Public consultation on the evaluation of the WEEE Directive
Main viewpoints of the Netherlands – 15 September 2023

The Netherlands welcomes the public consultation on the evaluation of the WEEE
Directive and strongly supports a comprehensive scope of this evaluation, taking into
account the f ull lif e cycle of electric and electronic products f rom design to reuse and
recycling. We are happy to provide our views on specif ic topics.
In recent years the rate in which electrical and electronic products are manuf actured,
purchased, and discarded has increased the waste f rom electrical products (e-waste).
WEEE legislation and management is crucial in order to handle the negative impacts of
waste electrical and electronical equipment on the environment by avoiding unnecessary
emissions and by aiming at retaining important resources. The Netherlands consider the
current implementation of the WEEE Directive as being a solid f oundation that offers the
opportunity f or taking f urther steps by the e-waste sector in contributing to the circular
economy. We think those f urther steps are urgently needed in order to minimize our
environmental f ootprint and preventing e-waste whenever possible.
The current WEEE Directive leaves room f or dif f erent interpretations by individual
Member States on how to transpose the legislation at their national level. As a result, the
obligations and conditions stakeholders face in each Member State vary, contributing to
an uneven playing f ield. As a way f orward we think the chosen approach f or the
Batteries Regulation could also very well be applicable to WEEE, meaning a regulation
as legislative concept and dealing with all aspects in the lif e cycle of EEE with regard to
due diligence, sustainability, extended producer responsibility, waste management and
conf ormity.
The Netherlands suggest to pay attention to the f ollowing aspects f or which national
implementation has been particularly challenging and f or which an uptake in ef f ort is
needed as well as instrumental improvements:
Definitions and scope
Depending on the stakeholder, authority or member state, some EEE could either f all
within the scope of the national implementations of the WEEE Directive or not, obviously
leading to conf usion. Def initions of subjects in the regulation should not be open to
multi-interpretation by individual member states or commercial institutions and as a
result sometimes leading to problems in the proper treatment of WEEE. Special attention
should be given to the issue of components as components are now not considered to be
WEEE even though they may contain rare materials and substances of (very) high
concern.
So, a thorough examination of def initions and scope should be considered aiming at
more clarity and unif orm interpretation. An EU-wide standardization of the scope of
products/ equipment can possibly create a level playing f ield in terms of the applicable
regulations of the WEEE Directive especially on waste management, producer
responsibility and the comparability of collection and recovery targets.

1

Design requirements
In context of the European Green Deal and the EU Circular Economy Action Plan, only a
comprehensive lif e cycle approach f or electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) will be
able to ef f ectively and sustainably address the current challenges with regard to climate
change and resource ef f iciency. Theref ore, the (f uture) requirements f or EEE design
(e.g., ESPR, RoHS) and WEEE management (WEEE Directive) should be intertwined and
should complement one another in a coherent way.
In that regard, horizontal general design requirements f or all electrical equipment should
be considered. The f ocus should be on designing all EEE products in such a way that
spare parts can be easily removed and replaced and general repairability is enhanced.
Furthermore, design f or recycling should be promoted by means of binding recycled
content targets f or relevant materials like plastics and certain metals in order to realize
high-quality recycling of WEEE. Some more practical options on better design f or easier
and saf er dismantling could f or instance include an increase in the use of mechanical
binding practices in all EEE, limit the gluing and welding of components as much as
possible, and ensure batteries included in EEE are always removable and not built-in.
Right to Repair
The policy of ’right to repair’ should be applied wherever possible and especially also to
(W)EEE. Aiming at open access to specif ic repair inf ormation and spare parts f or all
actors, including repair companies as well as consumers. Also, a mandatory repair index
could be sensible to enable the identif ication of durable and repairable products by
customers.
Eco-modulation of fees
Application of the modulation of EPR f ees based on durability, reparability, recyclability
or recycled content etcetera, are not a common practice at the moment. The general
hesitation to apply eco-modulation should be researched and especially a mandatory EU
wide harmonized approach should be considered. In our opinion eco-modulation of the
f ees should be designed in a way that is conducive to the application of the waste
hierarchy by ensuring that f inancial support f or tonnage collected f or preparation f or reuse is higher than f or tonnage collected f or recycling.
Targets for separate collection of WEEE
The purpose of a collection target is to ensure that a large part of the quantities placed
on the market that becomes waste, are properly collected as WEEE. WEEE collection
targets have proven to be dif f icult to achieve in many EU member states. The current
main method based on 65% of Put on Market (PoM) and a calculation method of setting
the collection quantity in relation to the average quantity placed on the market over the
last 3 years, is increasingly experienced as problematic. A large amount of new EEE
placed on the market becomes waste much later than af ter 3 years; this applies in
particular to a large part of the equipment in categories 1, 2 and 4 and equipment f rom
users other than private households. Also the current 65% target to collect WEEE mainly
f or the purpose of recycling has a negative ef f ect on policies f or repair and repurpose
according to the circular economy. As a measure, it is theref ore suggested that the
choice f or setting targets and subsequently the calculation methodology f or the collection
rate, be reviewed.

2

In that regard we suggest to shif t the f ocus to the alternative target already of f ered by
the WEEE Directive, which is based on WEEE generated. A target related to the specif ic
e-waste production in a member state on a yearly basis, seems a more logic choice. So,
f ollowing the Batteries regulation (article 59 and 60) the introduction of a method based
on available f or collection (AfC) should be considered. Also, the introduction of separate
targets f or separate categories could be studied. Either way, in the setting of targets the
long lif espan of certain types of EEE as mentioned above, should be taken into account.
Re-use and preparing for re-use
Improving collection should be a priority area f or the new revision of the WEEE Directive
as many member states are currently struggling to meet the collection targets set out in
Article 6 of the WEEE Directive. To be ef f ective and provide the expected social,
environmental and economic benefits, collection should prioritize preparation f or re-use
by separating WEEE depending on the chosen end-of-life option, in accordance with the
waste hierarchy. This is because WEEE meant to be prepared f or reuse should be
handled more caref ully in order to saf eguard their reusability during collection,
transportation and storage.
The assessment of the reusability of a WEEE item must be obligatory f or all collected
WEEE without exceptions and happen at the earliest stage possible bef ore it is mixed
with recyclables. It is important to better def ine responsibilities in terms of reuse. So,
the current article 6 should be revised in order to make clear that reusable products
should be collected in a way that saf eguards their reusability. In this regard easily
available inf ormation f or the public including inf ormation and directions for repair and reuse would make sense. Also targets that are separate f rom collection and recycling
objectives should be considered.
Policies should encourage the donation of these products to reuse social enterprises out
of the waste regime, or consumers prolonging the lif etime of their products through
repair. The revision of the WEEE Directive should stimulate waste prevention and
preparing f or reuse targets. However in practice, it is of ten dif f icult to distinguish
between ‘reuse’ and ‘preparation f or reuse’ so appropriate def initions would be an
essential prerequisite.
The standard EN50614 f or preparation f or re-use of WEEE should be the baseline f or
improving the provisions in the f uture revision. SMEs and social enterprises of ten lack
the resources to cover the compliance costs and f ulf ill the reporting obligations
associated with standards. Ensuring that integrating relevant provisions in EU legislation,
the quality of separate collection can be increased without resulting in a rising
administrative burden f or SMEs.
Take back schemes
Taking into account the dependency on consumer behavior f or maximizing the separate
collection of WEEE, the introduction of specific take-back-schemes f or delivering WEEE to
the designated collection system correctly, should be considered. In that regard, the
recent ‘Study on options for return schemes of mobile phones, tablets and other small
electrical and electronic equipment in the EU’ f rom the Commission concludes that
instruments that results in the highest estimated environmental, economic and social
cumulative impacts are financial incentives, deposit-return systems and targets f or re-

3

use. The study also mention several other options, or the combined application of
options, f or stimulating and improving the correct return of WEEE.
Furthermore, the 400m² threshold in Article 5 is considered difficult to recognize and to
enf orce, as it is linked to the sales area relating to EEE, which can only be verif ied in
individual cases and with high ef f ort. Even if the size of the entire store would be the
decisive f actor, a consumer probably would not know f or sure whether a return
obligation would apply. Theref ore we suggest a mandatory specif ication of a unif orm
collection point label that allow consumers to easily spot proper collection points. In
addition, expanding the def inition of very small WEEE, which are taken back without the
obligation to buy EEE of an equivalent type, would be benef icial. It is particularly
important to address the responsibility of online retailers in a more binding and specif ic
manner since they sell most of EEE, but only take back small amounts of WEEE. To
f acilitate convenient return of WEEE, the take-back obligation should be extended to a
larger number of distributers.
Proper treatment of WEEE
Treatment requirements should be updated according to current challenges due to
recent developments of WEEE treatment technologies as well as of EEE design and
composition. In addition, preparation f or reuse should be strengthened and high quality
recycling enhanced. We consider the use the CENELEC standards as a baseline f or
modern EU-wide requirements. These standards go back to a mandate of the EU
Commission to enhance treatment of WEEE and have already been made mandatory in
some member states. The standards of CENELEC f or treatment of WEEE (EN 50625
series) provide a secure level of proper treatment of all WEEE, so integrating the
provisions f rom these standards as mandatory into the regulation should be considered.
Annex VII on selective treatment
Since the publication of the WEEE Directive, several publications indicate a larger
amount of hazardous components in WEEE than mentioned in Annex VII of the directive,
are not depolluted properly. Especially substances of (very) high concern are a thread to
the circular economy so mandatory removal of components with these substances f rom
WEEE prior to size reduction should be usual. Therefore an update on the materials and
the components as listed in Annex 7 is relevant and should be considered.
Furthermore we suggest to def ine certain components and materials which have to be
separated before mechanical shredding in Annex VII of the WEEE Directive (Selective
treatment requirements) to avoid their destruction to prevent a potential contamination
of output f ractions, a f ire risk and/or the loss of valuable raw materials, e.g. separation
of batteries, which can be removed with commonly available tools, bef ore mechanical
shredding.
Recycling and recovery targets
The digital transition will need more metals f or electronic products, being that basic
metals (e.g. copper, aluminium), precious metals (e.g. silver, gold, palladium) and
technology metals (e.g. silicon, germanium, indium). Hence, upcoming revision of the
WEEE Directive is instrumental to deliver as much materials as possible f rom the
secondary sources and to meet objectives of the EU Circular Economy.

4

In the current legislation recycling and recovery targets are f ocused on weight-based
metrics. Targets that are f ocused more on quality rather than solely quantity should be
considered. Recovery targets regulated in Article 11 of the current WEEE Directive should
be more tailored to specif ic product types and should grant f lexibility around the
methodologies implemented to reach and promote greater recovery of key critical raw
materials (CRMs) and a higher capture and removal of toxic and hazardous substances
and f ractions. To enhance resource efficiency we suggest to introduce recycling targets
f or plastics and to introduce a separation requirement f or rare-earth magnets at least
f rom linear motors, f rom hard disks and f rom motors of e-bikes bef ore mechanical
shredding with subsequent f eeding into a recycling process. Targets should be set f or
minimum reclamation ef f iciency f or several high value materials and CRMs.
Recycling target f or WEEE could also be complemented by requirements f or recyclability,
quality requirements f or recyclates, and mandatory targets f or the use of recyclates. This
should be mutually taken into account in the Ecodesign f or Sustainable Products
Regulation(ESPR) and the revision of the WEEE Directive.
We suggest to introduce separation requirements before or af ter shredding f or metals to
avoid downcycling ef f ects f or certain materials like aluminium or copper in the steel
f raction.
End of Waste criteria
Treatment of WEEE is an international business with of ten complex chains of treatment
operators. This makes downstream monitoring of treatment in order to ensure the
compliance of the recovery targets in article 11, dif f icult to verif y. The possibility of
taking up specif ic end-of -waste criteria should be considered in this regard.
Online sales
Imports f rom third country sellers notably through online marketplaces, are of ten
subject to evading the producer responsibilities obligations f or WEEE and consequently
risking violation of environmental and saf ety rules. Therefore the introduction of liability
and due diligence obligations f or online platf orms in WEEE should be considered. For
example, there is a need f or a compulsory verif ication of producers also by online
marketplaces and f ulfilment service providers to prevent f ree riders from third countries
within the legislation f or (W)EEE.
The ef f ective enf orcement of the existing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR),
including with regard to producers established outside the EU and operating in the
internal market, is essential f or both environmental and competitive reasons. Holding
online marketplace operators and f ulfillment service providers accountable should be the
main approach f or non-EU producers' compliance with EU rules.
Export of used EEE
EEE is (increasingly) being given a second lif e as used equipment. Some of this used
equipment are also exported to (non-EU) countries. At the same time, there is no
reporting obligation f or used equipment and the quantities of used equipment cannot be
monitored. Meaningful quantif ication by means of f oreign trade statistics is complicated.
Transporting electronic across borders can be very challenging. The reason f or
this is, that there is no clear def inition f or when electronics is waste and when it is
still a product. Export to third countries of used EEE of low quality that turns into waste
quickly should be restricted to avoid the negative local impact. Theref ore specif ic
requirements for shipment of items f or re-use should be considered to essentially rule
5

out illegal exports of e-waste. The current Annex VI of the WEEE Directive should be
made more specif ic.
International dimension of EPR
Used EEE that have been shipped to other countries f or f urther re-use will have to be
properly treated when reaching their end-of-lif e in receiving countries (within or outside
the EU), compensation of this burden should be ensured within the EPR scheme in a
global context and by means of f inancial- or material support or targets, whichever is
most appropriate. For example a sensible approach could be to make producers
responsible f or f inancing and organizing the separate collection and treatment of
exported used EEE that have becomes e-waste in third countries lacking EPR f acilities.
Several reports are available providing insight in the nature of the issue and containing
option f or solutions (we ref er to the f ollowing reports: EEB/Circular Innovation Lab –
Study on items shipped for reuse and EPR fees, Copernicus Institute – Ultimate Producer
Responsibility for e-waste and Policy Brief – Blueprint for Ultimate Producer
Responsibility).
Informing consumers
Producers and distributors of EEE should provide inf ormation to users on the f act that
EEE should be returned to a collection point at the end of their usef ul lif e and the
dif f erent collection schemes available. In addition, all actors obligated f or WEEE takeback, should provide more specific inf ormation f or consumers about disposal of WEEE
(e.g. posters, pictures, written inf ormation) at the collection/take-back points or points
of sale, by means of clearly visible and legible written or pictorial signs placed in the
direct line of sight of the customer main aisles.
We suggest to implement a mandatory specif ication of a unif ied collection/take-back
point label. This label can help the consumers to easily spot all collection/take-back
points f or WEEE. The label should be mandatory used by all actors who are obligated f or
WEEE collection and take-back. Finally, disclosure of inf ormation to all users should
make use of modern inf ormation technologies such as f ree of charge websites and social
media awareness campaigns. All these activities should be organised and f inanced by
extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes.

6