—

meeting in Brussels (Belgium) from 18 to 20 June 2018,

—

having regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (the Cotonou Agreement), and to subsequent revisions to the agreement adopted in 2005 and 2010 (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 December 2017 on the blue economy: opportunities and challenges for ACP States,

—

having regard to the waste management policies, strategies, acts and regulations enacted by ACP States and regions, such as the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (Cleaner Pacific 2025 (2016)), Rwanda (2015), South Africa (2009), Nigeria (2007), Jamaica (2002), Uganda (1999), Gambia (1994) and Barbados (1985), among others,

—

having regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1357/2014 of 18 December 2014 replacing Annex III to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste and repealing certain Directives (3),

—

having regard to the Commission Decision 2014/955/EE of 18 December 2014 amending Decision 2000/532/EC on the list of waste pursuant to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4),

—

having regard to the Commission report of 29 November 2011 entitled ‘Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth’ (5),

—

having regard to the Commission report of 1 April 2011 entitled ‘Plastic waste in the environment’ (6),

—

having regard to Directive 2008/98 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (7),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (8),

—

having regard to Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (9),

—

having regard to the Commission Decision 2000/532/EC of 3 May 2000 replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1 (a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste (notified under document number C(2000) 1147) (10),

—

having regard to Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (11),

—

having regard to the Stockholm Convention of 22 May 2001 on persistent organic pollutants,

—

having regard to the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade of 10 September 1998,

—

having regard to the Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa of 30 January 1991,

—

having regard to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal of 22 March 1989,

—

having regard to the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities, adopted by 108 governments and the European Commission,

—

having regard to the conclusions of the 2nd ACP/EC/UN-Habitat Tripartite Conference on Sustainable Urbanisation as a Response to Urban Poverty Alleviation,

—

having regard to the UN-Habitat Note on Urbanisation Challenges, Waste Management and Development of 14 February 2014 (12),

A.

whereas pollution and its harmful effects on people’s health, the environment and the planet have often been neglected by governments and the international community, both the direct effects (such as the effects of air pollution on human health and of pesticide use on the environment and biodiversity) and the indirect effects (such as the pollution of soil in which crops are grown and the knock-on effects on human health);

B.

whereas pollution is the largest environmental cause of disease and death in the world today, responsible for an estimated nine million premature deaths in 2015;

C.

whereas 92 % of all pollution-related mortality is seen in low- and medium-income countries and whereas, in some countries, the figures are very alarming;

D.

whereas the United Nations has indicated that by 2014, the population living in urban areas in the world had reached 54 % and is expected to reach 66 % by 2050;

E.

whereas Africa’s urban population is projected to grow by 54 % by 2050;

F.

whereas a growing urban population presents numerous challenges, but also has the potential to improve prosperity and development as well as the integration of ACP countries into global networks, thus increasing the chance of finding solutions to challenges;

G.

whereas 62 % of urban populations in Sub-Saharan Africa live in degraded suburbs, most often located in environmentally fragile areas, and without access to basic services such as water, sanitation, energy, transport and waste management systems; whereas those populations are therefore extremely exposed to pollution sources and to their consequences on the environment and health;

H.

whereas strategies to reduce waste production should take priority, while recycling and processing of waste should be viewed only as fallback options;

I.

whereas inadequate waste collection services and recycling systems, hazardous dumps and environmental damage — and the resulting risks to health — have an impact on the lives of millions of inhabitants in ACP States;

J.

whereas poor waste management slows the economic and social development of ACP States, particularly their slums;

K.

whereas lack of capacity to deal with industrial and domestic waste has severe negative consequences on the biodiversity of ACP countries, their particular ecosystems and the flora and fauna dependent on these ecosystems;

L.

whereas in some ACP States, due to a lack of appropriate technology, infectious medical wastes and toxic industrial waste expose waste handlers to a wide array of risks;

M.

whereas poor waste management practices, along with the lack of an efficient and sustainable waste management system, especially in rural areas, are the cause of persistent problems such as inefficient refuse collection, poor public compliance with waste sorting, and the uncontrolled open burning of waste;

N.

whereas the Pacific islands have particular problems in dealing with untreated waste, particularly plastic waste;

O.

whereas the widespread dumping of refuse in water bodies and uncontrolled dump sites aggravates the problems of generally low sanitation levels across the ACP States;

P.

whereas the gap between waste management policy and legislation and actual waste management practices in ACP States is widening, due to ongoing capacity constraints or to the non-existence of management facilities for the different waste streams;

Q.

whereas global consumption of electrical and electronic equipment is on the rise; whereas addressing the full life cycle of electrical and electronic equipment is central to the 2030 development agenda;

R.

whereas many cities in EU Member States have had to address challenges caused by growing waste production and poor waste management in the past, but were able to find ways to cope, through a combination of educational campaigns and improved and better enforced legislation;

S.

whereas countries, on occasion including EU Member States, have exported their hazardous and toxic waste to the ACP States since the 1970s; whereas the responsibility of the countries exporting such waste should be considered as important as that of the countries importing it;

T.

whereas urban environments generate types of waste that often have serious implications for human health and environmental sustainability;

U.

whereas, as already noted in the resolution of 20 December 2017 on the blue economy, efforts in waste management, particularly the implementation of the recommendations in the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment, must be stepped up in order to preserve the potential of the blue economy, as marine pollution is largely caused by land-based factors, such as the accumulation of plastic waste;

V.

whereas the goals for the blue economy, set out in the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly resolution of 20 December 2017, include preserving the environment through joint action between ACP States and private sector stakeholders in a variety of areas, including proper and sustainable waste management;

W.

whereas natural disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes, which very often strike ACP States and, as regards hurricanes, at an intensity which is only likely to increase, given the effects of climate change, may lead to large amounts of waste being generated, which can result in unprecedented health risks to the population;

X.

whereas urbanisation and poor waste management are also contributing to the pollution of our oceans and therefore have repercussions for local activities which rely on marine resources (fishing, tourism);

Y.

whereas the fast-growing use of ICT and the rapid turnover in technology, particularly computers and mobile phones, creates growing electronic waste streams, particularly of rare and hazardous metals, for which sustainable waste management capacity has yet to be found and which accumulate along with municipal waste in dump sites;

Z.

whereas efforts to improve the situation have not been enough to contend with rapid population growth and urbanisation; whereas per capita waste generation is increasing as economies grow;

AA.

whereas, as noted at the United Nations Ocean Conference in June 2017, plastic use is one of the most pressing problems facing coastal areas and islands;

BB.

whereas public authorities are ultimately responsible for ensuring the provision of adequate waste management services and the primary method of waste disposal in most ACP States is the ‘summon to bring’ system, which is managed at the municipal level;

CC.

whereas in many ACP States waste management systems are constrained by the limited know-how concerning separate collection alternatives and the high cost factor involved in mixed waste collection, hence limiting recourse to the re-use, recycling and conversion alternatives;

DD.

whereas current by-laws in most localities in ACP States place responsibility for waste management on municipalities that are insufficiently equipped to deal with collection and disposal, and such by-laws are now an impediment to investment in waste management by the private sector;

EE.

whereas members of local civil society doing informal waste management work should be encouraged to regularise and formalise their work so that they can participate fully and officially in that economic activity;

FF.

whereas, in some cases, the advent of private-sector operators has improved solid waste collection; whereas, however, a public authority with sufficient resources has every right to take primary responsibility for waste collection;

GG.

whereas recycling efforts can improve urban environments while simultaneously generating income opportunities and improved livelihoods;

HH.

whereas comprehensive waste management practices at national and local level reduce the damaging effects on human health and help health services to deal with the costs of these issues;

II.

whereas the implementation and enforcement of waste regulations and conventions is severely constrained by the lack of good governance and transparency and, in some cases, by the prevalence of corruption;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.