EEB response to the stakeholder consultation on the review of the WEEE Directive

EEB response to the stakeholder consultation on the review of the WEEE Directive 5 June 2008 This paper presents the views of the European Environmental Bureau, the largest European federation of environmental citizen organizations on the review of directive 2002/96/EC (WEEE directive). The production of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) is one of the fastest growing and evolving domains of manufacturing industry in the Western world. It is estimated that the amount of new electrical and electronic equipment put on the EU market is around 10.3 million tonnes per year 1. This translates into major environmental challenges both in terms of resource preservation and waste management. The manufacturing of EEE has a significant impact on resource use and its associated ecological rucksack. For instance, EEE has a significant impact on the demand for metals such as silver (30% of EEE sector demand related to mine production), ruthenium (68%), copper (30%), tin (33%), antimony (50%) and indium (79%) 2. Mining of these resources is not without environmental consequences in terms of impact to climate change, damage to air, soil and water. It is therefore crucial to promote design incentives that will limit the impact on natural resource use, including facilitating reuse, dismantling and recycling of WEEE; and ensure that WEEE is effectively collected, reused and recycled. Between 8.3 and 9.1 million tonnes of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) per year is arising in the EU today. The UNU study estimates that the amount of WEEE arising will grow annually between 2.5% and 2.7 % reaching about 12.3 million tonnes in 2020. Given the hazardous content of EEE, it is crucial that they are collected separately and pre-treated to ensure protection of the environment and human health.. Unfortunately, a significant amount of WEEE generated in Europe is still escaping collection systems and exported illegally out of the EU to countries ill-equipped to manage WEEE in a way that does not harm human health and the environment. To tackle these challenges, two European Directives were adopted in 2002: Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) and Directive 2002/95/EC on the Restriction of the Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (ROHS). The Commission has launched a review of these instruments and invited comments from stakeholders. 1 UNU, 2008 Review of Directive 2002/96 on WEEE,, final report 2 C. Hagelücken, OECD-UNEP conference- resource recovery from e-scrap. 1 of 14

General objectives of the WEEE review The EEB welcomes the stakeholder consultation on the review of the Waste Electrical and Electronics Equipment Directive and particularly the Commission s stated objective to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the Directive in achieving its environmental goal. The EEB would particularly like to stress that: The current collection target of 4kg per person is problematic because it is too low to create a critical mass volume supporting substantial infrastructure. Collection is critical to ensure the proper treatment of WEEE, and the implementation of individual producer responsibility. Unfortunately, the collection target established by the WEEE Directive is sub-optimal and does not create drivers for increased collection especially of small household appliances. We recommend mandatory collection targets expressed in a percentage of collection in function of the total quantities of EEE put on national markets per product category. Provisions on the producer responsibility principle have not yet been fully implemented. In this context, the EEB believes that there is not enough evidence to modify substantially the WEEE Directive approach, i.e. a Directive whereby waste treatment provisions are linked to design incentives through individual producer responsibility. The inclusion of targets for reuse and recycling in the original Directive aims to establish drivers for these activities and create benchmarks for EEE manufacturers on recyclability/recoverability. The targets should be increased to reflect current best practice levels and added for category 8 (medical devices). Varying interpretations of definition allows processes involving combustion and using waste as chemical energy (e.g. blast furnaces in particular for plastic) to be classified as recycling operation in some countries. This creates distortions between countries and undermines the objective of the recycling targets, which is to encourage a material loop. The definition of recycling used in the Directive therefore needs to be clarified. With a view to give priority to reuse in line with the waste hierarchy and Recital 18 of the Directive, this revision should be used to establish a target for the reuse of whole appliances. The promotion of reuse in the EU should be carefully established in order to prevent illegal activities such as those using loopholes to escape the traceability of the legal framework on waste shipments to third countries. Given the likelihood of incineration facilities being classified as energy recovery in the new Waste Framework Directive, the EEB no longer supports recovery targets and would prefer establishing landfill and incineration bans. Annex II.1 of the Directive on treatment requirements is fundamental to ensure that EEE is treated in an environmentally sound manner across the EU. It also ensures that hazardous substances are removed from the WEEE and creates a link to the implementation of producer responsibility. The Directive already allows for adaptation to technical progress. The existing Annex II.1 and Article 6 should therefore be maintained. Establishing common rules for recycling treatment facilities should be developed as a complement to Annex II. 1. 2 of 14

Targets for collection, recycling and reuse Collection Options proposed by the Commission include: 1- 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; 2- Variable mandatory collection target expressed in a % of collection in function of the total quantities of EEE put on the market in preceding years in a Member State or per product category; 3- Environmental weight based collection target focussing only on the environmentally most relevant streams to be collected (or combining with the fixed or mandatory target described above); 4- An obligatory give-back by collection points (local municipalities, retailers, distributors, brokers, traders, recycling shops) to the producer responsibility organisations (PROs) or to individual schemes. EEB supports option 2-mandatory collection targets expressed in a percentage of collection in function of the total quantities of EEE put on the market per product category The current WEEE collection target of 4kg/inhabitant per year is recognised as being easily achievable, and indeed is being surpassed by many Member States, so needs to be raised considerably in order to establish more optimal collection levels. The UNU study estimates that current collected amounts varies between 25% of WEEE arising for medium sized appliances and 40% for larger appliances, while collection rates of 60% for medium sized appliances and 75% for larger appliances are feasible. From results in the UNU study, the drawbacks of the current collection targets need to be addressed in this review, including: The level of ambition of the target is too low. This very low target does not create incentive for collection and does not support the putting in place of adequate coverage of collection systems infrastructure. Some Member States are already collecting over 10kg per inhabitant per year. The target based on weight fails to provide incentives to collect lighter appliances such as lamps or small household appliances. In EU15, the target can easily be met purely by collecting white goods (category I items). The target does not take into account the high differences in WEEE arising between Member States. Countries with a high level of EEE put on the market would easily meet higher targets based on weight. This would not necessarily be the case for countries will a lower level of EEE put on the market. Option 1 proposed by the Commission will not address this issue. Collection should be maximised for all appliances and coupled with individual producer responsibility. Collection of WEEE is crucial as a first step for treatment and to maximise the preservation of resources and valuable materials. It is also a necessary step to ensure that the implementation of the producer responsibility principle lead to design 3 of 14

incentives. As such, collection targets should cover all EEE categories and not only relate to a limited number of categories considered particularly relevant (for instance, the environmental weight approach). As a result, the EEB favours the modification of the collection target approach with the establishment of mandatory collection targets expressed in a percentage of collection in function of the total quantities of EEE put on the market per product category (Option 2). The collection targets shall be fixed proportional to the amount of products put on the market in the respective Member States. The collection targets shall be defined per product category (as defined in the Annex to the WEEE Directive) (e.g. small household appliances and lamps) or per collection group ( collection group means different product categories that are collected together; those collection groups are to be defined). Special attention should be paid to the collection of lamps such as Compact-fluorescent lamps containing mercury, which will continue to increase in proportion of market sales due to their positive climate change protection potential. These must be collected, transported and treated in a such a way that avoids their breaking, hence preventing the release of mercury. In addition, the EEB would favour complementary measures such as the introduction of a depositrefund system, so that an amount of money is returned to consumers when they bring back their WEEE. Although this does not necessarily affect the text of the Directive, it does have central importance to the implementation of the Directive at Member State level. Therefore, we call on the Commission to address this proactively and foster discussions at EU level to develop a harmonised approach. Such a system would be particularly useful for small appliances such as mobile phones, giving consumers incentives to return these products. Recycling Options proposed by the Commission include: 1- Increase the current targets, for all or some categories; 2- Introduce a target for category 8 equipment (medical devices); 3- Material based targets for all WEEE or per product category; 4- Stimulation of outlet market for recycled and recovered products, in particular for encouraging high level of material re-application. EEB supports option 1 and 2: increase current targets and introduce a target for category 8 equipment Option 4: Stimulation of outlet market activities but outside the scope of WEEE directive harmonisation of recycling definition and monitoring requirements The WEEE directive provides for differentiated recovery and recycling targets for the different categories of EEE. This varies between 75% for large household appliances to 50% in the case of lamps. On option 3 and the use of material-based targets, the EEB recognises that there are benefits in using such an approach for recycling. Material-based targets take more specifically into account the different technically, environmentally and economically optimal recycling potentials and they 4 of 14

allow for greater flexibility if the material composition of products radically changes (e.g. from plastics to metal). However, within the current policy framework and with little support to recycling beyond the individual Recycling Directives, we consider such an option beyond the current review of the WEEE Directive. Material-based targets require different data collection methods from the current product or waste source approach. Further analysis is needed to understand the migration from a product- or waste stream-based system to a more horizontal, material-based one. Shifting to a material-based approach should not undermine Member States capacity for monitoring and reporting on compliance. A shift to a material-based approach is a key issue for consideration and study within the review of the Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling and needs to have clear links to the further development of the Natural Resources Strategy. EEB urges the Commission to do this higher-level work, which would in the end further support the policy framework for discussions on WEEE. In the current situation, material-based targets could weaken the producer responsibility aspects of the Directive, which we have argued need to be strengthened. Monitoring of material-based targets does not relate anymore to individual producers or product groups, rather ensures a mixture of electronics put into the shredder. Consequently, those targets may only depend on the performance of the recycling/shredding sector and not on the design efforts of producers. Therefore, in this review EEB prefers maintaining an approach per product group or category. Recent data (Recupel 2006, EEARA 2005, NVMP 2005) on recycling seem to indicate that recycling targets established by the Directive on the basis of product groups are met and could be improved to reflect best practices. Based on our analysis of these studies, the EEB suggests increasing the current recycling levels as follows: WEEE category (a) for WEEE falling under categories 1 and 10 of Annex IA, Current target for component, material and substance reuse and recycling 75% by an average weight per appliance New target* 90% by an average weight per appliance (b) for WEEE falling under categories 3 65 % by an average weight per appliance; 90 % by an average weight per appliance; and 4 of Annex IA, (c) for WEEE falling under categories 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of Annex IA, 65 % by an average weight per appliance; 50 % by an average weight per appliance; 70% by an average weight per appliance; 75 % by an average weight per appliance; *currently combines recycling and reuse, but would need to be refined to take into account separate targets for recycling and reuse of whole appliances Similarly, recent data seems to indicate that high recycling rates for category 8 medical devices are achievable. With a view to ensure all Member States capitalise on every opportunity to recycle, the EEB supports the inclusion of a target for category 8 medical devices as follows: - component, material and substance recycling shall be increased to a minimum of 65% by an average weight per appliance; However, the EEB acknowledges the need to develop a harmonised framework for the monitoring of recycling targets. Varying interpretations of definition allows processes involving combustion and 5 of 14

using waste as chemical energy (e.g. blast furnaces in particular for plastic) to be classified as recycling operation in some countries. This creates distortions between countries and undermines the objective of the recycling targets, which is to encourage a material loop. As a result, the definition of recycling should be clarified to exclude the processes involving combustion and use as chemical energy. (e) "recycling" means the reprocessing in a production process of the waste materials for the original purpose or for other purposes, but excluding, inter alia energy recovery which means the use of combustible waste as a means of generating energy through direct incineration with or without other waste but with recovery of the heat, conversion for use as a fuel, processes involving combustion or use as a source of energy, including chemical energy; The Commission also proposes to stimulate outlet market for recycling (option 4). The EEB agrees that such activities are important to assist the recycling sector in particular for plastics recycling. However, these activities should not fall within the scope of the WEEE Directive and are already considered in parallel by the European Commission for instance within the Lead Market Initiative. In addition, the EU could explore how to promote the use of recycled material in new EEE, as part of a larger assessment of policies promoting use of recycled materials in manufacturing. 6 of 14

Reuse Options highlighted by the Commission include: 1- Set a target for reuse of whole appliances to be achieved by a certain date; 2- Include the reuse of whole appliances in the current or increased components, material and substance reuse and recycling targets; 3- 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. EEB preferred option: 1 and 3: target for reuse of whole appliances and obligatory access for the reuse sector to collected WEEE The EEB favours option 1 and 3 to ensure that reuse is effectively promoted, separately from recycling activities and promoting social enterprise activities. Despite the fact that the WEEE Directive already give priority to reuse (Recital 18), it does not provide the necessary incentives to promote the reuse and refurbishment of whole appliances and to monitor these activities. Without a common EU target on the reuse of whole appliances, there will continue to be little incentives to monitor reuse. Today, reuse and repair activities are not yet properly reported. RREUSE networks have compiled a selection of data in several Member States suggesting that current levels of reuse can reach 30% in cases of optimal collection (Belgium). RREUSE has proposed an initial overall reuse target of 10% of weight of WEEE collected, which EEB supports. The promotion of reuse will create employment opportunities and benefit the whole social economy. The lack of access to the WEEE-stream by reuse networks is currently undermining reuse and refurbishment activities. By giving obligatory access for the reuse sector to all first collection sites to select that WEEE that could meet the criteria for being reused, refurbished or repaired, the reuse possibilities would be optimised. In addition to the options proposed by the Commission, the review of the WEEE directive should provide an opportunity to establish quality assurance systems, including a common methodology to assess the cut-off point beyond which it is no longer optimal to reuse. The development of an agreed methodology is crucial to ensure that energy efficiency improvements from new appliances are not used as justification to create obstacles to reuse. Alternatives to recovery targets Considering the likelihood of the future EU Waste framework directive allowing the classification of municipal waste incinerators as an operation of energy recovery, the EEB no longer supports mere recovery targets that would not be complemented by a ban on incineration of electrical and electronic equipment. As an alternative to recovery targets, this review should explore the opportunity of establishing an incineration and landfill ban of WEEE. 7 of 14

Scope of the WEEE Directive Clarification of the scope Options proposed by the Commission include: 1- Clarifying the scope, by formalising criteria used in the document http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/faq_weee.pdf on Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ); 2- Clarifying the scope by using a fixed list of products falling under the scope or falling outside the scope (negative list), updated through the Comitology process; 3- Classifying categories of equipment as being WEEE from private households (B2C) or as being WEEE from users other than private households (B2B); 4- Define the scope under the RoHS Directive and refer to it in the WEEE Directive. EEB supports a clarification of the scope provided that the level of environmental protection is maintained Extension of the scope Options proposed by the Commission include: 1- The inclusion of (other) types of products/product categories in the scope; 2- Maximise the scope to all EEE (also above 1000Volt AC or 1500Volt DC) and to spare parts and components; 3- The exclusion of types of products/product categories from the scope. EEB supports option 1-inclusion of other types of products/product categories. The EEB supports a clarification of the scope of the Directive as long as it does not impact the ambition level of the WEEE Directive to protect the environment. It supports a link between the WEEE and the RoHS Directive as well as the principle of extending the scope of RoHS to cover all EEE. The extension of RoHS to all EEE would provide a strong signal to operators by working towards the removal of blanket exemptions. The EEB believe the scope of the directive should progressively be extended. Appliances that do not necessarily consume electricity could be covered. The WEEE directive could include a new category for battery chargers and generators. In addition, all mobile products containing electrical and electronic equipment with batteries and accumulators (except those covered by the End-of-Life Vehicles directive) should be included. This would include products like electronic greeting cards, shoes equipped with lamps and batteries etc. The EEB also recommends examining whether photovoltaic modules shall be included in the scope of the Directive. This would be important in case the voluntary system by producers failed to 8 of 14

achieve significant results. Mobile products containing photvoltaic elements to produce power should be covered. The EEB would not favour any additional blanket exemptions to the scope of the WEEE directive (option 3), as this would directly impact the level of ambition of the directive. Operation of the Producer Responsibility Provisions Options proposed by the Commission include: 1- Bring the provisions under a different legal basis like provisions related to the scope, definitions, and product requirements in the legislative text under Art. 95 of the Treaty and provisions related to targets, stakeholder responsibilities and waste treatment under Art. 175 of the Treaty, aligning at the same time definitions (e.g. with the recently proposed package on the "marketing of products" or other Community legislation such as the electromagnetic compatibility or low voltage Directives); 2- Harmonise the implementation of the allocation of financial responsibility, the frequencies and formats of reporting, the registration and the making information available; 3- Stimulate eco-design through defining targets for reusability, recyclability and recoverability of electrical and electronic equipment. EEB supports a mix of options that would facilitate the proper implementation of individual producer responsibility (IPR), drive ecodesign, and encourage a more optimal working of the implementation of the Directive across all EU countries As highlighted in the Ökopol study 3, provisions on the producer responsibility principle have not yet been fully implemented by all the Member States. In this context, the EEB believes that there is not enough evidence to modify substantially the WEEE Directive approach, i.e. a Directive whereby waste treatment provisions are linked to design incentives through individual producer responsibility. The Ökopol study shows that the principle is not implemented in a way that allows at least Article 8.2 of the Directive to be enforced. Presently in some Member States, producers do not have free choice between individual approaches and collective approaches because individual approaches are discriminated: In several Member States the participation in a collective system is seen as sufficient financial guarantee. Producers that want to realise an individual approach must set up an own financial guarantee which is more expensive. In some Member States the collection of B2C WEEE is financed by the municipalities. Producers that want to run individual systems often cannot participate in this supported system because the amenity sites do not have enough space. Thus producers with individual approaches must finance the collection on their own. The EEB has submitted a separate joint response to this question as part of the NGO and industry alliance for Individual Producer Responsibility, in annexe to this paper. 3 Okopol, The producer responsibility principle of Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)", 2007 9 of 14

In addition, the EEB would like to recommend that the Commission take the opportunity of this review to explore the potentials for tagging of EEE to facilitate the implementation of the individual producer responsibility principle. Any work in this area should take into consideration the need to respect personal privacy to reflect on concerns already expressed by consumer organisations. Treatment Requirements Options proposed by the Commission include: 1- Introduce the development of treatment standards; 2- Include a definition of "remove"; 3- Modify the entries of the current list in Annex II.1 to the Directive in function of technical progress including a reference to the exemptions granted under the RoHS Directive to ensure that for those applications, the hazardous components, parts and substances are removed. EEB supports maintaining the existing Annex II.1 and article 6. The current WEEE directive allows for the update of Annex II. 1 by comitology to reflect technical progress. Annex II.1 of the WEEE Directive on treatment requirements is fundamental to ensure that EEE is treated in an environmentally sound manner across the EU. It also ensures that hazardous substances are removed from the WEEE and creates a link to the implementation of producer responsibility. Article 6 prescribes a treatment of WEEE using best available treatment, recovery and recycling techniques and as a minimum treatment the removal of all fluids and a selective treatment in accordance with Annex II. The current wording remove rightly implies that the substances, preparations and components listed in Annex II.1 have to be separately removed from WEEE appliances prior to further treatment ( recovery or disposal ) of the WEEE. This explicitly excludes the automatic treatment of WEEE (treatment of WEEE containing the substances, preparations and components listed in Annex II.1 in shredder without prior removal or extraction of those substances, preparations and components). The WEEE directive already provides for a mechanism to reflect technical progress and update Annex II.1 through a comitology procedure. For the purpose of environmental protection the WEEE directive provides the possibility for Member States to set up additional minimum quality standards. As such, the EEB does not see the value of modifications to Annex II.1 and article 6 and therefore rejects these proposals. However, due to widely differing quality in recycling standards in Member States and the resulting potential environmental impacts from the treatment of WEEE in general and some WEEE appliance types in particular there is in addition to the existing minimum treatment requirements laid down in Annex II.1 a need to discuss and define the best available techniques for the treatment of certain types of WEEE. Among other WEEE appliance types, such guidance would be helpful and necessary for gas discharge lamps, (glass) monitors, flat screens (liquid crystal displays) and refrigeration appliances. For more information, please contact: Nathalie Cliquot, EU Waste and Product Policy Officer, European Environmental Bureau, Nathalie.cliquot@eeb.org, T:+32 2 2891097 10 of 14

ANNEXE : Joint submission concerning point 3.3 The Operation of the Producer Responsibility Provisions in the Stakeholder Consultation on the Review of Directive 2002/96/ec of the European parliament and of the Council on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Overview In summary this submission will explain why the following articles and recitals need to be maintained in the WEEE Directive, that these articles should be under legal basis 95 of the Treaty, and that the transposition into Member State legislation need to be improved: - Article 8, and in particular article 8.2 (producers financially responsible for the end-of-life management of their own products) - Article 11.2 (product marking) - Recitals 12, 19, 20 (individual producer responsibility and its role as an incentive for improved product design) The Commission states under consultation pt 3.3 that Member States have significant flexibility in their application of the various elements of producer responsibility. There is evidence that this flexibility leads to a variable (and hence not optimal) contribution to the improvement of the environmental performance of operators and systems as regards organisational responsibilities (collection take-back and treatment), financial responsibilities, products (labeling and eco-design) and information (to treatment operators, consumers and authorities including reporting and registration). We fully agree that the producer responsibility of the WEEE Directive is not harmonised and that this leads to a non optimal situation. Even more critical, there is a risk that one of the main objectives of the Directive is not fulfilled, namely to establish an incentive for producers to design products that are easier to recycle. Full transposition of Article 8.2 into Member State legislation is essential. Detailed comments Maintaining articles 8, 11.2 and recitals 12, 19 and 20 in the WEEE Directive a) Establishing an incentive for good product design The Individual Producer Responsibility (IPR) as established by article 8.2 of the WEEE Directive (and recitals 12,19 and 20) enables end-of-life costs to be fed back to the individual producer. This provides an incentive for producers to design their products so that they are easier and therefore less costly to recycle. By modifying the product design, the producer can directly influence the end of life properties of the product. Without Individual Producer Responsibility these incentives for design improvements would be lost. In Japan the high level of individual producers involvement in, and control over recycling systems has led to the following benefits (Source: Naoko Tojo (2006) EPR program for EEE in Japan): Use of Design for Environment assessment tools including end-of-life phase Marking of materials and locations for ease of dismantling Unification of materials (plastics, magnetic alloys) Reduction of the number of components and screws Standardisation of screws Increased use of recycled plastics in new components Development of recycling technologies Separation of various types of plastics Tools for ease of manual dismantling Communication between recyclers and designers References: Tojo 2004 Extended Producer Responsibility as a Driver for Design Change Utopia or Reality? IIIEE Dissertations 2004:2. Lund: IIIEE, Lund University and Rossem, Tojo and Lindqvist 2006 Extended Producer Responsibility. An examination of its impact on innovation and greening products. b) Discourage design of products that makes recycling more difficult or costly Without the Individual Producer Responsibility (article 8.2) of the WEEE 11 of 14

Directive, producers would become collectively responsible for treating WEEE. With Collective Producer Responsibility there can be no differentiation of the recycling costs according to how easy the product is to recycle. Recycling cost would be split between producers based on their market share or other sharing mechanisms. Therefore collective responsibility does not provide any incentive for producers to design products to be easier to recycle. Collective Producer Responsibility creates a situation whereby producers only focus on minimising production and purchase costs for components and materials and attach less importance to the recycling properties of their products. With Collective Producer Responsibility, if a product design choice is made that makes a product more difficult and costly to recycle, the extra effort and cost for treating that product would be distributed onto all producers. The producer of this product would not be concerned as the cost increase for recycling that product would impact him in a neutral way. All his competitors would be exposed to the same cost increase which means that the negative feed back from the recycling is diluted on all. This can create a downward spiral, whereby the high price and cost pressure on producing new products leads to product design that becomes ever more difficult and expensive to recycle. There is a range of implementation options for Individual Producer Responsibility available that illustrate its feasibility. This was confirmed by Ökopol, in their recent report to the European Commission. Ökopol stated on page XX: The alternatives are, in light of on-going efforts of producers, highly feasible One such example is Return share IPR that is currently in operation in the state of Maine in the USA and will soon be operational in Washington as well as Connecticut and Oregon. Return share enables producers to start to reap the benefits of the real costs of their own products or bear the real impacts of any recycling unfriendly design. Reply to the questions in the Stakeholder consultation document b) The Commission asks in pt 3.3 of the consultation document which of the following harmonisation and eco-design stimulation options we favour most (or least and why) preferably with quantified justifications: 1- Bring the provisions under a different legal basis like provisions related to the scope, definitions, and product requirements in the legislative text under Art. 95 of the Treaty and provisions related to targets, stakeholder responsibilities and waste treatment under Art. 175 of the Treaty, aligning at the same time definitions (e.g. with the recently proposed package on the "marketing of products" or other Community legislation such as the electromagnetic compatibility or low voltage Directives); 2- Harmonise the implementation of the allocation of financial responsibility, the frequencies and formats of reporting, the registration and the making information available; 3- Stimulate eco-design through defining targets for reusability, recyclability and recoverability of electrical and electronic equipment. We wish to underline that we do not see these three options as either/or options. They are complementary. In more detail we have the following comments. 1- Bring the provisions under a different legal basis like provisions related to the scope, definitions, and product requirements in the legislative text under Art. 95 of the Treaty and provisions related to targets, stakeholder responsibilities and waste treatment under Art. 175 of the Treaty, aligning at the same time definitions (e.g. with the recently proposed package on the "marketing of products" or other Community legislation such as the electromagnetic compatibility or low voltage Directives); We support that articles relating to definitions and product requirements, such as Article 11.2 regarding product marking, as well as the producer responsibility (article 8) should be changed to legal basis article 95 of the Treaty. We support that the definitions (Article 3) of the WEEE Directive, in particular the definition of producer is under legal base article 95. However, the wording 12 of 14

of the producer definition as it stands is not satisfactory. It is essential to have a definition that avoids the dilution of the bearing of responsibility by the entity that has the best control over the manufacture of the product and its characteristics. However, specifying Article 95 basis for these articles can not replace the Commission and Member States continuing to improve the current transposition situation, see below. 2(1)- Harmonising the implementation of the allocation of financial responsibility One of the main provisions of the WEEE Directive, producer responsibility, has not been transposed correctly (in line with Article 8.2 of the WEEE Directive) by a number of member states (10 out of 25 according to our assessments). These 10 Member States (Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Latvia, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, UK) have failed either to transpose or implement the provisions of article 8.2 (see relevant FAQ section on www.iprworks.org). The potential for realising economic incentives to encourage producers to focus on product design for easier recycling is thus absent in these countries. This jeopardises the fulfilment of one of the main objectives of the Directive namely to establish an incentive for producers to design products for easier recycling. This analysis was further substantiated by Ökopol, Lund, RPA and Arcadis in their reports to the European Commission. We stress the need for harmonisation of the transposition and implementation of Producer Responsibility. In particular as stated above we support the full transposition and implementation of Individual Producer Responsibility as specified by Article 8.2 of the WEEE Directive and swift infringement procedures by the Commission towards those countries that have not transposed this article correctly. We recall that recital 19 of the WEEE Directive highlights the need for harmonization regarding financing of recycling of WEEE (producer responsibility): Basic principles with regard to the financing of WEEE management have to be set at Community level... To this end we suggest that the Commission publishes a guidance document that gives recommendation for the establishment and operation of recycling systems, especially concerning the elements that ensure that individual producer responsibility is feasible and no barriers to its implementation exist (see FAQ at http://www.iprworks.org/about.asp#top). 2(2)- Harmonising the implementation of the frequencies and formats of reporting, the registration and how to make the information available We support the harmonisation of reporting (frequencies and format) as well as the registration and information requirements. This is necessary to: ensure all producers including retailers and importers who may bear the same responsibilities as producers and all level and pathways of recycling including the so called informal sector are covered assess the overall volume of EEE put on the EU market, which is needed to determine the responsibilities for historical waste between the producers and recycling systems assess the volumes of WEEE treated and verify that WEEE requirements are fulfilled secure that EEE products can circulate freely on the common market. minimise missing data and enable a more precise assessment of the leak rate i.e. escape of WEEE to the informal sector or for (il)legal export If legal base 95 can improve the harmonization of reporting (frequencies and format) as well as the registration and information requirements, we would support legal base 95 for these issues as well. 3- Stimulate eco-design through targets for reusability, recyclability and recoverability We fully support that design for recycling should be promoted and stimulated. The Individual Producer Responsibility of article 8.2 is providing a very important incentive for producers which stimulates and promotes producers to 13 of 14

improve the design for recycling of their products. This is confirmed by the recently published Arcadis report, commissioned by the EU Commission Directorate for industry. Clear legal targets and requirements for product design, such as the EU RoHS Directive, will of course also improve the situation. Targets and requirements however set minimum legal requirements for market access of products and as such they do not stimulate innovation beyond the level of the requirement. Thus we do not see targets and requirements as alternative policy tools to Individual Producer Responsibility but as a different and complimentary tool. Individual Producer Responsibility constitutes an incentive for companies to go beyond the minimum legal requirements. 14 of 14