WEEE Directive recast could be agreed this year

Political agreement on the recast of the WEEE Directive could be reached by the end of 2011, according to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).

Steve , head of the environmental regulation unit at BIS, told stakeholders in London yesterday (June 20) that a second reading of the recast was on track to take place in the latter half of this year probably in September or October.

New requirements could come into force in member states in January 2014 or later

Steve Andrews, BIS

And, if successful, he said that that new regulations governing waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) could come into force in member states by as early as January 2014.

This would provide ample time for the recast to be agreed, published in the Official Journal of the European and give member states 18 months to transpose it into domestic law.

Mr Andrews said: We could get final agreement on the recast of the WEEE Directive by the end of this year or the beginning of next. That means that new requirements could come into force in member states in January 2014 or later.

In February this year, the European Parliament held a plenary vote on the first reading of the WEEE Directive (see letsrecycle.com story) and in March, the Environment Council reached political agreement on the First Reading.

While Mr Andrews explained that this was not the same thing as agreeing a new recast of the directive, he described it as a significant end of part one.

Scope

However, Mr Andrews said that the European Parliament still envisaged conflict with the Environment Council on a number of topics during the second reading negotiations. Firstly, he said that the scope of the recast was in question. In March, the Council proposed that the Directive should apply to the original 10 categories of WEEE from when the recast is published on a closed scope basis for six years.

After that period, these 10 categories would be streamlined down to just five on an open scope basis. The five categories would be: temperature exchange equipment; lighting; monitors; any other large equipment; any other small equipment.

This would be subject to a review by the Commission after three years and would also mean that more products would be added to the excluded list, he explained. However, the European Parliament has been calling for an immediate open scope rather than a delayed introduction.

And, Mr Andrews said there had been some debate over what would class as small and large equipment. While it has been mooted that large equipment is that with one dimension of over 50cm, he noted that most people seem to want a weight-based distinction. That might be something we can change in the second reading.

Collection targets

On the subject of collection targets, Mr Andrews said that the Council had proposed a change in the way the member state target collection rate target is calculated. This would involve:
-A move from 4kg per capita to 45% of equipment put-on-the-market basis four years after the Directive comes into force, but subject to a review no later than three years;
-Rising to 65% after a further four years, but subject to a review no later than seven years

On the issue of recovery, reuse and recycling targets for items of WEEE, meanwhile, the Council wants these to remain the same for three years after which:
– All targets are to be increased by 5% after three years to account for re-use;
– But target set for Medical Devices for the first time straightaway (75% recovery; 55% recycling and reuse)

However, Mr Andrews noted that the European Parliament has been pushing forhigher collection targets and sooner as well as separate reuse targets.

Producers

Another potentially divisive issue in the negotiations is how producers are defined. At the moment most member states define a producer as someone who places products on their national markets. The Commissions proposal is to have producers defined on an EU basis.

However, this has proved unpopular with member states because of the difference in the ways different member states define different WEEE categories and also the time and administrative burden it would produce.

BIS is particularly concerned that producers would automatically register with the cheapest member state and it would be very hard to keep track of them and tackle free-riders.
The head of environmental regulationsaid: We have argued that there should be a harmonised regime where some sort of information is requested but you still have to register with your own member state.

Mr Andrewsalso pointed to an option in the original Commission text for member states to encourage producers to be responsible for the cost of collecting WEEE directly from households.

“Our line is that we will consult on that if it is in the final text, he explained. Interestingly, when we have asked the Commission about it they have said it is an option and if we didnt meet our targets they would ask why we had not done it.

Illegal exports

Mr Andrews added that there was a new annex in the Commissions proposal to introduce minimum monitoring requirements for the shipment of WEEE/used EEE to stop illegal shipments of it to countries outside the OECD. This would have a direct interface with the Waste Shipment Regulations and Basel Convention.

Mr Andrews said: In the working groups we have argued that WEEE is not the only issue with illegal shipments and if there is anything in the Directive it should not cause ambiguity with the Waste Shipment Regulations.