“Korea thinks it is premature to add a condition that all residual waste shall be disposed of in an Annex VII country, when the Annex VII has not entered into force yet. Still, even after its entry into force, it could be costly but not efficient to ship the residual waste to Annex VII countries for treatment and disposal. In this regard, Korea would like to suggest that this condition be replaced with an appropriate treatment standard for residual waste”

From p. 1 of response by Republic of Korea to Basel Secretariat. 2014. ‘Draft Technical Guidelines on Transboundary Movements of Electronic and Electrical Waste and Used Electrical and Electronic Equipment, in Particular Regarding the Distinction between Waste and Non-Waste under the Basel Convention (Draft of 20 November 2014)’. http://www.basel.int/Implementation/Ewaste/TechnicalGuidelines/DevelopmentofTGs/tabid/2377/Default.aspx

“We strongly support the idea that all waste should be managed in an environmentally sound manner.  However, it is unclear why this provision is necessary or relevant for identifying whether the used equipment itself is waste.  Any transboundary movement of hazardous waste must follow the provisions of the Basel Convention, where applicable.  Further, we do not support a reference to the Ban Amendment in the language as it is not in force.”

From p. 4 of response by United States to Basel Secretariat. 2014. ‘Draft Technical Guidelines on Transboundary Movements of Electronic and Electrical Waste and Used Electrical and Electronic Equipment, in Particular Regarding the Distinction between Waste and Non-Waste under the Basel Convention (Draft of 20 November 2014)’. http://www.basel.int/Implementation/Ewaste/TechnicalGuidelines/DevelopmentofTGs/tabid/2377/Default.aspx