Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on:

- the "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment", and

- the "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment"

(2001/C 148/01)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Proposal by the Commission for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment and the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment [COM(2000) 347 final - 2000/0158 (COD) - 2000/0159 (COD)];

having regard to the decision of the Council of 14 September 2000, under Articles 265 (paragraph 1) and 175 (paragraph 1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee on the subject;

having regard to the decision by the Bureau on June 13, which directs Commission 4 - Spatial Planning, Urban Issues, Energy and Environment, to draw up the relevant opinion;

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 269/2000 rev. 1) adopted by Commission 4 on 4 October 2000, for which the rapporteur was Mr McKenna (IRL/AE);

whereas the pervasiveness of electronic and electrical equipment coupled with increasing consumerism and technological developments has led to a large increase in Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE);

whereas some Member States have legislation on the management of WEEE and others do not which gives rise to a number of potential problems for recycling, disparities in financial burden and the requirement for trading-in equipment;

whereas the proposed Directives focus on the aims of protecting human health and the environment from the impacts of WEEE, by introducing management systems which seek to avoid the generation of waste and limit the potential impacts of waste which has to be disposed of by re-use/recycling and restricting the use of certain hazardous substances in the manufacture of electronic and electrical equipment;

whereas the Directives seek to achieve the harmonisation of national measures on the management of WEEE,

adopted the following opinion at its 37th plenary session on 14 and 15 February 2001 (meeting of 14 February).

Views and recommendations of the Committee of the Regions

1. General comments

1.1. The Committee supports the WEEE Directive provisions for encouraging the recycling of plastics and phasing out toxic chemicals that are persistent in equipment and are known health hazards. This will help clean up the entire product chain, alleviate worker health problems, and reduce hazardous emissions to the environment.

1.2. The Committee considers that uniform producer responsibility should be introduced throughout Europe. Having different rules on producer responsibility in the EU member states would produce considerable distortion of competition in the internal market. It is far preferable for manufacturers' product responsibility to be regulated uniformly across the internal market.

1.3. The Committee of the Regions feels it might make most sense to consider introducing the proposed rules on restricting the use of hazardous substances under European substance legislation. Spreading the restrictions over a number of different directives will inevitably lead to lack of transparency and implementing problems. Furthermore the planned third Directive on the life cycle of these products should, if possible, be incorporated into the single Directive.

1.4. The proposals will require a new approach to design and technology by the manufactures of electrical and electronic equipment and it is inevitable that the costs incurred by compliance with the Directive's recommendations may ultimately be borne by the consumer. While the Committee accepts that some price rises are inevitable to compensate the extra costs of production associated with revised design and with the obligations on producers for recovery and disposal, it is essential that the growing costs of waste disposal associated with electrical and electronic equipment are not borne by the public in general. However, the final responsibility has to be shared by the producer and the consumer.

1.5. The Committee supports the WEEE Directive's premise that the producers of all electronic products and electrical equipment must be financially responsible for managing their products throughout their lifecycle, including at the end of life. The Committee underlines that the public should not have to pay extra taxes for waste management costs of hazardous materials that producers choose to use in electrical and electronic equipment.

1.6. The Committee believes it is imperative that the Commission finalise the further proposed Directive on the "Design and Manufacture of Electrical and Electronic Equipment" which is essential to guiding the industry on the principles of WEEE reduction.

1.7. While the Commission indicates the expected costs of achieving the targets set in the two proposed Directives are considerable, the Committee notes that, for the European Union, the potential economic benefits of implementing the Directives in terms of conserving resources, promoting sustainable development, reducing disposal costs, reducing costs for re-use and recycling are expected in the long term to out weigh the implementation costs. Notwithstanding the issue of financial costs resulting from the Directive, the Committee believes that the less tangible benefits in terms of a better quality environment and reduced pollution risks should out weigh the short-term financial impediments the Directive may create.

1.8. The Directives will necessitate close crossborder co-operation as pollution arising from WEEE is not always controlled by state boundaries and the requisite measures will have to be taken on both sides of a border in order to protect the environment of the entire region concerned. The Committee submits that proposals for such co-operation would be constructive even if it is not possible to regulate conditions outside the EU area.

1.9. The Committee would also point out that private purchases over the Internet (e-commerce) will increase too and that the Directive should ensure that the manufacturer's responsibility for taking back products both within the Single Market and in trade with third countries is not circumvented.

2. Comments on the Directive for Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment

2.1. The Committee of the Regions endorses the objectives and main elements of the proposals and would underline the role that local and regional authorities have to play in facilitating the realisation of these objectives. The Committee regrets the lack of legislation in dealing with WEEE in some Member States and welcomes the proposal for a Directive to provide a legally binding framework at the EU level. Where Member States must draft legislation or amend existing legislation in response to the Directives, it is important that regional and local authorities be official partners in the process of framing national implementation programmes. Ultimately it is these stakeholders who must ensure that producers, are abiding by the Directive principles. The involvement of these authorities in both the planning and implementation of national strategies is critical to attaining the Directive's aims.

2.2. The importance of local and regional authority involvement is also necessary to ensure that potential regional economic disparities are considered when legislation is being drafted. The Committee notes that the Commission proposal does not provide estimates for potential economic impacts on individual Member States. The targets set in the two proposals will place a financial strain on both national and regional levels and indications of how costs may be met would be welcome from the Commission. All costs resulting from the collection, transportation, recycling, re-use and recovery of all end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment must fall to the producer by the end of the transition period at the latest. In this regard the Committee welcomes the flexibility built into the proposal to allow Member States to take national and regional conditions into account when devising systems for waste recovery and treatment.

2.3. The Committee would highlight that compliance with the Directive's proposals within some Member States will present difficulties where no existing legislative provision in this field currently exists. At least one third of the Member States have not undertaken any legislative measures controlling WEEE. This will further compound problems for local and regional authorities devising systems to promote the implementation of the Directive principles. The lack of a national legislative framework in Member States may also encroach upon the practicality of achieving the timeframes for the reduction in WEEE targets imposed by the Directive.

2.4. Although the targets have been amended from previous drafts of the proposed Directives, it is the Committee's opinion that it is important for the Directive to reiterate that Member States are entitled to introduce stronger measures if they so desire. This may have particular relevance for Member States whose existing WEEE legislation is already advanced, where manufactures have already amended design practices and reduced dependence on hazardous substances and in Member States where there are significant concentrations of electrical and electronic equipment producers.

2.5. The Committee of the Regions considers that the target set by the Commission of four kilograms on average per inhabitant per year of waste electrical and electronic equipment Directive is not ambitious enough; therefore urges the Commission to lay down a guide value to serve as a lower limit, which should be reviewed annually. To ensure that the highest possible collection rate is achieved, the last owners of waste equipment should be obliged to return their equipment to approved collection facilities.

2.6. The Committee welcomes the provisions under Article 8 ensuring that agreements be incorporated between the manufacturer and the user (other than private households) on collection, treatment and recovery of WEEE as these users are major contributors to the accumulation of electrical and electronic equipment in the municipal waste stream.

2.7. The Committee accepts the implementation of separate collection systems for WEEE is the most effective method of ensuring that targets for re-use and recycling are achieved. However it is worth highlighting that local authorities dominate the role of waste collection, treatment and disposal. While the local authority is best placed to ensure that these activities are conducted in an efficient and authorised manner, a sharing of responsibility in implementing separate systems for WEEE is of paramount importance. The issue of waste equipment take-back is inseparable from the question of who bears the cost. The Committee therefore considers that manufacturers' obligation to bear the cost of taking back waste equipment should be stipulated as an essential aspect of their responsibility for the product.

2.8. The Committee believes that the list of types of waste, and thus the authorisation system, should exclude electrical and electronic equipment that is simply sorted in collection centres for re-use following ordinary repairs when necessary.

2.9. The Committee notes that with regard to historical waste, i.e. waste from products put on the market before entry into force of the Directive, there is a transition period of five years. This transition period should be shortened to coincide with the deadline after which manufacturers will be generally obliged to take back equipment. The facility within the Directive that producers of products with longer lifetimes could cover these costs through a fixed fee on the price of new products should, the Committee submits, be accompanied by a list identifying these particular products so as to remove any uncertainty or ambiguity on eligible products.

2.10. The Committee agrees with the view that the impact on the price and demand for electrical and electronic goods is estimated to be limited. Furthermore companies that learn how to produce products that are less hazardous and easier and less costly to recycle will develop a competitive advantage since their recycling costs will be lower. In any event the issue of who should pay is at the heart of Extended Producer Responsibility, since it is actually an extension of and mechanism to implement the "polluter pays" principle. The Committee deplores the fact that the Commission omits to clearly address the financial responsibility for future products; therefore urges the Commission to let each company, producer or importer assume responsibility from collection points for the recycling of its products from private households introduced after the directive comes into force. This will provide producers with a financial incentive to develop more environmentally friendly products.

2.11. The Committee of the Regions urges the Commission to encourage the optimal durability of products, taking account of the technical progress in the environmental field. The equipment and components should be durable, easy to disassemble, low polluting and recyclable.

2.12. The Committee would like to highlight the specific difficulty of inducing consumers to recycle small appliances; urges therefore the Commission to propose a compulsory deposit scheme for electrical and electronic equipment.

2.13. The Committee would emphasise the employment potential that the proposal on WEEE presents particularly in the recycling industry. Although the potential economic impacts of the Directive will vary among regions, taking the EU as a whole, the negative impacts will be outweighed by the economic growth and employment generated in sectors involved in minimising, collection, recovery and recycling of WEEE. This additional employment will create further benefits in assisting the integration of long-term unemployed into the workforce and boost activities in all Member States in the social economy.

2.14. The Committee underlines the importance of awareness raising and information campaigns to involve consumers in reaching targets for the collection and recovery of electrical and electronic waste and would welcome co-operation between producers and local authorities in implementing such campaigns.

2.15. In order to protect the competitiveness of the EU in terms of electrical and electronic equipment production with non EU countries it is important that the Union exerts its influence at global forums to encourage other producers such as the USA and Pacific Rim nations to follow the example of the EU in seeking to minimise WEEE. This is important not only for creating a level playing field for producers to compete, which should also apply to e-commerce, but also in ensuring that the quality of the global environment is enhanced having regard to the transboundary impacts of pollution.

2.16. The Committee has concerns about the transboundary movement of hazardous waste. EU producers should not seek to shirk their responsibilities on the collection/treatment/disposal of WEEE through the exportation of their waste products to non-EU countries where the regulations concerning recovery/disposal may not be as stringent. Similarly the Committee believes that clarification needs to be given with regard to the issue of the exporting of electrical and electronic equipment and how the practicalities of end of life collection/treatment will be dealt with between the producer and receiving country.

2.17. The Committee of the Regions feels that greater allowance should be made for the changes in international trade in electrical and electronic equipment over the next few years that will be brought about by electronic commerce. The directive should therefore contain more far-reaching provisions indicating how manufacturers and distributors selling directly in European markets and the internal market are to be included the scope of the directive.

2.18. The Committee of the Regions considers that no further permits and inspections which have to be communicated to the Commission should be required in addition to the permits already now required. The arrangement provided for in the proposal is not justified on technical grounds and would stymie all efforts to simplify administrative procedures.

2.19. The Committee of the Regions considers that information and reports required for the Commission should contain just a few essential facts. The requirements laid out in the proposal would entail unjustifiably high administrative costs.

2.20. The Committee of the Regions feels that the directive should also ensure that small businesses (SMEs) can bid for contracts in the future. Producers who employ other companies to meet their obligations should be required to issue calls for tender (allocation by small lots) that guarantee participation by SMEs.

3. Comments on the Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment

3.1. The Committee welcomes the initiative which includes the phasing out of specified toxic materials. Many manufacturers have already begun this practice which the Committee would argue has limited cost implications.

3.2. For those hazardous substances which do not have to be phased out in the current proposal due to the lack of an available substitute, the Committee would recommend that further analysis of their potential impacts should be undertaken and that the research for an appropriate substitute should be expedited. The Committee would welcome further action to stimulate industry to take the environmental impact of their products more seriously into account and to address recycling and reduction of waste aspects from the initial design stage.

3.3. It is the Committee's view that where certain hazardous materials continue to be disposed and for those materials which will be disposed of prior to the coming into force of this Directive, at landfill sites, that this material is only disposed of at high standard controlled landfill sites which are controlled by the technical standards set out in Directive 99/31/EC.

3.4. In addition to the potential risks of pollution and associated health issues resulting from the disposal of these hazardous substances, the Committee believes it should also be highlighted that the presence of certain hazardous substances poses a health risk to those employees of recycling plants, therefore reinforcing the need to reduce the levels of hazardous substances. The risks to employees in this sector may require further analysis.

3.5. With regard to the restrictions on substances identified in this Directive, the Committee would welcome reassurances that the proposed substitutes have been fully assessed in terms of their potential impacts on the environment and human health, so as that they are dealt with appropriately when it comes to recovery/disposal.

3.6. Article 6 of this Directive allows for the provision to amend the annex on restricted substances. Although the Directive states that by 31 December 2003 this section will be reviewed to take into account new scientific evidence, it is not clear whether there is scope to amend the list of restricted substances if sufficient scientific data emerges to justify further restrictions prior to this date. The Committee believes that subject to the availability of the necessary scientific data and appropriate consultation, that there ought to be the flexibility to amend this annex at any stage.

3.7. The Committee of the Regions considers that all environmental and economic aspects of both the substances and substitutes concerned must first be evaluated for their whole life cycle. Specifically, a scientifically substantiated risk assessment is required that examines not just the substance properties but also considers whether and how people and the environment are exposed to the substance and what effects can be expected.

4. Conclusion

4.1. The Committee welcomes the proposed Directives which require manufacturers to improve the design of their products in order to avoid the generation of waste and to facilitate the recovery and disposal of electronic scrap. This must be achieved through the phase out of hazardous materials, as well as the development of efficient systems of collection, re-use and recycling. The Committee of the Regions considers that producer responsibility should be made binding at Community level under the Directive.

4.2. The Committee considers that successful implementation of these proposals will depend on the local and regional authorities being involved in both the planning and implementation of the national strategies to attain the targets set out in the Directives.

4.3. The Committee recognises that some financial costs will be incurred in achieving the objectives of the proposals, but concludes that in the long term, the economic and environmental benefits will be realised as technology adapts to the requirements to undertake cleaner manufacturing techniques in production.

4.4. The Committee notes that the proposed target values should be achievable at reasonable expense if all the requisite relevant guidelines are drawn up in the near future in particular the proposed Directive on the "Design and Manufacture of Electrical and Electronic Equipment". The Commission should monitor action by Member States especially those that have not undertaken the preparation of WEEE legislation.

4.5. The Committee of the Regions believe that scientific research to facilitate further restrictions on the use of hazardous substances should be expedited and incorporated into legislation once sufficient scientific evidence can be demonstrated and the necessary consultations with key stakeholders completed.

Brussels, 14 February 2001.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos Chabert