STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ON THE REVIEW OF DIRECTIVE 20002/96/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL ON THE WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT (WEEE) Alliance TICS is the French Trade Union for information technology, communication and related services (TICS). Alliance TICS represents more than sixty companies with a total of 27 billion Euros turnover and 70 000 employees and represents a powerful vehicle of economic growth. Alliance TICS has worked a lot on the French transposition of the WEEE directive and would like to submit its contribution to the public consultation on the review of this directive. Alliance TICS is member of Orgalime and EICTA and thus generally in line with their contributions. But, we welcome the opportunity to express our view, especially regarding the specific situation in France for the implementation of the visible fee and its consequences on categorisation. 3 ISSUES FOR CONSULTATION 3.1 TARGETS 3.1.1 Targets on collection Option 1: Fixed mandatory collection target Option 2 : I Variable mandatory collection target Option 3 : Environmental weight based collection target Alliance TICS position Option 4 : obligatory give-back by collection points General comments: The UNU reports have shown very clearly that one of the priorities of the WEEE revision process should be to collect and recycle higher volumes of WEEE. Especially the big differences in collection rates between the member states raised questions on where the non reported WEEE ends up. Alliance TICS believes that answering this question is essential before any decisions can be made on the target setting process in the WEEE directive. This should be obtained by increasing reporting parameters to all stakeholders (and not only producers) involved in the recycling of WEEE. 1
Option 1: Alliance TICS believes that fixed mandatory collection target for Member States, differentiated per Member State would be a good solution to ensure that differences in sales volumes and collection infrastructure per member state are taken into account. Option 4: Alliance TICS supports the obligatory give-back by collection points to the producer responsibility organisations (PRO's) or to individual schemes as this would solve the problem of a lack of visibility of the streams that are treated and collected. If all collected WEEE is given back to producer responsibility organisations (PRO's) or to individual schemes this would ensure that the reported collection volumes reflect the actual recycled volumes in that member state. However that option could be detrimental to other legal and efficient waste collection and treatment organizations operating thanks to products recycling value. On addition, that option might not be easy to enforce. 3.1.2 Targets for recovery, component, material and substance reuse and recycling Option 1: Increase the current targets, for all or some categories. Option 2: Introduce a target for category 8 equipment (medical devices); Option 3: Material based targets for all WEEE or per product category; Option 4 Stimulation of outlet market for recycled and recovery No position No position No position Option 3 : Alliance TICS does not support this option. We do not think that option 3 which suggest material based targets would lead to an improvement of the Directive, but in fact would certainly lead to additional complexity and administrative burden. 3.1.3 Targets for reuse of whole appliances Option 1: Set a target for reuse of whole appliances to be achieved by a certain date. Option 2: Include the reuse of whole appliances in the current or increased components, material and substance reuse and recycling targets. Option 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. Alliance TICS position 2
General comments: Alliance TICS supports the reuse of electronic products providing it is beneficial for the environment, which is not always the case since old products typically have higher power consumption than newest ones. Alliance TICS also questions the feasibility of establishing reuse targets within the WEEE Directive, because in reality, reuse can only take place before equipment enters any collection point. More details can be found on the EICTA and ORGALIME contributions. 3.2 THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECTIVE 3.2.1 for clarification of the scope Option 1 : Clarifying the scope, by formalising criteria used in the FAQ document Option 2 : Clarifying the scope by using a fixed List of products falling under or outside the scope Option 3 : Classifying products as B2B or B2C Most favoured Neutral Option 4 : Define Scope Using RoHS Directive Neutral Other option (proposition) : placing the scope of the Directive under article 95 legal basis Option 1 : FAQ Criteria Approach Alliance TICS supports this option as it is the best way to implement rules encouraging fair competition and avoiding barriers to trade in the EU. However, the FAQs, as currently written, are not specific enough and have been used by various Member States to come to different conclusions as to whether a particular product is in scope. We believe that clarifying language needs to be added to the FAQ criteria including more detailed language describing how the FAQs apply when evaluating whether a product is within the scope of the WEEE Directive. Option 2 : Fixed List Alliance TICS thinks that this option will be difficult to implement regarding the fact that a fixed list will never be exhaustive and that a criteria approach would be needed anyway to determine the list. However having a non-exhaustive examples list could be helpful if combined with option 1. Option 3 : Classification of Products as B2B or B2C On top of EICTA s answer, Alliance TICS is stressing the fact that the classification in France has been complicated by the mandatory use of the Visible Fee on all B2C products. Even though Visible Fee in France is supposed to disappear after 2011, for the IT sector a redefinition of B2B/B2C that would extend the current perimeter of the visible fee would add a major administrative / business burden for amounts which are insignificant compared with the price of the products. 3
The IT sector has no intention to request any type of visible fee, and would refuse any form of mandatory alike visible fee. Option 4 : Define Scope Using RoHS Directive It is not clear whether moving the scope to the RoHS Directive would provide any benefits from the existing arrangements. A key priority is that there should be one list for both WEEE and RoHS. The Directives should not be de-linked. Other option : Alliance TICS supports the EICTA and Orgalime new option that the scope should be placed under article 95. This would ensure that the scope would be harmonized across the member states. 3.2.2 on the width of the scope Option 1: Include Other Product Types Option 2: Maximise Scope and Include Components/Spare Parts Option 3 : Exclusion of Product Types/Categories Option 1 : Include Other Product Types: Alliance TICS does not believe there is need to extend the Directive to further product categories. Instead of adding additional product types to a Directive that is only a few years old and has been implemented unevenly among the various Member States, we strongly believe that the Commission should clarify which products are within the intent of the original Directive to reach an even level of interpretation and implementation throughout the EU. Option 2 : Maximise Scope and Include Components/Spare Parts: Alliance TICS does not support the expansion of the scope of the Directive to include components and spare parts since such equipment does not constitute finished products. They do not have a direct function on their own. Extending the scope to the component and spare part levels would add significant administrative cost and burden without any demonstrated environmental benefit. Option 3 : Exclusion of Product Types/Categories: Alliance TICS supports this option as for some categories as professional equipment, the WEEE Directive has brought little environmental added value but significant administrative burdens. 3.3 THE OPERATION OF THE PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY PROVISIONS Option 1: Bring the provisions under a different legal basis ( ) aligning definitions. 4
Option 2: I Harmonise the implementation of the allocation of financial responsibility, the frequencies and formats of reporting, the registration and the making information available; Option 3: Stimulate eco-design through defining targets for reusability, recyclability and recoverability of electrical and electronic equipment. Option 1: Bring the provisions under a different legal basis Alliance TICS supports this option. The detailed reasons of our position can be found in the EICTA paper. Option 2 : Harmonise the implementation of the allocation of financial responsibility, the frequencies and formats of reporting, the registration and the making information available; Alliance TICS supports the harmonisation of implementation on the frequencies and formats of reporting, the registration and making available of information. Today, due to a lack of harmonization, producers are facing different requirements on similar issues at different Member States, making business more cumbersome. - Regarding the registration of foreign companies within the EU, we believe all national registers should be open for registration to any producer legally established within EU, subject of course to the same obligations as any company established in the Member State. - Regarding the Individual Producer Responsibility, we think that, during the review of the Directive, there is an opportunity to strengthen the freedom of choice for IPR. In the implementation of article 8.2 of the Directive, it should be made mandatory for Member States to give producers the option to choose between individual or collective solutions based on their product portfolio and business models used. In fact, the principle of individual producer responsibility is recognised as an important tool in encouraging producers to have regard to the end-of-life management of their products at the stage of product design. Without Individual Producer Responsibility these incentives for design improvements are lost. Producers are not rewarded for making their producers easier to recycle as the end of life costs are related to market share of sales rather than the costs of end of life management of producer s products. Option 3 : Stimulate eco-design through defining targets for reusability, recyclability and recoverability of electrical and electronic equipment. Alliance TICS, in line with EICTA and Orgalime, does not support this option, and would propose to delete article 4 of the WEEE Directive regarding the fact that the EUP Directive is being implemented. 3.4 TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS Option 1: Introduce the development of treatment standards; Option 2: Include a definition of "remove"; 5
Option 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. No position. For more information, refers to the EICTA and Orgalime paper. 6