WRITTEN QUESTION E-0444/02

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: Further postponement of a long overdue revision of the 1991 Directive on batteries

The revision of the Directive on batteries (91/157(1) and 93/86(2)) has been in preparation since 1997, but has been put back on several occasions, inter alia because it did not contain assessments of the risk presented by cadmium for example, although Denmark and the Netherlands have had complete bans on the use of cadmium since the Eighties and despite the Council resolution of 25 January 1988(3), in which the Commission was called upon to pursue without delay the development of specific measures for a Community action programme to combat environmental pollution by cadmium, and despite the Council's conclusions of June 2001 that new electrical and electronic equipment should not contain cadmium. Does the Commission know of companies producing batteries containing no cadmium; if so, will it list the companies, and their products?

At an informal meeting in December 2001 with a number of PSE members of the European Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Commissioner Wallström said that a Commission proposal was expected in January 2002, but it appears that the proposal has been postponed again. What was the reason for postponing it again? Is it because of matters that could not be investigated over the last nearly five years? Which major industrial groups or companies

with an interest in this matter have approached the Commission? When does it now expect to submit a proposal? It appears that the timetable for the risk analyses on account of which the revision was postponed, although they had in fact already been carried out, has slipped again. Will the Commission finally state when it expects to submit a proposal to amend the directive on batteries?

(1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 38.

(2) OJ L 264, 23.10.1993, p. 51.

(3) OJ C 30, 4.2.1988, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2002)

The main objective of the future revision of Council Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries and accumulators containing certain dangerous substances(1) is ensure the environmentally sound management of all batteries and accumulators. This is widely shared objective and reflects the approach taken in a number of Member States, which have adopted requirement concerning the collection and recycling of all batteries.

The main point of contention in relation to the revision of the directive concerns the appropriate measures to ensure that Nickel Cadmium (NiCd) batteries do not pose risk to human health and the environment. In its preparation of a new proposal, the Commission is currently analysing the potential risks and a number of possible risk reduction measures. These include mandatory take back systems, deposit schemes, and/or marketing and use restrictions. In this context the question of substitution is examined as well, which is raised in the first part of the Honourable Member's question. It is of course the case that there are many companies producing many different types of batteries, which do not contain cadmium. There are different types of rechargeable batteries available on the market each of them with their own technical and environmental specificity. The Commission's decision will be based on the analysis of the relative benefits of a cadmium ban in comparison with other economic instruments, in particular a deposit system.

The above mentioned analysis will form the basis of the Commission's proposal, which will be forthcoming in a near future.

Finally, the Commission engages in a open and constructive dialogue with all interested parties, including representatives of civil society, of national authorities and of industry. The latter includes the European Battery Recycling Association (EBRA), CollectNiCad, the European Portable Battery Association (EPBA) and the association of European Storage Battery Manufactures (Eurobat).

(1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.