“Clarification concerning the term "fully functional" is necessary to ensure a common understanding of what this entails for multi-function products. For example, camera phones may still function well as a either a phone or camera even if one of these capabilities does not work.”
From p. 2 of response by Canada to Basel Secretariat. 2010. ‘Draft Technical Guidelines on Transboundary Movement of E-Waste, in Particular Regarding the Distinction between Waste and Non-Waste (Version 22 September 2010)’. http://www.basel.int/Implementation/Ewaste/TechnicalGuidelines/DevelopmentofTGs/tabid/2377/Default.aspx.
“ITI recommends some further discussion on whether incidental parts replacement should be a basis for classifying otherwise whole and valuable equipment as waste. In many instances, valuable equipment may need some minor repair or refurbishment prior to remarketing. The continued use of such equipment can conserve resources and provide other important environmental and economic benefits. Such repair or refurbishment could generate parts or components that require disposal. The parties should clarify that incidental or minor parts replacement by legitimate refurbishment and repair operators is not in and of itself sufficient to qualify an export of used equipment for reuse a waste. Such an approach could have the unintended effect of directing functional equipment requiring only minor repair or refurbishment to materials recovery before the end of its useful life, with unnecessary environmental costs and lost social, economic and environmental benefits that an arise from legitimate reuse. One option would be to require minor repairs to take place at a facility certified to comply with the forthcoming Basel PACE Refurbishment Guidelines to ensure that any incidental wastes from the refurbishment process are managed properly. At a minimum, the guidance should recognize that the Convention leaves it to the parties to decide whether used equipment exported for repair or refurbishment with the intention of reuse should be managed as a waste or a non-waste/product.”
From p. 9 of response by Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) to Basel Secretariat. 2010. ‘Draft Technical Guidelines on Transboundary Movement of E-Waste, in Particular Regarding the Distinction between Waste and Non-Waste (Version 22 September 2010)’. http://www.basel.int/Implementation/Ewaste/TechnicalGuidelines/DevelopmentofTGs/tabid/2377/Default.aspx.
“Se consideran apropiados los requisitos que se le pedirían a un exportador, cuando pretenda movilizar a través de las fronteras un "equipo usado" para reuso directo. Sin embargo, en el literal a) y b) se sugiere especificar o aclarar: cuál sería la prueba o test de funcionalidad que sería válido, dónde se debe realizar {en el país de exportación antes del movimiento?), si dicha prueba se aplicaría sobre cada unidad o equipo a movilizar, cuál sería el documento que de fe del test de funcionalidad y quién podría emitir estos certificados.”
From p. 4 of response by Colombia to Basel Secretariat. 2011. ‘Draft Technical Guidelines on Transboundary Movement of E-Waste, in Particular Regarding the Distinction between Waste and Non-Waste (Version: 21 February 2011 )’. http://archive.basel.int/techmatters/code/comments.php?guidId=78.
“There are appropriate times when a desktop computer that is fully functional but it will not have a hard drive. This equipment may be repurposed as a “thin client” device that no longer needs a hard drive as it was originally designed. It can be tested to validate it is fully functional.”
From p. 1 of response by PC Rebuilders & Recyclers (PCRR) to Basel Secretariat. 2011. ‘Draft Technical Guidelines on Transboundary Movement of E-Waste, in Particular Regarding the Distinction between Waste and Non-Waste (Version: 21 February 2011 )’. http://archive.basel.int/techmatters/code/comments.php?guidId=78.