Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment" (COM(2003) 219 final — 2003/0084 (COD))
Date: 2003-07-17
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU environmental policy, electronic waste, financing, producer's liability, waste management, waste recycling

30.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/91

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and
electronic equipment’

(COM(2003) 219 final — 2003/0084 (COD))

(2003/C 234/20)

On 13 May 2003, the Council, acting in accordance with Article 175 of the Treaty establishing the
European Community, decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee on the above-
mentioned proposal.

On 13 May 2003, the Economic and Social Committee Bureau instructed the Section for Agriculture,
Rural Development and the Environment to prepare the Committee’s work on the subject.

Owing to the urgent nature of the opinion, the 401st Plenary Session of the Economic and Social
Committee of 16 and 17 July 2003 (meeting of 17 July) appointed Mrs Cassina as rapporteur-general
and, at its meeting on 17 July, adopted the opinion by 65 votes to none, with one abstention.

1.

Introduction and gist of the proposal

1.1.
Directive No 2002/96/EEC on waste electric and
(WEEE) governs the collection and
electronic equipment
environmentally sound treatment of products ranging from
large industrial machines to small household appliances (wash-
ing machines, refrigerators, toasters, hairdryers etc.), including
tele-
IT and telecommunication equipment (PCs, printers,
phones) and even mobile telephones. The legal basis can be
found in Article 175(1) of the Treaty, and on the basis of the
precautionary principle, the aim of the Directive is to ensure
that the equipment referred to and/or their components are
disposed of or recycled in an environmentally sound manner.

On 29 April 2003 (1),

the Commission proposed
1.2.
amending the directive that had been adopted only a few
months earlier by the European Parliament and by the
Council (2). The proposal for an amendment tabled so soon
after adoption was justified as follows:

1.2.1.
During the final stages of adoption, it became clear
that an amendment to Article 9 (approved at first reading)
gave sole responsibility to the producers (3) of electrical and
electronic equipment (EEA) supplied to non-household sources
for disposing of EEA that has been discarded or replaced by
the latter.

In procedural terms, since no amendment had been
1.2.2.
tabled during the final stage of the decision-making process, it
was impossible to amend Article 9 at the adoption stage.

To

the

remedy

problems

1.2.3.
associated with
implementing Article 9, the European Parliament, the Council
and the Commission issued a joint declaration (4) recognising
the need for a prompt amendment to the Directive before the
deadline for transposition by the Member States was reached,
i.e. before 13 August 2004.

The amendment only concerns WEEE from non-

1.3.
household sources.

The proposed amendment transfers responsibility
1.3.1.
for financing the collection, treatment, recycling and disposal
of WEEE put on the market before 13 August 2005 (historical
waste) and replaced by producers,
to producers of new
products when supplying replacements. As an alternative,
Member States may provide that users be made partly or
wholly responsible for this financing.

1.3.2.
for financing the costs.

For waste that is not replaced, users are responsible

2. Comments

Directive 2002/96/EEC is very important in that it
2.1.
in line with other pieces of
takes a coherent approach,
environmental
legislation, to tackling the risks posed by
products that are becoming increasingly widespread in daily
life, both in the home and in the workplace. In addition, before

( 1) COM(2003) 219 final.
( 2) OJ L 37 of 13.3.2003, p. 24. See also the EESC opinion OJ C 116

of 20.4.2001.

( 3) Article 9 states that: ‘for WEEE from products put on the market
before 13 August 2005 (historical waste), the financing of the
costs of management shall be provided for by producers’.

(4) Appended to the Directive.

C 234/92

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.9.2003

this Directive, over 90 % of WEEE was either dumped,
incinerated or re-used without adequate prior treatment to
reduce the risk of pollution. The EESC therefore stresses that
the proposed amendment must be examined with the key
environmental aim of the Directive firmly in mind (1).

2.2.
The proposed amendment is logical since it seeks to
avoid a situation in which EEE producers alone are responsible
for costs that risk compromising the economic livelihood of
firms that might have lost market share over the years and are
experiencing economic difficulties. It is, however, a logic that
reflects market concerns rather than environmental objectives.

2.3.
In this respect, the EESC notes that, in the case of non-
replacement, the responsibility for all costs would lie with
users and could create some problems, for example, if non-
replacement were caused by bankruptcy of an enterprise,
cessation of production due to force majeure, or non-compliance
on the part of the owner, etc.

In the specific case of cessation of production or
2.3.1.
activities due to force majeure and if the user cannot be required
to cover the costs, it would not only be unfair to impose
additional costs on businesses already facing difficulties, but it
could create a significant environmental hazard during the
delay in finding some as yet unidentified players to dispose of
the WEEE in question. The EESC believes that in this case,
Member States should be responsible for ensuring environmen-
tally sound waste disposal.

2.4.
The EESC notes that Member States are given the
freedom to make provisions for, in the case of replacement,
users to be partly or wholly responsible for financing the

treatment of WEEE. The Committee observes that significant
differences in provisions between Member States could in
some cases lead to distortions in competition, since the
situation could arise where users in one Member State are fully
exempt from costs whilst users in another Member State are
fully responsible.

The Directive also gives producers and users the
2.5.
freedom to conclude agreements stipulating other financing
methods (2). The EESC therefore notes that the Directive
appears to be advocating different approaches to identifying
responsibility and respective degrees of liability.

3. Conclusions

3.1.
In view of the above comments, the EESC considers
that it would be advisable not to offer too many options, and
that co-responsibility between producers and users should be
the only permissible method, albeit allowing for variation in
the percentage share of responsibility. Accordingly, the EESC
believes it would be more equitable, transparent and environ-
mentally sound if the amendment simply provides for co-
responsibility for producer and user, including for historical
waste, since the method for applying co-responsibility will be
clearly laid out in purchase agreements for all products bought
after 13 August 2005.

3.2.
In any event, when it comes to implementing the
Directive, the EESC urges the Member States to ascertain that
liability is set out clearly and allocated equitably, since
achieving the environmental objectives of the Directive will be
greatly facilitated if there is a clearly accepted definition of the
arrangements for co-responsibility.

( 1) See opinion on Directive 2002/96 (OJ C 116 of 20.4.2001,
pp. 38-43) for its broadly positive comments and assessment.

(2) Article 9(2) of the proposal.

Brussels, 17 July 2003.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH