A/HRC/15/22 18. The Special Rapporteur has always considered that a movement from an area under the national jurisdiction of a State to or through an area under the national jurisdiction of another State is not necessary for an issue to fall within the scope of the mandate. An example of transboundary movement not involving an international trade in hazardous wastes is the transfer of industries generating hazardous products and/or wastes to developing countries. Over the years, the Special Rapporteur has considered several cases where transnational corporations had moved their plants to developing countries to continue the production of pesticides and pharmaceuticals that had been banned or severely restricted in industrialized countries for environmental or health reasons. 19. With regard to the “illicit” nature of activities concerning the movement and disposal of hazardous products and wastes, the Special Rapporteur considers that the adjective “illicit” does not only encompass activities carried out in violation of national or international norms and standards on the sound management and disposal of toxic and dangerous products and wastes. In his view, any movement or dumping of hazardous products and wastes that has, or may have, a harmful impact on the enjoyment of human rights may be considered “illicit”, even if it appears to be officially legal (e.g. transboundary movement of hazardous wastes in accordance with the provisions of the Basel Convention causing adverse effects on the enjoyment of the right to life or health of individuals handling or being exposed to them, for instance as a result of non-deliberate disposal). 20. The Special Rapporteur is pleased to note that at its ninth session, the Human Rights Council decided to strengthen the mandate so as to include all types of movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes, as recommended by the mandate holder (see A/HRC/9/22, para. 36). In accordance with resolution 9/1, the Special Rapporteur now has the task of investigating the adverse effects that both transboundary and national movements and dumping of hazardous products and wastes have on the enjoyment of human rights. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur is now mandated to study the potential adverse effects of any movement or dumping of hazardous products and wastes, whether illicit or not. C. Existing problems, and new trends, in the movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes 21. Since the establishment of the mandate, significant changes have taken place in the transboundary movement and disposal of hazardous products and wastes. In 1995, the majority of transboundary movements of toxic wastes took place between industrialized countries, where these wastes could no longer be economically disposed of following the introduction of stringent legislation regulating hazardous waste disposal, and developing countries, in particular in Africa, which needed hard currency, but had no or limited technical capacity to dispose of these wastes in an environmentally sound manner. Indeed, the establishment of the mandate represented a response to a number of serious incidents involving the illicit dumping in developing countries of hazardous wastes produced in industrialized countries. 22. At present, the situation is more complex. Certainly, hazardous wastes generated in the northern hemisphere continue to be illegally dumped in developing countries when they cannot be disposed of in the country of origin, as the Probo Koala incident proved.12 However, hazardous wastes are transferred not only from the “north” to the “south”, but 12 8 The Probo Koala, a ship flying the Panamanian flag chartered by a Dutch transnational corporation, allegedly disposed of 500 tonnes of toxic wastes in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire. See A/HRC/12/26/Add.2. GE.10-14907