Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on:the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment, andthe Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment
Date: 2001-05-18
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: dangerous substance, electrical equipment, electronic equipment, environmental protection, waste, waste recycling

18.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 148/1

II

(Preparatory Acts)

COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on :

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

Electrical and Electronic Equipment’, and

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

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

(2001/C 148/01)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

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

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

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

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

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

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

C 148/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2001

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

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

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

Views and recommendations of the Committee of the
Regions

public in general. However, the final responsibility has to be
shared by the producer and the consumer.

1. General comments

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

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

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

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

The Committee believes it

1.6.
the
Commission finalise the further proposed Directive on the
‘Design and Manufacture of Electrical and Electronic Equip-
to guiding the industry on the
ment’ which is essential
principles of WEEE reduction.

is imperative that

the potential economic benefits of

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

financial costs resulting from the Directive,

1.4.
The proposals will require a new approach to design
and technology by the manufactures of electrical and electronic
equipment and it is inevitable that the costs incurred by
compliance with the Directive’s recommendations may ulti-
mately be borne by the consumer. While the Committee
accepts that some price rises are inevitable to compensate the
extra costs of production associated with revised design and
with the obligations on producers for recovery and disposal, it
is essential that the growing costs of waste disposal associated
with electrical and electronic equipment are not borne by the

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

18.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 148/3

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

the Directive should ensure that

2. Comments on the Directive for Waste Electrical and

Electronic Equipment

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

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

2.3.
The Committee would highlight that compliance with
the Directive’s proposals within some Member States will
present difficulties where no existing legislative provision in
this field currently exists. At least one third of the Member
States have not undertaken any legislative measures controlling
WEEE. This will further compound problems for local and

authorities devising systems

regional
the
implementation of the Directive principles. The lack of a
legislative framework in Member States may also
national
encroach upon the practicality of achieving the timeframes for
the reduction in WEEE targets imposed by the Directive.

to promote

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

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

The Committee welcomes

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

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

C 148/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2001

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

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

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

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

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

The Committee would emphasise the employment
2.13.
potential that the proposal on WEEE presents particularly in
the recycling industry. Although the potential economic

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

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

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

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

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

18.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 148/5

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

hazardous substances, the Committee believes it should also be
highlighted that the presence of certain hazardous substances
poses a health risk to those employees of recycling plants,
therefore reinforcing the need to reduce the levels of hazardous
substances. The risks to employees in this sector may require
further analysis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.4.
In addition to the potential risks of pollution and
associated health issues resulting from the disposal of these

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

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

The Committee of

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

4. Conclusion

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

C 148/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2001

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

relevant guidelines are drawn up in the near future in particular
the proposed Directive on the ‘Design and Manufacture of
Electrical and Electronic Equipment’. The Commission should
monitor action by Member States especially those that have
not undertaken the preparation of WEEE legislation.

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

4.4.
The Committee notes that the proposed target values
should be achievable at reasonable expense if all the requisite

Brussels, 14 February 2001.

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

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT