2. WASTE FROM ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
(a)
(22483)
9923/01
COM(01) 315
|
Amended draft Directive on waste from electrical and electronic equipment.
|
(b)
(23308)
—
—
|
Common Position of the Council on draft Directive on waste from electrical and electronic equipment.
|
| Legal base: | Article 175 EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Department: | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration: | Minister's letter of 23 May 2002
|
| Previous consideration: | HC 152-xxiv (2001-02), paragraph 4 (17 April 2002)
|
| To be discussed in Council: | See paragraph 2.11 below
|
| Committee's assessment: | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision: | For debate in European Standing Committee C (together with documents on reduction of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment)
|
Background
2.1 Waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)
was identified in the Community's Fifth Environmental Action Programme[2]
as one of the target areas for prevention, recovery and safe disposal.
The Commission therefore brought forward in June 2000 two proposals.
One of these, on which we are reporting separately, sought to
harmonise the rules on the restriction of the use of hazardous
substances in electrical and electronic equipment. The other,
dealt with in the documents discussed here, aimed to reduce the
amount of such waste from electrical equipment[3],
and to encourage its recycling and recovery. In order to achieve
this, it suggested a range of collection, treatment and recycling
measures summarised in our Report of 17 April 2002, in which we
noted that our predecessors had decided on 13 December 2000[4]
to recommend the proposals for debate in European Standing Committee
C, together with the complementary proposals on the use of hazardous
substances in electrical equipment. That debate took place on
28 March 2001[5].
2.2 Subsequent developments were recorded in paragraphs
4.6 - 4.13 of our earlier Report, which drew attention to a partial
Regulatory Impact Assessment of 15 March 2002 we had received
from the Minister of State for Industry and Energy at the Department
of Trade and Industry (Mr Brian Wilson). This provided a detailed
up-to-date survey of the information previously supplied, and
in particular sought to assess the likely costs of separate collection,
treatment and recovery under four different scenarios, depending
upon the assumptions made about the extent to which the requirements
in the Directive would alter existing patterns of activity within
the UK.
2.3 The Assessment suggested that the overall costs of
the measure could be anything from £191 million to £391
million, though it also pointed out that these figures are on
the one hand high compared with the Commission's estimates for
the Community as a whole, but on the other hand low in relation
to those provided by the industry. It also highlighted the fact
that the figures provided in an earlier Assessment had put the
costs of separate collection as high as £500 million, largely
because — unlike the Common Position text — it offered
retailers no alternative to taking goods back in-store.
2.4 The Assessment also sought to identify the benefits
from the proposal, which it said were likely to be limited by
the existence of other environmental legislation, and by the costs
which some waste management systems would themselves impose. However,
on the basis that the Directive could lead to the avoidance of
between 133,000 and 339,000 tonnes of landfill, it suggested that
this would produce in 2005 benefits ranging from £2 million
to £5.1 million.
2.5 In our conclusion, we noted not only the very wide
spread in the Government's own figures, but also the considerable
differences between these and the industry's estimates, and we
said that, whilst we recognised that there would inevitably be
uncertainties over the costs of proposals of this kind, we found
these differences disturbing, particularly as even the lower cost
estimates appeared to be considerably in excess of what the Assessment
itself described as the "limited" environmental benefits.
Since the Minister had said that the Government supported the
Common Position text, we asked him to provide a more convincing
justification for this in the light of the relative costs and
benefits, and in particular to assure us that the provisions on
treatment would not give rise to the sort of capacity problems
which appear to have arisen with refrigerators as a result of
the measures adopted to reduce ozone-depleting substances[6].
We also said that we would like him to keep us informed of developments
in the light of the European Parliament's second reading. In the
meantime, we were not clearing these two documents.
Minister's letter of 23 May 2002
2.6 As regards the variations in the Government's own
cost estimates, the Minister stresses the extent to which the
four main scenarios on which those estimates are based give rise
to different cost implications, and in particular the significant
implications of an approach involving 100% separate collection,
which would probably involve kerb-side collections. The Minister
says that one consequence of this is a difference of around £200
million between the least and most costly scenarios, and he adds
that, since the European Parliament favours the latter approach,
it is difficult to provide a narrower range of cost estimates
until the issue has been resolved at conciliation.
2.7 On the other points we raised regarding the costs,
the Minister confirms that the reduction from the estimates in
the original Regulatory Impact Assessment relates primarily to
the greater flexibility now provided in the retailer take-back
arrangements, where a previously mandatory (and potentially expensive)
in-store requirement has now been removed. He also says that the
difference between the industry's estimates and those of the Government
are attributable both to this latter point, and to the industry
having assumed that producers would have to write and print manuals
for each product to cover refurbishment, disassembly and re-use,
which he points out is — unlike an amendment favoured by
the European Parliament — not a requirement of the Common
Position text.
2.8 As to our concerns that the costs appeared to outweigh
the "limited" environmental benefits, the Minister says
that he believes that the Regulatory Impact Assessments could
have been clearer on this point. In particular, he observes that,
whilst they point out that the benefits are limited by the impact
of other legislation, this should not be read as saying that the
proposals have limited benefits, but rather that the overall benefits
in this area result from the combined impact of several policies,
with each having an important part to play. He sees the potential
benefits from this proposal as being reductions in environmental
harm caused by the greenhouse effect, depletion of the ozone layer,
air acidification, water eutrophication, emissions into air and
water, and depletion of non-renewal resources, and he points out
that research has concluded that these effects could be reduced
by over 50% in many cases as a direct result of this measure.
2.9 Finally, the Minister addresses our concern that
the proposal might lead to a situation similar to that encountered
on refrigerators under Regulation No. (EC) 2037/2000. He says
he does not believe that this will be the case, as the issues
are "fundamentally different", and moreover what is
proposed here is a Directive, rather than a directly applicable
Regulation, and it thus provides Member States with considerably
more flexibility in its implementation. He also makes the point
that the treatment requirements for WEEE are primarily related
to dismantling procedures, but adds that the Government is not
complacent, and will continue to discuss the requirements with
all those concerned.
2.10 On the developments since our last Report, the Minister
says that the European Parliament proposed a number of amendments
at its second reading on 9-11 April 2002. These included a heavier
emphasis on individual producer responsibility, with a need to
demonstrate that such an approach would be prohibitively expensive
before a collective system of the kind used in most Member States
could be used; compulsory separation of WEEE from household waste;
increased recovery targets; and the removal of a five year exemption
for small producers from the financing requirements of producer
responsibility. He says that, in each case, this would represent
a more onerous approach than that in the Council's Common Position
supported by the UK.
2.11 Finally, the Minister says that, given the continued
difference in view between the Council and the European Parliament,
he expects the proposal to go to conciliation under the forthcoming
Danish Presidency, leading to a final text this autumn.
Conclusion
2.12 Whilst we are grateful to the Minister for this
further information, and recognise the difficulty of providing
accurate estimates of the potential costs in an area of this kind,
particularly in the light of the approach favoured by the European
Parliament, we are nevertheless concerned at the uncertainties
which still arise. Also, we remain to be wholly convinced by the
Minister's explanation of the likely benefits. In view of this,
and notwithstanding the debate which took place in March 2001
on the Commission's original proposals, we think that it would
be right for the House to have a further opportunity to look at
what is proposed here. We are therefore recommending these latest
texts for debate in European Standing Committee C, along with
those on the reduction of hazardous substances in electrical and
electronic equipment.[7]
2
OJ No. C 138, 17.5.93. Back
3 Defined
for this purpose as large and small household appliances; IT and
telecommunications equipment; consumer and lighting equipment;
electrical and electronic goods; toys; certain medical equipment
systems; monitoring and control instruments; and automatic dispensers. Back
4
(21540) 10802/00; see HC 28-i (2000-01), paragraph 1 (13 December
2000). Back
5
Official Report, European Standing Committee C, 28 March
2001. Back
6
Regulation (EC) No. 2037/2000 (OJ No. L.244, 29.9.00, p.1.). Back
7 See
paragraph 3 below. Back
|
