Considerations on COM(2022)67 - EU position at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention with regard to certain amendments of Article 6(2) in that Convention

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

 
dossier COM(2022)67 - EU position at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention with regard to certain amendments of Article 6(2) ...
document COM(2022)67 EN
date June  2, 2022
 
table>(1)The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (‘the Convention’) entered into force in 1992 and was concluded by the Union by means of Council Decision 93/98/EEC (1).
(2)Pursuant to the Convention, the Conference of the Parties is to consider and adopt, as required, amendments to the Convention. Amendments to the Convention are to be adopted at a meeting of the Conference of the Parties.

(3)In accordance with the procedure set out in Article 17 of the Convention, the Conference of the Parties, at its fifteenth meeting in June 2022, will consider the proposal by the Russian Federation to amend paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Convention. That proposal aims to establish a 30 day time limit for a State of import to respond to the notifier of a shipment of waste and includes one other change which is presented as editorial.

(4)It is appropriate to establish the position to be taken on the Union’s behalf at the fifteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties on the proposal of the Russian Federation, as that amendment would be binding on the Union and affect the content of Union law, namely Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2).

(5)The Union should not support the proposal of the Russian Federation to amend paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Convention. To do so would necessitate a long and heavy process to negotiate and it would be a long time before such an amendment would enter into force. It seems disproportionate to launch such process for an amendment, since the aims of the proposal could be achieved by other means. The Union should rather be open to and put forward or act upon initiatives designed to improve the functioning of the ‘prior informed consent’ procedure, set out in Article 6 of the Convention, provided such initiatives are broader in scope than the proposal submitted by the Russian Federation to the fifteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, are in line with broad Union policies and objectives and do not require an amendment to the Convention,