COP9 BASEL CONVENTION ON HAZARDOUS WASTES, JUNE 23-27, 2008

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 JAKARTA 001389 SIPDIS DEPT FOR OES AND EAP USTR FOR MLINSCOTT, KEHLERS EMBASSIES BANGKOK, BRASILIA, AND ACCRA PLEASE PASS TO REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL HUB OFFICERS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: KGHG SENV KSCA KTIA PGOV ID SUBJECT: COP9 BASEL CONVENTION ON HAZARDOUS WASTES, JUNE 23-27, 2008 - SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES ¶1. (U) SUMMARY. The ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP9) to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal was held June 23-27, 2008, in Bali, Indonesia. A major U.S. objective was achieved in the creation of a partnership to address recycling and disposal of computer waste. This partnership has the potential to reorient the Convention to present day concerns and make it more relevant. The COP also adopted the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Joint Working Group on cooperation and coordination between the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, linked the evaluation of the Convention's effectiveness with a yet to be developed strategic framework beyond 2010, approved a modest increase in the budget, and adopted an e-waste partnership workplan. Disagreement over the requirements for entry into force of the Ban Amendment continued, however, and many of the decisions adopted on other matters deferred solutions to future COPs. Also, ministers and heads of delegations gathered in a high level segment, the "World Forum on Waste Management for Human Health and Livelihood," the COP9 theme, and adopted the Bali Declaration on this subject. ¶2. (U) The Basel Convention was adopted in 1989, entered into force in 1992, and has 170 Parties. It addresses the management, disposal and transboundary movement of hazardous wastes. The Convention's guiding principles are that transboundary movements of hazardous wastes should be reduced to a minimum, managed in an environmentally sound manner, be treated and disposed of as close as possible to their source of generation, and be minimized at the source. END SUMMARY. MAJOR ISSUES ADDRESSED AT COP9: SYNERGIES AMONG CHEMICALS CONVENTIONS -------------- ¶3. (U) The COP adopted the recommendation of an Ad Hoc Joint Working Group (AHJWG) of the three chemicals Conventions (Basel, Rotterdam, Stockholm) and added language to emphasize the importance of the Basel Convention. The recommendation noted the legal autonomy of each convention. The recommendation consists of five parts: organizational issues, including coordination at the national level, programmatic cooperation in the field, and coordinated use of regional offices and centers; technical issues, including national reporting, compliance mechanisms, and cooperation on technical and scientific issues; information management and public awareness issues, including joint outreach, information exchange/clearing-house mechanism on health and environmental impacts, and joint input into other processes and institutions; administrative issues, including joint managerial functions, resource mobilization, financial management, and joint services; and decision-making, including coordinated meetings, extraordinary meetings of the COPs, and a mechanism reviewing the adopted arrangements. The recommendation, which must also be adopted by the Rotterdam and Stockholm COPs, should strengthen global cooperation on the sound management of chemicals, improve efficiencies, and provides a positive example of bottom-up cooperation and why a United Nations Environmental Organization isn't necessary. STRATEGIC PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTING THE BASEL CONVENTION TO 2010 -------------- -------------- ¶4. (U) The COP decided that implementation of the Strategic Plan should continue until the adoption at COP10 of a new ten-year strategic framework, which should follow a number of guidelines, including full use of the Basel Convention Regional Centers (BCRCs) and enhanced cooperation with the Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions. The COP requested Parties and others to provide the Secretariat with information to facilitate an evaluation of the Convention's effectiveness, which will serve as a basis for the preparation by the Secretariat of the strategic framework, and established an open-ended coordination group within an open-ended working group (OEWG) to refine the framework for consideration at COP10. Some stressed that effective implementation of the new framework would depend on the availability of resources, and noted that many activities under the Strategic Plan had not been carried JAKARTA 00001389 002 OF 004 out due to lack of funds. FINANCIAL MATTERS -------------- ¶5. (U) The Convention's finances are plagued by the low prioritization that hazardous waste management receives in many countries and competition among the growing number of multilateral environmental agreements. In fact, most Parties were reluctant to increase their contributions. The COP adopted a three-year budget cycle as an one-time measure aimed at cost savings and facilitating synchronization with the budget cycles of the Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, approved a modest increase for the Basel Convention Trust Fund, and established penalties for Parties in arrears with their contributions (this action is primarily aimed at Brazil, who has not paid their annual assessment in years). The three-year budget delays COP10 to 2011. ¶6. (U) Disagreement remained over how BCRCs, deemed crucial to the implementation of the Convention in developing countries, should be financed. Many donors said the BCRCs should cultivate multiple sources of financing, such as other chemicals conventions, the Global Environment Facility (GEF),the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management Quick Start Program, and the Clean Development Mechanism under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and become self-sufficient in the medium and long terms. Developing countries insisted on supporting the BCRCs through increased contributions to the Technical Cooperation Trust Fund (TCTF). The COP decision represents a compromise, asking the Secretariat to prepare a strategic framework, subject to the availability of funds, for the sustainability of the BCRCs that should consider utilizing the TCTF. Some complained that donor countries were not only unwilling to fund the BCRCs directly, they also were reluctant to help them become sustainable. The COP requested the Secretariat to conduct training activities with the BCRCs and countries on accessing the GEF and other financing mechanisms. PARTNERSHIPS -------------- ¶7. (U) The COP adopted a workplan for the environmentally sound management (ESM) of e-waste, including work on the Partnership for Action on Computing Equipment (PACE),the Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative (MPPI),technical guidelines for transboundary movements of e-waste, and programs of activities for ESM of e-waste in Asia-Pacific, Africa, and South America. Regarding PACE, the COP agreed to establish a working group operating under its OEWG and outlined a work program. This partnership will address a real and growing environmental need and is of interest to U.S. business. The U.S. has pledged $75,000, its entire contribution for FY2008, to the Partnership Program. Regarding MPPI, the COP adopted four of the five sections (one section was blocked by Brazil, who is not in favor of partnerships in general) of the guidance document on ESM of used and end-of-life mobile phones as a voluntary document, and decided that the Mobile Phone Working Group had successfully completed its mandate and that any follow-up tasks will be carried out by an ad hoc follow-up group. BAN AMENDMENT -------------- ¶8. (U) The Ban Amendment requires Parties listed in Annex VII (OECD, EU, and Lichtenstein) to prohibit the transboundary movements of hazardous wastes for final disposal and recycling to States not listed in Annex VII. According to Article 17(5) of the Convention, amendments enter into force between the Parties who accepted them upon ratification by at least three-fourths of the Parties who accepted them. Because of the way the provision is drafted, there is disagreement among the Parties over the number of ratifications required for amendments to enter into force. One group supports the "current time" approach, whereby the number required is based on the current number of Parties to the Convention - 170. The second group supports the "fixed time" approach, whereby the number required is based on the number of Parties at the time when the Ban Amendment JAKARTA 00001389 003 OF 004 was adopted - 82. ¶9. (U) At COP9, the Parties remained divided on how best to achieve a decision on an agreed interpretation of Article 17(5). Many delegations, including the U.S., said that any decision on the interpretation of Article 17(5) that constitutes a subsequent agreement in the sense used in Article 31(3)(a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties must be adopted by consensus, as indicated by the UN depositary. Other delegations argued that pursuant to the Basel Convention Rules of Procedure, which were adopted by consensus, a COP decision on an interpretation of Article 17(5) could be made on the basis of a vote by a majority of Parties. The COP ultimately adopted a decision that requested the OEWG to continue the development of a draft decision on an agreed interpretation of Article 17(5) in accordance with international law. ¶10. (U) A number of Parties urged the COP to focus less on legal technicalities and more on the objectives of the Ban. Many welcomed the COP9 President's proposal to explore means through which the Ban's objectives could be met, as well as an offer by Switzerland and Indonesia to lead an informal brainstorming session to that effect. Others called for the prompt entry into force of the Ban Amendment, which they said would put pressure on all countries to ratify and enforce it. Furthermore, because Parties have been reluctant to modify the Ban Amendment before its entry into force, they said that only this action would enable the Ban Amendment to be revised in light of technological and economic developments, in particular increased trading of non-traditional waste products, such as old computers, and the possibility that, with the industrialization of many non-OECD countries, growth in South-South trade in hazardous wastes would increase. DISMANTLING OF SHIPS -------------- ¶11. (U) The COP adopted a decision that requests the OEWG to conduct a preliminary assessment of whether the ship recycling convention, as adopted, would establish an equivalent level of control and enforcement to that established under the Basel Convention, based on a review of the treaties in their entireties, and after having developed the criteria necessary for such an assessment. The OEWG is to transmit the results of this assessment to COP10 for its consideration. The COP decision also invited Parties to provide comments on criteria to be used in making such an assessment. The COP decision further requested the Secretariat to continue to follow the ship recycling convention and to transmit the COP's decision to the IMO for consideration by the Marine Environment Protection Committee. TECHNICAL MATTERS -------------- ¶12. (U) Brazil has been motivated politically to take the lead in developing technical guidelines on ESM of used tires, as they have a trade interest in depicting used tires as hazardous. Brazil has been uncooperative throughout the guideline development process and has not incorporated many of the comments they received during the intersessional period, including those from the U.S., the EU and industry. They have resisted any efforts to make the guidelines more current. For example, they were adamant about heading the table of contents section on management as "environmentally sound disposal" versus "environmentally sound management," as the Convention, which was drafted 20 years ago, defines recycling as a disposal operation. The final decision extended the mandate of the intersessional working group, requested Brazil to provide a format for comments and to prepare a revised version of the guidelines prior to OEWG7, and requested the Secretariat to report to COP10 on progress on the guidelines for their possible adoption. The U.S., Canada, and the EU have agreed to work intersessionally with Brazil to try to move the guidelines forward. ¶13. (U) In the decision on ESM of mercury waste, the COP agreed that further development of the guidelines should be included in the OEWG JAKARTA 00001389 004 OF 004 2009-2011 work program and to establish an intersessional working group. On persistent organic pollutants, the U.S. was unsuccessful at eliminating language proposed by Norway and the International POPs Elimination Network aimed at reopening low-level POPs thresholds. Norway indicated that they are studying the levels, which they believe are too high. Parties decided that the way forward would depend on Norway's study results. COMMENT -------------- ¶14. (SBU) One member of the U.S. delegation who has followed the Basel Convention for many years said she could not recall a meeting where the U.S. was marginalized to the extent at COP9. The U.S. was not permitted to participate in the contact group discussions on the Bali Declaration, although the final text was uncontroversial. Furthermore, the U.S. was informed on the afternoon of the second day of negotiations in the finance contact group that the U.S. could listen but could not make interventions, even though the U.S. had not made an intervention that day. However, the U.S. was able to participate fully in all other contact groups and secured an invitation to the Indonesian COP President's lunch with Heads of Delegations to discuss a way forward on the Ban Amendment. Still, the head of the U.S. delegation raised the issue within the JUSSCANNZ coordination group, in a meeting with the UNEP Executive Director, with the Basel Convention Executive Secretary, and in an intervention during the High Level Segment. On balance, we share concerns that the COP is interested in U.S. participation with respect to technical and financial assistance, but is reluctant to intervene if Parties attempt to marginalize the U.S., a non-Party, during discussions and the decision-making process. This again points to the necessity of U.S. ratification and ability to participate fully as a party to better protect and promote U.S. interests as the Basel Convention develops. ¶15. (U) This telegram was prepared by Tiffany Prather and the U.S. Delegation. U.S. Delegation: Daniel Fantozzi, DOS/OES/ENV; Tiffany Prather, DOS/OES/ENV; John Kim, DOS/L/OES; Robert Tonetti, EPA/Office of Solid Waste; Patricia Whiting, EPA/Office of Solid Waste. HUME