EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 3.12.2008 
SEC(2008) 2933 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
 
accompanying the 
Proposal for a 
 
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
on waste electrical and el ectronic equipment (WEEE) 
 
(recast) 
 
Impact Assessment  
{COM(2008) 810 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2934} 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Summary and Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 5 
1. Policy background, procedural issues and consultation of interested parties ............ 17 
1.1. Policy background...................................................................................................... 17 1.1.1. General background ................................................................................................... 17 1.1.2. Objectives and rationale of th e WEEE and RoHS Directives.................................... 18 
1.1.3. Experience with implementing the Directives ........................................................... 19 1.1.4. Review.................................................................................................................. ...... 20 
1.2. Expertise and information.......................................................................................... 20 1.2.1. Implementation Assessment....................................................................................... 20 1.2.2. Data gathering exercise.............................................................................................. 20 1.2.3. Research studies........................................................................................................ . 21 
1.2.4. Compliance check studies.......................................................................................... 21 1.2.5. Reporting from Member Stat es on implementation................................................... 21 
1.2.6. Study on administrative burden ................................................................................. 22 1.2.7. Other sources........................................................................................................... ... 22 
1.3. Direct Consultation .................................................................................................... 22 2. Problem Definition..................................................................................................... 25 2.1. Introduction to the problem and who is affected ....................................................... 25 2.1.1. Introduction to the problem........................................................................................ 25 2.1.2. Who is affected and how?.......................................................................................... 25 2.2. WEEE Arising- Baseline  scenario 2011-2020........................................................... 26 
2.2.1. WEEE arising: Volumes of WEEE............................................................................ 26 2.2.2. WEEE Arising: Composition by type of Equipment ................................................. 27 
2.2.3. Material composition of WEEE................................................................................. 28 2.3. Problems with the Effectiveness of th e Directive- Baseline scenario 2011-2020 ..... 31 
2.3.1. Current Collection of WEEE ..................................................................................... 31 2.3.2. Current Destinations of WEEE .................................................................................. 34 2.3.3. Quantitative Estimations on Collection a nd Destinations of WEEE in 2005 ............ 39 
2.3.4. Drivers of the Effectiveness Problems....................................................................... 41 
 
EN 3   EN 2.3.5. Evolution of the Effectiveness Problems:  2011-2020 (No action/ Baseline scenario)
............................................................................................................................... ..... 42 
2.3.6. Impacts of the Effectiveness Problems: 2011-2020 (No action/ Baseline scenario) . 45 
2.4. Problems with the Efficiency of the Di rective- Baseline scenario 2011-2020 .......... 50 
2.4.1. Description of the Problems....................................................................................... 50 2.4.2. Drivers of the Efficiency Problems............................................................................ 50 2.4.3. Evolution of the Efficiency Problems:  2011-2020 (No action/Baseline scenario).... 52 
2.5. The EU right to act..................................................................................................... 53  
3. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 54 
3.1. General, specific and operational ob jectives.............................................................. 54 
3.2. Policy coherence ........................................................................................................ 54  
4. Options to Improve the Effec tiveness of the Directive.............................................. 56 
4.1. Description of the Options ......................................................................................... 56 4.2. Analysis of impacts.................................................................................................... 56 4.2.1. Option (1): No action ................................................................................................. 56  
4.2.2. Option (2): Minimum legal requirements  for inspections of WEEE treatment......... 57 
4.2.3. Option (3) Minimum inspection requ irements for waste shipments.......................... 59 
4.2.4. Increase the collection targets (85% of  WEEE arising), make producers responsible 
for this target and include B2B equipment in the scope of the collection target. ...... 60 
4.2.5. Option (5) Set a 100% collection target on th e environmentally most relevant streams
............................................................................................................................... ..... 66 
4.2.6. Option (6) Collection targets set in re lation to EEE put on the market in the 
preceding year ............................................................................................................ 67 
4.3. Sensitivity of the analysis to changes in estimates of the collection rate and 
relationship of EEE put on ma rket to WEEE arising................................................. 68 
4.4. Comparison of Options to improve Effectiveness ..................................................... 72 5. Options to improve the Effi ciency of the Directive................................................... 77 
5.1. Description of the Options ......................................................................................... 77 5.2. Analysis of impacts.................................................................................................... 78 5.2.1. Option (1): No action ................................................................................................. 78  
5.2.2. Option (2): Clarifying the scope by using fixed lists of products.............................. 79 
5.2.3. Option (3): Defining the scope  under the RoHS Directive........................................ 79 
5.2.4. Option (4): Classifying cat egories of equipment ....................................................... 79 
 
EN 4   EN 5.2.5. Option (5): Inter-operability of national  registers and harmonisation of reporting 
requirements............................................................................................................... 80 
5.2.6. Option (6): EU operated register................................................................................ 82 5.2.7. Option (7): Include the reuse of whole a ppliances in the components, material and 
substance reuse and recycling targets ........................................................................ 82 
5.2.8. Option (8): Include recycling and rec overy targets for medical devices ................... 83 
5.3. Comparison of Options to Improve the Efficiency of the Directive.......................... 84 6. Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 86 6.1. Indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives .............................................. 86 6.2. Outline for monitoring and evaluation arrangements ................................................ 86 
7. Conclusions................................................................................................................ 8 7 
Annex 1: Description of  (research) studies .............................................................................. 89 
Annex 2: Environmentally relevant mate rials arising as waste (UNU Study,2007)................ 91 
Annex 3: Physical and financial responsibilities for collection ............................................... 92 
Annex 4: Evolution of Collection Performance to meet targets .............................................. 93 Annex 5: Leaching of metals of disposed WEEE .................................................................... 95 Annex 6: Details on environmental impacts of WEEE............................................................ 96 
Annex 7: Background to the driver of differe nt implementation of the provisions on the 
producer registration/reporting: ............................................................................... 101 
Annex 8: Mapping of the administrative burden of the WEEE Directive ............................. 104 
Annex 9: Policy Coherence.................................................................................................... 10 6 
Annex 10: Markets for secondary materials .......................................................................... 110 Annex 11: EEE separately collect ed, treated and reported .................................................... 111 
Annex 12: Options rejected during the review  and in particular after the stakeholder 
consultation .............................................................................................................. 112 
Annex 13: Detailed cost calculation of the inter-operability option ...................................... 114 
Biliography.................................................................................................................... ......... 117 
Glossary of terms .............................................................................................................. ..... 118 
 
 
EN 5   EN Summary and Conclusions   
1. The Problem 
The WEEE Directive aims to tackle improper treatment of waste electrical and electronic 
equipment (WEEE). This is the fastest growing waste stream in the EU, producing 8.3-9.1million tonnes in 2005, growing to 12.3 million tonnes of WEEE by 2020.  
Both at the time of the WEEE Directive's con ception and for the future, there are two central 
problems with WEEE: A) disposal of WEEE to la ndfill and B) suboptimal recycling and recovery 
of WEEE by techniques that releas e or generate harmful substances . Both ends lose significant 
valuable recyclable resources and damage the envi ronment and health, in the EU and in developing 
countries. 
Experience with the Directive, gathered from stakeholders and Member States during a 3 year 
review, points to the Directive not working as effectively  as intended and problems with its 
efficiency  in achieving its objectives - ther e are some unnecessary costs.  
2. Problems with the Effectiveness of the Directive 
There have been significant changes in the patt erns of collection and disposal since the WEEE 
Directive came into force: the combined effect of higher global metal prices and stimulation of 
organised collection by the WEEE Directive ha ve resulted in high amounts of WEEE being 
collected separately from domestic waste, with only an estimated 13% of WEEE going to landfill or 
incineration.  
The indications are that there is separate co llection over 85% of WEEE  arising, even though only 
33% is officially reported as 'separately collected '. The WEEE Directive contains an obligation for 
all WEEE that is collected separately to be treat ed in ways which avoid environmental harm, but it 
is estimated that in practice 50% of what is coll ected - approximately 40% of all WEEE arising - is 
probably not being treated in line with the Directiv e's objectives and requirements. A large part of 
the unreported, but collected, WEEE may either be  treated in the EU w ithout due environmental 
care or illegally shipped to developing countries wher e parts of the valuable ma terial are recycled in 
ways dangerous to the health and environment, or dumped.  
Based on current practice, this problem will grow  rather than diminish, with an estimated 4.3 
million tonnes improperly treated each year by 2020, increasing from 3.4 million tonnes in 2005. 
The predicted destination and collection of WEEE in  2020 is estimated below
1: 
                                                 
1 pom = put on the market; Arising = amounts of EEE arising as waste in a certain year 
 
EN 6   EN 2020 Baseline Scenario - Collection and Treamtment
0246810121416
Treatment Collection Arising EEE sold
million tonnesBusiness 2 business
Independent collectors
Reuse centres
Retail/distribution
Municipalities
Not seperately collected
Not properly treated
Not reported but properly treated
Reported + properly treated
Dumped or to LandfillCollection methods
Treatment methods
 
Environmental Issues 
When WEEE is treated in the EU without prope r procedures, environmental harm arises, in 
particular from release of heavy metals like mercury from compact fluorescent lamps and flat-
screens, and lead from TV's. Cooling and freezing  equipment will release an average of over 6,720 
tonnes ozone-depleting greenhouse gases annuall y over 2011-20 causing climate damage monetised 
at around €1bn each year.  
In developing countries improper treatment and dump ing of waste, is a health problem, with both 
adult and child workers being exposed to highl y toxic substances whilst extracting valuable 
materials from WEEE with no health or environm ental procedures. Recycling procedures that do 
not use best practice waste recycl able precious metals and plas tics with knock-on energy use and 
environmental harm from production of virgin material. 
Economic and Social Issues 
WEEE itself is an economic resour ce, with material value curren tly estimated in the order of 
magnitude of €2 bn a year. Whilst the economic cost s for society of collec tion, disposing of and 
treating WEEE are estimated to increase to €5. 6bn a year by 2020, including activity by public and 
informal sectors. With most of this activity taking place in the EU, this waste management activity brings revenue and employment to a waste tr eatment sector employing much manual labour.  
3. Main Problems with the Efficiency of the Directive 
Of the unnecessary costs identified in the operation of the Directive the most  significant come from 
uncertainty on the scope of the Di rective and requirements for produc ers to register and report in 
each Member State they sell in. Specific activ ity required by business from these, and other 
avoidable administrative costs are estimated at €66m /year using the EU's standard cost method. 
 
EN 7   EN These are set to continue. Differences in implem entation practice on regist ration also lead to 
unwanted free-riding by distance-se llers, who pass their costs on to registered producers. 
4. Objectives 
The key objectives of the review are to solve probl ems with the effectiveness and the efficiency of 
the Directive: to put in place th e conditions which bring about pr oper treatment of all WEEE being 
collected and to reduce the amounts of WEEE going to landfill; and to remove all unnecessary costs 
in achieving those goals. There are also objectiv es, in line with other EU policy, to promote 
employment for lower skilled workers and in high -tech innovation with e xport growth potential.  
5. Options 
The Commission services considered many options during the review, together with stakeholders. 
Some of those which were considered but not desc ribed in this IA are in Annex 12. The options 
analysed in this IA are: 
To tackle problems with Effectiveness:  
Option 1: Take no action  
Option 2: Minimum inspection and enforcem ent requirements for treatment of WEEE 
Option 3: Minimum inspection and enfor cement requirements for waste shipment 
Option 4: Increase collection target to align w ith quantities collected already (85% of WEEE 
arising), make producers responsible for this target , and include B2B equipment in the scope of the 
collection target; 
Option 5: Set collection targets for the e nvironmentally most relevant streams; 
Option 6: Change the method of setting the target from kg/inhabitant to a % of the quantity of EEE 
put on the market in preceding year. 
To tackle problems with Efficiency: 
Option 1: Take no action 
To clarify scope and categor isation (alternatives): 
Option 2: Clarify the scope using fixed lists 
Option 3: Define the WEEE scope under the RoHS Directive Option 4: Classifying categories of equipmen t as WEEE from private households or B2B  
To cut administrative burden from re gistration and reporting (alternatives): 
Option 5: Inter-operability of national regist ers and harmonisation of reporting requirements 
Option 6: EU operated Register 
 
EN 8   EN There are also 2 other options presented with sma ller impacts: to include re-use within collection 
targets (Option 7); and to set targets for the propor tion of each tonne of medical equipment that is to 
be recycled and recovered as already in place other categories of WEEE (Option 8). 
6. Impact Analysis and Comparison of Options 
Stronger Enforcement and/or Highe r Targets to achieve the objectives? 
It is assumed that the Directive's existing requi rements for proper treatment of all separately 
collected WEEE have not been e ffective due to: the high material  value of WEEE (which makes 
informal collection and trade of WEEE profitable) an d the additional costs of treatment in line with 
the Directive’s requirements (which provi de an incentive for improper treatment). 
Efforts to increase enforcement of treatment a nd shipment of WEEE (Op tions 2 and 3) appear 
unlikely to be sufficiently effici ent or effective to im prove management of WEEE in line with the 
Directive. Both actions would provide increased disincentive to improper ly treat WEEE but given 
the assumed volume of separately  collected WEEE whic h is not properly reported and treated, 
Member States would need to dedicate very high le vels of resources to this to make improper 
treatment unattractive. The costs of those enfor cement resources would be a significant additional 
cost for society.  
Setting targets at the estimated current level of all separate WEEE collecti on (Option 4) – 85% of 
WEEE arising - would achieve th at level of collection more effectively, and without these 
additional enforcement costs. Unde r higher collection targets, to tr ansparently meet their obligation 
to treat all separately collected WEEE, producers would need to offer sufficient incentives for 
organisations separately collecti ng WEEE to deliver that WEEE to proper treatment. For example, 
the producer would have to offer an  incentive that was sufficiently at tractive compared to the price 
that an unauthorised recycl er would pay in the grey market to receive WEEE.  
In this situation, the level of co llection activity (b oth formal and informal) would not change but the 
destination of informally collected and traded WEEE would change. With no changes to the extent 
of WEEE collection activity, the co sts to society from collection w ould not change in  this option, 
compared to the baseline. The producer would continue  to have to pay for the costs of the additional 
processes required during recycli ng to avoid environmental damage, but would now pay these for 
all separately collected WEEE,  as the Directive intended.  
Whilst the two possibilities have not been set out against each other in the stakeholder consultation, 
there was certainly support from stakeholders for having better enforcement, in particular when it 
concerns the shipments of WEEE. 
Following page: Summary Table of Impacts of Options for Effectiveness  
 
EN 9   EN Option No change 
(Option 1) Greater Enforcement 
(Options 2&3) 85% Collection Target 
(Option 4) Specific Targets 
(Option 5) 
Landfill and Illegal Disposal 11 11 11 11 
Treatment in line with Directive 54 59 85 60 Destinations 
(% WEEE) 
Improper Treatment 35 30 4 29 
Gross Total Costs (€) 5.6bn + enforcement 6bn – 6.3 + basic 
enforcement 6.8bn + basic enforcement 6.5 - 6.8bn + basic 
enforcement 
Collection & transport 1.8bn 1.8bn 1.8bn 1.8bn 
Additional costs 0.9bn 0.9bn 1.1bn 1.1bn 
Basic Treatment 1.3bn 1.3bn 1.3bn 1.3bn 
Additional Treatment to meet 
legal standards 1.6bn 1.8bn 2.6bn 2.2bn ANNUAL COSTS 
Enforcement Costs No t known to Commission Increase estimated 
between 0.2 - 0.5bn No increase An increase, perhaps 0.1 - 
0.3bn               
Value of Material Recovered (€)  2.2bn   2.2bn 2.2bn  2.2bn ANNUAL BENEFITS Environmental 
Damage General Baseline: Ozone depletion 
from 6720 tonnes of ODS 
released. Climate Damage 
of €1bn Some reduction of climate 
damage possible; not 
quantifiable  Dependent on entry date 
of targets: Climate 
Damage reduced by €2bn-
0.2bn/yr. Ozone depletion 
reduced by 12000-1200 
tonnes. Dependent on entry date 
of targets: Climate 
Damage reduced by €2bn-
0.2bn/yr. Ozone depletion 
reduced by 12000-1200 
tonnes. 
 
EN 10   EN In or out EU Assumed 4,3 million 
tonnes treated improperly 
in our outside the EU Assumed 3,7 million 
tonnes treated improperly 
in our outside the EU Assumed 0,5 million 
tonnes treated improperly 
in our outside the EU Assumed 3,5 million 
tonnes treated improperly 
in our outside the EU 
Innovation and Export Markets Little additional stimulus 
for development of sorting 
and recycling technologies Small stimulus for 
technology development 
in a growing global 
market Significant stimulus for 
technology development 
in a growing global 
market Some stimulus for 
technology development 
in a growing global 
market 
EU Employment Baseline: Estimated 
number of jobs in EU 
treating WEEE about several ten thousands Small increase in EU 
manual work, with 
estimated waste industry 
revenue increase €0.1bn  Greater EU high tech and 
manual work, estimated 
waste industry revenue 
increase €0.6bn Higher EU high tech and 
manual work, estimated 
waste industry revenue 
increase €0.4bn 
 
EN 11   EN Setting the level and type of Target 
The Impact Assessment has shown ev idence to assume that alread y 85% of arisi ng WEEE is being 
separately collected, although not all is reported. The separately collecte d 85% of WEEE arising 
includes nearly all the large and medium size W EEE which is economic to collect. Data suggest 
that collection costs per unit collected remain the same, certainly between 25 to 85% of WEEE arising.  
Setting targets (in Option 4) above the level of WEEE already being collecte d would require further 
separation of small WEEE from mixed waste. This  would bring greater e nvironmental benefits – 
both from recovering materials fro m landfill and particularly for some streams (see below), but 
would be more expensive per tonne to collect.  
Setting targets significan tly below the level of WEEE already being collected would diverge from 
the existing intention of the Directive and woul d make enforcement activities more costly, as 
greater amounts of WEEE would still be  collected in the grey-economy.  
To meet objectives, collection target s would best be set at the leve l of WEEE which is estimated to 
actually being collected already (8 5% of WEEE arising). At this level, significant proportions of 
small WEEE, including compact fluorescent lamps, which is currently estimated to be lost in 
unsorted domestic collection, would be at  risk of going to unsorted waste. 
Bringing about proper treatment of all separately collected WEEE would make the Directive 
effective at bringing about treatm ent and recycling of nearly al l large and medium sized WEEE. 
This brings added costs from increased amounts of WEEE being treated in accordance with high 
environmental standards: costs are estimated to  be around €1bn per year on top of the costs of 
€5.6bn per year for (gross) collection, disposal and treatment, if no fu rther action is taken. 
As the type of WEEE being trea ted will not change, only the amounts, treatment costs per unit will 
either remain the same, or reduce with economies  of scale. The existing formal and informal 
collection infrastructure w ould not need to be expanded. This means that setting an 85% target does 
not decrease the cost-effectiveness of collection a nd treatment, but may (possibly) reduce the costs 
per unit for achieving environmental benefit from the Directive.  
In Option 5, the fractions of W EEE with greatest potential for envi ronmental harm, like cooling and 
freezing equipment, would be collected and so would receive (expensive) treatment. In this 
situation, remaining specific climate and ozone layer harm from cooling and freezing equipment 
could be largely avoided by setting a 100% collecti on target of waste arising for these equipment 
types. 
Compared to Option 4, Option 5 has the advantage that proportions of certa in streams of WEEE 
which are less environmentally damaging, would not need to be collected and formally reported. 
Particularly for some of the la rge household applianc es, there are no great additional costs for 
recycling and treatment that avoids environmen tal harm. For these streams a proportion of the 
organisational costs would be saved in the form al economy. Compared to Option 5, this option 
would have the benefits (and costs)  of pulling greater proportions of  some of the more hazardous, 
but light WEEE (like compact fluorescent lamp s) out of the domestic waste stream. 
Option 5 would be less effective at avoiding wa ste treatment under bad conditions in developing 
countries, with a significant proportion of the 29%  of all WEEE arising no t being treated under the 
 
EN 12   EN collection target likely to go for illegal treatment. The illegal shipment of waste could be reduced 
through greater enforcement, but with a large pr oportion of WEEE outside producer targets, the 
grey trade in WEEE would be likel y to be significant, making enfo rcement more costly and less 
effective than in Option 4. 
Stakeholders, in general, rather linked the co ntrol on the hazardous substances in WEEE to sound 
treatment of the equipment than to an environmenta l weight based target. As  concerns the level of 
the target, very few expressed a de sired level. The recycling industr ies would welcome a rate of no 
less than 65% in function of amounts put on the market . 
Both Options for target setting would include wast e from EEE sold to businesses in the collection 
target. This was previously covered separately in the Directive from domestic consumer waste as it 
was historically already separately  collected rather than  going to landfill or  illegal dumping. Now 
both are typically collected, includ ing both streams into one target  will avoid problems of free-
riding from 'dual-use' waste having its treatmen t paid for by domestic consumers (see below). 
Setting the Date for the Target to apply 
The Commission proposes to set the re vised targets for the end of 2016.  
One of the greatest environmental problems from improper treatment of WEEE in the grey market 
is the release of CFCs and HCFC s from fridges, with average m onetized climate damage of the 
magnitude of €1bn/yr in 2011 declining annually to lower levels by 2020 and very significant 
ozone-depletion effects. As these are only contained in cooling and freezing equipment sold before 
2002, the number of CFC/HCFC fridge s in WEEE is declining each year, and is expected to be 
small after 2020.  
Therefore, different dates for the entry into force of targets will have significantly different effects 
on the climate and ozone depletion benefits realised by the revised Directive. Targets brought into 
force at the end of 2016 may save something around €0.5bn in the first year de clining to low levels 
by 2020, depending on the rate at which CFC/HCFC e quipment comes back. Targets closer to 2011 
would save €1bn of climate damage annually, w ith intermediate year s saving something in-
between. 
So, in addition to targets coming into force in  2016, the Commission proposes to consider by 2012 
the appropriateness of a separate target for cooling and freezing equipment, to drive proper 
treatment of all cooling and freezing equipment wh ich is being separately collected (whether 
formally or informally).  
The revised Directive may be adopted by Counc il and European Parliament in 2011 and then 
transposed into law in the Member States. With the collection infrastructure (including informal 
collection) already in place for cooling and freezing equipment, the change needed to properly treat 
all separately collected WEEE in line with the Di rective is the addition of  sufficient treatment 
capacity.  
A suitable treatment plant normally takes around 1 year to build and bring to operation. Costs of 
installing new treatment capacity are not likely to reduce with greater time.  
Incidence of Costs and Combining Targets with Greater Enforcement 
 
EN 13   EN Under Option 4, producers are expected to take st eps to secure the WEEE needed to meet their 
obligation to treat all separately collected WEEE. Th is will incur costs, but these costs are estimated 
to be more than offset by the recycling value of the materials in the WEEE that they receive. For 
example, to divert WEEE from  unauthorised treatment, the maximum  cost a producer would need to 
offer would be around the value of the WEEE to the unauthorised recy cler. This price is the profit 
that can be made from recycling the WEEE (under sub-standard conditions) - the material value in 
the WEEE minus the recycling cost.  
Whilst the producer would pay this cost, they would then recover the (higher) material value of the 
WEEE from the recycling – and so are likely not to have any net costs from obtaining WEEE. In 
practice, it is likely that produc ers would be able to acquire s ubstantial proportions of WEEE for 
less than the net material value: by receiving it di rectly from municipalitie s or distributors at less 
than market value. This value can be us ed towards the producer s' other obligations. 
Combining greater enforcement (Opts 2&3) with hi gher collection targets would increase the risks 
for unauthorised treatment, making that financ ially less attractive and helping producers secure 
WEEE with lower incentives. However, the enforcement activity would have a cost. 
Option 4 includes harmonizing the re quirement for producers to have  financial responsibility for 
collection of WEEE from households . These collection costs would mo ve costs estimated to be in 
the region of €0.3bn/year from taxpayers to consumers–  but are lower than the material value of the 
WEEE collected and passed on by public authorities, estimated at €1bn. Harmonizing this requirement would avoid any possible distortions in  the single market from national arrangements 
on financing which might favour domestic producers. 
Producers would be responsible for paying the a dditional costs of proper treatment. (These 
represent revenues for treatment operators.) As  EEE is a competitive market and all competing 
products would be equally affected, the costs paid  by producers are assume d to be passed on to 
purchasers of new EEE in purchase prices. As th e increases in purchase price from additional 
WEEE costs are likely to be very small (less th an €1) on a appliance costing €150-450, sales of 
appliances are also not thought to be affecte d, with no reduction of th e shareholder value of 
producers.  
How to set Targets in tonnes 
Collection targets set as a % of WEEE arising also  need to be determined in physical units for 
monitoring. Targets are currently  set by reference to kg/inhabita nt. For the EU15 Member States 
(who have a mainly saturated market for electroni c goods) there is a stable relationship between the 
electronic goods put on the market in  one year and the WEEE arising in that market in the following 
year (even though this is not the same equipment): levels of WEEE are about  80% of the EEE sold 
in the previous year.  
A collection target of 85% of WEEE  arising would be set as a target of about 65% of EEE sold in 
the previous year: (85% of 80% of EEE sold but  allowing for a conservative estimate of the 
relationship between EEE and WEEE arising.  
This approach has the disadvantage that, where th e relationship between EEE put on the market and 
WEEE arising is not stable, there is greater unc ertainty on the correlati on between WEEE actually 
arising and the target. It can be assumed that th e EU12 markets are less satu rated and significantly 
less WEEE arises compared to the amounts bought, a nd the relationship is le ss stable. For this 
Impact Assessment it is assumed that this re lation in the EU12 will be stabilised by 2020. 
 
EN 14   EN In the stakeholder consultation th ere was rather support for this op tion, the option of a fixed target 
not being supported as it does not reflect enough th e variations between Member States and is 
unresponsive to increases in WEEE volumes. Additio nally, most stakeholders also expressed their 
support to keep the mandatory ch aracter of a co llection target. 
7. Comparison of Options to improve Efficiency 
Clarifying Scope and Categories 
Of the two options to provide gr eater clarity on the scope of and categorisation in the WEEE 
Directive, there is little differe nce between the impacts; both will provide greater legal precision on 
the scope and both would require pu blication of lists, either by Me mber States or the Commission 
of the products considered with in the scope. Neither option would resolve any new uncertainties 
about new products which were not clea rly inside or outside the scope.  
If there was any support expressed for using lists to clarify the scope, then stakeholders supported 
the idea of having a positive and a negative lis t. Harmonising the scope under WEEE was supported 
rather than defining the scope under RoHS, howev er, this would require introducing a double legal 
basis in the WEEE Directive whereas a similar eff ect can be reached by referring to the scope in 
RoHS, already targeting harmonisation of scope.  
The categorisation of certain cate gories of products as busine ss waste would avoid problems of 
'dual use' waste, when where business equipment very similar to consumer equipment (like IT 
equipment) enters domestic waste and its treatm ent paid for by producers of domestic equipment. 
This 'free-riding' would be likely to be more common if greater volumes  WEEE were formally 
collected.  
Cutting unnecessary administrative costs from Registration and Reporting 
Three options are considered to  cut the unnecessary costs from duplication and differences in 
registration and reporting by producer s. Either the introduction of an EU Clearing House or single 
EU register would certainly provi de the functions required for cu tting the unnecessary costs: the 
single EU register would do so at  much greater cost to the Eur opean Commission (and so taxpayer) 
with some benefit from reduced costs of opera tions by Member States. Introduction of legal 
requirements for interoperability of Member Stat e registers stands a good chance of achieving the 
same result for producers registration, avoids th e need for extra resourcing for the European 
Commission, but is unlikely to provide services  for reconciling flows of funding for treatment 
between schemes with actual cros s-border treatment of WEEE. 
Other changes 
Including reuse of whole applia nces in the existing reuse/recycling target would entail 
environmental benefits at most likely no cost, as the flexibility on the most sustainable treatment 
operation (reuse or recyclin g) would remain. It woul d help avoiding that re-u se is made unattractive 
by a need to meet higher recycling targets, even where it might be economically and socially more 
valuable. 
Setting targets for medical equipment (cat. 8) e quipment to the level of those for monitoring 
equipment (cat. 9) will have relatively small im pacts: for some Medical Equipment (perhaps 10,000 
tonnes/year) slightly greater shares  of materials will be recovered. 
 
EN 15   EN 8. The Recommended Set of Options and the Impacts 
The analysis in this IA recommends the adopti on of a combination of options to improve the 
effectiveness and efficiency of achievement of the WEEE Directive's existing objectives. These 
options are described with the key impacts in the table below: 
Recommended Policy Options  Key impacts (compared to baseline) 
To Improve Effectiveness  
Set collection targets for producers at levels 
close to the level of collection currently being undertaken, include B2B waste in those targets. 
 
Base these targets on levels of EEE put on the market in the preceding year, at 65% of 
EEE put on market for all Member States 
(85% of WEEE arising) 
Set minimum requirements for inspection and enforcement by Member States, with those requirements decided in Comitology - Additional treatment costs of €1bn per 
year, of which a significant but unknown 
proportion are increased revenues for EU treatment business.  
- These costs fall on producers who will 
be able to pass these on to consumers 
- Annual reduction of environmental harm 
to the atmosphere (of magnitude €1bn per yr) up to 2020, EU localities and to workers in developing countries from safer treatment of 4.3million tonnes of 
WEEE.
 
To improve efficiency   
Define the scope of the Directive in the 
RoHS Directive (based on Article 95 of Treaty) and Require Member States to publish the list of products within the national scope Increased, but not total, clarity on the scope of 
products, with the possibility for Member States to expand the scope in their territory. 
Require interoperabilit y and data-transfer 
between Member State producer registers  - Cuts unnecessary costs paid by 
producers of €66million a year, by 
allowing one registration for all EU 
obligations, with harmonised 
requirements for reporting and processes, of which SME's will have the 
biggest proportional benefit
. 
Include reuse of whole appliances in the 
target for recycling combined with reuse.  Removes disincentives for re-use of products, 
where that re-use is more economically valuable than recycling
 
Set targets for medical equipment (cat. 8) equipment to the level of those for 
monitoring equipment (cat. 9)  Small: for some Medical Equipment (perhaps 
10,000 tonnes/year slightly greater shares of 
materials will be recovered.
 
Compared to other possible opt ions, this set of options: 
 
EN 16   EN – Is the most likely to stimulate proper tr eatment of all WEEE arising outside the 
domestic waste stream, but not impose ex tra collection costs on society and may 
improve the cost-effectiveness of the current Directive; 
– Is expected to lead to additional benef its from innovation and exports, with greater 
investment in recycling technologies suppor ting technology firms in a fast growing 
export market where EU firms are often the global leaders, offering expansion of high-
tech jobs in this sector, in addition to re ducing costs and opening ne w material markets;  
– Is predicted to increase jobs further in the WEEE treatment and recovery sector in the 
EU – these are frequently manual jobs av ailable for lower skilled sectors of the 
workforce. Some stimulation of the reuse se ctor should also lead to more jobs for 
socially disadvantaged people and also to better access to cheaper second-hand 
consumer goods for the poorest sector of society. 
 
EN 17   EN 1. POLICY BACKGROUND , PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED 
PARTIES  
1.1. Policy background  
1.1.1.  General background 
Electric and electronic equipment (EEE) is  a product group characterized by extreme 
diversity and increasingly fast  innovation cycles. Its producti on supports one of the fastest 
growing domains of manufacturing industry in  the world. Currently, in the European 
Union (EU) alone an estimated 10.3 million tonne s of are sold annually, the biggest share 
by weight of which are large household appliances and IT and telecommunication 
equipment. 
As the market continues to expand and also as innovation cycles become shorter and the 
replacement of equipment accel erates, one result is that waste electrical and electronic 
equipment (WEEE) is considered the fast est growing waste stream in the EU.  
Currently, each year, each pers on in the EU 15 Member States  discards an average of 14-
24 kg of WEEE and for the 12 new Member States , the average discards are estimated to 
be 6-12 kg per inhabitant each year. WEEE arisi ng each year is estimated to total 8,3 to 9,1 
million tonnes per year in 2005, and is expe cted to grow to 12,3 million tonnes by 2020.  
The WEEE arising now are products which have been put on the market (POM) in 
preceding years, with the average lifetime of products varying greatly, from mobile phones 
(2 years) to refriger ators (around 15 years).  
WEEE is a complex waste str eam of different materials a nd components, including several 
hazardous substances that can be released in to the environment and damage human health 
if not treated appropriately. Potential risks for the environmental and human health are 
further increased by sub-standard recycling/re covery operations in developing countries, 
driven by a rising demand for raw materials and often supplied by illegal shipments of 
WEEE2.  
These risks can be significantly reduced by sound management of WEEE. Elements of 
sound management include: separating WEEE from other waste to facilitate targeted and 
technically adequate treatment,  applying treatment standards that minimize the release of 
harmful substances and recovering as much as  feasible of materials and energy embodied 
in the waste. These measures can be comple mented by innovative design of EEE. This can 
help to avoid to the extent possible the use of substances, in par ticular of hazardous 
substances, reduce possible exposure of worker s and consumers, and favour the efficient 
dismantling and sorting of waste. 
                                                 
2 Environment and human health conc erns in the processing of electrical  and electronic waste, Greenpeace 
Research Laboratories, University of Exeter, Technical note 04/2006, May 2006; "High-Tech Trash" by 
C.Caroll, National Geographic, published January 2008; The recycling and disposal of electrical and electronic 
waste in China – legislative and market responses, Environmental Impact Assessment review 25 (2005), p.461, 462; Heavy metals concentrations of surface dust from e-waste recycling and its human Health implications in 
Southeast China, Anna W.Le ung et al, January 2008.  
 
EN 18   EN In principle, such an approach offers opportunities for the waste management sector, 
equipment manufacturers and producers of  EEE (first mover a dvantage). However, 
historically market forces alone have not been strong enough to promote significant 
improvements to the management of WEEE – as recently as the 1990s more than 90% of WEEE was still landfilled, incine rated or recovered without pre-treatment. Some of the 
main reasons seem to include: 
• Hazardous substances are often the cheapest technical solutions in the short term; 
• Environmental recycling or di sposal of WEEE brings extr a financial costs with the 
benefits accruing to society; 
• Low prices for raw materials in previous decades discourag ed investment in collection 
and recycling infrastructure and developmen t of recycling technology. Even the present 
raw materials prices enable profitable opera tions in the EU for only few waste materials 
and fears of cyclical price cha nges keep holding back investment. 
In reaction to this, in the la te 1990s several Member States  introduced national laws to 
address environmental concerns related to  the management of WEEE. In 2000, the 
Commission proposed
3 EU legislation in this field, in  response to rapidly growing amounts 
of WEEE and associated possi ble environmental and health problems, and to approximate 
product-related legislation across Memb er States. As a result, the WEEE4 and RoHS5 
Directives were adopted in 2003.  
1.1.2.  Objectives and rationale of the WEEE and RoHS Directives 
The WEEE Directive aims to prevent WEEE, and where this is not possible to recycle and 
recover it to reduce its disposal and to re duce the negative environmental impacts of 
WEEE through proper treatment of collected WEEE.  
It requires Member States to ensure that collection and treatment schemes are set up and 
sets minimum collection targets to increase separate collection and also makes producers6 
responsible for the financi ng of the WEEE management. Th e Directive thus enables 
market mechanisms and financia l incentives in favour of effi cient collection, treatment and 
“design for recycling”. 
The RoHS Directive, passed into law at th e same time, prohibits  the use of certain 
hazardous substances in domestically produ ced or imported EEE, approximating national 
legislation across Member States to ensure the free movement of goods. Its environmental 
objective is to protect humans and the environm ent against the release of these substances 
and to facilitate recycling and recovery of materials from WE EE. While establishing 
binding minimum requirements for all producers, it enables competitive advantages for 
                                                 
3 COM(2000) 347 final 
4 OJ L 37, 13.2.2003, p.24 
5 Directive on the restriction of the use of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS), 
OJ L 37, 13.2.2003, p.19 
6 “Producers” are manufacturers of EEE in the EU, rese llers under their own brand as well as first-time 
importers of EEE into the EU. 
 
EN 19   EN innovative products and technologies that ca n comply with the substance ban more 
efficiently.  
Recent research (see ) has confirmed the n eed for these Directives in view of 
environmental protection. For example, th e total prevented global warming potential by 
properly treating waste fridges containing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) is more than 2000 
kg CO 2 equivalent per fridge. Energy savings from  recycling metals and plastics contained 
in WEEE rather than losing them to landfill is  significant, for example: recycled copper 
requires 85% less energy and recycled steel re quires 74% less energy than the extraction 
and refining of virgin materials.  
Material Aluminium Copper Iron & Steel  Lead Zinc Paper Plastics 
Energy 
savings (%) 95 85 74 65 60 64 >80 
Table1 : Energy savings of recycled material s over virgin materials (BIO 2006)  
1.1.3.  Experience with implementing the Directives  
Both Directives had to be transposed by the Member States by 13 August 2004. By 13 
August 2005, collection and treatment systems n eeded to be in place and producers of 
electrical and electronic e quipment needed to start prov iding for their financing. The 
collection and recovery targets needed to be achieved by 31 December 2006 and the 
substance ban entered into force on 1 July  2006. Practical experien ce with implementing 
the Directives is therefore still building up but the following results  have already been 
achieved:  
– 140 take-back schemes enable nearly 500 millio n Europeans to return their WEEE free 
of charge. 
– Compared to the 1990s, since 2005 about 2 million tonnes of WEEE in the EU have 
yearly been diverted from disposal without  any pre-treatment, by selective collection 
followed by treatment operations. 
– The RoHS Directive has resulte d in reducing the qua ntities of the ba nned substances 
being disposed of and potentially releas ed into the environment by 89800 tonnes of 
lead, 4300 tonnes of cadmium, 537 tonnes of hexavalent chromium, 22 tonnes of mercury and 12600 tonnes of Octa-BDE per year
7.  
– Significant investments were made in treatment  facilities (new facilities in the EU-15 
plus new treatment facilities serving several new Member States at the same time) and 
the WEEE recycling business increased to a multi billion industry, employing several ten thousands of persons.  
– More than 39,500 producers have registered  and assume their financial producer 
responsibility obligations. 
                                                
 
7 Arcadis/Ecolas & RPA 2008, table 4.55. 
 
EN 20   EN – So far, no reduction in purchasing of EEE ha s been reported as  a result of WEEE 
implementation.  
1.1.4.  Review 
There is now sufficient experience and knowledge  to assess the operatio n of the Directives 
to tackle the areas where their objectives are not being met or where meeting those objectives could be achieved more efficiently.  
The Directives themselves call for a review of  certain provisions, notably the collection 
and recycling targets for 2008 and under RoHS; the list of substances banned, and the list 
of equipment covered by the substance ban.
8 
The review of the Directives forms part of the Commission's si mplification strategy9, 
which should contribute to be tter achievement of the Direct ive's objectives, for example 
through improving implementation and enforcement of the Directives at  national level and 
the elimination of unnecessary administrative burden. 
1.2. Expertise and information 
This report is mainly, but not exclusivel y, based on the information gathered from 
stakeholders, either through di rect consultation or in the context of a set of studies 
commissioned by the European Commission. The main studies carried out by the European 
Commission between 2005 and 2007 in the cont ext of the WEEE review are described in 
Annex 1. Over recent years a cumulative budge t of about € 540.000 was allocated to this 
data collection process, includ ing the research studies and the data information gathering 
exercise.  
1.2.1.  Implementation Assessment 
A research study to generate full understandi ng of implementation of  the WEEE Directive 
by the Member States and to obtain feedback  on potential areas fo r revision was carried 
out and resulted in a report conduc ted in 2005 [see also Annex 1].  
1.2.2.  Data gathering exercise 
Stakeholders were given the opportunity to pr ovide information at an early stage in the 
review upon which the succeeding steps in the review process could be based. During an 8 weeks period from June to August 2006, st akeholders were requested to submit 
information related to a wide range of issues among other, both public and private sector 
statistics, information on operations, costs and benefits, scientific and technical 
information on the issues as listed in http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/waste/weee/pdf/info_gath_ex.pdf
.  
Three major objectives of this project were 1) to gather relevant information in existing 
documents, 2) to make them available in a user-friendly manner, and 3) to identify 
significant data gaps, and to contact stakeholders for filling these gaps. 
                                                 
8 See Articles 4(3) and 6 of the RoHS Directive and Articles 5(5), 7 (4) and 17 (5) of the WEEE Directive. 
9 COM (2005) 535 final 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/regulation/better_regulation/simplification.htm  
 
EN 21   EN A synthesis report was prepared  and made available for the contractors of the research 
studies and for the general public in the CIRCA page 
http://circa.europa.eu/Pub lic/irc/env/weee_2008/library . More information about this 
exercise can be found in Annex 1.  
1.2.3.  Research studies 
Studies were carried out by the United Nations  University (hereafter referred to as UNU), 
Ökopol and Ecolas with subcontractors [d etails in Annex 1 and bibliography].  
It has to be noted that detailed informati on on some of the subject s covered by the studies, 
in particular with regard to quantitative data  on environmental impact s and costs, could not 
always be obtained. In such cases the analysis was focused on the more qualitative aspects 
of the options considered. 
1.2.4.  Compliance check studies 
The Commission services have performed st udies for checking the conformity of the 
implementation of the Directiv e in the Member States.  
As a result, infringement proceedings have  been opened against Member States and 
additional cases may be opened in the coming m onths should the Commission identify lack 
of transposition of some provision s or incorrect transposition.  
A substantial number of cases relates to the adoption by Member States  of a definition of 
producer of electrical and electronic equipmen t based on the national market rather than 
using a European definition of producers. 
1.2.5.  Reporting from Member States on implementation 
A considerable amount of experience has al so been gained and exchanged with the 
Member States during the meetings of the Committee for the Adaptation to Scientific and Technical progress
10 (TAC) since the adoption of the W EEE Directive at the beginning of 
2003. In addition, Member States had to report to the European Commission for the first 
time on the implementation on the basi s of Commission Decision 2005/249/EC11 that lays 
down the questionnaire for reporting coveri ng the period from 2004 to 2006, in September 
2007. The deadline for setting up systems allowing final holders and distributors to return 
WEEE from private households free of ch arge being 13 August 2005, the analysis of 
implementation is therefore based on recent experiences.  
A second reporting obligation for the Member St ates concerns the reporting of information 
on the quantities and categories of electrical and electronic equipment put on their market, 
collected through all routes, reused, recycled and recovered within th e Member States, and 
                                                 
10 Article 14 to the WEEE Directive 
11 2004/249/EC: Commission Decision of 11 March 2004 concerning a questionnaire for Member States reports 
on the implementation of Directive 2002/96/EC of th e European Parliament and of the Council on waste 
electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), OJ L 78, 16.3.2004, p.56 
 
EN 22   EN on collected waste exported, by weight or, if this is not possible, by numbers12. The first 
reporting deadline is July 2008. The Commissi on has received at the end of August 2008 
reports from 13 Member States. These reports  confirm the data provided by the studies 
carried out for the WEEE review.  
1.2.6.  Study on administrative burden 
A study on administrative burden from legi slation, including th e WEEE Directive is 
ongoing. In its 1st and 2nd module, information obligations stemming from EU legislation 
and from national implementation respectively are mapped. The next modules will do field 
measurement on the identified information oblig ations out of which recommendations and 
proposals will be developed for re ducing administrative burden.  
1.2.7.  Other sources 
The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) is preparing the adoption of an 
own-initiative opinion on the management of WEEE. The Section of Agriculture, Rural 
Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the committee's 
work on the subject, will present a draft opini on for vote at the plenar y session to be held 
later this year. Preparatory documents can be found at the EESC register under reference 
NAT/389 http://www.toad.eesc.europa.eu/EESCW IPListing.aspx?folder=NAT&WipLang=EN
  
1.3. Direct Consultation 
This impact assessment is based on an ex tensive consultation of stakeholders and 
collection of data, information and views . 
Throughout the process a continuou s information exchange with stakeholders was carried 
out. In order to have Member  States, producers, collection schemes, national registers, 
industry, NGO's and other stakeholders partic ipating in the review process, an on-line 
public stakeholder consultation on possible op tions for change was organised from 11 
April 2008 until 5 June 2008.  
The consultation document is made available on the webpage: 
http://circa.europa.eu/Public /irc/env/weee_2008_r eview/library . Stakeholders were 
expected to provide opinions supported by deta iled evidence on the economic, social and 
environmental impacts of the policy options. In particular any additiona l quantitative data, 
studies and evaluations were welcomed to a llow analysing the full costs and benefits of 
potential changes in the ope ration of the Directive.  
An electronic functional mailbox for receiv ing opinions and information on the WEEE 
review was created. The opinion s and information received from stakeholders – unless 
requested otherwise – are made available on  the same web-site under "stakeholder 
opinions". This allows stakeholders to see which pieces of information have already been provided and to read others opinions. 
                                                
 
12 2005/369/EC: Commission Decision of 3 May 2005 laying down rules for monitoring compliance of Member 
States and establishing data formats for the purposes of Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and 
of the Council on waste elect rical and electronic equipment,  OJ L 119, 11.5.2005, p.13 
 
EN 23   EN Summarised per group of stakeholders , following opinions were raised: 
• Member States expressed various views, main ly linked to implementation issues related 
to their national level;  
• Producers and producer associatio ns clearly expressed the ne ed for more harmonisation, 
in particular on the registration and repor ting requirements and were supporting an 
obligatory "give back" by collection points to producers as not all WEEE collected 
separately is returning to the schemes set up by them; 
• Municipalities and their associ ations did not support the obl igatory "give back" and like 
to see a financing of the full collection cost s by producers; they are supporting the reuse 
of goods and clearer standards for the treatment of WEEE; 
• The retail sector stressed the need for clar ifying the scope and th e producer definition 
and hence the responsibilities linked to producers;  
• The reuse sector is clearly in favour of a ta rget for reuse to make  reuse activities more 
visible and at the same tim e of measures improving quali ty (early selection, reuse 
criteria, treatment standards); 
• Treatment operators support a mandatory collect ion target expressed in a percentage of 
quantities put on the market and in particul ar a high target for equipment with a high 
environmental weight; they also support th e development of treatment standards and 
more accreditation and monitoring within the waste chain; finally, they call for keeping 
the current recycling an d recovery targets;  
• Environmental NGO's support higher collection rates, expressed in amounts put on the 
market, higher recovery/recycling targets and a target for reuse. They call for the proper 
implementation of producer res ponsibility and an overall better implementation of the 
Directive in the Member States.  
A full summary of the results of the consulta tion and an overview of the stakeholders who 
contributed can be found at th e same web-site under "stake holder opinions summary".  
In addition, Small and Medium Sized Enterprise s (SMEs) were consulted. An 'SME Panel' 
was held at the end of 2006 to use the knowledge of the experiences, difficulties and costs encountered by small and medium sized businesses whilst implementing the WEEE 
Directive. A questionnaire was addressed to  specific SMEs defined as, or acting as 
producer, importer or distri butor under the WEEE Directiv e and to SMEs acting as 
treatment operators, collectors and retailers. In total, 456 SMEs have given input into the 
panel, in many cases with the help of th e European Information Centres who then 
summarised it in national reports. 
The data obtained from this panel were transf erred in aggregated form to the contractors 
for reasons of confidentiality of the indi vidual SME. The data provided a good idea on 
experiences and concerns of SMEs which are often different to those of larger 
(multinational) companies.  
 
EN 24   EN Illustration on the extent of  the consultation process : 19 meetings of the Committee for the 
Adaptation to Scientific and Technical progr ess since adoption of the WEEE Directive, 
118 reference documents placed on the open CIRCA website, 1 expert workshop, 1 SME 
panel, 26 national implementation reports and about 170 opinions , including additional 
information received as part of the public consultation.  
In the light of the above, the stakeholder co nsultation in the revi ew process has been 
carried out according to the European Commission's general principles and minimum standards for consultation
13. 
Furthermore, a European Commission's inter- service group including all the relevant 
services14 was set up in order to ensure the neces sary internal co-ordination throughout the 
review process.  
Finally, on 7 July 2008, the Impact Assessmen t Board adopted an opinion on the draft 
version of the Impact Assessment. All r ecommendations for improvements have been 
incorporated into the current imp act assessment, in particular,  
• A robust baseline scenario  has been included in the main text, including estimates of 
the amount of WEEE arising annually and estimat es on their treatment routes and costs. 
On the basis of this refocused problem definition , the sections on objectives and 
options have been restructured; 
• A discussion of options discarded at an early stage  together with an explanation of 
the corresponding reasons has been added in an Annex to the report; 
• The analysis of a possible new approach to the collection target  has been strengthened 
and a desired level has been indicated; 
• The analysis of impacts , including social impacts, has been deepened; 
• The administrative burden  assessment has been deepened and refined in an Annex to 
the report, noticing data provided by ne w studies and following the favourable 
assessment by the High Level Group of Inde pendent Stakeholders on Administrative 
Burden of 18 September 2008; 
• The views expressed by stakeholders , in particular during th e public consultation, are 
more consistently reflect ed throughout the text. 
• Finally, a lot of information that was previo usly contained in vari ous Annexes has been 
integrated in the main text for easier reference . 
                                                 
13 COM(2002) 704 final 
14 The inter-service group is composed of representatives from the Secretariat General,  the Legal Service, DG 
ENV, ENTR, TREN, RTD, JRC, TRADE, INFSO and SANCO 
 
EN 25   EN 2. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
2.1. Introduction to the problem and who is affected 
2.1.1.  Introduction to the problem  
EEE contains numerous substances that can harm  human health and the environment if the 
equipment is designed inappropriately or treate d inappropriately either  during use or when 
discarded. Annual volumes of waste from EEE (WEEE) in the EU continue to grow rapidly [see 1.1.1].  
The WEEE Directive has been adopted to re duce these risks by establishing requirements 
to ensure the collection and environmentally sound treatment  of WEEE. It complements 
the RoHS Directive which prohibits the us e of certain hazardous substances in EEEs. 
Sound management of WEEE reduces release of environmentally damaging substances, 
saves material resources and reduces energy use. The WEEE Directive should have been 
implemented at national level less than two years ago. 
However: 
– Only one third of the annual WEEE arising appears to be co llected, treated and reported 
according to the WEEE legislation; illegal  trade in WEEE to third countries is 
widespread, despite rules on waste shipment and illegal dumping is still widespread in 
the EU. 
– Improper or substandard treatment of W EEE results in environmental damage and 
increased health risks, in the EU and particul arly in third countries. Material resources, 
potentially available to replace raw material s, are lost where the best economic options 
for recovery of those materials are not used. 
– Experience with the first years of implem entation of the WEEE Directive has indicated 
unnecessary costs arising from the operation of  the Directive, which make achievement 
of the Directive's objectives less efficient and the Directive less effective. These technical, legal and administrative problems affect market actors and administrations, 
including distortion of competition a nd unnecessary administrative burden.  
– These costs are partly driven by diverging implementation of certain provision of the 
current WEEE Directive such as the sc ope of the Directive, and producer 
registration/reporting requirements. 
In the remainder of this section the problem, as is estimated to evolve, is described in more 
detail. For clarity, the problem is divided betw een those issues limiting the effectiveness of 
the Directive [see section 2.3] and those issues reducing its efficiency [see section 2.4]. 
Whilst there are some links between these, th e drivers of the problem in each case are 
sufficiently different to allo w the separate description. 
2.1.2.  Who is affected and how? 
Treatment of WEEE – and the Directive – conc erns many stakeholders, who will therefore 
be affected by any changes proposed in this review. 
 
EN 26   EN – Member State authorities: the Directive is addressed to the Member States. They have 
to implement and enforce the Directive at national level; Municipalities often implement waste management services at local level; 
– Producers of electrical and electronic equi pment: are primarily responsible for the 
financing, collection, treatment, recovery and environmentally disposal of WEEE; 
furthermore they have to look after eco-design; 
– Consumers of EEE: to whom the producers pass  the costs of treatment - in the purchase 
price of EEE - and who have a role in  the separate co llection of WEEE; 
– Retail and distribution sector: including their role as part of the collection systems in 
many Member States; 
– Treatment operators: who treat the WEEE an d contribute to the organising of the 
information flow by monitoring the amount s of WEEE entering and leaving the 
treatment facilities; 
– Recyclers and recovery opera tors: to provide for the re covery of WEEE collected 
separately and to monitor the incoming WEEE flows;  
– Producer responsibility organisations (PROs): acting on behalf of the producers to fulfil 
their obligations; 
– Traders and shippers of WEEE; 
– The EU society as a whole: for whom the im pact of environmental and health damage 
in the EU and in third countries  from EU waste is a concern; 
– Citizens and traders in third countries who ei ther currently suffer health affects from 
treatment of illegal WEEE or w ho profit from the illegal trade. 
2.2. WEEE Arising- Baseline scenario 2011-2020 
Any changes introduced by this review are expected to co me into legal force in Member 
States around 2011. In the description of the problem, to allow comparison of the policy 
options against baseline after th at time, a problem scenario is  developed for several years 
after 2011, formed from extrap olations of current eviden ce and reasonable assumptions. 
2.2.1.  WEEE arising: Volumes of WEEE 
Predictions made during the 1990’s estimated the tonnage of EEE put on the EU15 market 
at 7 million tonnes. With the expansion fr om EU15 to EU27 and based on many sources 
and different estimation techniques, the UNU st udy estimates that the amount of new EEE 
put on the EU27 market in 2005 was 10.3 million tonnes per year. Based on current trends, 
sales of new EEE are estimated to rise to 12 million tonnes per year by 2011 taking 2,6% yearly growth rate as a basis.  
In the explanatory memorandum of the WEEE  Directive, the amount of EEE arising as 
waste (WEEE) was estimated in 1998 for the EU15 at 6 million tonnes. The new estimate 
of the UNU study for the current WEEE arisin gs across the EU27 for 2005 is between 8.3 
 
EN 27   EN and 9.1 million tonnes per year. The increase in  the WEEE arisings since 1998 is due to 
expansion of the EU, growth in the numbe r of households and higher consumption per 
capita. 
Approximately 87% of WEEE arising in the EU  (by weight) is from private households 
('business to consumers': B2C) and 13% of WEEE arising comes from  other than private 
households ('business to business': B2B)15. 
The UNU study forecasts that household WEEE arisings may grow annually at between 
2.5% and 2.7% reaching about 10.6 million tonnes by 2020. This would imply that total WEEE arisings (including B2B WEEE) might reach a bout 12.3 million tonnes by 2020. 
There are significant differences in the wei ght of WEEE arising in  different Member 
States, with the most significant difference be tween the 'new' Member States which joined 
the EU in 2005 and those already part of the EU. The difference is driven by the relatively 
low consumption of electrical products by househol ds in new Member States in past years. 
As consumption of electrical products in these states is rising quicker  than in the EU-15, 
volumes of WEEE are also expected to incr ease at greater rates, with 5.3% yearly 
according to the UNU study in the period 2011-2020. 
The UNU study calculated that 2005 WEEE aris ings exhibit the following ranges: 
• EU15: 14-24 kg/head/year 
• New Member States (EU12): 6-12 kg/head/year. 
This scenario is based on data collected by the research studies, as no reporting from 
Member States was available at the time.  Very recently (August 2008) the Commission 
received reports from 13 Member States. These reports confirm within a narrow margin the data from the research studies. For this reason and as the Commission is still in the process of verifying Member State data, this Impact  Assessment remains based on data from the 
research studies.  
2.2.2.  WEEE Arising: Composition by type of Equipment  
The average compositional breakdown for the EU has been calculated and shown in the 
Figure 1.  
                                                
 
15 This calculation is based on UK data scaled up from the UNU study  
 
EN 28   EN 7 Toys, leisure and 
sports equipment, 0.1%6 Electrical and 
electronic tools, 3.5%
9 Monitoring and 
control instruments, 
0.2%8 Medical devices, 
0.1%
10 Automatic 
dispensers, 0.2%5B Lighting equipment 
– Lamps, 1.7%4C Flat Panel TV’s, 
0.0%
5A Lighting equipment -
Luminaires , 0.7%4B CRT TV’s, 13.3% 4A Consumer 
Electronics excl. 
CRT’s, 7.8%
3C LCD monitors, 0.0%
3B CRT monitors, 8.3%
3A IT and Telecom 
excl. CRT’s, 8.0%
2 Small Household 
Appliances, 7.0%
1C Large Household 
Appliances (smaller 
items), 3.6%
1B Cooling and 
freezing, 17.7% 1A Large Household 
Appliances, 27.7%
 
Figure 1: breakdown of WEEE arising in 2005 by weight 
In future years, due to changes in the EEE so ld in previous years, this composition is 
predicted to change. Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) monitors w ill appear less in the WEEE 
arising, as they will be gradually replaced by fl at panel screens of which the share in the 
WEEE arising will grow in the future. Other ch anges for example resulted by change in the 
behaviour of consumers or by the marketi ng of new appliances/applications, are not 
possible to be estimated here. 
2.2.3.  Material composition of WEEE  
The three main materials arising from the WEEE arising are metals , glass and plastics. 
Ferrous metals account for approximately 50%, non-ferrous metals for 5% and plastics for 
20-25% of the WEEE arising. Other materials are e.g.: oil and cooling agents from fridges, 
freezers and air conditioners, concrete from wa shing machines and wood from TV's. For a 
more detailed list of environmentally releva nt substances in WEEE arising see Annex 2. 
The composition WEEE in the future will change as the composition of EEE put on the market currently differs from the past.  
– This is the case for flat panel displays that  are replacing CRT TV screens. The sales of 
CRT televisions represented 99,9 % by weight of television sales in 2000 and this is 
expected to fall to only 21% by the year 2 010. Taken the difference in weight into 
account, Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) televisi ons are estimated to represent 52% of 
weight of all sales by then.  
– In the case of refrigerators and freezers CFCs and HCFCs
16 were used for their 
manufacture until the early 1990s, when it was found that  these chlorinated gases 
                                                 
16 Hydro chlorofluorocarbons 
 
EN 29   EN damaged the ozone layer. Regulati on 3093/1994 amended by Regulation 2037/2000 
banned their manufacture and re gulated their treatment. Due to the long life cycle of 
cooling appliances, those gases still make up  a significant part of today’s WEEE stream, 
but this is expected to be  less so in the future.  
– In addition to this, there is a shift from the us ed of NiCd to other ba ttery types. Also, the 
batteries Directive 2006/66/EC re stricts the use of cadmium in portable batteries with 
certain exemptions.  
– As regards polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), hi storically they were extensively used in 
electrical equipment such as capacitors a nd transformers. Howeve r, their use in open 
applications was widely banned in 1972 and they have not b een used in the manufacture 
of new equipment since 1986. Thus, unless an a ppliance is more than 20 years old, the 
chance that it contains capacitors containing P CBs is remote at pres ent and it will be 
less likely in the future.  
2.2.3.1.  Hazardous substances in WEEE 
The composition of WEEE arising will also change  in the time with the implementation of 
the RoHS Directive. The RoHS Directive has restricted the use of some hazardous 
substances: lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), cadmi um (Cd), hexavalent chromium (Cr VI), 
polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) or polybromin ated diphenyl ethers (PBDE). The latter 
two are manufactured compounds used as flame re tardants in plastics used in a variety of 
domestic objects including computers, TVs, furn iture (hard and soft), stereos etc. They are 
regarded as being harmful to the environm ent and endanger the health of wildlife and 
probably humans. To identify a few examples fo r the other substances: mercury is used in 
some lamps and certain electrical switches; cadmium is a valuable alloying metal for copper, a metal plating material and has long been  used in batteries; lead is used in printed 
circuit boards and chromium  VI is widely used to prevent corrosion in iron-based alloys.  
However, despite the RoHS restriction, haza rdous substances will still be present in 
WEEE, as: 
– The RoHS restriction only a pplies to new EEE put on the market as from 1 July 2006. 
Since the average life tim e of an EEE is varying
17 but can be up to 15 years, the 
returning waste streams will consists of  pre-RoHS waste until at least 2020. 
– In addition to the substances covered by the RoHS Directive, other hazardous 
substances or substances likely to be charac terised as such, are a nnually being used in 
EEE in considerable amounts. These are for example: non-reacted TBBPA18 (40.000t), 
HBCDD19 (210t), DEHP20 (29000t), and beryllium oxide (1,5t). These are not restricted 
under the current RoHS Directive.  
                                                 
17 The average life time of medical equipment is often up to 20-30 years (Goodman 2006), for fridges about 15 
years and for mobile phones, 23 months.  
18 Tetrabromobisphenol-A, flame retardant  
19 Hexabromocyclododecane, flame retardant 
20 Bis(2-ethylhexylphthalate), PVC (poly-vinyl chloride) plasticiser 
 
EN 30   EN – The RoHS Directive allows for the presence of  the restricted substances at a low level21. 
– Quite a few applications are excluded from the RoHS Directive where substitution is 
"technically or scientifically impracticable" or the positive impacts of substitution outweigh the benefits thereof. Whereas es timations on overall quantities of these 
hazardous substances are difficult to obtain, th e most relevant ones as regards quantities 
seem to be lead in glass of cathode ra y tubes (more than 50.000 tonnes of lead)
22, 
mercury in lamps (4,3tons/yr) and in LC D panels as backlights (2,8tons/yr). 
– Evidence on enforcement of the RoHS Direc tive indicates that significant volumes of 
non-compliant equipment have been placed on the market illegall y, which will later 
enter the waste steam. 
– PCBs are still somewhat present from old electricity transmission equipment in the 
waste stream, however this expect ed to be lower in the future. 
Hazardous substances are theref ore still expected to be found in the WEEE stream in the 
coming years including EEE put on the market befo re 1 July 2006 is returning until at least 
2020.  
2.2.3.2.  Environmental significance of categorie s of WEEE depending on their composition 
The composition of different categories of WEEE differs greatly (a toy containing 
electronics has a very differe nt composition to a television), and this  affects both the 
economic value and environmental characterist ics of the categories, for more detailed 
illustration see Annex 2. 
The differing composition of equipments ma ke them weight differently from an 
environmental perspective. For example, th e large household appliances (without cooling 
and freezing appliances) represent about 27% in  weight whereas they would only represent 
half in environmental weight as illustrated in Figure2.  
                                                 
21 "maximum concentration values" are permitted for the banned substances; these are 0.1% by weight in 
homogenous materials except for mercury, where the limit is ten times lower. 
22 This figure represents the cumulative amount of lead used in cathode ray tubes for the coming years. For 2005, 
31,8million units of televisions in the EU25 have been sold, with an average weight of 31kg. The amount per 
year is decreasing as the growth of  the CRT market for televisions is an average of -13% per annum (See 
figure 6 in chapter on televisions in the MEEUP 2006 study). For a CRT monitor, the average weight of a 
screen is 22kg which contains 450g of lead.  
 
EN 31   EN LHHA
C&F
LHHA-small
SHA
IT ex CRT
IT CRT
IT FDP
CE ex CRT
CE CRT
CE FDP
Lamps
Tools
ToysEco-Indicator'99 H/A weighted, per kg WEEE total collected
 
Figure 2: Contribution of the WEEE categor ies to the total im pacts of diverting 
WEEE from disposal based on  the Eco-Indicator'99 (UNU)23 
The figure shows that the most relevant produ cts to divert from disposal are the CFC 
containing fridges. In addition it was found that  the following categories of equipments are 
relevant for specific environmental categorie s due to their substances of concern: 
– Toxicity effects are important for LCD monitors and Lamps; 
– Avoided ozone layer depletion and global wa rming potential in case of cooling and 
freezing equipments; 
– Cumulative energy demand and resource deplet ion for Cooling and freezing appliances 
and CRT screens; 
– Acidification for IT and telecommunicati on equipments (excluding CRT) and LCD 
monitors; 
– Eutrophication for LCD monitors and el ectrical and elec tronic tools.  
2.3. Problems with the Effectiveness of th e Directive- Baseline scenario 2011-2020 
2.3.1.  Current Collection of WEEE  
In its report "Towards Sustainable W EEE Recycling", EERA (European Electronics 
Recyclers Association) claims  that only 20 to 33% of the amount put on the market is 
accounted for as being reported as separately collected by Member States. This is in line 
                                                 
23 Abbreviations used in the figure: see glossary of terms  
 
EN 32   EN with figures from Member States, which reported separate collection of 2.6 million 
tonnes24 in 2005 out of 8.3-9.1 million tonne s of WEEE arising (UNU study). 
Yet, the evidence suggests that the great major ity of WEEE (by weight) is being separately 
collected rather than becoming part of the mixed municipal waste st ream: but not reported 
as separately collected. EERA sees the followi ng explanation: signifi cant proportions of 
WEEE going to unauthorised treatment and illeg al export. EERA made this visible in the 
following diagram showing the differe nt flows of consumer WEEE.  
ExportConsumer
Municipal site
Collection centre
Transport
Authorised
TreatmentWaste bin
2ndhand market place
Export
Accounted for
Unaccounted forRetailer
Trader
Unauthorised
TreatmentExportConsumer
Municipal site
Collection centre
Transport
Authorised
TreatmentWaste bin
2ndhand market place
Export
Accounted for
Unaccounted forRetailer
Trader
Unauthorised
Treatment 
Figure 3: possible leaks in return logi stics of WEEE from private households25 
The full (green) arrows represent streams that are properly monitored and reported; 
evidence suggests that this could be the minority of streams.  
The dotted (red) arrows represent streams whos e volumes, destination and/or treatment are 
not reported. It is therefore unc ertain if and to which extent these stream are subject to sub-
standard or even illegal treatment and trade.  
2.3.1.1.  Collection of WEEE from households  
WEEE arising from household is estimated at 87% of the total WEEE arising.  
The legal responsibilities for the collection of  the WEEE from households currently require 
collection either by producers, retailers (d istributors) or by mu nicipalities, or a 
combination of those organisations. The situa tion differs greatly between Member States, 
in some only producers being re sponsible (eg. Bulgaria) and in others only municipalities 
(eg. Denmark).  
                                                 
24 5,31kg/inhabitant times 492million inhabitants (UNU 2007) 
25 Municipal site: operated by the municipality or by a commissioned company, often with its own commercial 
interest; Collection centre: WEEE is handed over to  a take-back scheme, commissioned recycler/logistic 
company, or commercial agent, who may or may not have his own commercial interest 
 
EN 33   EN The financial responsibility for collection is  frequently allocated differently from the 
physical responsibility. For example, in Austri a, distributors, munici palities and producers 
have responsibility for physical collecti on, but only distributors and producers have 
financial responsibility. A table indicating the different legal a pproaches in this regard in 
the EU 27 Member States (from Ökopol, 2007) is presented in A nnex 3. In practice, 
consumers or owners of WEEE are often require d to take WEEE to collection sites, or to 
distributors. Evidence sugge sts that large proportions of  WEEE are either collected 
informally directly from consumers or from  distributors or coll ection sites by private 
traders in WEEE. 
2.3.1.2.  Collection of Business to Business WEEE  
B2B WEEE is estimated at 13% of the total WEEE arising.  
The collection of B2B equipments is mostly managed on a contractua l basis by producers 
(UNU study) These equipments currently repr esent less than 1% of WEEE arising at 
municipal collection points or at retailers (WEEE Forum 2005, ERP 2006).26  
According to EERA, the collecti on and treatment of B2B waste is often not controlled and 
accounted for officially. They suggest that this results in bei ng a possible source of 
malpractice and illegal exports  to non-OECD countries.  
2.3.1.3.  Difference between recorded collection in Member States 
There are great differences in the amounts of WEEE recorded as collected between 
Member States based on experiences with na tional compliance schemes. In 2005 the best 
performing Member States recorded to collect  up to 70% of the WEEE arising in their 
Member State (which equalled 60% of the amount of WEEE put on the market or 14 
kg/inhabitant).  
Other Member States recorded far lower coll ection less. In New Me mber States (EU12), 
much less is recorded as collected, the low levels most probably reflecting unsaturated 
markets for much EEE so that new purchas ing of EEE does not re place existing EEE 
thereby not generating WEEE.  
2.3.1.4.  Differences between categories of  WEEE recorded as collected 
The following table describes the share of the different categories of equipments of the 
WEEE arising and how much of the different categories of equipment are currently being 
reported as collected. Reported collection is particularly low for large household appliances, cooling and freezing appliances, CRT 's and small domestic appliances, leaving 
a gap of non reported (or non collected?) wast e of respectively 23%, 13%, 15% and 6% of 
the total WEEE arising.  
                                                
 
26 This data refers to "real" B2B equipments, not dual use products that are reported as B2B stream, but end up in 
the municipal waste 
 
EN 34   EN Treatment category % of WEEE 
arising per 
category (%)  % of WEEE 
arising in the 
category reported 
as separately 
collected  % of WEEE 
arising in the 
category NOT 
reported as 
separately 
collected  amounts of 
WEEE NOT 
being reported as 
separately 
collected as % 
share of total 
WEEE arising  
Large Household 
Appliances (LHHA) 27.7 
16.3 83.7 23.2 
Cooling and freezing 17.7 27.3 72.7 12.9 
Large Household 
Appliances (smaller items) 3.6 
40 60 2.2 
Small Household 
Appliances (SHA), Lighting 
equipment – Luminaires and ‘domestic’ Medical devices 7.7 26.6 73.4 5.7 
IT and Telecom excl. CRT’s 8 27.8 72.2 5.8 
CRT monitors 8.3 35.3 64.7 5.4 
LCD monitors 0 40.5 59.5 0 
Consumer Electronics excl. 
CRT’s 7.8 
40.1 59.9 4.7 
CRT TV’s 13.3 29.9 70.1 9.3 
Flat Panel TV’s 0 40.5 59.5 0 
Lighting equipment – 
Lamps 1.7 
27.9 72.1 1.2 
Electrical and electronic 
tools 3.5 
20.8 79.2 2.8 
Toys, leisure and sports 
equipment 0.1 
24.3 75.7 0.1 
Medical devices 0.1 49.7 50.3 0.1 
Monitoring and control 
instruments 0.2 
65.2 34.8 0.1 
Automatic dispensers 0.2 59.4 40.6 0.1 
Total 100 n/a n/a 73.6 
Table 2: WEEE arising and collection according to product categories 
2.3.2.  Current Destinations of WEEE  
Separately collected WEEE can be transferred to  various destinations, with material traders 
playing a major role in dete rmining the final destination. 
Information provided by stakeholders, fo r example the EERA submission mentioned 
previously state that there are the foll owing main destinations for EU WEEE: 
– Separate collection and sent for reuse (of whole appliances) 
– Separate collection and treatment in the EU in line with the Directive; 
 
EN 35   EN – Separate collection and treatment in th e EU not in line with the Directive; 
– Separate collection and illegal shipment to 3rd countries; 
– No separate collection but collection w ith mixed municipal waste and treatment 
together with this waste stream(largely landfill or incineration) 
For example, data from the Netherlands indica tes that WEEE from households is collected 
and flows to related destinati ons in the following proportions:  
– Treated by producers (after collection by municipalities and retailers): 31% 
– Sold to metal dealers (after collection by municipalities): 13% 
– To recyclers/treatment operators (from retailers and others): 45% 
– Not separately collected: 11%  
The following section describes the estima tion of these destinations for the EU. 
2.3.2.1.  Evidence, Deductions and Assumptions in this IA on collection and destinations 
As mentioned above, EERA estimates that only  up to 33% of the amount of WEEE put on 
the market is being reported as separately coll ected. The number of  the amount of WEEE 
put on the market is largely comparable to th e number of WEEE arising. Starting point of 
the assumptions below is that 67% of WEEE ar ising is unreported, estimates of collection 
activity and destinations of WEEE have to be based on deductions from available evidence. This section describes that eviden ce and makes the deductions and assumptions 
transparent. The impact of changing the 3 mo st important assumptions is considered later 
in the IA, as a sensitivity analysis.  
2.3.2.2.  Disposal of WEEE with municipal waste 
Based on analysis in the UNU study of the type and size of WEEE arising, knowledge of 
WEEE put on the market and the evidence of the current levels of reported collection of 
small appliances (for example only 26,6% of  estimated waste arisings from small 
household appliances, lighting equipment and domestic medical devices are reported as 
collected) the Commission estimates that a big se ction of small domestic  appliances are not 
separated from the domestic waste stream and go to mixed domestic waste treatment 
(typically landfill or incineration). This estimation represents 10% by weight of WEEE arising. 
A large proportion of WEEE by weight comprises large or medium appliances
27 from 
domestic waste which are easily distinguishe d from general domestic waste and are in 
practice already 'sorted' by consumers throwi ng away their WEEE – th ey do not fit into 
waste bins. As these have material value for recycling, these are cons iderably unlikely to 
go to unsorted domestic waste collection, either to landfill or incineration.  
                                                 
27 Composed of Large household app liances, partly IT equipments, co oling and freezing devices, TVs and 
monitors.  
 
EN 36   EN Another 13% of WEEE is B2B waste whic h is treated differe ntly under the WEEE 
Directive because it is typically  collected separately, but of  which around 10% is assumed 
to be illegally disposed of– so 1% of total WEEE arising. 
Some large and medium domestic appliances are assumed not to be collected separately, 
but illegally disposed off or collected and going to landfill. This is assumed to be 2% of WEEE arising. 
As a working hypothesis for this IA the Commi ssion services therefore estimates that 13% 
of WEEE is currently not bei ng separately collected but rather collected and treated 
together with the municipal solid waste stream. 
2.3.2.3.  Destination of WEEE outsid e municipal waste streams 
As 13% of the WEEE arising are not separately  collected, it is assume d that the rest 87% 
of the WEEE arising is bei ng separately collected (wheth er reported or unreported). 
WEEE reused
 
Separately collected WEEE is also sometimes prepared for reuse. Experiences from the 
UK on computer reuse and tria ls on refrigerator take-back (DTI 2000 and DEFRA 2003) 
have shown that reuse and refurbishment tends to take place where there is a market for 
these items and the means to cover the costs of refurbishment/repair. Where margins are 
low, reuse activity tends to be run by charit y organisations. Viable activities have focused 
on refurbishment of washing machines and IT equipment but for refrigerators the rate of 
refurbishment achieved was very low (~2 % of used refrigerators collected were reusable, 
mainly because the age of the equipment made it difficult/impossible to obtain spare parts 
such as shelves and compartment doors). Elsewhere, typically 5-10%  of collected 
equipment is found to be reusable.  
Many consumers throw away products because of minor problems. Up to 75% of these 
products are often repairable, but consumers purchase a new product because the cost for 
repair is disproportionately high. However,  RREUSE states that reuse of WEEE is 
economically viable as the demand from c onsumers for second-hand EEE is bigger than 
the supply. RREUSE, a specialised European network of national and regional social 
economy federations and enterprises with activi ties in re-use and r ecycling, has 16 member 
organisations covering 10 Member States, plus  two international member organisations in 
total collect, repair and recycle 300 000 tonnes of WEEE through 1 200 centres.  
For the purpose of this IA conservative estimate for reuse is used: it is assumed that less 
than 2% of WEEE arising goes for re-use.  
WEEE treated in accordance with th e provisions of the Directive   
Reported WEEE:  On the basis of EERA data, it is assumed that 33% of the WEEE 
arisings are reported to be sepa rately collected. It is assumed that all the WEEE reported by 
Member States as separately collected is tr eated in accordance with the Directive (mainly 
the requirements of Annex II).  
The reported figures for collection therefore indicate the minimum volumes of WEEE 
which are being both collected and treate d in accordance with the Directive.  
 
EN 37   EN Legally Shipped WEEE:  WEEE can be treated in accordance with the Directive outside 
the EU, if treated to standards equivalent to those in the Directive. Trade statistics show 
that 25,000 tonnes of WEEE is repo rted as legally shipped out of the Community yearly. 
This number is significantly lower than the assumed total export. 
Unreported WEEE:  While a certain amount of WEEE ma y be treated in accordance with 
the Directive, but not reported, there are al so reasons to assume that unreported WEEE 
could be treated improperly. Treatment of WEEE in line with the Directive usually 
requires extra environmental precautions causing extra costs which are not matched by increased recovery of valuable materials (s ee later section). For some types of WEEE, 
particularly those containing hazardous subs tances, these costs are very significant in 
relation to the value of material. 
It could therefore be possible that significant cost savings are taken as incentives for sub-
standard treatment of e.g. cooling and freezi ng equipment and other WEEE with particular 
environmental harm. This risk is presumab ly lower for e.g. dishwashers and washing 
machines where the material values can be  recovered with less complex and costly 
processes. 
Current capacity for treating WEEE in line w ith the Directive is reported as being 
sufficient for the WEEE reported as separa tely collected in 2006-7, with some small 
amounts of excess capacity in some Member States. As these reports cover only 33% of WEEE, it may be that there is currently sign ificant under-capacity in the EU to properly 
treat all WEEE arising, an assumpti on supported by information from EERA
28. 
It is assumed for the purpose of this IA that only 10% of  unreported WEEE being treated 
in line with the Directive.  
WEEE not treated in accordance with the Directive  
The evidence and working assumptions above would account for 58% of the WEEE 
arising29, leaving 42% unaccounted for.  
A recent study by Witteveen-Bos30 on the Dutch situation showed that beside the amounts 
collected and accounted for by the producer respons ibility organisation, WEEE was also 
collected via other ways. It estimated th at out of the total amount of 18,5kg of WEEE 
arising per inhabitant in th e Netherlands, one third was co llected and treated under the 
Dutch collective schemes, one third reached Du tch recycling plants via other channels and 
one third escaped to unknown destinations. As the PROs, the public waste system and 
private waste treatment industry are well estab lished in the Netherlands, the situation is 
likely to be different and possibly more  critical in other Member States. 
                                                 
28 EERA in correspondence with  the Commission, indicate that 50% of the total WEEE arising could be treated 
currently if operators started work ing double shifts. Extra capacity would take 1 year to build and get 
operational after permissions were granted. 
29 58% represents 33% reported, 2% reused, 10% probably treated in line with the Directive and an unsorted 
fraction of 13% 
30 http://www.weee-
forum.org/att/literature/2008_Electronic%20w aste%20parallel%20streams_Witteveen_Bos.pdf  
 
EN 38   EN According to the UNU study31 there is common agreement that substantial leakage occurs 
for any WEEE items which have a value, su ch as large household appliances (which 
contain mainly metals), desktop computers, TV’s and mobile telephones. There are well-
established ‘grey markets’ for these items.  
For B2B WEEE, the current amount of WEEE  recorded as collected & treated as 
percentage of estimated WEEE arising indica tes that still between 35 and 50% of B2B are 
not being recorded as separately collected. EERA suggests that this results in being a 
source of malpractice and illegal  exports to non-OECD countries.32  
There is also substantial anecdotal evidence an d research suggesting that often treatment is 
not conducted in line with  the WEEE Directive, concentrat ing on the recovery of materials 
with value, whilst minimising costs to th e detriment of envir onmental and health 
precautions.  
WEEE illegally shipped to 3rd countries:  Various pieces of evidence suggest that very 
large volumes of WEEE are shipped out of th e EU illegally for sub-standard treatment in 
the developing world. These shipments are ofte n disguised as export of used equipment, 
but in fact are shipped for their material value.  Due to the illegal natu re of these shipments 
there is no data available on the overall volume of the shipments, but there are some specific cases available when these illegal shipments were discovered during the few investigations taken of which the Commi ssion services are awar e. Some WEEE are 
repaired and exported as used goods and not  actually as waste to  developing countries 
where these products are reused, these are not  accounted for in the figure of WEEE not 
treated in accordance to the Directive.  
The UNU study mentions reports about shipment s of WEEE disguised as goods from the 
port of Hamburg (DEUTSCHE UMWELTHI LFE 2007) and findings that 28% of 
businesses (collectors and exporters) were f ound to be exporting WEEE illegally from the 
Netherlands (VROM 2007). A study in the Un ited Kingdom showed that about 10% of 
WEEE transports were shipped ille gally to non-OECD countries.  
Treatment in the EU not in accordance with the Directive:  Anecdotal evidence points 
to parts of WEEE not being pr ocessed in the EU in acco rdance with the treatment 
standards of Annex II of the W EEE Directive: large household a ppliances and in particular 
cooling and freezing appliances being shredde d without de-pollution, and CRT glass that 
ends up together with construction and demolition waste. For example according to recent information provided
33, CFC-containing refrigerators were  discovered being treated in car 
shredding plants instead of specialised f acilities, which results in CFC emissions. 
The Commission services have anecdotal eviden ce from stakeholders of "cherry picking" 
by some WEEE operators the WEEE  with high material value from the WEEE collected in 
Member States. The equipment with high va lue (e.g. a high precious metal content), are 
taken from collected WEEE to recycling plants or for illegal export.  
                                                 
31 Section 10.2 
32 Section 4 
33 Capital 09/2008 "Klimatskandal: Deutschland stümpert bei FDKW-Entsorgung" 
 
EN 39   EN 2.3.3.  Quantitative Estimations on Collecti on and Destinations of WEEE in 2005 
Based on the evidence, data for 2005, deducti ons and assumptions above, the following  
working scenario  can be established for the year 2005 (the WEEE arising is taken at the 
lower end of the estimations fr om the UNU, 8.3 million tonnes). 
• 13% of WEEE arising by weight (1,1 million tonnes) is not separated from domestic 
waste, or is illegally disposed of, e.g. as consequence of consumers not complying with 
the requirement not to dispos e of WEEE as unsorted muni cipal waste. This may apply 
in particular small domestic applia nces, easily put in the waste bin.  
• All of the 2,7 million tonnes  of WEEE reported as collect ed by Member States - 33% of 
WEEE arising  - go to authorised treatment facilities where they are treated in 
accordance with the Directive.  
• Of the remaining 54% (4.5 million tonnes) which are  separately collected but not 
accounted for  :  
– Reuse of WEEE is assumed to be at a level lower than 2% of the WEEE arising, 
representing less than 0.2 million tonnes . 
– WEEE (particularly large household appliances) treated in line with the Directive, but 
not be reported is assumed to be 11%  of the WEEE arising, or 0.9 million tonnes . 
– There is not sufficient information to make reliable estimates of what proportion of the 
WEEE still unaccounted for is illegally shipped out of th e EU and what proportion is 
treated, recycled or recovered not in accordan ce with the provisions of the Directive. 
However, in a worst case scenario WEEE sepa rately collected, improperly treated in or 
out of the EU could be assumed to represent around 41% of the WEEE arising or 3.4 
million tonnes.  
 
EN 40   EN 2005 Scenario - Collection
0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0CollectionArisingpom
Amounts (Mt)Not separately collected
Municipal collection
Retail / distribution
Reuse centers
Independant collection
B2B collection
 
Figure 4: Collection of WEEE34  
2005 Scenario - Treatment
0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0TreatmentArisingpom
Amounts (Mt)Dumped or landfilled
Properly treated & reported
Properly treated & non reported
Non properly treated in the EU
Non properly treated out the EU
 
Figure 5: Destinations of WEEE 
                                                 
34 pom = put on the market; Arising = amounts of EEE arising as waste in a certain year 
 
EN 41   EN 2.3.4.  Drivers of the Effectiveness Problems 
The problem described above that a large perc entage of the WEEE arising is not properly 
treated is mainly driven by three facts: 
• The high material value of WEEE; 
• Proper treatment of WEEE, in line with the requirements of the WEEE Directive adds 
additional costs; 
• There seems to be low enforcement of the WEEE Directive’s treatment requirements at 
national level.  
Background to the drivers: 
– Material Value:  The three main materials arising from WEEE are metals, glass and 
plastics. Ferrous metals account  for approximately 50%, non-f errous metals for 5% and 
plastics for 20-25% of the WEEE arising.  There are well-established markets for 
recycled metals and some markets for some of the plastics. It is im portant to notice that 
changing market prices for materials have to be taken into consider ation when assessing 
these drivers. The UNU study highlights that  material values have risen by 50-100 
€/tonne from 2005 to 2007. 
– Differences between WEEE:  For some products the cost of  extraction of the valuable 
materials is higher than the value of the ma terials. Others, partic ularly those high in 
metal, are more valuable. [See Figure 6] 
– Global recycling market:  Transport costs for WEEE are low in comparison to the 
value of the materials, thus allowing a global market for WEEE recycling. In many 
developing countries, (for exam ple in Africa, the Indian sub- continent and in China) the 
costs of WEEE processing is low, partly  due to low labour costs with manual 
dismantling, but also very often because it involves sub-standard treatment practices. 
These low recycling costs compared to recy cling in the EU, makes trade of WEEE to 
developing countries (usually illegal) profitable. This creates competition for 
particularly the valuable fractions of WEEE between certain traders and EU-based 
recyclers.  
– Additional costs of treatment in line with the Directive: Pre-treatment of WEEE to 
recycle it in line with the Directive (e .g. removing hazardous substances) creates 
additional costs. For example, pre-treatment  of fridges is estimated by the UNU study at 
21,84 € per fridge while the costs for less pr oblematic large household appliances is 
only 3,19 € per appliance. Figure 6 illustrates these differences for some categories in 
2005 (UNU) for treatment in line with the Directive. 
 
EN 42   EN -€51
-€284-€98 -€93€240
€59€572
€249€409€95
€145€187
€129€136
€8 €12 €9 €24 €8€259
-€400-€200€-€200€400€600€800€1,000
LHHA C&F S HA CRT+FDP LampsTra nsport and collection
( i ncl . access t o  W EEE)
S hredding, sorting,dismant ling,pretreatment
Recycling + recoverypr ocesses
Incineration and landfill
 
Figure 6: Breakdown of the cost of colle ction and treatment of WEEE equipment 
categories 
– Low level of enforcement:  according to anecdotal evidence from stakeholder 
consultations and from the UNU study there seems to be a lack of enforcement of the WEEE Directive on many levels. The UNU study
35 points out that not all producers are 
registered - sometimes deliberately when pena lties are lower than financial obligations.  
Low levels of effective enforcement in some Me mber States are themselves driven by lack 
of enforcement capacity. 
2.3.5.  Evolution of the Effectiveness Problems:  2011-2020 (No action/ Baseline scenario) 
This section describes how the collection and destinations of WEEE are estimated to 
change over the period of interest to the re view (2011-20, the period after which reviewed 
legislation is likely to be in for ce) if there was no change in policy. 
2.3.5.1.  Will there be any changes in the drivers of the problem? 
Changes on the market  
The volume of EEE put on the market is predic ted to grow further, and the volume of 
WEEE arising is estimated by UNU to cont inue to increase between 2.5-2.7%.  
The value of recycled metal is likely to remain high due maintained demand in the world 
economy, maintaining the global demand for WEEE containing high proportions of metal 
for recycling.  
                                                 
35 Section 11.5.2 
 
EN 43   EN Some markets for recycled plastic could ma ture over time, as new technology, partly 
stimulated by the high oil price, or low-wage  separation, allows great er purity of recycled 
material and new uses are f ound for the material. This would provide some increased 
demand for recycled plastic. 
The Directive's current target of  4kg/capita.yr to be collected in  all 27 Member States at the 
end of 2008 represents only about  22% of the total WEEE arising36. As consumption 
grows this ratio would become lower, projected to be only 19% in 201437, meaning that 
relatively less environmental protection is guara nteed. This target is already effectively 
redundant as a stimulus to separate collection,  with the possibility of higher levels of 
unreported collection  
Impacts of other Product and Waste Policies  
• Other design-relevant Community le gislation, such as RoHS, REACH38 and EuP39 are 
not assumed to have an immediate impact on the level of collection. They can however in the future positively impact on treatment efforts (and thereby indirectly on the attractiveness of collection) if design requi rements and substance choices in favour of 
better recycling are established. However, REACH and EuP are likely to have effects on the composition of WEEE only in the longer term, as their implementation can affect the majority of EEE only at a very mode st pace and any effects on WEEE will be 
further delayed by the average lifetime of EEE. 
• New waste management legislation, notably  the revised Waste Framework Directive 
with its waste prevention provi sions, may influence WEEE ar isings and collection rates 
in the longer term. However, as these measures are still in a very early stage of development there is insufficient evidence for any quantitative estimates.  
• Better enforcement of the Waste Shipment Re gulation in the future may have a positive 
impact on reducing the amounts of illegal WE EE shipments. However, incentives will 
remain to either escape from costs or to be nefit more from highly demanded resources.  
• Better enforcement of the Landf ill Directive in future ma y reduce negative impacts of 
WEEE disposal in the long term.  
• No effect is expected from the regulation on ozone depleting substances (ODS)
40 as 
waste issues are to be dealt with in the WEEE Directive. 
Otherwise, it is assumed that the drivers of  the problem will remain largely unchanged for 
the duration of the Baseline scenario.  
                                                 
36 Total WEEE arising in  2008 = 18,2 kg/cap ita.yr (8,96Mt on 492million inhabitants) 
37 Total WEEE arising in 2014  = 21,3 kg/capita.yr (10,46M t on 492million inhabitants) 
38 Registration, Evaluation, Autorisation and restriction of Chemical Substances, OJEU L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1 
39 Energy using Products, OJEU L 191, 22.7.2005, p.29-58 
40 OJ L 244, 29.9.2000, p.1 
 
EN 44   EN 2.3.5.2.  Collection and Destinations of WEEE  
On the basis of these drivers, previous assu mptions and further assumptions that in the 
future more collected WEEE will be reporte d, it can be estimated that in the Baseline 
scenario by 2020:  
• total quantity of electrical and electroni c equipment put on the market would be 15.1 
million tonnes41; 
• the total WEEE arising across the EU27 increases to 12.3 million tonnes ; 
• slightly less ( 11%)  of WEEE will be disposed of w ith domestic waste or illegally 
dumped ( 1.4 million tonnes ); this decrease is expected mainly because consumers are 
expected to be better aware of the requi rements not to dispose WEEE as unsorted 
municipal waste; 
• still 2% of the WEEE arising will be reused ( 0.25 million tonnes ); 
• greater proportions  of WEEE - around 42%  of the WEEE arising ( 5.1 million tonnes )42 
will be reported as separately collected a nd treated in line with the Directive. The 
assumption is based on an increase similar as  the one seen in PRO schemes that have 
been running for 5 or more years; this  increase is based on growth, further 
implementation of the Directive and on the in clusion of a fraction that was separately 
collected and treated in line with the Di rective but not reported before. A further 
reasoning on why this proportion would increase is to be found in Annex 4. 
• 45%  of the total WEEE remains unaccounted for ( 5.5 million  tonnes)   
– Out of the unaccounted fraction,  less than one quarter ( 10% ) is recycled in the EU in 
accordance with the Directive;  
– The remaining 35%  (4.3 million tonnes) are not tr eated in accordance with the 
Directive, be it in the EU or outside the EU. 
Figure 7: Collection and Destinations of  WEEE in 2020 according to the baseline 
scenario 
                                                 
41 This is calculated with the yearly gr owth rate of 2,6% taking as the basis value 10.3 tonnes/year placed on the 
market in 2005. 
42 This amount corresponds with an amount of about 10kg per inhabitant per year in the EU, assuming that the 
population growth rate for all countries reaches 0% by 2020 and that the current growth rate follows a linear 
relationship between current growth rates and the expected rate in 2020.  
 
EN 45   EN 2020 Baseline Scenario - Collection and Treamtment
0246810121416
Treatment Collection Arising EEE sold
million tonnesB2B
Independent
reuse centres
retail/distribution
municipalities
not seperated
Not properly treated
Not reported but properly treated
Reported + properly treated
Dumped/LandfillCollection methods
Treatment methods
 
2.3.5.3.  How does changing key assumptions impact on the baseline?  
Three changes are being considered for the future that would impact on the baseline. 
Prices for metals and plastics fall compared to 2007:  In this case the economic driver 
for separate collection of WE EE will disappear for even larger proportions of WEEE 
(material value below total costs for recovery).  
Higher, or lower, proportions of unrepor ted WEEE are in reality  treated properly: 
The difference between levels of WEEE being treated in line with the Directive or not 
makes a significant difference particularly fo r the categories of WE EE (like cooling and 
freezing) with high treatment cost due to high environmental damage from improper treatment. If higher proportions of unreported WEEE of this type were treated properly 
than predicted, the environmental harm from  (sub-standard) treatment would be lower. 
Significantly more than 11% of  WEEE is going to landfill: If more WEEE is being 
landfilled, the potential environmental impacts of WEEE in the EU will be higher (notably 
energy and resource losses; po llution in case of sub-standard  disposal). Treatment costs 
would be lower – but with a significant net co st to society. As shown by UNU the harm 
from landfilling WEEE is even greater than from improper treatment.  
2.3.6.  Impacts of the Effectiveness Problems: 2011-2020 (No action/ Baseline scenario) 
2.3.6.1.  Environmental impacts 
As the materials contained in different WEEE are substantially  different, the environmental 
impact of WEEE depends on both the type of WEEE and the way it is treated. Those 
impacts are both global and local. 
 
EN 46   EN General Impacts from materials in WEEE  
Some 50% of WEEE by weight consists of ferrous metals, largely steel. Collecting and 
recycling this material typically results in savings of 74% energy, 76% water pollution and 
86% air pollution if compared to primary steel production.  
Under the baseline scenarios, based on the s upposition that large amount of WEEE is being 
separately collected, for the calculation 87% of separately collected WEEE is assumed, up to 3.5 million tonnes (equal to 1.8 % of EU annual production) of steel can be recycled from this waste stream alone
43.  
Total Potential Environmental Impacts  
The potential environmental impacts of WEEE vary depending on the equipment in 
question. Potential impacts comprise emissions of toxic substances as well as inefficient 
use of materials and energy. They can contri bute to global problems (e.g. climate related 
impacts) as well as "local" impacts in the EU  or third countries (e.g. eco-toxic emissions, 
damage to human health). 
The main climate related impacts derive from the release of CFCs due to inappropriate 
treatment of cooling and freezing appliances, and also from unnecessary energy use (CO2 
emissions) when energy savings of material re cycling are not realized. On current trends, 
greenhouse gas release cooling and freezing equipment would be around 35 million tonnes 
of CO2 equivalent a year in 2011 (compared to  the likely baseline), w ith a monetised value 
of the damage having a magnitude of around €1 b illion/year - declini ng each year to low 
levels by 2020.44 This decline comes as CFC-ban in cooling and freezing equipment feeds 
through to the WEEE stream. 
Toxic emissions damaging eco-systems and huma n health at local and regional levels can 
be caused by uncontrolled dumping and sub-sta ndard treatment, including all stages of 
badly managed storage, transp ort, recovery and disposal. 
All of the potential impacts mentioned can be well managed if th e WEEE is separately 
collected and sent to state-of-the-art treatme nt. More details on the environmental impacts 
can be found in Annex 6. An estimate of monetary value has only been provided for one part (the GHG) impacts of these environmental damages. 
2.3.6.2.  Economic impacts 
The total economic costs (excluding the econo mic costs of environmental harm) are the 
efforts and costs spent on coll ection, treatment, recycling a nd disposal of WEEE. As the 
volumes of WEEE arising increase, the total costs from the management of WEEE will 
also increase but likely not at the same rate. Economies of scale in collection and treatment 
are likely to reduce costs per tonne; technolog ical development of treatment operations is 
likely to further reduce treatment cost.  
                                                
 
43 Annual crude steel production in the EU is about 200 million tonnes (source Eurofer via 
http://www.eurofer.org/index.php/eng/Home )  
44 The basis for this estimate is in Annex 6. 
 
EN 47   EN Composition of cost  
• Costs of consumers, public authorities or  the retail sector to collect WEEE; 
• Costs to transport WEEE to treatment cen tres either in the EU or overseas; 
• Treatment, preparation for reuse, recovery, recycling process costs and any costs of 
disposal of rest fractions; 
• Additional costs (for contro l, reporting, administration); 
• The cost for society of the unsorted WEEE fraction (landfilling and incineration).  
These costs include organisational costs, fo r authorities, distribut ors and producers in 
setting up and running logistic systems. In addition, administrative costs from reporting 
and labelling by producers add to costs.  
For all the WEEE that is separately collected , some actor in society is moving the WEEE 
from the consumer to a recycling facility. Many geographic and economic factors affect 
these costs which vary across the EU to a great degree. That variance is likely to be greater 
than the difference in collec tion costs caused by collection ta king place by different actors. 
In this IA, it is assumed that the cost for collection and transport by independent collectors 
and traders who ship WEEE for treatment is br oadly the same per tonne as the collection 
and transport cost for PROs.  
Treatment of WEEE in line with the Directive adds costs to the process as steps like 
depollution or removal of CFCs are required to reduce environmental harm. These additional costs depend on the type of WEEE concerned and the processes used. The latter 
are largely determined by Annex II of the Directive. For estimation of the additional costs in this IA, the Commission assumes requirements which eliminate environmental harm at least possible costs. They are based on es timates of existing costs and changes in 
technology between now and 2020. 
In the UNU study, the net total cost (covering the 1
st four bullets mentioned above) for the 
fraction of WEEE that has been reported as separately collected and treated in 2005 
(2.6Mt) is estimated to be € 0.94 billion  (358€/tonne). This figure is based on material 
prices of the year 2005 and expresses the co sts incurred due to the WEEE Directive as 
compared to landfilling. Transport costs from  consumers to collection centres are not 
included. The level of this figure is confirmed by more recent data published by the WEEE forum on its website
45. 
On the basis of the assumptions  on collection and destinations  of WEEE in the baseline, 
the current cost for the fraction that has not  been reported can be estimated. The overall 
gross cost composition as presented in the ke y figures (WEEE forum 2 007) can be used as 
reference to estimate the respective costs for collection (17%), logistics (29%), treatment (33%) and additional costs (21%). Assuming th at the costs for logistics and collection 
remain comparable, that there are no additiona l costs and that the treatment cost is much 
below the cost for treatment in line with the Di rective, the cost curre ntly occurring for the 
                                                
 
45 Key Figures 2007, h ttp://www.weee-forum.org/ att/news/2007%20Key%2 0Figures_Final.pdf 
 
EN 48   EN non reported fraction is estimated at maximum € 1.2 billion, bringing the total net cost for 
2005 at about €2.1 billion.  
With a baseline for 2020 as described above (a  greater proportion of WEEE been reported 
as separately collected and treat ed in line with the Directive and the effect of economies of 
scale) the total net annual cost is estimated at €3.4 billion by 2020, corresponding to about 328€/tonne of WEEE.  
To this should be added enforcement costs from Member State authorities. It should be noted that: 
– These estimations are highly sensitive to some assumptions used. For example a 
sensitivity analysis carried out by the UN U study showed that current 2007 material 
prices increase the revenues  of recycling of WEEE by 50 – 100 EUR/tonne compared to 
2005.
46; 
– Other factors that will influence net cots - de velopments and availability of markets for 
downstream fractions and high- level reapplication/ valo risation of secondary raw 
materials, and changes in com position of WEEE: for example fl at panels are expected to 
cause significant increase in total costs due to costly mercury removal steps.  
– The impact of long running optimization of sy stems as this plays an important role on 
the cost side. Looking at l ong running systems across EU , the gap between minimum 
and maximum cost levels (both technical and additional) is much lower (UNU 2007);  
– economies of scale and investments in recy cling / recovery pl ants (capacity and 
technologies); 
Existing recycling and recovery targets can us ually be achieved with existing technologies. 
The current levels of collection will provide li ttle impetus for investment and innovation in 
techniques and technologies for (pre)t reatment, recycling and recovery.  
Economic impact of reuse  
The UNU study explains based on the UK experience that here viable reuse activities have 
focused on refurbishment of washing machines and IT equipment but for refrigerators the 
rate of refurbishment achieved is rather low (2 % of used appliances). For other appliances, 
typically 5 to 10% of collected eq uipment is found to be reusable. 
2.3.6.3.  Social impacts 
Employment  
                                                 
46 Since the publication of the research studies, oil and me tal prices have increased in such a way that for most 
fractions, the cost and revenues come to a break even. The costs remain for those fractions where treatment 
operations are necessary befo re further recycling/recove ry as in cooling and freezing appliances, CRT glass, 
mercury containing lamps and LCD screens with mercury backlights.  
 
EN 49   EN Material recycling from waste creates 5 to 7 times more jobs  than disposal by incineration 
and 10 times more jobs than disposal in landfills47.  
The Commission's Thematic Strategy on waste pr evention and recycling considers that the 
waste management and recycling sector in  the EU25 provides 1.2 to 1.5 million jobs. The 
waste collection and treatment sector typica lly employs many lower skilled workers as 
well as expert technicians.  
While there are limited data on the employment effects of the WEEE Directive, the income 
generated by the collection and dismantling of  WEEE is often referred to as a good job 
opportunity for disadvantaged people in the first labour market (RREUSE 2006a, p. 2, 
WILLIAMS 2006).  
Early assumptions of NeWET from 2001 speak of approximately 3,870 jobs being created 
under the implementation of the WEEE Directiv e in Germany. In Lithuania it has been 
estimated that 290 jobs have been created  (ECGL 2003, p. 7). For the Netherlands it is 
reported that a small number of jobs has b een created in local authorities. Additional 
employment in administration of the collectiv e schemes has been kept to a minimum to 
reduce costs. Meanwhile, the organisation of  the collective schemes has resulted in 
significant consolidation in the recycling sector with the displacement of small 
organisations, including social welfare orga nisations. The loss of jobs in these small 
organisations has probably been offset by increases in employment in the larger firms to deal with additional throughput of WEEE (DG ENV 2001a, p. IV).  
In the Baseline scenario it is expect ed that net employment remains unchanged. 
Social impacts of reuse
 
Reuse of WEEE has positive social impacts. According to Anderson, the Rreuse network 
has about 17,000 people in social  organisations who collect,  repair and recycle about 
300,000 tonnes of equipment from about 1200 work  centres, and supplying mainly to an 
‘excluded’ market. For less valuable fractions or for reuse with low revenue margins, reuse 
activity tends to be run by charitable organi sations that employ and train low skilled 
people. The sector is employing 40.000 pe ople and engaging 110.000 volunteers in 
Europe48 of which an important part works on  WEEE, usually thes e were long-term 
unemployed, handicapped or people at risk. Given the size of their market share, RREUSE 
considers this a remarkable sector for employment opportuniti es for people with limited 
chances elsewhere. 
The re-use of WEEE provides high quality produc ts at affordable prices which offers an 
important means for people with low income to raise their standards of living and to 
participate in social activities, in particular in the IT sector bridging the “digital divide”, or 
delivering necessary means of communicatio n for commercial or cultural purposes49. But 
                                                 
47 (source: European Ferrous Rec overy and Recycling Federation) 
48 See http://rreuse.org/t3/   
49 The "i2010 – A European Information Society for growth and employment" initiative was launched by the 
Commission on 1 June 2005 as a framework for addressing the main challenges and developments in the information society and media sectors up to 2010. It promotes an open and competitive digital economy and 
emphasises ICT as a driver of inclusion and quality of life. The initiative contains a range of EU policy 
 
EN 50   EN given that EEE is only entering the waste chain when it is consider ed to be out of value, it 
might also no longer be supportive for these social aspects.  
During an expert-workshop organised by the UNU study, it was mentioned that 
refurbishment, resale and reuse of equipment does lead to the creation of jobs, but that 
most of this happens before the EEE enters the waste stream. 
2.4. Problems with the Efficiency of the Directive- Baseline scenario 2011-2020 
2.4.1.  Description of the Problems 
Experience with the operation of the WEEE Di rective has revealed several issues which 
offer potential for reducing costs for produ cers, treatment operators and authorities 
involved in compliance with the Directive. These are: 
• Administrative Burden – particularly from  differences in the operation of national 
producer registers. Annex 8 gives a full overview of the administrative burden of the 
WEEE Directive  
• Costs incurred by certain producers not m eeting their financial obligations ("free-
riders"). This causes additional costs for producers who are meeting their obligations, 
and risks distorting competition between producers 
• Diversion of some WEEE from re-use – wh ere it would have a higher economic and 
social value  
2.4.2.  Drivers of the Efficiency Problems 
The problems related to the efficiency of the Directive has two drivers, one relates to the 
interpretation of the scope of the Directive and the product categories, the other relates to 
the differences in producer registration requirements. 
2.4.2.1.  Difference in Interpretations of  the Scope and Categorisation 
The WEEE Directive applies to 10 categorie s of "electrical and electronic equipment", 
currently illustrated by a non-exhaustive list of exampl es. Some equipment is excluded 
from the scope.50 Member States have discretion to go beyond the requirements of the 
Directive and include additional products in  their national WEEE laws (WEEE is based on 
Art. 175 of the EC Treaty). 
During implementation, the Commission servi ces together with Member States and 
stakeholders have taken step s to clarify the scope. It published "Frequently Asked 
Questions on RoHS and WEEE" addressing this issue. Nevertheless, uncertainty exists in 
particular in the following areas:  
                                                                                                                                                                  
instruments to encourage the development of the digital economy such as regulatory instruments, research and 
partnerships with stakeholders. 
50 Equipment that is part of another equipment not covered by the scope of the Directive as well as equipment 
connected with the protection of the essential interests of the security of Member States, arms, munitions and 
war material, etc. 
 
EN 51   EN • Whether various products in the "grey ar ea" would be covered by one of the 10 
equipment categories, by the definition of  EEE or by the exclusions. (An example is 
church organs whose lead-pipes depend on el ectrical air fans to function properly); 
• Under which product category cert ain products fall - this clas sification can influence the 
recycling and recovery requirement s applicable to the product; and 
• Whether certain EEE should be classified as generating WE EE from private households 
(known as business to consumer equipment or B2C) or WEEE from users other than 
private households (known as business to business equipment or B2B). This 
classification is directly linked to the setting and achievement of targets as well as to the 
regime of financing.  
As a result of the issues above, during im plementation, in many cases Member States 
postponed decisions on scope at national level until they received guidance from the 
Commission, which has slowed down impl ementation and prolonged uncertainty for 
business an administrators. Attempts to gain agreement between Member States on categorisation are often a slow pro cess and are not always successful. 
In other cases different Member States and administrations came to divergent 
interpretations of the scope, leaving economic  operators with uncertainty whether their 
products are covered by the WEEE Directive an d whether they need to comply with the 
(financial) producer responsibil ity and reporting requirements. 
The uncertainty has caused confusion among pr oducers on the rules they need to comply 
with and also given some producers the opport unity to choose the in terpretation of the 
definition of scope which best suits them.  
This situation has led to the following costs:  
• Some producers evade costs and financial guarantees by falsel y classifying their product 
as B2B WEEE (for which this requirement doe s not exist). As much of this B2B waste 
nevertheless ends up in the household waste st ream and the cost falls on those producers 
who have registered for household WEEE;  
• Avoidance of higher recovery/recyc ling requirements by different product 
categorisation, which can lead to lower levels of environmental protection; 
• Disadvantage in competition for those who fulfil the requirements of the Directive (in 
particular the financing) and those with very similar products who don't;  
• Unintended costs for firms selling into more th an one Member State where they have to 
meet different obligations, in cluding different regi stration and reporting requirements as 
a result of differing classifications. This also includes cost of the administrative work to 
assess for each Member State which obligations and categorisation must be complied 
with, for example on whether their dual-use products are classifi ed as household WEEE. 
2.4.2.2.  Differences in Producer Registration Requirements 
To make the financial producer responsibility  enforceable, the iden tity of producers and 
the quantities of EEE they put on the market  must be known to Member States. The WEEE 
 
EN 52   EN Directive therefore requires Member States to draw up a register of producers and to 
collect information on the quantities and categor ies of electrical and electronic equipment 
put on their market, collected, reused, recycl ed and recovered within the Member State 
including exports.  
Member States have taken differe nt approaches with respect to: 
• who needs to register 
• who needs to report 
• what needs to be reported 
• interpretation of the term “producer ” (national vs European approach) 
• obligations of distance sellers. 
Further details are provided in Annex7.  
These divergent interpretations  have resulted in a multitude  of different registration 
schemes and requirements. By far the larges t concern raised by industry stakeholders 
relates to the differences in requireme nts of national producer registers causing 
administrative costs from repetition and divergence of registration and reporting 
obligations. Actors can have to adhere to up to 27 varying requirements when placing EEE 
on the EU market.  
2.4.3.  Evolution of the Efficiency Problems: 2011-2020 (No action/Baseline scenario)  
If no action is taken, the problem of unnece ssary costs and free-riding by producers will 
persist. However, the scope of the problem could change, due to the following expected 
changes to the drivers of these problems: 
2.4.3.1.  Expected change to the driver of differe nces in the interpretation of scope and 
categorisation  
Within the period 2011-2020, ma ny uncertainties with existin g products will have been 
resolved. Yet, certain problems with differi ng interpretation of scope and category are 
likely to remain and new ones will arise due to new products being developed.  
• As the WEEE forum51has failed to develop a guideline on which products are relevant 
for collection points and which may not be c overed by Annex IB of the Directive. No 
changes to the drivers of the proble m are expected in this regard.  
• More co-ordination in categ orisation of WEEE in 10 pr oduct categories could be 
achieved between some Member States who jointly developed a decision tree. It is 
however uncertain whether the Member States will use this decision tree uniformly. 
                                                 
51 The European Association of Electrical and Electronic waste take back systems http://www.weee-forum.org/   
 
EN 53   EN • No common decision tree exists for categ orisation of B2C versus B2B, therefore 
uncertainty will persist. 
2.4.3.2.  Expected changes to the driver of differ ences in producer registration requirements 
This driver is predicted to continue throughout  the baseline period if despite some actions 
that have been taken to reduce the problem:  
National registers established the European WEEE Registers Network (EWRN) which has 
been concentrating on establis hing contact with all functioni ng registers and are beginning 
to address options for registers to harmonise/a pply consistent practices on the approach to 
address a number of key issues such as thos e addressed above. This work is done however 
on a voluntary basis and not all Member States  are represented, so that the most likely 
progress in tackling these probl ems would be at a slow pace  and not coherent across the 
internal market. 
The Commission initiated in 2007 and 2008 infr ingement proceedings against Member 
States having adopted a "national approach".  
Present producers will have largely complete d their registration and adapted to different 
Member States' requirements for the peri od 2011-2020. However, the complexities will 
remain affecting any new52 producers throughout this period.  
For existing producers, the obligation to report  in different formats will continue although 
with some mitigation from the work of EWRN mentioned above. However, costs will 
continue when any new products are brought onto the market.  
2.5. The EU right to act 
This review is an integral pa rt of developing a better regulat ory environment in the EU. It 
will contribute to a European regulatory framework of the highest standards of law making, respecting the principles of subsidiari ty and proportionality. Simplification intends 
to make legislation at both Community and na tional level less burdens ome, easier to apply 
and thereby more effective. The Commission is committed to reduce unnecessary burdens 
while preserving the level of  environmental protection. 
Moreover, Council and Parliament have explici tly called on the Commission in Articles 5 
and 7 of the WEEE Directive to review the targets provided for in the Directive.  
                                                
 
52 As new producer can be considered those bringing new goods on the market but also those new on the market 
that replace producers leaving the market 
 
EN 54   EN 3. OBJECTIVES  
3.1. General, specific and operational objectives 
The general objective  of the review is to achieve th e objectives of the WEEE Directive 
more effectively and efficiently, thus optimiz ing benefits for the so ciety as a whole in 
return for the legislative, administrativ e and economic efforts required, thereby to 
contribute to a better regulator y environment that is simple, understandable, effective and 
enforceable, thus advancing sustainable deve lopment and environmental protection while 
helping businesses to maintain its competitiven ess and ability to grow and create jobs.  
The specific objectives are: 
– Reduced costs for producers and treatmen t operators through the removal of all 
unnecessary administrative bu rdens, without lowering th e level of environmental 
protection. 
– Reduced costs for producers complying with the Directive by elimination of the costs 
they bear from free-riding by other produ cers or other distor tion of competition. 
– Creation of the conditions that lead to the proper treatment of all separately collected 
WEEE in line with the provisions of the Directive 
– Increased diversion of WEEE fr om the domestic waste stream 
This leads to four operational objectives defined as follows:  
(1) certainty for economic operators on defi nitions, scope and categorisation of 
products; 
(2) removal of different requirements fo r compliance (including reporting and 
registration) between Member States and reduced duplication of reporting; 
(3) creation of adequate incentives for all separately co llected WEEE to be treated in 
line with the Directive, rather than being improperly treated in the EU or illegally 
shipped to third countries; 
(4) provision of incentives for waste to be dive rted from the domestic waste stream.  
3.2. Policy coherence 
The WEEE Directive forms part of  EU legislation aiming at cr eating a recycling society in 
the EU. It's coherence with general Community  strategies and with  EU legislation on 
product design and waste management is described in Annex 9.  
By supporting the development of the waste indu stry in the EU, without causing distortions 
in competition between producers, the WEEE Directive supports the objectives of the 
Lisbon Strategy for Jobs and Growth, with positive impacts on EU employment and technological development. Electrical and el ectronic engineering in the EU amounted in 
 
EN 55   EN 2006 to a turnover of nearly 320 billion Euro annually and an  employment of some 2,8 
million people in more than 18 000 companies53. 
                                                 
53 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise /electr_equipment/electra.htm   
 
EN 56   EN 4. OPTIONS TO IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DIRECTIVE  
4.1. Description of the Options 
The Commission has considered, with stake holders, various options to create the 
incentives which will lead to all separately collected WEEE being trea ted in line with the 
Directive and to stimulate greater diversion of WEEE from domestic waste streams. The 
options are described below.  
These are not necessarily mutually exclusive (except for the option no action) and can 
therefore be combined: 
(1) No action: making no changes to the Direc tive, including maintaining the minimum 
collection target of 4kg/inhabitant/year of WEEE for Member States (equal to 33% 
of WEEE arising); 
(2) Require greater enforcement by setting minimum inspection requirements for 
WEEE treatment; 
(3) Require greater enforcement by introduci ng minimum inspection requirements for 
waste shipments;  
(4) Increase the collection targets, make pr oducers responsible for this target and 
include B2B equipment in the scope of the collection target. (85% of WEEE 
arising)  
(5) Set a 100% collection target on the environmentally most relevant streams (cooling 
and freezing appliances, Cathode Ray Tube s and mercury containing appliances 
such as energy saving lamp s and LCD screens) ;  
(6) Change the method of setting the target from  kg/inhabitant to a % of the quantity of 
EEE put on the market in preceding year[(s)].  
Various other options were considered but reject ed during the review and in particular after 
the stakeholder consultation. These covered opti ons on collection targets, targets for reuse, 
recycling and recovery, options on scope, pr oducer responsibility, treatment requirements 
and a de minimis rule. These are described in  Annex 12 together with reasons for their 
rejection. 
4.2. Analysis of impacts 
4.2.1.  Option (1): No action 
Under this option, no changes to the Direc tive or other new Comm ission initiatives on 
WEEE would be proposed. The Commission would continue to monitor implementation 
and take infringement actions against Member States where there was evidence that the Directive was not being implemented properly,  this could for example be the case if 
treatment requirements were not respected. At  this stage, it is not possible to judge 
however whether infringement actions would be  taken or the legal a nd practical result of 
any such infringement actions.  
 
EN 57   EN If infringement actions are su ccessful, it is likely that Memb er State response would be to 
take some steps to increase the recording a nd treatment of separately collected WEEE. 
Actions taken would differ  between Member States. 
Some Member States have al ready used the legal power gi ven under Art.175 to set targets 
for separate collection (and so, in practice, pr oper treatment) that go beyond the 4kg target 
set by the Directive. For example, Belgiu m has set an 8.5kg targ et/inhabitant to be 
achieved.  
The no action scenarios assessed here assume that some other Member States set further 
increased collection targets that come into  effect during the period 2011-20, and that 
Member States take additional steps to br ing a greater proportion of WEEE to proper 
treatment. (See scenario in chapter 2 for 2011-2020). 
Analysis of Impacts  
In a no policy change, it is assumed that 35% of the WEEE arising (4.3 million tonnes per 
year) are treated improperly (be it inside or outside the EU).  The environmental, economic 
and social impacts of this opti on are assessed in Section 2.3.  
4.2.2.  Option (2): Minimum legal requirement s for inspections of WEEE treatment 
In this option, Article 16 of the Directive would be amended to provide for minimum 
requirements for enforcement action to be defined by Comitology with European 
Parliament oversight.  
The Commission would propose minimum insp ection requirements to the Comitology 
Committee in relation to inspection of treatme nt operators and recyclers for compliance 
with the treatment provisions of the Directive. These minimum requirements which it assesses would be sufficient to provide adequa te incentives for WEEE operators to comply 
with requirements. At the same time, the tr eatment requirements of Annex II need to be 
amended in light of technical and scientific progress. A com itology decision to this effect 
is under preparation. 
As waste enforcement has a history of inadequa te resourcing in some Member States, it is 
possible that these requirements may be resisted by Member States.  
To give an impression of the scale of enforcement required: using 2008 costs of a 
representative bundle of WEEE for treatment in line with Annex II, the additional costs are 
around €250/tonne WEEE. Where these are not offset by payments from producers, for a treatment operator running 50,000 tonnes of WEEE through his plant each year, the financial gain from avoiding proper treatment  on, for example half his input, would be 
€6.25 million. Even if the penalties or non-compliance were set very high, at €12.5million, inspection would have to be rigorous e nough to discover more than 50% of non-
compliance to provide sufficient counter-incen tive for non-compliance. If the Commission 
were to set minimum requirements at this level, these effects need to be taken into account.  
It is estimated from Member State reporti ng that there are curre ntly 4000 authorised 
treatment plants in the EU, and 200 shredders  which would require inspection. It is 
possible that additional inspections would be necessary for presently unauthorised treatment plants. 
 
EN 58   EN Evidences demonstrated that some enforcement actions related to the WEEE Directive 
have been effective. In the Netherlands due to enforcement actions, the total percentage of illegal activities has decreased from 2004 to 2006
54 . 
Greater enforcement of treatment requirements could lead to two wider effects, both of 
which would concern WEEE with minimum treatment requirements under Annex II: 
• A greater numbers of treatment operators would treat more WEEE in line with the 
Directive.  
• Low-cost treatment of WEEE outside the EU could become a relatively more attractive 
option, compared to improper treatment of WEEE in the EU. Therefore, the number of 
illegal shipments of WEEE could increase.  
Environmental impact  
There would be less environmental impacts if more WEEE would be tr eated in line with 
the Directive. Quantitative estimates are impossible as success would depend from the 
quality and quantity of inspections carri ed out by Member States. Following the 
assumption that presently roughly one third of WEEE is treated im properly, the reduction 
of environmental and health impacts could be  significant. However it is unlikely that full 
compliance with the treatment requirements of the Directive could be achieved by this action. 
Economic impact
 
The WEEE Directive already pres cribes (Article 16) that Memb er States have to ensure 
that inspection and monitoring enable the pr oper implementation of the WEEE Directive. 
Adding minimum monitoring requirements in the legal text may lead to additional 
inspection costs at national level in some Member States, where current enforcement 
activities are low. Any Commissi on proposal to this effect woul d have to take account of 
additional costs for authorities.  
Any additional inspections by Member States would impose additional administrative costs 
on treatment operators, who would need to prov ide information to the authorities during 
inspection. If each inspection is  estimated to take 1 hour and there were 4 additional 
inspections a year for 2000 sites,  the total administ rative cost for busin ess would be around 
€168 000 (€21 55cost for 1 hour per inspection) per year  which would mean a cost of € 84 a 
site. 
The UNU study assessed whether stakeholders currently felt or experienced an 
administrative burden in monitoring and cont rol enforcement. 81% of the respondents 
considered that the activity is needed. Th ey requested however c onsistency in reporting 
standards and formats.  
                                                 
54 In case of retailers, more than 60% were in violation in 2004 and only 11% in 2006. With this, the amount of 
collected TVs has increased by 50%. The final conclusion  is that the enforcement actions were effective and 
the level of compliance in the chain of electronic wast e collection and treatment has improved significantly 
55 Eu 27 average, source: Statis tics Austria: labour cost survey. 
http://www.statistik.at/web_en/statistics/social_statis tics/labour_costs/labour_cost_survey/index.html 
 
EN 59   EN Social impacts  
No social impacts are expected from this  option unless some reduction of hidden 
employment, in particular in the treatment sector, which is difficult to quantify and for which the overall effect on employ ment is expected to be low. 
4.2.3.  Option (3) Minimum inspection requirements for waste shipments 
This option would require a minimum number of inspections to check whether shipments 
of WEEE would be legal. The minimum re quirements would be set by Comitology, 
making the guidelines for WEEE shipments ag reed by waste shipment correspondents 
from Member States legally binding. 
56 These guidelines were developed to help the 
Member State authorities in the control of wast e shipment, but their application currently is 
not compulsory. 
As with Option (2), the increase in the num ber of inspection and enforcement actions 
would need to be very large to provide suffici ent counter-incentives for illegal shipment of 
waste, at least whilst me tal prices remain high.  
Strengthened monitoring activities would increa se the likelihood of (f inancial) penalty for 
illegal WEEE shipments, reducing the financia l attractiveness of this treatment route.  
The strength of the impacts of setting mi nimum requirements would depend on the 
minimum standards set, in relation to existi ng levels of inspection and enforcement in 
Member States. Legally bindi ng guidelines will help to have efficient enforcement 
operation to be carried out. As mentioned under the previous op tion, there is record that 
effective enforcement action for electronic wast e have led to tangible benefits and reduced 
illegal activities.  
Environmental impact  
The extent of the environmental improveme nt would depend on what minimum standards 
are set. However it can be reasonably assu med that making waste shipment guidelines 
legally binding, would reduce the number of illegal shipments of WEEE outside the EU 
and would thus reduce in particular the seve re negative environmental and health impacts 
in third countries as described in Section 2.  
Economic impact  
Adding minimum inspection requirements in the legal text would lead to additional 
inspection costs in Member States, where cu rrent enforcement activities are low. The 
possible additional costs will have to be taken into account when the Comitology proposals will be developed.  
Social impact
 
No social impacts are expected from this opt ion in the EU but th ere would likely be 
impacts on traders and on illega l and dangerous (child) labour  in some countries: more 
                                                 
56 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/pdf/correspondents_guidelines_en.pdf 
 
EN 60   EN inspections could lead to less illegal ship ments, causing less health problems of those 
treating the equipment in substandard condi tions and causing a small shift from hidden 
employment to official employment. 
4.2.4.  Increase the collection targets (85% of WEEE arising), make producers responsible for 
this target and include B2B equipment in  the scope of the collection target.  
This option would: 
• Increase the separate collection targets to match the levels estimated to be currently 
collected separately (by all parties), in cluding B2B equipment in the scope of the 
collection target. 
• Make producers responsible for ensuring that this proportion of W EEE is collected and 
for financing collection. 
4.2.4.1.  Making producers fully responsible for the co llection, including an obligation to finance 
collection 
Under the baseline, it is estimated that more  than 85% of the WEEE arising is being 
collected separately a lthough little more than 30 % of WEEE is reported as being collected. 
It is presumed that the reported 30% are treated according to the requirements of the 
WEEE Directive. Studies suggest  that significant quantities of the remaining 55% are 
transported illegally to thir d countries and treated under sub-standard conditions and 
further quantities are treated not accordi ng to the WEEE Directive in the EU.  
Under this option, producers would be made responsible for meeting the targets. This 
option is assumed to be effective at increa sing the fraction of separately collected WEEE 
which will undergo proper treatment. Producer s, for historical, et hical and commercial 
reasons, are very likely to ensure that W EEE for which they become responsible is 
properly treated. There are particular commercia l and legal drivers for high levels of likely 
compliance by producers. Notably the reputati on of producers with consumers is often 
central to the marketing of el ectrical and electronic products.57. Indeed, making producers 
responsible for the entire chain (from colle ction to proper treatment) would avoid the 
"leakage" problem as described in Section 2. Also possible enforcement actions (where necessary) by Member States targeted at producers and PROs can be a motivation.  
The option would limit the existing wording of the obligation in Arti cle 8 for producers to 
"provide at least for the fina ncing of the collection […] of  WEEE deposited at collection 
facilities set up under Art.5(2)" which would harmonise the financial responsibility for 
collection costs, with producers having financia l responsibility for WE EE collected before, 
as well as after it reaches  collection facilities. 
Environmental impacts
 
Whilst it is not possible to assess to exactly  what percentage the improper treatment of 
WEEE would decrease,, improper treatment would be reduced  significantly, with the 
                                                 
57 One aspect of this is illustrated by the relative effect iveness of stakeholder criticism of electronics firms in 
changing corporate behaviour [See in particular Greenpeace's likely influence on Apple and Dell ] 
 
EN 61   EN expectation that reputational pr essures would lead to significant incentives for all WEEE 
reaching producers being properly treated. It ca n reasonable be assumed that the negative 
environmental impacts as described in Section 2 will decrease proportionally with the decrease of improper treatment of WEEE. 
Economic impact
 
Nine Member States currently make producer s financially responsible for all collection 
costs, whilst nine others have  shared financial responsibility  which includes producers. The 
differing regimes for financial and physical re sponsibility across the Member States are 
described in Annex 3. Harmonizing the obligati on for producers to fi nance collection of 
WEEE from households would avoid any possibl e distortions in the single market from 
national arrangements on financing whic h might favour domestic producers.  
It would also level the playing field be tween producers opting for setting up individual 
schemes for the separate coll ection of WEEE and producers opting for collective solutions 
and using existing municipal collection sites, an d so passing to others some of the costs for 
the separate collection. This le velling may encourage more i ndividual collection schemes, 
where they are more cost-efficient. 
Around 45% of separately collec ted WEEE is currently  collected by pub lic authorities – 
the rest is collected through alternative cha nnels. The amounts curren tly collected include 
WEEE already financed by producers and WE EE deposited by consumers at collection 
points, leaving a smaller proportion of WEEE being physically collected from houses by 
authorities. The collection costs of munici palities for which producers would be made 
responsible are estimated to be in the region of €0.3bn/year58 – but are lower than the 
material value of the WEEE that would be collected and passed on by public authorities, 
estimated at €1bn/year.  
The incidence of cost will also be affected by price variations for metals and oil (plastics). 
For instance, metal prices increased betw een 2005 and 2007 by around 7 0€/ton of recycled 
metal. This increased  the value of 12 million tonnes of WEEE by around €500 million. 
The value of metal is most likely to be cap tured by the producers or traders of WEEE. 
Putting in place a uniform financial obligation for producers to pay municipalities for the 
WEEE they collect separately does not prev ent producers from expanding these existing 
alternative routes for colle ction. These alternatives allow producers to avoid WEEE 
passing to municipalities, givi ng alternative mean s to collect WEEE more cheaply if 
municipalities attempt to charge excessive collection fees, something which would be a 
matter for negotiation between producers and aut horities. Nevertheless , if implementation 
measures are poorly worded they  might allow municipalities to charge more th an the actual 
proportion of collection cost s attributable to separa te collection of WEEE.  
However, if there were any net costs to pr oducers after taking into account the material 
value of WEEE, normally they would pass the co sts of producer res ponsibility obligations 
                                                 
58 Akron, “Cost calculation for the collection of household wa ste at municipal collection sites: an analysis in the 
frame of the take-back oblig ation”, december 2004, at 
http://admin.vvsg.be/cmsmedia/LNdms3716%20Studi e%20kostprijs%20containerpark%2021122004.pdf?uri=
ff80808100d54ff90100e0f8a79c01cd&action=viewWorkingAttachement 
 
EN 62   EN onto consumers through the purchase price of EEE. These costs therefore do not represent 
a loss for producers. Producers tend to pass the costs through to the consumers because of 
the high level of competition in the EEE market – which leaves little room for producers to 
absorb additional costs in their margins. Equa l obligations for all producers selling into the 
EU market (cf free riding below) allows all to pass costs on without fear of increasing 
prices out of line with competitors.  
Under this part of the opti on, these costs for collection w ould pass from the general 
taxpayer to the purchasers of EEE, in lin e with the polluter pays principle. 
Social impacts  
Under this option, it can be expected that th e waste treatment sector dealing with EU 
WEEE will receive addi tional business under the baseline scenario in 2020 of 2.44 million 
tonnes of WEEE to be treated according to  the Directive depending on the levels of 
collection set, with an increase in jobs in this sector. It is unlikely to assume that all separately collected WEEE will go to treatment in the EU: with global trade in waste, 
recyclers in third countries can compete on price with EU treatment operators. The WEEE 
Directive permits WEEE being treated in third countries where it is treated at the standards required by the Directive, and allowed by th e rules of the Waste Shipment Regulation. 
However, significant increase in treatment capacity would be expected in the EU. In 
addition to the turnover and jobs offered, the investment in this capacity would stimulate 
commercial innovation in treatment and recycli ng technologies This is an area of great 
future global growth, where EU firms have an existing advantage (due to stimulation from 
the WEEE Directive coming into force).  
This option is predicted to stimulate on-goi ng innovation in treatment technologies. The 
financing of WEEE treatment and recycling, coupled with a long-term obligation for 
treatment falling effectively to producers allows investments in R&D and commercialisation which would not otherwise take place, due to inertia and lack of investment in the waste sector (a s it is currently structured). This again has the potential to 
open up global technology mark ets in a growing sector.  
4.2.4.2.  Setting the collection target at the levels curr ently estimated to be collected (around 85% of 
WEEE arising) is broadly equivalent to a 65% target for WEEE put on the market. 
Environmental impacts
 
Under the baseline, it is estimated that more  than 85% of the WEEE is being collected 
separately although little more than 30% of WEEE is re ported as being collected. Under 
this option, all separately coll ected WEEE would go to treatment in line with the Directive. 
The environmental impacts of this option would depend on the difference in impact 
between the Annex II operations required by th e Directive and the al ternative treatment 
that would have happened unde r the baseline scenario.  
For example, it is estimated that if all cooling and freezing equipment would go to proper 
treatment, the environmental damage from greenhouse gas release co uld be reduced by 
something in the order of 200 million tonn es of CO2 equivale nt between 2011-20 
(compared to the likely baseline), with a monetised value of the magnitude of around €1 
 
EN 63   EN billion a year at the start of the decade declining to low levels by 2020 as the 1990s 
CFC/HCFC ban feeds thr ough to the WEEE stream.59 
The date chosen for entry into force of higher targets makes a difference to the benefits of 
the WEEE Directive. Environmental damage fr om release of CFCs and HCFCs in cooling 
and freezing equipment is by far the greatest environmental benefit from this policy option. For example, more than 3/4 of the H/CFC rel ease from refrigerants and foams in cooling 
and freezing equipment due to improper treatm ent appears likely to happen in before the 
latter half of the period 2011-2020, though this  depends on the rate with which H/CFC 
containing equipment enters the waste stream.  
This option would mean that a most of the CRT and LCD screens would need to be 
collected. Given the currently low collection perc entages, this would me an that 67% of the 
CRT TVs and monitors and 60% of the LCD monitors would be additionally collected. 
Additional mercury and lead from these equipmen ts would be controlled  to avoid entering 
the environment.  
With higher turnover from recycling and the pre-treatment activities, investment may 
increase to recycle a proportion of the plasti cs (which comprise 20-25%) of WEEE that 
will have a recycling value after 2011. The e nvironmental gain from using recycled 
plastics depends both on the impacts (parti cularly energy use) during pre-treatment for 
recycling and the raw material which the recycled material substitutes. 
Economic impacts
 
As collection and recycling activities (whether in the EU or overseas) are already 
undertaken for the assumed 85% collection of  WEEE arising, the main economic impacts 
come from the additional costs of treating all of that WEEE collected in line with the 
Directive. Those treatment requirements are main ly contained in Annex II of the Directive.  
Note that - as similar collection activities will take place under this option compared to 
practice under 'do nothing', there would be no significant costs from changes to collection: 
there would only be a change in  that different people would pay for that collection. The 
existing infrastructure for collection could be used, and there need to be no increase in 
costs per tonne collected. Indee d, there is the possibility th at greater formal collection 
could reduce costs per tonne through economies of scale, although this factor has not been 
included in this analysis. The cost for collecti on and transport can be estimated to remain at 
€ 1.8billion per year as of 2020.  
The estimated additional costs of treatment ar e difficult to quantify for the moment. To 
give an indication of the magnitude of the cost , it is indicated that coupled with estimates 
of categories of WEEE arising in 2020 and estimates of the costs of additional (Annex II 
treatment) per category, the costs for produ cers for the additional treatment of WEEE is 
broadly estimated at €1bn/year more than unde r the baseline as illu strated in figure 9 
below. 
It is likely that producers will  pass the costs of producer responsibility obligations onto 
consumers through the purchase price of EEE. Th ese costs are unlikely to represent a loss 
                                                 
59 See Annex 6 for basis of valuation. 
 
EN 64   EN for producers because of the high level of co mpetition in the EEE market – which leaves 
little room for producers to absorb additiona l costs in their margins; and the equal 
treatment of all producers selling into the EU market (cf free riding be low) – which, as all 
producers bear the same producer  responsibility obligations, allows all to pass them on 
without fear of increasing prices  out of line with competitors. 
The waste treatment sector dealing with EU  WEEE will therefore receive additional 
business under the baseline scenarios for 2020 of  around €1bn a year, with  an increase in 
jobs in this sector. A significant increase in treatment capacity would be expected in the 
EU. In addition to the turnover and jobs offered, the investment in this capacity would 
stimulate commercial innovation in tr eatment and recycling technologies. 
Gross Costs of WEEE collection and treatment
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.0
2005 2012 2020Costs (billion €)
Baseline costs Option(4) costs
 
Figure 9: Treatment cost under this option 
For the purpose of this Impact Assessment and based on figures of the UNU study, it can 
be assumed that costs for collection and tr eatment per tonne of WEEE evolve nearly 
linearly from 20% to 65% collection of EEE  put on the market in the preceding year. 
However, it is expected that very high co llection rates approaching the maximum of 100% 
of the WEEE arising would enta il disproportionate costs. This would be due to, for 
example, the necessity to extr act small WEEE from unsorted m unicipal waste. In particular 
small WEEE with a weight below 1kg is curr ently hardly handed in by consumers (this 
would explain at least 11% of the not separately collected WEEE).  
Any targets significantly below the level of assumed actual co llection of 85% WEEE 
arising – for example a targ et of only 60% - would excl ude substantial amounts of 
separately collected WEEE from the obligatio n of producers to ensure proper treatment. 
While even with such  a target possibly more WEEE woul d be treated properly than under 
 
EN 65   EN the current baseline, the balance between a lower target and the assumed actual collection 
would remain subject to possible sub- standard treatment and illegal exports. 
Furthermore, with a target set lower than th e estimated amount of WEEE currently being 
separately collected, the inspection and enfor cement bodies of Member States would have 
greater workload – and if not resourced appropr iately – the risk of detection and penalties 
for improper treatment or illeg al trade would be lower. 
Social impacts  
It can be expected that with having an incen tive to collect (treat and recover) more WEEE 
the attitude of consumers to contribute to the separate collection needs to increase. The 
effect of producers passing on the cost of th is option to the individual consumer in the 
purchase price will be rather low60.  
Stimulus would be given to job creation in the e-waste sector, which tends to employ a 
greater proportion of low-skilled workers. 
4.2.4.3.  Including B2B WEEE in the scope of the collection target  
According to the UNU study, the WEEE arisi ng in the EU for 2005 is about 8,3million 
tonnes, including B2B equipment that repres ent about 1million tonnes. This volume of 
WEEE will rise by 2014 to 10.2million tonnes and it is supposed that the volume of B2B 
equipment will rise proportionately.  
As a direct link between producers and users ex ists in many cases, th e risk of B2B WEEE 
ending up in unsorted municipa l waste is less than with B2C WEEE. Nevertheless, the 
current amount of WEEE collected & treated as  percentage of WEEE arising indicates that 
still between 35 and 50% of B2B ar e not being collected separately. 
The initial motivation for different legal re quirements for B2B and B2C waste was to 
reflect that much B2C waste went to la ndfill, whilst most B2B waste was already 
separately collected commercially. This difference between the waste streams has now disappeared and including B2B equipment in the scope of the coll ection target would 
increase the incentive to also collect the fracti on of waste that is currently not yet collected 
separately (as for other WEEE). 
Environmental impacts
 
Proper treatment of all B2B WEEE will create  environmental benefits in line with the 
difference between the Annex II requirements for treatment and the standards to which 
WEEE is improperly treated.  
Economic impacts  
Producers have already to ensu re the collection of  WEEE from users ot her than private 
households and have to fina nce the costs for collection, treatment, recovery and 
environmental sound disposal of WEEE pl aced on the market after 13 August 2005. The 
                                                 
60 € 1 billion spread over 125 million families is about 8€ per family per year. 
 
EN 66   EN financing for the colle ction of historic B2B WEEE depe nds on whether the product is 
being replaced or not.  
The reporting obligations do already foresee th e amount of B2B collected to be reported. 
The inclusion in the target wi ll therefore not increase the ad ministrative cost for reporting. 
The additional costs from treating a greater sh are of WEEE properly, including B2B, have 
already been described above. 
Social impacts  
No particular social impacts are expected except potentially slightly increased employment 
possibilities in the e-waste sector.  
4.2.5.  Option (5) Set a 100% collection target on th e environmentally most relevant streams 
Setting general collection targets for WEEE w ith greatest potential for environmental 
harm, like cooling and freezing equipment woul d add additional cost for proper treatment. 
In this situati on, the specific climate and ozone laye r harm from cooling and freezing 
equipment could be largely avoided by se tting a 100% collection target for these 
equipment type (as in the Batteries a nd End of Life Vehicle Directives). 
This option would include removing targets for the other streams of WEEE where the 
difference between the environmental dama ge from profit-maximising treatment and 
treatment in line with the Directive is sma ll. This would not remove the obligation for 
producers to treat all sepa rately collected WEEE. 
Environmental impacts  
With any low target for general WEEE – and in  the absence of a specific target for the 
separate collection, a large proportion, between 40-60% of Cooling and Freezing WEEE is 
not expected to receive proper treatment due  to the relatively expensive processing (to 
remove the CFCs and HCFCs61) and the possibility to treat  other more profitable-to-
recycle appliances to reach any low general target. With additional specific targets this 
would not be a problem.  
This same reasoning applies for WEEE which ha s significant environm ental impacts (so is 
expensive to treat) and which is light and with low recycling value. (e.g. mercury containing gas discharge lamps and LCD backlights
62). For these streams, where even high 
weight based targets can be met without co llecting these light WEEE streams, high 
proportions of this WEEE is likely to continue not to be collected sepa rately (but remain in 
the mixed waste) and so not receive separate  treatment. Ensuring the treatment of WEEE 
with the highest potential for environmental im pacts would result in the greatest share of 
environmental benefits from WEEE treatment being realised.  
                                                 
61 In addition, the ozone-layer depletion and global warming potential of CFC fridges also make minimising 
leakage from controlled collection and recycling systems highly relevant as the total prevented global warming 
potential by treating fridges is more than 2000 kg CO 2 equivalent per fridge (UNU 2007). 
62 In 2006, 660 million lamps were sold in the EU containing about 4.3 tons of the extremely toxic mercury, with 
another 2.8 tons contained in LCD panels.  
 
EN 67   EN Yet, if targets were only applied to the most environmentally harmful WEEE streams 
problems in developing countries receiving the other WEEE streams would persist and potential environmental benefits from be tter material and energy recovery of less 
problematic WEEE would be lost because there would continue to be a large grey market 
for WEEE not covered by such targets, much of which would be likely to end up in illegal 
treatment in developing countries, where treatment techniques for all streams of WEEE cause environmental and health damage.  
Economic impacts
 
The additional costs from treatment are estimat ed to be slightly lower than under an 85% 
collection target, with lower levels of add itional treatment being required, but with high 
levels of treatment of the most expensive to treat equipment taking place. The resulting economic effects would be similar as for Option 4. 
With 100% collection and treatment  targets for some waste streams, it would be costly to 
collect (and treat) large propor tions of some of the WEEE streams which are currently 
going into domestic waste. For instance, the UNU study estimates collection costs for 
lamps to be around €270/tonne compared to co llection costs in the area of €140/tonne for 
other WEEE. As quantified in the UNU study there will be higher treatment costs per unit of weight as these items require special precautions and processes (e.g. removal of 
hazardous fractions). 
For streams where profit maximising recycling would anyway not be significantly different 
from treatment under the Directive, the cost difference would also be small. 
Costs of separate collection of specific stre ams of WEEE under this option will be higher 
(per unit collected and treated in these st reams) than under an  option which requires 
collection of more WEEE str eams, because the collection. would need to capture smaller 
items (e.g lightbulbs) which would be likely to otherwise end up in mixed waste.  
From the perspective of reporting on quantities collected and treated, no net additional 
administrative burden is expected. Burden would move from producers of the WEEE currently collected to those for the more environmentally harmful streams. 
Social impacts
 
As for Option 4. 
4.2.6.  Option (6) Collection targets set in relation to EEE put on the ma rket in the preceding year 
This option would set the methodology to calculat e the collection target as a percentage of 
EEE put on the market in the preceding year. Evid ence shows that there is a rather stable 
relation between EEE put on the market each ye ar and the amount of WEEE arising in the 
years following.  
Compared to a fixed kg/inhabita nt target, this method for cal culating the coll ection target 
would allow taking into account the differences  in WEEE arising in each Member State. 
For the EU15 Member States (who have a ma inly saturated market  for electronic goods) 
there is a stable relationship  between the electronic goods put on the market in one year 
and the WEEE arising in that market in the following year (even though this is physically 
 
EN 68   EN not the same equipment): levels of WEEE are about 80% of the EEE sold in the previous 
year. So for example, a collecti on target of 85% of WEEE aris ing could be set as a target 
of about 65% of EEE sold in the previous y ear (in the EU15 states).  It would thus account 
in a dynamic way for differences in economic development and consumption, offering a better balanced sharing of task s between Member States. It would make better use of the 
potential for environmental benefits in c ountries with high arising of WEEE while 
avoiding to over-burden economies with small amounts of WEEE per capita.  
This approach has the disadvantage that, wh ere the relationship between EEE put on the 
market and WEEE arising is not stable, ther e is greater uncertainty on the correlation 
between WEEE actually arising and the target. It can be assumed that the EU12 markets 
are less saturated and signifi cantly less WEEE arises compared to the amounts bought, and 
the relationship is less stable. For this Impact Assessment it is assumed that this relation in the EU12 will be stabilised by 2020. 
For this IA, it is assumed that the mark et for electronic goods in the EU12, will be 
saturated as well by 2020.  
Environmental impacts
 
The environmental impacts depend on the actual level of the collection target (see option 
4) and are not directly linke d to the methodology used for ca lculating the target. At a 
reasonably high target, environmental benefits would likely increase in comparison to the 
present situation.  
Economic impacts  
The proposed methodology for the calculation of the collection target requires information 
on the amounts of EEE put on the national ma rkets. As the current Directive already 
requires this data to be monitored and reported (cfr. COM decision 2005/369/EC), no 
additional administrative costs are expected.  
Social impacts  
No particular social impacts are expected except potentially slightly increased employment 
possibilities in the e-waste sector.  
4.3. Sensitivity of the analysis to changes in estimates of the collection rate and 
relationship of EEE put on market to WEEE arising 
If the estimate of the 'do nothing' baseline co llection rate is wrong co mpared to the levels 
of collection that would actually happen in prac tice, the benefits and costs of an 85% target 
change, but not very significantly. If in pr actice the proportion that would have been 
collected was lower than 85% (i e. there was more WEEE in mixed waste,), the 85% target 
would increase separation of WE EE from municipal waste str eams. This would bring some 
extra costs/tonne from the difficulty of obtai ning this separation, but would bring greater 
environmental benefits per tonne: avoiding dum ping and landfill and recovering materials 
has high environmental benefit. Current collection practices indicate that 85% of WEEE arising (by weight) can be sepa rately collected wit hout the need for expensive processes to 
sort WEEE from domestic waste. Above th is figure costs/tonne rise faster. 
 
EN 69   EN If the 85% estimated collection is an underestimate, (so the target is set below actual 
collection), there is a greater  likelihood of treatment practic e diverging from the existing 
legal requirements of the Directive. As alread y discussed for the present situation (target 
significantly below actual collection) enforcem ent of the Directive would become more 
expensive and the prices needed to bring WEEE  out of the grey mark et would be likely to 
be higher. 
If the relationship between W EEE arising and EEE put on the market is lower or higher 
than the 80% estimated, simila r effects to those mentioned above would occur. If the 
relationship is lower (e.g WEEE arises at levels equal to 77% of the EEE sold in any year), 
having a collection target base d on 85% of 80% would mean an effectively higher than 
85% target as a % of WEEE arising. The opposite holds if the WEEE/EEE relationship 
differs in the other direction.  
The impacts of having a higher than 85% effect ive target would be to bring about more 
separate collection of WEEE. Th is would bring extra collecti on and treatment costs – with 
those treatment costs being pr oportionally higher, as sma ller WEEE would need to be 
collected, but also more significant envir onmental benefits, as described above.  
To take into account a possible decrease in the proportion of WEEE arising, compared to 
EEE put on the market, the target set as a pr oportion of WEEE put on the market could be 
set at 65% - calculated as 85% of  77% of EEE sold in any year.  
 
EN 70   EN Overview of costs and benefits of the different options 
Option No change Greater Enforcement 85% Collection 
Targets 60% Collection 
Targets + Specific 
Targets 
Landfill and Illegal Disposal 11 11 11 11 
Treatment in line with Directive 54 59 85 60 Destinations 
(% WEEE) 
Improper Treatment 35 30 4 29 
Gross Total Costs (€) 5.6bn + enforcement 6bn – 6.3 + basic 
enforcement 6.8bn + basic 
enforcement 6.5 - 6.8bn + basic 
enforcement 
Collection & transport 1.8bn 1.8bn 1.8bn 1.8bn 
Additional costs 0.9bn 0.9bn 1.1bn 1.1bn 
Basic Treatment 1.3bn 1.3bn 1.3bn 1.3bn 
Additional Treatment to meet 
legal standards 1.6bn 1.8bn 2.6bn 2.2bn ANNUAL COSTS 
Enforcement Costs Not known to 
Commission Increase estimated 
between 0.2 - 0.5bn No increase An increase, perhaps 
0.1 - 0.3bn               
Value of Material 
Recovered (€)  2.2bn   2.2bn 2.2bn  2.2bn ANNUAL 
BENEFITS Environmental 
Damage General Baseline: Ozone 
depletion from 6720 
tonnes of ODS released. 
Climate Damage of Some reduction of 
climate damage 
possible; not 
quantifiable  Dependent on entry 
date of targets: Climate 
Damage reduced by 
€2bn-0.2bn/yr. Ozone 
depletion reduced by Dependent on entry 
date of targets: 
Climate Damage 
reduced by €2bn-
0.2bn/yr. Ozone 
 
EN 71   EN €1bn 12000-1200 tonnes. depletion reduced by 
12000-1200 tonnes. 
In or out EU Assumed 4,3 million 
tonnes treated 
improperly in our outside 
the EU Assumed 3,7 million 
tonnes treated 
improperly in our 
outside the EU Assumed 0,5 million 
tonnes treated 
improperly in our 
outside the EU Assumed 3,5 million 
tonnes treated 
improperly in our 
outside the EU 
Innovation and Export Markets Little additional stimulus 
for development of 
sorting and recycling 
technologies Small stimulus for 
technology 
development in a 
growing global market Significant stimulus for 
technology 
development in a 
growing global market Some stimulus for 
technology 
development in a 
growing global market 
EU Employment Baseline: Estimated 
number of jobs in EU 
treating WEEE about 
several ten thousands Small increase in EU 
manual work, with 
estimated waste 
industry revenue 
increase €0.1bn  Greater EU high tech 
and manual work, 
estimated waste 
industry revenue 
increase €0.6bn Higher EU high tech 
and manual work, 
estimated waste 
industry revenue 
increase €0.4bn 
 
EN 72   EN 4.4. Comparison of Options to improve Effectiveness 
Stronger Enforcement and/or Highe r Targets to achieve the objectives? 
It is assumed that the Directive's existin g requirements for prope r treatment of all 
separately collected WEEE have not been eff ective due to: the high material value of 
WEEE (which makes informal collection and tr ade of WEEE profitable) and the additional 
costs of treatment in line with the Directive’s requirements (which provide an incentive for 
improper treatment). 
Efforts to increase enforcement of treatmen t and shipment of WEEE (Options 2 and 3) 
appear unlikely to be sufficiently efficient or effective to improve management of WEEE 
in line with the Directive. Both actions woul d provide increased disincentive to improperly 
treat WEEE but given the assumed volume of  separately collected WEEE which is not 
properly reported and treated, Me mber States would need to dedicate very high levels of 
resources to this to make improper treatment unattractive. The costs of those enforcement 
resources would be a significant additional cost for society.  
Setting targets at the estimated current level of all separate WEEE collection (Option 4) – 
85% of WEEE arising - would achieve that level of collection more effectively, and 
without these additional enforcement cost s. Under higher collection targets, to 
transparently meet their obligation to treat all separately collected WEEE, producers would 
need to offer sufficient incentives for organi sations separately collecting WEEE to deliver 
that WEEE to proper treatment. For exampl e, the producer would have to offer an 
incentive that was sufficiently attractive compared to the price that an unauthorised recycler would pay in the grey  market to receive WEEE.  
In this situation, the level of collection activity (both fo rmal and informal) would not 
change but the destination of informally collected and traded WEEE would change. With no changes to the extent of WEEE collection ac tivity, the costs to society from collection 
would not change in this opti on, compared to the baseline. The producer would continue to 
have to pay for the costs of the additional processes required during recycling to avoid environmental damage, but would now pay these for all separately collected WEEE, as the 
Directive intended.  
Whilst the two possibilities have not been set out against each other in the stakeholder 
consultation, there was certainly support from stakeholders for having better enforcement, 
in particular when it concer ns the shipments of WEEE. 
Setting the level and type of Target 
The Impact Assessment has shown evidence to assume that already 85% of arising WEEE 
is being separately collected, although not all is reported. The separately collected 85% of 
WEEE arising includes nearly al l the large and medium size WEEE which is economic to 
collect. Data suggest that collection costs pe r unit collected remain  the same, certainly 
between 25 to 85% of WEEE arising.  
Setting targets (in Option 4) above the leve l of WEEE already be ing collected would 
require further separation of small WEEE from  mixed waste. This would bring greater 
 
EN 73   EN environmental benefits – both from recovering materials from landfill and particularly for 
some streams (see below), but would be mo re expensive per tonne to collect.  
Setting targets significantly below the leve l of WEEE already being collected would 
diverge from the existing intention of the Di rective and would make enforcement activities 
more costly, as greater amount s of WEEE would stil l be collected in the grey-economy.  
To meet objectives, collection targets would be st be set at the level of WEEE which is 
estimated to actually being co llected already (85%  of WEEE arising). At this level, 
significant proportions of small WEEE, includ ing compact fluorescent lamps, which is 
currently estimated to be lost in unsorted dom estic collection would be at risk of going to 
unsorted waste. 
Bringing about proper treatment of all sepa rately collected WEEE would make the 
Directive effective at bringing about treatme nt and recycling of nearly all large and 
medium sized WEEE. This brings added co sts from increased amounts of WEEE being 
treated in accordance with high environmental standards: costs are estimated to be around 
€1bn per year on top of the costs of €5.6bn per year for (gross) collection, disposal and 
treatment, if no further action is taken. 
As the type of WEEE being treated will not change, only th e amounts, treatment costs per 
unit will either remain the same, or reduce wi th economies of scale. The existing formal 
and informal collection infrastructure would not need to be expanded. This means that 
setting an 85% target does not decrease the co st-effectiveness of collection and treatment, 
but may (possibly) reduce the costs per unit for achieving environmental benefit from the 
Directive.  
In Option 5, the fractions of  WEEE with greatest potential for environmental harm, like 
cooling and freezing equipment, would be co llected and so would receive (expensive) 
treatment. In this situation, remaining specifi c climate and ozone layer harm from cooling 
and freezing equipment could be largely avoi ded by setting a 100% collection target of 
waste arising for these equipment types. 
Compared to Option 4, Option 5 has the advantag e that proportions of certain streams of 
WEEE which are less environmentally damagi ng, would not need to be collected and 
formally reported. Particularly for some of  the large household appliances, there are no 
great additional costs for recycling and trea tment that avoids environmental harm. For 
these streams a proportion of th e organisational costs woul d be saved in the formal 
economy. Compared to Option 5, th is option would have the benefits (and costs) of pulling 
greater proportions of some of the mo re hazardous, but light WEEE (like compact 
fluorescent lamps) out of the domestic waste stream. 
Option 5 would be less effective at avoidi ng waste treatment unde r bad conditions in 
developing countries, with a significant propor tion of the 29% of all WEEE arising not 
being treated under the collecti on target likely to go for i llegal treatment. The illegal 
shipment of waste could be reduced through  greater enforcement, but with a large 
proportion of WEEE outside producer  targets, the grey trade in  WEEE would be likely to 
be significant, making enforcement more co stly and less effective than in Option 4. 
Stakeholders, in general, rather linked the c ontrol on the hazardous substances in WEEE to 
sound treatment of the equipment than to an  environmental weight based target. As 
 
EN 74   EN concerns the level of the ta rget, very few expressed a de sired level. The recycling 
industries would welcome a rate of no less than 65% in function of amounts put on the 
market . 
Both Options for target setting would includ e waste from EEE sold to businesses in the 
collection target. This was previously covered separately in the Directive from domestic consumer waste as it was historically already separately collected rather than going to landfill or illegal dumping. Now both are typica lly collected, including both streams into 
one target will avoid problems of free-riding from 'dual-use' waste having its treatment 
paid for by domestic consumers (see below). 
Setting the Date for the Target to apply 
The Commission proposes to set the re vised targets for the end of 2016.  
One of the greatest environmental problems fr om improper treatment of WEEE in the grey 
market is the release of CFCs and HCFCs fr om fridges, with average monetized climate 
damage of the magnitude of €1bn/yr in 2011 declining annually to  lower levels by 2020 
and very significant ozone-depletion effects. As these are only contained in cooling and 
freezing equipment sold before 2002, the numb er of CFC/HCFC fridges in WEEE is 
declining each year, and is expected to be small after 2020.  
Therefore, different dates for the entry into forc e of targets will have significantly different 
effects on the climate and ozone  depletion benefits realised  by the revised Directive. 
Targets brought into force at the end of 2016 may save something around €0.5bn in the 
first year declining to low levels by 2020, depending on the rate at which CFC/HCFC 
equipment comes back. Targets closer to 2011 would save €1bn of climate damage annually, with intermediate years saving something in-between. 
So, in addition to targets coming into for ce in 2016, the Commission proposes to consider 
by 2012 the appropriateness of a separate target  for cooling and freezing equipment, to 
drive proper treatment of all cooling and fr eezing equipment which is being separately 
collected (whether formally or informally).  
The revised Directive may be adopted by Council and the Eu ropean Parliament in 2011 
and then transposed into law in the Member States. With the collection infrastructure (including informal collection)  already in place for coolin g and freezing equipment, the 
change needed to properly treat  all separately collected WEEE in line with the Directive is 
the addition of sufficient treatment capacity.  
A suitable treatment plant normally takes aroun d 1 year to build an d bring to operation. 
Costs of installing new treatment capacity ar e not likely to reduce with greater time.  
Incidence of Costs and Combining Targets with Greater Enforcement 
Under Option 4, producers are expected to take steps to secure the WEEE needed to meet 
their obligation to treat all sepa rately collected WEEE. This w ill incur costs, but these costs 
are estimated to be more than offset by the recycling value of the materials in the WEEE 
that they receive. For example, to di vert WEEE from unauthorised treatment, the maximum  
cost a producer would need to offer w ould be around the value of the WEEE to the 
 
EN 75   EN unauthorised recycler. This price is the profit that can be made from recycling the WEEE 
(under sub-standard conditions) - the material value in the WEEE minus the recycling cost.  
Whilst the producer would pay th is cost, they would then r ecover the (higher) material 
value of the WEEE from the recy cling – and so are likely not to have any net costs from 
obtaining WEEE. In practice, it is likely that pr oducers would be able to acquire substantial 
proportions of WEEE for less than  the net material value: by receiving it di rectly from 
municipalities or distributors at  less than market value. This value can be used towards the 
producers' other obligations. 
Combining greater enforcement (Opts 2&3) wi th higher collection targets would increase 
the risks for unauthorised treatment, making th at financially less attractive and helping 
producers secure WEEE with lower incentives.  However, the enforcement activity would 
have a cost. 
Option 4 includes harmonizing the requirement for producers to have financial 
responsibility for collection of WEEE from  households. These collection costs would 
move costs estimated to be in the region of  €0.3bn/year from taxpayers – but are lower 
than the material value of  the WEEE collected and passe d on by public authorities, 
estimated at €1bn. Harmonizing this requirement  would avoid any possible distortions in 
the single market from national arrangement s on financing which might favour domestic 
producers. 
Producers would be responsible for paying the additional costs of proper treatment. (These 
represent revenues for treatm ent operators.) As EEE is a competitive market and all 
competing products would be equally affecte d, the costs paid by producers are assumed to 
be passed on to purchasers of new EEE in pur chase prices. As the increases in purchase 
price from additional WEEE costs are likely to be very small (less than €1) on a appliance costing €150-450, sales of appliances are also not thought to be affected, with no reduction 
of the shareholder value of producers.  
How to set Targets in tonnes 
Collection targets set as a % of  WEEE arising also need to be  determined in physical units 
for monitoring. Targets are currently set by reference to kg/inhabitant. For the EU15 
Member States (who have a mainly saturated ma rket for electronic goods) there is a stable 
relationship between the electronic goods put on the market in one year and the WEEE 
arising in that market in th e following year (even though this is not the same equipment): 
levels of WEEE are about 80% of th e EEE sold in the previous year.  
A collection target of 85% of WEEE arising would be set as a target of about 65% of EEE 
sold in the previous year: (85% of 80% of EEE sold but allowing for a conservative 
estimate of the relationship be tween EEE and WEEE arising.  
This approach has the disadvantage that, wh ere the relationship between EEE put on the 
market and WEEE arising is not stable, ther e is greater uncertainty on the correlation 
between WEEE actually arising and the target. It can be assumed that the EU12 markets 
are less saturated and signifi cantly less WEEE arises compared to the amounts bought, and 
the relationship is less stable. For this Impact Assessment it is assumed that this relation in the EU12 will be stabilised by 2020. 
 
EN 76   EN In the stakeholder consultati on there was rather support for this option, th e option of a 
fixed target not being suppor ted as it does not reflect enough the variations between 
Member States and is unresponsive to incr eases in WEEE volumes. Additionally, most 
stakeholders also expressed th eir support to keep the mandato ry character of a collection 
target. 
 
EN 77   EN 5. OPTIONS TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE DIRECTIVE  
5.1. Description of the Options 
To improve the efficiency of the WEEE Di rective, the following options have been 
assessed. 
Other than the "no action opti on", the options can be combin ed except for options 2 and 3 
which are alternatives, and options 5 and 6 which are alternatives:  
(1) No action (business as usual scenario) 
(2) Clarifying the scope by using a fixed list of products: Under th is option, two lists 
would be developed, one defining products  falling under the scope (positive list), 
the other defining those products falling outside the scope (negative list). These 
lists would replace the existing list of pr oducts that fall under the different product 
categories in Annex IB of the WEEE Th e Commission would be given a mandate 
to update these lists through the Comitol ogy process and would be likely to do so 
annually. 
(3) Defining the scope under the RoHS Directive:  This option would bring the detailed 
scope of the Directives (Annex IA of the WEEE Dir ective) into the RoHS 
Directive, under Article 95 of the EC Treaty. The WEEE Directive would refer to 
this scope, but the WEEE scope would re main under Article 175 of the EC Treaty. 
Member States would be obliged to publis h the list of products falling under the 
scope of the Directive at national level. 
(4) Classifying categories of e quipment as WEEE from private household or B2B: The 
legal text of the Directive would be cha nged to provide clarity on which categories 
of equipment would be defined as be ing WEEE from households (B2C) or as 
WEEE from users other than households (B2B) by classifying Categories 1-7 and 
B2C and Categories 8-10 and B2B.  
(5) Introduction of legal requirements for in ter-operability between Member State 
registers and harmonisation of definitions and reporting standards. This would be 
operated by Member States. 
(6) The establishment of a harmonised EU regi ster of producers which will serve as 
framework for information exchange and tr ansfer of obligations. This would be 
operated by an EU body. This option incl udes harmonisation of definitions and 
reporting standards.  
(7) Include the reuse of whole appliances in  the components, material and substance 
reuse and recycling target s, increased with 5%, 
(8) Include a recycling and recove ry target for category 8 equipment (medical devices) 
similar to the target for category 9 equi pment (control and monitoring equipment);  
 
EN 78   EN 5.2. Analysis of impacts  
5.2.1.  Option (1): No action 
Environmental impacts  
If no action would be taken, divergent national interpretations would persist and there is a 
risk that some products would not be cove red by the national implementation laws. These 
products would not need to comply with the requirements of the WEEE and RoHS 
Directives. Fewer compliant products would ha ve negative environmental impacts as, for 
example, these products could continue to us e the hazardous substa nces prohibited by the 
RoHS Directive and could not need  to be collected and recycled. 
Indirectly, problems with the f unctionality of the national regi sters across the EU may be 
hindering efforts to detect free riders and contribute to a better enforcement of the 
requirements of the WEEE Directive.  
Economic impacts  
Lack of clarity of the scope can lead to the absence of Extended Producer Responsibility 
contributions for some of these products in so me Member States. This would continue to 
cause imbalances in the level play ing field between stakeholders.  
The unclarity whether a product covered by the scope would be classified as B2B or B2C 
products would result in a continuing risk of distortion of the market and existence of free-
riders by those who declare their goods as B2 B and who therefore do not have to place a 
financial guarantee. This is especially affecting dual use pr oducts which are declared as 
B2B product but end up in the B2C scheme. In this case the cost for the collection and treatment of the appliances is paid by the producers that declared B2C appliances. Escaped 
financial guarantees can be in the order of magnitude of seve ral ten thousands of euros for 
an individual producer This problem of dual use products is the most relevant for the 
categories of IT and communication equipment and consumer equipment, which represent 
more than 20% of EEE placed on the market.  
The lack of harmonisation between the requirements of national producer registers will 
continue causing administrative burden, in particular for actors that have business in 
several Member States. 
The information flow will remain incomplete, further leading to sub-optimal enforcement 
possibilities. 
Social impacts
 
If certain products which should be covered by the scope, would be excluded from the 
scope at national level, the requirements of the Directives (restriction on the use of hazardous substance, collection and recyclin g) would not apply which could lead to 
negative social impacts, ie on human health.  
As regards the lack for harmonisation of the registration requirements, social impacts may 
result from discouragement of small companie s to act on several Member States markets. 
 
EN 79   EN 5.2.2.  Option (2): Clarifying the scope by  using fixed lists of products 
Environmental impacts  
This option can lead to environmental improve ments as it clarifies largely which products 
need to meet the product requirements, need to  be collected and recycl ed and treated and to 
what degree. This would contribute to furthe r meeting the environmental objectives of the 
Directives. 
Economic impacts  
This option clarifies producer responsibility, reduces administ rative burden for the industry 
and provides for a level of pl aying field across the Member States. Having a concrete list 
of products updated would lower the admini strative burden for Member States as 
requirements of the Directive would become clearer.  
Social impacts  
Social impacts could be linked to simplifie d operation across Member States, notably for 
small businesses.  
5.2.3.  Option (3): Defining the scope  under the RoHS Directive 
Environmental impacts  
This option would lead to more  clarity, therefore it can be expected that more products 
would need to comply with the requirements of the Directives. This would have positive environmental impacts: more products would be  collected and recycl ed and more products 
would need to be RoHS compliant.  
Economic impacts
 
Having a fixed product scope under the RoHS Dir ective would also provide a level playing 
field for producers, it would further reduce un certainty and would have positive impacts on 
administrative burden.  
Social impacts  
Social impacts could be linked to improved le gal security and ther eby simplified operation 
across Member States, notably for small businesses. 
5.2.4.  Option (4): Classifying categories of equipment 
Economic impacts  
Classifying categories of equipment as WEEE  from private households or B2B would be 
an important step to clarify the application of the Directive. Where the division between 
B2B and B2C products is not this clear, the products should be categorised as B2C 
products unless otherwise prove n. This would make the di vision between WEEE from 
private households and B2B clear  and would provide legal certa inty on what requirements 
producers need to fulfil with regard to financ ing and reporting and provide level of playing 
field for them by reducing the options for free riding.  
 
EN 80   EN The economic impacts of this option depend on the classification. For equipment that 
would be classified as B2B, no longer financ ial guarantees need to be set. For equipment 
that would be classified as B2C, producers will be not unfairly bur dened by free-riders. 
Environmental impacts  
Clarifying which category applies would in particular have an  effect on dual use products 
constituting at least 20% of the WEEE arising. This w ould have positive environmental 
impacts as circumvention of the Directive' s requirements would be reduced and dual use 
products would thus be financed, ap propriately treated and recycled. 
Social impacts  
No particular social impacts are relevant to this option. 
5.2.5.  Option (5): Inter-operability of national  registers and harmonisation of reporting 
requirements 
Economic impacts  
This option would have a si gnificant impact in reducing unnecessary administrative 
burden. The current registration and reporting re quirements are laid down in Article 12 of 
the WEEE Directive. Total administrative cost s of registration are estimated to be €14 
million per year (assuming that there are 4.000 new producers each year who are assumed 
to register in the EU 27 on an average of 14 Me mber States at a estimated registration cost 
of €250 per registration).. As producers normally  would not register without this legal 
provision, the administrative burden caused by this  provision is regarded the same as the 
administrative costs.  
Article 12 (1) also requires Member States to collect information, including substantiated 
estimates on an annual basis on the quantitie s and categories of EEE put on their market, 
collected through all routes, reused, recycled and recovered within th e Member States, and 
on collected waste exported, by weight or by numbers. Whether this requirement would 
impose any information obligation on companies would depend on the national methodology used to collect this data. The WEEE Directive for example also allows 
Member States to use substantiated estimates  for this data collection. The draft study on 
the reduction of administrativ e burden reports that Memb er States use different 
measurement methods which are often due to national requirements that go beyond the EU 
information obligation. In practice,  it is expected that all Memb er States will request this 
data from producers and treatment operators. In  such cases, it is expected that the 
companies concerned already have this data readily available as part of the normal 
business operations. If Member States when  implementing the Directive would require 
companies to transfer this existing data to th em, this could lead to some administrative 
cost. This administrative cost is estimated at about € 57 million per year (with an estimated 40000 producers reporting on an average in 14 Member States) and 10,000 authorised 
treatment facilities in the EU, working for an average of 4 hours at the average EU salary 
of €25/hour). The administrative burden is linked to the 13 times reporting for producers 
and is then estimated at €52M.  
Article 12 (1) also requires distance sell ers to provide information on their compliance 
with the financial producer responsibility ob ligations and to report on quantities of EEE 
 
EN 81   EN put on the market of the MS of the purchaser . This requirement is needed to monitor 
compliance with the producer responsibility obligations for distance sellers and to ensure a level playing field between producers irrespective of their selling technique. The 
information on the quantities of EEE put on the market is regarded as information which is 
already available and thus not  induced by the lega l provision. This wo uld thus not cause 
any administrative burden. The administrative cost are estimated at € 0.04 million per year 
(under the assumptions that that there are 400 distance sellers in the EU and the 
information requirement takes 4 hours per year at an average EU sala ry of €25 per hour). 
The administrative costs, linked to the regi stration requirement are estimated at € 1,4 
million (under the following assumptions: 40 0 distance sellers, selling via distance 
communication in an average of 14 Member  States at an average of €250 per 
registration).In total it ha s an administrative cost of 1,44M€ whereas the total 
administrative burden is 1,4M€.  
Under this option, the registration requirement s would be harmonised, leading to only one 
registration per producer valid fo r the entire EU. In order to reduce the administrative costs 
related to the information gathering exercise of Article 12 (1), this option would give the 
Commission the mandate to harmonise the measurement methods through a comitology 
procedure. This would resolve the reported difficulties of the current situation that Member 
States use different measurement methods. Under the above-mentioned assumptions both 
measures would lead to cutting costs with up to a factor 14 or a re duction of administrative 
burden of up to €66,4 million per year.  
Cost impacts have been calcula ted also by Ökopol on basis of costs associated with various 
electronic databases associated with regulatory measures. In their calc ulation, it is assumed 
that the set-up costs of a formalised network of national bodies occurs  only once and that 
costs for operating the network as well as the EU clearing house that ha s to deal with the 
transfer of money and of oblig ations on top of this network,  are spread over 12 years.  
Due to reduced registration at Member Stat e level, reduced regi stration renewals and 
reduced reporting for industry, co st savings can be realised. The annual costs and the total 
present values for national competent author ities and businesses be ing discounted at 4% 
over 12 years, indicate that this option coul d result in cost savings of €288 million to €410 
million over 12 years.  
It is therefore expected that this option has positive effects on intra-EU competition by 
providing a more level playing field amongst various stakeholders (particularly for 
distance selling) and aiding cross-border enforcement of the WEEE Directive.  
Detailed cost calculations as well as the factors identified as being crucial are further 
explained in Annex 13.  
Environmental impacts
 
No particular impacts are to be expected. Social impacts
 
No particular impacts are to be expected. 
 
EN 82   EN 5.2.6.  Option (6): EU operated register 
Economic impacts  
It is difficult to accurately assess the cost s associated with performing the necessary 
activities at an EU level to support a harmonised register, as  no exact model exists. As a 
proxy, comparisons have been made with the European Chemicals Agency. However, it 
can be assumed that the costs for national author ities and industry go in line with the costs 
under the EU clearing house.  
If it is assumed that the number of regist ered producers may double the operating costs of 
national authorities would also double, as these are assumed to be proportional to the 
number of registered producers. Under the cu rrent situation, these costs would reach €36.6 
million per year. However the current costs ar e associated with multiple registrations 
across the EU. With single registrations, the operating costs would be  reduced to between 
€1.1 million and €3.4 million per year across the EU-27 (with additional coordination staff 
costs of €1.2 million). The number of register ed producers would need to increase by at 
least a factor of 10 before the annual costs are comparable to those of an Agency, as discussed above (Ökopol 2007). 
If the costs of an EU harmonised Register are assumed to be similar to those for the 
European Chemicals Agency, it is therefore difficult to justify the additional costs of 
establishing an EU harmonised Register, eith er for all EEE producers or for those newly 
registering.  
Alternatively, it could be assumed that the ope rating cost of an EU Register would be no 
greater than the combined cost s of 27 national systems, as the workload would be similar, 
and would potentially be reduced due to effici ency savings. However, there would still be a 
need for staff at a Member State level, due to  the requirement for market surveillance. The 
costs of these staff may be similar as for the EU Clearing house. However, the EU register 
would still incur some development costs and would still make newly established national registers redundant.  
Environmental impacts
 
No particular impacts are to be expected. Social impacts
 
No particular impacts are to be expected. 
5.2.7.  Option (7): Include the reus e of whole appliances in th e components, material and 
substance reuse and recycling targets 
Environmental impacts  
In this option, the reuse fraction can contribut e to the targets, w ithout prejudicing how 
much need to be reused effectively per cate gory, this aspect being regulated by the market. 
Studies show that 5 to 10% of  collected equipment is found to be reusable. Therefore, 
under this option, including reuse of whole appliances in the targets, would be 
 
EN 83   EN accompanied with a 5% increase of the current re use/recycling targets in order to keep the 
same level of environmental ambition.  
This option would allow continued operation of  current re-use arrangements, but would 
remove disincentives for re-u se of whole appliances.  
The environmental benefits of reuse and repair  come from the delay/avoidance of products 
and their components to become (premature) waste, reduce their overall ecological impact 
and conserve valuable natural resources as it  diminishes the need for new products. It 
requires also less energy to reuse/ repair compared to recycling.  
However, older appliances tend to consum e more energy than new products – and 
continued use of old products where they woul d not have been used, or where they would 
have been replaced by newer products, will increa se energy use. With a 5% target increase, 
corresponding to what the market now allows (5 to 10%), there is low risk that the 
tradeoffs between reuse and repl acement would be distorted.  
Under this option, Member States would have to decide in practice which operation (reuse 
of whole appliances, co mponent/material/substance reuse or  recycling) would be the best 
in terms of environmental prot ection. Therefore, it is not possi ble to further quantify the 
environmental impacts thereof. 
Economic impacts  
There are no significant economic  impacts to be expected as this target setting combines 
both existing practices (and costs) of recycli ng/recovery of equipment and of the reuse of 
whole appliances.  
Social impacts  
It is expected that this option would lead to  more re-use of whole appliances which would 
supply cheaper appliances to th e poorest sector of society.  
Impacts on administrative burden  
The reuse of components and parts is already to  be reported together  with the recycling 
data. Monitoring and reporting th e reuse of whole appliances is not considered to be 
different, the more as Member St ates have already the possibility  to report on this reuse on 
a voluntary basis. Therefore, it is assumed th at there is no impact on administrative burden 
by this option.  
5.2.8.  Option (8): Include recycling and reco very targets for medical devices  
It is estimates that 32 000 tonnes of medical equipment is placed on the EU market yearly. 
It is difficult to define recovery, reuse a nd recycling targets for these equipments as 
technologies and sizes of the equipments di ffer. However, data collected on recycling 
percentages (UNU 2007) indicate th at the recovery and recycling rate of these appliances 
are very close to those of the monitoring and control instruments63. Therefore targets for 
                                                 
63 UNU (2007), section 10.3 
 
EN 84   EN these appliances are proposed under this option at the same level as targets for control and 
monitoring equipment.  
Environmental impacts  
Medical devices are currently excluded from the scope of the RoHS Directive64, therefore 
the use of hazardous substances in these equipm ents are not prevented at this date. It is 
estimated that medical devices  sold annually in the EU c ontain the following amounts of 
hazardous substances: 1160 tonnes lead, 1,8  tonnes cadmium, and approximately 20kg 
mercury. Setting a target for medical devices w ould entail environmental benefits, since it 
would reduce the risk of uncontrolled dis posal and it would save resources.  
Economic impacts  
The data collected on declared recycling percentages (UNU 2007) indicates that the 
proposed recovery, reuse and recycling targets are achievable not entailing excessive costs. 
The cost of collection and r ecycling of medical devices va ries depending on whether the 
appliance concerned is a small or a big applianc e, the technical cost related to recycling of 
medical equipments is estimated to va ry between 162 -304 euros per tonne.  
Social Impacts  
No direct impacts are expected.  Impacts on administrative burden
 
Reporting on the amounts of medical devices be ing treated is yet not  obligatory. Setting a 
target for medical devices would mean increased  reporting obligations with may lead to an 
increase in administrative burden for produ cers, depending on how Member States would 
implement this. As it concerns a category that represents only 0.3% of the total WEEE 
arising, it is assumed that the impact on administrative bur den on producers by this option 
is rather small.  
5.3. Comparison of Options to Improv e the Efficiency of the Directive 
Clarifying Scope and Categories 
Of the two options to provide greater clarity on the scope of and categorisation in the 
WEEE Directive, there is litt le difference between the impacts; both will provide greater 
legal precision on the scope and both would requ ire publication of lists,  either by Member 
States or the Commission of the products co nsidered within the scope. Neither option 
would resolve any new uncertain ties about new products which were not clearly inside or 
outside the scope.  
If there was any support expressed for using lis ts to clarify the scope, then stakeholders 
supported the idea of having a positive and a negative li st. Harmonising the scope under 
WEEE was supported rather than defining th e scope under RoHS, however, this would 
                                                 
64 However, when the medical devices are covered by the RoHS Directive, the environmental impact on the long 
term of setting a target, in particular for ensuring proper treatment, might be lower. See further the Impact 
Assessment on the review of the RoHS Directive. 
 
EN 85   EN require introducing a double le gal basis in the WEEE Directiv e whereas a similar effect 
can be reached by referring to the scope in RoHS, already targeting harmonisation of scope.  
The categorisation of certain categories of  products as business waste would avoid 
problems of 'dual use' waste, when where business equipment very similar to consumer equipment (like IT equipment) enters domes tic waste and its treatment paid for by 
producers of domestic equipment. This 'free-ridi ng' would be likely to be more common if 
greater volumes WEEE were formally collected.  
Cutting unnecessary administrative costs from Registration and Reporting 
Three options are considered to cut the unnecessary costs fr om duplication and differences 
in registration and reporting by producers. Ei ther the introduction of an EU Clearing House 
or single EU register would certainly provide the functions required for cutting the 
unnecessary costs: the single EU register would do so at much greater cost to the European 
Commission (and so taxpayer) with some bene fit from reduced costs of operations by 
Member States. Introduction of legal requirements for interoperability of Member State registers stands a good chance of achievi ng the same result for producers registration, 
avoids the need for extra resourcing for th e European Commission, but is unlikely to 
provide services for reconciling flows of funding for treatment between schemes with 
actual cross-border tr eatment of WEEE. 
Other changes 
Including reuse of whole applia nces in the existing reuse/recycling target would entail 
environmental benefits at most likely no cost , as the flexibility on the most sustainable 
treatment operation (reuse or recy cling) would remain. It would help avoiding that re-use is 
made unattractive by a need to meet higher r ecycling targets, even where it might be 
economically and socially more valuable. 
Setting targets for medical equipment (cat. 8) equipment to the level of those for 
monitoring equipment (cat. 9) will have re latively small impacts: for some Medical 
Equipment (perhaps 10,000 tonnes/year) sligh tly greater shares of  materials will be 
recovered. 
 
EN 86   EN 6. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
6.1. Indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives 
The core indicators for progre ss towards better environmen tal and health protection 
through separate collection and dedicate d treatment of WEEE along the lines 
recommended in this Impact Assessment are the following: 
(1) Extent to which administrative burdens are cut at the EU and Member States levels 
while at least maintainin g the present level of environmental protection. 
(2) The extent to which Member States and producers effectively achieve the aims set 
out in the WEEE Directive, includin g the abolishment of “free riding”. 
(3) The extent to which arising WEEE is collected separately and treated at the high 
environmental and health protection sta ndards required by the WEEE Directive and 
other relevant Community legislation.  
6.2. Outline for monitoring and evaluation arrangements 
Based on the monitoring and review of the progress made towards the set of objectives 
using the above mentioned indicators and othe r information requirements in Article 12 in 
the WEEE Directive the Commission will evalua te the results of this policy and report 
every three years to the Council and the European Parliament.  
These monitoring and evaluation exercises will  be based on reporting requirements of the 
Member States as defined in Article 12 of the WEEE Directive. The reporting is 
streamlined on the basis of a questionnaire that the Commission sends to the Member 
States. The content of this questionnaire is se t out through comitology procedure.  
The following issues will in particular be ad dressed in the setting up of the monitoring and 
evaluation arrangements: 
• focus the monitoring and reporting on the key data which are necessary to assess the 
extent to which the objectives of the legislation are being achieved; 
• continue to support Member States throughout th e introduction and implementation of 
the revised legislation. 
 
EN 87   EN 7. CONCLUSIONS  
During 2011-20 around 85% of the EU's WEEE by weight is predicted to be collected 
separately from domestic waste, but an estimated 4.3 tonnes, about 35%would not be 
treated in line with the Direct ive, despite existing legal requirements if no action is taken. 
It is likely that wiithin that 1/3 there woul d be higher proportions of the WEEE streams, 
like cooling and freezing equipment, which l ead to greatest environmental harm from 
improper treatment.  
This WEEE would escape proper treatment . A combination of produc er obligations and 
enforcement is needed to provide the set of incentives to bring WEEE to proper treatment 
and meet the objectives of the WEEE Directive.  
Large unnecessary costs from the current implementation of the WEEE Directive, 
particularly differences and duplicat ion in registration would continue. 
The Recommended Set of Options and the Impacts   
The analysis in this IA recommends adoption of a combination of options to improve the 
effectiveness and efficiency of achievement of the WEEE Directive's existing objectives. 
These options are described with th e key impacts in the table below: 
Recommended Policy Options  Key impacts (compared to baseline) 
To Improve Effectiveness  
Set collection targets for producers at 
levels close to the level of collection currently being undertaken, including B2B waste in those targets. 
 
Base these targets on levels of EEE put 
on the market in the preceding year, at 65% of EEE put on  market for all 
Member States 
 
Set minimum requirements for 
inspection and enforcement by Member States, with those requirements decided in Comitology - Additional treatme nt costs of €1bn 
per year, of which a significant but unknown proportion are increased revenues for EU treatment business.  
- These costs fall on producers who 
will most likely pass these on to consumers 
- Annual reduction of environmental 
harm to the atmosphere (of magnitude €1bn per yr), EU localities and to workers in developing countries from safer treatment of 4.3million tonnes of WEEE. 
- No additional revenues from material 
recycling – othe r than through 
greater innovation stimulated by greater investment in treatment technologies. 
 
EN 88   EN To improve efficiency   
Define the scope of the Directive in the 
RoHS Directive (based on Article 95 of Treaty) and Require Member States to publish the list of products within the national scope Increased, but not total, clarity on the scope of 
products, with the possibility for Member States to expand the scope in their territory. 
Require interoperability and data-transfer between Member State producer registers  - Cuts unnecessary costs paid by 
producers of €66.4million a year, by allowing one registration for all EU obligations, with harmonised requirements for reporting and processes, of which SME's will have the biggest proportional benefit. 
Include reuse of whole appliances in the target for recycling combined with reuse.  Removes disincentives for re-use of products, 
where that re-use is more economically valuable than recycling 
 
Set targets for medical equipment (cat. 8) 
equipment to the level of those for monitoring equipment (cat. 9)  Small: for some Medical Equipment (perhaps 
10,000 tonnes/year slightly greater shares of materials will be recovered. 
 
Compared to other possible opt ions, this set of options: 
– Is the most likely to stimulate proper tr eatment of all WEEE arising outside the 
domestic waste stream. 
– take into account uncertainty  in the estimations and un certainties about future: the 
option set remains the best option under chan ges to key assumptions: on metal prices, 
and the proportions of waste being dumped or  incinerated and treated properly in the 
baseline.  
– is expected to lead to additional benef its from innovation and exports, with greater 
investment in recycling technologies suppor ting technology firms in a fast growing 
export market where EU firms are often the global leaders, offering expansion of high-
tech jobs in this sector, in addition to re ducing costs and opening ne w material markets.  
– are predicted to increase jobs further in th e WEEE treatment and recovery sector in the 
EU – these are frequently manual jobs av ailable for lower skilled sectors of the 
workforce. Some stimulation of the reuse se ctor should also lead to more jobs for 
socially disadvantaged people and also to better access to cheaper second-hand 
consumer goods for the poorest sector of society.  
 
EN 89   EN Annex 1: Description of (research) studies  
The executive summaries of the major (research)  studies are available on a public website.  
1. Study contracted via DG JRC / IPTS to AEA Technology 
The objective of the study is to generate fu ll understanding of implementation of the 
WEEE Directive by the Member States and to obtain feedback on potential areas for 
revision. The review of the implementation of  the WEEE Directive in EU Member States 
on which this report is based has been undert aken for the European Commission (DG Joint 
Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies) by AEA Technology in 
association with the Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe.  
The report identifies and describes regulator y and management approaches considering 
WEEE at worldwide level. It outlines key trends and descri bes the main benefits and 
problems in the implementation of the WEEE Dir ective. It also identifies opportunities for 
harmonisation and improvement in the way the WEEE Directive is being implemented 
across Member States. 
This report is available at http://www.jrc.es/publi cations/pub.cfm?prs=1408 .  
2. Synthesis report of the information gather ing exercise by BIO Intelligence Services 
A consortium led by BIO Intelligence Service assisted the European Commission in the 
following tasks: 
• Management of information retrieval from stak eholders and other thir d-parties as a part 
of the WEEE Review. 
• Identification of further s ources of available information and collection of that 
information, and in case of a barrier, pe rsuade the stakeholders to share such 
information. 
• Cross-reference all existing available informati on with reference to a set of issues to be 
examined in the WEEE Review. 
• Identify the significant data ga ps and/or data conflict in existing available information. 
The consortium did not perform a detailed analys is of the extracted information; this was 
the task of the other research studies (see Error! Reference source not found. ). The 
exercise resulted in an assessment of about 132 references that were made available online 
together with a synthesis report. This repo rt provided the systematic overview of the 
content of these references whilst assessing th e possible overlaps, contradictions and gaps 
in the knowledge related to the information needed for the review. The result served as a 
direct input for the contractors of the research  studies and is available in the CIRCA page 
http://circa.europa.eu/Pub lic/irc/env/weee_2008/library . 
 
EN 90   EN 3. Study contracted to UNU with subcontractors.  
The objective of the study is to complete the information needed  to perform an analysis of 
options for the review of the Directive and to provide that analysis, in particular by giving 
a thorough evaluation of the impacts, efficacy and efficiency of the Directive from an 
environmental and economic, and as far as possi ble, a social perspect ive, by analysing the 
management (collection, treat ment) of different categories of WEEE. The information and 
analysis will be used as the main content of a future impact appraisal of options for review 
of the Directive.  
See http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/waste/weee/studies_en.htm   
As part of this study contract  an expert stakeholder work shop was organised on 15 March 
2007. The workshop was organised on a personal invitation basis and was a combination 
of presentations and working group discussions . The outcome of these discussions served 
the contractor in the drafting of the draft final report. The conclusions of the workshop are 
available together with the pr esentations in the CIRCA page 
http://circa.europa.eu/Pu blic/irc/env/weee_2008_ws/home .  
4. Study contracted to ÖKOPOL with subcontractors.  
The objective of the study is to give a thorough evaluation of the operation of the 
Directive's provisions relatin g to producer responsibilit y obligations of WEEE and 
consider options to improve the operation of those obligations in the EU. The study will 
give a full picture on how Members states have  transposed and implemented the producer 
responsibility obligations and th e producer definition of the Dir ective. It will examine the 
interaction between the systems set up by Memb er States and the impact on achievement 
of the Directive's objectives and on business. It will provide a thorough evaluation of the functioning of the register of producers that Member states shall draw up and options for 
its further improvement, development and simp lification. It will assess options to improve 
the achievement of the objectiv es of the Community environm ental policy (in particular 
the Directive itself) on WEEE, particularly the devel opment and simplification of the 
Directive in line with the Comm unication on better regulation. 
See also http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/waste/weee/studies_en.htm
  
5. Study contracted to ECOLAS with subcontractors.  
The objective of the study is to assess the impacts on innovation and competition of the 
WEEE requirements, identifying the factors and requirements that have a critical positive or negative impact and to compare the appr oach undertaken in the WEEE Directive with 
respect to other approaches undertaken in th e EU for different waste streams and outside 
the EU, identifying advantages  and disadvantages with regard to innovation and 
competition. Finally it will formulate proposals to revise the Directive with a view to 
improving its cost-effectiveness. The study ha s clearly included in its assessment the 
eventual impacts on SMEs. 
See also http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/waste/weee/studies_en.htm
  
 
EN 91   EN Annex 2: Environmentally relevant ma terials arising as waste (UNU Study,2007)  
Arising ton TOTAL WEEE [t] Cat 1a Cat 1b Cat 1c 2; 5a; 8 3a 3b 3c 4a 4b 4c 5b 6
Ag 0.31 0.00 0.13 0.09 118.77 19.60 0.00 2.08 11.29 1.65 12.73 2.24Au 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.11 4.90 0.55
Au 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.03 19.55 2.61 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Be 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.88 9.80 0.00 0.00 51.07 0.41 0.00 0.00
Br 0.00 0.00 9.15 5.85 366.22 58.81 0.17 0.00 213.41 12.68 0.00 0.00
Cd 0.00 0.00 10.30 37.25 51.96 17.97 23.15 6.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cl 0.00 0.00 10.87 7.18 2.47 169.89 0.21 0.00 0.00 2.35 0.00 0.00
Co 0.00 0.00 13.16 47.89 66.81 22.87 3.48 8.36 9.68 0.13 0.00 0.00
C
r 0.20 0.00 0.80 0.53 155.89 6.86 0.02 0.00 203.20 2.33 2.01 3.09
CRT-glass cone 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 149496.83 3685.90 0.00 0.00
CRT-glass screen 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 303562.97 7372.43 0.00 0.00
Cu 68201.40 33027.65 54694.57 128773.83 39343.88 69099.79 2903.34 737.68 38865.95 603.75 7587.25 4104.02 1 5
Epoxy 0.00 0.00 480.58 313.95 0.00 2809.73 9.37 0.00 3418.91 395.45 0.00 0.00 1
Fluorescent powder 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 3
Hg 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.37
Glass (LCD) 0.00 0.00 8.01 15.17 987.31 8.98 0.23 5.19 0.00 0.00 6069.80 0.00
Liquid Crystals 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mn 0.00 0.00 0.69 2.66 3.71 1.23 0.19 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ni 0.98 0.00 36.04 122.39 779.45 145.39 36.46 35.18 478.97 7.15 90.31 15.94
Oil 66.00 7067.50 531.50 1021.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Pb 29.46 0.00 28.61 18.62 262.29 357.75 0.57 2.25 822.47 15.36 57.27 60.27PCB 27.89 0.00 0.35 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Pd 0.04 0.00 0.08 0.05 7.42 0.47 0.00 0.02 0.26 0.04 1.00 0.17PVC 7503.73 827.41 1161.40 1436.73 2128.03 127.42 55.91 0.00 2806.09 65.29 2246.81 1255.11
Sb 1.77 0.00 1.66 1.09 47.01 39.21 0.03 0.00 162.34 3.58 3.92 3.54
Sn 1001.81 0.00 16.02 244.78 979.89 269.54 5.56 21.63 43.54 8.08 12.97 91.15Stainless steel 35632.87 34475.62 12929.89 18544.50 12743.46 27607.24 72.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2
Cyclopentane 0.00 1620.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Isobutaan 0.00 379.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CFC11 0.00 8446.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CFC12 0.00 3351.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Zn 301.33 0.00 33.76 125.05 987.31 529.27 5.70 9.80 1392.29 3.99 25.21 114.55
Total [t] 1,269,894 925,677 470,233 413,618 695,159 395,607 9,940 113,778 580,670 12,824 66,708 56,981
 
EN 92   EN Annex 3: Physical and financial responsibilities for collection  
Legal allocation of responsibilities for Collec tion of WEEE in EU Memb er States (Ökopol). 
Member State Physical Responsibility Financial Responsibility 
Austria D/M/P D/P 
Belgium (Brussels) D/M  D  
Bulgaria P P 
Cyprus P P 
Czech R. D/P D/P 
Denmark M M 
Estonia D/P D/P 
Finland D65/P P 
France D/M/P D/P 
Germany M M 
Greece P P 
Hungary P P 
Ireland D/M D//P 
Italy D/M D/M 
Latvia P P 
Lithuania66 D/M/P P 
Luxembourg D/M D/M 
Malta D/P D/P 
Netherlands D/M D/M 
Poland D D 
Portugal D/M/P D/P 
Romania M M 
Slovakia D/P D/P 
Slovenia D/M D/M 
Spain D/M P 
Sweden P P 
UK D/P D/P 
D = Distributor, M = Muni cipality, P = Producer  
(definition varies between na tional and European approach) 
                                                 
65 In the Waste Act Section 18h(2) it is stated that sellers of EEE shall accept  WEEE from private households if 
replaced by purchasing a similar product, or shall di rect the purchaser to another reception point  
66 Based on the legal text as well as other policy documents 
 
EN 93   EN Annex 4: Evolution of Collectio n Performance to meet targets  
Evidence from recorded compliance with existing coll ection targets in Member States indicates that 
producers have made greater progress in the years furt her before the target date than closer to that 
date. They appear to have a rath er logarithmic evolution whilst coming towards the target which is 
the heading towards the total amount of WEEE arising [(see dotted line on the graph down).]  
This is seen in schemes that existed before the entry into force of the WEEE Directive. For 
example, the collection targets for Belgium have increased in 5 years ti me from 45.000 tonnes in 
2003, representing about 4,5kg per inhabitant, to  81.000 tonnes in 2007 (see graph based on annual 
reports). At the same time, there was a rather fi rm stimulation for increased collection by the legal 
obligation in the tr ansposition law (8,5kg per inhabitant to be collected by 2007)67. The increase can 
be explained partly by the annual consumpti on (and hence waste) growth and by further 
implementation of the system. This most likely includes the integration of a fraction that was 
already been separately collected but that was not reported for.  
0100002000030000400005000060000700008000090000
12345Lamps
other
CRT
LHHA
C&F
 
Table: Belgian collection fi gures, 5 years after start-up 
                                                 
67 VLAREA art.3.5.3 (Vlaams reglemen t inzake afvalvoor koming and -beheer) 
 
EN 94   EN y = 22822Ln(x) + 43906
R2 = 0,9932
020000400006000080000100000120000
0 5 10 15 20
YearsTonnes collectedSeries1
Log. (Seri es1)
 
Table: behaviour of collection in f unction of time (example for Belgium) 
 
EN 95   EN Annex 5: Leaching of me tals of disposed WEEE  
Estimated leaching of metals from consumer electronics in a controlled landfill (BIO 2006) 
Element To soil To air To water 
Hg 0.0004% 0.0000% 0.0071%
Cd 0.0001% 0.0000% 0.0026%
As 0.0001% 0.0000% 0.0022%
Cr 0.0001% 0.0000% 0.0019%
Cu 0.0002% 0.0000% 0.0045%
Pb 0.0001% 0.0000% 0.0016%
Zn 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0006%
Cl 0.2933% 0.1035% 1.4373%
Ni 0.0002% 0.0000% 0.0040%
Estimated leakage of metals in MSW68 incineration of consum er electronics (BIO 2006) 
Element To 
flue gas To air To water 
Hg 93.0% 0.4420% 0.0011%
Cd 77.0% 0.0500% 0.0555%
As 29.0% 0.1000% 0.0002%
Se 68.0% 0.2000% 0.0000%
Cr 8.0% 0.0000% 0.0006%
Sb 36.0% 0.0000% 0.0000%
Cu 4.0% 0.0000% 0.0001%
Pb 32.8% 0.1988% 0.0011%
Zn 37.0% 0.2000% 0.0007%
Sn 33.0% 0.2000% 0.0037%
Ni 5.0% 0.0000% 0.0074%
                                                 
68 Municipal Solid Waste 
 
EN 96   EN Annex 6: Details on environmental impacts of WEEE  
General Impacts from materials in WEEE  
Ferrous metals 
Some 50% of WEEE by weight cons ists of ferrous metals, largel y steel. Collecting and recycling 
this material typically results in savings of 74% energy, 76% water pollu tion and 86% air pollution 
if compared to prim ary steel production.  
Precious Metals 
Precious metals, particularly gold, palladium, platinum  and silver are used as coatings on electrical 
contacts and connectors in EEEs. Absolute quanti ties are small compared to the overall weight. 
However recovery from WEEE contributes to  saving greenhouse gas emissions and primary 
resources as well as reducing environm ental impacts of primary production.  
Plastic 
Plastic recycling has also high theoretical poten tial of energy and pollu tion saving: - up to 80% 
compared to the primary production of plastic if ve ry pure streams of waste material are used as 
recycling feedstock. However, for many polymers, the current sorting proc esses for recycling can 
use as much energy as the creation of the polymer from raw materials69. Energy recovery from the 
plastic fraction of WEEE is a very advantageous  option in these cases, compared to landfill and 
incineration without energy recovery.  
Hazardous substances 
Numerous hazardous substances occur in WEEE as described in the section 2.2.3.1. 
Some Specific Environmental Impacts from WEEE Categories of EEE  
Climate related impacts 
- Cooling and Freezing Equipment 
Only the magnitude, rather than precise estim ates of the climate change damage from 
release of CFCs and HCFCs can be given. The flowing section s hows the assumptions 
used in reaching these magnitudes, and is based on the Bio-intelligence study and the UNU study: 
Cooling and freezing (C&F) appliances repres ent about 17.7% of the WEEE arising. Only 
27% of this is being reported  as collected and treated. The remaining 73% represent about 
1 million tonnes of C&F. At an average weight of 48kg, this suggests that up to 21 million  
C&F annually could by-pass proper treatmen t. Around 80% of these are estimated to 
contain Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) in  2008 with 0.4kg of CFCs in the refrigerant 
and insulating foam per appliance.  
                                                
 
69 See http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/weee_2008 /library?l=/recycling_techniques/ltu-lic-0536-
sepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d   
 
EN 97   EN By 2011, fewer C&F equipment returning in  the WEEE stream will have ODSs in. 
Assuming this level falls to 70% of the 2008 fi gure, this would be around 15m pieces of 
equipment, so 6000 tonnes of CFC. With av erage global warming potential (of CFC11 and 
CFC12 of 7500), this would e quate to 45m tonnes of CO2 equivalent. A monetary estimate 
of the damage cost of this release at €30/tonne CO2-equivalent amounts to €1.35 billion in 
2011. This is an order of magnitude of €1bn.  
The proportion of ODS containing C&F is expected to decline. Assuming that this reaches 
levels equivalent to 10% of the 2008 numbe rs in 2020, damage costs from the monetised 
GHG damage from released ODS would be in the order of€0.1bn by that year. 
The damage to the ozone layer from these releases can not be monetised, though the 
releases from old WEEE represent a signifi cant part of the EU's release of ODS.  
The proportion of ODS saved from release by proper treatment depends  on the stringency 
of the standards applied by treatment plants . Use of best practice makes a significant 
difference. Treatment standards in W EEE will be determined through comitology 
procedures for Annex II of the Directive. 
- Metals and precious metals from high grade circuit boards  
Printed circuit boards typi cally can be found in consumer equipments and IT and 
telecommunication equipments (categories 3 an d 4 of the WEEE Directive). They contain 
precious metals as well as a number of hazar dous substances, includi ng arsenic, antimony, 
beryllium, brominated flame retardants, cadmium, lead, etc. While 1 million tonnes of categories 3 and 4 are reported as collected an d assumed to be treate d appropriately, up to 
1,8 million tonnes could be disposed  of or treated inappropriately  inside or outside the EU, 
with the associated health and environmental impacts . 
- Plastic containing equipment 
It is estimated that 20-25% (1,6-2 million tonnes) of WEEE arising is composed of 
plastics. The plastic-dominated products are small household appliances, IT and 
telecommunication equipments, consumer electr onics, electrical and electronic tools and 
toys and leisure and sport equipments (UNU stud y). Recovery of material and energy from 
these categories would contribute to overa ll resources savings and reduction of CO2 
emissions due to energy savings in recycled plastics. 
Local Environmental impacts in the EU 
- Disposal 
When WEEE is disposed of in a landfill or  dumped, there is a risk that hazardous 
substances, for example mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium and PCBs leach into the soil and groundwater. Another concern is the vaporisation of mercury found in WEEE
70. 
There is still a risk of leaching of metals also  from controlled landfills, in case of mercury, 
cadmium, etc illustrated by the table in Annex 5. 
                                                 
70 Bio Intelligence Service, 2006 Section 8.1 
 
EN 98   EN - Incineration 
In case of incineration of WEEE for example cadmium, mercury, lead will be found in the 
bottom ashes and fly ashes that can thus contri bute to emissions of heavy metals into the 
air and reduces the quality an d potential use of fly ashes an d bottom-ashes (incineration 
residues)71. The incineration of brominated flame retardants and PVC leads to the 
generation of extremely toxic dioxins and fura ns. Copper acts as cataly st in this reaction. 
An example demonstrating the leakages of hea vy metals from the incineration of consumer 
electronic products can be found in the table in Annex 5.  
- Potential specific local environmenta l impacts of improperly managed WEEE 
(1) Lamps and LCD monitors & TV's  are of particular concern for terrestrial eco-toxicity and 
ecosystem quality, mainly because of thei r mercury content; similarly, battery packs 
because of their cadmium content; 
(2) Acidification which is mainly caused by IT and telecommunication equipments, excluding 
CRT and LCD monitors, because of the pres ence of precious metals and eutrophication 
mainly caused by LCD monitors and el ectrical and elec tronic tools.  
Environmental impacts of appliances 
The UNU study has calculated, using the Eco-indicator 99, the total e nvironmental impact per kg of 
average appliances of ea ch of the 10 WEEE categories for the scenario that the WEEE is collected 
and recycled instead of being disposed of togeth er with the municipal solid waste stream (MSW), 
i.e. either incinerated or disposed of in a landfill. 72 
                                                 
71 Extended Impact Assessment for the batteries Directive SEC(2003)1343 
72 An important assumption here is that for the full coll ection scenario, the values ar e based on the 2005 baseline 
impacts without taking  into account the changes in product and thus waste stream compositions as well as in 
development in recycling technologies applied. In particular the transition from CRT to flat panels displays 
and from CFC to HC based fridges will have an impact on the graph below. At present there is not enough data 
available to determine how this affects the waste str eam composition over time. Also, the possible effects of 
other pieces of Community legislation, such as REAC H and the EuP Directive have not been taken into 
account in these calculations. 
 
EN 99   EN 1.1E +07-1. 7E +07
4.2E +06-3.0E+07-3. 3E +07
-6. 5E +053.6E+053.8E+062.5E+06
LHHA C&F LHHA-small SHA IT ex CRT IT FDP CE ex CRT CE CRT CE FDP Lamps Tools Toys1.1E+074.2E+06-4.6E+07-5.5E+07-7.6E+07
-1.8E+06
-1.4E+07 -3.3E+07 -1.7E+07 -3.0E+07 -2.7E+073.6E+053.8E+062.5E+06-2.5E+06-7.7E+06 -6.6E+06
1.1E+07-5.7E+06-2.9E+07-1.1E+08 -1.1E+08
2.7E+07-1.2E+08
-1.0E+08
-8.0E+07
-6.0E+07
-4.0E+07
-2.0E+07
0.0E+00
2.0E+07
4.0E+07
6.0E+07
8.0E+07
1.0E+08↑ (in Pts avoided environmental impact)             Eco-Indicator'99 H/A weighted, total WEEE arising, 2005 (left bar) to 2011 (right bar)
↓ (in Pts environmental burden) ↓ 2.9E+09 !!!-6.5E+05-2.3E+051.1E +07-1. 7E +07
4.2E +06-3.0E+07-3. 3E +07
-6. 5E +053.6E+053.8E+062.5E+06
LHHA C&F LHHA-small SHA IT ex CRT IT FDP CE ex CRT CE CRT CE FDP Lamps Tools Toys1.1E+074.2E+06-4.6E+07-5.5E+07-7.6E+07
-1.8E+06
-1.4E+07 -3.3E+07 -1.7E+07 -3.0E+07 -2.7E+073.6E+053.8E+062.5E+06-2.5E+06-7.7E+06 -6.6E+06
1.1E+07-5.7E+06-2.9E+07-1.1E+08 -1.1E+08
2.7E+07-1.2E+08
-1.0E+08
-8.0E+07
-6.0E+07
-4.0E+07
-2.0E+07
0.0E+00
2.0E+07
4.0E+07
6.0E+07
8.0E+07
1.0E+08↑ (in Pts avoided environmental impact)             Eco-Indicator'99 H/A weighted, total WEEE arising, 2005 (left bar) to 2011 (right bar)
↓ (in Pts environmental burden) ↓ 2.9E+09 !!!-6.5E+05-2.3E+05
Figure 
Figure: Total environmental impact for 2005* compared to 2011** (EI99 H/A) 
* Current 2005 collection (left) ** Maximum collection 2011 full implementation (right) ] 
Environmental impact of illegal sh ipment of waste to third countries  
The impacts of WEEE treatment in third countries cannot be quantifie d due to lack of data. In any 
case they must be assumed to be much higher than  treatment of this waste would cause in the EU. 
The reason for this assumption lies in generally mu ch lower environmental and safety standards in 
the countries to which WEEE is exported from the EU. 
Some of the most severe cases of sub-standard  treatment of WEEE in developing countries are 
described for example in reports from the Basel Action Network (BAN)73 and Greenpeace74. BAN 
witnessed disposal of waste and treatment practices that result in intense emission of toxic 
pollutants to the environment as well as severe ex posure of humans to these substances. As many of 
these operations are unlawful, no statistics exist to quantify or monetise the impacts which are 
nevertheless considered to be severe.  
Environmental impact of reuse  
The environmental benefits of reuse  are very limited according to Rechberger (2006). He 
examined two extreme scenarios: one with no re use of products and anot her with reuse of all 
products giving between 50% and 10 0% product life extension. The st udy found that even intensive 
                                                 
73 Basel Action Network, "Exporting Harm" http://www.ban.org/E-waste /technotrashfinalcomp.pdf  and "Digital 
Dump" http://www.ban.org/BANreports/10-24-05/documents/TheDigitalDump_Print.pdf   
74 Greenpeace,: Poisoning th e poor, electronic waste in Ghana, August 2008 
 
EN 100   EN product reuse of EEE reduces total resource consumption (materia ls and energy) of a highly 
developed economy by less than 1%. This is furthe r substantiated by Rose  and Stevels (2001) 
which showed that the environmental benefits are very low compared to materials recycling 
 
EN 101   EN  
Annex 7: Background to the driver of differe nt implementation of the provisions on the 
producer registration/reporting:  
Member States have taken differe nt approaches with respect to: 
– who needs to register ; and  
– who needs to report and what needs to be reported. 
Who needs to register?  
From the wording in the Directive, it is clear that "the producer" has to register, but the term 
‘producer’ has been interpreted di fferently. 20 countries take a ‘n ational approach’, whereby the 
first importer of a product into a Member State is considered to  be the producer, if there is no 
manufacturer of that brand on the national market. In these Member States it is only legal entities 
that are based in the Member State where products are placed on the market that are entitled to 
register as the legally obligated producer. This cr eates a situation in certain Member States that 
brand manufacturers either have to  open a national seat, causing extr a costs, or that the burden is 
shifted to the first importer. 
3 other Member States follow a ‘European’ appro ach, where the producer mu st be present within 
the EU but does not have to ha ve a legal entity within the MS75.  
The 4 remaining Member States have either  an ambiguous or an undefined approach.  
A particular problem arises in case of distant selle rs as producers are defi ned irrespective of their 
selling technique76, and Member States have divergent inte rpretations. Workshops organised by the 
Member States have shown that these different appr oaches lead to the obligation for registration and 
reporting by distance sellers in  both home and buyers Member St ates or to no obligation for 
registration and reporting in either Member State.  
Distance sellers that  are based in Member  States where they must regi ster in countries where they 
sell products to end users and sell to end users in countri es that only allow nati onally based actors to 
be producers, cannot meet their producer respons ibility obligations, a nd are therefore unwilling 
free-riders (Ökopol 2007). There is little control whether producers are registered and have made 
their financial contributions is im portant in order to avoid free ri ding. VROM estimates that 15% of 
the WEEE stream is not co llected as a result  of free riders, i.e. produc ers or importers who sell 
electrical and electronic equipm ent but do not have, or live up to  their take back obligations 
regarding WEEE (ETC/RWM 2007).  
In half of the Member States, the PRO complian ce schemes can register their producers members, 
with some PRO's have the same functionality as the Member State registers. In the other half, 
                                                 
75 The three MS only apply a European approach in their ‘l egal’ definition of the producer. However, in practice, 
producers report what is placed on the market in these countries.  
76 Distance seller is not defined as such but rather the as the person who uses a selling technique by means of 
distance communication as defined in Directive 1997/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts, OJ L 144, 4.6.1997, p.19. 
 
EN 102   EN producers must register individually  regardless of their membership to a compliance scheme, which 
creates additional administrative burden. 
Who needs to report and wh at needs to be reported?  
Requirements for reporting of products put on the market vary e.g. with respect to: 
• the frequency of reporting, 
• the reporting formats; and 
• the data to be provided77.  
Furthermore, the functionality of the registers isn' t further defined and some require the producer as 
well to demonstrate compliance with the setting of  a financial guarantee. [As in most cases, the 
participation by the producer in an  appropriate scheme counts as a gu arantee, there is a direct link 
with producer responsib ility organisations.] 
Frequency of reporting 
Reporting of products put on the ma rket varies from monthly, quar terly bi-annually to annual 
reporting periods. Reporting should be frequent enough to deter uns crupulous producers that, for 
example, may be able to avoid reporting if only  present on the market for peak sales periods. 
Chosen reporting periods may also affect producer s in divergent ways due to certain seasonal 
variations in sales for ce rtain products which might affect when products are most often returned as 
WEEE. 
Reporting Formats Again due to the diversity of reporting format, when reporting the number of products placed on the 
market, national registers require divergent repor ting with respect to the categories of equipment 
that sales must be reported in. This causes increa sed administrative burden a nd cost, at least when 
initially setting up internal systems to deal varying reporting formats. 
Data to be provided: Lack of  common definition of weight 
Similar to the above arguments, there is a great  deal of divergence between Member States 
application of the definition of weight, which causes unnecessa ry administrative burden when 
putting products on the market. In certain cases, th e definition applied in Member States makes it 
impossible for legal producers to be able to gather th e data from the “bill of materials” they have to 
accurately report the weight of th e product. In this circumstance, when a new product is launched in 
the market, the producer must physically weigh th e product and relevant components in order to 
fulfil the weight definition in different Member States. This requires additional resource planning software and working time.  
Data to be provided: Defini tion of “put on the market”  
                                                
 
77 More details on the different national repor ting requirements are provided in Annex 8. 
 
EN 103   EN Member States have also taken di fferent approaches on which EEE sh ould be regarded as “put on 
their market” in cases of intra-Community trade.  Differences or ambiguities may cause confusion 
among producers on what sales should be reported in a Member State given that known subsequent 
intra-community trade will happen. In most Member States, it is when a financial transaction raising 
VAT occurs that theoretically produc ts are “put on the national mark et” and sales are required to be 
reported by the producer who placed those pr oducts on the market. Depending on whether the 
national register allows foreign pr oducers located in another Member  State to register or not, the 
producer may be one of several actors, manufacturer, distributor/wholesaler or even retailer. 
However, discussions with producers rev eals that most manufacturers and large 
wholesalers/distributors will not repo rt sales on the national market to the register  if they know that 
the client (which may be the legal producer in the Member State) will subsequently ship those 
products to another market. This makes sense from a producers’ perspective, as any sales reported 
to the national register will be used to calculate its market share.  
 
EN 104   EN  
Annex 8: Mapping of the administ rative burden of the WEEE Directive  
Provision Information obligation (IO)  Admin 
burden Admin 
cost 
Art. 12 (1) Member States to draw up a register of producers €14M €14M 
 Member States to collect in formation, including substantiated 
estimates on an annual basis on the quantities and categories 
of EEE put on their market, co llected through all routes, 
reused, recycled and recovered within the Member States, and on collected waste exporte d, by weight or by numbers €52M €57M 
 Member States to ensure that distance sellers provide 
information on their compliance with the financial producer responsibility obligations and on quantities of EEE put on the 
market of the MS of the purchaser. €1,4M €1,44M 
Art. 10 (1) 
and (4) Member States to ensure that use of EEE in private 
households are provided with necessary information. Member States may require that some of the information is provided 
by producers and/or distributors n/a IO 
occurs at national level n/a IO 
occurs at national level 
Art. 10 (3) Member States to ensu re that producers mark the EEE with 
crossed-out wheel bin €2M €2M 
Art. 11 (1) Member States to ensure that producers provide treatment 
information for each type of new EEE €0.75M €0.75M 
Art. 11 (2) Member States to ensure  that producer of EEE is identifiable 
by a mark on the appliances €0M €0M 
Art. 7 (3) 
 Member States to ensure that producers (or third parties 
acting on their behalf) keep records on the mass of WEEE, 
their components, materials or substances when entering (input) or leaving (output) the treatment facility and/or when 
entering (input) the recovery  or recycli ng facility €0M €1M 
Art. 6 (2) Member States to ensure that all treatment companies obtain 
a permit under the Waste Framework Directive. Member States to carry out inspecti ons in treatment facilities 
benefiting from a derogation of the permit requirement n/a n/a 
Art. 6 (6) 
 Exporter to proof that  the recovery, reus e and/or recycling 
operation took place under conditions equivalent to the requirements of this Directive n/a; IO 
occurs at national level n/a; IO 
occurs at national level 
 
EN 105   EN  
 
EN 106   EN Annex 9: Policy Coherence  
The objectives of the Directives are fully in line  with general Community strategies, including the 
Lisbon Strategy, the Sustainable Development St rategy, the Energy and Climate Package, the 6th 
Environmental Action Programme and its mid-term re view, Integrated Product Policy, the Thematic 
Strategies on the sustainable use of natural re sources and on waste preven tion and recycling, the 
'Marketing of Products' package and the Comm ission's recent lead market initiative. 
The review of the Directives is foreseen in  the Commission's simplif ication programme, with 
implements the Community Lisbon Programme .78 The review of the Directives should eliminate 
unnecessary barriers and burdens facing European business and society, in line with the "growth 
and jobs" strategy of the EU. 
Full implementation of the EU waste legislation acquis, including the WEEE and RoHS Directives 
in Europe would cont ribute to reducing CO 2 emissions and thus contribute to European climate 
reduction targets  agreed in Kyoto.79 . 
The substance ban, design requirements and waste management approach of  the RoHS and WEEE 
Directive contribute to the objective of Thema tic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Natural 
Resources80 which calls for lowering the overall environmental impact of  resource use in a growing 
economy. The RoHS Directive takes account of this by allowing exemptions from the substance ban where “substitution is technically or scient ifically impracticable or where the negative 
environmental health and/or consumer safety impacts caused by substation are likely to outweigh 
the environment, health and/or consumer safety benefits thereof”
81 and by requiring regular reviews 
of the substance bans in the light of scientific evidence82. The WEEE Directive responds to this by 
reducing the environmental and health impacts per un it of material used without restricting the use 
itself or limiting quantities. 
The WEEE and RoHS Directives also contribute to  the objectives of the Thematic Strategy on 
Waste Prevention and Recycling83 which calls for less waste being generated in terms of toxicity 
(“qualitative waste prevention”) and weight (“quantitative prevention” ), and for an optimization of 
recycling in view of overall en vironmental and health benefits. The substance ban of the RoHS 
Directive responds in particular  to the call for “ qualitative prev ention”. The WEEE Directive 
responds to the aim of optimized  re-use, recycling, and other recovery at a high level of 
environmental and health protection, giving pla nning security to economic actors through binding 
collection targets and harmonized standards for waste treatment. 
In line with the Integrated Product Policy  approach84, the RoHS Directive introduces life-cycle 
considerations as an essential criterion for granting exemptions.85 The WEEE Directive seeks to 
                                                 
78 The objective of the simplification ex ercise is to contribute to a European  regulatory framework of the highest 
standards in respect of the principle of subsidiary  and proportionality. Simplification intends to make 
legislation less burdensome, easier to apply and thereb y more effective in achieving its goals. Following on 
these principles, a regulatory action should not be beyond what is necessary  to achieve the policy objectives 
pursued, needs to be cost-efficient, and should take the lightest form of regulation called for. 
79 Prognos study, May 2008, http://www.progn os.com/Singleview.306+M5c828d79ff6.0.html. 
80 http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/natres/index.htm  
81 RoHS Article 5 
82 RoHS Article6? 
83 http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/strategy.htm   
84 Reference IPP 
 
EN 107   EN improve the environmental performance of all operat ors involved in the life-cycle of electrical and 
electronic equipment, e.g. distributors and consumers and treatment operators. 
WEEE and RoHS contribute to th e objectives established by the 6th Environmental Action 
Programme86 and its mid-term review87, which call, inter alia , for a significant reduction in the 
quantity of waste going to disposal and the volumes  of hazardous waste produced while avoiding an 
increase of emissions to air, water. Moreover, the RoHS Directive explic itly refers to the Sixth 
Environment Action Programme with respect to fu ture decisions on the prohibition of additional 
hazardous substances under the RoHS Directive.88  
Ensuring consistency with the “Marketing of Products” Package  is particularly important in the 
context of the RoHS review. This legislative package aims to simplify and improve existing internal 
market legislation on goods, by providing a clear and consistent legal framework which will at the 
same time guarantee safe products on the market . In the case of RoHS, harmonised definitions and 
obligations for the economic opera tors could lead to substantial economic benefits (reduction of 
administrative burden for administrations and pr oducers) and more efficient and coordinated 
enforcement at Community level. 
The WEEE Directive is one of the policy instru ments mentioned in the Lead Market initiative  89 to 
foster recycling markets, help more and bett er recycling yielding en vironmental and economic 
gains.  
Coherence with EU legislation on pr oduct design and waste management 
The provisions of the Directives are coherent with the requirements of other pieces of EU 
legislation on product design and waste management as explained below.  
RoHS and REACH 
REACH90 aims to create an EU-wide system for the ma nagement of chemicals and their safe use, 
by inter alia  requiring manufacturers and im porters to gather informati on on the properties of their 
chemical substances, which will allow their safe handling, and to register the information in a 
central database run by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) . RoHS, on the other hand aims to 
contribute to the protection of hum an health and the e nvironmentally sound recovery and disposal 
of waste electric and electronic equipment and to eliminate the disparities between the national laws of the Member States. To this end, it restricts the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical 
and electronic equipment put on the Community ma rket as from 1 July 2006. Since the objectives 
and approaches of both pieces of legislation differ, one cannot be replaced by the other. 
                                                                                                                                                                 
 
85 Exemptions from the substance ban are allowed wh ere “substitution is technically or scientifically 
impracticable or where the negative environmental health  and/or consumer safety impacts caused by substation 
are likely to outweigh the environment, health and/or consumer safety benefits thereof. 
86 Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down the 
Sixth Community Environment Action Programme OJ L 242, 10.9.2002, p. 1–15.  
87 COM(2007) 225 final. 
88 Article 4(3) of RoHS. 
89 COM (2007)860 final 
90 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of  the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 
concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a 
European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and 
Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93 /67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, OJ L 396 of 30 December 2006. 
 
EN 108   EN In fact, the two pieces of legislation are comp lementary: REACH confirms the importance of 
managing chemical releases related to the wast e life stage, which forms the core of RoHS, by 
requiring information on all stages  of the substance lifecycle to be  provided for in the chemical 
safety report. REACH is based on the demonstrated ri sk of the substances re sulting from their use, 
while RoHS is founded on a preventive approach, ba sed on the hazard profile  of the substances. 
Currently, should a substance that is subject to author isation under REACH be restricted under the 
RoHS Directive for use in EEE, such application will be exempted from the REACH authorisation 
requirements. 
However, since REACH is subsequent to RoHS, and much wider and ela borate in scope, certain 
provisions of RoHS could be cl arified or further elaborated upon in the light of REACH. For 
example, on the basis of REACH criteria could be  added on the basis of which other hazardous 
substances in EEE could be further rest ricted under Articl e 4(3) of RoHS, 91 Using the REACH 
model, it should be clarified in the RoHS Directive that th e EEE producer who requests an 
exemption under RoHS should be required to provide safety information on that particular use of 
substances in EEEs, as well as information on the available substitutes and th eir characteristics.  
RoHS, WEEE and the EuP Directive 
Directive 2005/32/EC92 establishes a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for 
energy-using products and amending Council Direct ive 94/42/EEC and Dir ectives 96/57/EC and 
2000/55/EC of the European Parliament a nd of the Council ("EuP Directive").  
On the basis of the EuP Directive, the Commissi on, on the basis of a comitology procedure, could 
adopt specific implementing measures setting sp ecific eco-design requirem ents for energy-using 
products which may also be cove red by the WEEE/RoHS Directives. 
Whereas the Commission could select products al so covered by the WEEE/RoHS Directives as 
candidates for implementing measures under the EuP Directive, there is a difference in approach 
between these Directives. The EuP Directive aims  for improvement of the energy efficiency but 
only where this is possible without detriment to ot her environmental impacts in the life-cycle of the 
product and considering economic feasibility.  
The RoHS Directive requires subs titution of the banned substances  for all EEE within its scope, 
regardless of cost-benefit considerations. Exemptions  are only possible if substitution is technically 
or scientifically impracticable or whether the ne gative impacts of substitu tion outweigh the positive 
ones. As regards the hazardous substances the RoHS  Directive therefore provides a more direct 
protection of the environment and human health.  
There is a need to avoid ambiguity for those EEE pot entially covered by all three Directives. With 
regard to substances banned by the RoHS Dir ective, ambiguity is a voided because the EuP 
Directive applies without prejudice to the RoHS Directive (see recital….). With regard to the 
WEEE Directive ambiguity could arise as concerns  the general requirement of the WEEE Directive 
for Member States to encourage design for recyc ling (Article 4 of the W EEE Directive). However, 
                                                 
91 While RoHS simply states that further prohibitions can be decided based on available scientific evidence, and 
the substitution of those substances by more environment- friendly alternatives which ensure at least the same 
level of protection for consumers, without providing any definition of these criteria, REACH provides for a detailed risks identification for substances and their substitutes.  
92 OJ L 191, 22.7.2005, p.29 
 
EN 109   EN since this is general requ irement, this requirement should be s een as addition to any specific design 
requirements developed under EuP.  
RoHS, WEEE and specific EU wa ste management legislation 
The WEEE and RoHS Directives a pply without prejudice to Commun ity legislation on safety and 
health requirements protecting al l actors in contact with WEEE as  well as specific Community 
waste management legislation, such as the Battery Directive93 and the End-of Life Vehicles 
Directive. 
The Commission has clarified the links between th ese pieces of legislation in several guidance 
documents. For example, with respect to restricti ons on the use of hazardous substances, batteries 
are covered by the provisions of the Batteries Directive94; not by the RoHS Directive. Batteries are 
only covered by the requirements of the WEEE Directiv e in so far batteries ar e still included in the 
electrical or electronic equipment at the moment of discardin g. Electrical and electronic equipment 
are covered by the End-of Life Vehicles Directive in so far they are specifically designed to be used 
in vehicles, otherwise they are cove red by the WEEE and RoHS Directives. 
WEEE and general EU waste management legislation 
The WEEE Directive supplements general EU waste management le gislation, such as the Waste 
Framework Directive,95 the Landfill96 and Incineration97 Directive. It refers back to the general 
definitions set out in these Directives, for instance regarding the definition of waste and general waste management operations su ch as recovery  and disposal
98 and to the general provisions of the 
Waste Shipment Regulation.99 
WEEE and the Regulation on ODS 
Regulation (EC) 2000/2037 requires that  ODS contained in refrigerat ion, air-conditioning and heat 
pump equipment should be recovered for destructi on, recycling or reclama tion during the servicing 
and maintenance of equipment or before the disman tling or disposal of equipment. In principle, 
emissions from equipment covered by the WEEE di rective should be avoided. However, recent 
assessments point at weak recycling rates. Impr oving the recovery of ODS contained in WEEE such 
as fridges and freezers could be achieved by strength ening the provisions contai ned in the Directive, 
notably by inserting a standard in the form of a minimum recovery rate for ODS contained in waste 
products and equipment and by enlarging the scope of WEEE to include larger installations, such as 
commercial refrigeration and air conditioning. 
                                                 
93 Recital 10 and Article 2 (2). It also required the 'old' Battery Directive to be revised in light of the WEEE 
Directive, recital 11. 
94 OJ L 266, 26.9.2006, p.1 
95 OJ L 114, 27.4.2006, p.9 
96 OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p.1 
97 OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p.91 
98 See Article 3 of the WEEE Directive. 
99 See Article 6 of the WEEE Directive. 
 
EN 110   EN Annex 10: Markets for secondary materials  
Markets of many recyclable materials are growi ng. WEEE items contain three main categories of 
materials: metals, glass and plastics.  
Ferrous metals account for approximately 50% and non-ferrous metals for 5% of WEEE arising. 
There are stable markets for metal recycled from  WEEE. Metals are easily  extracted from WEEE 
and the quality of recycled metal is compar able to the quality of virgin metal.  
Displays (particularly cathode ra y tubes) account for the largest amount of glass in EEEs. The 
technology has however changed and flat panel displays gra dually replace CRTs (cathode ray 
tubes) in monitors and televi sions. The main market for recycled CRT glass is new CRT 
manufacturing. However as the CRT  manufacturing is predicted to decline, other markets for the 
recycled glass from CRT screens will need to be identified. Potential markets can be identified, as for example bricks and tiles. 
Plastics are estimated to compose 20-25% of th e total weight of WEEE.  Technologies exist to 
recycle plastics from WEEE, but th ere are difficulties with the en vironmental and cost efficient 
recovery of plastics due to the heterogeneity of polymers present. The market of recycled plastic 
therefore currently seems limite d. Nevertheless, plastic recycl ing has high potential for energy 
saving (up to 80%) compared to primary production of plastics.
100 
The Lead Market initiative of the European Commission101 highlighted the significant market 
potential in recycling, and that the barriers to market development need to be addressed. This 
initiative included the area of plastic recycling as  a market with a large potential for improvement 
for recycling technologies. The Lead Market In itiative proposes an action plan listing policy 
instruments to foster recycling markets, help mo re and better recycling yielding environmental and 
economic gains. The actions also aim to further deve lop the plastic recycling market in the future.  
                                                 
100 A lead market initiative for Europe Explanatory Paper on the European Lead Market Approach: Methodology 
and Rationale (Annex II) {COM(2007) 860 final SEC(2007) 1729} 
101 COM (2007)860 final 
 
EN 111   EN Annex 11: EEE separately collected, treated and reported  
EERA 2005 Recupel 2006 NVMP 2005 
ategory Recyc. Recov. Recyc. Recov.  Incin.-e Landfill Recyc. Recov. 
A LHHA 75-90% 80-91% 84.3% 84.5% 0.1% 14.7% 77.0% 79.6% 
 C&F 80-95% 90-98% 77.3% 90.7% 1.0% 8.3% 79.4% 93.0% 
SHHA 55-80% 65-85% 79.7% 83.8% 0.9% 15.4% 67.3% 72.7% 
A IT ex CRT 65-80% 70-90% 79.7% 83.8% 0.9% 15.4% 
 IT CRT 65-96% 80-100% 84.3% 86.5% 3.6% 9.3% N.A. 
A CE ex CRT 65-80% 70-85% 79.7% 83.8% 0.9% 15.4% 67.3% 72.7% 
 CE CRT 70-96% 75-100% 84.3% 86.5% 3.6% 9.3% 83.7% 93.4% 
C IT/ CE FDP N.A. 
 Lamps 70-80% 74-80% 93.3% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 93.2% 93.2% 
Tools 40-70% 45-85% 79.7% 83.8%  0.9% 15.4% 67.3% 72.7% 
Toys 50-70% 54-70% 79.7% 83.8% 0.9% 15.4% 67.3% 72.7% 
Med. 70-90% 80-90% 79.7% 83.8%  0.9% 15.4% 67.3% 72.7% 
M&C 65-95% 65-95% 79.7% 83.8% 0.9% 15.4% 67.3% 72.7% 
Aut.Disp. 70-80% 80-85% 84.3% 84. 5% 0.1% 14.7% 76.7% 80.5% 
Table: Recycling and recovery percentages achi eved by the Belgian (Recupel) and Dutch 
(NVMP) producer responsibility organisatio ns, compared to figures from EERA, the 
European Electronics Recycling Association.  
 
EN 112   EN Annex 12: Options rejected during the review and in particular after the stakeholder 
consultation  
Options on collection targets:  
- Fixed mandatory collection target for all Memb er States or differentiated per Member State 
expressed in weight per inhabitant per year  to be achieved by a cer tain date; discarded 
because there was rather no support for a fixed collection target unless it was differentiated 
per Member State. This differentiation would be able to respond to the variations of 
consumption per Member State, however, seen the incomplete reporting by MS and the unpredictability of future consumpti on, it would not allow flexibility.  
- An obligatory give-back by collection points (l ocal municipalities, retailers, distributors, 
brokers, traders, recycling shops,…) to the pr oducer responsibility organisations (PRO's) 
or to individual schemes. This option wa s mainly supported by producers who do 
experience that not all WEEE is  returning via the schemes; this option was rather not 
supported by municipalities as they prefer to get direct revenues from the collected 
fractions to compensate the costs for collec tion that is not compensated by producers. As 
this situation can be solved between the operators on the mark et, it is no longer considered 
as an option. 
Options on recycling / recovery targets:
 
- Material based targets for all WEEE or per pr oduct category; this op tion got only support if 
material based targets would have been de veloped on top of the existing targets per 
category; most stakeholders rather linked this  option to the necessary treatment operations 
that would allow achieving a high rate of material recovery as  in particular for CRT glass 
and plastics. The option has further been discar ded because such a targ et needs to be set 
with care as many parameters influence co llection and hence the composition of the 
collected fraction on which such a material target is based.  
- Stimulation of outlet market for recycled  and recovered products, in particular for 
encouraging high level of material re-applic ation. Few reactions on this option in the 
consultation and the issue that such stimula tion would mainly happen in relation to re-
application in products, it has been discarded in  the review of a pie ce of waste legislation. 
Options on reuse targets:  
- Set a target for reuse of whole appliances to  be achieved by a certai n date; this option was 
supported by the reuse sector. As the reuse market is rather limited to a couple of 
equipments rather than to all categories and the limited availability of data to set precise 
and realistic targets, this option has been dis carded. Stimulation for reuse is worked out via 
another option. 
- Give obligatory access for the reuse sector / or ganisations to collected  WEEE to select that 
equipment that could meet the criteria for be ing reused, refurbished or repaired. Rather 
than giving obligatory access, the devel opment of reuse crit eria was supported by 
stakeholders. Such criteria have been de veloped under the Basel Convention for mobile 
phones and are in development for computing e quipment. Seen the link with shipments of 
waste, the option to develop criteria under the WEEE directive was discarded. 
 
EN 113   EN Options related to clarification of the scope:  
- Clarifying the scope, by formalising criteria  used in the document 
http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/waste/weee/pdf/faq_weee.pdf  on Frequently Asked 
Questions (FAQ); this option was largely s upported by stakeholders but was discarded 
because this option was considered more a ppropriate for legally non-binding measures…  
Options related to th e width of the scope  (inclusion, exclusion and maximising scope) were all 
discarded as most stakeholders di d not express an opinion during th e consultation and as the current 
scope was felt appropriate; additionally, the option of exclusion would be ta ckled under the option 
on clarification of the scope.  
Options related to the produ cer responsibility provisions:  
- Stimulate eco-design through  defining targets for reusab ility, recycl ability and 
recoverability of electrical a nd electronic equipment. L ittle support was expressed by 
stakeholders on this option. Additionally, to set such targets, much investigation would be 
needed to have appropriate measuring methods to calculate the target s. Whereas this was 
realised for vehicles in the type approval Di rective, a multitude of equipments under this 
Directive would render the measure none pr oportionate and was th erefore discarded. 
Options related to treatment requirements (introduction of standards, de fine "remove" and modify 
the entries in Annex II) were all discarded as they could be tackled via a comitology decision. Such 
decision is in preparation.  
An option to introduce a de minimis rule  was suggested in the stake holder consultation. This de 
minimis rule could be included to exempt sm all producers from certain requirements and in 
particular of the financing. A draw back of this m easure is that it would factually create free-riders 
and makes it more difficult to enforce. As the re duction benefits of such a de minimis provision 
would occur at national level, it  is not possible at this moment to estimate them. The current 
Directive however already gives the Member States  flexibility to use elements of a de minimis 
approach in the national implementation as long as  this would be in line the objectives of the 
Directive such as full financial pr oducer responsibility. Member States are for instance allowed to 
report on reasoned estimates. They could therefore wave the request for de tailed reporting below a 
certain size of company; and Memb er States could offer drastically  simplified registration for very 
small companies. Therefore the option is discarded. 
 
EN 114   EN Annex 13: Detailed cost calculatio n of the inter-operability option  
Cost impacts have been calculated on the basis of costs associated with various electronic databases 
associated with other regulatory measures (Ökopol 2007). 
It is assumed that the set-up costs of a formalis ed (electronic) network of national bodies which 
allow for communication about the registration of producers and the amount of EEE put on the 
market occur in year 0 and the annual operating costs are incurred from years 1 to 12. Discounting 
the annual costs of €40,000 at 4% results in total present valu e costs of €375,400 for operating the 
network at a European level over 12 years. Combin ing these with the potentia l set-up costs suggests 
that the total present value costs of establishing and operating the network are in the range102 of 
€495,000 to €853,000. These costs may be incurred by the Commission (as it is the case for 
comparable electronic databases, Ökopol 2007). 
On top of the formalised electronic network, an EU clearing house has to deal with transfer of 
money and of obligations. The same assumption of time span (12years) is taken to spread the set-up 
costs of the network. Discounting the annual costs of €0.8 million to €3.25 million at 4% over 12 
years results in total present value costs of €7.1 million to €30.5 million for operating the network at 
a European level. Combining these with the poten tial set-up costs indicates that the total present 
value costs to the Commission are in the rang e of €15.6 million to €65.5 million, over 12 years. 
However, it should be noted that the Excise Movement and Control System103 is being developed to 
monitor the movement of products  across borders; there may be th e potential for a WEEE network 
to utilise this system in some way, thereby reducing the set-up a nd, potentially, the op erational costs 
(Ökopol 2007). 
An EU clearing house will require an increase in activities by Member States to exchange 
information with other Member States on distan ce sellers and the export  of second-hand goods. 
There is currently no information on the amount of EEE sold in this  way. However, assuming that it 
results in an increase of 10% in the work of Member States, this could incur additional administrative costs of €1.83 million per year, equa l to a total present value of €17 million over 12 
years (Ökopol 2007).  
However, due to reduced registration at Member State level, reduced registration renewals and 
reduced reporting for industry, cost savings can be  realised. The annual cost s and the total present 
values for national competent authorities and bu sinesses being discounted at 4% over 12 years, 
indicate that this option could result in cost savings of €288 million to €410 million over 12 years.  
It is therefore expected that this option has pos itive effects on intra-EU competition by providing a 
more level playing field amongst various stakeholders  (particularly for distan ce selling) and aiding 
cross-border enforcement of the WEEE Directive. These benefits cannot be quantified because no 
data are available on the negati ve impacts of the existing system, due to the short time since 
implementation. There may be increased costs for dist ance sellers due to the requirement to register 
in each country they sell to, which was not previ ously the case. However, it is not known how many 
distance sellers this would apply t o. This will enforce the ‘national’  approach across all countries, 
retaining the role of importers ( operating within the EU) as the ‘p roducer’ and therefore limiting the 
extent to which the costs of collection and treatment may influence the design of EEE.  
                                                
 
102 The range corresponds with the values found for different benchmarks 
103 See http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/common/faq/faq_2898_en.htm   
 
EN 115   EN Impact on administrative burden 
Finally, for the setting up a Nation al Register or Clearing House,  a considerable percentage of 
stakeholders experienced a burden in carrying out th is activity, especially when considering that 
more than 46% do not have to deal with this act ivity. 93% of those who tic ked an answer consider 
that the activity is neede d, even if has to be carr ied out by competent bodies. 
When looking at availability of reso urces the great majority of stake holders answered that they have 
enough resources. This was mainly because they are not carrying out this activity. 
The following issues have been identified as crucial: (1) Frequency : This impacts on the burden for repor ting (the higher the frequency, the higher 
the number of hours required to report and, consequently, higher economic and 
administrative burdens). On the other hand freq uency of reporting could increase the control 
of the number of free-riders (a higher freque ncy provides more contro l on free-riders in the 
market, especially producers that might enter and leave a market in less than one year). 
When the amounts put on the market are used to  define financing obligations for producers 
or compliance schemes, stakeholders have argue d that, for some markets, fluctuations could 
be very high and low frequenc y of reporting (annual) could be  in-sufficient to precisely 
allocate obligations, 
(2) Basis: The weight  of appliances put on the market is used in most Regi sters (only a couple 
of them are asking for Units). The main problem is lack of consistency in weight definition 
(i.e. including or excluding batteries, cable, accessories), 
(3) Grouping : The level of detail in reporting can vary because of  the information that is 
needed (e.g. Ireland, related to the Visible F ee sub-categories); othe r kind of grouping could 
depend on separate collecti on clusters (e.g. Austria), 
(4) Split B2B/B2C : The split of B2B/B2C in reporting varies from country to country. The 
needed of split B2B/B2C appliances put on market and, in particular the definition of 
B2B/B2C have a great impact on the financ ing aspects of WEEE; especially when no 
defined rules or criteria are in place to diffe rentiate appliance this could cause potential 
asymmetry in the market due to different fina ncing mechanism as defi ned by article 8 and 9 
of the WEEE Directive. In part icular, when different obligations or options are in place in 
respect of: 
As regards the costs related to  the preferred option, the follow ing table shows the annual/one-off 
costs and total present value costs per stakeholders: 
 
EN 116   EN Costs Savings (Benefits) 
Stakeholder Annual 
(or one-off)
(€ million) Total Present Value 
(discounted at 4% over 
Years 1-12)
(€ million) Annual 
(€ 
million) Total Present Value (discounted at 4% 
over Years 1-12)
(€ million) 
Commission - set-up of 
Network (one-off) (8.5 - 35.0) 8.5 - 35.0 - - 
Commission Operating costs 
of Network 0.8 - 3.3 7.1 - 30.5 - - 
MS - Operating Costs of 
Network 1.2 11.2 - - 
MS - Reduced Registrations - - 14.9 - 
17.1 139.5 - 160.9 
Industry - Reduced 
Registration Renewals - - 4.6 - 5.3 43.4 - 50.1 
Industry - Reduced Reporting - - 19.4 - 
24.1 182.4 - 225.8 
Total 2.0 - 4.5 26.8 - 76.7 38.9 - 
46.5 365.3 - 436.9 
Net Present Value (€ million) 288.6 - 410.1 
For manufacturers, it relates to reduced costs associated with reduced registration and reporting 
requirements for manufacturers active in more than  one Member State. Howe ver, some may take on 
activities currently undertaken by importers, dist ributors, thereby increasi ng costs. Savings may be 
smaller for SMEs due to sales in fewer countries. 
 
EN 117   EN Bibliography  
Arcadis/Ecolas & RPA 2008. "Study on RoHS an d WEEE Directives", final report. Via 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/environm ent/reports_studies/studies/study _on_rohs_and_weee _directives_fin
al_report.pdf .  
BIO Intelligence Service 2006. "Synthe sis report", final version. Via 
http://circa.europa.eu/Pub lic/irc/env/weee_2008/library .  
EERA – European Electronics  Recyclers Association. 2008. "Towards sustainable WEEE 
recycling", position paper. Via http://www.eera-
recyclers.com/member/files/EERA%20Re port%20TOWARDS%20SUSTAINABLE%20WEEE%2
0RECYCLING%2020071224.pdf   
IPTS 2006. "Implementation of the WEEE Directive in EU 25". Via 
http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/eur22231en.pdf .  
Ökopol. 2007. "The producer responsibility principl e of Directive 2002/96/EC  on waste electrical 
and electronic equipment (W EEE)", final report. Via 
http://ec.europa.eu/environmen t/waste/weee/pdf/final_rep_okopol.pdf   
United Nations University (UNU). 2007. "2008 review of Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste 
Electrical and Electronic Equipment (W EEE)", final report and annexes. Via 
http://ec.europa.eu/environm ent/waste/weee/pdf/final_rep_unu.pdf  and 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/was te/weee/pdf/final_rep_unu_annexes.pdf   
WEEE Forum. 2007. "Key Figures 2006" , quantitative be nchmarking. Via http://www.weee-
forum.org/index.php?section=services&page=serv ices_bench&subpage=ser vices_bench_quantitati
ve  
 
EN 118   EN Glossary of terms  
B2B…………Business to Business  
B2C…………Business to Consumer(s) BAN………...Basel Action Network CE…………..Consumer electronics CE ex CRT…Consumer electronics excluding CRT screens CE CRT…….CRT from consumer electronics  CE FDP……..FDP from c onsumer electronics  
C&F…………Cooling and Freezing 
CFC…………Chlorofluorocarbons 
CRT Cathode Ray Tube EEE Electrical and El ectronic Equipment 
EU European Union EU12 The 12 States of the EU that became Member after 1 May 2004 EU15 The 15 States of the EU Member before 1 May 2004 EuP Energy using Products FDP Flat display panels HCFC Hydro chlorofluorocarbons LCD Liquid Crystal Display LHHA Large Household appliances LHHA Small Large Household appliances (smaller items)  MSW Municipal Solid Waste ODS Ozone Depleting Substances PBB Polybrominated Biphenyls  PBDE Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls 
 
EN 119   EN POM Put on the market 
PRO Producer Responsibility Organisation REACH Registration, Evaluation, Authoris ation and restriction of Chemicals  
RoHS Restriction on the use of Hazardous Substances SHA Small Household Appliances IT ex CRT IT equipment excluding CRT screens IT CRT CRT from IT equipment IT FDP FDP from IT equipment SME Small and Medium Sized Enterprise 
WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment