Commission staff working paper accompanying the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (recast) - Impact Assessment {COM(2008) 810 final} {SEC(2008) 2934}
Date: 2008-12-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: dangerous substance, electrical equipment, electronic equipment, electronic waste, environmental protection, waste management

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 3.12.2008 
SEC(2008) 2933 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

accompanying the 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) 

(recast) 

Impact Assessment 

{COM(2008) 810 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2934} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Summary and Conclusions...................................................................................................... 5 

1. 

Policy background, procedural issues and consultation of interested parties ............ 17 

1.1. 

Policy background...................................................................................................... 17 

1.1.1.  General background ................................................................................................... 17 

1.1.2.  Objectives and rationale of the WEEE and RoHS Directives.................................... 18 

1.1.3.  Experience with implementing the Directives ........................................................... 19 

1.1.4.  Review........................................................................................................................ 20 

1.2. 

Expertise and information .......................................................................................... 20 

1.2.1. 

Implementation Assessment....................................................................................... 20 

1.2.2.  Data gathering exercise .............................................................................................. 20 

1.2.3.  Research studies ......................................................................................................... 21 

1.2.4.  Compliance check studies .......................................................................................... 21 

1.2.5.  Reporting from Member States on implementation................................................... 21 

1.2.6.  Study on administrative burden ................................................................................. 22 

1.2.7.  Other sources.............................................................................................................. 22 

1.3. 

Direct Consultation .................................................................................................... 22 

2. 

Problem Definition..................................................................................................... 25 

2.1. 

Introduction to the problem and who is affected ....................................................... 25 

2.1.1. 

Introduction to the problem........................................................................................ 25 

2.1.2.  Who is affected and how? .......................................................................................... 25 

2.2.  WEEE Arising- Baseline scenario 2011-2020........................................................... 26 

2.2.1.  WEEE arising: Volumes of WEEE............................................................................ 26 

2.2.2.  WEEE Arising: Composition by type of Equipment ................................................. 27 

2.2.3.  Material composition of WEEE ................................................................................. 28 

2.3. 

Problems with the Effectiveness of the Directive- Baseline scenario 2011-2020 ..... 31 

2.3.1.  Current Collection of WEEE ..................................................................................... 31 

2.3.2.  Current Destinations of WEEE .................................................................................. 34 

2.3.3.  Quantitative Estimations on Collection and Destinations of WEEE in 2005 ............ 39 

2.3.4.  Drivers of the Effectiveness Problems....................................................................... 41 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
2.3.5.  Evolution of the Effectiveness Problems: 2011-2020 (No action/ Baseline scenario)

.................................................................................................................................... 42 

2.3.6. 

Impacts of the Effectiveness Problems: 2011-2020 (No action/ Baseline scenario) . 45 

2.4. 

Problems with the Efficiency of the Directive- Baseline scenario 2011-2020 .......... 50 

2.4.1.  Description of the Problems....................................................................................... 50 

2.4.2.  Drivers of the Efficiency Problems............................................................................ 50 

2.4.3.  Evolution of the Efficiency Problems: 2011-2020 (No action/Baseline scenario) .... 52 

2.5. 

The EU right to act..................................................................................................... 53 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 54 

General, specific and operational objectives.............................................................. 54 

Policy coherence ........................................................................................................ 54 

Options to Improve the Effectiveness of the Directive.............................................. 56 

Description of the Options ......................................................................................... 56 

Analysis of impacts .................................................................................................... 56 

4.2.1.  Option (1): No action ................................................................................................. 56 

4.2.2.  Option (2): Minimum legal requirements for inspections of WEEE treatment ......... 57 

4.2.3.  Option (3) Minimum inspection requirements for waste shipments.......................... 59 

4.2.4. 

Increase the collection targets (85% of WEEE arising), make producers responsible 
for this target and include B2B equipment in the scope of the collection target. ...... 60 

4.2.5.  Option (5) Set a 100% collection target on the environmentally most relevant streams
.................................................................................................................................... 66 

4.2.6.  Option (6) Collection targets set in relation to EEE put on the market in the 

preceding year ............................................................................................................ 67 

4.3. 

Sensitivity of the analysis to changes in estimates of the collection rate and 
relationship of EEE put on market to WEEE arising................................................. 68 

4.4. 

Comparison of Options to improve Effectiveness ..................................................... 72 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

Options to improve the Efficiency of the Directive ................................................... 77 

Description of the Options ......................................................................................... 77 

Analysis of impacts .................................................................................................... 78 

5.2.1.  Option (1): No action ................................................................................................. 78 

5.2.2.  Option (2): Clarifying the scope by using fixed lists of products .............................. 79 

5.2.3.  Option (3): Defining the scope under the RoHS Directive ........................................ 79 

5.2.4.  Option (4): Classifying categories of equipment ....................................................... 79 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
5.2.5.  Option (5): Inter-operability of national registers and harmonisation of reporting 

requirements............................................................................................................... 80 

5.2.6.  Option (6): EU operated register................................................................................ 82 

5.2.7.  Option (7): Include the reuse of whole appliances in the components, material and 

substance reuse and recycling targets ........................................................................ 82 

5.2.8.  Option (8): Include recycling and recovery targets for medical devices ................... 83 

5.3. 

Comparison of Options to Improve the Efficiency of the Directive.......................... 84 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

7. 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 86 

Indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives .............................................. 86 

Outline for monitoring and evaluation arrangements ................................................ 86 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 87 

Annex 1: Description of (research) studies .............................................................................. 89 

Annex 2: Environmentally relevant materials arising as waste (UNU Study,2007)................ 91 

Annex 3: Physical and financial responsibilities for collection ............................................... 92 

Annex 4: Evolution of Collection Performance to meet targets .............................................. 93 

Annex 5: Leaching of metals of disposed WEEE .................................................................... 95 

Annex 6: Details on environmental impacts of WEEE............................................................ 96 

Annex 7: Background to the driver of different implementation of the provisions on the 

producer registration/reporting: ............................................................................... 101 

Annex 8: Mapping of the administrative burden of the WEEE Directive ............................. 104 

Annex 9: Policy Coherence.................................................................................................... 106 

Annex 10: Markets for secondary materials .......................................................................... 110 

Annex 11: EEE separately collected, treated and reported .................................................... 111 

Annex 12: Options rejected during the review and in particular after the stakeholder 

consultation .............................................................................................................. 112 

Annex 13: Detailed cost calculation of the inter-operability option ...................................... 114 

Biliography............................................................................................................................. 117 

Glossary of terms ................................................................................................................... 118 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
Summary and Conclusions   

1. The Problem 

The  WEEE  Directive  aims  to  tackle  improper  treatment  of  waste  electrical  and  electronic 
equipment (WEEE). This is the fastest growing waste stream in the EU, producing 8.3-9.1million 
tonnes in 2005, growing to 12.3 million tonnes of WEEE by 2020.  

Both  at  the  time  of  the  WEEE  Directive's  conception  and  for  the  future,  there  are  two  central 
problems with WEEE: A) disposal of WEEE to landfill and B) suboptimal recycling and recovery 
of  WEEE  by  techniques  that  release  or  generate  harmful  substances.  Both  ends  lose  significant 
valuable recyclable resources and damage the environment and health, in the EU and in developing 
countries. 

Experience  with  the  Directive,  gathered  from  stakeholders  and  Member  States  during  a  3  year 
review,  points  to  the  Directive  not  working  as  effectively  as  intended  and  problems  with  its 
efficiency in achieving its objectives - there are some unnecessary costs.  

2. Problems with the Effectiveness of the Directive 

There  have  been  significant  changes  in  the  patterns  of  collection  and  disposal  since  the  WEEE 
Directive  came  into  force:  the  combined  effect  of  higher  global  metal  prices  and  stimulation  of 
organised  collection  by  the  WEEE  Directive  have  resulted  in  high  amounts  of  WEEE  being 
collected separately from domestic waste, with only an estimated 13% of WEEE going to landfill or 
incineration.  

The indications are that there is separate collection over 85% of WEEE arising, even though only 
33% is officially reported as 'separately collected'. The WEEE Directive contains an obligation for 
all WEEE that is collected separately to be treated in ways which avoid environmental harm, but it 
is estimated that in practice 50% of what is collected - approximately 40% of all WEEE arising - is 
probably not being treated in line with the Directive's objectives and requirements. A large part of 
the  unreported,  but  collected,  WEEE  may  either  be  treated  in  the  EU  without  due  environmental 
care or illegally shipped to developing countries where parts of the valuable material are recycled in 
ways dangerous to the health and environment, or dumped.  

Based  on  current  practice,  this  problem  will  grow  rather  than  diminish,  with  an  estimated  4.3 
million tonnes improperly treated each year by 2020, increasing from 3.4 million tonnes in 2005. 
The predicted destination and collection of WEEE in 2020 is estimated below1: 

1 

pom = put on the market; Arising = amounts of EEE arising as waste in a certain year 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2020 Baseline Scenario - Collection and Treamtment

Collection methods

Business 2 business

Independent collectors

Reuse centres

Retail/distribution

Municipalities

Not seperately collected

Treatment methods

Not properly treated

Not reported but properly treated

Reported + properly treated

Dumped or to Landfill

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

s
e
n
n
o
t

n
o

i
l
l
i

m

EEE sold

Arising

Collection

Treatment

Environmental Issues 

When  WEEE  is  treated  in  the  EU  without  proper  procedures,  environmental  harm  arises,  in 
particular  from  release  of  heavy  metals  like  mercury  from  compact  fluorescent  lamps  and  flat-
screens, and lead from TV's. Cooling and freezing equipment will release an average of over 6,720 
tonnes ozone-depleting greenhouse gases annually over 2011-20 causing climate damage monetised 
at around €1bn each year.  

In developing countries improper treatment and dumping of waste, is a health problem, with both 
adult  and  child  workers  being  exposed  to  highly  toxic  substances  whilst  extracting  valuable 
materials  from  WEEE  with  no  health  or  environmental  procedures.  Recycling  procedures  that  do 
not use best practice  waste recyclable precious metals and plastics with knock-on energy use and 
environmental harm from production of virgin material. 

Economic and Social Issues 

WEEE  itself  is  an  economic  resource,  with  material  value  currently  estimated  in  the  order  of 
magnitude  of  €2  bn  a  year.  Whilst  the  economic  cost s  for  society  of  collection,  disposing  of  and 
treating WEEE are estimated to increase to €5. 6bn a year by 2020, including activity by public and 
informal sectors. With most of this activity taking place in the EU, this waste management activity 
brings revenue and employment to a waste treatment sector employing much manual labour.  

3. Main Problems with the Efficiency of the Directive 

Of the unnecessary costs identified in the operation of the Directive the most significant come from 
uncertainty on the scope of the Directive and requirements for producers to register and report in 
each  Member  State  they  sell  in.  Specific  activity  required  by  business  from  these,  and  other 
avoidable  administrative  costs  are  estimated  at  €66m  /year  using  the  EU's  standard  cost  method. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
These  are  set  to  continue.  Differences  in  implementation  practice  on  registration  also  lead  to 
unwanted free-riding by distance-sellers, who pass their costs on to registered producers. 

4. Objectives 

The key objectives of the review are to solve problems with the effectiveness and the efficiency of 
the Directive: to put in place the conditions which bring about proper treatment of all WEEE being 
collected and to reduce the amounts of WEEE going to landfill; and to remove all unnecessary costs 
in  achieving  those  goals.  There  are  also  objectives,  in  line  with  other  EU  policy,  to  promote 
employment for lower skilled workers and in high-tech innovation with export growth potential.  

5. Options 

The Commission services considered many options during the review, together with stakeholders. 
Some  of  those  which  were  considered  but  not  described  in  this  IA  are  in  Annex  12.  The  options 
analysed in this IA are: 

To tackle problems with Effectiveness:  

Option 1: Take no action  

Option 2: Minimum inspection and enforcement requirements for treatment of WEEE 

Option 3: Minimum inspection and enforcement requirements for waste shipment 

Option  4:  Increase  collection  target  to  align  with  quantities  collected  already  (85%  of  WEEE 
arising), make producers responsible for this target, and include B2B equipment in the scope of the 
collection target; 

Option 5: Set collection targets for the environmentally most relevant streams; 

Option 6: Change the method of setting the target from kg/inhabitant to a % of the quantity of EEE 
put on the market in preceding year. 

To tackle problems with Efficiency: 

Option 1: Take no action 

To clarify scope and categorisation (alternatives): 

Option 2: Clarify the scope using fixed lists 

Option 3: Define the WEEE scope under the RoHS Directive 

Option 4: Classifying categories of equipment as WEEE from private households or B2B  

To cut administrative burden from registration and reporting (alternatives): 

Option 5: Inter-operability of national registers and harmonisation of reporting requirements 

Option 6: EU operated Register 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
There are also 2 other options presented with smaller impacts: to include re-use within collection 
targets (Option 7); and to set targets for the proportion of each tonne of medical equipment that is to 
be recycled and recovered as already in place other categories of WEEE (Option 8). 

6. Impact Analysis and Comparison of Options 

Stronger Enforcement and/or Higher Targets to achieve the objectives? 

It  is  assumed  that  the  Directive's  existing  requirements  for  proper  treatment  of  all  separately 
collected  WEEE  have  not  been  effective  due  to:  the  high  material  value  of  WEEE  (which  makes 
informal collection and trade of WEEE profitable) and the additional costs of treatment in line with 
the Directive’s requirements (which provide an incentive for improper treatment). 

Efforts  to  increase  enforcement  of  treatment  and  shipment  of  WEEE  (Options  2  and  3)  appear 
unlikely to be sufficiently efficient or effective to improve management of WEEE in line with the 
Directive. Both actions would provide increased disincentive to improperly treat WEEE but given 
the  assumed  volume  of  separately  collected  WEEE  which  is  not  properly  reported  and  treated, 
Member  States  would  need  to  dedicate  very  high  levels  of  resources  to  this  to  make  improper 
treatment unattractive. The costs of those enforcement resources would be a significant additional 
cost for society.  

Setting targets at the estimated current level of all separate WEEE collection (Option 4) – 85% of 
WEEE  arising  -  would  achieve  that  level  of  collection  more  effectively,  and  without  these 
additional enforcement costs. Under higher collection targets, to transparently meet their obligation 
to  treat  all  separately  collected  WEEE,  producers  would  need  to  offer  sufficient  incentives  for 
organisations separately collecting WEEE to deliver that WEEE to proper treatment. For example, 
the producer would have to offer an incentive that was sufficiently attractive compared to the price 
that an unauthorised recycler would pay in the grey market to receive WEEE.  

In this situation, the level of collection activity (both formal and informal) would not change but the 
destination of informally collected and traded WEEE would change. With no changes to the extent 
of WEEE collection activity, the costs to society from collection would not change in this option, 
compared to the baseline. The producer would continue to have to pay for the costs of the additional 
processes required during recycling to avoid environmental damage, but would now pay these for 
all separately collected WEEE, as the Directive intended.  

Whilst the two possibilities have not been set out against each other in the stakeholder consultation, 
there was certainly support from stakeholders for having better enforcement, in particular when it 
concerns the shipments of WEEE. 

Following page: Summary Table of Impacts of Options for Effectiveness 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
Option 

No change 

Greater Enforcement 

85% Collection Target 

Specific Targets 

(Option 1) 

(Options 2&3) 

(Option 4) 

(Option 5) 

Landfill and Illegal Disposal 

Destinations 
(% WEEE) 

Treatment in line with Directive 

Improper Treatment 

11 

54 

35 

11 

59 

30 

11 

85 

4 

11 

60 

29 

Gross Total Costs (€) 

5.6bn + enforcement 

6bn – 6.3 + basic 
enforcement 

6.8bn + basic enforcement 

6.5 - 6.8bn + basic 
enforcement 

Collection & transport 

Additional costs 

Basic Treatment 

Additional Treatment to meet 
legal standards 

1.8bn 

0.9bn 

1.3bn 

1.6bn 

1.8bn 

0.9bn 

1.3bn 

1.8bn 

1.8bn 

1.1bn 

1.3bn 

2.6bn 

1.8bn 

1.1bn 

1.3bn 

2.2bn 

Enforcement Costs 

Not known to Commission 

Increase estimated 
between 0.2 - 0.5bn 

No increase 

An increase, perhaps 0.1 - 
0.3bn 

Value of Material Recovered (€) 

 2.2bn  

 2.2bn 

2.2bn 

 2.2bn 

Environmental 
Damage 

General 

Baseline: Ozone depletion 
from 6720 tonnes of ODS 
released. Climate Damage 
of €1bn 

Some reduction of climate 
damage possible; not 
quantifiable  

Dependent on entry date 
of targets: Climate 
Damage reduced by €2bn-
0.2bn/yr. Ozone depletion 
reduced by 12000-1200 
tonnes. 

Dependent on entry date 
of targets: Climate 
Damage reduced by €2bn-
0.2bn/yr. Ozone depletion 
reduced by 12000-1200 
tonnes. 

S
T
S
O
C
L
A
U
N
N
A

S
T
I
F
E
N
E
B
L
A
U
N
N
A

EN 

9 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
In or out EU 

Assumed 4,3 million 
tonnes treated improperly 
in our outside the EU 

Assumed 3,7 million 
tonnes treated improperly 
in our outside the EU 

Assumed 0,5 million 
tonnes treated improperly 
in our outside the EU 

Assumed 3,5 million 
tonnes treated improperly 
in our outside the EU 

Innovation and Export Markets 

Little additional stimulus 
for development of sorting 
and recycling technologies 

Small stimulus for 
technology development 
in a growing global 
market 

Significant stimulus for 
technology development 
in a growing global 
market 

Some stimulus for 
technology development 
in a growing global 
market 

EU Employment 

Baseline: Estimated 
number of jobs in EU 
treating WEEE about 
several ten thousands 

Small increase in EU 
manual work, with 
estimated waste industry 
revenue increase €0.1bn  

Greater EU high tech and 
manual work, estimated 
waste industry revenue 
increase €0.6bn 

Higher EU high tech and 
manual work, estimated 
waste industry revenue 
increase €0.4bn 

EN 

10 

EN 

 
  
Setting the level and type of Target 

The Impact Assessment has shown evidence to assume that already 85% of arising WEEE is being 
separately  collected,  although  not  all  is  reported.  The  separately  collected  85%  of  WEEE  arising 
includes  nearly  all  the  large  and  medium  size  WEEE  which  is  economic  to  collect.  Data  suggest 
that  collection  costs  per  unit  collected  remain  the  same,  certainly  between  25  to  85%  of  WEEE 
arising.  

Setting targets (in Option 4) above the level of WEEE already being collected would require further 
separation  of  small  WEEE  from  mixed  waste.  This  would  bring  greater  environmental  benefits  – 
both  from  recovering  materials  from  landfill  and  particularly  for  some  streams  (see  below),  but 
would be more expensive per tonne to collect.  

Setting targets significantly below the level of WEEE already being collected would diverge from 
the  existing  intention  of  the  Directive  and  would  make  enforcement  activities  more  costly,  as 
greater amounts of WEEE would still be collected in the grey-economy.  

To meet objectives, collection targets would best be set at the level of WEEE which is estimated to 
actually  being  collected  already  (85%  of  WEEE  arising).  At  this  level,  significant  proportions  of 
small  WEEE,  including  compact  fluorescent  lamps,  which  is  currently  estimated  to  be  lost  in 
unsorted domestic collection, would be at risk of going to unsorted waste. 

Bringing  about  proper  treatment  of  all  separately  collected  WEEE  would  make  the  Directive 
effective  at  bringing  about  treatment  and  recycling  of  nearly  all  large  and  medium  sized  WEEE. 
This  brings  added  costs  from  increased  amounts  of  WEEE  being  treated  in  accordance  with  high 
environmental  standards:  costs  are  estimated  to  be  around  €1bn  per  year  on 
top  of  the  costs  of 
€5.6bn per year for (gross) collection, disposal  and treatment, if no further action is taken. 

As the type of WEEE being treated will not change, only the amounts, treatment costs per unit will 
either  remain  the  same,  or  reduce  with  economies  of  scale.  The  existing  formal  and  informal 
collection infrastructure would not need to be expanded. This means that setting an 85% target does 
not decrease the cost-effectiveness of collection and treatment, but may (possibly) reduce the costs 
per unit for achieving environmental benefit from the Directive.  

In Option 5, the fractions of WEEE with greatest potential for environmental harm, like cooling and 
freezing  equipment,  would  be  collected  and  so  would  receive  (expensive)  treatment.  In  this 
situation,  remaining  specific  climate  and  ozone  layer  harm  from  cooling  and  freezing  equipment 
could be largely avoided by setting a 100% collection target of waste arising for these equipment 
types. 

Compared  to  Option  4,  Option  5  has  the  advantage  that  proportions  of  certain  streams  of  WEEE 
which  are  less  environmentally  damaging,  would  not  need  to  be  collected  and  formally  reported. 
Particularly  for  some  of  the  large  household  appliances,  there  are  no  great  additional  costs  for 
recycling  and  treatment  that  avoids  environmental  harm.  For  these  streams  a  proportion  of  the 
organisational  costs  would  be  saved  in  the  formal  economy.  Compared  to  Option  5,  this  option 
would have the benefits (and costs) of pulling greater proportions of some of the more hazardous, 
but light WEEE (like compact fluorescent lamps) out of the domestic waste stream. 

Option  5  would  be  less  effective  at  avoiding  waste  treatment  under  bad  conditions  in  developing 
countries, with a significant proportion of the 29% of all WEEE arising not being treated under the 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
collection target likely to go for illegal treatment. The illegal shipment of waste could be reduced 
through  greater  enforcement,  but  with  a  large  proportion  of  WEEE  outside  producer  targets,  the 
grey  trade  in  WEEE  would  be  likely  to  be  significant,  making  enforcement  more  costly  and  less 
effective than in Option 4. 

Stakeholders, in general, rather linked the control on the hazardous substances in WEEE to sound 
treatment of the equipment than to an environmental weight based target. As concerns the level of 
the target, very few expressed a desired level. The recycling industries would welcome a rate of no 
less than 65% in function of amounts put on the market. 

Both Options for target setting would include waste from EEE sold to businesses in the collection 
target. This was previously covered separately in the Directive from domestic consumer waste as it 
was historically already separately collected rather than going to landfill or illegal dumping. Now 
both  are  typically  collected,  including  both  streams  into  one  target  will  avoid  problems  of  free-
riding from 'dual-use' waste having its treatment paid for by domestic consumers (see below). 

Setting the Date for the Target to apply 

The Commission proposes to set the revised targets for the end of 2016.  

One of the greatest environmental problems from improper treatment of WEEE in the grey market 
is  the  release  of  CFCs  and  HCFCs  from  fridges,  with  average  monetized  climate  damage  of  the 
to  lower  levels  by  2020  and  very  significant 
magnitude  of  €1bn/yr  in  2011  declining  annually 
ozone-depletion effects. As these are only contained in cooling and freezing equipment sold before 
2002,  the  number  of  CFC/HCFC  fridges  in  WEEE  is  declining  each  year,  and  is  expected  to  be 
small after 2020.  

Therefore, different dates for the entry into force of targets will have significantly different effects 
on the climate and ozone depletion benefits realised by the revised Directive. Targets brought into 
force at the end of 2016 may save something around €0.5bn in the first year de clining to low levels 
by 2020, depending on the rate at which CFC/HCFC equipment comes back. Targets closer to 2011 
would  save  €1bn  of  climate  damage  annually,  w ith  intermediate  years  saving  something  in-
between. 

So, in addition to targets coming into force in 2016, the Commission proposes to consider by 2012 
the  appropriateness  of  a  separate  target  for  cooling  and  freezing  equipment,  to  drive  proper 
treatment  of  all  cooling  and  freezing  equipment  which  is  being  separately  collected  (whether 
formally or informally).  

The  revised  Directive  may  be  adopted  by  Council  and  European  Parliament  in  2011  and  then 
transposed  into  law  in  the  Member  States.  With  the  collection  infrastructure  (including  informal 
collection) already in place for cooling and freezing equipment, the change needed to properly treat 
all  separately  collected  WEEE  in  line  with  the  Directive  is  the  addition  of  sufficient  treatment 
capacity.  

A  suitable  treatment  plant  normally  takes  around  1 year  to  build  and  bring  to  operation.  Costs  of 
installing new treatment capacity are not likely to reduce with greater time.  

Incidence of Costs and Combining Targets with Greater Enforcement 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
Under  Option  4,  producers  are  expected  to  take  steps  to  secure  the  WEEE  needed  to  meet  their 
obligation to treat all separately collected WEEE. This will incur costs, but these costs are estimated 
to be more than offset by the recycling value of the materials in the WEEE that they receive. For 
example, to divert WEEE from unauthorised treatment, the maximum cost a producer would need to 
offer would be around the value of the WEEE to the unauthorised recycler. This price is the profit 
that can be made from recycling the WEEE (under sub-standard conditions) - the material value in 
the WEEE minus the recycling cost.  

Whilst the producer would pay this cost, they would then recover the (higher) material value of the 
WEEE from the recycling – and so are likely not to have any net costs from obtaining WEEE. In 
practice,  it  is  likely  that  producers  would  be  able  to  acquire  substantial  proportions  of  WEEE  for 
less than the net material value: by receiving it directly  from  municipalities or distributors at less 
than market value. This value can be used towards the producers' other obligations. 

Combining greater enforcement (Opts 2&3) with higher collection targets would increase the risks 
for  unauthorised  treatment,  making  that  financially  less  attractive  and  helping  producers  secure 
WEEE with lower incentives. However, the enforcement activity would have a cost. 

Option  4  includes  harmonizing  the  requirement  for  producers  to  have  financial  responsibility  for 
collection of WEEE from households. These collection costs would move costs estimated to be in 
the region of €0.3bn/year from taxpayers to consumers–  but are lower than the material value of the 
WEEE  collected  and  passed  on  by  public  authorities,  estimated  at  €1bn.  Harmonizing  this 
requirement would avoid any possible distortions in the single market from national arrangements 
on financing which might favour domestic producers. 

Producers  would  be  responsible  for  paying  the  additional  costs  of  proper  treatment.  (These 
represent  revenues  for  treatment  operators.)  As  EEE  is  a  competitive  market  and  all  competing 
products  would  be  equally  affected,  the  costs  paid  by  producers  are  assumed  to  be  passed  on  to 
purchasers  of  new  EEE  in  purchase  prices.  As  the  increases  in  purchase  price  from  additional 
WEEE  costs  are  likely  to  be  very  small  (less  than  €1)  on  a  appliance  costing  €150-450,  sales  of 
appliances  are  also  not  thought  to  be  affected,  with  no  reduction  of  the  shareholder  value  of 
producers.  

How to set Targets in tonnes 

Collection  targets  set  as  a  %  of  WEEE  arising  also  need  to  be  determined  in  physical  units  for 
monitoring.  Targets  are  currently  set  by  reference  to  kg/inhabitant.  For  the  EU15  Member  States 
(who have a mainly saturated market for electronic goods) there is a stable relationship between the 
electronic goods put on the market in one year and the WEEE arising in that market in the following 
year (even though this is not the same equipment): levels of WEEE are about 80% of the EEE sold 
in the previous year.  

A collection target of 85% of WEEE arising would be set as a target of about 65% of EEE sold in 
the  previous  year:  (85%  of  80%  of  EEE  sold  but  allowing  for  a  conservative  estimate  of  the 
relationship between EEE and WEEE arising.  

This approach has the disadvantage that, where the relationship between EEE put on the market and 
WEEE arising is not stable, there is greater uncertainty on the correlation between WEEE actually 
arising and the target. It can be assumed that the EU12 markets are less saturated and significantly 
less  WEEE  arises  compared  to  the  amounts  bought,  and  the  relationship  is  less  stable.  For  this 
Impact Assessment it is assumed that this relation in the EU12 will be stabilised by 2020. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
In the stakeholder consultation there was rather support for this option, the option of a fixed target 
not  being  supported  as  it  does  not  reflect  enough  the  variations  between  Member  States  and  is 
unresponsive to increases in WEEE volumes. Additionally, most stakeholders also expressed their 
support to keep the mandatory character of a collection target. 

7. Comparison of Options to improve Efficiency 

Clarifying Scope and Categories 

Of  the  two  options  to  provide  greater  clarity  on  the  scope  of  and  categorisation  in  the  WEEE 
Directive, there is little difference between the impacts; both will provide greater legal precision on 
the scope and both would require publication of lists, either by Member States or the Commission 
of  the  products  considered  within  the  scope.  Neither  option  would  resolve  any  new  uncertainties 
about new products which were not clearly inside or outside the scope.  

If there was any support expressed for using lists to clarify the scope, then stakeholders supported 
the idea of having a positive and a negative list. Harmonising the scope under WEEE was supported 
rather than defining the scope under RoHS, however, this would require introducing a double legal 
basis in the WEEE Directive whereas a similar effect can be reached by referring to the scope in 
RoHS, already targeting harmonisation of scope.  

The  categorisation  of  certain  categories  of  products  as  business  waste  would  avoid  problems  of 
'dual  use'  waste,  when  where  business  equipment  very  similar  to  consumer  equipment  (like  IT 
equipment) enters domestic waste and its treatment paid for by producers of domestic equipment. 
This  'free-riding'  would  be  likely  to  be  more  common  if  greater  volumes  WEEE  were  formally 
collected. 

Cutting unnecessary administrative costs from Registration and Reporting 

Three  options  are  considered  to  cut  the  unnecessary  costs  from  duplication  and  differences  in 
registration and reporting by producers. Either the introduction of an EU Clearing House or single 
EU  register  would  certainly  provide  the  functions  required  for  cutting  the  unnecessary  costs:  the 
single EU register would do so at much greater cost to the European Commission (and so taxpayer) 
with  some  benefit  from  reduced  costs  of  operations  by  Member  States.  Introduction  of  legal 
requirements for interoperability of Member State registers stands a good chance of achieving the 
same  result  for  producers  registration,  avoids  the  need  for  extra  resourcing  for  the  European 
Commission,  but  is  unlikely  to  provide  services  for  reconciling  flows  of  funding  for  treatment 
between schemes with actual cross-border treatment of WEEE. 

Other changes 

Including  reuse  of  whole  appliances  in  the  existing  reuse/recycling  target  would  entail 
environmental  benefits  at  most  likely  no  cost,  as  the  flexibility  on  the  most  sustainable  treatment 
operation (reuse or recycling) would remain. It would help avoiding that re-use is made unattractive 
by a need to meet higher recycling targets, even where it might be economically and socially more 
valuable. 

Setting  targets  for  medical  equipment  (cat.  8)  equipment  to  the  level  of  those  for  monitoring 
equipment (cat. 9) will have relatively small impacts: for some Medical Equipment (perhaps 10,000 
tonnes/year) slightly greater shares of materials will be recovered. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
8. The Recommended Set of Options and the Impacts 

The  analysis  in  this  IA  recommends  the  adoption  of  a  combination  of  options  to  improve  the 
effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  achievement  of  the  WEEE  Directive's  existing  objectives.  These 
options are described with the key impacts in the table below: 

Recommended Policy Options 

Key impacts (compared to baseline) 

To Improve Effectiveness 

Set collection targets for producers at levels 
close  to  the  level  of  collection  currently 
being  undertaken,  include  B2B  waste  in 
those targets. 

Base  these  targets  on  levels  of  EEE  put  on 
the  market in the preceding year, at 65% of 
EEE  put  on  market  for  all  Member  States 
(85% of WEEE arising) 

Set  minimum  requirements  for  inspection 
and  enforcement  by  Member  States,  with 
those requirements decided in Comitology 

To improve efficiency 

Define  the  scope  of  the  Directive  in  the 
RoHS  Directive  (based  on  Article  95  of 
Treaty)  and  Require  Member  States  to 
publish  the  list  of  products  within  the 
national scope 

- 

- 

- 

Additional  treatment  costs  of  €1bn  per 
year, of which a significant but unknown 
proportion  are  increased  revenues  for 
EU treatment business.  

These  costs  fall  on  producers  who  will 
be able to pass these on to consumers 

Annual reduction of environmental harm 
to  the  atmosphere  (of  magnitude  €1bn 
per yr) up to 2020, EU localities  and to 
workers  in  developing  countries  from 
safer  treatment  of  4.3million  tonnes  of 
WEEE. 

Increased, but not total, clarity on the scope of 
products,  with  the  possibility  for  Member 
States to expand the scope in their territory. 

Require  interoperability  and  data-transfer 
between Member State producer registers  

- 

costs  paid  by 
€66million  a  year,  by 

Cuts  unnecessary 
producers  of 
allowing  one  registration  for  all  EU 
harmonised 
with 
obligations, 
requirements 
and 
for 
processes, of which SME's will have the 
biggest proportional benefit. 

reporting 

Include  reuse  of  whole  appliances  in  the 
target for recycling combined with reuse. 

Removes  disincentives  for  re-use  of  products, 
where  that  re-use  is  more  economically  valuable 
than recycling 

Set  targets  for  medical  equipment  (cat.  8) 
equipment 
for 
monitoring equipment (cat. 9)  

level  of 

those 

the 

to 

Small:  for  some  Medical  Equipment  (perhaps 
10,000  tonnes/year  slightly  greater  shares  of 
materials will be recovered. 

Compared to other possible options, this set of options: 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
–  Is  the  most  likely  to  stimulate  proper  treatment  of  all  WEEE  arising  outside  the 
domestic  waste  stream,  but  not  impose  extra  collection  costs  on  society  and  may 
improve the cost-effectiveness of the current Directive; 

–  Is  expected  to  lead  to  additional  benefits  from  innovation  and  exports,  with  greater 
investment  in  recycling  technologies  supporting  technology  firms  in  a  fast  growing 
export market where EU firms are often the global leaders, offering expansion of high-
tech jobs in this sector, in addition to reducing costs and opening new material markets;  

–  Is predicted to increase jobs further in the WEEE treatment and recovery sector in the 
EU  –  these  are  frequently  manual  jobs  available  for  lower  skilled  sectors  of  the 
workforce.  Some  stimulation  of  the  reuse  sector  should  also  lead  to  more  jobs  for 
socially  disadvantaged  people  and  also  to  better  access  to  cheaper  second-hand 
consumer goods for the poorest sector of society. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
1. 

POLICY  BACKGROUND,  PROCEDURAL  ISSUES  AND  CONSULTATION  OF  INTERESTED 
PARTIES 

1.1. 

Policy background  

1.1.1.  General background 

Electric  and  electronic  equipment  (EEE)  is  a  product  group  characterized  by  extreme 
diversity and increasingly fast innovation cycles. Its production supports one of the fastest 
growing  domains  of  manufacturing  industry  in  the  world.  Currently,  in  the  European 
Union (EU) alone an estimated 10.3 million tonnes of are sold annually, the biggest share 
by  weight  of  which  are  large  household  appliances  and  IT  and  telecommunication 
equipment. 

As the market continues to expand and also as innovation cycles become shorter and the 
replacement  of  equipment  accelerates,  one  result  is  that  waste  electrical  and  electronic 
equipment (WEEE) is considered the fastest growing waste stream in the EU.  

Currently, each year, each person in the EU 15 Member States discards an average of 14-
24 kg of WEEE and for the 12 new Member States, the average discards are estimated to 
be 6-12 kg per inhabitant each year. WEEE arising each year is estimated to total 8,3 to 9,1 
million tonnes per year in 2005, and is expected to grow to 12,3 million tonnes by 2020.  

The  WEEE  arising  now  are  products  which  have  been  put  on  the  market  (POM)  in 
preceding years, with the average lifetime of products varying greatly, from mobile phones 
(2 years) to refrigerators (around 15 years).  

WEEE is a complex waste stream of different materials and components, including several 
hazardous substances that can be released into the environment and damage human health 
if  not  treated  appropriately.  Potential  risks  for  the  environmental  and  human  health  are 
further  increased  by  sub-standard  recycling/recovery  operations  in  developing  countries, 
driven  by  a  rising  demand  for  raw  materials  and  often  supplied  by  illegal  shipments  of 
WEEE2.  

These  risks  can  be  significantly  reduced  by  sound  management  of  WEEE.  Elements  of 
sound management include: separating WEEE from other waste to facilitate targeted and 
technically adequate treatment, applying  treatment standards that  minimize the release of 
harmful substances and recovering as much as feasible of materials and energy embodied 
in the waste. These measures can be complemented by innovative design of EEE. This can 
help  to  avoid  to  the  extent  possible  the  use  of  substances,  in  particular  of  hazardous 
substances,  reduce  possible  exposure  of  workers  and  consumers,  and  favour  the  efficient 
dismantling and sorting of waste. 

2 

Environment  and  human  health  concerns  in  the  processing  of  electrical  and  electronic  waste,  Greenpeace 
Research  Laboratories,  University  of  Exeter,  Technical  note  04/2006,  May  2006;  "High-Tech  Trash"  by 
C.Caroll, National Geographic, published January 2008; The recycling and disposal of electrical and electronic 
waste in China – legislative and market responses, Environmental Impact Assessment review 25 (2005), p.461, 
462; Heavy metals concentrations of surface dust from e-waste recycling and its human Health implications in 
Southeast China, Anna W.Leung et al, January 2008.  

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  principle,  such  an  approach  offers  opportunities  for  the  waste  management  sector, 
equipment  manufacturers  and  producers  of  EEE  (first  mover  advantage).  However, 
historically  market  forces  alone  have  not  been  strong  enough  to  promote  significant 
improvements to the management of WEEE – as recently as the 1990s more than 90% of 
WEEE  was  still  landfilled,  incinerated  or  recovered  without  pre-treatment.  Some  of  the 
main reasons seem to include: 

•  Hazardous substances are often the cheapest technical solutions in the short term; 

•  Environmental  recycling  or  disposal  of  WEEE  brings  extra  financial  costs  with  the 

benefits accruing to society; 

•  Low prices for raw materials in previous decades discouraged investment in collection 
and recycling infrastructure and development of recycling technology. Even the present 
raw materials prices enable profitable operations in the EU for only few waste materials 
and fears of cyclical price changes keep holding back investment. 

In  reaction  to  this,  in  the  late  1990s  several  Member  States  introduced  national  laws  to 
address  environmental  concerns  related  to  the  management  of  WEEE.  In  2000,  the 
Commission proposed3 EU legislation in this field, in response to rapidly growing amounts 
of WEEE and associated possible environmental and health problems, and to approximate 
product-related  legislation  across  Member  States.  As  a  result,  the  WEEE4  and  RoHS5 
Directives were adopted in 2003.  

1.1.2.  Objectives and rationale of the WEEE and RoHS Directives 

The WEEE Directive aims to prevent WEEE, and where this is not possible to recycle and 
recover  it  to  reduce  its  disposal  and  to  reduce  the  negative  environmental  impacts  of 
WEEE through proper treatment of collected WEEE.  

It requires Member States to ensure that collection and treatment schemes are set up and 
sets minimum collection targets to increase separate collection and also makes producers6 
responsible  for  the  financing  of  the  WEEE  management.  The  Directive  thus  enables 
market mechanisms and financial incentives in favour of efficient collection, treatment and 
“design for recycling”. 

The  RoHS  Directive,  passed  into  law  at  the  same  time,  prohibits  the  use  of  certain 
hazardous substances in domestically produced or imported EEE, approximating national 
legislation across Member States to ensure the free movement of goods. Its environmental 
objective is to protect humans and the environment against the release of these substances 
and  to  facilitate  recycling  and  recovery  of  materials  from  WEEE.  While  establishing 
binding  minimum  requirements  for  all  producers,  it  enables  competitive  advantages  for 

3 
4 
5 

6 

COM(2000) 347 final 
OJ L 37, 13.2.2003, p.24 
Directive on the restriction of the use of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS), 
OJ L 37, 13.2.2003, p.19 
“Producers”  are  manufacturers  of  EEE  in  the  EU,  resellers  under  their  own  brand  as  well  as  first-time 
importers of EEE into the EU. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
innovative  products  and  technologies  that  can  comply  with  the  substance  ban  more 
efficiently.  

Recent  research  (see  )  has  confirmed  the  need  for  these  Directives  in  view  of 
environmental  protection.  For  example,  the  total  prevented  global  warming  potential  by 
properly treating waste fridges containing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) is more than 2000 
kg CO2 equivalent per fridge. Energy savings from recycling metals and plastics contained 
in  WEEE  rather  than  losing  them  to  landfill  is  significant,  for  example:  recycled  copper 
requires 85% less energy and recycled steel requires 74% less energy than the extraction 
and refining of virgin materials.  

Material 

Aluminium  Copper 

Iron & Steel 

Lead 

Zinc 

Paper 

Plastics 

Energy 
savings (%) 

95 

85 

74 

65 

60 

64 

>80 

Table1: Energy savings of recycled materials over virgin materials (BIO 2006) 

1.1.3.  Experience with implementing the Directives  

Both  Directives  had  to  be  transposed  by  the  Member  States  by  13  August  2004.  By  13 
August  2005,  collection  and  treatment  systems  needed  to  be  in  place  and  producers  of 
electrical  and  electronic  equipment  needed  to  start  providing  for  their  financing.  The 
collection  and  recovery  targets  needed  to  be  achieved  by  31  December  2006  and  the 
substance ban entered into force on 1 July 2006. Practical experience with implementing 
the  Directives  is  therefore  still  building  up  but  the  following  results  have  already  been 
achieved:  

–  140 take-back schemes enable nearly 500 million Europeans to return their WEEE free 

of charge. 

–  Compared  to  the  1990s,  since  2005  about  2  million  tonnes  of  WEEE  in  the  EU  have 
yearly  been  diverted  from  disposal  without  any  pre-treatment,  by  selective  collection 
followed by treatment operations. 

–  The  RoHS  Directive  has  resulted  in  reducing  the  quantities  of  the  banned  substances 
being  disposed  of  and  potentially  released  into  the  environment  by  89800  tonnes  of 
lead,  4300  tonnes  of  cadmium,  537  tonnes  of  hexavalent  chromium,  22  tonnes  of 
mercury and 12600 tonnes of Octa-BDE per year7.  

–  Significant  investments  were  made  in  treatment  facilities  (new  facilities  in  the  EU-15 
plus new treatment facilities serving several new Member States at the same time) and 
the  WEEE  recycling  business  increased  to  a  multi  billion  industry,  employing  several 
ten thousands of persons.  

–  More  than  39,500  producers  have  registered  and  assume  their  financial  producer 

responsibility obligations. 

7 

Arcadis/Ecolas & RPA 2008, table 4.55. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  So  far,  no  reduction  in  purchasing  of  EEE  has  been  reported  as  a  result  of  WEEE 

implementation.  

1.1.4.  Review 

There is now sufficient experience and knowledge to assess the operation of the Directives 
to  tackle  the  areas  where  their  objectives  are  not  being  met  or  where  meeting  those 
objectives could be achieved more efficiently.  

The  Directives  themselves  call  for  a  review  of  certain  provisions,  notably  the  collection 
and recycling targets for 2008 and under RoHS; the list of substances banned, and the list 
of equipment covered by the substance ban.8 

The  review  of  the  Directives  forms  part  of  the  Commission's  simplification  strategy9, 
which  should  contribute  to  better  achievement  of  the  Directive's  objectives,  for  example 
through improving implementation and enforcement of the Directives at national level and 
the elimination of unnecessary administrative burden. 

1.2. 

Expertise and information 

This  report  is  mainly,  but  not  exclusively,  based  on  the  information  gathered  from 
stakeholders,  either  through  direct  consultation  or  in  the  context  of  a  set  of  studies 
commissioned by the European Commission. The main studies carried out by the European 
Commission between 2005 and 2007 in the context of the WEEE review are described in 
Annex 1. Over recent years a cumulative budget of about € 540.000 was  allocated to this 
data collection process, including the research studies and the data information gathering 
exercise.  

1.2.1. 

Implementation Assessment 

A research study to generate full understanding of implementation of the WEEE Directive 
by  the  Member  States  and  to  obtain  feedback  on  potential  areas  for  revision  was  carried 
out and resulted in a report conducted in 2005 [see also Annex 1].  

1.2.2.  Data gathering exercise 

Stakeholders  were  given  the  opportunity  to  provide  information  at  an  early  stage  in  the 
review upon which the succeeding steps in the review process could be based. During an 8 
weeks  period  from  June  to  August  2006,  stakeholders  were  requested  to  submit 
information related to a wide range of issues among other, both public and private sector 
statistics,  information  on  operations,  costs  and  benefits,  scientific  and  technical 
in 
information 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/info_gath_ex.pdf.  

issues 

listed 

the 

on 

as 

Three  major  objectives  of  this  project  were  1)  to  gather  relevant  information  in  existing 
documents,  2)  to  make  them  available  in  a  user-friendly  manner,  and  3)  to  identify 
significant data gaps, and to contact stakeholders for filling these gaps. 

8 
9 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/regulation/better_regulation/simplification.htm 

See Articles 4(3) and 6 of the RoHS Directive and Articles 5(5), 7 (4) and 17 (5) of the WEEE Directive. 
COM (2005) 535 final 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
A  synthesis  report  was  prepared  and  made  available  for  the  contractors  of  the  research 
page 
studies 
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/weee_2008/library.  More 
this 
exercise can be found in Annex 1.  

the 
information  about 

CIRCA 

general 

public 

and 

the 

for 

in 

1.2.3.  Research studies 

Studies were carried out by the United Nations University (hereafter referred to as UNU), 
Ökopol and Ecolas with subcontractors [details in Annex 1 and bibliography].  

It has to be noted that detailed information on some of the subjects covered by the studies, 
in particular with regard to quantitative data on environmental impacts and costs, could not 
always be obtained. In such cases the analysis was focused on the more qualitative aspects 
of the options considered. 

1.2.4.  Compliance check studies 

The  Commission  services  have  performed  studies  for  checking  the  conformity  of  the 
implementation of the Directive in the Member States.  

As  a  result,  infringement  proceedings  have  been  opened  against  Member  States  and 
additional cases may be opened in the coming months should the Commission identify lack 
of transposition of some provisions or incorrect transposition.  

A substantial number of cases relates to the adoption by Member States of a definition of 
producer  of  electrical  and  electronic  equipment  based  on  the  national  market  rather  than 
using a European definition of producers. 

1.2.5.  Reporting from Member States on implementation 

A  considerable  amount  of  experience  has  also  been  gained  and  exchanged  with  the 
Member States during the meetings of the Committee for the Adaptation to Scientific and 
Technical progress10 (TAC) since the adoption of the WEEE Directive at the beginning of 
2003. In addition, Member States had to report to the European Commission for the first 
time on the implementation on the basis of Commission Decision 2005/249/EC11 that lays 
down the questionnaire for reporting covering the period from 2004 to 2006, in September 
2007. The deadline for setting up systems allowing final holders and distributors to return 
WEEE  from  private  households  free  of  charge  being  13  August  2005,  the  analysis  of 
implementation is therefore based on recent experiences.  

A second reporting obligation for the Member States concerns the reporting of information 
on the quantities and categories of electrical and electronic equipment put on their market, 
collected through all routes, reused, recycled and recovered within the Member States, and 

10 
11 

Article 14 to the WEEE Directive 
2004/249/EC: Commission Decision of 11 March 2004 concerning a questionnaire for Member States reports 
on  the  implementation  of  Directive  2002/96/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  waste 
electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), OJ L 78, 16.3.2004, p.56 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
on collected waste exported, by weight or, if this is not possible, by numbers12. The first 
reporting deadline is July 2008. The Commission has received at the end of August 2008 
reports  from  13  Member  States.  These  reports  confirm  the  data  provided  by  the  studies 
carried out for the WEEE review.  

1.2.6. 

Study on administrative burden 

A  study  on  administrative  burden  from  legislation,  including  the  WEEE  Directive  is 
ongoing. In its 1st and 2nd module, information obligations stemming from EU legislation 
and from national implementation respectively are mapped. The next modules will do field 
measurement on the identified information obligations out of which recommendations and 
proposals will be developed for reducing administrative burden.  

1.2.7.  Other sources 

The  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  (EESC)  is  preparing  the  adoption  of  an 
own-initiative  opinion  on  the  management  of  WEEE.  The  Section  of  Agriculture,  Rural 
Development  and  the  Environment,  which  was  responsible  for  preparing  the  committee's 
work on the subject, will present a draft opinion for vote at the plenary session to be held 
later this year. Preparatory documents can be found at the EESC register under reference 
NAT/389 
http://www.toad.eesc.europa.eu/EESCWIPListing.aspx?folder=NAT&WipLang=EN  

1.3. 

Direct Consultation 

This  impact  assessment  is  based  on  an  extensive  consultation  of  stakeholders  and 
collection of data, information and views. 

Throughout the process a continuous information exchange with stakeholders was carried 
out.  In  order  to  have  Member  States,  producers,  collection  schemes,  national  registers, 
industry,  NGO's  and  other  stakeholders  participating  in  the  review  process,  an  on-line 
public  stakeholder  consultation  on  possible  options  for  change  was  organised  from  11 
April 2008 until 5 June 2008.  

document 

is  made 

consultation 

webpage: 
available 
The 
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/weee_2008_review/library. 
were 
expected to provide opinions supported by detailed evidence on the economic, social and 
environmental impacts of the policy options. In particular any additional quantitative data, 
studies  and  evaluations  were  welcomed  to  allow  analysing  the  full  costs  and  benefits  of 
potential changes in the operation of the Directive.  

the 
on 
Stakeholders 

An  electronic  functional  mailbox  for  receiving  opinions  and  information  on  the  WEEE 
review  was  created.  The  opinions  and  information  received  from  stakeholders  –  unless 
requested  otherwise  –  are  made  available  on  the  same  web-site  under  "stakeholder 
opinions". This allows stakeholders to see which pieces of information have already been 
provided and to read others opinions. 

12 

2005/369/EC: Commission Decision of 3 May 2005 laying down rules for monitoring compliance of Member 
States and establishing data formats for the purposes of Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and 
of the Council on waste electrical and electronic equipment, OJ L 119, 11.5.2005, p.13 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Summarised per group of stakeholders, following opinions were raised: 

•  Member States expressed various views, mainly linked to implementation issues related 

to their national level;  

•  Producers and producer associations clearly expressed the need for more harmonisation, 
in  particular  on  the  registration  and  reporting  requirements  and  were  supporting  an 
obligatory  "give  back"  by  collection  points  to  producers  as  not  all  WEEE  collected 
separately is returning to the schemes set up by them; 

•  Municipalities and their associations did not support the obligatory "give back" and like 
to see a financing of the full collection costs by producers; they are supporting the reuse 
of goods and clearer standards for the treatment of WEEE; 

•  The retail sector stressed the need for clarifying the scope and the producer definition 

and hence the responsibilities linked to producers;  

•  The reuse sector is clearly in favour of a target for reuse to make reuse activities more 
visible  and  at  the  same  time  of  measures  improving  quality  (early  selection,  reuse 
criteria, treatment standards); 

•  Treatment operators support a mandatory collection target expressed in a percentage of 
quantities  put  on  the  market  and  in  particular  a  high  target  for  equipment  with  a  high 
environmental  weight;  they  also  support  the  development  of  treatment  standards  and 
more accreditation and monitoring within the waste chain; finally, they call for keeping 
the current recycling and recovery targets;  

•  Environmental NGO's support higher collection rates, expressed in amounts put on the 
market, higher recovery/recycling targets and a target for reuse. They call for the proper 
implementation  of  producer  responsibility  and  an  overall  better  implementation  of  the 
Directive in the Member States.  

A full summary of the results of the consultation and an overview of the stakeholders who 
contributed can be found at the same web-site under "stakeholder opinions summary".  

In addition, Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) were consulted. An 'SME Panel' 
was held at the end of 2006 to use the knowledge of the experiences, difficulties and costs 
encountered  by  small  and  medium  sized  businesses  whilst  implementing  the  WEEE 
Directive.  A  questionnaire  was  addressed  to  specific  SMEs  defined  as,  or  acting  as 
producer,  importer  or  distributor  under  the  WEEE  Directive  and  to  SMEs  acting  as 
treatment operators, collectors and retailers. In total, 456 SMEs have given input into the 
panel,  in  many  cases  with  the  help  of  the  European  Information  Centres  who  then 
summarised it in national reports. 

The  data  obtained  from  this  panel  were  transferred  in aggregated form  to the  contractors 
for  reasons  of  confidentiality  of  the  individual  SME.  The  data  provided  a  good  idea  on 
experiences  and  concerns  of  SMEs  which  are  often  different  to  those  of  larger 
(multinational) companies.  

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
Illustration on the extent of the consultation process: 19 meetings of the Committee for the 
Adaptation  to  Scientific  and  Technical  progress  since  adoption  of  the  WEEE  Directive, 
118 reference documents placed on the open CIRCA website, 1 expert workshop, 1 SME 
panel,  26  national  implementation  reports  and  about  170  opinions,  including  additional 
information received as part of the public consultation.  

In  the  light  of  the  above,  the  stakeholder  consultation  in  the  review  process  has  been 
carried  out  according  to  the  European  Commission's  general  principles  and  minimum 
standards for consultation13. 

Furthermore,  a  European  Commission's  inter-service  group  including  all  the  relevant 
services14 was set up in order to ensure the necessary internal co-ordination throughout the 
review process.  

Finally,  on  7  July  2008,  the  Impact  Assessment  Board  adopted  an  opinion  on  the  draft 
version  of  the  Impact  Assessment.  All  recommendations  for  improvements  have  been 
incorporated into the current impact assessment, in particular,  

•  A robust baseline scenario has been included in the main text, including estimates of 
the amount of WEEE arising annually and estimates on their treatment routes and costs. 
On  the  basis  of  this  refocused  problem  definition,  the  sections  on  objectives  and 
options have been restructured; 

•  A  discussion  of  options  discarded  at  an  early  stage  together  with  an  explanation  of 

the corresponding reasons has been added in an Annex to the report; 

•  The analysis of a possible new approach to the collection target has been strengthened 

and a desired level has been indicated; 

•  The analysis of impacts, including social impacts, has been deepened; 

•  The administrative burden assessment has been deepened and refined in an Annex to 
the  report,  noticing  data  provided  by  new  studies  and  following  the  favourable 
assessment  by  the  High  Level  Group  of  Independent  Stakeholders  on  Administrative 
Burden of 18 September 2008; 

•  The views expressed by stakeholders, in particular during the public consultation, are 

more consistently reflected throughout the text. 

•  Finally, a lot of information that was previously contained in various Annexes has been 

integrated in the main text for easier reference. 

13 
14 

COM(2002) 704 final 
The  inter-service  group  is  composed  of  representatives  from  the  Secretariat  General,  the  Legal  Service,  DG 
ENV, ENTR, TREN, RTD, JRC, TRADE, INFSO and SANCO 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION  

2.1. 

Introduction to the problem and who is affected 

2.1.1. 

Introduction to the problem  

EEE contains numerous substances that can harm human health and the environment if the 
equipment is designed inappropriately or treated inappropriately either during use or when 
discarded.  Annual  volumes  of  waste  from  EEE  (WEEE)  in  the  EU  continue  to  grow 
rapidly [see 1.1.1].  

The WEEE Directive has been adopted to reduce these risks by establishing requirements 
to  ensure  the  collection  and  environmentally  sound  treatment  of  WEEE.  It  complements 
the  RoHS  Directive  which  prohibits  the  use  of  certain  hazardous  substances  in  EEEs. 
Sound  management  of  WEEE  reduces  release  of  environmentally  damaging  substances, 
saves material resources and reduces energy use. The WEEE Directive should have been 
implemented at national level less than two years ago. 

However: 

–  Only one third of the annual WEEE arising appears to be collected, treated and reported 
according  to  the  WEEE  legislation;  illegal  trade  in  WEEE  to  third  countries  is 
widespread, despite rules on waste shipment and illegal dumping is still widespread in 
the EU. 

–  Improper  or  substandard  treatment  of  WEEE  results  in  environmental  damage  and 
increased health risks, in the EU and particularly in third countries. Material resources, 
potentially available to replace raw materials, are lost where the best economic options 
for recovery of those materials are not used. 

–  Experience with the first years of implementation of the WEEE Directive has indicated 
unnecessary costs arising from the operation of the Directive, which make achievement 
of  the  Directive's  objectives  less  efficient  and  the  Directive  less  effective.  These 
technical,  legal  and  administrative  problems  affect  market  actors  and  administrations, 
including distortion of competition and unnecessary administrative burden.  

–  These  costs  are  partly  driven  by  diverging  implementation  of  certain  provision  of  the 
the  Directive,  and  producer 

the  scope  of 

current  WEEE  Directive  such  as 
registration/reporting requirements. 

In the remainder of this section the problem, as is estimated to evolve, is described in more 
detail. For clarity, the problem is divided between those issues limiting the effectiveness of 
the  Directive  [see  section  2.3]  and  those  issues  reducing  its  efficiency  [see  section  2.4]. 
Whilst  there  are  some  links  between  these,  the  drivers  of  the  problem  in  each  case  are 
sufficiently different to allow the separate description. 

2.1.2.  Who is affected and how? 

Treatment of WEEE – and the Directive – concerns many stakeholders, who will therefore 
be affected by any changes proposed in this review. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
–  Member State authorities: the Directive is addressed to the Member States. They have 
to  implement  and  enforce  the  Directive  at  national  level;  Municipalities  often 
implement waste management services at local level; 

–  Producers  of  electrical  and  electronic  equipment:  are  primarily  responsible  for  the 
financing,  collection,  treatment,  recovery  and  environmentally  disposal  of  WEEE; 
furthermore they have to look after eco-design; 

–  Consumers of EEE: to whom the producers pass the costs of treatment - in the purchase 

price of EEE - and who have a role in the separate collection of WEEE; 

–  Retail  and  distribution  sector:  including  their  role  as  part  of  the  collection  systems  in 

many Member States; 

–  Treatment  operators:  who  treat  the  WEEE  and  contribute  to  the  organising  of  the 
information  flow  by  monitoring  the  amounts  of  WEEE  entering  and  leaving  the 
treatment facilities; 

–  Recyclers  and  recovery  operators:  to  provide  for  the  recovery  of  WEEE  collected 

separately and to monitor the incoming WEEE flows;  

–  Producer responsibility organisations (PROs): acting on behalf of the producers to fulfil 

their obligations; 

–  Traders and shippers of WEEE; 

–  The EU society as a whole: for whom the impact of environmental and health damage 

in the EU and in third countries from EU waste is a concern; 

–  Citizens  and  traders  in  third  countries  who  either  currently  suffer  health  affects  from 

treatment of illegal WEEE or who profit from the illegal trade. 

2.2.  WEEE Arising- Baseline scenario 2011-2020 

Any changes introduced by this review are expected to come into legal force in Member 
States around 2011. In the description of the problem, to allow comparison of the policy 
options against baseline after that time, a problem scenario is developed for several years 
after 2011, formed from extrapolations of current evidence and reasonable assumptions. 

2.2.1.  WEEE arising: Volumes of WEEE 

Predictions made during the 1990’s estimated the tonnage of EEE put on the EU15 market 
at 7 million tonnes. With the expansion from EU15 to EU27 and based on many sources 
and different estimation techniques, the UNU study estimates that the amount of new EEE 
put on the EU27 market in 2005 was 10.3 million tonnes per year. Based on current trends, 
sales of new EEE are estimated to rise to 12 million tonnes per year by 2011 taking 2,6% 
yearly growth rate as a basis.  

In  the  explanatory  memorandum  of  the  WEEE  Directive,  the  amount  of  EEE  arising  as 
waste (WEEE) was estimated in 1998 for the EU15 at 6 million tonnes. The new estimate 
of the UNU study for the current WEEE arisings across the EU27 for 2005 is between 8.3 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
and 9.1 million tonnes per year. The increase in the WEEE arisings since 1998 is due to 
expansion  of  the  EU,  growth  in  the  number  of  households  and  higher  consumption  per 
capita. 

Approximately  87%  of  WEEE  arising  in  the  EU  (by  weight)  is  from  private  households 
('business to consumers': B2C) and 13% of WEEE arising comes from other than private 
households ('business to business': B2B)15. 

The  UNU  study  forecasts  that  household  WEEE  arisings  may  grow  annually  at  between 
2.5%  and  2.7%  reaching  about  10.6  million  tonnes  by  2020.  This  would  imply  that  total 
WEEE arisings (including B2B WEEE) might reach about 12.3 million tonnes by 2020. 

There  are  significant  differences  in  the  weight  of  WEEE  arising  in  different  Member 
States, with the most significant difference between the 'new' Member States which joined 
the EU in 2005 and those already part of the EU. The difference is driven by the relatively 
low consumption of electrical products by households in new Member States in past years. 
As consumption of electrical products in these states is rising quicker than in the EU-15, 
volumes  of  WEEE  are  also  expected  to  increase  at  greater  rates,  with  5.3%  yearly 
according to the UNU study in the period 2011-2020. 

The UNU study calculated that 2005 WEEE arisings exhibit the following ranges: 

•  EU15: 14-24 kg/head/year 

•  New Member States (EU12): 6-12 kg/head/year. 

This  scenario  is  based  on  data  collected  by  the  research  studies,  as  no  reporting  from 
Member  States  was  available  at  the  time.  Very  recently  (August  2008)  the  Commission 
received reports from 13 Member States. These reports confirm within a narrow margin the 
data from the research studies. For this reason and as the Commission is still in the process 
of  verifying  Member  State  data,  this  Impact  Assessment  remains  based  on  data  from  the 
research studies.  

2.2.2.  WEEE Arising: Composition by type of Equipment  

The  average  compositional  breakdown  for  the  EU  has  been  calculated  and  shown  in  the 
Figure 1.  

15 

This calculation is based on UK data scaled up from the UNU study  

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3C LCD monitors, 0.0%

3B CRT monitors, 8.3%

3A IT and Telecom 
excl. CRT’s, 8.0%

2 Small Household 
Appliances, 7.0%

1C Large Household 
Appliances (smaller 
items), 3.6%

1B Cooling and 
freezing, 17.7%

4A Consumer 
Electronics excl. 
CRT’s, 7.8%

4B CRT TV’s, 13.3%

4C Flat Panel TV’s, 
0.0%

5A Lighting equipment -
Luminaires , 0.7%

5B Lighting equipment 
– Lamps, 1.7%

6 Electrical and 
electronic tools, 3.5%

7 Toys, leisure and 
sports equipment, 0.1%

8 Medical devices, 
0.1%

9 Monitoring and 
control instruments, 
0.2%

10 Automatic 
dispensers, 0.2%

1A Large Household 
Appliances, 27.7%

Figure 1: breakdown of WEEE arising in 2005 by weight 

In  future  years,  due  to  changes  in  the  EEE  sold  in  previous  years,  this  composition  is 
predicted  to  change.  Cathode  Ray  Tube  (CRT)  monitors  will  appear  less  in  the  WEEE 
arising, as they will be gradually replaced by flat panel screens of which the share in the 
WEEE arising will grow in the future. Other changes for example resulted by change in the 
behaviour  of  consumers  or  by  the  marketing  of  new  appliances/applications,  are  not 
possible to be estimated here. 

2.2.3.  Material composition of WEEE  

The  three  main  materials  arising  from  the  WEEE  arising  are  metals,  glass  and  plastics. 
Ferrous metals account for approximately 50%, non-ferrous metals for 5% and plastics for 
20-25% of the WEEE arising. Other materials are e.g.: oil and cooling agents from fridges, 
freezers and air conditioners, concrete from washing machines and wood from TV's. For a 
more  detailed  list  of  environmentally  relevant  substances  in  WEEE  arising  see  Annex  2. 
The  composition  WEEE  in  the  future  will  change  as  the  composition  of  EEE  put  on  the 
market currently differs from the past.  

–  This is the case for flat panel displays that are replacing CRT TV screens. The sales of 
CRT  televisions  represented  99,9%  by  weight  of  television  sales  in  2000  and  this  is 
expected  to  fall  to  only  21%  by  the  year  2010.  Taken  the  difference  in  weight  into 
account,  Liquid  Crystal  Display  (LCD)  televisions  are  estimated  to  represent  52%  of 
weight of all sales by then.  

–  In  the  case  of  refrigerators  and  freezers  CFCs  and  HCFCs16  were  used  for  their 
manufacture  until  the  early  1990s,  when  it  was  found  that  these  chlorinated  gases 

16 

Hydro chlorofluorocarbons 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
damaged  the  ozone  layer.  Regulation  3093/1994  amended  by  Regulation  2037/2000 
banned  their  manufacture  and  regulated  their  treatment.  Due  to  the  long  life  cycle  of 
cooling appliances, those gases still make up a significant part of today’s WEEE stream, 
but this is expected to be less so in the future.  

–  In addition to this, there is a shift from the used of NiCd to other battery types. Also, the 
batteries  Directive  2006/66/EC  restricts  the  use  of  cadmium  in  portable  batteries  with 
certain exemptions.  

–  As regards polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), historically they were extensively used in 
electrical  equipment  such  as  capacitors  and  transformers.  However,  their  use  in  open 
applications was widely banned in 1972 and they have not been used in the manufacture 
of new equipment since 1986. Thus, unless an appliance is more than 20 years old, the 
chance  that  it  contains  capacitors  containing  PCBs  is  remote  at  present  and  it  will  be 
less likely in the future.  

2.2.3.1.  Hazardous substances in WEEE 

The composition of WEEE arising will also change in the time with the implementation of 
the  RoHS  Directive.  The  RoHS  Directive  has  restricted  the  use  of  some  hazardous 
substances:  lead  (Pb),  mercury  (Hg),  cadmium  (Cd),  hexavalent  chromium  (Cr  VI), 
polybrominated  biphenyls  (PBB)  or  polybrominated  diphenyl  ethers  (PBDE).  The  latter 
two are manufactured compounds used as flame retardants in plastics used in a variety of 
domestic objects including computers, TVs, furniture (hard and soft), stereos etc. They are 
regarded  as  being  harmful  to  the  environment  and  endanger  the  health  of  wildlife  and 
probably humans. To identify a few examples for the other substances: mercury is used in 
some  lamps  and  certain  electrical  switches;  cadmium  is  a  valuable  alloying  metal  for 
copper, a metal plating material and has long been used in batteries; lead is used in printed 
circuit boards and chromium VI is widely used to prevent corrosion in iron-based alloys.  

However,  despite  the  RoHS  restriction,  hazardous  substances  will  still  be  present  in 
WEEE, as: 

–  The RoHS restriction only applies to new EEE put on the market as from 1 July 2006. 
Since  the  average  life  time  of  an  EEE  is  varying17  but  can  be  up  to  15  years,  the 
returning waste streams will consists of pre-RoHS waste until at least 2020. 

–  In  addition  to  the  substances  covered  by  the  RoHS  Directive,  other  hazardous 
substances or substances likely to be characterised as such, are annually being used in 
EEE in considerable amounts. These are for example: non-reacted TBBPA18 (40.000t), 
HBCDD19 (210t), DEHP20 (29000t), and beryllium oxide (1,5t). These are not restricted 
under the current RoHS Directive.  

17 

18 
19 
20 

The average life time of medical equipment is often up to 20-30 years (Goodman 2006), for fridges about 15 
years and for mobile phones, 23 months.  
Tetrabromobisphenol-A, flame retardant  
Hexabromocyclododecane, flame retardant 
Bis(2-ethylhexylphthalate), PVC (poly-vinyl chloride) plasticiser 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  The RoHS Directive allows for the presence of the restricted substances at a low level21. 

–  Quite  a  few  applications  are  excluded  from  the  RoHS  Directive  where  substitution  is 
"technically  or  scientifically  impracticable"  or  the  positive  impacts  of  substitution 
outweigh  the  benefits  thereof.  Whereas  estimations  on  overall  quantities  of  these 
hazardous substances are difficult to obtain, the most relevant ones as regards quantities 
seem  to  be  lead  in  glass  of  cathode  ray  tubes  (more  than  50.000  tonnes  of  lead)22, 
mercury in lamps (4,3tons/yr) and in LCD panels as backlights (2,8tons/yr). 

–  Evidence  on  enforcement  of  the  RoHS  Directive  indicates  that  significant  volumes  of 
non-compliant  equipment  have  been  placed  on  the  market  illegally,  which  will  later 
enter the waste steam. 

–  PCBs  are  still  somewhat  present  from  old  electricity  transmission  equipment  in  the 

waste stream, however this expected to be lower in the future. 

Hazardous substances are therefore still expected to be found in the WEEE stream in the 
coming years including EEE put on the market before 1 July 2006 is returning until at least 
2020.  

2.2.3.2.  Environmental significance of categories of WEEE depending on their composition 

The  composition  of  different  categories  of  WEEE  differs  greatly  (a  toy  containing 
electronics  has  a  very  different  composition  to  a  television),  and  this  affects  both  the 
economic  value  and  environmental  characteristics  of  the  categories,  for  more  detailed 
illustration see Annex 2. 

The  differing  composition  of  equipments  make  them  weight  differently  from  an 
environmental perspective. For example, the large household appliances (without cooling 
and freezing appliances) represent about 27% in weight whereas they would only represent 
half in environmental weight as illustrated in Figure2.  

21 

22 

"maximum  concentration  values"  are  permitted  for  the  banned  substances;  these  are  0.1%  by  weight  in 
homogenous materials except for mercury, where the limit is ten times lower. 
This figure represents the cumulative amount of lead used in cathode ray tubes for the coming years. For 2005, 
31,8million units of televisions in the EU25 have been sold, with an average weight of 31kg. The amount per 
year  is  decreasing  as  the  growth  of  the  CRT  market  for  televisions  is  an  average  of  -13%  per  annum  (See 
figure  6  in  chapter  on  televisions  in  the  MEEUP  2006  study).  For  a  CRT  monitor,  the  average  weight  of  a 
screen is 22kg which contains 450g of lead.  

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Eco-Indicator'99 H/A weighted, per kg WEEE total collected

LHHA

C&F

LHHA-small

SHA

IT ex CRT

IT CRT

IT FDP

CE ex CRT

CE CRT

CE FDP

Lamps

Tools

Toys

Figure  2:  Contribution  of  the  WEEE  categories  to  the  total  impacts  of  diverting 
WEEE from disposal based on the Eco-Indicator'99 (UNU)23 

The  figure  shows  that  the  most  relevant  products  to  divert  from  disposal  are  the  CFC 
containing fridges. In addition it was found that the following categories of equipments are 
relevant for specific environmental categories due to their substances of concern: 

–  Toxicity effects are important for LCD monitors and Lamps; 

–  Avoided  ozone  layer  depletion  and  global  warming  potential  in  case  of  cooling  and 

freezing equipments; 

–  Cumulative energy demand and resource depletion for Cooling and freezing appliances 

and CRT screens; 

–  Acidification  for  IT  and  telecommunication  equipments  (excluding  CRT)  and  LCD 

monitors; 

–  Eutrophication for LCD monitors and electrical and electronic tools.  

2.3. 

Problems with the Effectiveness of the Directive- Baseline scenario 2011-2020 

2.3.1.  Current Collection of WEEE  

In  its  report  "Towards  Sustainable  WEEE  Recycling",  EERA  (European  Electronics 
Recyclers  Association)  claims  that  only  20  to  33%  of  the  amount  put  on  the  market  is 
accounted for as being reported as separately collected by Member States. This is in line 

23 

Abbreviations used in the figure: see glossary of terms  

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
with  figures  from  Member  States,  which  reported  separate  collection  of  2.6  million 
tonnes24 in 2005 out of 8.3-9.1 million tonnes of WEEE arising (UNU study). 

Yet, the evidence suggests that the great majority of WEEE (by weight) is being separately 
collected rather than becoming part of the mixed municipal waste stream: but not reported 
as  separately  collected.  EERA  sees  the  following  explanation:  significant  proportions  of 
WEEE going to unauthorised treatment and illegal export. EERA made this visible in the 
following diagram showing the different flows of consumer WEEE.  

Consumer
Consumer

Waste bin
Waste bin

Retailer
Retailer

Municipal site
Municipal site

Trader
Trader

Collection centre
Collection centre

2nd hand market place
2nd hand market place

Export
Export

Transport
Transport

Export
Export

Unauthorised
Unauthorised
Treatment
Treatment

Authorised
Authorised
Treatment
Treatment

Accounted for
Accounted for
Unaccounted for
Unaccounted for

Figure 3: possible leaks in return logistics of WEEE from private households25 

The  full  (green)  arrows  represent  streams  that  are  properly  monitored  and  reported; 
evidence suggests that this could be the minority of streams.  

The dotted (red) arrows represent streams whose volumes, destination and/or treatment are 
not reported. It is therefore uncertain if and to which extent these stream are subject to sub-
standard or even illegal treatment and trade.  

2.3.1.1.  Collection of WEEE from households  

WEEE arising from household is estimated at 87% of the total WEEE arising.  

The legal responsibilities for the collection of the WEEE from households currently require 
collection  either  by  producers,  retailers  (distributors)  or  by  municipalities,  or  a 
combination of those organisations. The situation differs greatly between Member States, 
in some only producers being responsible (eg. Bulgaria) and in others only municipalities 
(eg. Denmark).  

24 
25 

5,31kg/inhabitant times 492million inhabitants (UNU 2007) 
Municipal site: operated by the municipality or by a commissioned company, often with its own commercial 
interest;  Collection  centre:  WEEE  is  handed  over  to  a  take-back  scheme,  commissioned  recycler/logistic 
company, or commercial agent, who may or may not have his own commercial interest 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
The  financial  responsibility  for  collection  is  frequently  allocated  differently  from  the 
physical responsibility. For example, in Austria, distributors, municipalities and producers 
have  responsibility  for  physical  collection,  but  only  distributors  and  producers  have 
financial responsibility. A table indicating the different legal approaches in this regard in 
the  EU  27  Member  States  (from  Ökopol,  2007)  is  presented  in  Annex  3.  In  practice, 
consumers or owners of WEEE are often required to take WEEE to collection sites, or to 
distributors.  Evidence  suggests  that  large  proportions  of  WEEE  are  either  collected 
informally  directly  from  consumers  or  from  distributors  or  collection  sites  by  private 
traders in WEEE. 

2.3.1.2.  Collection of Business to Business WEEE  

B2B WEEE is estimated at 13% of the total WEEE arising.  

The collection of B2B equipments is mostly managed on a contractual basis by producers 
(UNU  study)  These  equipments  currently  represent  less  than  1%  of  WEEE  arising  at 
municipal collection points or at retailers (WEEE Forum 2005, ERP 2006).26  

According to EERA, the collection and treatment of B2B waste is often not controlled and 
accounted  for  officially.  They  suggest  that  this  results  in  being  a  possible  source  of 
malpractice and illegal exports to non-OECD countries.  

2.3.1.3.  Difference between recorded collection in Member States 

There  are  great  differences  in  the  amounts  of  WEEE  recorded  as  collected  between 
Member States based on experiences with national compliance schemes. In 2005 the best 
performing  Member  States  recorded  to  collect  up  to  70%  of  the  WEEE  arising  in  their 
Member  State  (which  equalled  60%  of  the  amount  of  WEEE  put  on  the  market  or  14 
kg/inhabitant).  

Other  Member  States  recorded  far  lower  collection  less.  In  New  Member  States  (EU12), 
much  less  is  recorded  as  collected,  the  low  levels  most  probably  reflecting  unsaturated 
markets  for  much  EEE  so  that  new  purchasing  of  EEE  does  not  replace  existing  EEE 
thereby not generating WEEE.  

2.3.1.4.  Differences between categories of WEEE recorded as collected 

The  following  table  describes  the  share  of  the  different  categories  of  equipments  of  the 
WEEE arising and how much of the different categories of equipment are currently being 
reported  as  collected.  Reported  collection  is  particularly  low  for  large  household 
appliances, cooling and freezing appliances, CRT's and small domestic appliances, leaving 
a gap of non reported (or non collected?) waste of respectively 23%, 13%, 15% and 6% of 
the total WEEE arising.  

26 

This data refers to "real" B2B equipments, not dual use products that are reported as B2B stream, but end up in 
the municipal waste 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
% of WEEE 
arising in the 
category reported 
as separately 
collected  

% of WEEE 
arising per 
category (%)  
27.7 

% of WEEE 
arising in the 
category NOT 
reported as 
separately 
collected  

amounts of 
WEEE NOT 
being reported as 
separately 
collected as % 
share of total 
WEEE arising  

17.7 
3.6 

7.7 
8 
8.3 
0 
7.8 

13.3 
0 
1.7 

3.5 

0.1 

0.1 
0.2 

0.2 

100 

16.3 
27.3 

40 

26.6 
27.8 
35.3 
40.5 

40.1 
29.9 
40.5 

27.9 

20.8 

24.3 
49.7 

65.2 
59.4 
n/a 

83.7 
72.7 

60 

73.4 
72.2 
64.7 
59.5 

59.9 
70.1 
59.5 

72.1 

79.2 

75.7 
50.3 

34.8 
40.6 
n/a 

23.2 
12.9 

2.2 

5.7 
5.8 
5.4 
0 

4.7 
9.3 
0 

1.2 

2.8 

0.1 
0.1 

0.1 
0.1 
73.6 

Treatment category 

Household 

Large 
Appliances (LHHA) 
Cooling and freezing 
Large 
Appliances (smaller items) 

Household 

Small 
Household 
Appliances (SHA), Lighting 
equipment – Luminaires and 
‘domestic’ Medical devices 
IT and Telecom excl. CRT’s 

CRT monitors 
LCD monitors 

Consumer  Electronics  excl. 
CRT’s 
CRT TV’s 
Flat Panel TV’s 

Lighting 
Lamps 

Electrical 
tools 

equipment 

– 

and 

electronic 

leisure  and  sports 

Toys, 
equipment 
Medical devices 

control 

and 

Monitoring 
instruments 
Automatic dispensers 
Total 

Table 2: WEEE arising and collection according to product categories 

2.3.2.  Current Destinations of WEEE  

Separately collected WEEE can be transferred to various destinations, with material traders 
playing a major role in determining the final destination. 

Information  provided  by  stakeholders,  for  example  the  EERA  submission  mentioned 
previously state that there are the following main destinations for EU WEEE: 

–  Separate collection and sent for reuse (of whole appliances) 

–  Separate collection and treatment in the EU in line with the Directive; 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
–  Separate collection and treatment in the EU not in line with the Directive; 

–  Separate collection and illegal shipment to 3rd countries; 

–  No  separate  collection  but  collection  with  mixed  municipal  waste  and  treatment 

together with this waste stream(largely landfill or incineration) 

For example, data from the Netherlands indicates that WEEE from households is collected 
and flows to related destinations in the following proportions:  

–  Treated by producers (after collection by municipalities and retailers): 31% 

–  Sold to metal dealers (after collection by municipalities): 13% 

–  To recyclers/treatment operators (from retailers and others): 45% 

–  Not separately collected: 11%  

The following section describes the estimation of these destinations for the EU. 

2.3.2.1.  Evidence, Deductions and Assumptions in this IA on collection and destinations 

As mentioned above, EERA estimates that only up to 33% of the amount of WEEE put on 
the market is being reported as separately collected. The number of the amount of WEEE 
put on the market is largely comparable to the number of WEEE arising. Starting point of 
the assumptions below is that 67% of WEEE arising is unreported, estimates of collection 
activity  and  destinations  of  WEEE  have  to  be  based  on  deductions  from  available 
evidence. This section describes that evidence and makes the deductions and assumptions 
transparent. The impact of changing the 3 most important assumptions is considered later 
in the IA, as a sensitivity analysis.  

2.3.2.2.  Disposal of WEEE with municipal waste 

Based on analysis in the UNU study of the type and size of WEEE arising, knowledge of 
WEEE put on the market and the evidence of the current levels of reported collection of 
small  appliances  (for  example  only  26,6%  of  estimated  waste  arisings  from  small 
household  appliances,  lighting  equipment  and  domestic  medical  devices  are  reported  as 
collected) the Commission estimates that a big section of small domestic appliances are not 
separated  from  the  domestic  waste  stream  and  go  to  mixed  domestic  waste  treatment 
(typically  landfill  or  incineration).  This  estimation  represents  10%  by  weight  of  WEEE 
arising. 

A  large  proportion  of  WEEE  by  weight  comprises  large  or  medium  appliances27  from 
domestic  waste  which  are  easily  distinguished  from  general  domestic  waste  and  are  in 
practice  already  'sorted'  by  consumers  throwing  away  their  WEEE  –  they  do  not  fit  into 
waste bins. As these have material value for recycling, these are considerably unlikely to 
go to unsorted domestic waste collection, either to landfill or incineration.  

27 

Composed  of  Large  household  appliances,  partly  IT  equipments,  cooling  and  freezing  devices,  TVs  and 
monitors.  

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Another  13%  of  WEEE  is  B2B  waste  which  is  treated  differently  under  the  WEEE 
Directive because it is typically collected separately, but of which around 10% is assumed 
to be illegally disposed of– so 1% of total WEEE arising. 

Some  large  and  medium  domestic  appliances are  assumed  not  to  be  collected  separately, 
but illegally disposed off or collected and going to landfill. This is assumed to be 2% of 
WEEE arising. 

As a working hypothesis for this IA the Commission services therefore estimates that 13% 
of  WEEE  is  currently  not  being  separately  collected  but  rather  collected  and  treated 
together with the municipal solid waste stream. 

2.3.2.3.  Destination of WEEE outside municipal waste streams 

As 13% of the WEEE arising are not separately collected, it is assumed that the rest 87% 
of the WEEE arising is being separately collected (whether reported or unreported). 

WEEE reused 

Separately  collected  WEEE  is  also  sometimes  prepared  for  reuse.  Experiences  from  the 
UK on computer reuse and trials on refrigerator take-back (DTI 2000 and DEFRA 2003) 
have  shown  that  reuse  and  refurbishment  tends  to  take  place  where  there  is  a  market  for 
these items and the means to cover the costs of refurbishment/repair. Where  margins are 
low, reuse activity tends to be run by charity organisations. Viable activities have focused 
on refurbishment  of  washing  machines and IT equipment but for refrigerators the rate of 
refurbishment achieved was very low (~2 % of used refrigerators collected were reusable, 
mainly because the age of the equipment made it difficult/impossible to obtain spare parts 
such  as  shelves  and  compartment  doors).  Elsewhere,  typically  5-10%  of  collected 
equipment is found to be reusable.  

Many  consumers  throw  away  products  because  of  minor  problems.  Up  to  75%  of  these 
products are often repairable, but consumers purchase a new product because the cost for 
repair  is  disproportionately  high.  However,  RREUSE  states  that  reuse  of  WEEE  is 
economically  viable  as  the  demand  from  consumers  for  second-hand  EEE  is  bigger  than 
the  supply.  RREUSE,  a  specialised  European  network  of  national  and  regional  social 
economy federations and enterprises with activities in re-use and recycling, has 16 member 
organisations covering 10 Member States, plus two international member organisations in 
total collect, repair and recycle 300 000 tonnes of WEEE through 1 200 centres.  

For the purpose of this IA conservative estimate for reuse is used: it is assumed that less 
than 2% of WEEE arising goes for re-use.  

WEEE treated in accordance with the provisions of the Directive  

Reported  WEEE:  On  the  basis  of  EERA  data,  it  is  assumed  that  33%  of  the  WEEE 
arisings are reported to be separately collected. It is assumed that all the WEEE reported by 
Member States as separately collected is treated in accordance with the Directive (mainly 
the requirements of Annex II).  

The  reported  figures  for  collection  therefore  indicate  the  minimum  volumes  of  WEEE 
which are being both collected and treated in accordance with the Directive.  

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
Legally Shipped WEEE: WEEE can be treated in accordance with the Directive outside 
the  EU,  if  treated  to  standards  equivalent  to  those  in  the  Directive.  Trade  statistics  show 
that 25,000 tonnes of WEEE is reported as legally shipped out of the Community yearly. 
This number is significantly lower than the assumed total export. 

Unreported WEEE: While a certain amount of WEEE may be treated in accordance with 
the  Directive,  but  not  reported,  there  are  also  reasons  to  assume  that  unreported  WEEE 
could  be  treated  improperly.  Treatment  of  WEEE  in  line  with  the  Directive  usually 
requires  extra  environmental  precautions  causing  extra  costs  which  are  not  matched  by 
increased  recovery  of  valuable  materials  (see  later  section).  For  some  types  of  WEEE, 
particularly  those  containing  hazardous  substances,  these  costs  are  very  significant  in 
relation to the value of material. 

It could therefore be possible that significant cost savings are taken as incentives for sub-
standard treatment of e.g. cooling and freezing equipment and other WEEE with particular 
environmental  harm.  This  risk  is  presumably  lower  for  e.g.  dishwashers  and  washing 
machines  where  the  material  values  can  be  recovered  with  less  complex  and  costly 
processes. 

Current  capacity  for  treating  WEEE  in  line  with  the  Directive  is  reported  as  being 
sufficient  for  the  WEEE  reported  as  separately  collected  in  2006-7,  with  some  small 
amounts  of  excess  capacity  in  some  Member  States.  As  these  reports  cover  only  33%  of 
WEEE,  it  may  be  that  there  is  currently  significant under-capacity in the  EU  to  properly 
treat all WEEE arising, an assumption supported by information from EERA28. 

It is assumed for the purpose of this IA that only 10% of unreported WEEE being treated 
in line with the Directive.  

WEEE not treated in accordance with the Directive 

The  evidence  and  working  assumptions  above  would  account  for  58%  of  the  WEEE 
arising29, leaving 42% unaccounted for.  

A recent study by Witteveen-Bos30 on the Dutch situation showed that beside the amounts 
collected  and  accounted  for  by  the  producer  responsibility  organisation,  WEEE  was  also 
collected  via  other  ways.  It  estimated  that  out  of  the  total  amount  of  18,5kg  of  WEEE 
arising  per  inhabitant  in  the  Netherlands,  one  third  was  collected  and  treated  under  the 
Dutch collective schemes, one third reached Dutch recycling plants via other channels and 
one  third  escaped  to  unknown  destinations.  As  the  PROs,  the  public  waste  system  and 
private  waste  treatment  industry  are  well  established  in  the  Netherlands,  the  situation  is 
likely to be different and possibly more critical in other Member States. 

28 

29 

30 

EERA in correspondence with the Commission, indicate that 50% of the total WEEE arising could be treated 
currently  if  operators  started  working  double  shifts.  Extra  capacity  would  take  1  year  to  build  and  get 
operational after permissions were granted. 
58%  represents  33%  reported,  2%  reused,  10%  probably  treated  in  line  with  the  Directive  and  an  unsorted 
fraction of 13% 
http://www.weee-
forum.org/att/literature/2008_Electronic%20waste%20parallel%20streams_Witteveen_Bos.pdf 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
                                                 
According to the UNU study31 there is common agreement that substantial leakage occurs 
for  any  WEEE  items  which  have  a  value,  such  as  large  household  appliances  (which 
contain mainly metals), desktop computers, TV’s and mobile telephones. There are well-
established ‘grey markets’ for these items.  

For  B2B  WEEE,  the  current  amount  of  WEEE  recorded  as  collected  &  treated  as 
percentage of estimated WEEE arising indicates that still between 35 and 50% of B2B are 
not  being  recorded  as  separately  collected.  EERA  suggests  that  this  results  in  being  a 
source of malpractice and illegal exports to non-OECD countries.32  

There is also substantial anecdotal evidence and research suggesting that often treatment is 
not conducted in line with the WEEE Directive, concentrating on the recovery of materials 
with  value,  whilst  minimising  costs  to  the  detriment  of  environmental  and  health 
precautions.  

WEEE  illegally  shipped  to  3rd  countries:  Various  pieces  of  evidence  suggest  that  very 
large volumes of WEEE are shipped out of the EU illegally for sub-standard treatment in 
the  developing  world.  These  shipments  are  often  disguised  as  export  of  used  equipment, 
but in fact are shipped for their material value. Due to the illegal nature of these shipments 
there  is  no  data  available  on  the  overall  volume  of  the  shipments,  but  there  are  some 
specific  cases  available  when  these  illegal  shipments  were  discovered  during  the  few 
investigations  taken  of  which  the  Commission  services  are  aware.  Some  WEEE  are 
repaired  and  exported  as  used  goods  and  not  actually  as  waste  to  developing  countries 
where  these  products  are  reused,  these  are  not  accounted  for  in  the  figure  of  WEEE  not 
treated in accordance to the Directive.  

The UNU study mentions reports about shipments of WEEE disguised as goods from the 
port  of  Hamburg  (DEUTSCHE  UMWELTHILFE  2007)  and  findings  that  28%  of 
businesses (collectors and exporters) were found to be exporting WEEE illegally from the 
Netherlands  (VROM  2007).  A  study  in  the  United  Kingdom  showed  that  about  10%  of 
WEEE transports were shipped illegally to non-OECD countries.  

Treatment in the EU not in accordance with the Directive: Anecdotal evidence points 
to  parts  of  WEEE  not  being  processed  in  the  EU  in  accordance  with  the  treatment 
standards of Annex II of the WEEE Directive: large household appliances and in particular 
cooling and freezing appliances being shredded without de-pollution, and CRT glass that 
ends up together with construction and demolition waste. For example according to recent 
information provided33, CFC-containing refrigerators were discovered being treated in car 
shredding plants instead of specialised facilities, which results in CFC emissions. 

The Commission services have anecdotal evidence from stakeholders of "cherry picking" 
by some WEEE operators the WEEE with high material value from the WEEE collected in 
Member  States.  The  equipment  with  high  value  (e.g.  a  high  precious  metal  content),  are 
taken from collected WEEE to recycling plants or for illegal export.  

31 
32 
33 

Section 10.2 
Section 4 
Capital 09/2008 "Klimatskandal: Deutschland stümpert bei FDKW-Entsorgung" 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.3.3.  Quantitative Estimations on Collection and Destinations of WEEE in 2005 

Based  on  the  evidence,  data  for  2005,  deductions  and  assumptions  above,  the  following 
working scenario can be established for the year 2005 (the WEEE arising is taken at the 
lower end of the estimations from the UNU, 8.3 million tonnes). 

•  13% of WEEE arising by weight (1,1 million tonnes) is not separated from domestic 
waste, or is illegally disposed of, e.g. as consequence of consumers not complying with 
the requirement not to dispose of WEEE as unsorted municipal waste. This may apply 
in particular small domestic appliances, easily put in the waste bin.  

•  All of the 2,7 million tonnes of WEEE reported as collected by Member States - 33% of 
WEEE  arising  -  go  to  authorised  treatment  facilities  where  they  are  treated  in 
accordance with the Directive.  

•  Of  the  remaining  54%  (4.5  million  tonnes)  which  are  separately  collected  but  not 

accounted for :  

–  Reuse  of  WEEE  is  assumed  to  be  at  a  level  lower  than  2%  of  the  WEEE  arising, 

representing less than 0.2 million tonnes. 

–  WEEE (particularly large household appliances)  treated in line with the Directive, but 

not be reported is assumed to be 11% of the WEEE arising, or 0.9 million tonnes. 

–  There is not sufficient information to make reliable estimates of what proportion of the 
WEEE  still  unaccounted  for  is  illegally  shipped  out  of  the  EU  and  what  proportion  is 
treated,  recycled  or  recovered  not  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Directive. 
However, in a worst case scenario WEEE separately collected, improperly treated in or 
out of the EU could be assumed to represent around 41% of the WEEE arising or 3.4 
million tonnes.  

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
2005 Scenario - Collection

pom

Arising

Collection

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

Amounts (Mt)

Figure 4: Collection of WEEE34  

2005 Scenario - Treatment

pom

Arising

Treatment

Not separately collected

Municipal collection

Retail / distribution

Reuse centers

Independant collection

B2B collection

Dumped or landfilled

Properly treated & reported

Properly treated & non reported

Non properly treated in the EU

Non properly treated out the EU

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

Amounts (Mt)

Figure 5: Destinations of WEEE 

34 

pom = put on the market; Arising = amounts of EEE arising as waste in a certain year 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
2.3.4.  Drivers of the Effectiveness Problems 

The problem described above that a large percentage of the WEEE arising is not properly 
treated is mainly driven by three facts: 

•  The high material value of WEEE; 

•  Proper treatment of WEEE, in line with the requirements of the WEEE Directive adds 

additional costs; 

•  There seems to be low enforcement of the WEEE Directive’s treatment requirements at 

national level.  

Background to the drivers: 

–  Material  Value:  The  three  main  materials  arising  from  WEEE  are  metals,  glass  and 
plastics. Ferrous metals account for approximately 50%, non-ferrous metals for 5% and 
plastics  for  20-25%  of  the  WEEE  arising.  There  are  well-established  markets  for 
recycled metals and some markets for some of the plastics. It is important to notice that 
changing market prices for materials have to be taken into consideration when assessing 
these  drivers.  The  UNU  study  highlights  that  material  values  have  risen  by  50-100 
€/tonne from 2005 to 2007. 

–  Differences between WEEE: For some products the cost of extraction of the valuable 
materials  is  higher  than  the  value  of  the  materials.  Others,  particularly  those  high  in 
metal, are more valuable. [See Figure 6] 

–  Global  recycling  market:  Transport  costs  for  WEEE  are  low  in  comparison  to  the 
value  of  the  materials,  thus  allowing  a  global  market  for  WEEE  recycling.  In  many 
developing countries, (for example in Africa, the Indian sub-continent and in China) the 
costs  of  WEEE  processing  is  low,  partly  due  to  low  labour  costs  with  manual 
dismantling,  but  also  very  often  because  it  involves  sub-standard  treatment  practices. 
These low recycling costs compared to recycling in the EU, makes trade of WEEE to 
developing  countries  (usually 
illegal)  profitable.  This  creates  competition  for 
particularly  the  valuable  fractions  of  WEEE  between  certain  traders  and  EU-based 
recyclers.  

–  Additional costs of treatment in line with the Directive: Pre-treatment of WEEE to 
recycle  it  in  line  with  the  Directive  (e.g.  removing  hazardous  substances)  creates 
additional costs. For example, pre-treatment of fridges is estimated by the UNU study at 
21,84  €  per  fridge  while  the  costs  for  less  pr oblematic  large  household  appliances  is 
these differences for some categories in 
only 3,19 € per appliance. Figure 6 illustrates 
2005 (UNU) for treatment in line with the Directive. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
€1,000

€800

€600

€400

€200

€-

-€200

-€400

€187

€572

€136

€409

€259

€95

€240

€129

€249

Transport and collection
(incl. access to W EEE)

Shredding, sorting,
dismantling,
pretreatment

Recycling + recovery
processes

€9

€12

€24

€8

€8

-€98

-€93

Incineration and landfill

-€284

€145

€59

-€51

LHHA

C&F

SHA

CRT+FDP

Lamps

Figure  6:  Breakdown  of  the  cost  of  collection  and  treatment  of  WEEE  equipment 
categories 

–  Low  level  of  enforcement:  according  to  anecdotal  evidence  from  stakeholder 
consultations and from the UNU study there seems to be a lack of enforcement of the 
WEEE Directive on many levels. The UNU study35 points out that not all producers are 
registered - sometimes deliberately when penalties are lower than financial obligations.  

Low levels of effective enforcement in some Member States are themselves driven by lack 
of enforcement capacity. 

2.3.5.  Evolution of the Effectiveness Problems: 2011-2020 (No action/ Baseline scenario) 

This  section  describes  how  the  collection  and  destinations  of  WEEE  are  estimated  to 
change over the period of interest to the review (2011-20, the period after which reviewed 
legislation is likely to be in force) if there was no change in policy. 

2.3.5.1.  Will there be any changes in the drivers of the problem? 

Changes on the market 

The  volume  of  EEE  put  on  the  market  is  predicted  to  grow  further,  and  the  volume  of 
WEEE arising is estimated by UNU to continue to increase between 2.5-2.7%.  

The value of recycled metal is likely to remain high due maintained demand in the world 
economy, maintaining the global demand for WEEE containing high proportions of metal 
for recycling.  

35 

Section 11.5.2 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Some  markets  for  recycled  plastic  could  mature  over  time,  as  new  technology,  partly 
stimulated by the high oil price, or low-wage separation, allows greater purity of recycled 
material  and  new  uses  are  found  for  the  material.  This  would  provide  some  increased 
demand for recycled plastic. 

The Directive's current target of 4kg/capita.yr to be collected in all 27 Member States at the 
end  of  2008  represents  only  about  22%  of  the  total  WEEE  arising36.  As  consumption 
grows  this  ratio  would  become  lower,  projected  to  be  only  19%  in  201437,  meaning  that 
relatively  less  environmental  protection  is  guaranteed.  This  target  is  already  effectively 
redundant  as  a  stimulus  to  separate  collection,  with  the  possibility  of  higher  levels  of 
unreported collection  

Impacts of other Product and Waste Policies 

•  Other design-relevant Community legislation, such as RoHS, REACH38 and EuP39 are 
not assumed to have an immediate impact on the level of collection. They can however 
in  the  future  positively  impact  on  treatment  efforts  (and  thereby  indirectly  on  the 
attractiveness  of  collection)  if  design  requirements  and  substance  choices  in  favour  of 
better recycling are established. However, REACH and EuP are likely to have effects on 
the  composition  of  WEEE  only  in  the  longer  term,  as  their  implementation  can  affect 
the  majority  of  EEE  only  at  a  very  modest  pace  and  any  effects  on  WEEE  will  be 
further delayed by the average lifetime of EEE. 

•  New  waste  management  legislation,  notably  the  revised  Waste  Framework  Directive 
with its waste prevention provisions, may influence WEEE arisings and collection rates 
in  the  longer  term.  However,  as  these  measures  are  still  in  a  very  early  stage  of 
development there is insufficient evidence for any quantitative estimates.  

•  Better enforcement of the Waste Shipment Regulation in the future may have a positive 
impact on reducing the amounts of illegal WEEE shipments. However, incentives will 
remain to either escape from costs or to benefit more from highly demanded resources.  

•  Better enforcement of the Landfill Directive in future may reduce negative impacts of 

WEEE disposal in the long term.  

•  No  effect  is  expected  from  the  regulation  on  ozone  depleting  substances  (ODS)40  as 

waste issues are to be dealt with in the WEEE Directive. 

Otherwise, it is assumed that the drivers of the problem will remain largely unchanged for 
the duration of the Baseline scenario.  

36 
37 
38 
39 
40 

Total WEEE arising in 2008 = 18,2 kg/capita.yr (8,96Mt on 492million inhabitants) 
Total WEEE arising in 2014 = 21,3 kg/capita.yr (10,46Mt on 492million inhabitants) 
Registration, Evaluation, Autorisation and restriction of Chemical Substances, OJEU L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1 
Energy using Products, OJEU L 191, 22.7.2005, p.29-58 
OJ L 244, 29.9.2000, p.1 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.3.5.2.  Collection and Destinations of WEEE  

On  the  basis  of  these  drivers,  previous  assumptions  and  further  assumptions  that  in  the 
future  more  collected  WEEE  will  be  reported,  it  can  be  estimated  that  in  the  Baseline 
scenario by 2020:  

•  total  quantity  of  electrical  and  electronic  equipment  put  on  the  market  would  be  15.1 

million tonnes41; 

•  the total WEEE arising across the EU27 increases to 12.3 million tonnes; 

•  slightly  less  (11%)  of  WEEE  will  be  disposed  of  with  domestic  waste  or  illegally 
dumped (1.4 million tonnes); this decrease is expected mainly because consumers are 
expected  to  be  better  aware  of  the  requirements  not  to  dispose  WEEE  as  unsorted 
municipal waste; 

•  still 2% of the WEEE arising will be reused (0.25 million tonnes); 

•  greater proportions of WEEE - around 42% of the WEEE arising (5.1 million tonnes)42 
will  be  reported  as  separately  collected  and  treated  in  line  with  the  Directive.  The 
assumption is based on an increase similar as the one seen in PRO schemes that have 
been  running  for  5  or  more  years;  this  increase  is  based  on  growth,  further 
implementation of the Directive and on the inclusion of a fraction that was separately 
collected  and  treated  in  line  with  the  Directive  but  not  reported  before.  A  further 
reasoning on why this proportion would increase is to be found in Annex 4. 

•  45% of the total WEEE remains unaccounted for (5.5 million tonnes)  

–  Out of the unaccounted fraction, less than one quarter (10%) is recycled in the EU in 

accordance with the Directive;  

–  The  remaining  35%  (4.3  million  tonnes)  are  not  treated  in  accordance  with  the 

Directive, be it in the EU or outside the EU. 

Figure  7:  Collection  and  Destinations  of  WEEE  in  2020  according  to  the  baseline 
scenario 

41 

42 

This is calculated with the yearly growth rate of 2,6% taking as the basis value 10.3 tonnes/year placed on the 
market in 2005. 
This amount corresponds with an amount of about 10kg per inhabitant per year in the EU, assuming that the 
population growth rate for all countries reaches 0% by 2020 and that the current growth rate follows a linear 
relationship between current growth rates and the expected rate in 2020.  

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2020 Baseline Scenario - Collection and Treamtment

Collection methods

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

s
e
n
n
o
t

n
o

i
l
l
i

m

B2B

Independent

reuse centres

retail/distribution

municipalities

not seperated

Treatment methods

Not properly treated

Not reported but properly treated

Reported + properly treated

Dumped/Landfill

EEE sold

Arising

Collection

Treatment

2.3.5.3.  How does changing key assumptions impact on the baseline?  

Three changes are being considered for the future that would impact on the baseline. 

Prices for metals and plastics fall compared to 2007: In this case the economic driver 
for  separate  collection  of  WEEE  will  disappear  for  even  larger  proportions  of  WEEE 
(material value below total costs for recovery).  

Higher,  or  lower,  proportions  of  unreported  WEEE  are  in  reality  treated  properly: 
The  difference  between  levels  of  WEEE  being  treated  in  line  with  the  Directive  or  not 
makes  a  significant  difference  particularly  for  the  categories  of  WEEE  (like  cooling  and 
freezing)  with  high  treatment  cost  due  to  high  environmental  damage  from  improper 
treatment.  If  higher  proportions  of  unreported  WEEE  of  this  type  were  treated  properly 
than predicted, the environmental harm from (sub-standard) treatment would be lower. 

Significantly  more  than  11%  of  WEEE  is  going  to  landfill:  If  more  WEEE  is  being 
landfilled, the potential environmental impacts of WEEE in the EU will be higher (notably 
energy  and  resource  losses;  pollution  in  case  of  sub-standard  disposal).  Treatment  costs 
would be lower – but with a significant net cost to society. As shown by UNU the harm 
from landfilling WEEE is even greater than from improper treatment.  

2.3.6. 

Impacts of the Effectiveness Problems: 2011-2020 (No action/ Baseline scenario) 

2.3.6.1.  Environmental impacts 

As the materials contained in different WEEE are substantially different, the environmental 
impact  of  WEEE  depends  on  both  the  type  of  WEEE  and  the  way  it  is  treated.  Those 
impacts are both global and local. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
 
 
General Impacts from materials in WEEE 

Some  50%  of  WEEE  by  weight  consists  of  ferrous  metals,  largely  steel.  Collecting  and 
recycling this material typically results in savings of 74% energy, 76% water pollution and 
86% air pollution if compared to primary steel production.  

Under the baseline scenarios, based on the supposition that large amount of WEEE is being 
separately collected, for the calculation 87% of separately collected WEEE is assumed, up 
to  3.5  million  tonnes  (equal  to  1.8  %  of  EU  annual  production)  of  steel  can  be  recycled 
from this waste stream alone43.  

Total Potential Environmental Impacts 

The  potential  environmental  impacts  of  WEEE  vary  depending  on  the  equipment  in 
question.  Potential  impacts  comprise  emissions  of  toxic  substances  as  well  as  inefficient 
use of materials and energy. They can contribute to global problems (e.g. climate related 
impacts) as well as "local" impacts in the EU or third countries (e.g. eco-toxic emissions, 
damage to human health). 

The  main  climate  related  impacts  derive  from  the  release  of  CFCs  due  to  inappropriate 
treatment of cooling and freezing appliances, and also from unnecessary energy use (CO2 
emissions) when energy savings of material recycling are not realized. On current trends, 
greenhouse gas release cooling and freezing equipment would be around 35 million tonnes 
of CO2 equivalent a year in 2011 (compared to the likely baseline), with a monetised value 
of the damage having a magnitude of around €1 b illion/year - declining each year to low 
levels by 2020.44 This decline comes as CFC-ban in cooling and freezing equipment feeds 
through to the WEEE stream. 

Toxic emissions damaging eco-systems and human health at local and regional levels can 
be  caused  by  uncontrolled  dumping  and  sub-standard  treatment,  including  all  stages  of 
badly managed storage, transport, recovery and disposal. 

All  of  the  potential  impacts  mentioned  can  be  well  managed  if  the  WEEE  is  separately 
collected and sent to state-of-the-art treatment. More details on the environmental impacts 
can be found in Annex 6. An estimate of monetary value has only been provided for one 
part (the GHG) impacts of these environmental damages. 

2.3.6.2.  Economic impacts 

The  total  economic  costs  (excluding  the  economic  costs  of  environmental  harm)  are  the 
efforts  and  costs  spent  on  collection,  treatment,  recycling  and  disposal  of  WEEE.  As  the 
volumes  of  WEEE  arising  increase,  the  total  costs  from  the  management  of  WEEE  will 
also increase but likely not at the same rate. Economies of scale in collection and treatment 
are likely to reduce costs per tonne; technological development of treatment operations is 
likely to further reduce treatment cost.  

43 

44 

EN 

Annual  crude  steel  production 
http://www.eurofer.org/index.php/eng/Home)  
The basis for this estimate is in Annex 6. 

in 

the  EU 

is  about  200  million 

tonnes  (source  Eurofer  via 

46 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Composition of cost 

•  Costs of consumers, public authorities or the retail sector to collect WEEE; 

•  Costs to transport WEEE to treatment centres either in the EU or overseas; 

•  Treatment,  preparation  for  reuse,  recovery,  recycling  process  costs  and  any  costs  of 

disposal of rest fractions; 

•  Additional costs (for control, reporting, administration); 

•  The cost for society of the unsorted WEEE fraction (landfilling and incineration).  

These  costs  include  organisational  costs,  for  authorities,  distributors  and  producers  in 
setting  up  and  running  logistic  systems.  In  addition,  administrative  costs  from  reporting 
and labelling by producers add to costs.  

For all the WEEE that is separately collected, some actor in society is moving the WEEE 
from  the  consumer  to  a  recycling  facility.  Many  geographic  and  economic  factors  affect 
these costs which vary across the EU to a great degree. That variance is likely to be greater 
than the difference in collection costs caused by collection taking place by different actors. 
In this IA, it is assumed that the cost for collection and transport by independent collectors 
and traders who ship WEEE for treatment is broadly the same per tonne as the collection 
and transport cost for PROs.  

Treatment  of  WEEE  in  line  with  the  Directive  adds  costs  to  the  process  as  steps  like 
depollution  or  removal  of  CFCs  are  required  to  reduce  environmental  harm.  These 
additional costs depend on the type of WEEE concerned and the processes used. The latter 
are largely determined by Annex II of the Directive. For estimation of the additional costs 
in this IA, the Commission assumes requirements which eliminate environmental harm at 
least  possible  costs.  They  are  based  on  estimates  of  existing  costs  and  changes  in 
technology between now and 2020. 

In the UNU study, the net total cost (covering the 1st four bullets mentioned above) for the 
fraction  of  WEEE  that  has  been  reported  as  separately  collected  and  treated  in  2005 
(2.6Mt)  is  estimated  to  be  €  0.94  billion   (358€/tonne).  This  figure 
is  based  on  material 
prices  of  the  year  2005  and  expresses  the  costs  incurred  due  to  the  WEEE  Directive  as 
compared  to  landfilling.  Transport  costs  from  consumers  to  collection  centres  are  not 
included. The level of this figure is confirmed by more recent data published by the WEEE 
forum on its website45. 

On the basis of the assumptions on  collection and destinations of WEEE in the baseline, 
the  current  cost  for  the  fraction  that  has  not  been  reported  can  be  estimated.  The  overall 
gross cost composition as presented in the key figures (WEEE forum 2007) can be used as 
reference to estimate the respective costs for collection (17%), logistics (29%), treatment 
(33%)  and  additional  costs  (21%).  Assuming  that  the  costs  for  logistics  and  collection 
remain comparable, that there are no additional costs and that the treatment cost is much 
below the cost for treatment in line with the Directive, the cost currently occurring for the 

45 

Key Figures 2007, http://www.weee-forum.org/att/news/2007%20Key%20Figures_Final.pdf 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
                                                 
non reported fraction is estimated at maximum € 1.2 billion, bringing the total net cost for 
2005 at about €2.1 billion.  

With a baseline for 2020 as described above (a greater proportion of WEEE been reported 
as separately collected and treated in line with the Directive and the effect of economies of 
scale) the total net annual cost is estimated at €3.4 billion by 2020, corresponding to about 
328€/tonne of WEEE.  

To this should be added enforcement costs from Member State authorities. 

It should be noted that: 

–  These  estimations  are  highly  sensitive  to  some  assumptions  used.  For  example  a 
sensitivity  analysis  carried  out  by  the  UNU  study  showed  that  current  2007  material 
prices increase the revenues of recycling of WEEE by 50 – 100 EUR/tonne compared to 
2005.46; 

–  Other factors that will influence net cots - developments and availability of markets for 
downstream  fractions  and  high-level  reapplication/  valorisation  of  secondary  raw 
materials, and changes in composition of WEEE: for example flat panels are expected to 
cause significant increase in total costs due to costly mercury removal steps.  

–  The impact of long running optimization of systems as this plays an important role on 
the  cost  side.  Looking  at  long  running  systems  across  EU,  the  gap  between  minimum 
and maximum cost levels (both technical and additional) is much lower (UNU 2007);  

–  economies  of  scale  and  investments  in  recycling  /  recovery  plants  (capacity  and 

technologies); 

Existing recycling and recovery targets can usually be achieved with existing technologies. 
The current levels of collection will provide little impetus for investment and innovation in 
techniques and technologies for (pre)treatment, recycling and recovery.  

Economic impact of reuse 

The UNU study explains based on the UK experience that here viable reuse activities have 
focused on refurbishment of washing machines and IT equipment but for refrigerators the 
rate of refurbishment achieved is rather low (2% of used appliances). For other appliances, 
typically 5 to 10% of collected equipment is found to be reusable. 

2.3.6.3.  Social impacts 

Employment 

46 

Since the publication of the research studies, oil and metal prices have increased in such a way that for most 
fractions, the cost and revenues come  to a break even. The costs remain  for those fractions where treatment 
operations are necessary before further recycling/recovery as in cooling and freezing appliances, CRT glass, 
mercury containing lamps and LCD screens with mercury backlights.  

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Material recycling from waste creates 5 to 7 times more jobs than disposal by incineration 
and 10 times more jobs than disposal in landfills47

.  

The Commission's Thematic Strategy on waste prevention and recycling considers that the 
waste management and recycling sector in the EU25 provides 1.2 to 1.5 million jobs. The 
waste  collection  and  treatment  sector  typically  employs  many  lower  skilled  workers  as 
well as expert technicians.  

While there are limited data on the employment effects of the WEEE Directive, the income 
generated  by  the  collection  and  dismantling  of  WEEE  is  often  referred  to  as  a  good  job 
opportunity  for  disadvantaged  people  in  the  first  labour  market  (RREUSE  2006a,  p.  2, 
WILLIAMS 2006).  

Early assumptions of NeWET from 2001 speak of approximately 3,870 jobs being created 
under  the  implementation  of  the  WEEE  Directive  in  Germany.  In  Lithuania  it  has  been 
estimated  that  290  jobs  have  been  created  (ECGL  2003,  p.  7).  For  the  Netherlands  it  is 
reported  that  a  small  number  of  jobs  has  been  created  in  local  authorities.  Additional 
employment  in  administration  of  the  collective  schemes  has  been  kept  to  a  minimum  to 
reduce  costs.  Meanwhile,  the  organisation  of  the  collective  schemes  has  resulted  in 
significant  consolidation  in  the  recycling  sector  with  the  displacement  of  small 
organisations,  including  social  welfare  organisations.  The  loss  of  jobs  in  these  small 
organisations has probably  been offset by increases in employment in the larger  firms to 
deal with additional throughput of WEEE (DG ENV 2001a, p. IV).  

In the Baseline scenario it is expected that net employment remains unchanged. 

Social impacts of reuse 

Reuse of WEEE has positive social impacts. According to Anderson, the Rreuse network 
has  about  17,000  people  in  social  organisations  who  collect,  repair  and  recycle  about 
300,000 tonnes of equipment from about 1200 work centres, and supplying mainly to an 
‘excluded’ market. For less valuable fractions or for reuse with low revenue margins, reuse 
activity  tends  to  be  run  by  charitable  organisations  that  employ  and  train  low  skilled 
people.  The  sector  is  employing  40.000  people  and  engaging  110.000  volunteers  in 
Europe48  of  which  an  important  part  works  on  WEEE,  usually  these  were  long-term 
unemployed, handicapped or people at risk. Given the size of their market share, RREUSE 
considers  this  a  remarkable  sector  for  employment  opportunities  for  people  with  limited 
chances elsewhere. 

The  re-use  of  WEEE  provides  high  quality  products  at  affordable  prices  which  offers  an 
important  means  for  people  with  low  income  to  raise  their  standards  of  living  and  to 
participate in social activities, in particular in the IT sector bridging the “digital divide”, or 
delivering necessary means of communication for commercial or cultural purposes49. But 

47 
48 
49 

(source: European Ferrous Recovery and Recycling Federation) 
See http://rreuse.org/t3/  
The  "i2010  –  A  European  Information  Society  for  growth  and  employment"  initiative  was  launched  by  the 
Commission  on  1  June  2005  as  a  framework  for  addressing  the  main  challenges  and  developments  in  the 
information society and media sectors up to 2010. It promotes an open and competitive digital economy and 
emphasises  ICT  as  a  driver  of  inclusion  and  quality  of  life.  The  initiative  contains  a  range  of  EU  policy 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
                                                 
given that EEE is only entering the waste chain when it is considered to be out of value, it 
might also no longer be supportive for these social aspects.  

During  an  expert-workshop  organised  by  the  UNU  study,  it  was  mentioned  that 
refurbishment,  resale  and  reuse  of  equipment  does  lead  to  the  creation  of  jobs,  but  that 
most of this happens before the EEE enters the waste stream. 

2.4. 

Problems with the Efficiency of the Directive- Baseline scenario 2011-2020 

2.4.1.  Description of the Problems 

Experience  with  the  operation  of  the  WEEE  Directive  has  revealed  several  issues  which 
offer  potential  for  reducing  costs  for  producers,  treatment  operators  and  authorities 
involved in compliance with the Directive. These are: 

•  Administrative  Burden  –  particularly  from  differences  in  the  operation  of  national 
producer  registers.  Annex  8  gives  a  full  overview  of  the  administrative  burden  of  the 
WEEE Directive  

•  Costs  incurred  by  certain  producers  not  meeting  their  financial  obligations  ("free-
riders").  This  causes  additional  costs  for  producers  who  are  meeting  their  obligations, 
and risks distorting competition between producers 

•  Diversion  of  some  WEEE  from  re-use  –  where  it  would  have  a  higher  economic  and 

social value  

2.4.2.  Drivers of the Efficiency Problems 

The problems related to the efficiency of the Directive has two drivers, one relates to the 
interpretation of the scope of the Directive and the product categories, the other relates to 
the differences in producer registration requirements. 

2.4.2.1.  Difference in Interpretations of the Scope and Categorisation 

The  WEEE  Directive  applies  to  10  categories  of  "electrical  and  electronic  equipment", 
currently  illustrated  by  a  non-exhaustive  list  of  examples.  Some  equipment  is  excluded 
from  the  scope.50  Member  States  have  discretion  to  go  beyond  the  requirements  of  the 
Directive and include additional products in their national WEEE laws (WEEE is based on 
Art. 175 of the EC Treaty). 

During  implementation,  the  Commission  services  together  with  Member  States  and 
stakeholders  have  taken  steps  to  clarify  the  scope.  It  published  "Frequently  Asked 
Questions on RoHS and WEEE" addressing this issue. Nevertheless, uncertainty exists in 
particular in the following areas:  

50 

instruments to encourage the development of the digital economy such as regulatory instruments, research and 
partnerships with stakeholders. 
Equipment that is part of another equipment not covered by the scope of the Directive as well as equipment 
connected with the protection of the essential interests of the security of Member States, arms, munitions and 
war material, etc. 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                                  
•  Whether  various  products  in  the  "grey  area"  would  be  covered  by  one  of  the  10 
equipment  categories,  by  the  definition  of  EEE  or  by  the  exclusions.  (An  example  is 
church organs whose lead-pipes depend on electrical air fans to function properly); 

•  Under which product category certain products fall - this classification can influence the 

recycling and recovery requirements applicable to the product; and 

•  Whether certain EEE should be classified as generating WEEE from private households 
(known  as  business  to  consumer  equipment  or  B2C)  or  WEEE  from  users  other  than 
private  households  (known  as  business  to  business  equipment  or  B2B).  This 
classification is directly linked to the setting and achievement of targets as well as to the 
regime of financing.  

As  a  result  of  the  issues  above,  during  implementation,  in  many  cases  Member  States 
postponed  decisions  on  scope  at  national  level  until  they  received  guidance  from  the 
Commission,  which  has  slowed  down  implementation  and  prolonged  uncertainty  for 
business  an  administrators.  Attempts  to  gain  agreement  between  Member  States  on 
categorisation are often a slow process and are not always successful. 

In  other  cases  different  Member  States  and  administrations  came 
to  divergent 
interpretations  of  the  scope,  leaving  economic  operators  with  uncertainty  whether  their 
products  are  covered  by  the  WEEE  Directive  and  whether  they  need  to  comply  with  the 
(financial) producer responsibility and reporting requirements. 

The uncertainty has caused confusion among producers on the rules they need to comply 
with  and  also  given  some  producers  the  opportunity  to  choose  the  interpretation  of  the 
definition of scope which best suits them.  

This situation has led to the following costs:  

•  Some producers evade costs and financial guarantees by falsely classifying their product 
as B2B WEEE (for which this requirement does not exist). As much of this B2B waste 
nevertheless ends up in the household waste stream and the cost falls on those producers 
who have registered for household WEEE;  

•  Avoidance  of  higher 

recovery/recycling 
categorisation, which can lead to lower levels of environmental protection; 

requirements  by  different  product 

•  Disadvantage in competition for those who fulfil the requirements of the Directive (in 

particular the financing) and those with very similar products who don't;  

•  Unintended costs for firms selling into more than one Member State where they have to 
meet different obligations, including different registration and reporting requirements as 
a result of differing classifications. This also includes cost of the administrative work to 
assess  for  each  Member  State  which  obligations  and  categorisation  must  be  complied 
with, for example on whether their dual-use products are classified as household WEEE. 

2.4.2.2.  Differences in Producer Registration Requirements 

To  make  the  financial  producer  responsibility  enforceable,  the  identity  of  producers  and 
the quantities of EEE they put on the market must be known to Member States. The WEEE 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
Directive  therefore  requires  Member  States  to  draw  up  a  register  of  producers  and  to 
collect information on the quantities and categories of electrical and electronic equipment 
put  on  their  market,  collected,  reused,  recycled  and  recovered  within  the  Member  State 
including exports.  

Member States have taken different approaches with respect to: 

•  who needs to register 

•  who needs to report 

•  what needs to be reported 

•  interpretation of the term “producer” (national vs European approach) 

•  obligations of distance sellers. 

Further details are provided in Annex7.  

These  divergent  interpretations  have  resulted  in  a  multitude  of  different  registration 
schemes  and  requirements.  By  far  the  largest  concern  raised  by  industry  stakeholders 
relates  to  the  differences  in  requirements  of  national  producer  registers  causing 
administrative  costs  from  repetition  and  divergence  of  registration  and  reporting 
obligations. Actors can have to adhere to up to 27 varying requirements when placing EEE 
on the EU market.  

2.4.3.  Evolution of the Efficiency Problems: 2011-2020 (No action/Baseline scenario)  

If no action  is  taken,  the problem of unnecessary  costs and free-riding  by producers will 
persist.  However,  the  scope  of  the  problem  could  change,  due  to  the  following  expected 
changes to the drivers of these problems: 

2.4.3.1.  Expected  change  to  the  driver  of  differences  in  the  interpretation  of  scope  and 

categorisation  

Within  the  period  2011-2020,  many  uncertainties  with  existing  products  will  have  been 
resolved.  Yet,  certain  problems  with  differing  interpretation  of  scope  and  category  are 
likely to remain and new ones will arise due to new products being developed.  

•  As the WEEE forum51has failed to develop a guideline on which products are relevant 
for collection points and which may not be covered by Annex IB of the Directive. No 
changes to the drivers of the problem are expected in this regard.  

•  More  co-ordination  in  categorisation  of  WEEE  in  10  product  categories  could  be 
achieved  between  some  Member  States  who  jointly  developed  a  decision  tree.  It  is 
however uncertain whether the Member States will use this decision tree uniformly. 

51 

The European Association of Electrical and Electronic waste take back systems http://www.weee-forum.org/  

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  No  common  decision  tree  exists  for  categorisation  of  B2C  versus  B2B,  therefore 

uncertainty will persist. 

2.4.3.2.  Expected changes to the driver of differences in producer registration requirements 

This driver is predicted to continue throughout the baseline period if despite some actions 
that have been taken to reduce the problem:  

National registers established the European WEEE Registers Network (EWRN) which has 
been concentrating on establishing contact with all functioning registers and are beginning 
to address options for registers to harmonise/apply consistent practices on the approach to 
address a number of key issues such as those addressed above. This work is done however 
on  a  voluntary  basis  and  not  all  Member  States  are  represented,  so  that  the  most  likely 
progress in tackling these problems would be at a slow pace and not coherent across the 
internal market. 

The  Commission  initiated  in  2007  and  2008  infringement  proceedings  against  Member 
States having adopted a "national approach".  

Present  producers  will  have  largely  completed  their  registration  and  adapted  to  different 
Member  States'  requirements  for  the  period  2011-2020.  However,  the  complexities  will 
remain affecting any new52 producers throughout this period.  

For existing producers, the obligation to report in different formats will continue although 
with  some  mitigation  from  the  work  of  EWRN  mentioned  above.  However,  costs  will 
continue when any new products are brought onto the market.  

2.5. 

The EU right to act 

This review is an integral part of developing a better regulatory environment in the EU. It 
will  contribute  to  a  European  regulatory  framework  of  the  highest  standards  of  law 
making, respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Simplification intends 
to make legislation at both Community and national level less burdensome, easier to apply 
and thereby more effective. The Commission is committed to reduce unnecessary burdens 
while preserving the level of environmental protection. 

Moreover, Council and Parliament have explicitly called on the Commission in Articles 5 
and 7 of the WEEE Directive to review the targets provided for in the Directive.  

52 

As new producer can be considered those bringing new goods on the market but also those new on the market 
that replace producers leaving the market 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

OBJECTIVES 

3.1. 

General, specific and operational objectives 

The  general  objective  of  the  review  is  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the WEEE  Directive 
more  effectively  and  efficiently,  thus  optimizing  benefits  for  the  society  as  a  whole  in 
return  for  the  legislative,  administrative  and  economic  efforts  required,  thereby  to 
contribute to a better regulatory environment that is simple, understandable, effective and 
enforceable,  thus  advancing  sustainable  development  and  environmental  protection  while 
helping businesses to maintain its competitiveness and ability to grow and create jobs.  

The specific objectives are: 

–  Reduced  costs  for  producers  and  treatment  operators  through  the  removal  of  all 
unnecessary  administrative  burdens,  without  lowering  the  level  of  environmental 
protection. 

–  Reduced  costs  for producers complying with the Directive by elimination of the costs 

they bear from free-riding by other producers or other distortion of competition. 

–  Creation  of  the  conditions  that  lead  to  the  proper  treatment  of  all  separately  collected 

WEEE in line with the provisions of the Directive 

–  Increased diversion of WEEE from the domestic waste stream 

This leads to four operational objectives defined as follows:  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

certainty  for  economic  operators  on  definitions,  scope  and  categorisation  of 
products; 

removal  of  different  requirements  for  compliance  (including  reporting  and 
registration) between Member States and reduced duplication of reporting; 

creation of adequate incentives for all  separately collected WEEE to be treated in 
line with the Directive, rather than being improperly treated in the EU or illegally 
shipped to third countries; 

(4) 

provision of incentives for waste to be diverted from the domestic waste stream.  

3.2. 

Policy coherence 

The WEEE Directive forms part of EU legislation aiming at creating a recycling society in 
the  EU.  It's  coherence  with  general  Community  strategies  and  with  EU  legislation  on 
product design and waste management is described in Annex 9.  

By supporting the development of the waste industry in the EU, without causing distortions 
in  competition  between  producers,  the  WEEE  Directive  supports  the  objectives  of  the 
Lisbon  Strategy  for  Jobs  and  Growth,  with  positive  impacts  on  EU  employment  and 
technological  development.  Electrical  and  electronic  engineering  in  the  EU  amounted  in 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
2006  to  a  turnover  of  nearly  320  billion  Euro  annually  and  an  employment  of  some  2,8 
million people in more than 18 000 companies53. 

53 

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/electr_equipment/electra.htm  

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4. 

OPTIONS TO IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DIRECTIVE 

4.1. 

Description of the Options 

The  Commission  has  considered,  with  stakeholders,  various  options  to  create  the 
incentives which will lead to all separately collected WEEE being treated in line with the 
Directive  and  to  stimulate greater diversion of  WEEE  from  domestic  waste  streams.  The 
options are described below.  

These  are  not  necessarily  mutually  exclusive  (except  for  the  option  no  action)  and  can 
therefore be combined: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

No action: making no changes to the Directive, including maintaining the minimum 
collection target of 4kg/inhabitant/year of WEEE for Member States (equal to 33% 
of WEEE arising); 

Require  greater  enforcement  by  setting  minimum  inspection  requirements  for 
WEEE treatment; 

Require greater enforcement by introducing minimum inspection requirements for 
waste shipments;  

Increase  the  collection  targets,  make  producers  responsible  for  this  target  and 
include  B2B  equipment  in  the  scope  of  the  collection  target.  (85%  of  WEEE 
arising)  

Set a 100% collection target on the environmentally most relevant streams (cooling 
and  freezing  appliances,  Cathode  Ray  Tubes  and  mercury  containing  appliances 
such as energy saving lamps and LCD screens) ;  

Change the method of setting the target from kg/inhabitant to a % of the quantity of 
EEE put on the market in preceding year[(s)].  

Various other options were considered but rejected during the review and in particular after 
the stakeholder consultation. These covered options on collection targets, targets for reuse, 
recycling and recovery, options on scope, producer responsibility, treatment requirements 
and  a  de  minimis  rule.  These  are  described  in  Annex  12  together  with  reasons  for  their 
rejection. 

4.2. 

Analysis of impacts 

4.2.1.  Option (1): No action 

Under  this  option,  no  changes  to  the  Directive  or  other  new  Commission  initiatives  on 
WEEE  would  be  proposed.  The  Commission  would  continue  to  monitor  implementation 
and  take  infringement  actions  against  Member  States  where  there  was  evidence  that  the 
Directive  was  not  being  implemented  properly,  this  could  for  example  be  the  case  if 
treatment  requirements  were  not  respected.  At  this  stage,  it  is  not  possible  to  judge 
however whether infringement actions would be taken or the legal and practical result of 
any such infringement actions.  

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
If infringement actions are successful, it is likely that Member State response would be to 
take  some  steps  to  increase  the  recording  and  treatment  of  separately  collected  WEEE. 
Actions taken would differ between Member States. 

Some Member States have already used the legal power given under Art.175 to set targets 
for separate collection (and so, in practice, proper treatment) that go beyond the 4kg target 
set  by  the  Directive.  For  example,  Belgium  has  set  an  8.5kg  target/inhabitant  to  be 
achieved.  

The no action scenarios assessed here  assume that  some other Member  States set  further 
increased  collection  targets  that  come  into  effect  during  the  period  2011-20,  and  that 
Member  States  take  additional  steps  to  bring  a  greater  proportion  of  WEEE  to  proper 
treatment. (See scenario in chapter 2 for 2011-2020). 

Analysis of Impacts 

In a no policy change, it is assumed that 35% of the WEEE arising (4.3 million tonnes per 
year) are treated improperly (be it inside or outside the EU). The environmental, economic 
and social impacts of this option are assessed in Section 2.3.  

4.2.2.  Option (2): Minimum legal requirements for inspections of WEEE treatment 

In  this  option,  Article  16  of  the  Directive  would  be  amended  to  provide  for  minimum 
requirements  for  enforcement  action  to  be  defined  by  Comitology  with  European 
Parliament oversight.  

The  Commission  would  propose  minimum  inspection  requirements  to  the  Comitology 
Committee  in  relation  to  inspection  of  treatment  operators  and  recyclers  for  compliance 
with  the  treatment  provisions  of  the  Directive.  These  minimum  requirements  which  it 
assesses would be sufficient to provide adequate incentives for WEEE operators to comply 
with  requirements.  At  the  same  time,  the  treatment  requirements  of  Annex  II  need  to  be 
amended in light of technical and scientific progress. A comitology decision to this effect 
is under preparation. 

As waste enforcement has a history of inadequate resourcing in some Member States, it is 
possible that these requirements may be resisted by Member States.  

To  give  an  impression  of  the  scale  of  enforcement  required:  using  2008  costs  of  a 
representative bundle of WEEE for treatment in line with Annex II, the additional costs are 
around €250/tonne WEEE. Where these are not offset by payments from producers, for a 
treatment  operator  running  50,000  tonnes  of  WEEE  through  his  plant  each  year,  the 
financial  gain  from  avoiding  proper  treatment  on,  for  example  half  his  input,  would  be 
€6.25 million. Even if the penalties or non-compliance were set very high, at €12.5million, 
inspection  would  have  to  be  rigorous  enough  to  discover  more  than  50%  of  non-
compliance to provide sufficient counter-incentive for non-compliance. If the Commission 
were to set minimum requirements at this level, these effects need to be taken into account.  

It  is  estimated  from  Member  State  reporting  that  there  are  currently  4000  authorised 
treatment  plants  in  the  EU,  and  200  shredders  which  would  require  inspection.  It  is 
possible  that  additional  inspections  would  be  necessary  for  presently  unauthorised 
treatment plants. 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
Evidences  demonstrated  that  some  enforcement  actions  related  to  the  WEEE  Directive 
have been effective. In the Netherlands due to enforcement actions, the total percentage of 
illegal activities has decreased from 2004 to 200654 . 

Greater  enforcement  of  treatment  requirements  could  lead  to  two  wider  effects,  both  of 
which would concern WEEE with minimum treatment requirements under Annex II: 

•  A  greater  numbers  of  treatment  operators  would  treat  more  WEEE  in  line  with  the 

Directive.  

•  Low-cost treatment of WEEE outside the EU could become a relatively more attractive 
option, compared to improper treatment of WEEE in the EU. Therefore, the number of 
illegal shipments of WEEE could increase.  

Environmental impact 

There would be less environmental impacts if more WEEE would be treated in line with 
the  Directive.  Quantitative  estimates  are  impossible  as  success  would  depend  from  the 
quality  and  quantity  of  inspections  carried  out  by  Member  States.  Following  the 
assumption that presently roughly one third of WEEE is treated improperly, the reduction 
of environmental and health impacts could be significant. However it is unlikely that full 
compliance  with  the  treatment  requirements  of  the  Directive  could  be  achieved  by  this 
action. 

Economic impact 

The  WEEE  Directive  already  prescribes  (Article  16)  that  Member  States  have  to  ensure 
that inspection and monitoring enable the proper implementation of the WEEE Directive. 
Adding  minimum  monitoring  requirements  in  the  legal  text  may  lead  to  additional 
inspection  costs  at  national  level  in  some  Member  States,  where  current  enforcement 
activities are low. Any Commission proposal to this effect would have to take account of 
additional costs for authorities.  

Any additional inspections by Member States would impose additional administrative costs 
on  treatment  operators,  who  would  need  to  provide  information  to  the  authorities  during 
inspection.  If  each  inspection  is  estimated  to  take  1  hour  and  there  were  4  additional 
inspections a year for 2000 sites, the total administrative cost for business would be around 
55cost for 1 hour per inspection) per year which would mean a cost of € 84 a 
€168 000 (€21 
site. 

The  UNU  study  assessed  whether  stakeholders  currently  felt  or  experienced  an 
administrative  burden  in  monitoring  and  control  enforcement.  81%  of  the  respondents 
considered  that  the  activity  is  needed.  They  requested  however  consistency  in  reporting 
standards and formats.  

54 

55 

EN 

In case of retailers, more than 60% were in violation in 2004 and only 11% in 2006. With this, the amount of 
collected TVs has increased by 50%. The final conclusion is that the enforcement actions were effective and 
the level of compliance in the chain of electronic waste collection and treatment has improved significantly 
Eu 
Statistics 
http://www.statistik.at/web_en/statistics/social_statistics/labour_costs/labour_cost_survey/index.html 

average, 

Austria: 

survey. 

source: 

labour 

cost 

27 

58 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Social impacts 

No  social  impacts  are  expected  from  this  option  unless  some  reduction  of  hidden 
employment,  in  particular  in  the  treatment  sector,  which  is  difficult  to  quantify  and  for 
which the overall effect on employment is expected to be low. 

4.2.3.  Option (3) Minimum inspection requirements for waste shipments 

This option would require a minimum number of inspections to check whether shipments 
of  WEEE  would  be  legal.  The  minimum  requirements  would  be  set  by  Comitology, 
making  the  guidelines  for  WEEE  shipments  agreed  by  waste  shipment  correspondents 
from  Member  States  legally  binding.  56  These  guidelines  were  developed  to  help  the 
Member State authorities in the control of waste shipment, but their application currently is 
not compulsory. 

As  with  Option  (2),  the  increase  in  the  number  of  inspection  and  enforcement  actions 
would need to be very large to provide sufficient counter-incentives for illegal shipment of 
waste, at least whilst metal prices remain high.  

Strengthened monitoring activities would increase the likelihood of (financial) penalty for 
illegal WEEE shipments, reducing the financial attractiveness of this treatment route.  

The  strength  of  the  impacts  of  setting  minimum  requirements  would  depend  on  the 
minimum  standards  set,  in  relation  to  existing  levels  of  inspection  and  enforcement  in 
Member  States.  Legally  binding  guidelines  will  help  to  have  efficient  enforcement 
operation  to  be  carried  out.  As  mentioned  under  the  previous  option,  there  is  record  that 
effective enforcement action for electronic waste have led to tangible benefits and reduced 
illegal activities.  

Environmental impact 

The extent of the environmental improvement would depend on what minimum standards 
are  set.  However  it  can  be  reasonably  assumed  that  making  waste  shipment  guidelines 
legally  binding,  would  reduce  the  number  of  illegal  shipments  of  WEEE  outside  the  EU 
and would thus reduce in particular the severe negative environmental and health impacts 
in third countries as described in Section 2.  

Economic impact 

Adding  minimum  inspection  requirements  in  the  legal  text  would  lead  to  additional 
inspection  costs  in  Member  States,  where  current  enforcement  activities  are  low.  The 
possible additional costs will have to be taken into account when the Comitology proposals 
will be developed.  

Social impact 

No  social  impacts  are  expected  from  this  option  in  the  EU  but  there  would  likely  be 
impacts  on  traders  and  on  illegal  and  dangerous  (child)  labour  in  some  countries:  more 

56 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/pdf/correspondents_guidelines_en.pdf 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
                                                 
inspections  could  lead  to  less  illegal  shipments,  causing  less  health  problems  of  those 
treating  the  equipment  in  substandard  conditions  and  causing  a  small  shift  from  hidden 
employment to official employment. 

4.2.4. 

Increase  the  collection  targets  (85%  of  WEEE  arising),  make  producers  responsible  for 
this target and include B2B equipment in the scope of the collection target.  

This option would: 

•  Increase  the  separate  collection  targets  to  match  the  levels  estimated  to  be  currently 
collected  separately  (by  all  parties),  including  B2B  equipment  in  the  scope  of  the 
collection target. 

•  Make producers responsible for ensuring that this proportion of WEEE is collected and 

for financing collection. 

4.2.4.1.  Making  producers  fully  responsible  for  the  collection,  including  an  obligation  to  finance 

collection 

Under  the  baseline,  it  is  estimated  that  more  than  85%  of  the  WEEE  arising  is  being 
collected separately although little more than 30% of WEEE is reported as being collected. 
It  is  presumed  that  the  reported  30%  are  treated  according  to  the  requirements  of  the 
WEEE  Directive.  Studies  suggest  that  significant  quantities  of  the  remaining  55%  are 
transported  illegally  to  third  countries  and  treated  under  sub-standard  conditions  and 
further quantities are treated not according to the WEEE Directive in the EU.  

Under  this  option,  producers  would  be  made  responsible  for  meeting  the  targets.  This 
option is assumed to be effective at increasing the fraction of separately collected WEEE 
which  will  undergo  proper  treatment.  Producers,  for  historical,  ethical  and  commercial 
reasons,  are  very  likely  to  ensure  that  WEEE  for  which  they  become  responsible  is 
properly treated. There are particular commercial and legal drivers for high levels of likely 
compliance  by  producers.  Notably  the  reputation  of  producers  with  consumers  is  often 
central to the marketing of electrical and electronic products.57. Indeed, making producers 
responsible  for  the  entire  chain  (from  collection  to  proper  treatment)  would  avoid  the 
"leakage"  problem  as  described  in  Section  2.  Also  possible  enforcement  actions  (where 
necessary) by Member States targeted at producers and PROs can be a motivation.  

The option would limit the existing wording of the obligation in Article 8 for producers to 
"provide at least for the financing of the collection […] of WEEE deposited at collection 
facilities  set  up  under  Art.5(2)"  which  would  harmonise  the  financial  responsibility  for 
collection costs, with producers having financial responsibility for WEEE collected before, 
as well as after it reaches collection facilities. 

Environmental impacts 

Whilst  it  is  not  possible  to  assess  to  exactly  what  percentage  the  improper  treatment  of 
WEEE  would  decrease,,  improper  treatment  would  be  reduced  significantly,  with  the 

57 

One  aspect  of  this  is  illustrated  by  the  relative  effectiveness  of  stakeholder  criticism  of  electronics  firms  in 
changing corporate behaviour [See in particular Greenpeace's likely influence on Apple and Dell ] 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
                                                 
expectation that reputational pressures would lead to significant incentives for all WEEE 
reaching producers being properly treated. It can reasonable be assumed that the negative 
environmental  impacts  as  described  in  Section  2  will  decrease  proportionally  with  the 
decrease of improper treatment of WEEE. 

Economic impact 

Nine  Member  States  currently  make  producers  financially  responsible  for  all  collection 
costs, whilst nine others have shared financial responsibility which includes producers. The 
differing  regimes  for  financial  and  physical  responsibility  across  the  Member  States  are 
described  in  Annex  3.  Harmonizing  the  obligation  for  producers  to  finance  collection  of 
WEEE  from  households  would  avoid  any  possible  distortions  in  the  single  market  from 
national arrangements on financing which might favour domestic producers.  

It  would  also  level  the  playing  field  between  producers  opting  for  setting  up  individual 
schemes for the separate collection of WEEE and producers opting for collective solutions 
and using existing municipal collection sites, and so passing to others some of the costs for 
the separate collection. This levelling may encourage more individual collection schemes, 
where they are more cost-efficient. 

Around  45%  of  separately  collected  WEEE  is  currently  collected  by  public  authorities  – 
the rest is collected through alternative channels. The amounts currently collected include 
WEEE  already  financed  by  producers  and  WEEE  deposited  by  consumers  at  collection 
points, leaving a smaller proportion of WEEE being physically collected from houses by 
authorities.  The  collection  costs  of  municipalities  for  which  producers  would  be  made 
responsible  are  estimated  to  be  in  the  region  of  €0.3bn/year 58  –  but  are  lower  than  the 
material value of the WEEE that would be collected and passed on by public authorities, 
estimated at €1bn/year.  

The incidence of cost will also be affected by price variations for metals and oil (plastics). 
For instance, metal prices increased between 2005 and 2007 by around 70€/ton of recycled 
metal.  This  increased  the  value  of  12  million  tonnes  of  WEEE  by  around  €500  million. 
The value of metal is most likely to be captured by the producers or traders of WEEE. 

Putting in place a uniform financial obligation for producers to pay municipalities for the 
WEEE  they  collect  separately  does  not  prevent  producers  from  expanding  these  existing 
alternative  routes  for  collection.  These  alternatives  allow  producers  to  avoid  WEEE 
passing  to  municipalities,  giving  alternative  means  to  collect  WEEE  more  cheaply  if 
municipalities  attempt  to  charge  excessive  collection  fees,  something  which  would  be  a 
matter for negotiation between producers and authorities. Nevertheless, if implementation 
measures are poorly worded they might allow municipalities to charge more than the actual 
proportion of collection costs attributable to separate collection of WEEE.  

However,  if  there  were  any  net  costs  to  producers  after  taking  into  account  the  material 
value of WEEE, normally they would pass the costs of producer responsibility obligations 

58 

EN 

Akron, “Cost calculation for the collection of household waste at municipal collection sites: an analysis in the 
at 
frame 
http://admin.vvsg.be/cmsmedia/LNdms3716%20Studie%20kostprijs%20containerpark%2021122004.pdf?uri=
ff80808100d54ff90100e0f8a79c01cd&action=viewWorkingAttachement 

obligation”, 

take-back 

december 

2004, 

the 

of 

61 

   EN 

 
                                                 
onto consumers through the purchase price of EEE. These costs therefore do not represent 
a loss for producers. Producers tend to pass the costs through to the consumers because of 
the high level of competition in the EEE market – which leaves little room for producers to 
absorb additional costs in their margins. Equal obligations for all producers selling into the 
EU  market  (cf  free  riding  below)  allows  all  to  pass  costs  on  without  fear  of  increasing 
prices out of line with competitors.  

Under  this  part  of  the  option,  these  costs  for  collection  would  pass  from  the  general 
taxpayer to the purchasers of EEE, in line with the polluter pays principle. 

Social impacts 

Under  this  option,  it  can  be  expected  that  the  waste  treatment  sector  dealing  with  EU 
WEEE will receive additional business under the baseline scenario in 2020 of 2.44 million 
tonnes  of  WEEE  to  be  treated  according  to  the  Directive  depending  on  the  levels  of 
collection  set,  with  an  increase  in  jobs  in  this  sector.  It  is  unlikely  to  assume  that  all 
separately  collected  WEEE  will  go  to  treatment  in  the  EU:  with  global  trade  in  waste, 
recyclers in third countries can compete on price with EU treatment operators. The WEEE 
Directive permits WEEE being treated in third countries where it is treated at the standards 
required by the Directive, and allowed by the rules of the Waste Shipment Regulation. 

However,  significant  increase  in  treatment  capacity  would  be  expected  in  the  EU.  In 
addition to the turnover and jobs offered, the investment in this capacity would stimulate 
commercial  innovation  in  treatment  and  recycling  technologies  This  is  an  area  of  great 
future global growth, where EU firms have an existing advantage (due to stimulation from 
the WEEE Directive coming into force).  

This  option  is  predicted  to  stimulate  on-going  innovation  in  treatment  technologies.  The 
financing  of  WEEE  treatment  and  recycling,  coupled  with  a  long-term  obligation  for 
treatment 
in  R&D  and 
to  producers  allows 
commercialisation  which  would  not  otherwise  take  place,  due  to  inertia  and  lack  of 
investment in the waste sector (as it is currently structured). This again has the potential to 
open up global technology markets in a growing sector.  

falling  effectively 

investments 

4.2.4.2.  Setting the collection target at the levels currently estimated to be collected (around 85% of 
WEEE arising) is broadly equivalent to a 65% target for WEEE put on the market. 

Environmental impacts 

Under  the  baseline,  it  is  estimated  that  more  than  85%  of  the  WEEE  is  being  collected 
separately  although little  more  than  30%  of  WEEE  is  reported  as  being  collected. Under 
this option, all separately collected WEEE would go to treatment in line with the Directive. 
The  environmental  impacts  of  this  option  would  depend  on  the  difference  in  impact 
between  the  Annex  II  operations  required  by  the  Directive  and  the  alternative  treatment 
that would have happened under the baseline scenario.  

For example, it is estimated that if all cooling and freezing equipment would go to proper 
treatment,  the  environmental  damage  from  greenhouse  gas  release  could  be  reduced  by 
something  in  the  order  of  200  million  tonnes  of  CO2  equivalent  between  2011-20 
(compared to the likely baseline), with a monetised value of the magnitude of around €1 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
billion  a  year  at  the  start  of  the  decade  declining  to  low  levels  by  2020  as  the  1990s 
CFC/HCFC ban feeds through to the WEEE stream.59 

The date chosen for entry into force of higher targets makes a difference to the benefits of 
the WEEE Directive. Environmental damage from release of CFCs and HCFCs in cooling 
and freezing equipment is by far the greatest environmental benefit from this policy option. 
For example, more than 3/4 of the H/CFC release from refrigerants and foams in cooling 
and freezing equipment due to improper treatment appears likely to happen in before the 
latter  half  of  the  period  2011-2020,  though  this  depends  on  the  rate  with  which  H/CFC 
containing equipment enters the waste stream.  

This  option  would  mean  that  a  most  of  the  CRT  and  LCD  screens  would  need  to  be 
collected. Given the currently low collection percentages, this would mean that 67% of the 
CRT  TVs  and  monitors  and  60%  of  the  LCD  monitors  would  be  additionally  collected. 
Additional mercury and lead from these equipments would be controlled to avoid entering 
the environment.  

With  higher  turnover  from  recycling  and  the  pre-treatment  activities,  investment  may 
increase  to  recycle  a  proportion  of  the  plastics  (which  comprise  20-25%)  of  WEEE  that 
will  have  a  recycling  value  after  2011.  The  environmental  gain  from  using  recycled 
plastics  depends  both  on  the  impacts  (particularly  energy  use)  during  pre-treatment  for 
recycling and the raw material which the recycled material substitutes. 

Economic impacts 

As  collection  and  recycling  activities  (whether  in  the  EU  or  overseas)  are  already 
undertaken for the assumed 85% collection of WEEE arising, the main economic impacts 
come  from  the  additional  costs  of  treating  all  of  that  WEEE  collected  in  line  with  the 
Directive. Those treatment requirements are mainly contained in Annex II of the Directive.  

Note  that  -  as  similar  collection  activities  will  take  place  under  this  option  compared  to 
practice under 'do nothing', there would be no significant costs from changes to collection: 
there  would  only  be  a  change  in  that  different  people  would  pay  for  that  collection.  The 
existing  infrastructure  for  collection  could  be  used,  and  there  need  to  be  no  increase  in 
costs  per  tonne  collected.  Indeed,  there  is  the  possibility  that  greater  formal  collection 
could reduce costs per tonne through economies of scale, although this factor has not been 
included in this analysis. The cost for collection and transport can be estimated to remain at 
€ 1.8billion per year as of 2020.  

The  estimated  additional  costs  of  treatment  are  difficult  to  quantify  for  the  moment.  To 
give an indication of the magnitude of the cost, it is indicated that coupled with estimates 
of categories of WEEE arising in 2020 and estimates of the costs of additional (Annex II 
treatment)  per  category,  the  costs  for  producers  for  the  additional  treatment  of  WEEE  is 
broadly  estimated  at  €1bn/year  more  than  unde r  the  baseline  as  illustrated  in  figure  9 
below. 

It  is  likely  that  producers  will  pass  the  costs  of  producer  responsibility  obligations  onto 
consumers through the purchase price of EEE. These costs are unlikely to represent a loss 

59 

See Annex 6 for basis of valuation. 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
                                                 
for producers because of the high level of competition in the EEE market – which leaves 
little  room  for  producers  to  absorb  additional  costs  in  their  margins;  and  the  equal 
treatment of all producers selling into the EU market (cf free riding below) – which, as all 
producers  bear  the  same  producer  responsibility  obligations,  allows  all  to  pass  them  on 
without fear of increasing prices out of line with competitors. 

The  waste  treatment  sector  dealing  with  EU  WEEE  will  therefore  receive  additional 
business under the baseline scenarios for 2020 of around €1bn a year, with  an increase in 
jobs  in  this  sector.  A  significant  increase  in  treatment  capacity  would  be  expected  in  the 
EU.  In  addition  to  the  turnover  and  jobs  offered,  the  investment  in  this  capacity  would 
stimulate commercial innovation in treatment and recycling technologies. 

Gross Costs of WEEE collection and treatment

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

)

n
o

i
l
l
i

b
(

s
t
s
o
C

2005

2012

2020

Baseline costs

Option(4) costs

Figure 9: Treatment cost under this option 

For the purpose of this Impact Assessment and based on figures of the UNU study, it can 
be  assumed  that  costs  for  collection  and  treatment  per  tonne  of  WEEE  evolve  nearly 
linearly  from  20%  to  65%  collection  of  EEE  put  on  the  market  in  the  preceding  year. 
However, it is expected that very high collection rates approaching the maximum of 100% 
of  the  WEEE  arising  would  entail  disproportionate  costs.  This  would  be  due  to,  for 
example, the necessity to extract small WEEE from unsorted municipal waste. In particular 
small  WEEE  with  a  weight  below  1kg  is  currently  hardly  handed  in  by  consumers  (this 
would explain at least 11% of the not separately collected WEEE).  

Any  targets  significantly  below  the  level  of  assumed  actual  collection  of  85%  WEEE 
arising  –  for  example  a  target  of  only  60%  -  would  exclude  substantial  amounts  of 
separately  collected  WEEE  from  the  obligation  of  producers  to  ensure  proper  treatment. 
While even with such a target possibly more WEEE would be treated properly than under 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
 
€
 
the current baseline, the balance between a lower target and the assumed actual collection 
would remain subject to possible sub-standard treatment and illegal exports. 

Furthermore, with a target set lower than the estimated amount of WEEE currently being 
separately collected, the inspection and enforcement bodies of Member States would have 
greater workload – and if not resourced appropriately – the risk of detection and penalties 
for improper treatment or illegal trade would be lower. 

Social impacts 

It can be expected that with having an incentive to collect (treat and recover) more WEEE 
the  attitude  of  consumers  to  contribute  to  the  separate  collection  needs  to  increase.  The 
effect  of  producers  passing  on  the  cost  of  this  option  to  the  individual  consumer  in  the 
purchase price will be rather low60.  

Stimulus  would  be  given  to  job  creation  in  the  e-waste  sector,  which  tends  to  employ  a 
greater proportion of low-skilled workers. 

4.2.4.3.  Including B2B WEEE in the scope of the collection target  

According  to  the  UNU  study,  the  WEEE  arising  in  the  EU  for  2005  is  about  8,3million 
tonnes,  including  B2B  equipment  that  represent  about  1million  tonnes.  This  volume  of 
WEEE will rise by 2014 to 10.2million tonnes and it is supposed that the volume of B2B 
equipment will rise proportionately.  

As a direct link between producers and users exists in many cases, the risk of B2B WEEE 
ending  up  in  unsorted  municipal  waste  is  less  than  with  B2C  WEEE.  Nevertheless,  the 
current amount of WEEE collected & treated as percentage of WEEE arising indicates that 
still between 35 and 50% of B2B are not being collected separately. 

The  initial  motivation  for  different  legal  requirements  for  B2B  and  B2C  waste  was  to 
reflect  that  much  B2C  waste  went  to  landfill,  whilst  most  B2B  waste  was  already 
separately  collected  commercially.  This  difference  between  the  waste  streams  has  now 
disappeared  and  including  B2B  equipment  in  the  scope  of  the  collection  target  would 
increase the incentive to also collect the fraction of waste that is currently not yet collected 
separately (as for other WEEE). 

Environmental impacts 

Proper  treatment  of  all  B2B  WEEE  will  create  environmental  benefits  in  line  with  the 
difference  between  the  Annex  II  requirements  for  treatment  and  the  standards  to  which 
WEEE is improperly treated.  

Economic impacts 

Producers  have  already  to  ensure  the  collection  of  WEEE  from  users  other  than  private 
households  and  have  to  finance  the  costs  for  collection,  treatment,  recovery  and 
environmental sound disposal of WEEE placed on the market after 13 August 2005. The 

60 

€ 1 billion spread over 125 million families is about 8€ per family per year. 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
                                                 
financing  for  the  collection  of  historic  B2B  WEEE  depends  on  whether  the  product  is 
being replaced or not.  

The reporting obligations do already foresee the amount of B2B collected to be reported. 
The inclusion in the target will therefore not increase the administrative cost for reporting. 
The additional costs from treating a greater share of WEEE properly, including B2B, have 
already been described above. 

Social impacts 

No particular social impacts are expected except potentially slightly increased employment 
possibilities in the e-waste sector.  

4.2.5.  Option (5) Set a 100% collection target on the environmentally most relevant streams 

Setting  general  collection  targets  for  WEEE  with  greatest  potential  for  environmental 
harm, like cooling and freezing equipment would add additional cost for proper treatment. 
In  this  situation,  the  specific  climate  and  ozone  layer  harm  from  cooling  and  freezing 
equipment  could  be  largely  avoided  by  setting  a  100%  collection  target  for  these 
equipment type (as in the Batteries and End of Life Vehicle Directives). 

This  option  would  include  removing  targets  for  the  other  streams  of  WEEE  where  the 
difference  between  the  environmental  damage  from  profit-maximising  treatment  and 
treatment  in  line  with  the  Directive  is  small.  This  would  not  remove  the  obligation  for 
producers to treat all separately collected WEEE. 

Environmental impacts 

With  any  low  target  for  general  WEEE  –  and  in  the  absence  of  a  specific  target  for  the 
separate collection, a large proportion, between 40-60% of Cooling and Freezing WEEE is 
not  expected  to  receive  proper  treatment  due  to  the  relatively  expensive  processing  (to 
remove  the  CFCs  and  HCFCs61)  and  the  possibility  to  treat  other  more  profitable-to-
recycle  appliances  to  reach  any  low  general  target.  With  additional  specific  targets  this 
would not be a problem.  

This same reasoning applies for WEEE which has significant environmental impacts (so is 
expensive  to  treat)  and  which  is  light  and  with  low  recycling  value.  (e.g.  mercury 
containing gas discharge lamps and LCD backlights62). For these streams, where even high 
weight  based  targets  can  be  met  without  collecting  these  light  WEEE  streams,  high 
proportions of this WEEE is likely to continue not to be collected separately (but remain in 
the mixed waste) and so not receive separate treatment. Ensuring the treatment of WEEE 
with the highest potential for environmental impacts would result in the greatest share of 
environmental benefits from WEEE treatment being realised.  

61 

62 

In  addition,  the  ozone-layer  depletion  and  global  warming  potential  of  CFC  fridges  also  make  minimising 
leakage from controlled collection and recycling systems highly relevant as the total prevented global warming 
potential by treating fridges is more than 2000 kg CO2 equivalent per fridge (UNU 2007). 
In 2006, 660 million lamps were sold in the EU containing about 4.3 tons of the extremely toxic mercury, with 
another 2.8 tons contained in LCD panels.  

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Yet,  if  targets  were  only  applied  to  the  most  environmentally  harmful  WEEE  streams 
problems  in  developing  countries  receiving  the  other  WEEE  streams  would  persist  and 
potential  environmental  benefits  from  better  material  and  energy  recovery  of  less 
problematic WEEE would be lost because there would continue to be a large grey market 
for WEEE not covered by such targets, much of which would be likely to end up in illegal 
treatment  in  developing  countries,  where  treatment  techniques  for  all  streams  of  WEEE 
cause environmental and health damage.  

Economic impacts 

The additional costs from treatment are estimated to be slightly lower than under an 85% 
collection  target,  with  lower  levels  of  additional  treatment  being  required,  but  with  high 
levels  of  treatment  of  the  most  expensive  to  treat  equipment  taking  place.  The  resulting 
economic effects would be similar as for Option 4. 

With 100% collection and treatment targets for some waste streams, it would be costly to 
collect  (and  treat)  large  proportions  of  some  of  the  WEEE  streams  which  are  currently 
going  into  domestic  waste.  For  instance,  the  UNU  study  estimates  collection  costs  for 
lamps to be around €270/tonne compared to co llection costs in the area of €140/tonne for 
other WEEE. As quantified in the UNU study there will be higher treatment costs per unit 
of  weight  as  these  items  require  special  precautions  and  processes  (e.g.  removal  of 
hazardous fractions). 

For streams where profit maximising recycling would anyway not be significantly different 
from treatment under the Directive, the cost difference would also be small. 

Costs of separate collection of specific streams of WEEE under this option will be higher 
(per  unit  collected  and  treated  in  these  streams)  than  under  an  option  which  requires 
collection of more WEEE streams, because the collection. would need to capture smaller 
items (e.g lightbulbs) which would be likely to otherwise end up in mixed waste.  

From  the  perspective  of  reporting  on  quantities  collected  and  treated,  no  net  additional 
administrative  burden  is  expected.  Burden  would  move  from  producers  of  the  WEEE 
currently collected to those for the more environmentally harmful streams. 

Social impacts 

As for Option 4. 

4.2.6.  Option (6) Collection targets set in relation to EEE put on the market in the preceding year 

This option would set the methodology to calculate the collection target as a percentage of 
EEE put on the market in the preceding year. Evidence shows that there is a rather stable 
relation between EEE put on the market each year and the amount of WEEE arising in the 
years following.  

Compared to a fixed kg/inhabitant target, this method for calculating the collection target 
would allow taking into account the differences  in  WEEE  arising  in  each  Member  State. 
For the EU15 Member States (who have a mainly saturated market for electronic goods) 
there  is  a  stable  relationship  between  the  electronic  goods  put  on  the  market  in  one  year 
and the WEEE arising in that market in the following year (even though this is physically 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
not the same equipment): levels of WEEE are about 80% of the EEE sold in the previous 
year. So for example, a collection target of 85% of WEEE arising could be set as a target 
of about 65% of EEE sold in the previous year (in the EU15 states). It would thus account 
in  a  dynamic  way  for  differences  in  economic  development  and  consumption,  offering  a 
better balanced sharing of tasks between Member States. It would make better use of the 
potential  for  environmental  benefits  in  countries  with  high  arising  of  WEEE  while 
avoiding to over-burden economies with small amounts of WEEE per capita.  

This  approach  has  the  disadvantage  that,  where  the  relationship  between  EEE  put  on  the 
market  and  WEEE  arising  is  not  stable,  there  is  greater  uncertainty  on  the  correlation 
between WEEE actually arising and the target. It can be assumed that the EU12 markets 
are less saturated and significantly less WEEE arises compared to the amounts bought, and 
the relationship is less stable. For this Impact Assessment it is assumed that this relation in 
the EU12 will be stabilised by 2020. 

For  this  IA,  it  is  assumed  that  the  market  for  electronic  goods  in  the  EU12,  will  be 
saturated as well by 2020.  

Environmental impacts 

The environmental impacts depend on the actual level of the collection target (see option 
4)  and  are  not  directly  linked  to  the  methodology  used  for  calculating  the  target.  At  a 
reasonably high target, environmental benefits would likely increase in comparison to the 
present situation.  

Economic impacts 

The proposed methodology for the calculation of the collection target requires information 
on  the  amounts  of  EEE  put  on  the  national  markets.  As  the  current  Directive  already 
requires  this  data  to  be  monitored  and  reported  (cfr.  COM  decision  2005/369/EC),  no 
additional administrative costs are expected.  

Social impacts 

No particular social impacts are expected except potentially slightly increased employment 
possibilities in the e-waste sector.  

4.3. 

Sensitivity  of  the  analysis  to  changes  in  estimates  of  the  collection  rate  and 
relationship of EEE put on market to WEEE arising 

If the estimate of the 'do nothing' baseline collection rate is wrong compared to the levels 
of collection that would actually happen in practice, the benefits and costs of an 85% target 
change,  but  not  very  significantly.  If  in  practice  the  proportion  that  would  have  been 
collected was lower than 85% (ie. there was more WEEE in mixed waste,), the 85% target 
would increase separation of WEEE from municipal waste streams. This would bring some 
extra costs/tonne from the difficulty of obtaining this separation, but would bring greater 
environmental benefits per tonne: avoiding dumping and landfill and recovering materials 
has  high  environmental  benefit.  Current  collection  practices  indicate  that  85%  of  WEEE 
arising (by weight) can be separately collected without the need for expensive processes to 
sort WEEE from domestic waste. Above this figure costs/tonne rise faster. 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
If  the  85%  estimated  collection  is  an  underestimate,  (so  the  target  is  set  below  actual 
collection), there is a greater likelihood of treatment practice diverging from the  existing 
legal requirements of the Directive. As already discussed for the present situation (target 
significantly  below  actual  collection)  enforcement  of  the  Directive  would  become  more 
expensive and the prices needed to bring WEEE out of the grey market would be likely to 
be higher. 

If  the  relationship  between  WEEE  arising  and  EEE  put  on  the  market  is  lower  or  higher 
than  the  80%  estimated,  similar  effects  to  those  mentioned  above  would  occur.  If  the 
relationship is lower (e.g WEEE arises at levels equal to 77% of the EEE sold in any year), 
having  a  collection  target  based  on  85%  of  80%  would  mean  an  effectively  higher  than 
85%  target  as  a  %  of  WEEE  arising.  The  opposite  holds  if  the  WEEE/EEE  relationship 
differs in the other direction.  

The  impacts  of  having  a  higher  than  85%  effective  target  would  be  to  bring  about  more 
separate collection of WEEE. This would bring extra collection and treatment costs – with 
those  treatment  costs  being  proportionally  higher,  as  smaller  WEEE  would  need  to  be 
collected, but also more significant environmental benefits, as described above.  

To take into account a possible decrease in the proportion of WEEE arising, compared to 
EEE put on the market, the target set as a proportion of WEEE put on the market could be 
set at 65% - calculated as 85% of 77% of EEE sold in any year.  

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
Overview of costs and benefits of the different options 

Option 

No change 

Greater Enforcement 

85% Collection 
Targets 

60% Collection 
Targets + Specific 
Targets 

Landfill and Illegal Disposal 

Destinations 
(% WEEE) 

Treatment in line with Directive

Improper Treatment 

11 

54 

35 

11 

59 

30 

11 

85 

4 

11 

60 

29 

Gross Total Costs (€) 

5.6bn + enforcement 

6bn – 6.3 + basic 
enforcement 

6.8bn + basic 
enforcement 

6.5 - 6.8bn + basic 
enforcement 

S
T
S
O
C
L
A
U
N
N
A

Collection & transport 

Additional costs 

Basic Treatment 

Additional Treatment to meet 
legal standards 

1.8bn 

0.9bn 

1.3bn 

1.6bn 

1.8bn 

0.9bn 

1.3bn 

1.8bn 

1.8bn 

1.1bn 

1.3bn 

2.6bn 

1.8bn 

1.1bn 

1.3bn 

2.2bn 

Enforcement Costs 

Not known to 
Commission 

Increase estimated 
between 0.2 - 0.5bn 

No increase 

An increase, perhaps 
0.1 - 0.3bn 

Value 
of 
Recovered (€) 

Material 

 2.2bn  

 2.2bn 

2.2bn 

 2.2bn 

S
T
I
F
E
N
E
B

L
A
U
N
N
A

Environmental 
Damage 

General 

EN 

Baseline: Ozone 
depletion from 6720 
tonnes of ODS released. 
Climate Damage of 

Some reduction of 
climate damage 
possible; not 
quantifiable  

Dependent on entry 
date of targets: Climate 
Damage reduced by 
€2bn-0.2bn/yr. Ozone 
depletion reduced by 

Dependent on entry 
date of targets: 
Climate Damage 
reduced by €2bn-
0.2bn/yr. Ozone 

70 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
€1bn 

12000-1200 tonnes. 

depletion reduced by 
12000-1200 tonnes. 

In or out EU 

Assumed 4,3 million 
tonnes treated 
improperly in our outside 
the EU 

Assumed 3,7 million 
tonnes treated 
improperly in our 
outside the EU 

Assumed 0,5 million 
tonnes treated 
improperly in our 
outside the EU 

Assumed 3,5 million 
tonnes treated 
improperly in our 
outside the EU 

Innovation and Export Markets 

Little additional stimulus 
for development of 
sorting and recycling 
technologies 

Small stimulus for 
technology 
development in a 
growing global market 

Significant stimulus for 
technology 
development in a 
growing global market 

Some stimulus for 
technology 
development in a 
growing global market 

EU Employment 

Baseline: Estimated 
number of jobs in EU 
treating WEEE about 
several ten thousands 

Small increase in EU 
manual work, with 
estimated waste 
industry revenue 
increase €0.1bn  

Greater EU high tech 
and manual work, 
estimated waste 
industry revenue 
increase €0.6bn 

Higher EU high tech 
and manual work, 
estimated waste 
industry revenue 
increase €0.4bn 

EN 

71 

EN 

 
  
4.4. 

Comparison of Options to improve Effectiveness 

Stronger Enforcement and/or Higher Targets to achieve the objectives? 

It  is  assumed  that  the  Directive's  existing  requirements  for  proper  treatment  of  all 
separately  collected  WEEE  have  not  been  effective  due  to:  the  high  material  value  of 
WEEE (which makes informal collection and trade of WEEE profitable) and the additional 
costs of treatment in line with the Directive’s requirements (which provide an incentive for 
improper treatment). 

Efforts  to  increase  enforcement  of  treatment  and  shipment  of  WEEE  (Options  2  and  3) 
appear unlikely to be sufficiently efficient or effective to improve management of WEEE 
in line with the Directive. Both actions would provide increased disincentive to improperly 
treat  WEEE  but  given  the  assumed  volume  of  separately  collected  WEEE  which  is  not 
properly reported and treated, Member States would need to dedicate very high levels of 
resources to this to make improper treatment unattractive. The costs of those enforcement 
resources would be a significant additional cost for society.  

these  additional  enforcement  costs.  Under  higher  collection 

Setting targets at the estimated current level of all separate WEEE collection (Option 4) – 
85%  of  WEEE  arising  -  would  achieve  that  level  of  collection  more  effectively,  and 
without 
to 
transparently meet their obligation to treat all separately collected WEEE, producers would 
need to offer sufficient incentives for organisations separately collecting WEEE to deliver 
that  WEEE  to  proper  treatment.  For  example,  the  producer  would  have  to  offer  an 
incentive  that  was  sufficiently  attractive  compared  to  the  price  that  an  unauthorised 
recycler would pay in the grey market to receive WEEE.  

targets, 

In  this  situation,  the  level  of  collection  activity  (both  formal  and  informal)  would  not 
change but the destination of informally collected and traded WEEE would change. With 
no changes to the extent of WEEE collection activity, the costs to society from collection 
would not change in this option, compared to the baseline. The producer would continue to 
have  to  pay  for  the  costs  of  the  additional  processes  required  during  recycling  to  avoid 
environmental damage, but would now pay these for all separately collected WEEE, as the 
Directive intended.  

Whilst  the  two  possibilities  have  not  been  set  out  against  each  other  in  the  stakeholder 
consultation, there was certainly support from stakeholders for having better enforcement, 
in particular when it concerns the shipments of WEEE. 

Setting the level and type of Target 

The Impact Assessment has shown evidence to assume that already 85% of arising WEEE 
is being separately collected, although not all is reported. The separately collected 85% of 
WEEE arising includes nearly all the large and medium size WEEE which is economic to 
collect.  Data  suggest  that  collection  costs  per  unit  collected  remain  the  same,  certainly 
between 25 to 85% of WEEE arising.  

Setting  targets  (in  Option  4)  above  the  level  of  WEEE  already  being  collected  would 
require  further  separation  of  small  WEEE  from  mixed  waste.  This  would  bring  greater 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
environmental benefits – both from recovering materials from landfill and particularly for 
some streams (see below), but would be more expensive per tonne to collect.  

Setting  targets  significantly  below  the  level  of  WEEE  already  being  collected  would 
diverge from the existing intention of the Directive and would make enforcement activities 
more costly, as greater amounts of WEEE would still be collected in the grey-economy.  

To  meet  objectives,  collection  targets  would  best  be  set  at  the  level  of  WEEE  which  is 
estimated  to  actually  being  collected  already  (85%  of  WEEE  arising).  At  this  level, 
significant  proportions  of  small  WEEE,  including  compact  fluorescent  lamps,  which  is 
currently estimated to be lost in unsorted domestic collection would be at risk of going to 
unsorted waste. 

Bringing  about  proper  treatment  of  all  separately  collected  WEEE  would  make  the 
Directive  effective  at  bringing  about  treatment  and  recycling  of  nearly  all  large  and 
medium  sized  WEEE.  This  brings  added  costs  from  increased  amounts  of  WEEE  being 
treated in accordance with high environmental standards: costs are estimated to be around 
€1bn  per  year  on  top  of  the  costs  of  €5.6bn  per 
year  for  (gross)  collection,  disposal  and 
treatment, if no further action is taken. 

As the type of WEEE being treated will not change, only the amounts, treatment costs per 
unit will either remain  the  same,  or reduce with economies of scale. The existing formal 
and  informal  collection  infrastructure  would  not  need  to  be  expanded.  This  means  that 
setting an 85% target does not decrease the cost-effectiveness of collection and treatment, 
but may (possibly) reduce the costs per unit for achieving environmental benefit from the 
Directive.  

In  Option  5,  the  fractions  of  WEEE  with  greatest  potential  for  environmental  harm,  like 
cooling  and  freezing  equipment,  would  be  collected  and  so  would  receive  (expensive) 
treatment. In this situation, remaining specific climate and ozone layer harm from cooling 
and  freezing  equipment  could  be  largely  avoided  by  setting  a  100%  collection  target  of 
waste arising for these equipment types. 

Compared to Option 4, Option 5 has the advantage that proportions of certain streams of 
WEEE  which  are  less  environmentally  damaging,  would  not  need  to  be  collected  and 
formally  reported.  Particularly  for  some  of  the  large  household  appliances,  there  are  no 
great  additional  costs  for  recycling  and  treatment  that  avoids  environmental  harm.  For 
these  streams  a  proportion  of  the  organisational  costs  would  be  saved  in  the  formal 
economy. Compared to Option 5, this option would have the benefits (and costs) of pulling 
greater  proportions  of  some  of  the  more  hazardous,  but  light  WEEE  (like  compact 
fluorescent lamps) out of the domestic waste stream. 

Option  5  would  be  less  effective  at  avoiding  waste  treatment  under  bad  conditions  in 
developing  countries,  with  a  significant  proportion  of  the  29%  of  all  WEEE  arising  not 
being  treated  under  the  collection  target  likely  to  go  for  illegal  treatment.  The  illegal 
shipment  of  waste  could  be  reduced  through  greater  enforcement,  but  with  a  large 
proportion of WEEE outside producer targets, the grey trade in WEEE would be likely to 
be significant, making enforcement more costly and less effective than in Option 4. 

Stakeholders, in general, rather linked the control on the hazardous substances in WEEE to 
sound  treatment  of  the  equipment  than  to  an  environmental  weight  based  target.  As 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
concerns  the  level  of  the  target,  very  few  expressed  a  desired  level.  The  recycling 
industries  would  welcome  a  rate  of  no  less  than  65%  in  function  of  amounts  put  on  the 
market. 

Both  Options  for  target  setting  would  include  waste  from  EEE  sold  to  businesses  in  the 
collection  target.  This  was  previously  covered  separately  in  the  Directive  from  domestic 
consumer  waste  as  it  was  historically  already  separately  collected  rather  than  going  to 
landfill or illegal dumping. Now both are typically collected, including both streams into 
one  target  will  avoid  problems  of  free-riding  from  'dual-use'  waste  having  its  treatment 
paid for by domestic consumers (see below). 

Setting the Date for the Target to apply 

The Commission proposes to set the revised targets for the end of 2016.  

One of the greatest environmental problems from improper treatment of WEEE in the grey 
market  is  the  release  of  CFCs  and  HCFCs  from  fridges,  with  average  monetized  climate 
damage  of  the  magnitude  of  €1bn/yr  in  2011  declining  annually  to  lower  levels  by  2020 
and  very  significant  ozone-depletion  effects.  As  these  are  only  contained  in  cooling  and 
freezing  equipment  sold  before  2002,  the  number  of  CFC/HCFC  fridges  in  WEEE  is 
declining each year, and is expected to be small after 2020.  

Therefore, different dates for the entry into force of targets will have significantly different 
effects  on  the  climate  and  ozone  depletion  benefits  realised  by  the  revised  Directive. 
Targets  brought  into  force  at  the  end  of  2016  may  save  something  around  €0.5bn  in  the 
first  year  declining  to  low  levels  by  2020,  depending  on  the  rate  at  which  CFC/HCFC 
equipment  comes  back.  Targets  closer  to  2011  would  save  €1bn  of  climate  damage 
annually, with intermediate years saving something in-between. 

So, in addition to targets coming into force in 2016, the Commission proposes to consider 
by  2012  the  appropriateness  of  a  separate  target  for  cooling  and  freezing  equipment,  to 
drive  proper  treatment  of  all  cooling  and  freezing  equipment  which  is  being  separately 
collected (whether formally or informally).  

The  revised  Directive  may  be  adopted  by  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  in  2011 
and  then  transposed  into  law  in  the  Member  States.  With  the  collection  infrastructure 
(including  informal  collection)  already  in  place  for  cooling  and  freezing  equipment,  the 
change needed to properly treat all separately collected WEEE in line with the Directive is 
the addition of sufficient treatment capacity.  

A  suitable  treatment  plant  normally  takes  around  1  year  to  build  and  bring  to  operation. 
Costs of installing new treatment capacity are not likely to reduce with greater time.  

Incidence of Costs and Combining Targets with Greater Enforcement 

Under Option 4, producers are expected to take steps to secure the WEEE needed to meet 
their obligation to treat all separately collected WEEE. This will incur costs, but these costs 
are estimated to be more than offset by the recycling value of the materials in the WEEE 
that they receive. For example, to divert WEEE from unauthorised treatment, the maximum 
cost  a  producer  would  need  to  offer  would  be  around  the  value  of  the  WEEE  to  the 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
unauthorised recycler. This price is the profit that can be made from recycling the WEEE 
(under sub-standard conditions) - the material value in the WEEE minus the recycling cost.  

Whilst  the  producer  would  pay  this  cost,  they  would  then  recover  the  (higher)  material 
value of the WEEE from the recycling – and so are likely not to have any net costs from 
obtaining WEEE. In practice, it is likely that producers would be able to acquire substantial 
proportions  of  WEEE  for  less  than  the  net  material  value:  by  receiving  it  directly  from 
municipalities or distributors at less than market value. This value can be used towards the 
producers' other obligations. 

Combining greater enforcement (Opts 2&3) with higher collection targets would increase 
the  risks  for  unauthorised  treatment,  making  that  financially  less  attractive  and  helping 
producers secure WEEE with lower incentives. However, the enforcement activity would 
have a cost. 

Option  4  includes  harmonizing  the  requirement  for  producers  to  have  financial 
responsibility  for  collection  of  WEEE  from  households.  These  collection  costs  would 
move  costs  estimated  to  be  in  the  region  of  €0.3bn/year  from  taxpayers  –  but  are  lower 
than  the  material  value  of  the  WEEE  collected  and  passed  on  by  public  authorities, 
estimated at €1bn. Harmonizing this requirement  would avoid any possible distortions in 
the  single  market  from  national  arrangements  on  financing  which  might  favour  domestic 
producers. 

Producers would be responsible for paying the additional costs of proper treatment. (These 
represent  revenues  for  treatment  operators.)  As  EEE  is  a  competitive  market  and  all 
competing products would be equally affected, the costs paid by producers are assumed to 
be  passed  on  to  purchasers  of  new  EEE  in  purchase  prices.  As  the  increases  in  purchase 
price from additional WEEE costs are likely to be very small (less than €1) on a appliance 
costing €150-450, sales of appliances are also  not thought to be affected, with no reduction 
of the shareholder value of producers.  

How to set Targets in tonnes 

Collection targets set as a % of WEEE arising also need to be determined in physical units 
for  monitoring.  Targets  are  currently  set  by  reference  to  kg/inhabitant.  For  the  EU15 
Member States (who have a mainly saturated market for electronic goods) there is a stable 
relationship  between  the  electronic  goods  put  on  the  market  in  one  year  and  the  WEEE 
arising in that market in the following year (even though this is not the same equipment): 
levels of WEEE are about 80% of the EEE sold in the previous year.  

A collection target of 85% of WEEE arising would be set as a target of about 65% of EEE 
sold  in  the  previous  year:  (85%  of  80%  of  EEE  sold  but  allowing  for  a  conservative 
estimate of the relationship between EEE and WEEE arising.  

This  approach  has  the  disadvantage  that,  where  the  relationship  between  EEE  put  on  the 
market  and  WEEE  arising  is  not  stable,  there  is  greater  uncertainty  on  the  correlation 
between WEEE actually arising and the target. It can be assumed that the EU12 markets 
are less saturated and significantly less WEEE arises compared to the amounts bought, and 
the relationship is less stable. For this Impact Assessment it is assumed that this relation in 
the EU12 will be stabilised by 2020. 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
In  the  stakeholder  consultation  there  was  rather  support  for  this  option,  the  option  of  a 
fixed  target  not  being  supported  as  it  does  not  reflect  enough  the  variations  between 
Member  States  and  is  unresponsive  to  increases  in  WEEE  volumes.  Additionally,  most 
stakeholders also expressed their support to keep the mandatory character of a collection 
target. 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
5. 

OPTIONS TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE DIRECTIVE  

5.1. 

Description of the Options 

To  improve  the  efficiency  of  the  WEEE  Directive,  the  following  options  have  been 
assessed. 

Other than the "no action option", the options can be combined except for options 2 and 3 
which are alternatives, and options 5 and 6 which are alternatives:  

(1) 

No action (business as usual scenario) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

Clarifying the scope by using a fixed list of products: Under this option, two lists 
would  be  developed,  one  defining  products  falling  under  the  scope  (positive  list), 
the  other  defining  those  products  falling  outside  the  scope  (negative  list).  These 
lists would replace the existing list of products that fall under the different product 
categories in Annex IB of the WEEE The Commission would be given a mandate 
to update these lists through the Comitology process and would be likely to do so 
annually. 

Defining the scope under the RoHS Directive: This option would bring the detailed 
scope  of  the  Directives  (Annex  IA  of  the  WEEE  Directive)  into  the  RoHS 
Directive, under Article 95 of the EC Treaty. The WEEE Directive would refer to 
this scope, but the WEEE scope would remain under Article 175 of the EC Treaty. 
Member  States  would  be  obliged  to  publish  the  list  of  products  falling  under  the 
scope of the Directive at national level. 

Classifying categories of equipment as WEEE from private household or B2B: The 
legal text of the Directive would be changed to provide clarity on which categories 
of  equipment  would  be  defined  as  being  WEEE  from  households  (B2C)  or  as 
WEEE from users other than households (B2B) by classifying Categories 1-7 and 
B2C and Categories 8-10 and B2B.  

Introduction  of  legal  requirements  for  inter-operability  between  Member  State 
registers  and  harmonisation  of  definitions  and  reporting  standards.  This  would  be 
operated by Member States. 

The  establishment  of  a  harmonised  EU  register  of  producers  which  will  serve  as 
framework  for  information  exchange  and  transfer  of  obligations.  This  would  be 
operated  by  an  EU  body.  This  option  includes  harmonisation  of  definitions  and 
reporting standards.  

Include  the  reuse  of  whole  appliances  in  the  components,  material  and  substance 
reuse and recycling targets, increased with 5%, 

Include a recycling and recovery target for category 8 equipment (medical devices) 
similar to the target for category 9 equipment (control and monitoring equipment);  

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
5.2. 

Analysis of impacts  

5.2.1.  Option (1): No action 

Environmental impacts 

If no action would be taken, divergent national interpretations would persist and there is a 
risk that some products would not be covered by the national implementation laws. These 
products  would  not  need  to  comply  with  the  requirements  of  the  WEEE  and  RoHS 
Directives. Fewer compliant products would have negative environmental impacts as, for 
example, these products could continue to use the hazardous substances prohibited by the 
RoHS Directive and could not need to be collected and recycled. 

Indirectly, problems with the functionality of the national registers across the EU may be 
hindering  efforts  to  detect  free  riders  and  contribute  to  a  better  enforcement  of  the 
requirements of the WEEE Directive.  

Economic impacts 

Lack of clarity of the scope can lead to the absence of Extended Producer Responsibility 
contributions for some of these products in some Member States. This would continue to 
cause imbalances in the level playing field between stakeholders.  

The unclarity whether a product covered by the scope would be classified as B2B or B2C 
products would result in a continuing risk of distortion of the market and existence of free-
riders by those who declare their goods as B2B and who therefore do not have to place a 
financial  guarantee.  This  is  especially  affecting  dual  use  products  which  are  declared  as 
B2B  product  but  end  up  in  the  B2C  scheme.  In  this  case  the  cost  for  the  collection  and 
treatment of the appliances is paid by the producers that declared B2C appliances. Escaped 
financial guarantees can be in the order of magnitude of several ten thousands of euros for 
an  individual  producer  This  problem  of  dual  use  products  is  the  most  relevant  for  the 
categories of IT and communication equipment and consumer equipment, which represent 
more than 20% of EEE placed on the market.  

The  lack  of  harmonisation  between  the  requirements  of  national  producer  registers  will 
continue  causing  administrative  burden,  in  particular  for  actors  that  have  business  in 
several Member States. 

The information flow will remain incomplete, further leading to sub-optimal enforcement 
possibilities. 

Social impacts 

If  certain  products  which  should  be  covered  by  the  scope,  would  be  excluded  from  the 
scope  at  national  level,  the  requirements  of  the  Directives  (restriction  on  the  use  of 
hazardous  substance,  collection  and  recycling)  would  not  apply  which  could  lead  to 
negative social impacts, ie on human health.  

As regards the lack for harmonisation of the registration requirements, social impacts may 
result from discouragement of small companies to act on several Member States markets. 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
5.2.2.  Option (2): Clarifying the scope by using fixed lists of products 

Environmental impacts 

This option can lead to environmental improvements as it clarifies largely which products 
need to meet the product requirements, need to be collected and recycled and treated and to 
what degree. This would contribute to further meeting the environmental objectives of the 
Directives. 

Economic impacts 

This option clarifies producer responsibility, reduces administrative burden for the industry 
and provides for a level of playing field across the Member States. Having a concrete list 
of  products  updated  would  lower  the  administrative  burden  for  Member  States  as 
requirements of the Directive would become clearer.  

Social impacts 

Social impacts could be linked to simplified operation across Member States, notably for 
small businesses.  

5.2.3.  Option (3): Defining the scope under the RoHS Directive 

Environmental impacts 

This  option  would  lead  to  more  clarity,  therefore  it  can  be  expected  that  more  products 
would need to comply with the requirements of the Directives. This would have positive 
environmental impacts: more products would be collected and recycled and more products 
would need to be RoHS compliant.  

Economic impacts 

Having a fixed product scope under the RoHS Directive would also provide a level playing 
field for producers, it would further reduce uncertainty and would have positive impacts on 
administrative burden.  

Social impacts 

Social impacts could be linked to improved legal security and thereby simplified operation 
across Member States, notably for small businesses. 

5.2.4.  Option (4): Classifying categories of equipment 

Economic impacts 

Classifying categories of equipment as WEEE from private households or B2B would be 
an  important  step  to  clarify  the  application  of  the  Directive.  Where  the  division  between 
B2B  and  B2C  products  is  not  this  clear,  the  products  should  be  categorised  as  B2C 
products  unless  otherwise  proven.  This  would  make  the  division  between  WEEE  from 
private households and B2B clear and would provide legal certainty on what requirements 
producers need to fulfil with regard to financing and reporting and provide level of playing 
field for them by reducing the options for free riding.  

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
The  economic  impacts  of  this  option  depend  on  the  classification.  For  equipment  that 
would be classified as B2B, no longer financial guarantees need to be set. For equipment 
that would be classified as B2C, producers will be not unfairly burdened by free-riders. 

Environmental impacts 

Clarifying which category applies would in particular have an effect on dual use products 
constituting  at  least  20%  of  the  WEEE  arising.  This  would  have  positive  environmental 
impacts  as  circumvention  of  the  Directive's requirements would  be reduced  and dual use 
products would thus be financed, appropriately treated and recycled. 

Social impacts 

No particular social impacts are relevant to this option. 

5.2.5.  Option  (5):  Inter-operability  of  national  registers  and  harmonisation  of  reporting 

requirements 

Economic impacts 

This  option  would  have  a  significant  impact  in  reducing  unnecessary  administrative 
burden. The current registration and reporting requirements are laid down in Article 12 of 
the  WEEE  Directive.  Total  administrative  costs  of  registration  are  estimated  to  be  €14 
million per year (assuming that there are 4.000 new producers each year who are assumed 
to register in the EU 27 on an average of 14 Member States at a estimated registration cost 
of  €250  per  registration)..  As  producers  normally   would  not  register  without  this  legal 
provision, the administrative burden caused by this provision is regarded the same as the 
administrative costs.  

Article 12 (1) also requires Member States to collect information, including substantiated 
estimates on an annual basis on the quantities and categories of EEE put on their market, 
collected through all routes, reused, recycled and recovered within the Member States, and 
on  collected  waste  exported,  by  weight  or  by  numbers.  Whether  this  requirement  would 
impose  any  information  obligation  on  companies  would  depend  on  the  national 
methodology  used  to  collect  this  data.  The  WEEE  Directive  for  example  also  allows 
Member  States  to  use  substantiated  estimates  for  this  data  collection.  The  draft  study  on 
the  reduction  of  administrative  burden  reports  that  Member  States  use  different 
measurement methods which are often due to national requirements that go beyond the EU 
information obligation. In practice, it is expected that all Member States will request this 
data  from  producers  and  treatment  operators.  In  such  cases,  it  is  expected  that  the 
companies  concerned  already  have  this  data  readily  available  as  part  of  the  normal 
business  operations.  If  Member  States  when  implementing  the  Directive  would  require 
companies  to  transfer  this  existing  data  to  them,  this  could  lead  to  some  administrative 
cost. This administrative cost is estimated at about € 57 million per year (with an estimated 
40000  producers  reporting  on  an  average  in  14  Member  States)  and  10,000  authorised 
treatment facilities in the EU, working for an average of 4 hours at the average EU salary 
of €25/hour). The administrative burden is 
linked to the 13 times reporting for producers 
and is then estimated at €52M.  

Article  12  (1)  also  requires  distance  sellers  to  provide  information  on  their  compliance 
with  the  financial  producer  responsibility  obligations  and  to  report  on  quantities  of  EEE 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
put  on  the  market  of  the  MS  of  the  purchaser.  This  requirement  is  needed  to  monitor 
compliance with the producer responsibility obligations for distance sellers and to ensure a 
level  playing  field  between  producers  irrespective  of  their  selling  technique.  The 
information on the quantities of EEE put on the market is regarded as information which is 
already available and thus not induced by the legal provision. This would thus not cause 
any administrative burden. The administrative cost are estimated at € 0.04 million per year 
(under  the  assumptions  that  that  there  are  400  distance  sellers  in  the  EU  and  the 
information requirement takes 4 hours per year at an average EU salary of €25 per hour). 
The  administrative  costs,  linked  to  the  registration  requirement  are  estimated  at  €  1,4 
million  (under  the  following  assumptions:  400  distance  sellers,  selling  via  distance 
communication  in  an  average  of  14  Member  States  at  an  average  of  €250  per 
registration).In  total  it  has  an  administrative  cost  of  1,44M€  whereas  the  total 
administrative burden is 1,4M€.  

Under this option, the registration requirements would be harmonised, leading to only one 
registration per producer valid for the entire EU. In order to reduce the administrative costs 
related to the information gathering exercise of Article 12 (1), this option would give the 
Commission  the  mandate  to  harmonise  the  measurement  methods  through  a  comitology 
procedure. This would resolve the reported difficulties of the current situation that Member 
States use different measurement methods. Under the above-mentioned assumptions both 
measures would lead to cutting costs with up to a factor 14 or a reduction of administrative 
burden of up to €66,4 million per year.  

Cost impacts have been calculated also by Ökopol on basis of costs associated with various 
electronic databases associated with regulatory measures. In their calculation, it is assumed 
that the set-up costs of a formalised network of national bodies occurs only once and that 
costs for operating the network as well as the EU clearing house that has to deal with the 
transfer of money and of obligations on top of this network, are spread over 12 years.  

Due  to  reduced  registration  at  Member  State  level,  reduced  registration  renewals  and 
reduced reporting for industry, cost savings can be realised. The annual costs and the total 
present  values  for  national  competent  authorities  and  businesses  being  discounted  at  4% 
over 12 years, indicate that this option could result in cost savings of €288 million to €410 
million over 12 years.  

It  is  therefore  expected  that  this  option  has  positive  effects  on  intra-EU  competition  by 
providing  a  more  level  playing  field  amongst  various  stakeholders  (particularly  for 
distance selling) and aiding cross-border enforcement of the WEEE Directive.  

Detailed  cost  calculations  as  well  as  the  factors  identified  as  being  crucial  are  further 
explained in Annex 13.  

Environmental impacts 

No particular impacts are to be expected. 

Social impacts 

No particular impacts are to be expected. 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
5.2.6.  Option (6): EU operated register 

Economic impacts 

It  is  difficult  to  accurately  assess  the  costs  associated  with  performing  the  necessary 
activities at an EU level to support a harmonised register, as no exact model exists. As a 
proxy,  comparisons  have  been  made  with  the  European  Chemicals  Agency.  However,  it 
can be assumed that the costs for national authorities and industry go in line with the costs 
under the EU clearing house.  

If it is assumed that the number of registered producers may double the operating costs of 
national  authorities  would  also  double,  as  these  are  assumed  to  be  proportional  to  the 
number of registered producers. Under the current situation, these costs would reach €36.6 
million  per  year.  However  the  current  costs  are  associated  with  multiple  registrations 
across the EU. With single registrations, the operating costs would be reduced to between 
€1.1 million and €3.4 million per year across the  EU-27 (with additional coordination staff 
costs  of  €1.2  million).  The  number  of  register ed  producers  would  need  to  increase  by  at 
least  a  factor  of  10  before  the  annual  costs  are  comparable  to  those  of  an  Agency,  as 
discussed above (Ökopol 2007). 

If  the  costs  of  an  EU  harmonised  Register  are  assumed  to  be  similar  to  those  for  the 
European  Chemicals  Agency,  it  is  therefore  difficult  to  justify  the  additional  costs  of 
establishing an EU harmonised Register, either for all EEE producers or for those newly 
registering.  

Alternatively, it could be assumed that the operating cost of an EU Register would be no 
greater than the combined costs of 27 national systems, as the workload would be similar, 
and would potentially be reduced due to efficiency savings. However, there would still be a 
need for staff at a Member State level, due to the requirement for market surveillance. The 
costs of these staff may be similar as for the EU Clearing house. However, the EU register 
would still incur some development costs and would still make newly established national 
registers redundant.  

Environmental impacts 

No particular impacts are to be expected. 

Social impacts 

No particular impacts are to be expected. 

5.2.7.  Option  (7):  Include  the  reuse  of  whole  appliances  in  the  components,  material  and 

substance reuse and recycling targets 

Environmental impacts 

In  this  option,  the  reuse  fraction  can  contribute  to  the  targets,  without  prejudicing  how 
much need to be reused effectively per category, this aspect being regulated by the market. 
Studies  show  that  5  to  10%  of  collected  equipment  is  found  to  be  reusable.  Therefore, 
under  this  option,  including  reuse  of  whole  appliances  in  the  targets,  would  be 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
accompanied with a 5% increase of the current reuse/recycling targets in order to keep the 
same level of environmental ambition.  

This  option  would  allow  continued  operation  of  current  re-use  arrangements,  but  would 
remove disincentives for re-use of whole appliances.  

The environmental benefits of reuse and repair come from the delay/avoidance of products 
and their components to become (premature) waste, reduce their overall ecological impact 
and  conserve  valuable  natural  resources  as  it  diminishes  the  need  for  new  products.  It 
requires also less energy to reuse/repair compared to recycling.  

However,  older  appliances  tend  to  consume  more  energy  than  new  products  –  and 
continued use of old products where they would not have been used, or where they would 
have been replaced by newer products, will increase energy use. With a 5% target increase, 
corresponding  to  what  the  market  now  allows  (5  to  10%),  there  is  low  risk  that  the 
tradeoffs between reuse and replacement would be distorted.  

Under this option, Member States would have to decide in practice which operation (reuse 
of whole appliances, component/material/substance reuse or recycling) would be the best 
in  terms  of  environmental  protection.  Therefore,  it  is  not  possible  to  further  quantify  the 
environmental impacts thereof. 

Economic impacts 

There are no  significant economic impacts to be expected as this target setting combines 
both existing practices (and costs) of recycling/recovery of equipment and of the reuse of 
whole appliances.  

Social impacts 

It is expected that this option would lead to more re-use of whole appliances which would 
supply cheaper appliances to the poorest sector of society.  

Impacts on administrative burden 

The  reuse  of  components  and  parts  is  already  to  be  reported  together  with  the  recycling 
data.  Monitoring  and  reporting  the  reuse  of  whole  appliances  is  not  considered  to  be 
different, the more as Member States have already the possibility to report on this reuse on 
a voluntary basis. Therefore, it is assumed that there is no impact on administrative burden 
by this option.  

5.2.8.  Option (8): Include recycling and recovery targets for medical devices  

It is estimates that 32 000 tonnes of medical equipment is placed on the EU market yearly. 
It  is  difficult  to  define  recovery,  reuse  and  recycling  targets  for  these  equipments  as 
technologies  and  sizes  of  the  equipments  differ.  However,  data  collected  on  recycling 
percentages (UNU 2007) indicate that the recovery and recycling rate of these appliances 
are very close to those of the monitoring and control instruments63. Therefore targets for 

63 

UNU (2007), section 10.3 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
                                                 
these appliances are proposed under this option at the same level as targets for control and 
monitoring equipment.  

Environmental impacts 

Medical devices are currently excluded from the scope of the RoHS Directive64, therefore 
the  use  of  hazardous  substances  in  these  equipments  are  not  prevented  at  this  date.  It  is 
estimated that medical devices sold annually in the EU contain the following amounts of 
hazardous  substances:  1160  tonnes  lead,  1,8  tonnes  cadmium,  and  approximately  20kg 
mercury. Setting a target for medical devices would entail environmental benefits, since it 
would reduce the risk of uncontrolled disposal and it would save resources.  

Economic impacts 

The  data  collected  on  declared  recycling  percentages  (UNU  2007)  indicates  that  the 
proposed recovery, reuse and recycling targets are achievable not entailing excessive costs. 
The cost of collection and recycling of medical devices varies depending on whether the 
appliance concerned is a small or a big appliance, the technical cost related to recycling of 
medical equipments is estimated to vary between 162 -304 euros per tonne.  

Social Impacts 

No direct impacts are expected.  

Impacts on administrative burden 

Reporting on the amounts of medical devices being treated is yet not obligatory. Setting a 
target for medical devices would mean increased reporting obligations with may lead to an 
increase in administrative burden for producers, depending on how Member States would 
implement  this.  As  it  concerns  a  category  that  represents  only  0.3%  of  the  total  WEEE 
arising, it is assumed that the impact on administrative burden on producers by this option 
is rather small.  

5.3. 

Comparison of Options to Improve the Efficiency of the Directive 

Clarifying Scope and Categories 

Of  the  two  options  to  provide  greater  clarity  on  the  scope  of  and  categorisation  in  the 
WEEE  Directive, there is little difference between  the impacts;  both will provide greater 
legal precision on the scope and both would require publication of lists, either by Member 
States  or  the  Commission  of  the  products  considered  within  the  scope.  Neither  option 
would resolve any new uncertainties about new products which were not clearly inside or 
outside the scope.  

If  there  was  any  support  expressed  for  using  lists  to  clarify  the  scope,  then  stakeholders 
supported the idea of having  a  positive and a negative  list. Harmonising the scope under 
WEEE  was  supported  rather  than  defining  the  scope  under  RoHS,  however,  this  would 

64 

However, when the medical devices are covered by the RoHS Directive, the environmental impact on the long 
term  of  setting  a  target,  in  particular  for  ensuring  proper  treatment,  might  be  lower.  See  further  the  Impact 
Assessment on the review of the RoHS Directive. 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
                                                 
require  introducing  a  double  legal  basis  in  the  WEEE  Directive  whereas  a  similar  effect 
can  be  reached  by  referring  to  the  scope  in  RoHS,  already  targeting  harmonisation  of 
scope.  

The  categorisation  of  certain  categories  of  products  as  business  waste  would  avoid 
problems  of  'dual  use'  waste,  when  where  business  equipment  very  similar  to  consumer 
equipment  (like  IT  equipment)  enters  domestic  waste  and  its  treatment  paid  for  by 
producers of domestic equipment. This 'free-riding' would be likely to be more common if 
greater volumes WEEE were formally collected.   

Cutting unnecessary administrative costs from Registration and Reporting 

Three options are considered to cut the unnecessary costs from duplication and differences 
in registration and reporting by producers. Either the introduction of an EU Clearing House 
or  single  EU  register  would  certainly  provide  the  functions  required  for  cutting  the 
unnecessary costs: the single EU register would do so at much greater cost to the European 
Commission  (and  so  taxpayer)  with  some  benefit  from  reduced  costs  of  operations  by 
Member  States.  Introduction  of  legal  requirements  for  interoperability  of  Member  State 
registers  stands  a  good  chance  of  achieving  the  same  result  for  producers  registration, 
avoids  the  need  for  extra  resourcing  for  the  European  Commission,  but  is  unlikely  to 
provide  services  for  reconciling  flows  of  funding  for  treatment  between  schemes  with 
actual cross-border treatment of WEEE. 

Other changes 

Including  reuse  of  whole  appliances  in  the  existing  reuse/recycling  target  would  entail 
environmental  benefits  at  most  likely  no  cost,  as  the  flexibility  on  the  most  sustainable 
treatment operation (reuse or recycling) would remain. It would help avoiding that re-use is 
made  unattractive  by  a  need  to  meet  higher  recycling  targets,  even  where  it  might  be 
economically and socially more valuable. 

Setting  targets  for  medical  equipment  (cat.  8)  equipment  to  the  level  of  those  for 
monitoring  equipment  (cat.  9)  will  have  relatively  small  impacts:  for  some  Medical 
Equipment  (perhaps  10,000  tonnes/year)  slightly  greater  shares  of  materials  will  be 
recovered. 

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
6. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION  

6.1. 

Indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives 

The  core  indicators  for  progress  towards  better  environmental  and  health  protection 
through  separate  collection  and  dedicated 
lines 
recommended in this Impact Assessment are the following: 

treatment  of  WEEE  along 

the 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

Extent to which administrative burdens are cut at the EU and Member States levels 
while at least maintaining the present level of environmental protection. 

The extent to which Member States and producers effectively achieve the aims set 
out in the WEEE Directive, including the abolishment of “free riding”. 

The  extent  to  which  arising  WEEE  is  collected  separately  and  treated  at  the  high 
environmental and health protection standards required by the WEEE Directive and 
other relevant Community legislation.  

6.2. 

Outline for monitoring and evaluation arrangements 

Based  on  the  monitoring  and  review  of  the  progress  made  towards  the  set  of  objectives 
using the above mentioned indicators and other information requirements in Article 12 in 
the  WEEE  Directive  the  Commission  will  evaluate  the  results  of  this  policy  and  report 
every three years to the Council and the European Parliament.  

These monitoring and evaluation exercises will be based on reporting requirements of the 
Member  States  as  defined  in  Article  12  of  the  WEEE  Directive.  The  reporting  is 
streamlined  on  the  basis  of  a  questionnaire  that  the  Commission  sends  to  the  Member 
States. The content of this questionnaire is set out through comitology procedure.  

The following issues will in particular be addressed in the setting up of the monitoring and 
evaluation arrangements: 

•  focus  the  monitoring  and  reporting  on  the  key  data  which  are  necessary  to  assess  the 

extent to which the objectives of the legislation are being achieved; 

•  continue to support Member States throughout the introduction and implementation of 

the revised legislation. 

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
7. 

CONCLUSIONS 

During  2011-20  around  85%  of  the  EU's  WEEE  by  weight  is  predicted  to  be  collected 
separately  from  domestic  waste,  but  an  estimated  4.3  tonnes,  about  35%would  not  be 
treated in line with the Directive, despite existing legal requirements if no action is taken. 
It is likely that wiithin that 1/3 there would be higher proportions of the WEEE streams, 
like  cooling  and  freezing  equipment,  which  lead  to  greatest  environmental  harm  from 
improper treatment.  

This  WEEE  would  escape  proper  treatment  .  A  combination  of  producer  obligations  and 
enforcement is needed to provide the set of incentives to bring WEEE to proper treatment 
and meet the objectives of the WEEE Directive.  

Large  unnecessary  costs  from  the  current  implementation  of  the  WEEE  Directive, 
particularly differences and duplication in registration would continue. 

The Recommended Set of Options and the Impacts  

The analysis in this IA recommends adoption of a combination of options to improve the 
effectiveness  and  efficiency of achievement of the WEEE Directive's existing objectives. 
These options are described with the key impacts in the table below: 

Recommended Policy Options 

Key impacts (compared to baseline) 

To Improve Effectiveness 

Set  collection  targets  for  producers  at 
levels  close  to  the  level  of  collection 
currently  being  undertaken,  including 
B2B waste in those targets. 

Base  these  targets  on  levels  of  EEE  put 
on  the  market  in  the  preceding  year,  at 
65%  of  EEE  put  on  market  for  all 
Member States 

requirements 

for 
Set  minimum 
inspection  and  enforcement  by  Member 
States,  with  those  requirements  decided 
in Comitology 

- 

- 

- 

- 

87 

EN 

Additional  treatment  costs  of  €1bn 
per  year,  of  which  a  significant  but 
unknown  proportion  are  increased 
revenues for EU treatment business.  

These  costs  fall  on  producers  who 
will  most  likely  pass  these  on  to 
consumers 

Annual  reduction  of  environmental 
(of 
to 
harm 
atmosphere 
the 
€1bn  per  yr),  EU 
magnitude 
localities 
in 
to  workers 
developing  countries 
from  safer 
treatment  of  4.3million  tonnes  of 
WEEE. 

and 

No additional revenues from material 
through 
recycling  –  other 
innovation  stimulated  by 
greater 
greater 
treatment 
in 
investment 
technologies. 

than 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
To improve efficiency 

Define  the  scope  of  the  Directive  in  the 
RoHS  Directive  (based  on  Article  95  of 
Treaty)  and  Require  Member  States  to 
publish  the  list  of  products  within  the 
national scope 

Increased, but not total, clarity on the scope of 
products,  with  the  possibility  for  Member 
States to expand the scope in their territory. 

Require interoperability and data-transfer 
between  Member 
producer 
registers  

State 

- 

Cuts  unnecessary  costs  paid  by 
producers of €66.4million a year, by 
allowing  one  registration  for  all  EU 
harmonised 
with 
obligations, 
requirements 
and 
for 
processes, of which SME's will have 
the biggest proportional benefit. 

reporting 

Include reuse of whole appliances in the 
target for recycling combined with reuse. 

Removes disincentives for re-use of products, 
where 
is  more  economically 
valuable than recycling 

that  re-use 

Set targets for medical equipment (cat. 8) 
equipment  to  the  level  of  those  for 
monitoring equipment (cat. 9)  

Small: for some Medical Equipment (perhaps 
10,000  tonnes/year  slightly  greater  shares  of 
materials will be recovered. 

Compared to other possible options, this set of options: 

–  Is  the  most  likely  to  stimulate  proper  treatment  of  all  WEEE  arising  outside  the 

domestic waste stream. 

–  take  into  account  uncertainty  in  the  estimations  and  uncertainties  about  future:  the 
option set remains the best option under changes to key assumptions: on metal prices, 
and  the  proportions  of  waste  being  dumped  or  incinerated  and  treated  properly  in  the 
baseline.  

–  is  expected  to  lead  to  additional  benefits  from  innovation  and  exports,  with  greater 
investment  in  recycling  technologies  supporting  technology  firms  in  a  fast  growing 
export market where EU firms are often the global leaders, offering expansion of high-
tech jobs in this sector, in addition to reducing costs and opening new material markets.  

–  are predicted to increase jobs further in the WEEE treatment and recovery sector in the 
EU  –  these  are  frequently  manual  jobs  available  for  lower  skilled  sectors  of  the 
workforce.  Some  stimulation  of  the  reuse  sector  should  also  lead  to  more  jobs  for 
socially  disadvantaged  people  and  also  to  better  access  to  cheaper  second-hand 
consumer goods for the poorest sector of society.  

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Annex 1: Description of (research) studies 

The executive summaries of the major (research) studies are available on a public website.  

1. 

Study contracted via DG JRC / IPTS to AEA Technology 

The  objective  of  the  study  is  to  generate  full  understanding  of  implementation  of  the 
WEEE  Directive  by  the  Member  States  and  to  obtain  feedback  on  potential  areas  for 
revision. The review of the implementation of the WEEE Directive in EU Member States 
on which this report is based has been undertaken for the European Commission (DG Joint 
Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies) by AEA Technology in 
association with the Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe.  

The  report  identifies  and  describes  regulatory  and  management  approaches  considering 
WEEE  at  worldwide  level.  It  outlines  key  trends  and  describes  the  main  benefits  and 
problems in the implementation of the WEEE Directive. It also identifies opportunities for 
harmonisation  and  improvement  in  the  way  the  WEEE  Directive  is  being  implemented 
across Member States. 

This report is available at http://www.jrc.es/publications/pub.cfm?prs=1408.  

2. 

Synthesis report of the information gathering exercise by BIO Intelligence Services 

A  consortium  led  by  BIO  Intelligence  Service  assisted  the  European  Commission  in  the 
following tasks: 

•  Management of information retrieval from stakeholders and other third-parties as a part 

of the WEEE Review. 

•  Identification  of  further  sources  of  available  information  and  collection  of  that 
information,  and  in  case  of  a  barrier,  persuade  the  stakeholders  to  share  such 
information. 

•  Cross-reference all existing available information with reference to a set of issues to be 

examined in the WEEE Review. 

•  Identify the significant data gaps and/or data conflict in existing available information. 

The consortium did not perform a detailed analysis of the extracted information; this was 
the  task  of  the  other  research  studies  (see  Error!  Reference  source  not  found.).  The 
exercise resulted in an assessment of about 132 references that were made available online 
together  with  a  synthesis  report.  This  report  provided  the  systematic  overview  of  the 
content of these references whilst assessing the possible overlaps, contradictions and gaps 
in the knowledge related to the information needed for the review. The result served as a 
direct input for the contractors of the research studies and is available in the CIRCA page 
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/weee_2008/library. 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
3. 

Study contracted to UNU with subcontractors.  

The objective of the study is to complete the information needed to perform an analysis of 
options for the review of the Directive and to provide that analysis, in particular by giving 
a  thorough  evaluation  of  the  impacts,  efficacy  and  efficiency  of  the  Directive  from  an 
environmental and economic, and as far as possible, a social perspective, by analysing the 
management (collection, treatment) of different categories of WEEE. The information and 
analysis will be used as the main content of a future impact appraisal of options for review 
of the Directive.  

See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/studies_en.htm  

As part of this study contract an expert stakeholder workshop was organised on 15 March 
2007. The workshop was organised on a personal invitation basis and was a combination 
of presentations and working group discussions. The outcome of these discussions served 
the contractor in the drafting of the draft final report. The conclusions of the workshop are 
available 
page 
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/weee_2008_ws/home.  

presentations 

together 

CIRCA 

with 

the 

the 

in 

4. 

Study contracted to ÖKOPOL with subcontractors.  

The  objective  of  the  study  is  to  give  a  thorough  evaluation  of  the  operation  of  the 
Directive's  provisions  relating  to  producer  responsibility  obligations  of  WEEE  and 
consider options  to  improve the  operation of those obligations  in the  EU. The study will 
give a full picture on how Members states have transposed and implemented the producer 
responsibility obligations and the producer definition of the Directive. It will examine the 
interaction between the systems set up by Member States and the impact on achievement 
of the Directive's objectives and on business. It will provide a thorough evaluation of the 
functioning of the register of producers that Member states shall draw up and options for 
its further improvement, development and simplification. It will assess options to improve 
the  achievement  of  the  objectives  of  the  Community  environmental  policy  (in  particular 
the  Directive  itself)  on  WEEE,  particularly  the  development  and  simplification  of  the 
Directive in line with the Communication on better regulation. 

See also http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/studies_en.htm  

5. 

Study contracted to ECOLAS with subcontractors.  

The  objective  of  the  study  is  to  assess  the impacts  on  innovation  and  competition  of  the 
WEEE requirements, identifying the factors and requirements that have a critical positive 
or negative impact and to compare the approach undertaken in the WEEE Directive with 
respect to other approaches undertaken in the EU for different waste streams and outside 
the  EU,  identifying  advantages  and  disadvantages  with  regard  to  innovation  and 
competition.  Finally  it  will  formulate  proposals  to  revise  the  Directive  with  a  view  to 
improving  its  cost-effectiveness.  The  study  has  clearly  included  in  its  assessment  the 
eventual impacts on SMEs. 

See also http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/studies_en.htm  

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
Annex 2: Environmentally relevant materials arising as waste (UNU Study,2007) 

Arising ton TOTAL WEEE [t]
Ag
Au
Au
Be
Bi
Br
Cd
Cl
Co
Cr
CRT-glass cone
CRT-glass screen
Cu
Epoxy
Fluorescent powder
Hg
Glass (LCD)
Liquid Crystals
Mn
Ni
Oil
Pb
PCB
Pd
PVC
Sb
Sn
Stainless steel
Cyclopentane
Isobutaan
CFC11
CFC12
Zn
Total [t]

Cat 1a

Cat 1b

Cat 1c

2; 5a; 8

0.31
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
68201.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.98
66.00
29.46
27.89
0.04
7503.73
1.77
1001.81
35632.87
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
301.33
1,269,894

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
33027.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7067.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
827.41
0.00
0.00
34475.62
1620.35
379.23
8446.53
3351.03
0.00
925,677

0.13
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
9.15
10.30
10.87
13.16
0.80
0.00
0.00

0.09
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
5.85
37.25
7.18
47.89
0.53
0.00
0.00
54694.57 128773.83
313.95
0.00
0.01
15.17
0.00
2.66
122.39
1021.68
18.62
0.67
0.05
1436.73
1.09
244.78
18544.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
125.05
413,618

480.58
0.00
0.01
8.01
0.00
0.69
36.04
531.50
28.61
0.35
0.08
1161.40
1.66
16.02
12929.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
33.76
470,233

3a
118.77
0.27
19.55
1.29
11.88
366.22
51.96
2.47
66.81
155.89
0.00
0.00
39343.88
0.00
0.00
0.01
987.31
59.39
3.71
779.45
0.00
262.29
0.00
7.42
2128.03
47.01
979.89
12743.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
987.31
695,159

3b
19.60
0.00
2.61
0.00
9.80
58.81
17.97
169.89
22.87
6.86
0.00
0.00

3c
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17
23.15
0.21
3.48
0.02
0.00
0.00
69099.79 2903.34
9.37
0.00
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.19
36.46
0.00
0.57
0.00
0.00
55.91
0.03
5.56
72.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.70
9,940

2809.73
0.00
0.01
8.98
0.00
1.23
145.39
0.00
357.75
0.00
0.47
127.42
39.21
269.54
27607.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
529.27
395,607

4a

4c
4b
1.65
11.29
2.08
0.11
0.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.41
51.07
0.00
12.68
213.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.63
2.35
0.00
0.00
0.13
9.68
8.36
0.00
2.33
203.20
0.00 149496.83 3685.90
0.00 303562.97 7372.43
603.75
395.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.15
0.00
15.36
0.00
0.04
65.29
3.58
8.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.99
12,824

38865.95
3418.91
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
478.97
0.00
822.47
0.00
0.26
2806.09
162.34
43.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1392.29
580,670

737.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.19
0.00
0.46
35.18
0.00
2.25
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
21.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.80
113,778

5b
12.73
4.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.01
0.00
0.00
7587.25
0.00
0.00
0.15
6069.80
0.00
0.00
90.31
0.00
57.27
0.00
1.00
2246.81
3.92
12.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25.21
66,708

6
2.24
0.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.09
0.00
0.00
4104.02 15
0.00
1
0.00 13
0.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.94
0.00
60.27
0.00
0.17
1255.11
3.54
91.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
114.55
56,981

2

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
Annex 3: Physical and financial responsibilities for collection 

Legal allocation of responsibilities for Collection of WEEE in EU Member States (Ökopol). 

Physical Responsibility 
D/M/P 

Member State 
Austria 
Belgium (Brussels)  D/M  
Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Czech R. 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania66 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
UK 

P 
P 
D/P 
M 
D/P 
D65/P 
D/M/P 
M 
P 
P 
D/M 
D/M 
P 
D/M/P 
D/M 
D/P 
D/M 
D 
D/M/P 
M 
D/P 
D/M 
D/M 
P 
D/P 

Financial Responsibility 
D/P 
D  
P 
P 
D/P 
M 
D/P 
P 
D/P 
M 
P 
P 
D//P 
D/M 
P 
P 
D/M 
D/P 
D/M 
D 
D/P 
M 
D/P 
D/M 
P 
P 
D/P 

D = Distributor, M = Municipality, P = Producer  
(definition varies between national and European approach) 

65 

66 

In the Waste Act Section 18h(2) it is stated that sellers of EEE shall accept WEEE from private households if 
replaced by purchasing a similar product, or shall direct the purchaser to another reception point  
Based on the legal text as well as other policy documents 

EN 

92 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex 4: Evolution of Collection Performance to meet targets 

Evidence from recorded compliance with existing collection targets in Member States indicates that 
producers have made greater progress in the years further before the target date than closer to that 
date. They appear to have a rather logarithmic evolution whilst coming towards the target which is 
the heading towards the total amount of WEEE arising [(see dotted line on the graph down).]  

This  is  seen  in  schemes  that  existed  before  the  entry  into  force  of  the  WEEE  Directive.  For 
example, the collection targets for Belgium have increased in 5 years time from 45.000 tonnes in 
2003, representing about 4,5kg per inhabitant, to 81.000 tonnes in 2007 (see graph based on annual 
reports). At the same time, there was a rather firm stimulation for increased collection by the legal 
obligation in the transposition law (8,5kg per inhabitant to be collected by 2007)67. The increase can 
be  explained  partly  by  the  annual  consumption  (and  hence  waste)  growth  and  by  further 
implementation  of  the  system.  This  most  likely  includes  the  integration  of  a  fraction  that  was 
already been separately collected but that was not reported for.  

90000

80000

70000

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

Lamps

other

CRT

LHHA

C&F

1

2

3

4

5

Table: Belgian collection figures, 5 years after start-up 

67 

VLAREA art.3.5.3 (Vlaams reglement inzake afvalvoorkoming and -beheer) 

EN 

93 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
120000

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

d
e
t
c
e

l
l

o
c

s
e
n
n
o
T

0

0

y = 22822Ln(x) + 43906
R2 = 0,9932

Series1

Log. (Series1)

5

10

Years

15

20

Table: behaviour of collection in function of time (example for Belgium) 

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
 
 
Annex 5: Leaching of metals of disposed WEEE 

Estimated leaching of metals from consumer electronics in a controlled landfill (BIO 2006) 

Element 

Hg 

Cd 

As 

Cr 

Cu 

Pb 

Zn 

Cl 

Ni 

To soil 

0.0004%

0.0001%

0.0001%

0.0001%

0.0002%

0.0001%

0.0000%

0.2933%

0.0002%

To air 

0.0000% 

0.0000% 

0.0000% 

0.0000% 

0.0000% 

0.0000% 

0.0000% 

0.1035% 

0.0000% 

To water 

0.0071%

0.0026%

0.0022%

0.0019%

0.0045%

0.0016%

0.0006%

1.4373%

0.0040%

Estimated leakage of metals in MSW68 incineration of consumer electronics (BIO 2006) 

Element 

Hg 

Cd 

As 

Se 

Cr 

Sb 

Cu 

Pb 

Zn 

Sn 

Ni 

To 
flue 
gas 

93.0%

77.0%

29.0%

68.0%

8.0% 

36.0%

4.0% 

32.8%

37.0%

33.0%

5.0% 

To air 

To water 

0.4420% 

0.0500% 

0.1000% 

0.2000% 

0.0000% 

0.0000% 

0.0000% 

0.1988% 

0.2000% 

0.2000% 

0.0000% 

0.0011%

0.0555%

0.0002%

0.0000%

0.0006%

0.0000%

0.0001%

0.0011%

0.0007%

0.0037%

0.0074%

68 

Municipal Solid Waste 

EN 

95 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex 6: Details on environmental impacts of WEEE 

General Impacts from materials in WEEE 

Ferrous metals 

Some 50% of WEEE by weight consists of ferrous metals, largely steel. Collecting and recycling 
this material typically results in savings of 74% energy, 76% water pollution and 86% air pollution 
if compared to primary steel production.  

Precious Metals 

Precious metals, particularly gold, palladium, platinum and silver are used as coatings on electrical 
contacts  and  connectors  in  EEEs.  Absolute  quantities  are  small  compared  to  the  overall  weight. 
However  recovery  from  WEEE  contributes  to  saving  greenhouse  gas  emissions  and  primary 
resources as well as reducing environmental impacts of primary production.  

Plastic 

Plastic  recycling  has  also  high  theoretical  potential  of  energy  and  pollution  saving:  -  up  to  80% 
compared  to  the  primary  production  of  plastic  if  very  pure  streams  of  waste  material  are  used  as 
recycling feedstock. However, for many polymers, the current sorting processes for recycling can 
use as much energy as the creation of the polymer from raw materials69. Energy recovery from the 
plastic  fraction  of  WEEE  is  a  very  advantageous  option  in  these  cases,  compared  to  landfill  and 
incineration without energy recovery.  

Hazardous substances 

Numerous hazardous substances occur in WEEE as described in the section 2.2.3.1. 

Some Specific Environmental Impacts from WEEE Categories of EEE  

Climate related impacts 

- 

Cooling and Freezing Equipment 

Only  the  magnitude,  rather  than  precise  estimates  of  the  climate  change  damage  from 
release  of  CFCs  and  HCFCs  can  be  given.  The  flowing  section  shows  the  assumptions 
used in reaching these magnitudes, and is based on the Bio-intelligence study and the UNU 
study: 

Cooling and freezing (C&F) appliances represent about 17.7% of the WEEE arising. Only 
27% of this is being reported as collected and treated. The remaining 73% represent about 
1 million tonnes of C&F. At an average weight of 48kg, this suggests that up to 21 million 
C&F  annually  could  by-pass  proper  treatment.  Around  80%  of  these  are  estimated  to 
contain Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) in 2008 with 0.4kg of CFCs in the refrigerant 
and insulating foam per appliance.  

69 

EN 

See 
sepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d  

http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/weee_2008/library?l=/recycling_techniques/ltu-lic-0536-

96 

   EN 

 
                                                 
By  2011,  fewer  C&F  equipment  returning  in  the  WEEE  stream  will  have  ODSs  in. 
Assuming this level falls to 70% of the 2008 figure, this would be around 15m pieces of 
equipment, so 6000 tonnes of CFC. With average global warming potential (of CFC11 and 
CFC12 of 7500), this would equate to 45m tonnes of CO2 equivalent. A monetary estimate 
of the damage cost of this release at €30/tonne  CO2-equivalent amounts to €1.35 billion in 
2011. This is an order of magnitude of €1bn.   

The proportion of ODS containing C&F is expected to decline. Assuming that this reaches 
levels equivalent to 10% of the 2008 numbers in 2020, damage costs from the monetised 
GHG damage from released ODS would be in the order of€0.1bn by that year. 

The  damage  to  the  ozone  layer  from  these  releases  can  not  be  monetised,  though  the 
releases from old WEEE represent a significant part of the EU's release of ODS. 

The proportion of ODS saved from release by proper treatment depends on the stringency 
of  the  standards  applied  by  treatment  plants.  Use  of  best  practice  makes  a  significant 
difference.  Treatment  standards  in  WEEE  will  be  determined  through  comitology 
procedures for Annex II of the Directive. 

- 

Metals and precious metals from high grade circuit boards  

Printed  circuit  boards  typically  can  be  found  in  consumer  equipments  and  IT  and 
telecommunication equipments (categories 3 and 4 of the WEEE Directive). They contain 
precious metals as well as a number of hazardous substances, including arsenic, antimony, 
beryllium,  brominated  flame  retardants,  cadmium,  lead,  etc.  While  1  million  tonnes  of 
categories 3 and 4 are reported as collected and assumed to be treated appropriately, up to 
1,8 million tonnes could be disposed of or treated inappropriately inside or outside the EU, 
with the associated health and environmental impacts . 

- 

Plastic containing equipment 

It  is  estimated  that  20-25%  (1,6-2  million  tonnes)  of  WEEE  arising  is  composed  of 
plastics.  The  plastic-dominated  products  are  small  household  appliances,  IT  and 
telecommunication  equipments,  consumer  electronics,  electrical  and  electronic  tools  and 
toys and leisure and sport equipments (UNU study). Recovery of material and energy from 
these  categories  would  contribute  to  overall  resources  savings  and  reduction  of  CO2 
emissions due to energy savings in recycled plastics. 

Local Environmental impacts in the EU 

- 

Disposal 

When  WEEE  is  disposed  of  in  a  landfill  or  dumped,  there  is  a  risk  that  hazardous 
substances, for example mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium and PCBs leach into the 
soil and groundwater. Another concern is the vaporisation of  mercury found in WEEE70. 
There is still a risk of leaching of metals also from controlled landfills, in case of mercury, 
cadmium, etc illustrated by the table in Annex 5. 

70 

Bio Intelligence Service, 2006 Section 8.1 

EN 

97 

   EN 

 
                                                 
- 

Incineration 

In case of incineration of WEEE for example cadmium, mercury, lead will be found in the 
bottom ashes and fly ashes that can thus contribute to emissions of heavy metals into the 
air  and  reduces  the  quality  and  potential  use  of  fly  ashes  and  bottom-ashes  (incineration 
residues)71.  The  incineration  of  brominated  flame  retardants  and  PVC  leads  to  the 
generation of extremely toxic dioxins and furans. Copper acts as catalyst in this reaction. 
An example demonstrating the leakages of heavy metals from the incineration of consumer 
electronic products can be found in the table in Annex 5.  

- 

(1) 

(2) 

Potential specific local environmental impacts of improperly managed WEEE 

Lamps and LCD monitors & TV's are of particular concern for terrestrial eco-toxicity and 
ecosystem  quality,  mainly  because  of  their  mercury  content;  similarly,  battery  packs 
because of their cadmium content; 

Acidification which is mainly caused by IT and telecommunication equipments, excluding 
CRT  and  LCD  monitors,  because  of  the  presence  of  precious  metals  and  eutrophication 
mainly caused by LCD monitors and electrical and electronic tools.  

Environmental impacts of appliances 

The UNU study has calculated, using the Eco-indicator 99, the total environmental impact per kg of 
average appliances of each of the 10 WEEE categories for the scenario that the WEEE is collected 
and recycled instead of being disposed of together with the municipal solid waste stream (MSW), 
i.e. either incinerated or disposed of in a landfill. 72 

71 
72 

Extended Impact Assessment for the batteries Directive SEC(2003)1343 
An important assumption here is that for the full collection scenario, the values are based on the 2005 baseline 
impacts without taking into account the changes in product and thus waste stream compositions as well as in 
development  in  recycling  technologies  applied.  In  particular  the  transition  from  CRT  to  flat  panels  displays 
and from CFC to HC based fridges will have an impact on the graph below. At present there is not enough data 
available to determine how this affects the waste stream composition over time. Also, the possible effects of 
other  pieces  of  Community  legislation,  such  as  REACH  and  the  EuP  Directive  have  not  been  taken  into 
account in these calculations. 

EN 

98 

   EN 

 
                                                 
↑ (in Pts avoided environmental impact)             Eco-Indicator'99 H/A weighted, total WEEE arising, 2005 (left bar) to 2011 (right bar)
↑ (in Pts avoided environmental impact)             Eco-Indicator'99 H/A weighted, total WEEE arising, 2005 (left bar) to 2011 (right bar)

-1.2E+08
-1.2E+08

-1.1E+08
-1.1E+08

-1.1E+08
-1.1E+08

-3.0E+07
-3.0E+07

-3.3E+07
-3.3E+07

-1.7E+07
-1.7E+07

1.1E +07
1.1E +07

4.2E +06
4.2E +06

2.5E+06
-6.5E+05
3.6E+05
-6.5E+05
2.5E+06
3.6E+05
3.8E+06
3.8E+06

-1.0E+08
-1.0E+08

-8.0E+07
-8.0E+07

-6.0E+07
-6.0E+07

-4.0E+07
-4.0E+07

-2.0E+07
-2.0E+07

0.0E+00
0.0E+00

-7.6E+07
-7.6E+07

-5.5E+07
-5.5E+07

-4.6E+07
-4.6E+07

-2.9E+07
-2.9E+07

1.1E+07
1.1E+07

2.7E+07
2.7E+07

-5.7E+06
-5.7E+06

-7.7E+06
-7.7E+06

-6.6E+06
-6.6E+06

-2.3E+05
-2.3E+05

-1.8E+06
-1.8E+06

-1.7E+07
-1.7E+07

4.2E+06
4.2E+06

-3.0E+07
-3.0E+07

-2.7E+07
-2.7E+07

-2.5E+06
-2.5E+06

-1.4E+07
-1.4E+07

-3.3E+07
-3.3E+07

-6.5E+05
-6.5E+05

3.6E+05
3.6E+05

3.8E+06
3.8E+06

2.5E+06
2.5E+06

2.0E+07
2.0E+07

1.1E+07
1.1E+07

4.0E+07
4.0E+07

6.0E+07
6.0E+07

8.0E+07
8.0E+07

1.0E+08
1.0E+08

↓ 2.9E+09 !!!
↓ 2.9E+09 !!!

↓ (in Pts environmental burden) 
↓ (in Pts environmental burden) 

LHHA C&F
LHHA C&F

LHHA-small
LHHA-small

SHA
SHA

IT ex CRT
IT ex CRT

IT FDP CE ex CRT CE CRT CE FDP
IT FDP CE ex CRT CE CRT CE FDP

Lamps
Lamps

Tools
Tools

Toys
Toys

Figure 

Figure: Total environmental impact for 2005* compared to 2011** (EI99 H/A) 

* Current 2005 collection (left) ** Maximum collection 2011 full implementation (right)] 

Environmental impact of illegal shipment of waste to third countries 

The impacts of WEEE treatment in third countries cannot be quantified due to lack of data. In any 
case they must be assumed to be much higher than treatment of this waste would cause in the EU. 
The reason for this assumption lies in generally much lower environmental and safety standards in 
the countries to which WEEE is exported from the EU. 

Some  of  the  most  severe  cases  of  sub-standard  treatment  of  WEEE  in  developing  countries  are 
described for example in reports from the Basel Action Network (BAN)73 and Greenpeace74. BAN 
witnessed  disposal  of  waste  and  treatment  practices  that  result  in  intense  emission  of  toxic 
pollutants to the environment as well as severe exposure of humans to these substances. As many of 
these  operations  are  unlawful,  no  statistics  exist  to  quantify  or  monetise  the  impacts  which  are 
nevertheless considered to be severe.  

Environmental impact of reuse 

The  environmental  benefits  of  reuse  are  very  limited  according  to  Rechberger  (2006).  He 
examined  two  extreme  scenarios:  one  with  no  reuse  of  products  and  another  with  reuse  of  all 
products giving between 50% and 100% product life extension. The study found that even intensive 

73 

74 

Basel Action Network, "Exporting Harm" http://www.ban.org/E-waste/technotrashfinalcomp.pdf and "Digital 
Dump" http://www.ban.org/BANreports/10-24-05/documents/TheDigitalDump_Print.pdf  
Greenpeace,: Poisoning the poor, electronic waste in Ghana, August 2008 

EN 

99 

   EN 

 
                                                 
product  reuse  of  EEE  reduces  total  resource  consumption  (materials  and  energy)  of  a  highly 
developed  economy  by  less  than  1%.  This  is  further  substantiated  by  Rose  and  Stevels  (2001) 
which showed that the environmental benefits are very low compared to materials recycling 

EN 

100 

   EN 

 
Annex 7: Background to the driver of different implementation of the provisions on the 
producer registration/reporting: 

Member States have taken different approaches with respect to: 

–  who needs to register ; and  

–  who needs to report and what needs to be reported. 

Who needs to register? 

From  the  wording  in  the  Directive,  it  is  clear  that  "the  producer"  has  to  register,  but  the  term 
‘producer’  has  been  interpreted  differently.  20  countries  take  a  ‘national  approach’,  whereby  the 
first  importer  of  a  product  into  a  Member  State  is  considered  to  be  the  producer,  if  there  is  no 
manufacturer of that brand on the national market. In these Member States it is only legal entities 
that  are  based  in  the  Member  State  where  products  are  placed  on  the  market  that  are  entitled  to 
register  as  the  legally  obligated  producer.  This  creates  a  situation  in  certain  Member  States  that 
brand manufacturers either have to open a national seat, causing extra costs, or that the burden is 
shifted to the first importer. 

3 other Member States follow a ‘European’ approach, where the producer must be present within 
the EU but does not have to have a legal entity within the MS75.  

The 4 remaining Member States have either an ambiguous or an undefined approach.  

A particular problem arises in case of distant sellers as producers are defined irrespective of their 
selling technique76, and Member States have divergent interpretations. Workshops organised by the 
Member States have shown that these different approaches lead to the obligation for registration and 
reporting  by  distance  sellers  in  both  home  and  buyers  Member  States  or  to  no  obligation  for 
registration and reporting in either Member State.  

Distance sellers that are based in Member States where they must register in countries where they 
sell products to end users and sell to end users in countries that only allow nationally based actors to 
be  producers,  cannot  meet  their  producer  responsibility  obligations,  and  are  therefore  unwilling 
free-riders  (Ökopol  2007).  There  is  little  control  whether  producers are  registered  and  have  made 
their financial contributions is important in order to avoid free riding. VROM estimates that 15% of 
the  WEEE  stream  is  not  collected  as  a  result  of  free  riders,  i.e.  producers  or  importers  who  sell 
electrical  and  electronic  equipment  but  do  not  have,  or  live  up  to  their  take  back  obligations 
regarding WEEE (ETC/RWM 2007).  

In half of the Member States, the PRO compliance schemes can register their producers members, 
with  some  PRO's  have  the  same  functionality  as  the  Member  State  registers.  In  the  other  half, 

75 

76 

The three MS only apply a European approach in their ‘legal’ definition of the producer. However, in practice, 
producers report what is placed on the market in these countries.  
Distance seller is not defined as such but rather the as the person who uses a selling technique by means of 
distance communication as defined in Directive 1997/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts, OJ L 144, 4.6.1997, p.19. 

EN 

101 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
producers must register individually regardless of their membership to a compliance scheme, which 
creates additional administrative burden. 

Who needs to report and what needs to be reported? 

Requirements for reporting of products put on the market vary e.g. with respect to: 

•  the frequency of reporting, 

•  the reporting formats; and 

•  the data to be provided77.  

Furthermore, the functionality of the registers isn't further defined and some require the producer as 
well  to  demonstrate  compliance  with  the  setting  of  a  financial  guarantee.  [As  in  most  cases,  the 
participation by the producer in an appropriate scheme counts as a guarantee, there is a direct link 
with producer responsibility organisations.] 

Frequency of reporting 

Reporting  of  products  put  on  the  market  varies  from  monthly,  quarterly  bi-annually  to  annual 
reporting  periods.  Reporting  should  be  frequent  enough  to  deter  unscrupulous  producers  that,  for 
example,  may  be  able  to  avoid  reporting  if  only  present  on  the  market  for  peak  sales  periods. 
Chosen  reporting  periods  may  also  affect  producers  in  divergent  ways  due  to  certain  seasonal 
variations in sales for certain products which might affect when products are most often returned as 
WEEE. 

Reporting Formats 

Again due to the diversity of reporting format, when reporting the number of products placed on the 
market,  national  registers  require  divergent  reporting  with  respect  to  the  categories  of  equipment 
that sales must be reported in. This causes increased administrative burden and cost, at least when 
initially setting up internal systems to deal varying reporting formats. 

Data to be provided: Lack of common definition of weight 

Similar  to  the  above  arguments,  there  is  a  great  deal  of  divergence  between  Member  States 
application  of  the  definition  of  weight,  which  causes  unnecessary  administrative  burden  when 
putting products on the market. In certain cases, the definition applied in Member States makes it 
impossible for legal producers to be able to gather the data from the “bill of materials” they have to 
accurately report the weight of the product. In this circumstance, when a new product is launched in 
the  market,  the  producer  must  physically  weigh  the  product  and  relevant  components  in  order  to 
fulfil the weight definition in  different Member States.  This  requires  additional  resource  planning 
software and working time.  

Data to be provided: Definition of “put on the market”  

77 

More details on the different national reporting requirements are provided in Annex 8. 

EN 

102 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Member States have also taken different approaches on which EEE should be regarded as “put on 
their market” in cases of intra-Community trade. Differences or ambiguities may cause confusion 
among producers on what sales should be reported in a Member State given that known subsequent 
intra-community trade will happen. In most Member States, it is when a financial transaction raising 
VAT occurs that theoretically products are “put on the national market” and sales are required to be 
reported  by  the  producer  who  placed  those  products  on  the  market.  Depending  on  whether  the 
national  register  allows  foreign  producers  located  in  another  Member  State  to  register  or  not,  the 
producer  may  be  one  of  several  actors,  manufacturer,  distributor/wholesaler  or  even  retailer. 
However,  discussions  with  producers 
large 
reveals 
wholesalers/distributors will not report sales on the national market to the register if they know that 
the  client  (which  may  be  the  legal  producer  in  the  Member  State)  will  subsequently  ship  those 
products to another market. This makes sense from a producers’ perspective, as any sales reported 
to the national register will be used to calculate its market share.  

that  most  manufacturers 

and 

EN 

103 

   EN 

 
Annex 8: Mapping of the administrative burden of the WEEE Directive 

Provision 

Information obligation (IO)  

Art. 12 (1)  Member States to draw up a register of producers 

Member States to collect information, including substantiated 
estimates on an annual basis on the quantities and categories 
of  EEE  put  on  their  market,  collected  through  all  routes, 
reused,  recycled  and  recovered  within  the  Member  States, 
and on collected waste exported, by weight or by numbers 

Admin 
burden 

Admin 
cost 

€14M 

€52M 

€14M 

€57M 

Member  States  to  ensure  that  distance  sellers  provide 
information  on  their  compliance  with  the  financial  producer 
responsibility obligations and on quantities of EEE put on the 
market of the MS of the purchaser. 

€1,4M 

€1,44M 

Art.  10  (1) 
and (4) 

Member  States  to  ensure  that  use  of  EEE  in  private 
households are provided with necessary information. Member 
States  may  require  that  some  of  the  information  is  provided 
by producers and/or distributors 

n/a 
IO 
occurs  at 
national 
level 

n/a 
occurs 
national 
level 

IO 
at 

Art. 10 (3)  Member  States  to  ensure  that  producers  mark  the  EEE  with 

€2M 

€2M 

crossed-out wheel bin 

Art. 11 (1)  Member  States  to  ensure  that  producers  provide  treatment 

€0.75M 

€0.75M 

information for each type of new EEE 

Art. 11 (2)  Member States to ensure that producer of EEE is identifiable 

€0M 

€0M 

by a mark on the appliances 

Art. 7 (3) 

Art. 6 (2) 

Member  States  to  ensure  that  producers  (or  third  parties 
acting  on  their  behalf)  keep  records  on  the  mass  of  WEEE, 
their  components,  materials  or  substances  when  entering 
(input) or leaving (output) the treatment facility and/or when 
entering (input) the recovery or recycling facility 

€0M 

€1M 

Member States to ensure that all treatment companies obtain 
a  permit  under  the  Waste  Framework  Directive.  Member 
States 
treatment  facilities 
inspections 
benefiting from a derogation of the permit requirement 

to  carry  out 

in 

n/a 

n/a 

Art. 6 (6) 

Exporter  to  proof  that  the  recovery,  reuse  and/or  recycling 
operation  took  place  under  conditions  equivalent  to  the 
requirements of this Directive 

n/a; 
IO 
occurs  at 
national 
level 

n/a; 
occurs 
national 
level 

IO 
at 

EN 

104 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EN 

105 

   EN 

 
 
Annex 9: Policy Coherence 

The objectives of the Directives are fully in line with general Community strategies, including the 
Lisbon  Strategy,  the  Sustainable  Development  Strategy,  the  Energy  and  Climate  Package,  the  6th 
Environmental Action Programme and its mid-term review, Integrated Product Policy, the Thematic 
Strategies  on  the  sustainable  use  of  natural  resources  and  on  waste  prevention  and  recycling,  the 
'Marketing of Products' package and the Commission's recent lead market initiative. 

The  review  of  the  Directives  is  foreseen  in  the  Commission's  simplification  programme,  with 
implements  the  Community  Lisbon  Programme.78  The  review  of  the  Directives  should  eliminate 
unnecessary  barriers  and  burdens  facing  European  business  and  society,  in  line  with  the  "growth 
and jobs" strategy of the EU. 

Full implementation of the EU waste legislation acquis, including the WEEE and RoHS Directives 
in  Europe  would  contribute  to  reducing  CO2  emissions  and  thus  contribute  to  European  climate 
reduction targets agreed in Kyoto.79 . 

The substance ban, design requirements and waste management approach of the RoHS and WEEE 
Directive  contribute  to  the  objective  of  Thematic  Strategy  on  the  Sustainable  Use  of  Natural 
Resources80 which calls for lowering the overall environmental impact of resource use in a growing 
economy.  The  RoHS  Directive  takes  account  of  this  by  allowing  exemptions  from  the  substance 
ban  where  “substitution  is  technically  or  scientifically  impracticable  or  where  the  negative 
environmental health and/or consumer safety impacts caused by substation are likely to outweigh 
the environment, health and/or consumer safety benefits thereof”81 and by requiring regular reviews 
of the substance bans in the light of scientific evidence82. The WEEE Directive responds to this by 
reducing the environmental and health impacts per unit of material used without restricting the use 
itself or limiting quantities. 

The  WEEE  and  RoHS  Directives  also  contribute  to  the  objectives  of  the  Thematic  Strategy  on 
Waste  Prevention  and  Recycling83  which  calls  for  less  waste  being  generated  in  terms  of  toxicity 
(“qualitative waste prevention”) and weight (“quantitative prevention”), and for an optimization of 
recycling  in  view  of  overall  environmental  and  health  benefits.  The  substance  ban  of  the  RoHS 
Directive  responds  in  particular  to  the  call  for  “qualitative  prevention”.  The  WEEE  Directive 
responds  to  the  aim  of  optimized  re-use,  recycling,  and  other  recovery  at  a  high  level  of 
environmental and health protection, giving planning security to economic actors through binding 
collection targets and harmonized standards for waste treatment. 

In  line  with  the  Integrated  Product  Policy  approach84,  the  RoHS  Directive  introduces  life-cycle 
considerations  as  an  essential  criterion  for  granting  exemptions.85  The  WEEE  Directive  seeks  to 

78 

79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 

The objective of the simplification exercise is to contribute to a European regulatory framework of the highest 
standards  in  respect  of  the  principle  of  subsidiary  and  proportionality.  Simplification  intends  to  make 
legislation  less  burdensome,  easier  to  apply  and  thereby  more  effective  in  achieving  its  goals.  Following  on 
these principles, a regulatory action should not be beyond what is necessary to achieve the policy objectives 
pursued, needs to be cost-efficient, and should take the lightest form of regulation called for. 
Prognos study, May 2008, http://www.prognos.com/Singleview.306+M5c828d79ff6.0.html. 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/natres/index.htm 
RoHS Article 5 
RoHS Article6? 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/strategy.htm  
Reference IPP 

EN 

106 

   EN 

 
                                                 
improve the environmental performance of all operators involved in the life-cycle of electrical and 
electronic equipment, e.g. distributors and consumers and treatment operators. 

WEEE  and  RoHS  contribute  to  the  objectives  established  by  the  6th  Environmental  Action 
Programme86  and  its  mid-term  review87,  which  call,  inter  alia,  for  a  significant  reduction  in  the 
quantity of waste going to disposal and the volumes of hazardous waste produced while avoiding an 
increase  of  emissions  to  air,  water.  Moreover,  the  RoHS  Directive  explicitly  refers  to  the  Sixth 
Environment  Action  Programme  with  respect  to  future  decisions  on  the  prohibition  of  additional 
hazardous substances under the RoHS Directive.88  

Ensuring  consistency  with  the  “Marketing  of  Products”  Package  is  particularly  important  in  the 
context of the RoHS review. This legislative package aims to simplify and improve existing internal 
market legislation on goods, by providing a clear and consistent legal framework which will at the 
same time guarantee safe products on the market. In the case of RoHS, harmonised definitions and 
obligations  for  the  economic  operators  could  lead  to  substantial  economic  benefits  (reduction  of 
administrative  burden  for  administrations  and  producers)  and  more  efficient  and  coordinated 
enforcement at Community level. 

The WEEE Directive is one of the policy instruments mentioned in the Lead Market initiative 89 to 
foster  recycling  markets,  help  more  and  better  recycling  yielding  environmental  and  economic 
gains.  

Coherence with EU legislation on product design and waste management 

The  provisions  of  the  Directives  are  coherent  with  the  requirements  of  other  pieces  of  EU 
legislation on product design and waste management as explained below.  

RoHS and REACH 

REACH90 aims to create an EU-wide system for the management of chemicals and their safe use, 
by inter alia requiring manufacturers and importers to gather information on the properties of their 
chemical  substances,  which  will  allow  their  safe  handling,  and  to  register  the  information  in  a 
central database run by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). RoHS, on the other hand aims to 
contribute to the protection of human health and the environmentally sound recovery and disposal 
of waste electric and electronic equipment and to eliminate the disparities between the national laws 
of the Member States. To this end, it restricts the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical 
and electronic equipment put on the Community market as from 1 July 2006. Since the objectives 
and approaches of both pieces of legislation differ, one cannot be replaced by the other. 

85 

86 

87 
88 
89 
90 

Exemptions  from  the  substance  ban  are  allowed  where  “substitution  is  technically  or  scientifically 
impracticable or where the negative environmental health and/or consumer safety impacts caused by substation 
are likely to outweigh the environment, health and/or consumer safety benefits thereof. 
Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down the 
Sixth Community Environment Action Programme OJ L 242, 10.9.2002, p. 1–15.  
COM(2007) 225 final. 
Article 4(3) of RoHS. 
COM (2007)860 final 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1907/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18  December  2006 
concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a 
European  Chemicals  Agency,  amending  Directive  1999/45/EC  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
793/93  and  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  1488/94  as  well  as  Council  Directive  76/769/EEC  and 
Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, OJ L 396 of 30 December 2006. 

EN 

107 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                                  
In  fact,  the  two  pieces  of  legislation  are  complementary:  REACH  confirms  the  importance  of 
managing  chemical  releases  related  to  the  waste  life  stage,  which  forms  the  core  of  RoHS,  by 
requiring  information  on  all  stages  of  the  substance  lifecycle  to  be  provided  for  in  the  chemical 
safety report. REACH is based on the demonstrated risk of the substances resulting from their use, 
while  RoHS  is  founded  on  a  preventive  approach,  based  on  the  hazard  profile  of  the  substances. 
Currently, should a substance that is subject to authorisation under REACH be restricted under the 
RoHS Directive for use in EEE, such application will be exempted from the REACH authorisation 
requirements. 

However,  since  REACH  is  subsequent  to  RoHS,  and  much  wider  and  elaborate  in  scope,  certain 
provisions  of  RoHS  could  be  clarified  or  further  elaborated  upon  in  the  light  of  REACH.  For 
example,  on  the  basis  of  REACH  criteria  could  be  added  on  the  basis  of  which  other  hazardous 
substances  in  EEE  could  be  further  restricted  under  Article  4(3)  of  RoHS,  91  Using  the  REACH 
model,  it  should  be  clarified  in  the  RoHS  Directive  that  the  EEE  producer  who  requests  an 
exemption under RoHS should be required to provide safety information on that particular use of 
substances in EEEs, as well as information on the available substitutes and their characteristics.  

RoHS, WEEE and the EuP Directive 

Directive  2005/32/EC92  establishes  a  framework  for  the  setting  of  ecodesign  requirements  for 
energy-using  products  and  amending  Council  Directive  94/42/EEC  and  Directives  96/57/EC  and 
2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ("EuP Directive").  

On the basis of the EuP Directive, the Commission, on the basis of a comitology procedure, could 
adopt  specific  implementing  measures  setting  specific  eco-design  requirements  for  energy-using 
products which may also be covered by the WEEE/RoHS Directives. 

Whereas  the  Commission  could  select  products  also  covered  by  the  WEEE/RoHS  Directives  as 
candidates  for  implementing  measures  under  the  EuP  Directive,  there  is  a  difference  in  approach 
between  these  Directives.  The  EuP  Directive  aims  for  improvement  of  the  energy  efficiency  but 
only where this is possible without detriment to other environmental impacts in the life-cycle of the 
product and considering economic feasibility.  

The  RoHS  Directive  requires  substitution  of  the  banned  substances  for  all  EEE  within  its  scope, 
regardless of cost-benefit considerations. Exemptions are only possible if substitution is technically 
or scientifically impracticable or whether the negative impacts of substitution outweigh the positive 
ones.  As  regards  the  hazardous  substances  the  RoHS  Directive  therefore  provides  a  more  direct 
protection of the environment and human health.  

There is a need to avoid ambiguity for those EEE potentially covered by all three Directives. With 
regard  to  substances  banned  by  the  RoHS  Directive,  ambiguity  is  avoided  because  the  EuP 
Directive  applies  without  prejudice  to  the  RoHS  Directive  (see  recital….).  With  regard  to  the 
WEEE Directive ambiguity could arise as concerns the general requirement of the WEEE Directive 
for Member States to encourage design for recycling (Article 4 of the WEEE Directive). However, 

91 

92 

While RoHS simply states that further prohibitions can be decided based on available scientific evidence, and 
the substitution of those substances by more environment-friendly alternatives which ensure at least the same 
level  of  protection  for  consumers,  without  providing  any  definition  of  these  criteria,  REACH  provides  for  a 
detailed risks identification for substances and their substitutes.  
OJ L 191, 22.7.2005, p.29 

EN 

108 

   EN 

 
                                                 
since this is general requirement, this requirement should be seen as addition to any specific design 
requirements developed under EuP.  

RoHS, WEEE and specific EU waste management legislation 

The WEEE and RoHS Directives apply without prejudice to Community legislation on safety and 
health  requirements  protecting  all  actors  in  contact  with  WEEE  as  well  as  specific  Community 
waste  management  legislation,  such  as  the  Battery  Directive93  and  the  End-of  Life  Vehicles 
Directive. 

The  Commission  has  clarified  the  links  between  these  pieces  of  legislation  in  several  guidance 
documents. For example, with respect to restrictions on the use of hazardous substances, batteries 
are covered by the provisions of the Batteries Directive94; not by the RoHS Directive. Batteries are 
only covered by the requirements of the WEEE Directive in so far batteries are still included in the 
electrical or electronic equipment at the moment of discarding. Electrical and electronic equipment 
are covered by the End-of Life Vehicles Directive in so far they are specifically designed to be used 
in vehicles, otherwise they are covered by the WEEE and RoHS Directives. 

WEEE and general EU waste management legislation 

The  WEEE  Directive  supplements  general  EU  waste  management  legislation,  such  as  the  Waste 
Framework  Directive,95  the  Landfill96  and  Incineration97  Directive.  It  refers  back  to  the  general 
definitions  set  out  in  these  Directives,  for  instance  regarding  the  definition  of  waste  and  general 
waste management operations such as recovery and disposal98 and to the general provisions of the 
Waste Shipment Regulation.99 

WEEE and the Regulation on ODS 

Regulation (EC) 2000/2037 requires that ODS contained in refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat 
pump equipment should be recovered for destruction, recycling or reclamation during the servicing 
and  maintenance  of  equipment  or  before  the  dismantling  or  disposal  of  equipment.  In  principle, 
emissions  from  equipment  covered  by  the  WEEE  directive  should  be  avoided.  However,  recent 
assessments point at weak recycling rates. Improving the recovery of ODS contained in WEEE such 
as fridges and freezers could be achieved by strengthening the provisions contained in the Directive, 
notably by inserting a standard in the form of a minimum recovery rate for ODS contained in waste 
products and equipment and by enlarging the scope of WEEE to include larger installations, such as 
commercial refrigeration and air conditioning. 

93 

94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 

Recital  10  and  Article  2  (2).  It  also  required  the  'old'  Battery  Directive  to  be  revised  in  light  of  the  WEEE 
Directive, recital 11. 
OJ L 266, 26.9.2006, p.1 
OJ L 114, 27.4.2006, p.9 
OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p.1 
OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p.91 
See Article 3 of the WEEE Directive. 
See Article 6 of the WEEE Directive. 

EN 

109 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex 10: Markets for secondary materials 

Markets of many recyclable materials are growing. WEEE items contain three main categories of 
materials: metals, glass and plastics.  

Ferrous  metals  account  for  approximately  50%  and  non-ferrous  metals  for  5%  of  WEEE  arising. 
There are stable markets for metal recycled from WEEE. Metals are easily extracted from WEEE 
and the quality of recycled metal is comparable to the quality of virgin metal.  

Displays  (particularly  cathode  ray  tubes)  account  for  the  largest  amount  of  glass  in  EEEs.  The 
technology  has  however  changed  and  flat  panel  displays  gradually  replace  CRTs  (cathode  ray 
tubes)  in  monitors  and  televisions.  The  main  market  for  recycled  CRT  glass  is  new  CRT 
manufacturing.  However  as  the  CRT  manufacturing  is  predicted  to  decline,  other  markets  for  the 
recycled glass from CRT screens will need to be identified. Potential markets can be identified, as 
for example bricks and tiles. 

Plastics  are  estimated  to  compose  20-25%  of  the  total  weight  of  WEEE.  Technologies  exist  to 
recycle  plastics  from  WEEE,  but  there  are  difficulties  with  the  environmental  and  cost  efficient 
recovery  of  plastics  due  to  the  heterogeneity  of  polymers  present.  The  market  of  recycled  plastic 
therefore  currently  seems  limited.  Nevertheless,  plastic  recycling  has  high  potential  for  energy 
saving (up to 80%) compared to primary production of plastics.100 

The  Lead  Market  initiative  of  the  European  Commission101  highlighted  the  significant  market 
potential  in  recycling,  and  that  the  barriers  to  market  development  need  to  be  addressed.  This 
initiative included the area of plastic recycling as a market with a large potential for improvement 
for  recycling  technologies.  The  Lead  Market  Initiative  proposes  an  action  plan  listing  policy 
instruments to foster recycling markets, help more and better recycling yielding environmental and 
economic gains. The actions also aim to further develop the plastic recycling market in the future.  

100 

101 

A lead market initiative for Europe Explanatory Paper on the European Lead Market Approach: Methodology 
and Rationale (Annex II) {COM(2007) 860 final SEC(2007) 1729} 
COM (2007)860 final 

EN 

110 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex 11: EEE separately collected, treated and reported 

EERA 2005 

Recupel 2006 

NVMP 2005 

ategory 

Recyc. 

Recov. 

Recyc. 

Recov. 

Incin.-e 

Landfill 

Recyc. 

Recov. 

A 

LHHA 

75-90% 

80-91% 

C&F 

80-95% 

90-98% 

SHHA 

55-80% 

65-85% 

84.3% 

77.3% 

79.7% 

A 

IT ex CRT 

65-80% 

70-90% 

79.7% 

IT CRT 

65-96% 

80-100% 

84.3% 

A 

CE ex CRT 

65-80% 

70-85% 

79.7% 

CE CRT 

70-96% 

75-100% 

84.3% 

C 

IT/ CE FDP 

Lamps 

70-80% 

74-80% 

93.3% 

Tools 

Toys 

Med. 

M&C 

40-70% 

45-85% 

50-70% 

54-70% 

70-90% 

80-90% 

65-95% 

65-95% 

Aut.Disp. 

70-80% 

80-85% 

79.7% 

79.7% 

79.7% 

79.7% 

84.3% 

84.5% 

90.7% 

83.8% 

83.8% 

86.5% 

83.8% 

86.5% 

0.0% 

83.8% 

83.8% 

83.8% 

83.8% 

84.5% 

0.1% 

1.0% 

0.9% 

0.9% 

3.6% 

0.9% 

3.6% 

0.0% 

0.9% 

0.9% 

0.9% 

0.9% 

0.1% 

N.A. 

14.7% 

8.3% 

15.4% 

15.4% 

9.3% 

15.4% 

9.3% 

6.7% 

15.4% 

15.4% 

15.4% 

15.4% 

14.7% 

77.0% 

79.4% 

67.3% 

67.3% 

83.7% 

93.2% 

67.3% 

67.3% 

67.3% 

67.3% 

76.7% 

N.A. 

79.6% 

93.0% 

72.7% 

72.7% 

93.4% 

93.2% 

72.7% 

72.7% 

72.7% 

72.7% 

80.5% 

Table:  Recycling  and  recovery  percentages  achieved  by  the  Belgian  (Recupel)  and  Dutch 
(NVMP)  producer  responsibility  organisations,  compared  to  figures  from  EERA,  the 
European Electronics Recycling Association.  

EN 

111 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 12: Options rejected during the review and in particular after the stakeholder 
consultation 

Options on collection targets: 

- 

- 

Fixed mandatory collection target for all Member States or differentiated per Member State 
expressed  in  weight  per  inhabitant  per  year  to  be  achieved  by  a  certain  date;  discarded 
because there was rather no support for a fixed collection target unless it was differentiated 
per  Member  State.  This  differentiation  would  be  able  to  respond  to  the  variations  of 
consumption  per  Member  State,  however,  seen  the  incomplete  reporting  by  MS  and  the 
unpredictability of future consumption, it would not allow flexibility.  

An  obligatory  give-back  by  collection  points  (local  municipalities,  retailers,  distributors, 
brokers,  traders,  recycling  shops,…)  to  the  producer  responsibility  organisations  (PRO's) 
or  to  individual  schemes.  This  option  was  mainly  supported  by  producers  who  do 
experience  that  not  all  WEEE  is  returning  via  the  schemes;  this  option  was  rather  not 
supported  by  municipalities  as  they  prefer  to  get  direct  revenues  from  the  collected 
fractions to compensate the costs for collection that is not compensated by producers. As 
this situation can be solved between the operators on the market, it is no longer considered 
as an option. 

Options on recycling / recovery targets: 

- 

- 

Material based targets for all WEEE or per product category; this option got only support if 
material  based  targets  would  have  been  developed  on  top  of  the  existing  targets  per 
category; most stakeholders rather linked this option to the necessary treatment operations 
that would allow achieving a high rate of material recovery as in particular for CRT glass 
and plastics. The option has further been discarded because such a target needs to be set 
with  care  as  many  parameters  influence  collection  and  hence  the  composition  of  the 
collected fraction on which such a material target is based.  

Stimulation  of  outlet  market  for  recycled  and  recovered  products,  in  particular  for 
encouraging  high  level  of  material  re-application.  Few  reactions  on  this  option  in  the 
consultation  and  the  issue  that  such  stimulation  would  mainly  happen  in  relation  to  re-
application in products, it has been discarded in the review of a piece of waste legislation. 

Options on reuse targets: 

- 

- 

Set a target for reuse of whole appliances to be achieved by a certain date; this option was 
supported  by  the  reuse  sector.  As  the  reuse  market  is  rather  limited  to  a  couple  of 
equipments rather than to all categories and the limited availability of data to set precise 
and realistic targets, this option has been discarded. Stimulation for reuse is worked out via 
another option. 

Give obligatory access for the reuse sector / organisations to collected WEEE to select that 
equipment  that  could  meet  the  criteria  for  being  reused,  refurbished  or  repaired.  Rather 
than  giving  obligatory  access,  the  development  of  reuse  criteria  was  supported  by 
stakeholders.  Such  criteria  have  been  developed  under  the  Basel  Convention  for  mobile 
phones and are in development for computing equipment. Seen the link with shipments of 
waste, the option to develop criteria under the WEEE directive was discarded. 

EN 

112 

   EN 

 
Options related to clarification of the scope: 

- 

the 

scope, 

document 
Clarifying 
by 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/faq_weee.pdf 
on  Frequently  Asked 
Questions  (FAQ);  this  option  was  largely  supported  by  stakeholders  but  was  discarded 
because this option was considered more appropriate for legally non-binding measures…  

formalising 

criteria 

used 

the 

in 

Options  related  to  the  width  of  the  scope  (inclusion,  exclusion  and  maximising  scope)  were  all 
discarded as most stakeholders did not express an opinion during the consultation and as the current 
scope was felt appropriate; additionally, the option of exclusion would be tackled under the option 
on clarification of the scope.  

Options related to the producer responsibility provisions: 

- 

through  defining 

Stimulate  eco-design 
targets  for  reusability,  recyclability  and 
recoverability  of  electrical  and  electronic  equipment.  Little  support  was  expressed  by 
stakeholders on this option. Additionally, to set such targets, much investigation would be 
needed to have appropriate measuring methods to calculate the targets. Whereas this was 
realised for vehicles in the type approval Directive, a multitude of equipments under this 
Directive would render the measure none proportionate and was therefore discarded. 

Options related to treatment requirements (introduction of standards, define "remove" and modify 
the entries in Annex II) were all discarded as they could be tackled via a comitology decision. Such 
decision is in preparation.  

An  option  to  introduce  a  de  minimis  rule  was  suggested  in  the  stakeholder  consultation.  This  de 
minimis  rule  could  be  included  to  exempt  small  producers  from  certain  requirements  and  in 
particular of the financing. A draw back of this measure is that it would factually create free-riders 
and  makes  it  more  difficult  to  enforce.  As  the  reduction  benefits  of  such  a  de  minimis  provision 
would  occur  at  national  level,  it  is  not  possible  at  this  moment  to  estimate  them.  The  current 
Directive  however  already  gives  the  Member  States  flexibility  to  use  elements  of  a  de  minimis 
approach  in  the  national  implementation  as  long  as  this  would  be  in  line  the  objectives  of  the 
Directive such as full financial producer responsibility. Member States are for instance allowed to 
report on reasoned estimates. They could therefore wave the request for detailed reporting below a 
certain size of company; and Member States could offer drastically simplified registration for very 
small companies. Therefore the option is discarded. 

EN 

113 

   EN 

 
Annex 13: Detailed cost calculation of the inter-operability option 

Cost impacts have been calculated on the basis of costs associated with various electronic databases 
associated with other regulatory measures (Ökopol 2007). 

It  is  assumed  that  the  set-up  costs  of  a  formalised  (electronic)  network  of  national  bodies  which 
allow  for  communication  about  the  registration  of  producers  and  the  amount  of  EEE  put  on  the 
market occur in year 0 and the annual operating costs are incurred from years 1 to 12. Discounting 
the annual costs of €40,000 at 4%  results in total present value costs of €375,400 for operating the 
network at a European level over 12 years. Combining these with the potential set-up costs suggests 
that  the  total  present  value  costs  of  establishing  and  operating  the  network  are  in  the  range102  of 
the  Commission  (as  it  is  the  case  for 
€495,000  to  €853,000.  These  costs  may  be  incurred  by 
comparable electronic databases, Ökopol 2007). 

On  top  of  the  formalised  electronic  network,  an  EU  clearing  house  has  to  deal  with  transfer  of 
money and of obligations. The same assumption of time span (12years) is taken to spread the set-up 
costs of the network. Discounting the annual costs of €0.8 million to €3.25 million at 4% over 12 
years results in total present value costs of €7.1 million to €30.5 million for operating the network at 
a  European  level.  Combining  these  with  the  potential  set-up  costs  indicates  that  the  total  present 
value  costs  to  the  Commission  are  in  the  range  of  €15.6  million  to  €65.5  million,  over  12  years. 
However, it should be noted that the Excise Movement and Control System103 is being developed to 
monitor the movement of products across borders; there may be the potential for a WEEE network 
to utilise this system in some way, thereby reducing the set-up and, potentially, the operational costs 
(Ökopol 2007). 

An  EU  clearing  house  will  require  an  increase  in  activities  by  Member  States  to  exchange 
information  with  other  Member  States  on  distance  sellers  and  the  export  of  second-hand  goods. 
There is currently no information on the amount of EEE sold in this way. However, assuming that it 
results  in  an  increase  of  10%  in  the  work  of  Member  States,  this  could  incur  additional 
administrative costs of €1.83 million per year, equa l to a total present value of €17 million over 12 
years (Ökopol 2007).  

However,  due  to  reduced  registration  at  Member  State  level,  reduced  registration  renewals  and 
reduced reporting for industry, cost savings can be realised. The annual costs and the total present 
values  for  national  competent  authorities  and  businesses  being  discounted  at  4%  over  12  years, 
indicate that this option could result in cost savings of €288 million to €410 million over 12 years.  

It is therefore expected that this option has positive effects on intra-EU competition by providing a 
more level playing field amongst various stakeholders (particularly for distance selling) and aiding 
cross-border enforcement of the WEEE Directive. These benefits cannot be quantified because no 
data  are  available  on  the  negative  impacts  of  the  existing  system,  due  to  the  short  time  since 
implementation. There may be increased costs for distance sellers due to the requirement to register 
in each country they sell to, which was not previously the case. However, it is not known how many 
distance sellers this would apply to. This will enforce the ‘national’ approach across all countries, 
retaining the role of importers (operating within the EU) as the ‘producer’ and therefore limiting the 
extent to which the costs of collection and treatment may influence the design of EEE.  

102 
103 

The range corresponds with the values found for different benchmarks 
See http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/common/faq/faq_2898_en.htm  

EN 

114 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Impact on administrative burden 

Finally,  for  the  setting  up  a  National  Register  or  Clearing  House,  a  considerable  percentage  of 
stakeholders  experienced  a  burden  in  carrying  out  this  activity,  especially  when  considering  that 
more than 46% do not have to deal with this activity. 93% of those who ticked an answer consider 
that the activity is needed, even if has to be carried out by competent bodies. 

When looking at availability of resources the great majority of stakeholders answered that they have 
enough resources. This was mainly because they are not carrying out this activity. 

The following issues have been identified as crucial: 

(1) 

Frequency: This impacts on the burden for reporting (the higher the frequency, the higher 
the  number  of  hours  required  to  report  and,  consequently,  higher  economic  and 
administrative burdens). On the other hand frequency of reporting could increase the control 
of the number of free-riders (a higher frequency provides more control on free-riders in the 
market,  especially  producers  that  might  enter  and  leave  a  market  in  less  than  one  year). 
When the amounts put on the market are used to define financing obligations for producers 
or compliance schemes, stakeholders have argued that, for some markets, fluctuations could 
be  very  high  and  low  frequency  of  reporting  (annual)  could  be  in-sufficient  to  precisely 
allocate obligations, 

(2) 

Basis: The weight of appliances put on the market is used in most Registers (only a couple 
of them are asking for Units). The main problem is lack of consistency in weight definition 
(i.e. including or excluding batteries, cable, accessories), 

(3)  Grouping:  The  level  of  detail  in  reporting  can  vary  because  of  the  information  that  is 
needed (e.g. Ireland, related to the Visible Fee sub-categories); other kind of grouping could 
depend on separate collection clusters (e.g. Austria), 

(4) 

Split  B2B/B2C:  The  split  of  B2B/B2C  in  reporting  varies  from  country  to  country.  The 
needed  of  split  B2B/B2C  appliances  put  on  market  and,  in  particular  the  definition  of 
B2B/B2C  have  a  great  impact  on  the  financing  aspects  of  WEEE;  especially  when  no 
defined  rules  or  criteria  are  in  place  to  differentiate  appliance  this  could  cause  potential 
asymmetry in the market due to different financing mechanism as defined by article 8 and 9 
of the WEEE Directive. In particular, when different obligations or options are in place in 
respect of: 

As  regards  the  costs  related  to  the  preferred  option,  the  following  table  shows  the  annual/one-off 
costs and total present value costs per stakeholders: 

EN 

115 

   EN 

 
Stakeholder 

Costs 

Annual 
(or 
(€ million) 

Savings (Benefits) 

one-off)

Total  Present  Value 
(discounted  at  4%  over 
Years 
1-12)
(€ million) 

Annual 
(€ 
million) 

Total Present Value (discounted at 4% 
over 
1-12)
Years 
(€ million) 

Commission 
- 
Network (one-off) 

set-up 

of 

(8.5 - 35.0) 

8.5 - 35.0 

Commission  Operating  costs 
of Network 

0.8 - 3.3 

7.1 - 30.5 

-  Operating  Costs  of 

MS 
Network 

1.2 

11.2 

MS - Reduced Registrations 

Industry 
Registration Renewals 

- 

Reduced 

Industry - Reduced Reporting 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Total 

2.0 - 4.5 

26.8 - 76.7 

Net Present Value (€ million) 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

14.9 
17.1 

- 

139.5 - 160.9 

4.6 - 5.3 

43.4 - 50.1 

19.4 
24.1 

38.9 
46.5 

- 

182.4 - 225.8 

- 

365.3 - 436.9 

288.6 - 410.1 

For  manufacturers,  it  relates  to  reduced  costs  associated  with  reduced  registration  and  reporting 
requirements for manufacturers active in more than one Member State. However, some may take on 
activities currently undertaken by importers, distributors, thereby increasing costs. Savings may be 
smaller for SMEs due to sales in fewer countries. 

EN 

116 

   EN 

 
Bibliography 

Arcadis/Ecolas  &  RPA  2008.  "Study  on  RoHS  and  WEEE  Directives",  final  report.  Via 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/environment/reports_studies/studies/study_on_rohs_and_weee_directives_fin
al_report.pdf.  

BIO 
Service 
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/weee_2008/library.  

Intelligence 

"Synthesis 

2006. 

report", 

final 

version. 

Via 

EERA  –  European  Electronics  Recyclers  Association.  2008.  "Towards  sustainable  WEEE 
recycling", 
http://www.eera-
paper. 
recyclers.com/member/files/EERA%20Report%20TOWARDS%20SUSTAINABLE%20WEEE%2
0RECYCLING%2020071224.pdf  

position 

Via 

IPTS 
of 
http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/eur22231en.pdf.  

"Implementation 

2006. 

the  WEEE  Directive 

in 

EU 

25".  Via 

Ökopol. 2007. "The producer responsibility principle of Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical 
and 
Via 
equipment 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/final_rep_okopol.pdf  

(WEEE)", 

electronic 

report. 

final 

United  Nations  University  (UNU).  2007.  "2008  review  of  Directive  2002/96/EC  on  Waste 
annexes.  Via 
Electrical 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/final_rep_unu.pdf 
and 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/final_rep_unu_annexes.pdf  

and  Electronic  Equipment 

(WEEE)", 

report 

final 

and 

WEEE  Forum.  2007.  "Key  Figures  2006",  quantitative  benchmarking.  Via  http://www.weee-
forum.org/index.php?section=services&page=services_bench&subpage=services_bench_quantitati
ve  

EN 

117 

   EN 

 
Glossary of terms 

B2B…………Business to Business  

B2C…………Business to Consumer(s) 

BAN………...Basel Action Network 

CE…………..Consumer electronics 

CE ex CRT…Consumer electronics excluding CRT screens 

CE CRT…….CRT from consumer electronics  

CE FDP……..FDP from consumer electronics  

C&F…………Cooling and Freezing 

CFC…………Chlorofluorocarbons 

CRT  Cathode Ray Tube 

EEE  Electrical and Electronic Equipment 

EU 

European Union 

EU12  The 12 States of the EU that became Member after 1 May 2004 

EU15  The 15 States of the EU Member before 1 May 2004 

EuP  Energy using Products 

FDP  Flat display panels 

HCFC Hydro chlorofluorocarbons 

LCD  Liquid Crystal Display 

LHHA Large Household appliances 

LHHA Small Large Household appliances (smaller items)  

MSW  Municipal Solid Waste 

ODS  Ozone Depleting Substances 

PBB  Polybrominated Biphenyls  

PBDE  Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers 

PCB  Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

EN 

118 

   EN 

 
POM  Put on the market 

PRO  Producer Responsibility Organisation 

REACH 

Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of Chemicals  

RoHS  Restriction on the use of Hazardous Substances 

SHA  Small Household Appliances 

IT ex CRT 

IT equipment excluding CRT screens 

IT CRT 

CRT from IT equipment 

IT FDP 

FDP from IT equipment 

SME  Small and Medium Sized Enterprise 

WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment 

EN 

119 

   EN