Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment, andthe Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment
Date: 2000-11-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: dangerous substance, electrical equipment, electronic equipment, waste, waste management, waste recycling

C 116/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2001

2.

The Commission proposal

3.

The Committee’s comments

The present proposal for a directive, which takes ample
2.1.
account of the conclusions of the study on summer time,
stipulates the introduction of summer-time arrangements for
an unlimited period as of the year 2002. Indeed, according to
the Commission, the proper functioning of certain sectors, not
only transport and communications, but also other sectors of
industry, requires stable, long-term planning.

2.2. Moreover,
for reasons of clarity and accuracy of
information, the Commission proposes fixing and publishing
every five years a timetable setting out the summer-time
arrangements for the following five years.

Lastly, the proposal stipulates that implementation of
2.3.
this directive should be monitored by means of a report to be
submitted to the European Parliament, the Council and the
Economic and Social Committee. This report is to examine the
impact of the provisions of this directive in all of the areas
concerned, on the basis of the information made available to
the Commission by the Member States in sufficient time to
enable the report to be presented at the specified time, i.e.
31 December 2007.

Brussels, 29 November 2000.

The ESC welcomes the fact that the Commission has
3.1.
carried out this in-depth study into the effects of summer time
in all the main economic sectors, such as agriculture, industry,
trade, banking and transport, as well as on the health of certain
groups of people, road safety, tourism and recreation.

3.2.
Although the study did not enable any definitive
conclusions to be drawn as to the negative and positive
economic and social implications of the summer-time arrange-
ments, the Economic and Social Committee, as it has already
stated in its previous opinions on this subject, welcomes the
Commission proposal in that it facilitates the free movement
of goods, services and persons as well as the proper functioning
of the single market.

Lastly,

the Committee welcomes the fact

3.3.
in
Article 5 of the proposed directive the Commission stipulates
that the impact of the provisions of the directive be monitored
by a report (to be submitted by 31 December 2007 at the
latest) and that this report has to be submitted to the Economic
and Social Committee.

that

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:

— the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Waste

Electrical and Electronic Equipment’, and

— the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the restriction

of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment’

(2001/C 116/08)

On 14 September 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee under
Articles 95 and 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community on the above-mentioned
proposals.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 November 2000. The
rapporteur was Mr Colombo.

At its 377th plenary session (meeting of 29 November 2000), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 100 votes to four, with three abstentions.

20.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 116/39

1.

The Commission proposals

The two proposals are designed to tackle the environ-
1.1.
mental problems caused by the rapidly increasing waste stream
of electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) ranging from
large and small household appliances (washing machines,
refrigerators, toasters, hairdryers etc.) to IT and telecommuni-
cation equipment
(PCs, printers, cellular telephones etc.)
and from lighting equipment to automatic dispensers. More
specifically — and in line with the Community’s general waste
policy — they aim at the prevention, re-use, recycling and
other forms of recovery of such waste as well as at their safe
treatment and disposal. At the same time, the proposals
seek to contribute to the harmonisation of several national
initiatives taken in this area.

1.2.
In 1998, 6 million tonnes of waste electrical and
electronic equipment were generated (4 % of the municipal
waste stream). The volume of WEEE is expected to increase by
at least 3-5 % per annum. This means that in five years 16-

28 % more WEEE will be generated and in 12 years the
amount will have doubled. The growth of WEEE is about three
times higher than the growth of the average municipal waste.
More than 90 % of WEEE is currently landfilled, incinerated or
recovered without any pre-treatment. In view of their hazard-
ous content, a large proportion of various pollutants found
in the municipal waste stream comes from WEEE. The
environmental burden due to the production of WEEE exceeds
by far that due to the production of materials constituting the
other sub-streams of the municipal waste stream.

The first draft Directive (the ‘WEEE Directive’), based
1.3.
on Article 175 of the Treaty (environment), deals with the
management of WEEE. Following the concept of shared
responsibility,
it lays down a number of obligations upon
relevant actors: producers, distributors, public authorities and
consumers.

1.3.1.
As far as WEEE from private households is con-
cerned, the proposal’s main provisions are summarised in
Table 1 below.

Table 1

Household WEEE — Principal obligations laid upon different actors

area

nature of obligation

responsible actor (technical and/or financial
implementation)

time frame

collection

take back free of charge (Art. 4.2)

Distributors [producers on voluntary upon implementation in national law
basis (Art. 4.3)]

(18 months after Directive’s adoption)

set up collection facilities & systems public authorities
(Art. 4.1)

upon implementation

try to achieve 4 kg of separate collection public authorities
per cap/yr. (Art. 4.5)

by 1 January 2006; later possibly fol-
lowed by compulsory targets

transfer
treatment facilities (Art. 4.4)

from collection facilities

to public authorities (Art. 4.4); to be finan-
ced by producers on collective or indi-
vidual basis (Art. 7.2)

financing obligation: 5 years after Direc-
tive’s entry into force; this obligation
also applies to historical waste (1), the
financing of which must be shared by
all existing producers (Art. 7.3)

treatment

set up treatment systems and provide to be financed by producers on collec-
for treatment (Art. 5.1) in authorised tive or individual basis (Art. 7.2)
treatment facilities (Art. 5.2)

idem (Art. 7.3)

recovery

set up recovery systems (Art. 6.1)

idem (Art. 7.2)

idem (Art 7.3)

achieve minimum recovery (including idem (Art. 7.2)
re-use and recycling) targets for separ-
ately collected waste (Art. 6.2)

by 1 January 2006 may be reviewed
beyond 2008

disposal

Provide for environmentally sound dis-
posal (Art. 7.2)

idem (Art. 7.2)

idem (Art. 7.3)

(1) i.e. waste originating from products put on the market before the expiry of the 5-year transitional period regarding the financing obligation (thus not before the

entry into force of the Directive itself!).

C 116/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2001

1.3.2.
For WEEE originating from other than private house-
holds a set of partially different rules is proposed. For this
category, for instance, producers will be given responsibility
for collecting WEEE from holders (Art. 4.3) and the collection
target of four kilograms (Art. 4.5) does not apply. Most
importantly, the costs for the collection, treatment, recovery
and disposal of such waste will be covered by agreements
between the producer and the user of the respective equipment
at the time of purchase (Art. 8).

In addition to the obligations

referred to in
1.3.3.
points 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 above, the proposed WEEE Directive
contains provisions regarding information to be given to users
(Art. 9) and treatment facilities (Art. 10). In addition, it requires
Member States to provide information on the quantities and
categories of electrical and electronic equipment put on the
market, collected and recycled (Art. 11) and to report to the
Commission on the implementation of the Directive (Art. 12).

the European Community a leader in the management of
the environmental problems associated with this thriving,
strategically important sector. The Committee asks the Com-
mission to promote this innovative approach in international
forums, especially the OECD.

2.3.
In its opinion on the review of the Community strategy
for waste management, the Committee has already expressed
its views on the importance of implementing the principle of
producer responsibility (1), and called for the approach ident-
ified in the ‘packaging’ Directive to be extended to other
priority waste flows. Only producers can adopt — in the
design and manufacturing stage — an approach which will
ensure maximum lifespan for their products, and the most
environmentally-friendly recovery and disposal methods when
they are scrapped. The Ecolabel and the EMAS environmental
certification scheme could also be useful in promoting more
advanced solutions.

1.4.
The second draft Directive (the ‘hazardous substances
Directive’), based on Article 95 of the Treaty (internal market),
requires producers to substitute the use of lead, mercury,
cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls
(PBBs) and polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs) in electrical
and electronic equipment by 1 January 2008. Some appli-
cations of these substances are however exempted from this
provision (Art. 4.2). Under the proposal, the substitution
requirement can be amended in the future, in the light of
technical progress and new scientific evidence, and following
consultation with producers. In any case, the Commission is
to review the substitution requirements by 1 January 2004 in
order to take account, as necessary, of new scientific evidence.

2. General comments

General comments on both Directives

2.1.
The explanatory memorandum accompanying the two
Commission proposals gives a detailed account of the current
situation as regards production, recovery, recycling and dis-
posal of WEEE. The Commission proposals are therefore to be
endorsed, in view of the fact that: there is expected to be rapid
growth in WEEE; its content is hazardous; WEEE products
carry ‘ecological baggage’; and more than 90 % of WEEE is
currently landfilled,
incinerated or recovered without pre-
treatment, with serious consequences for the environment and
human health.

2.4.
It should be emphasised, however, that the Com-
mission’s step-by-step approach to WEEE (1. prevention 2. re-
use, recycling and recovery 3. treatment and safe disposal) is
third
partly undermined by the absence of an essential
Community legislative instrument on the design and manufac-
ture of electrical and electronic equipment. The Commission
merely gives a vague commitment to producing this vital tool
for effective WEEE prevention ‘later this year’.

In order to ensure that effective prevention is built
2.4.1.
into the WEEE production stage,
the ESC calls on the
Commission to consider all available instruments that could
guide the criteria for the design and manufacture of electrical
and electronic equipment; the aim should be to minimise
the environmental
impact without hindering the sector’s
innovative potential. Only then will WEEE management
comply fully with the prioritisation underpinning Community
legislation on waste (prevention, re-use, recycling and recovery,
safe disposal).

3. Comments on the WEEE proposal

3.1. Objectives — Article 1

The Committee welcomes the proposals’ objectives, in particu-
lar the emphasis put on prevention of WEEE (i.e. the reduction
of the quantity and the harmfulness of such waste). It notes,
however, that the absence of a proposal on the design and
manufacture of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) may
act as an obstacle to achieving the prevention objective in full.

The Committee is pleased that the Commission has
2.2.
chosen an innovative approach to the environmental impact
of electrical and electronic equipment. These measures make

(1) OJ C 89, 19.3.1997.

20.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 116/41

3.2. Separate collection — Article 4

3.2.1.
Separate collection is an essential prerequisite for
subsequent treatment and recovery operations. More specifi-
cally, since both treatment obligations (Art. 5) and recovery
targets (Art. 6) are expressed in terms of collected WEEE (as
opposed to total WEEE generated), the rate of collection is a
crucial parameter for the extent to which the Directive’s
objectives will be achieved. Against this background, the
provisions of Article 4.5 (a non-binding collection rate of
WEEE from private households of 4 kg per inhabitant per year
by 2006) raise a number of questions.

target into a legally binding one;

3.2.2.
According to the Commission (point 9.2 of the
Explanatory Memorandum), the 4 kg collection target consti-
tutes only 25 % of the overall annual generation of WEEE,
thus implying that the environmental risks associated with the
remaining 75 % might still not be properly addressed in the
medium term. Therefore, one or more of
the following
suggestions should be considered: (i) changing the proposed
soft
increasing the
proposed 4 kg rate to a more ambitious level; (iii) advancing
the proposed date of 2006; and (iv) introducing a collection
target for WEEE from other than private households, for which
no such target
is proposed. These suggestions seem all
the more justified considering the arguments given in the
description of the contents of Article 4 contained in the
Explanatory Memorandum: a few years ago the proposed
collection rate of 4 kg had already been achieved in pilot
projects in several countries (1).

(ii)

3.3.3 While Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 provides for the
option to export hazardous waste for recovery, including to
third countries, it cannot be denied that the risk posed by
hazardous substances increases with the length of the journey,
given the larger geographic area covered and the increase in
the number of people exposed. Accordingly, as the Committee
has already stated (2), the principle of proximity and self-
sufficiency must be invoked whenever possible, including in
the light of prevention priorities.

3.4. Recovery — Article 6

3.4.1.
The ESC advocates ambitious targets for recovery,
re-use and recycling. According to the Commission, its pro-
posals in this respect reflect the state of the art of recyclers and
do not involve specific extra costs compared to the average
recycling costs observed in a number of European pilot
projects. This being the case, the question arises as to why the
proposed targets only have to be met by 2006 and why they
will then remain unchanged until at least 2009 (possibly more
ambitious targets are only foreseen for the period ‘beyond
2008’). Finally, the Committee would stress that the lack of a
separate target for the re-use of WEEE weakens the proposal’s
re-use objective.

3.4.2.
The Committee realises that these ambitious targets
call for modern, efficient waste management firms. Most
businesses in this sector are SMEs. In order to steadily increase
recovery and recycling rates, encouragement must be given to
investment in this sector, in particular by providing financial
incentives to help SMEs make the necessary adjustments.

3.3. Treatment — Article 5

3.3.1
The Committee welcomes the treatment requirements
set out in Article 5(1). Furthermore, two important instruments
for monitoring the implementation of the environmental
requirements are provided by the obligation on operators to
obtain a permit, and on the Member States to carry out an
inspection if they wish to apply the derogation from the
permit requirement referred to in Articles 9, 10 and 11 of
Directive 75/442/EEC.

3.3.2
In order to avoid market distortions and perverse
incentives to transport waste to other ‘weaker’ areas, the
Member States must ensure that the same environmental
standards apply to waste treatment and recovery plant across
the European Union.

3.5. Financing obligations — Articles 7 and 8

3.5.1.
Article 7 possibly contains the proposal’s most
debated provisions. In the light of the concept of shared
responsibility they aim at spreading the costs associated
with the proposed measures among producers and public
authorities. Whilst the Committee agrees with this principle, it
would like to comment on a number of specific aspects of the
proposed Article 7 as follows:

3.5.2.
charge should be considered essential
effectiveness.

The possibility for consumers to return WEEE free of
for the Directive’s

(1) Norway, for example, quickly reached a collection rate of 5 kg.

(2) OJ C 89, 19.3.1997.

C 116/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2001

3.5.3.
The Committee notes that — in the current situation
— the proposed measures imply a 50 %-50 % burden-sharing
between public authorities and producers. However, in future,
public authorities are expected to bear a higher proportion of
overall costs, putting the consequent application of the shared
responsibility principle under pressure.

contribute to the management of WEEE, Member States should
have recourse to publicity campaigns underpinned by the
mass media. In addition, the importance of innovative, ‘fun’
incentives (e.g. a ‘collection prize’ for local communities) as
well as of environmental education should not be underesti-
mated.

3.5.4.
The proposed provisions regarding the financing
obligation set out in Article 7.3 raise two sets of questions
relating to i) their entry into force and ii) the latitude Member
States have in implementing them.

3.7.

Information for treatment and recycling facilities

Regarding the first aspect,

it should be noted
3.5.4.1.
that the proposal requires producers to (co-) finance the
management of WEEE only five years after the entry into force
of the Directive. The implications of this provision should be
further examined. Here account should be taken of the fact
that whilst the five-year transition period is proposed mainly
with a view to solving the problems related to EEE put on the
market before the entry into force of the Directive (‘old’ (1) as
opposed to ‘new’ EEE), it does not address the problems of EEE
with a life more than five years.

3.5.4.1.1.
Finally, although the proposal appears to allow
Member States to introduce the financing obligation before
the five-year transition period if they wish to do so, this should
be set out more explicitly in the proposal.

As for the second aspect, a major point

3.5.4.2.
for
discussion is whether producers should be allowed to levy a
visible fee on new EEE as demanded by producer organisations.
Whereas — according to the Commission — such a fee could
act as a disincentive for producers to continuously improve
their product design, it is not ruled out by the proposal. Whilst
the use of a visible fee may be justified for ‘old’ EEE put on the
market before the entry into force of the Directive (i.e. before
the importance of new design requirements becomes fully
clear), its use after that period should be considered more
critically.

3.6.

Information for users — Article 9

The Committee would stress the fundamental importance of
adequate information for users. In encouraging consumers to

(1) So as to avoid confusion, a distinction should be made between
products put on the market before the entry into force of the
Directive (‘old’ products) and products put on the market before
the entry into force of
the financing obligation (‘historical’
products).

The Committee believes it is essential to ensure
3.7.1.
recyclers — largely SMEs — are provided with as much
information as possible. Industry could help launch a drive to
modernise SMEs and help them comply with environmental
requirements, taking into account the need to engage the
appropriate vocational training resources.

3.7.2.
The ESC is in favour of preparing recycling manuals,
affixing a distinguishing mark to plastic components and to
those containing hazardous substances, and designing prod-
ucts in such a way as to facilitate separation of the components
destined for recycling from those for disposal.

4. Comments on the hazardous substances proposal

4.1.
The deadline of 1 January 2004 rather than 2008
for eliminating substances such as PBBs and PBDEs, which
Germany, for instance, stopped producing voluntarily as far
back as 1986, would appear more reasonable in terms of
producer compliance. This is borne out by the Commission’s
statement that ‘the last European manufacturer of PBB stopped
its production in the year 2000’.

In Article 5(1) a), b) and c), the Commission lists
4.2.
the criteria for reviewing the substitution requirement by
31 December 2003 (Article 6) — four years earlier than the
entry into force of the requirement. This would seem to clash
with the Directive’s objective. It would be more effective to
provide for arrangements for consulting all stakeholders, and
launch these after the substances referred to in the proposal
have been substituted.
the wording of
Article 5(2) on the possible amendment of the requirements
to substitute the substances covered by the Directive, should
provide for consultation of all stakeholders (recyclers, recovery
operators, and consumer and environmental organisations).

In this respect,

20.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 116/43

4.3. With particular regard to the Directive on substitution
of hazardous substances, the Committee calls for a thorough
examination of the numerous national regulations governing
products containing heavy metals, PBDEs and PBBs, to enable
the new legislation to benefit more satisfactorily from such
experience. In order to ensure that the Directive’s objectives
are achieved, the voluntary agreements which already exist in
some Member State should also be exploited to the full,
by capitalising on their achievements and remedying any
weaknesses encountered thus far.

4.4.
PVC (polyvinyl chloride) is a particularly problematic
substance for the treatment and disposal of WEEE. Plastics in
general account for 20 % of WEEE (point 5.2 of the Explanatory
Memorandum). PVC alone accounts for more than 20 % of the
plastic used in electrical and electronic equipment. In its Green

Brussels, 29 November 2000.

Paper on the Environmental issues of PVC (1), the Commission
identifies and explains the problems which PVC causes for the
environment and human health. These are mostly linked to
the use of certain additives and to the management of PVC
waste.

4.5.
Given the importance of the subject and its impli-
cations for economic and social decisions, the Committee is
ready to contribute to the debate launched by the Green Paper.
It appreciates the Commission’s declared intention to present,
at the beginning of 2001, a communication setting out a
comprehensive Community strategy on the environmental
issues of PVC. The Committee believes that the proposed
Directives must contain an explicit commitment to amend
these legislative instruments in the future, in the light of future
developments in the Community approach to solving the
environmental problems posed by the use of PVC.

(1) Draft Green Paper —Environmental

issues of PVC —

COM/2000/469 of 26 July 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on public access to environmental information’

(2001/C 116/09)

On 25 July 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 175
of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 November 2000. The
rapporteur was Mr Braghin.

At its 377th plenary session (meeting of 29 November 2000) the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion with 107 votes in favour and one abstention.

1.

Introduction

— to pave the way towards the ratification by the European
the UN/ECE Convention (‘the Århus

Community of
Convention’) signed on 25 June 1998;

The proposal

for a directive is not confined to
1.1.
amending Directive 90/313/EEC, but is intended to replace it
in the interests of greater transparency, with a three-fold aim:

— to correct the shortcomings identified in the application

— to adapt Directive 90/313/EEC to developments in infor-

of Directive 90/313/EEC;

mation technologies.