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) - Summary of the impact assessment {COM(2008) 810 final} {SEC(2008) 2933}
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) 2934 

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) 

Summary of the Impact Assessment 

{COM(2008) 810 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2933} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. Introduction 

SUMMARY 

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.  

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  

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'.  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: 

2020 Baseline Scenario - Collection

pom

Arising

Collection

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

Amounts (Mt)

Not separately collected

Municipal collection

Retail / distribution

Reuse centers

Independant collection

B2B collection

1 

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

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
pom

Arising

Treatment

2020 Baseline Scenario - Treatment

Dumped or landfilled

Properly treated & reported

Properly treated & non reported

Non properly treated in or out
EU

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

Amounts (Mt)

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. 
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. Options assessed 

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 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
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 

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). 

5. Impact Analysis and Comparison of Options  

The following table gives a summary of impacts of options for effectiveness 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
Option 

No change 

(Option 1) 

Greater Enforcement 

85% Collection Target 

Specific Targets 

(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 

5 

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 

6 

EN 

 
  
6. 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. 

7. 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) 

- 

- 

- 

7 

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 
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 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
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 

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 
with 
obligations, 
harmonised 
and 
for 
requirements 
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: 

–  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 

8 

   EN