Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive on end of life vehicles'
Date: 1998-02-25
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: environmental policy, motor vehicle, single market, waste management, waste recycling

C 129/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.4.98

7.10.
The Commission should avoid any measures
which could result in an international ‘subsidy race’ and
should continue its endeavours to control, and ultimately
phase out, subsidies to shipbuilding through an overall
agreement within the philosophy of the OECD Agree-
ment. This should be established as a basic principle in

order to avoid the building of vessels for which there is
no economic justification and where the consequences
may be to unfairly distort activity in the shipbuilding
sector and seriously damage the economics of the
shipping industry (point 4.2.5).

Brussels, 25 February 1998.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on
end of life vehicles’ (1)

(98/C 129/10)

On 2 December 1997 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 130s of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
proposal.

The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which
was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on
3 February 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Colombo.

At its 352nd plenary session (meeting of 25 February 1998), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 85 votes to one with one abstention.

1. Outline of the proposal

1.1.
This ambitious and innovative proposal has its
legal basis in Treaty Article 130s. It follows the example
of the directive on packaging waste in setting target
figures, and will affect a sensitive sector of the European
economy, namely the motor industry. It proposes the
adoption of a preventive approach for a specific waste
stream requiring intervention throughout the product’s
life-cycle right from the design and production stages,
and strict adherence to a hierarchy of waste management
principles favouring re-use and recycling (recovery of
materials).

1.2.
The ‘producer responsibility’ principle adopted
in the new Community strategy for waste manage-
ment (2) is to be put into practice by obliging all
companies operating in the sector to set up an appropri-

ate system for recovery and disposal, with re-use and
recycling targets to be met within specified time-limits.

1.3.
The system will be completed by a ‘certificate
of destruction’, issued only by authorized treatment
facilities, which will be required for deletion of vehicles
from national registers (Article 5).

1.4.
The vehicles to be scrapped will have to be
handled in accordance with the general provisions laid
down in Article 4 of Directive 75/442/EEC and the
list of decontamination requirements and technical
provisions in its Annex (Article 6). Progressively higher
targets for the rates of re-use, recovery and recycling are
to be reached by 2005, 2015 and a date beyond 2015 yet
to be determined (Article 7). It will be the responsibility
of vehicle producers to design and manufacture their
products in ways that will make these targets easier to
achieve.

(1) OJ C 337, 7.11.1997, p. 3.
(2) COM(96) 399 final; Council Resolution of 24.2.1997 in OJ
C 76, 11.3.1997; ESC Opinion in OJ C 89, 19.3.1997.

To add legal weight to this switch in production,
1.5.
the Commission proposes [Article 7(4)] amending Direc-

27.4.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 129/45

tive 70/156/EEC so as to introduce re-usability and/or
recyclability requirements for vehicles put on the market
after 1 January 2005.

streams. The Committee is aware that some Member
States are still having difficulty in transposing the
directive, but feels that the exercise has been worthwhile.

1.6.
The Commission considers that although the
voluntary agreements in operation in certain Member
States show that such measures are feasible, they provide
no legal certainty and leave the way open for unfair
competition, encouraging the export of waste to areas
with less stringent requirements. For this reason the
Commission proposes a European directive, which
combines regulatory instruments with the ‘producer
responsibility’ principle.

2. General comments

In the light of its recent own-initiative opinion on
2.1.
voluntary environmental agreements (1) the Committee
endorses the Commission’s decision to opt for a directive,
in order to ensure a harmonized reference framework
that is valid in all Member States. The Committee also
endorses the environmental objectives being pursued
and the content of the proposal subject to the comments
which follow.

The Committee also recommends close study
2.1.1.
of the many existing agreements, and of the regulations
already in force in some Member States (notably
Sweden), in order to make the most of the practical
experience acquired and incorporate it in the legal
provisions where possible. To ensure that the objectives
are achieved,
it will be necessary to draw on the
voluntary agreements already reached in some Member
States, in order to apply their positive results more
widely and avoid any remaining shortcomings.

2.2.
The combination of legal obligations, monitoring
procedures and economic measures should be more
clearly set out, to ensure that the flexibility granted to
Member States does not create unfair competition
in this key economic sector. At the same time, the
responsibilities of the various parts of the chain need
to be defined more clearly, distinguishing between
prevention and final treatment.

2.3.
In its opinion on the review of the Community
strategy for waste management (2),
the Committee
singled out the directive on packaging waste as a
good example of practical application of the producer
responsibility principle, and called for this approach to
be extended to other goods and other types of waste
(points 2.13 and 2.14), identifying the priority waste

(1) OJ C 287, 22.9.1997, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 89, 19.3.1997.

2.4. Waste from discarded vehicles differs from pack-
aging waste, which comes from a variety of sources and
involves materials (glass, paper, plastic etc.) that present
differing treatment and recycling problems and are
disposed of individually at the end-user stage, making it
more difficult to determine responsibilities at each stage
in the product life-cycle. End of life vehicles, in contrast,
are a more homogeneous sector, within which solutions
have to some extent already been found insofar as
around 75 % of the vehicle in terms of weight (i.e. the
metal parts) is already used as scrap metal for melting
down; there remains the question of the risks caused by
heavy metals and other hazardous substances such as
halogen compounds which contaminate the scrap metal
sent for recycling in the steel sector. For the remaining
25 % of the vehicle weight, which mainly consists of
plastics and elastomers, a satisfactory solution still has
to be found because only part of this waste flow is sent
for recycling, and even then this is done in only a few
countries. The bulk of this waste is still incinerated or
landfilled, both of which damage the environment and
waste raw materials and energy.

2.5.
There are also organizational problems in the
disassembly and demolition sector. The sector needs to
be streamlined and modernized so that it can manage
end materials in an environmentally responsible manner
and ensure that the vehicle body is made safe and that
the hazardous substances are disposed of properly. In
many countries, this sector is made up of small and
medium-sized firms; these must be safeguarded, and
their professional standing improved. Pilot schemes have
been conducted in a number of countries, with the
assistance of the motor industry and in agreement with
the public authorities, to modernize the sector in line
with the new requirements. Such schemes should be
extended, in accordance with the special circumstances
in each Member State, by releasing the resources needed
for training the staff involved and for adapting SMEs so
that they meet environmental requirements.

2.5.1.
In order for disassembly and demolition busi-
nesses to develop ecologically sound processing methods,
in addition to ad hoc support and monitoring measures,
there is also a need for specialized, suitably trained
operators. Some crafts chambers (Saarland-Lorraine-
Luxembourg) already provide training courses in this
field; these could be used as a model for devising a
European qualification which should be as uniform as
possible.

2.6.
Existing schemes have thus shown that the
recovery and recycling objectives set out in the directive
are pursuable provided that the need to reduce waste
and increase recycling possibilities is catered for right
from the vehicle design stage (though it goes without

C 129/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.4.98

saying that safety features should not be compromised
by this). This means designing the vehicle so that it is
easier to dismantle and so that parts and materials can
be more easily recovered, drawing up dismantling
manuals, affixing a distinguishing mark to plastic
components, and gradually reducing the amount of
heavy metals and other hazardous substances. All this
will also help to upgrade the work of demolition and
scrap-metal yards by rationalizing and reorganizing the
job of reclaiming and dismantling vehicles and separating
their components.

2.7. Hence responsibilities have to be shared between
design, production and end treatment, inter alia so as to
ensure outlets for the recycled raw materials, part of
which can be used by manufacturing industry.

2.8.
In the interests of shared responsibility, equal
attention must be given to the consumer. Information
supplied by the producer, and perhaps incentives, could
encourage prospective buyers to be more environmen-
tally aware in their purchasing decisions. During the
vehicle’s life cycle, the owner should be encouraged to
see that it is properly maintained inter alia with a view
to its ultimate recovery. Lastly, at the end of the vehicle’s
life, the owner must be guaranteed access to effective
and reasonably local demolition plants.

The possible ‘negative market value’ of an end
2.9.
of life vehicle is equal to the difference between the cost
of end treatment, with due respect for environmental
protection standards, and the proceeds from the reusable
and recyclable materials. This value will depend not
only on design (which the producer can gear more to
recovery and recycling), but also on the care taken by
its owners, and the ability of the scrap metal sector to
make use of the re-usable parts and recyclable materials.
Insofar as all the players involved take their fair share
of responsibility, and the sector — as is already occurring
— designs vehicles in a way which facilitates recovery
and recycling, the problem of negative market value
mentioned in Article 5(4)
is then minimized. The
establishment of a network of authorized treatment
plants and the obligation to obtain a certificate of
destruction will encourage the end treatment sector to
modernize and extend its activity, making it more
profitable.

2.10.
It must also be recognized that calculating the
negative value of an end-of-life vehicle is difficult because
the value may vary according to the local markets and
degree of development of the demolition, scrap metal
and recovery sectors in the different Member States. Its
worth as an incentive will also depend on whether it
applies to vehicles which are already in circulation (and
will reach end of life within the next eight to ten years)

or to newly designed vehicles not yet on the market,
whose design can be geared to recycling through the
deployment of economic measures.

that

2.11.
the
The Committee therefore thinks
negative value problem needs to be addressed in greater
detail, bearing in mind the variety of situations and
causes. Measures should be based on the principle of
shared responsibility and internalization of environmen-
tal costs, and should encourage the modernization of
the end treatment sector and the achievement of higher
objectives for the re-use, recycling and recovery of end
of life vehicles, while also prevailing on producers to
design recyclable vehicles.

2.12. Once the regulatory framework has been estab-
lished, careful consideration will have to be given to the
problems listed below, for instance by using voluntary
instruments for sharing responsibility between the par-
ties and by stepping up dialogue between producers’
associations and final treatment plants, in order to:

— ensure that the financial responsibility placed on the
producer really does stimulate a policy of prevention,
so that the negative value is not simply transferred
to the initial purchase price;

— ensure that recognition of the principle of negative
value is not extended automatically to all vehicles,
regardless of their actual recyclability;

— ensure that the sums received by treatment and
demolition businesses to offset the negative value
are used appropriately by them to modernize their
activities and comply with the relevant provisions.

The Committee notes that while Article 11
2.13.
provides for the transposition of the Directive by
31 March 1999, Article 5(4), regarding negative value,
will not enter into force until 1 January 2003. However,
this should give producers sufficient time to adjust the
design of new models so that they meet the recycling
objectives. It should also give the relevant economic
players sufficient time to conclude voluntary agreements
geared to these objectives. Nonetheless, a check should
be made on the situation prior to application.

3. Specific comments

3.1. Scope (Article 3)

3.1.1.
The exclusion of lorries and buses, and the
derogations for two and three wheel motor vehicles, are
understandable during an initial period, because the
waste-related problems are less serious and more specific.
However, their special status should be reviewed over
the longer term, particularly as regards the treatment of

27.4.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 129/47

hazardous substances, as the risks of environmental
pollution are the same as for other vehicles.

3.3. Collection (Article 5)

3.1.2.
The Committee thinks that the derogations for
two and three-wheel motor vehicles provided for in
Article 3(3) should also apply to Article 5(4). The
question should be addressed as to whether it is desirable
for two-wheel motor vehicles which have a cylinder
capacity of less than 50cc, or which may be used in the
Member States on public highways without a number
plate, to be exempted from the provisions of Article 5.

3.3.1.
The value of end of life vehicles may depend
on a number of factors, in addition to the efficiency of
the demolition and recovery sectors, and local markets.
Bearing this in mind, the Committee thinks that the
‘negative value’ problem can be curbed by measures
to promote efficient collection and recovery systems.
Facilities should be close by and should be capable of
achieving high recovery rates at reasonable cost.

3.2. Prevention (Article 4)

The Committee has already supported the need
3.2.1.
to restrict and if possible outlaw the use of heavy metals
and other toxic substances in production processes
and products (1). It therefore welcomes the preventive
approach taken by the Commission.

3.2.2.
As regards the absence of any reference to PVC,
the Committee is pleased to note that the Commission
intends (12th recital to the proposal) to conduct a
general review of PVC in waste streams, with a view to
formulating possible proposals. However, the Com-
mittee feels that the wording used by the Commission
is too vague. It would prefer to see a more binding
commitment to the tabling of specific proposals, as the
Commission undertakes in connection with other aspects
of the proposal.

3.2.3.
Turning to the question of heavy metals and
other hazardous substances, the Committee feels it
insufficient to adopt requirements that only apply to the
end treatment of vehicles and make no distinction
between cars which are already in circulation and will
remain so for several years, and those which will enter
into circulation in the future and can thus be designed
to meet higher environmental protection standards. A
more appropriate approach could involve the following:

— for vehicles in circulation: measures for the final
disposal of the waste remaining after the vehicle has
been treated. These measures must ensure the same
level of environmental protection as the measures
applicable to all other waste containing heavy metals
and hazardous substances;

— for vehicles designed after the directive enters into
force, and which will be put in circulation in future:
a phasing-out of heavy metals and other hazardous
substances, with incremental provisions starting
with substitute products that are already technically
feasible (e.g. a substitute for lead in electronic
circuits). Promotion of research and technological
innovation is vital here.

(1) Opinion on the review of the Community strategy for
waste management, point 3.3.2, in OJ C 89, 19.3.1997,
p. 2.

3.3.2.
In order to make the strategy of prevention,
recovery and recycling effective, and to monitor the
results achieved step-by-step, systems should be intro-
duced for checking the efficiency of recovery plants and
producers’ progress in adapting design to recycling
needs, pursuant to the measures mentioned in Article 4
(prevention)(1)(a) and (b).

3.4. Treatment (Article 6)

3.4.1. Obliging operators to obtain a permit will
enable the public authorities to monitor compliance with
the environmental requirements. As only authorized
facilities will be able to issue the statutory certificate of
destruction, there will inevitably be some restructuring
of the sector. In Member States where firms tend to be
small to medium-sized and the treatment system is less
well developed, measures will be needed to encourage
and help firms to modernize; use can be made of the
incentive funds available at EU and national level to
help SMEs adjust to environmental protection standards.

3.5. Re-use and recovery (Article 7)

3.5.1.
The Committee feels that the proposed targets
adequately reflect waste management priorities, and
endorses them as they are graduated over time and leave
room for flexibility and adjustments, allowing energy
recovery where this is the only environmentally viable
option.

3.5.2.
The Committee points out that setting the
objectives as a percentage of vehicle weight might
conflict with the other ecological objective of reducing
vehicle weight in order to reduce fuel consumption. The
fact that metals are easier to recycle could lead producers
to use more metal, rather than lighter plastics. To prevent
this, the Committee recommends that appropriate steps
be taken to mark materials and to plan with a view to
recycling. At all events, the weight should not be
calculated per vehicle, but according to general averages.
Otherwise the checking operations will become too
detailed and complex.

C 129/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.4.98

3.5.3.
Article 7(4) states that Directive 70/156/EEC is
to be amended in order to make the objectives for the
year 2015 feasible. In this way, the guarantee of achieving
higher objectives is to be contingent on a regulatory
measure, while for the period up to the year 2005 the
only instrument is to be the producer responsibility
principle, using the negative value to encourage the
taking of preventive action.

3.5.4.
This mixed approach raises a number of ques-
tions.Adistinctionshouldalsoperhapsbedrawnbetween
vehiclesproducedbeforetheentryintoforceofthepresent
directive, on which negative value would be penalized
retroactively, and vehicles produced after 1999. Here it
is worth mentioning the provision adopted in Sweden,
where producer responsibility applies only to new
vehicles from the date of entry into force of the new
legislation.

Brussels, 25 February 1998.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee on a
Europe-Asia cooperation strategy in the field of environment’

(98/C 129/11)

On 14 October 1997 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
communication.

The Section for External Relations, Trade and Development Policy, which was responsible
for preparing the Committee’s work on this matter, adopted its opinion on 10 February 1998.
The rapporteur was Mr Koopman.

At its 352nd plenary session (meeting of 25 February 1998), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 92 votes in favour, six against and five abstentions.

1. Background

1.1. State of the environment

1.1.1.
In its communication the Commission presents
a gloomy picture of the environmental degradation the
countries of South Asia, East Asia and South- East Asia
are facing (1).

1.1.2. Water pollution is seen as Asia’s most pressing
environmental problem, accounting for substantial mor-
tality and morbidity rates, especially among children. In

large areas shortages of freshwater occur. Singapore
already experiences chronic water scarcity (2), while
India is heading that way.

Air pollution is also creating severe health problems.
Emissions of particulate matter and SO2 in Asian cities
are among the highest in the world. Asia’s share of
world greenhouse gases’ emissions amounted to 20 %
in 1985 and is expected to rise to 25-30 % by the
year 2000(3).

(1) According to the usual EU-classification: South Asia:
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal,
Pakistan and Sri Lanka. East Asia: China, (Hong Kong),
Korea, Macao, Taiwan and Japan. South-East Asia:
The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN)
consisting of: Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines,
Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam + candidate members:
Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar.

(2) Less than 1 000 cubic metres per person per year. Such
limited availability begins to hamper economic develop-
ment and health.

(3) Of which Nepal and Bhutan consume less than 20 kg of
oil equivalent per capita per year in contrast to China,
Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore consuming more than
600 kg, compared with 4 000 kg for Europe and 8 000 for
USA.