. Yours sincerely, France Jacovella, P.Eng.
The main purpose of the analysis is to assist countries to ratify and implement the Ban Amendment. Although the Ban Amendment has yet to become a legally binding instrument, it is morally binding and has successfully prevented large scale dumping of hazardous wastes in developing countries. The Ban Amendment has played an essential role in protecting human health and the environment against the adverse effects that may result from such wastes. It represents a significant achievement for the environment. Priority should be attached to attaining the necessary ratifications that would expedite its entry into force.
It should be made clear that by preventing the transfer of hazardous wastes to developing countries, the Ban Amendment constitutes a major step towards achieving environmentally sound management. 3. Evaluation of the institutional and legal framework for the implementation of decision III/1 – paragraph 16 Paragraph 16 needs to be revised and corrected. The lack of domestic legislation in developing countries (non-Annex VII countries) does not constitute a legal obstacle to the ratification of the Ban Amendment. The Ban Amendment places requirements on developed countries (annex VII countries) to ensure that hazardous wastes are not exported to non-annex VII countries. It is assumed that developed countries have the capacities to develop the institutional and legal infrastructure to ratify and implement the Ban Amendment.
The Basel Convention Regional Centres should play a principal role in facilitating the ratification of the Ban Amendment. Workshops and seminars should be organized to improve understanding of the Ban Amendment and raise awareness of the importance of its ratification. 5. Evaluation of the steps taken to implement decision III/1 – paragraph 30 With regard to the relationship between Annex VII and agreements under the World Trade Organization (WTO), it is important to note that free trade does not apply to hazardous wastes. 6. Future Prospects – paragraph 37 Paragraph 37 needs revision and clarification. It does not give consideration to the environmental and health effects of recycling hazardous wastes. Israel 
STATE OF ISRAEL Ministry of the Environment
January 2004 Israel wishes to express its appreciation for the effort and the work done by the Secretariat in the studying and analyzing various aspects and problems emerging from Annex VII, and to make the following comments and observations in accordance with Decision OEWG-II/6.
In order to overcome this absence, some criteria should be determined, in addition to those that already exist in the Convention (mainly in Chapter IV), phase II of the analysis of issues related to Annex VII and in the recent publication on ESM published by the Secretariat, including the following: (1) The availability of legal and administrative tools, which will enable a Party to achieve ESM of hazardous wastes are: a. Appropriate legislative infrastructure: laws, regulations, directives and guidelines; b. Proper control and implementation tools, including surveillance, monitoring and reporting activities; c. Elaboration of emergency response capacity to treat chemical accidents. (2) An appropriate level of industrialization and technical development, in particular of industrial resource recovery, recycling, reclamation, direct re-use or alternative uses. (3) The capacity to handle hazardous wastes in an environmentally sound manner, measured by its - a. Technical capacity for recovery and recycling of secondary raw materials; b. Ability to support a viable secondary raw material recovery and recycling industry; c. Existing capacities for environmentally sound treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes. (4) The potential contribution to the development of cleaner production technologies and enhancement of sustainable development on the national, as well as, on the regional and global levels. In addition, a Party that has ESM proven capacities, as specified, should be required to refrain from exporting hazardous wastes and other wastes to countries lacking appropriate treatment and management capacities.
“ Marked differences are noted among non-Annex VII countries in terms of their capacity to manage hazardous wastes. Non-Annex VII countries include some countries with a capacity for the environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes and other wastes. In this case, a capacity for the environmentally sound management may often be specific to particular hazardous waste streams. . . . Although there is a less marked difference in waste management performance among the Annex VII countries, a number of these countries, in particular those with economies in transition that are members of OECD, are still developing, or reinforcing their waste management infrastructure and recovery and recycling capacity. It should be noted that the environmentally sound management capacity of some Annex VII countries may also be confined to certain specific hazardous waste streams." It is our understanding that the analysis emphasizes the importance of making a specific assessment of environmental capacities of each individual Party in relation to its inclusion in annex VII. 5. An inevitable conclusion from the aforementioned is that the export of hazardous wastes to Annex VII countries that lack the infrastructure and capacity to manage them in an environmentally sound manner, appears to be in contradiction to the objectives of the Basel Convention as expressed in Article 4 Paragraphs 8 and 10 that state: Paragraph 8- "Each Party shall require that hazardous wastes or other wastes, to be exported, are managed in an environmentally sound manner in the State of import or elsewhere." ; Paragraph 10- "The obligation under this Convention of States in which hazardous wastes and other wastes are generated to require that those wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner may not under any circumstances be transferred to the States of import or transit." The above-demonstrated inconsistencies raise legal and constitutional issues that should be considered and solved. 6. As stated in Article 4 Paragraph 9: "Parties shall take the appropriate measures to ensure that the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and other wastes only be allowed if:…(b) The wastes in question are required as raw material or recovery industries in the States of import;" . . . . . It seems that due to the present structure of Annex VII, it is not possible to meet this objective of the Convention. 7. It should also be noted, that since the adoption of decision IV/8 -“ to leave Annex VII unchanged until the amendment contained in Decision III/1 enters into force," some countries, among them those with economies in transition, have joined the OECD and other countries are expected to join the EU in the near future. These countries therefore will automatically be included in Annex VII. In addition to the legal implications of this situation vis a vis Decision IV/8, it is also important not to overlook its environmental implications. 8. Concerning questions raised during the second session of the Open-Ended Working Group in regard to "The relationship of Annex VII with international trade rules and WTO was raised as an important issue”, we support the expressed notion “that it would be useful for the secretariat to prepare a text containing factual information.". Within this context the following matters might be considered inter alia: a. Are wastes intended for recycling or recovery treatment defined as a “product” according to WTO rules; b. What are the impacts on international trade caused by the present structure of Annex VII, and especially regarding hazardous waste recycling and recovery industries in non-Annex VII countries, compared to similar industries located in Annex VII countries. It is worthwhile noting that these matters are referred to in Chapters I, XI, XII and XX of the GATT agreements and might be considered. We expect that these comments will be considered and integrated in the future study on issues related to Annex VII.
February 2004 Japan appreciates the secretariat’s work in preparing the draft of the analysis contained in UNEP/CHW/OEWG/2/7. Decision OEWG II/6 invites the Parties to submit comments on the draft. Japan considers that the Analysis should be objective and neutral, and should address the Parties’ concerns adequately, in order to provide the Parties with enough information to consider the Annex VII issue, a necessary step towards the ratification of the Ban Amendment. From this point of view, Japan wishes to submit the following specific comments. 1. Japan considers that the cases in paragraph 21, which are gathered from existing official publications, are useful in understanding the actual implications of Annex VII. Japan welcomes the possible addition of cases as long as they are also from existing official publications. Adding cases from other sources should be avoided, because otherwise there might be numerous cases ranging in quality which would spoil the balance and quality of the report. 2. Regarding the issue of the relationship with agreements under the WTO, taking into account the discussion at OEWG2, Japan suggests that the following paragraph of factual information be added after paragraph 32. 32 bis. Regarding the relationship with agreements under the WTO, in the past meetings of the Basel Convention, some parties, in view of the importance of a mutually supportive relationship between trade and the environment, supported the listing of parties in Annex VII based on the parties’ waste-management capacity rather than OECD membership. There have also been some studies published that analyze the issues of this relashonship.1 Under the WTO, the Committee of Trade and the Environment (CTE) has been undertaking negotiations on “the relationship between existing WTO rules and specific trade obligations (STOs) set out in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs)” according to the Doha Ministerial Declaration adopted in November 2001. To date, its discussions have been focused on developing a common understanding of the mandate, and the results of the negotiations have yet to be seen. 1 For example: Robert Housman, et al., The Use of Trade Measures in Select Multilateral Environmental Agreements, UNEP (Environment and Trade 10), 1995.
6 February 2004 General Comments The mandate of the terms of reference for phase II of the Annex VII analysis states that “the purpose of this analysis is to explore, in a transparent, objective and comprehensive manner, health, environmental, social, economic and other issues related to Annex VII that are considered important to the Conference of Parties and to assist Parties to ratify the ban amendment.” The requirements are unequivocal that the exploration of the issues must be transparent, objective and comprehensive, and be included with a view to assist Parties in ratifying the Basel Ban Amendment. There are certain points in the present document that we believe are likely to fail the test of meeting fair standards of objectivity and comprehensiveness and moreover are, on balance, not aimed to assist Parties to ratify the ban amendment. One crucial point that has been bypassed often is the economic costs on the environment and human health - the price tag for pollution. BAN has consistently advocated that this type of study or analysis be undertaken in order to fully comprehend the repercussions of waste trade and its impact on the local environment and community. This is the other side of the economic coin of the trade in hazardous wastes that is consistently unaccounted for. The terms of reference bears out the need for this type of analysis, and yet this has never been done. There are also areas of flagrant imbalance and non-objectivity in the analysis. One striking example is right at the very beginning, when the list of issues regarding implementation of the ban amendment all contain negatives and no positives. This imbalanced portrayal belies the fact that in 2003,8 ratifications occurred for the Ban Amendment and one has already occurred in January of 2004. The amendment has been on a steady pace of achieving more than 5 ratifications per year and recently this average is seeing a clear increase. Compared with a similar instrument like the London Protocol (receiving 2.66 ratifications per year, thus far) that bans the dumping of industrial wastes at sea, the Basel Ban Amendment has received excellent support. Presently there are now 44 total ratifications in total. Surely, these 44 nations see something positive or have experienced something positive in ratifying the Ban Amendment. Have these experiences been translated or communicated into the analysis? Wouldn’t the experiences of those that have ratified the ban be vital with respect to the consideration of assisting parties to ratify the ban? So far the paper is lacking in this regard, and as such reveals a certain imbalance and lack of objectivity in contradiction to its mandate. The comments that follow are consistent with the mandate to not consider new issues or attempt to raise new issues not dealt with already in the current analysis. The comments below are given to help steer the present analysis closer to what the terms of reference have originally called for in terms of balance, objectivity and with a view to assisting the Parties to Ratify the Ban Amendment. Specific Comments III. A. There is a need to mention the positive experiences of Parties who have ratified the Ban Amendment in this survey or summary of issues raised by Parties. Recently, the Ban has seen an increase in ratifications with 9 in the last 13 months. The Parties who have ratified the Amendment have something valuable to contribute in the analysis, as to why they ratified, and the noted benefits of doing so. Thus, it is imperative to include such positive issues in order to arrive at a balanced and well-rounded analysis of the Annex VII issue. As this new text must be provided for by those countries that have ratified the ban, we would request that the Parties that have already ratified the ban be asked to submit some observations in this regard before the text is finalized. IV. B. 1. Para. 13. This paragraph is incorrect in that some of the noted “principles” are in fact obligations of the Convention. The “proximity principle” which does not in fact exist in the Convention is therefore not really of significant standing in the Basel Convention. Finally, despite the fact that the self-sufficiency principle and least transboundary movement principles are actually obligations of the Convention, it is incorrect to state so vaguely: “recognizing that the application of those principles will vary from country to country.” Finally, in stating unequivocally that: “in some cases, however environmentally sound and efficient management of certain hazardous wastes may be achieved at specialized facilities located in another country”, the statement in a way flies in the face of the obligations of the Convention, and likely the Ban Amendment. Further, there is no recognition of Annex VII itself here which the analysis is supposed to be about. Annex VII was created to respect the special needs of developing countries as well as the special responsibilities of developed countries. Therefore, we strongly suggest that the text should be dramatically altered to read as follows: The Convention calls on all Parties to minimize the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and to strive for national self-sufficiency in hazardous waste management. Thus there must be an effort to build capacity for such environmentally sound management in each country in order to reduce transboundary movements. Developed countries have a special role in this regard vis a vis, developing countries. Para. 14. The first sentence of paragraph 14 makes an assertion of fact, which we believe to be true, yet it is not supported by any citation of evidence or sources proving the factual claim. The study mentioned in the second sentence only examines zinc and lead, and would thus, fail to qualify as supportive of the previous assertion in the paragraph. The statement in subpragraph (a) is fine, however, it discusses a percentage of the total zinc wastes traded that are in fact hazardous under the Convention and this bears no relation to subparagraph (b) which starts a discussion about competitiveness. In fact, subparagraph (b) doesn’t assert anything other than the fact that something “could” occur. The fact that something “could” occur in the future, is hardly relevant here, as the list of things that “could” occur, should they be cited in full would be a long list indeed. For the foregoing reasons, we suggest that paragraph 14 be deleted as being unhelpful in fulfilling the mandate of the study. IV. B. 2. Para. 16. There is a significant logical flaw in the conclusion arrived at by the study as stated in the first sentence in this paragraph, as it misinterprets the requirements under the Basel Convention and Decision III/1. BAN had commented on this fact earlier in our comments on the consultant’s incorrect conclusion. While the Convention imposes an obligation on all Parties, Decision III/1, on the contrary, only calls for implementation on the part of Annex VII countries, namely those countries that are member group of mostly industrialized nations called the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the European Union and Liechtenstein. Thus, it is incorrect to assert that the countries that must implement the ban have inadequate capacity or resources to do so. Rather, the ban was designed precisely to place responsibility on countries that were certain to have all of the infrastructure and economic development to implement the ban. The thrust of the entire paragraph -- that OECD countries lack the infrastucture, resources or legislative capacity to implement the ban, which only they must implement is an utter falsehood. Moreover, the study with its faulty conclusion fails in fulfilling the terms of reference requirement of assisting parties in ratifying the Ban Amendment, as it regrettably discourages any ratification from occurring. For these reasons the paragraph should be deleted.
Para. 17. Again this section is a discussion of the implementation of decision III/1 which only must be implemented by Annex VII countries. Therefore, we cannot understand the relevance of statements about the lack of capacity of non-Annex VII countries. As there is little revealed in this paragraph regarding OECD countries, we suggest deleting this paragraph. At the very least all references to non-OECD countries should be deleted as the paragraph is meant to deal with implementing Decision III/1. Para. 18. The discussion in the final three sentences refers to a matrix and a baseline. As this analysis is not meant to be a summary of other papers but a stand alone document, we would suggest deleting the last three sentences of this paragraph. Para. 19. Oddly there is no discussion here about the increase or decrease of hazardous waste flows from Annex VII countries to non-Annex VII countries as plotted over time. This is the most relevant data with respect to the ban as it is not designed to minimize other waste flows, only those from Annex VII to non-Annex VII. This data can also help Parties revisit the significance of the ban which can ultimately assist them in ratifying the Ban Amendment. All others are irrelevant to the issues concerning the ban and Annex VII. Para. 21. The cautionary statement in para. 20 requires that the two cases cited in this paragraph be sufficiently described to highlight the particular nature of the cases to the country in which they were derived from. Having had the opportunity to look at the actual paper cited for the first case, BAN noted some objective details missing from the case summary. We suggest the following adjustments in order to more accurately reflect the paper in question:
BAN has not been able to find the source of the second case noted here. But given the experience in reading the case above, and comparing it to the summary, we believe it would be prudent to allow the Parties to actually review this case. In order to arrive at a more transparent and objective summary of the case, BAN suggests that subparagraph (b) be placed in square brackets and remain open for modifications until the source for the case has been given to Parties for review, and for the Parties to weigh in with comments on whether the case has been adequately summarized and whether its argumentation is sound. IV. B. 5. Para. 27. This paragraph largely claims that there is a lack of data regarding the health impacts from hazardous waste management operations. This is certainly not the case. There are numerous studies in existence. In fact several studies even exist which document health effects from the importation and subsequent handling and management of toxic waste. Some that come to mind are studies conducted in Cambodia following the importation of mercury-laden waste from Taiwan which included several deaths as a result. Likewise, imported mercury wastes caused the death of 2 workers at the Thor Chemical plant in South Africa. Studies of shipbreaking workers that have been done also, evaluate health impacts and the prospective deaths from cancer from asbestos alone. It is vital that the Secretariat cite this existing and published information. There is no relevance here with respect to illegal traffic and thus this sentence should be removed, particularly as it seems to imply that there are no health impacts from the legal traffic of hazardous wastes. Finally, the reference to an Annex III list of “wastes” is incorrect, as Annex III is a list of hazardous characteristics and not wastes. IV B. 6. Para. 29. Here it must be noted that ratification and implementation are two different things. In other words it is clear that while all Parties are urged to ratify the Convention, only the Annex VII countries are to implement it. The group of countries that were among the first to implement the Basel Ban was the European Union member states. Therefore, we propose that the EU experience and steps for implementation be reflected here. The EU experience is a well documented, the existence of which, belies the assertion here that the information does not exist. IV. B. 7. Para. 32. Here the term “sham” recycling needs to be augmented. Sham recycling refers to recycling that is nor really recycling at all. What is more often the case is “dirty” recycling – highly polluting operations. Thus we would recommend the formulation: “sham and dirty recycling”. The final sentence in this paragraph is extremely misleading. The implication here is that only those that freely trade in waste might get access to newer and cleaner technologies. This is patently false. Everyone in the world has access to clean technologies if they are made available. There are no trade restrictions of any kind on clean technologies! This latter sentence needs to be scrapped. Para. 33. This paragraph is extremely imbalanced and not all objective. Suddenly the text is calling wastes “secondary raw materials”. These are “wastes” and in fact are hazardous or other wastes in the Basel context which are known to cause environmental harm when disposed or recycled. Nothing in this paragraph suggest why scrap and wastes migrate from Annex VII to non-Annex VII countries. This is quite amazing as it is a well-known phenomenon which spawned the Basel Convention itself. Hazardous waste migrates to take advantage of cheaper recycling labor, lack of environmental and occupational protections etc. found in developing countries or weaker economies. It is small wonder that the flows of wastes from Annex VII to non-Annex VII countries and not the other way around. The Basel Convention calls for selfsufficiency in waste management. This paragraph seems to have forgotten this obligation completely. Further, this paragraph implies that all that is necessary to allow the export of hazardous wastes from Annex VII countries to non-Annex VII countries is enhanced technology in the non-Annex VII country. However, regardless of technology levels, pollution is still transferred. What remains unanswered by technological “solutions” are the incentives to prevent waste in the first place, the fact that technology alone cannot guarantee levels of environmental and human health protection, and finally, the justice issue of allowing weaker economies to receive a disproportionate burden of the world’s waste simply because they are relatively poor. This paragraph must be deleted. New Para. 34 The contents in item 7 do not properly bear or coincide with the terms of reference it was intended to fulfill. The heading in Item 7 refers to an evaluation of the cost benefit and effectiveness of hazardous waste recycling versus health risks and environmental damage, yet no mention is made of existing efforts in the international community to determine the environmental costs of the emissions of toxic substances. One such study was commissioned by the Nordic Research Council on the economic valuation of emissions of several toxic substances. In this regard, we suggest that the following paragraphs be inserted as a new paragraph 34, under item 7: There have been efforts in placing negative economic values to the adverse environmental effects of toxic substances. One such effort was commissioned by one Annex VII country. It was designed as an aid to policy-makers in arriving at a rational decision on how to prioritize measures in curbing pollution from particular hazardous substances. In determining the economic value for a particular substance, the study compiled recent weighting/ranking methodologies on the adverse impact of several substances, particularly their physical effects. The monetary values were based on surveys conducted by several Annex VII countries. From there the study developed a best, low, and high estimate of the environmental cost of a particular substance. An anchor substance was chosen in order to come up with an evaluation of the other substances. In this case, the study chose lead as the anchor substance due to its known effects, and for the numerous studies that have been carried out to assess the damage caused by its emissions. Some of the resulting values of the study are:
* Prices are in Norwegian Kroner per gram. Thus, if a 25,000 metric ton capacity/year lead-acid battery recycling plant operating in a non-Annex VII country, importing lead acid batteries has a 98% lead recovery rate, with 2% fugitive emissions, that means 500 tons of lead per year is being emitted in the vicinity of the plant. Applying the study values, based on the low estimate of NOK 2.3 per gram of lead emission, the low estimate would equate to an environmental cost of the 500 tons of lead emission as NOK 1,150,000,000 (US$166,064,982) per year to the country where this particular plant is located. Under the best estimate the environmental cost would be pegged at NOK 3,050,000,000 (US$440,433,213) per year. The values presented under this study and others like it can greatly aid Parties in their analysis of the economic benefits and cost of hazardous substances. Too often these costs resulting from emissions and residues in even state of the art recycling operations are not calculated, and result in cost externalities and dramatic economic inefficiencies. V. 8. The title of this section and the content of paragraphs 34 and 35 have little to do with one another. What is needed here is an examination of how the Ban Amendment impacts waste minimization. We maintain that there is a strong correlation. Therefore we suggest the following paragraph. New Paragraph for Section 8:
Paras. 36 and 37. The pronouncements made in these paragraphs were more accurate for the period from the mid to the late 1990’s than with the realities of the new decade. For the most part the global privatization trend has dissipated, and in its wake lies the ruins of the failure of deregulation in crucial industries. What paragraph 36 misses out on is that with the new century there have been increasing efforts globally to ratchet up corporate responsibility for their products through legislation. At times this effort has been called extended producer responsibility, and has contributed to more environmentally sustainable designs of products and production processes. So far these trends are noticeable in Europe, China and Japan, e.g. with respect to take-back legislation with respect to automobiles and electronics. Further, para. 37 fails to mention that the advent of new sustainable designs ushers less toxic secondary materials that can be recycled and used by rapidly industrializing countries without the accompanying pollution. For the above reasons, we suggest the following modifications to paras. 36 and 37: 36. Since the mid-1990’s, there has been a gradual and significant policy shift in many countries, both Annex VII and non-Annex VII, away from a strong focus on regulation towards market driven opportunities. The deregulation trend has tapered down as failure in certain sectors covered by deregulation has become apparent. In the area of waste management, the new century has brought on a renewed focus on the polluter pays principle and its extension to post-consumer waste pollution – calling for manufacturer responsibility in the full life cycle management of their products or extended producer responsibility (EPR). One of the first applications of EPR was with automobiles, and now has captured one of the largest sources of post-consumer wastes – electronics. EPR provides a feedback mechanism that internalizes costs back to those first responsible for creating them. This mechanism leads to obvious economic incentives to drive cleaner production and greener products. 37. Rapidly industrializing countries have a growing demand for secondary raw materials to sustain the pace of their social and economic development. Unfortunately, in order fuel this growth these countries are forced to take in hazardous and other wastes together with the secondary raw materials that they require materials which in many instances need not be hazardous, and polluting were there more attention paid to hazardous use reductions upstream. In this context, there is a critical need for EPR as one tool to drive the development and application of environmentally sustainable designs of products and processes, and to build a capacity for the transfer of clean production technologies, and also for environmentally sound recovery or recycling of non-hazardous wastes. Para. 38. There are key elements that are not mentioned in the future work, which we suggest should be included as new sub-paragraphs f and g: f. Evaluation of the implementation experience of countries that have ratified Decision III/1. g. Development of economic valuation of the health and environmental impact of hazardous substances. жүктеу/скачать 1.41 Mb. Достарыңызбен бөлісу:
|