This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 003415 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USOECD PARIS 
 
STATE FOR EUR/ERA 
EPA FOR OSW/RPICARDI AND MBOUCHER 
EPA FOR OSWER/FMCALISTER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ETRD OTRA SENV KSCA TPHY FR
SUBJECT: REPORTING CABLE: OECD WORKING GROUP ON WASTE 
PREVENTION AND RECYCLING, February 9-10, 2005 PARIS, FRANCE 
 
------- 
Summary 
------- 
The Working Group on Waste Prevention and Recycling (WGWPR) 
met February 9-10 in Paris.  Delegates welcomed the approval 
of the WGWPR Mandate and renewal of the Terms of Reference 
until December 31, 2006 by the Working Party on National 
Environmental Policy at its November meeting. Israel was 
welcomed as an observer to the WGWPR.  Korea announced it 
will be hosting the next WGWPR meeting and workshop on 
sustainable materials management in November 2005. End 
summary. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
Environmentally Sound Management (ESM) 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶1. The Secretariat presented an overview of the draft ESM 
Guidance Manual that Member countries, in 2004, decided to 
develop as a means of facilitating the implementation of the 
OECD Council Recommendation on Environmentally Sound 
Management of Waste. The U.S. and Canada supported the 
ongoing development of the ESM guidance manual and 
recommended keeping it brief and focusing on core 
performance elements.  The U.S. also questioned the value of 
the current level of detail provided in certain sections, in 
particular, Best Available Technology.  Delegates revisited 
the outstanding question from the last WGWPR meeting, 
whether to develop waste stream specific guidelines for ESM 
beyond the guidelines already done on used and scrap 
personal computers.  The Delegates communicated support for 
developing additional waste stream specific guidelines, 
however, no Member country volunteered a financial 
contribution to make the effort possible.  Canada expressed 
concerns about duplicating efforts on electronics guidelines 
currently under consideration by the Basel Secretariat. 
Delegates agreed to postpone consideration of additional 
work on waste stream specific guidelines until the next 
WGWPR meeting. 
 
------------------------------- 
Periodical Review of the Bureau 
------------------------------- 
 
¶2. Delegates were invited to consider the current 
composition of the WGWPR bureau, which does not include 
representation from North America. Canada expressed an 
interest in joining the bureau.  The U.S. and Korea 
supported the addition. 
 
--------------------------- 
Waste Prevention Indicators 
--------------------------- 
 
¶3. Delegates heard presentations given by Belgium and Korea 
who had volunteered in 2004 to test the applicability and 
suitability of the developed waste prevention performance 
indicators.  Based on their findings, the indicators proved 
sound and applicable when tested on various conditions in 
Member countries. Delegates concluded that the WGWPR has 
reached an end to indicators work that is most practical for 
this group.  Delegates agreed to invite the Working Group on 
Environmental Outlooks and Information (WGEIO) to review 
results developed so far and to consider as appropriate any 
further work in the area. 
 
-------------------------------- 
Sustainable Materials Management 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶4. Member countries were informed by the Secretariat of 
ongoing material flows accounting (MFA) activities to 
support the implementation of the Council Recommendation on 
material flows and resource productivity.  Member countries 
supported the announcement of a two-day MFA workshop to be 
held in Berlin, Germany May 23-24, 2005 which is intended to 
address methodological and measurement challenges associated 
with managing and using material flows information.  The 
Secretariat gave an overview of the draft background 
 
SIPDIS 
document on sustainable materials management (SMM), which is 
a project strongly supported and funded by the U.S.  While 
most delegates strongly supported the project in general, 
many delegates including the U.S., urged the Secretariat to 
shift its narrow focus from a strictly economic analysis of 
SMM to a more balanced study that includes more policy 
analysis of the subject.  The Secretariat intends to make 
revisions to the current document based on written comments 
by Member countries and will submit a revised version for 
review by the Working Party on National Environmental Policy 
at the June 2005 meeting. 
 
--------------------------- 
Improving Recycling Markets 
--------------------------- 
 
¶5. The Secretariat gave Delegates a brief overview of the 
improving recycling markets document, which is the 
compilation of the project's five studies.  Delegates were 
also informed of the Secretariat's plans to develop a brief 
policy document on the findings once the main document is 
declassified. The U.S. communicated its support for the 
preparation of a brief policy document and supported 
declassification of the original document on the condition 
that specific factual corrections are made first.  The 
Secretariat will revise the document and submit it to 
 
SIPDIS 
Delegates again for approval for declassification. 
 
--------------------------- 
Instrument Mixes 
--------------------------- 
 
¶6. Delegates heard a presentation by the Secretariat on the 
Policy Mixes project, which is currently being undertaken by 
WPNEP.  Delegates were invited to provide their expertise 
and feedback on one aspect of the project that addresses 
household waste. The U.S. and other delegates communicated 
their strong support for the project.  The U.S. encouraged a 
clarification of the goals of the study and further 
development of conclusions drawn.  Revisions to the overall 
study will be made and submitted to WPNEP for review at 
their June 2005 meeting. 
 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
Life-cycle Assessments and Cost-benefit Analyses 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
¶7. Delegates welcomed this early draft study, which was 
developed by the Secretariat as a part of the larger project 
`Economics of Waste,' and asked for more detail on certain 
issues contained within the study.   Delegates agreed to 
submit additional comments in writing and will have another 
opportunity to review a revised version by the next WGWPR 
meeting in December 2005. 
 
-------------------------------- 
Extended Producer Responsibility 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶8. Delegates agreed to declassify "Analytical Framework for 
Evaluating Costs and Benefits of EPR Programmes" on the 
condition that any additional comments received before 
February 28, 2005 must be incorporated.  Delegates heard a 
status report on the remaining study to be completed within 
this work area.  A draft study on the impact of EPR programs 
on product design will be conducted by a consultant and will 
be made available by December 2005. Member delegations were 
supportive of the work in this area. 
 
-------------------------------- 
Transboundary Movements of Waste 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶9. The delegates discussed two issues on implementing 
C(2001)107.  One on whether and how to incorporate changes 
to the OECD waste lists as a result of two changes made in 
October 2004 to the Basel Convention waste lists, and the 
other on how to list the waste listings on electronics and 
coal plant ash in the harmonized OECD/Basel waste listing 
that the OECD created.   There appeared to be general 
support for incorporating the new Basel Convention waste 
list changes to the harmonized OECD/Basel waste listing. 
These changes included a wording change on an existing 
listing (refractory metals) and the adoption of two new 
entries concerning metal cables coated with plastics.  As 
for the electronics and coal plant ash waste listings, the 
U.S. objected to the Secretariat's proposed wording (which 
emphasized incorrectly an amber, or controlled, listing for 
these wastes) within the harmonized OECD/Basel waste list. 
The U.S. circulated a written counter-proposal as a means of 
facilitating a quick resolution.  Delegates did not reach 
agreement on the final wording of the listings and opted to 
resolve the issue through an ad hoc committee (U.S., 
Germany, Austria, Japan, European Commission), which agreed 
to report to the WGWPR with a new proposal. 
 
MORELLA