"By embarking on the proposed exemption the Parties are in fact doing something rather dangerous. They are giving up jurisdiction and control over one fraction of the most traded and potentially dangerous waste stream subject to transboundary movement today. Again it must be understood that declaring something a nonHwaste means that it falls outside of the Convention and all of its obligations."

From p. 2 of BAN response 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.

“The exemption for the used electrical and electronic equipment when transboundary movement, which could not be reused directly, will possibly cause environmental risk and damage for the developing countries (normally importing countries) . For example, the waste and hazardous waste generated after repair or refurbishment of the used electrical and electronic equipment without full functionality could not be recycled and disposed in an environmentally sound manner in many importing countries which are developing countries.”

From p. 1 of response by China 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.