DexMetal

OECD Member Country Procedures

← Back to Country-Specific Requirements

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developed a parallel transboundary waste movement system that simplifies procedures among its 38 high-income member countries. The OECD Council Decision creates streamlined procedures for "green list" wastes and facilitates recovery-oriented trade. Understanding how OECD procedures differ from Basel, which countries participate, and how the two systems interact is essential for exporters targeting major recycling markets in Europe, North America, and Asia.

OECD Council Decision Framework

LEGAL BASIS:

  • OECD Council Decision C(2001)107/Final on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Wastes Destined for Recovery Operations
  • Revised periodically (latest significant revision in 2022)
  • Binding on all OECD member countries
  • Compatible with Basel Convention but with streamlined procedures
  • Focus on recovery operations (not disposal)

RELATIONSHIP TO BASEL CONVENTION:

  • OECD Decision complements Basel, not replaces it
  • Both systems apply simultaneously in many situations
  • Basel Article 11 allows regional agreements like OECD Decision
  • OECD procedures generally faster and simpler than Basel
  • Must still comply with national Basel implementation laws
  • If conflict, more protective provisions apply

KEY PRINCIPLES:

  • Facilitate environmentally sound recovery of wastes
  • Ensure adequate information flow between countries
  • Reduce administrative burden for legitimate recycling
  • Maintain environmental protections while enabling trade
  • Respect national sovereignty to restrict imports

OECD Member Countries

CURRENT 38 MEMBER COUNTRIES (2024):

  • Europe (26): Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom
  • Americas (4): Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, United States
  • Asia-Pacific (7): Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea
  • Israel, Turkey
  • All are Basel Convention Parties except United States
  • All are high-income or upper-middle income countries

NON-OECD COUNTRIES (MAJOR E-WASTE DESTINATIONS):

  • China (not OECD member—OECD procedures don't apply)
  • India (not OECD—requires full Basel procedures)
  • Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia (not OECD)
  • Most African countries (not OECD)
  • Brazil, Argentina (not OECD)
  • Movement to these countries follows Basel procedures, not OECD Decision

OECD Waste Lists

GREEN LIST (APPENDIX 3):

  • Wastes subject only to general information requirements (no notification/consent)
  • Similar to Basel Annex IX but not identical
  • Metal and metal-alloy wastes (including sorted electronic scrap components)
  • Clean sorted plastics from e-waste
  • Glass cullet including CRT glass (if properly sorted and uncontaminated)
  • Paper and cardboard wastes
  • Much e-waste can qualify as green list if properly segregated

AMBER LIST (APPENDIX 4):

  • Wastes requiring prior written notification and consent
  • Includes wastes from Basel Annex II
  • Mixed e-waste, circuit boards with components attached
  • E-waste not meeting green list purity standards
  • Most unsorted or mixed electronic scrap
  • Full notification procedure similar to Basel

RED LIST (NOT DEFINED IN OECD):

  • OECD Decision only covers recovery operations
  • Disposal operations follow Basel procedures exclusively
  • Some countries prohibit certain waste imports even for recovery
  • National restrictions trump OECD streamlined procedures

CLASSIFICATION DETERMINATION:

  • Waste composition determines list assignment
  • Green list requires high purity and minimal contamination
  • Presence of hazardous components often triggers amber classification
  • When uncertain, use conservative (amber) classification
  • Destination country can reclassify if disagrees

SeeSection B: E-Waste Classificationsfor detailed classification guidance.

Green List Procedures

SIMPLIFIED INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS:

  • No prior notification or consent required
  • Written contract between exporter and recovery facility
  • Information document ("Annex VII equivalent" in EU context)
  • Accompanies shipment but not submitted to competent authorities in advance
  • Authorities may audit documents at border or facility

REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION:

  • Description of waste (type, origin, quantity)
  • Identification of exporter, importer, carrier, recovery facility
  • Recovery operation to be performed (R-code)
  • Waste codes (national and OECD green list code)
  • Movement route and means of transport
  • Insurance or financial guarantee per national requirements

NATIONAL OPT-OUT PROVISIONS:

  • Countries can require notification even for green list wastes
  • Must notify OECD Secretariat of control requirements
  • Published in OECD country fact sheets
  • Verify destination country hasn't imposed stricter controls
  • Some countries opt out for specific waste streams (e.g., plastic waste)

COMPLIANCE MONITORING:

  • Random inspections at borders
  • Facility audits to verify green list waste properly handled
  • If contaminated or misclassified, may be returned to origin
  • Penalties for intentional misclassification

Amber List Procedures

PRIOR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION AND CONSENT:

  • Full notification procedure similar to Basel Annex V A
  • Submit to exporting country competent authority
  • Forwarded to importing and transit country authorities
  • Written consent required before shipment
  • Typical timeline: 30-90 days depending on countries involved

TACIT CONSENT MECHANISM:

  • Available between OECD members for certain waste streams
  • If importing country doesn't object within 30 days, consent is assumed
  • Doesn't apply to all OECD countries or all wastes (check country positions)
  • Exporter still must wait full 30 days before shipping
  • EU intra-community shipments commonly use tacit consent
  • Not available for movements to non-OECD countries

SeeSection C: PIC Procedure Workflowsfor notification procedures.

REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION:

  • All Basel notification documentation applies
  • Contract between exporter and disposer per Article 6(3)(b)
  • Facility permits and authorizations
  • Waste characterization reports
  • Insurance or financial guarantee
  • Movement document (Annex V B) for each shipment

SeeSection D: Supporting Documentsfor documentation requirements.

OECD-Specific Advantages

FASTER PROCESSING TIMES:

  • OECD countries generally have well-developed systems
  • 30-60 day timelines typical vs. 60-120+ days for non-OECD
  • Electronic submission systems common
  • Experienced competent authority staff
  • Established procedures and precedents

HIGHER FACILITY STANDARDS:

  • OECD countries have stringent environmental regulations
  • Strong facility permitting and oversight
  • ESM generally assured through regulatory framework
  • Less risk of illegal waste trafficking or abandonment
  • Competent authorities confident in domestic facility standards

BETTER ENFORCEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE:

  • Effective border controls and inspections
  • Trained customs and environmental enforcement officers
  • Legal systems supporting waste trade enforcement
  • International cooperation on transboundary violations
  • Lower risk for exporters operating legally

ESTABLISHED RECYCLING INDUSTRIES:

  • Sophisticated recycling infrastructure in most OECD countries
  • Advanced processing technologies
  • Strong downstream markets for recovered materials
  • Competitive pricing despite higher labor costs (automation)
  • Reliable facility operations and business practices

Practical Considerations

WHEN OECD PROCEDURES APPLY:

  • Both exporting and importing countries must be OECD members
  • Waste must be destined for recovery (not disposal)
  • Transit countries: OECD Decision doesn't automatically exempt transit notifications
  • If non-OECD transit country, Basel procedures apply for that leg
  • US-OECD movements: US participates despite Basel non-Party status

COST IMPLICATIONS:

  • OECD country recyclers typically charge higher fees than Asian processors
  • European facilities: €100-€500 per ton depending on waste type
  • North American facilities: $200-$800 per ton
  • Asian facilities (non-OECD): Often free or pay for material (negative cost)
  • Higher OECD costs offset by faster processing, lower administrative burden, ESM assurance
  • EU 2026 restrictions may force shift to OECD markets despite higher costs

STRATEGIC SOURCING:

  • Build relationships with OECD country recyclers proactively
  • Major hubs: Germany (Hamburg area), Belgium (Antwerp), Netherlands (Rotterdam), Canada (Ontario), Japan
  • South Korea emerging as high-tech e-waste processor
  • Australian market small but growing
  • Diversify facility base across multiple OECD countries

Country-Specific OECD Variations

UNITED STATES:

  • Participates in OECD Decision despite Basel non-Party status
  • EPA applies OECD green/amber procedures for OECD movements
  • Simplified procedures for green list to Canada and Mexico
  • RCRA requirements still apply domestically

SeeUS Export Requirementsfor US-specific procedures.

EUROPEAN UNION:

  • EU Regulation 1013/2006 implements both Basel and OECD
  • Intra-EU movements use Annex VII (streamlined OECD-style procedures)
  • Extra-EU movements to OECD countries: OECD Decision applies
  • 2026 restrictions don't affect OECD exports (only non-OECD)

SeeEU Waste Shipment Regulationfor EU details.

CANADA:

  • Federal and provincial coordination required
  • OECD procedures generally followed for eligible wastes
  • Re-import guarantee required for all imports
  • Close working relationship with US EPA

JAPAN AND SOUTH KOREA:

  • Active participants in OECD system
  • Sophisticated e-waste recycling sectors
  • Language requirements (Japanese/Korean) can be challenging
  • Strong quality standards for incoming materials
  • Growing destinations for high-quality electronic scrap

Common Errors

  • Assuming OECD procedures eliminate all national requirements (they don't)
  • Misclassifying amber list waste as green list to avoid notification
  • Not verifying destination country hasn't opted out of green list simplification
  • Forgetting transit country notifications even for OECD-to-OECD movements
  • Shipping green list waste without required documentation package
  • Assuming tacit consent available when destination country requires explicit consent
  • Not accounting for higher OECD processing costs in project economics
  • Overlooking that OECD only applies to recovery, not disposal
  • Thinking US participation same as full Basel Party (it's not)
  • Not staying current on OECD Decision revisions

References

Section: Country · Type: guide