WRITTEN QUESTION P-0744/03 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Financing of the treatment of waste electronic and electrical equipment.
Date: 2003-03-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: electrical equipment, electronic equipment, environmental policy, financing, pneumatic tyre, producer's liability, waste management, waste recycling

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/171

The actual expenditure declared and reimbursed by the Commission is listed in the following table:

Member State

Total expenditure

Expenditure
reimbursed by the Commission

Reimbursement
as a percentage of total expenditure (%)

Belgium

Portugal

Spain

1,496

18,040

161,945

0,748

13,523

121,016

50

75

74,7

(EUR million)

In the case of Spain and Portugal, the aid was used to compensate fishermen and vessels owners owing to
the non-renewal of the fisheries agreement with Morocco, forcing about 400 vessels and about 4 000
fishermen to quit this activity.

In the case of Belgium, 60 vessels and more than 300 fishermen were granted compensation on the basis
of article 16.1(a) of the FIFG Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 (1) ‘unforeseeable circumstances, caused by
biological factors’.

The closure of the programmes relating to the previous programming period 1994-1999 will take place in
2003. The preliminary figures show that about EUR 54 million were granted for temporary cessation, of
which the Community part amounts to EUR 38 million (Spain EUR 31 million, Denmark EUR 4 million,
Portugal EUR 2 million and Sweden EUR 1 million).

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements

regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (cid:1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

(2003/C 242 E/179)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0744/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 March 2003)

Subject: Financing of the treatment of waste electronic and electrical equipment

Article 8(2) of Directive 2002/96/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste electrical
and electronic equipment (WEEE) lays down that ‘… each producer shall be responsible for financing the
operations … relating to the waste from his own products’. Furthermore, Article 9 lays down that ‘Member
States shall ensure that, by 13 August 2005, the financing of the costs for the collection, treatment,
recovery and environmentally sound disposal of WEEE … is to be provided for by producers. For WEEE
from products put on the market before 13 August 2005 (historical waste), the financing of the costs …
shall be provided for by the producers. Member States may, as an alternative, provide that users other than
private households also be made, partly or totally, responsible for this financing’.

In other words, the Directive referred to above lays down that the producers are responsible for financing
the collection and disposal of such waste. Recently, various Environmental Policy Agreements (EPA) have
been included by the Flemish Ministry for the Human Environment in a Flemish Government Bill. With
regard to this Directive, this concerned the implementation of the obligation to accept waste set out in the
Flemish Regulation on the Prevention and Management of Waste relating respectively to waste lead starter
batteries and waste batteries.

Article 5(2) of the EPA on waste lead starter batteries lays down that only the direct costs relating to
collection with a view to the subsequent treatment of waste lead starter batteries should be borne by the
management body. Similarly, with respect to waste batteries, the indirect costs are transferred to the local
authorities. What this means in practice is that the local authorities have to bear the indirect costs.
Accordingly, and despite the European Union Directive, the consumer/citizen in Flanders actually has to
pay for the treatment of such waste electrical and electronic equipment.

C 242 E/172

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

Does the Commission take the view that these EPAs are not in conformity with relevant European
legislation?

If so, what measures will the Commission take as a consequence thereof?

If not, how does the Commission justify a situation where the treatment costs are being borne by the
citizen?

What is the Commission’s view of the shifting onto the citizen of the indirect costs relating to other non-
electronic products, such as waste tapes, in respect of which the same principle applies?

(1) OJ L 37, 13.2.2003, p. 24.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Directive 2002/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council on waste electrical and electronic equipment
(WEEE) implements the principle of producer responsibility, as producers have to finance the treatment,
recovery and environmentally sound disposal of waste electrical and electronic equipment from private
households. This responsibility starts from the designated collection point onwards. Producers can meet
their obligations individually or by leaving the actual work to third parties and this could be by a local
authority, which they would pay for. Batteries have to be removed from separately collected WEEE (1), and
the financing for this treatment is to be provided by producers.

The Directive entered into force on 13 February 2003. The deadline for the transposition of the Directive
by Member States is 13 August 2004. The finance obligations for household WEEE (Article 8) and non-
household WEEE (Article 9) provided for by the Directive enter into force on 13 August 2005.

In Flanders, the Flemish Reglementation on waste prevention and management (Vlarea) implements the
producer responsibility principle by requiring producers to take back electrical and electronic waste free of
charge. The purpose of the take back principle is to make producers financially responsible for the
collection and treatment of waste.

The Environmental Policy Agreement (EPA or in Flemish: Milieubeleidsovereenkomst (MBO)) of 26 January
the Vlarea-take back obligation of electrical and electronic waste
2001 on the implementation of
establishes a financing system for the collection and treatment of electrical and electronic waste. According
to Article 7 of
the producers and importers should establish management committees
(beheersorganismen) which are responsible for the collection and treatment of electrical and electronic
waste. Article 5 (4) of this EPA stipulates that at a certain point in the collection system, the management
committees should collect the electrical and electronic waste free of charge. Therefore, it seems that in line
with the Directive the consumers can take back the electrical and electronic waste free of charge.

this EPA,

Rules on the financing of the collection and treatment of waste batteries for the Flemish Region are laid
down in an Environmental Policy Agreement on batteries and a recent Environmental Policy Agreement
on waste lead starter batteries. Council Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries and
to ensure the efficient
accumulators on certain dangerous
organisation of separate collection and recovery of spent batteries and accumulators. Since this Directive
does not contain any specific rules on who should bear the costs of collection and treatment of waste
level. The Commission has no
batteries, Member States are free to establish such rules at national
indication that the Flemish EPA’s on batteries are not in conformity with the relevant Community
legislation in the field of batteries.

requires Member States

substances (2)

As regards the waste tyres, the Flemish Environmental Policy Agreement on waste tyres requires producers
and importers to establish a management committee responsible for taking preventive measures and for
taking measures for the collection and treatment of waste tyres. The management committee is also
financially responsible for the collection and treatment of waste tyres, instead of the municipalities. It seems
that citizens can take back their waste tyres free of charge at the container parks that accept waste tyres.
There is no specific piece of Community legislation establishing rules on who should bear the costs for the

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/173

collection and treatment of waste tyres. Therefore, Member States are free to establish such rules at
national level. Furthermore, the Commission has no indication that the Flemish EPA on waste tyres is not
in conformity with relevant Community legislation, such as Directive 2000/53/EC of the Parliament and of
the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles (3).

(1) Article 6(1) of Directive 2002/96/EC.
(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.
(3) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000.

(2003/C 242 E/180)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0763/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE), Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE)
and Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Nitrofuran residues in imported shrimp and poultry

(12 March 2003)

On 17 December 2002, the Commission made a statement on the presence of nitrofurans and other
prohibited substances in poultry and shrimps imported from third countries.

As several questions raised remained unanswered, the Commission made a second statement concerning
nitrofurans and other residues in poultry and shrimps at the meeting of the Committee on Environment
on 19 February 2003.

During the debate, the following question was raised: How many rapid alerts related to residues in food
products imported from Vietnam had been launched after 2 October 2002, when Commission decision
2002/770/EC (1) lifted the safeguard measures regarding shrimp imports from Vietnam? The Commissioner
indicated that this question had been answered the previous day to a parliamentary delegation at the FVO
in Ireland.

As this had actually not been the case, the Commission should inform Parliament about the number of
rapid alerts relating to residues in food products imported from Vietnam launched before and after
2 October 2002. How many rapid alerts related to nitrofuran or chloramphenicol residues in food
imported from other third countries were launched in 2002? Which countries were concerned? What
action was taken by the Commission in order to guarantee consumer safety?

Has the contaminated food been sent back to the country of origin? If not, how was the disposal of the
contaminated material organised? Can the Commission guarantee that the contaminated material did not
end up in feedingstuffs?

(1) OJ L 265, 3.10.2002, p. 16.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

It appears from the question that the Honourable Members may not be aware of the memorandum
forwarded to Parliament on 14 February 2003 regarding its policy on residues. This memorandum by the
Commission addresses the full range of issues relating to residues, including the questions raised in the
Parliament on 17 December 2002.

With regard to Vietnam, before 2 October 2002, 59 notifications concerning shrimps with residues of
prohibited substances were issued through the Rapid Alert System for Food (RASFF). Since then,
16 notifications on the same subject have been issued. Of these, three notifications have been issued in the
year 2003 and none after 31 January 2003.