Teleconference of the Partnership for Action on Computing Equipment (PACE) Working Group February 26, Final Summary Report

Transcription

1 March 4, 2009 Teleconference of the Partnership for Action on Computing Equipment (PACE) Working Group February 26, Welcome and Introductions. Final Summary Report The teleconference was opened by co-chair, Prof. Osibanjo, who welcomed participants to this teleconference, and indicated that the objective of this teleconference is to continue discussions of unfinished agenda items from January 28 teleconference. It will deal with: financial arrangements, TOR, work plan activities for 2009/10, and establishment of priority level 2 project groups to deal with four PACE activities on used and end-of-life computing equipment, identified by the Interim Group, and included in COP 9 decision IX/9. Mr. Ibrahim Shafii introduced a new staff member of SBC to the Working Group, Mr. Matthias Kern, Senior Programme Officer, who is heading SBC's Implementation and Capacity Building Unit that would include all Partnerships activities. Mr. Kern is expected to take charge of PACE fully beginning from 1 April The co-chairs welcomed Mr. Kern to the PACE meeting and look forward to working closely with him in the near future. Prof. Osibanjo identified documents (agenda, revised financial documents, revised TOR, list of project proposals and organizational chart) that were distributed for this teleconference. 2. Review and Approval of the Agenda and the Report of the January 28 Teleconference The co-chair, Prof. Osibanjo reviewed the agenda and when there were no additions or deletions the agenda was adopted as proposed. He then reviewed the report of the January 28 teleconference, which was adopted with no changes. 3. Funding Arrangements, Budget, Contributions and Sliding Scales Prof. Osibanjo mentioned that a teleconference on financial issue was held on February 2 nd, He mentioned that great progress was made during that teleconference and thanked Mr. Andy Howarth for his excellent chairmanship of that teleconference. 1

2 Mr. Howarth introduced the latest revised documents ( one on the funding arrangements, and the second one on budget, contributions and sliding scales), which were distributed for this teleconference. The co-chair, Prof. Osibanjo, opened the floor for any questions or general comments on documents distributed. He also asked John Myslicki to summarize comments received on these two documents. John indicated that the only comment was from TechSoup, a company in San Francisco being listed as an NGO, asking for a relief from paying the type of contribution identified in the document on budget, contributions and sliding scales. The participant from TechSoup reconfirmed his concerns that the USD 10,000 level is too high for his company to pay even when their total budget is around USD 10 million. After some discussion it was agreed to create addition level to allow a reduced contributions for NGOs with total budget between 1 million and 10 million. It was proposed to have a medium level of USD 3,000 for those in the range of 1 million to 10 million. Furthermore, one participant suggested that the previous level for NGOs with total budget below USD 100,000 be reinstated. Therefore the following revised sliding scale was suggested for NGOs: Total budget (USD) Annual contribution (USD) Over 10 million $10, million to 1million...$3,000 1million to 100,000...$1,000 Below 100,000.. $200 The co-chair, Prof. Osibanjo, asked the Secretariat to provide information on the funding situation as of today. Mr. Shafii provided this information and added that the procedure to provide funds is on their website. He briefly mentioned that once the letter with one s pledge is received, SBC issues an invoice in which they identify the account number and the trust fund where the funds are to be deposited. In order to be regularly informed on the financial situation of PACE, SBC agreed to up-date the group every 3 months. Canada indicated that their total contribution to PACE has been adjusted to $10,000 CDN, and will be applied entirely for the operation of PACE. Japan mentioned that they intend to make a financial contribution for PACE this 2009 and 2010, as soon as the activities/projects are clearer. Finally, the co-chair, Prof. Osibanjo, mentioned that the financial arrangement document has been added to TOR as Annex Terms of Reference 2

3 The co-chair, Prof. Osibanjo, handed over the chairmanship of the teleconference to his co-chair, Mr. Buletti. Mr. Buletti mentioned that comments, following the January 28 teleconference, have been incorporated, in particular role of members, observers and experts. Also, he indicated that SBC legal unit reviewed the TOR and made some suggestions to make them consistent with TORs of other groups under the Basel Convention. He concluded by saying that all suggestions were taken into account and the revised TOR with highlighted text was distributed for this teleconference. The review of TOR did not result in any additional changes, other than one suggestion that the scope be revised to change the term monitors to displays in the 4 th line under Scope, the phrase..computer monitor, including the following types of computer monitor:(a) cathode ray tube, (b) liquid crystal display, (c) plasma. change to.computer displays such as: cathode ray tube, liquid crystal display, plasma. 5. Work Program for 2009/10 The co-chair, Mr. Buletti, reminded everyone of the four work areas (activities) that were identified in the PACE COP 9 decision: a) To develop tools (such as guidelines) and activities on environmentally sound refurbishment and repair, including criteria for testing, certification and labeling. b) To develop tools (such as guidelines) and activities on environmentally sound recycling and material recovery, including facility certification. c) To develop and promote pilot schemes for the environmentally sound management of used and end-of-life computing equipment towards the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals. d) To develop awareness-raising and training programme activities. He also mentioned that after lengthy discussion during our January 28 teleconference, the following course of action was suggested: a) all participants who have some ideas for level two should prepare a short description and submit these to the Secretariat. All proposed projects should be linked to four agreed to activities; b) that Mr. Jim Puckett prepares a short description, no more then a one page, on the project on setting up a pilot project in a selected developing country on take back schemes for end-of-life computing equipment; c) that Mr. Michael VanderPol prepares a project description on developing guidelines on refurbishment and recycling of computing equipment, taking into consideration what already exists worldwide and taking into consideration Canada s comments sent to the Secretariat previously; and d) that StEP and GeSI prepares a short project description on mapping activities, or any other projects that StEP is in the process of implementing. 3

4 He informed the group that 3 project proposals were received: one from John Bullock (IPMI), one from Michel VanderPol (Canada), and another one from Jim Puckett (BAN), which were circulated for this teleconference. Mr. Michael VanderPol (Canada) and Mr. John Bullock (IPMI) briefly summarized their proposals. Due to time constrain, the co-chair, Mr.Buletti, decided to stop the discussion on the work program and take up agenda number# 7, to schedule a next teleconference and the physical meeting. 6. Next Steps and Next Teleconference The co-chair, Mr.Buletti, suggested March 4 th as the date for next teleconference to complete discussions on the work plan, establishment of project groups, and approval of TOR. He mentioned that during our last teleconference (January 28) it was suggested that the physical meeting of the PACE Working Group be during the first week of May. However, due to the fact that there will be a meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants during that week, he suggested a week before (last week in April) or 3 rd week of May. The co-chair, Prof. Osibanjo mentioned that since he will be attending the SAICM meeting during the second week in May he would prefer the 3 rd week. One other participant indicated that there will be an EU Working Party on Basel meeting on Wednesday 20 th May in Brussels, so he would suggest May 18 and 19 for such a physical PACE meeting. The co-chair, Mr. Buletti, proposed that the physical meeting of the PACE Working Group be on May 18 and 19, 2009, in Geneva. 7. Other Business Since Mr. Robert Tonetti will be leaving USEPA beginning in March, the cochair, Mr. Buletti, took the opportunity to thank him on behalf of the group for all his support and assistance in the Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative (MPPI) and Partnership for Action on Computing Equipment (PACE). Mr. Buletti mentioned that from the beginning Bob was very active as the chair of two MPPI project groups, always working towards finding compromise solutions. He added that after 32 years at the USEPA, Bob will continue his service to the United States government as the General Manager of the Recycling Group at UNICOR, overseeing UNICOR's vocational training and employment program in several types of recycling programs, including the refurbishment and recycling of electronics. 4

5 Finally, on behalf of the MPPI and PACE, Mr. Buletti wished Bob all the best in his new position and encouraged Bob to join the PACE Working Group as the representative of UNICOR's electronics recycling program. He informed the group that Ms. Patricia Whiting will represent USEPA on the PACE Working group. Similar sentiments were expressed by Mr. Ibrahim Shafii on behalf of the Secretariat of the Basel Convention. 5