The report was adopted with a high majority of 580 votes in favour, 37 against and 22 abstentions. Please see below for the detailed voting list.

 

Karl-Heinz Florenz (EPP, DE) said that when we talk about electric waste, we are not just talking about high environmental standards but about raw materials which are going to become a scarce commodity in the near future. This is now an economic issue too. We have very different collection systems across the EU, with high percentage rates of collection generally in the north, and much less in other countries. We should not conceal the merits of those who do well, he said. We need uniform criteria, which we do not have, since people do as they see fit. If people are operating in accordance with their own standards, we cannot take them to court. However, we seem to forget that we are working in the single market.

 

Unfortunately, monitoring has not been the best over the last few years, it has been somewhat neglected. We are talking about tonnes and kgs of platinum, gold and ore. We have to raise awareness amongst citizens about the economic side of things, and need to revise collection systems. Illegal shipments also have to be stopped, he said. We need to make things simpler, and we are on the right track.

 

Commissioner Janez Potočnik said that interest in this file is reflected in the amendments that have been adopted in the Committee as well as tabled in the last weeks. He was pleased to see that many amendments fully supported the objectives of the Commission's proposal namely:

·          to fully reap the environmental benefits of the WEEE Directive by setting ambitious collection and recovery targets that are realistic for all Member States;

·          to strengthen implementation and enforcement by setting detailed rules to fight illegal exports of e-waste; and

·          to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens significantly for European producers through reinforced cooperation of national authorities.

 

By strengthening the WEEE Directive, he said that we can make an important contribution towards becoming a resource-efficient recycling society. We are talking about the fastest growing waste stream in Europe, and one with huge potential for reducing our dependence on imported or virgin raw materials. Based on this very positive background of broad agreement between the parliament and the commission, he commented:

 

·          Collection target - The commission is pleased that the parliament fully accepts the ambition level and starting date for the new collection target. It is ambitious, in order to benefit our environment and increase the resource efficiency of our economy. It is achievable for each member state too, which is important. The committee proposes to define the target in a new way, by mentioning the ultimate goal, collecting a proportion of "WEEE generated", explicitly in the wording. The commission can agree to this approach if an appropriate methodology to calculate "WEEE generated" is established. Additionally, the commission is willing to contribute its part in coming up with this methodology, as proposed by the committee.  

 

·          Scope of the Directive - It is proposed to abolish the link from the RoHS to the WEEE Directive. For the commission this is acceptable, because the principal objective of the commission proposal in this area was to clarify, but not change, the scope of the WEEE Directive.

 

·          Photovoltaic modules - One specific issue within the scope is photovoltaic modules. The committee proposes to exclude them explicitly from the scope of the Directive and this is in line with the commission proposal and the current Directive. However, the commission is aware of an increasing number of concerns related to the potential environmental impact of solar panels particularly in their waste phase. A Voluntary Agreement recently submitted by the solar panel industry clearly fails to meet the criteria set for such agreements. An evaluation by the commission services of the agreement will be published very soon. We clearly need to assess properly the environmental risks and opportunities of disposal of solar panels before considering their inclusion in the scope of the WEEE Directive.

 

·          Recast procedure - The new WEEE Directive has been proposed under the so-called "recast procedure", combining a codification of existing texts with designated new or amended elements. Only those elements have been impact assessed. Even where we might sympathise with the intentions, or agree with the direction of certain amendments, the commission considers that only those designated elements are open to be amended during the legislative process.

 

Richard Seeber (EPP, AT) asked the commissioner, when he said that we have to deal with what member states are able to do, he questioned how it was possible that some were able to collect 16 kg per capita, and others only 1kg per capita. We cannot adopt great rules and then let member states do what they want, he stressed. Italy has been condemned recently, he said, asking the commissioner whether he was going to act more stringently and remind member states about their obligations.

 

Kathleen van Brempt (S&D, BE) thought that we have this directive which is a good idea, but needs to translate it into practice, and this is basis of her amendments. It is not just waste, there are other materials which urgently need to be recycled, she said. The purpose has not yet been met. We need higher levels of collection. A third of the collected materials at the moment get recycled, and we are not sure what happens to the rest. The smaller devices are not being treated properly. PV modules are exempt, she said, adding that she would keep the commissioner to his word because there needs to be an evaluation. She hoped the report could be adopted with a great majority. We need to control exports to other countries, she stressed. We need to be aware of how these things are dealt with in the third world too. Finally, she stressed the importance of implementation.

 

Vladko Todorov Panayotov (ALDE, BG) said that the compromise we are voting on is a step forward towards a better management of electronic waste. We have set higher objectives, more efficient methods of collection and this will help us solve a strategic problem in Europe. Rare metals can be reused. 350 tonnes of metals could have been reused and recycles last year. He called on his colleagues to vote in favour.

 

Michail Tremopoulos (Greens/EFA, EL) thought that the current management of waste collection in the EU so far is not rational. The rest goes into landfills or is exported. The per capita targets in the report are low, he said.  He proposed that these cover all waste, with only a few exceptions. By 2016 we want to see 25% collected, and 25% being re-used, and he wanted to make sure household WEEE is collected, and that retailers take back the goods sold when new material come on the market. He also wanted a proper follow up as far as transport was concerned.

 

Julie Girling (ECR, UK) said that the aim of the directive was clear, and she was happy to support it in principle as we need an adequate directive for the large waste stream. The costs however of recycling and re-use are not cheap. This directive should not raise costs for the tax payer, especially during these difficult economic times. She favoured flexibility for the member states, saying that we should set targets, but not confuse this with strict obligations, and she urged her colleagues not to be over prescriptive as regards to how these are met.

 

Sabine Wils (GUE/NGL, DE) said that the quantities of dangerous materials in appliances is increasing year after year, and this is a threat to human health. Particularly with regards to exports, people in other countries are severely affected. Some products contain poisonous cadmium and nanomaterials. She called on the commission to look closely at this. If products pose a risk they should be taken off the market. She identifies amendments 101-102 as the ones concerned.

 

Oreste Rossi (EFD, IT) thought that the problems with the text could only be resolved through a second reading. A lot of checking is requires by consumers, and we have already moved from an unrealistic 65% collection rate to 85%! He spoke of the difficulties attached to re-selling electrical goods and the passing on of obligation. He thought that this runs counter to safety because old products will be put on the market again.

 

Bogusław Sonik (EPP, PL) thought that the recast should take into consideration some realistic targets for new member states where fridges and other equipment is replaced less frequently. The rapporteur wants to solve the issue of provisions that are not very efficient for members. Regulation should put more efficient controls in place. He spoke of the common trend of people falsifying paperwork, and so warned as regards invoices since this situation could lead to a black economy of recycling outside the designated places.

 

Linda McAvan (S&D, UK) explained that at home she has to take her waste electrical equipment to the local council site, whereas for cardboard, plastic, papers, glass and metal, there is home collection. Batteries can de dropped at any retailer. We need more of this kind of collection, if we want to see the targets increased, she said. It has to be easier for the public. When the target of 4 tonnes per person was set, this was totally inadequate because it only refers to getting rid of big appliances like fridges. We also need a more ambitious target to drive the market and make sure that useful elements are taken out of these goods. Europe is the exception, but should be the rule, she said.

 

Chris Davis (ALDE, UK) said that the recast directive is a good opportunity to close some of the loopholes. Need to properly recycle electrical goods, closing the loopholes which are leading to this waste being shipped to developing countries and ending up on dumps and being burnt by children on bomb fires. He said it would be good if the producers who have been writing to the parliament opposing amendments that would close this loophole or other would come up with a solution themselves, or put some ideas on the table. Printers and printer cartridge manufacturers are at war with manufacturers who re-fill and sell these at half price. Now they use electronics to stop cartridges from being recycled. We put a law in force saying you cannot do this, article 4. The printer companies found a way around this, saying that cartridges are consumables and not WEEE. We have a chance here to put this right and close this loophole, he concluded.

Oldřich Vlasák (ECR, CZ) considered this a definite step in the right direction. We need to harmonise steps to be taken to reduce bureaucracy too. He however refused to accept enforceable goals for the member states, and instead followed the rule that if something is not broken, do not fix it. He was in favour of a limited scope.

 

Paul Nuttall (EFD, UK) listed a number of day to day essential electrical goods and said that these will all rise in price as a result of this directive. He criticised the timing of the directive, saying that we do not need these extra costs during this economically difficult time. He asked all to have sympathy for the hard working tax payers who are struggling, and asked the room to reject the report.

 

Chris Davis (ALDE, UK) considering that Nuttall says that the producers do not have to pay, he asked who should pay instead? Why be so against the tax payers, the local councils etcetera, paying for the burden of dealing with this waste.

 

Paul Nuttall (EFD, UK) knew full well that the costs lie with the tax payer, and this is not appropriate in the depths of a hard recession. This should be done at national level by people who are accountable to the people and not by a committee who meets in secret, he concluded.

 

Karl-Heinz Florenz (EPP, DE) asked how Nuttall would answer to citizens when we run out of raw materials and we tell them that they are somewhere in the landfills and the water. Additionally, there is no mention of extra costs to tax payer in the report or commission proposal.

 

Paul Nuttall (EFD, UK) replied that the cost always ends up the tax payer, and is rarely mentioned in the directives.

 

Catherine Soullie (EPP, FR) said that the EU is asking itself for a common strategy for the supply of raw materials and cannot ignore the potential of using our waste. This will help waste flows, illegal dumping and collection issues. The consumer is really at the heart of this, she said. If we want effective legislation, we need to ensure that this is a relevant instrument. Producers should think more about collecting and recycling, but we should not burden the consumer, although they should be a player.

 

Elisabetta Gardini (EPP, IT) said she would vote in favour of the report, but was convinced that we need to go into certain things in more depth, in second reading. We need an impact assessment from the commission on the scope of the directive. If we have a restricted scope it makes it more legally certain and easier to implement, she said. We need to ensure that responsibility is not put on one stakeholder, but producers, consumers and retailers all have a responsibility. Member states have different systems and these have to be assessed. This is a good directive but we need more time to make it better.

 

Sirpa Pietikäinen (EPP, FI) thought this to be a step in the right direction. We need more effective systems and to put the burden back on the producer. We also need better reporting and to know how well member states are implementing the objective, she said. We need better sorting and collection and more ambitious objectives.

 

Pilar Ayuso (EPP, ES) said that we need to be ambitious but need to realise that the report is not easy to apply because of member state differences, but she would support a first reading agreement. She could not however support the thought that the costs of recycling and treatment of waste be dealt with separately. Consumers have rights and we need to tell them how much this waste treatment will cost them. More transparency is also needed in the retail chain, she concluded.

 

Alajos Mészáros (EPP, HU) wanted to promote reuse and recycling to mitigate the loss of raw materials. 85% of waste would have to be collected, but only a smaller amount would be reused. The current directives are not being interpreted in the same way in all member states. The directive talks about all WEEE being encompassed. We should have selected the collection of waste in member states he added.

 

Carl Schlyter (Greens/EFA, SE) said that we need to look at gold and silver mines, recuperating materials from these. We have to reduce our dependence on these materials and cannot put dangerous chemicals into the environment when mining them. There are exceptions too, he said, such as regarding cadmium and distortions of competition. We need to look at marketing new products and we need more stringent checks on nano-waste. We need tightened rules on exports.

 

Alfreds Rubiks (GUE/NGL, LV) supported the adoption of this document and the approach of member states applying their own efforts to this problem. He was however apprehensive about the differences between the member states on this and called on commission to ensure that member states attach more importance to implementation.

 

Jaroslav Paška (EFD, SK) said that there could be issues in countries where there is not enough infrastructure for recycling nano-materials. He welcomed the wording of article 93. Many traders are not carrying out the obligations, so this report may do some good in terms of this. Please note that the beginning of this speech was not interpreted.

 

Commissioner Janez Potočnik said that many members called on the problem of implementation. This is a problem across the environmental spectrum. He intends to play his duty to the full. The commission is also preparing a communication on implementation later this year which will deal with the questions in a more holistic way. The recast proposal will certainly facilitate implementation.

·          Targets – we must have ambitious ones. This is the fastest growing waste stream and we are living in the world of electronics.

·          Costs – when proposing any proposal, we must take into account the burden of the costs. He wanted to be clear on what the real costs of our society would be if we did not deal with these questions.

·          Waste report published 14 days ago, and he visited a big e-waste and recycling company and was struck by facts that he saw there. It is important that we understand that mobile phones actually contain precious materials which are extremely important for the future. He held 20kg of gold produced from mobile phones in his hand.

·          Resource efficiency - many members mentioned this, which he considered the most important thing. He had mentioned this many times, but this must not be forgotten. We must do things differently, he stressed.

·          Better reporting and sorting – should be for the commission’s attention, after first reading we have a good basis which is worth working on in second reading, and finalising to make it even better.

 

Karl-Heinz Florenz (EPP, DE) said to the commissioner that he will be in the centre of the decision making procedure over the next few months, and negotiating with council. The council has not budged on this, and against the backdrop of the large-scale support here, the colleagues who have stood up for this report should stand up to their member states. Over next few months there will be intense negotiations, and we will have to stand firm in the council. A very national approach exists to this regulation, but this is counterproductive. The internal market was created a long time ago and this needs to be completed, he said.

 

 

 

 

Parliament wants tighter rules for the EU's growing output of waste electronic and electrical equipment (WEEE), while cutting red tape for companies. In a plenary vote on Thursday, MEPs proposed new targets for collecting, recycling and re-using waste. They also recommended tougher measures to prevent the export of e-waste to developing countries, where it can pose a health and environment hazard.

 

Voting on a draft update to 2003 rules, Parliament adopted its recommended changes by 580 votes to 37 with 22 abstentions. Council will now consider EP's position ahead of a possible second reading. Karl-Heinz Florenz (EPP, DE), who steered the draft legislation through Parliament, commented that "we can no longer afford to waste our waste. Parliament has sent a strong message that public authorities, manufacturers and consumers all need to play their part to ensure we collect and recycle more of our electrical and electronic goods. We have also set out stricter rules to stop potentially harmful waste being illegally shipped to developing countries."

 

Parliament says that Member States should collect 85% of the e-waste they produce from 2016. It also proposes a 2012 target: Member States should collect 4 kg of e-waste per inhabitant (as under existing rules) or the weight of e-waste collected in 2010, whichever is greater.

 

As well as yielding health and environmental benefits, proper treatment of e-waste can help reclaim valuable raw materials. MEPs recommend a 50-75% recycling target (depending on category) and support a new 5% re-use goal.

 

All types of e-waste should be covered, except for listed exceptions, such as large installations and tools, military equipment and vehicles. MEPs say rules should also be waived for photovoltaic cells used in solar panels, subject to review, since disposal is performed by professionals and industry-set targets are in place.

 

MEPs underline that standardising registration and reporting is needed to lighten the administrative burden and costs on companies. They suggest reducing the number of electrical equipment categories to further simplify matters.

 

Producers of e-goods pay towards treatment and can also make a positive impact by respecting eco-design rules and creating products that are easier to repair or recycle.

 

Consumers should dispose of e-waste legally, as they are already entitled to do free of charge at treatment centres. MEPs add that consumers should also be able to return very small items to retailers. Very small shops should be exempt but distance sellers included.

 

Large volumes of e-waste are being falsely declared as "reusable" and illegally exported for treatment in developing countries, where they are often processed in unsafe conditions, even by children. As well as supporting Commission proposals for stricter inspections of shipments, Parliament further clarifies that the exporter should carry the burden of proof that goods are reusable.

 

---

The European Parliament today passed legislation reviewing the existing directive on EU produced electric and electronic equipment waste and setting stricter rules on their recycling. The S&D Group welcomed the new target to collect and treat 85 per cent of this waste by 2016.

 

S&D Euro MP and shadow rapporteur Kathleen Van Brempt said: "The current directive on electric and electronic equipment waste is totally out of date. Only one third of this waste is recycled or recovered. Up to 13 per cent ends up in landfills and we don't even know what happens with 54 per cent of this waste.

 

"Electric and electronic equipment is the fastest growing kind of waste. The directive we reviewed today only calls for the treatment of 4 kilos per inhabitant, when the EU will be producing approximately 24 kilos per inhabitant by 2020, which will amount to over 12 million tons per year. So this revision was urgent.

 

"'It is a serious threat to the environment and its effective handling is absolutely necessary. Tackling this will provide new jobs and keep scarce materials in Europe thus making it an economic challenge.

 

"Recovered material has an estimated value of two billion euros per year, and some of the components used in these products are scarce and expensive raw materials. By retrieving them we would lower our imports and create jobs in the recycling sector.

 

"Already today more gold is extracted from old electrical and electronic products than from mining, so the potential is huge."

 

S&D spokesperson on environment and health Linda McAvan said: "This legislation will also improve safety. Often our old mobiles or computers are illegally sent to China, India and Africa.

 

"This poses a serious threat not only to workers dealing with transport, but also to citizens in the recipient countries - often these are children- exposed to dangerous chemicals.

 

"Now exporters will be responsible, and in this sense it is important that the directive contemplates the difference between waste and re-usable products."

 

---

---

The European Parliament today voted to revise EU legislation on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). The Greens welcomed the vote, which will tighten up the requirements and should close some of the loopholes that have led to problems with the implementation of the rules. After the vote, Green MEP Michail Tremopoulos said:

 

 

---

  

[Brussels, 3^rd February 2011] - The European Environmental Bureau, Europe’s largest federation of environmental citizens’ organisations, welcomes the outcome of today’s vote in European Parliament on the revision of the WEEE Directive.

 

MEPs voted for an ambitious revision of the WEEE Directive, which deals with e-waste - the fastest growing waste stream in Europe. The European Environmental Bureau has welcomed this outcome, saying it will help promote a more resource efficient future.

 

“By voting in favour of an ambitious collection target based on WEEE generated, by claiming for standards on e-waste management and by enabling financial incentives for optimized design, the European Parliament has grasped the important potentials of the WEEE legislation to change our e-waste management from pure end of pipe solutions to a more integrated approach on resources efficiency,” said Stephane Arditi, EEB Senior Waste Policy Officer.

 

The plenary vote confirmed the ambition set by the European Parliament’s Environment Committee last June. It sends a clear signal for the coming discussions with the Council and the European Commission.

 

The EEB also thanks the European Parliament to have chosen to confirm an amendment requiring member states to address consistently the financial resources to increase collection, as well as an amendment asking for a better consideration for nanomaterials in treatment processes.

 

E-waste contains hazardous substances such as heavy metals and chemicals which can damage human health and the environment, but today more than 50% of the WEEE generated follows unofficial collection routes, sometimes leading to illegal export and improper treatments.

 

E-waste also contains precious metals, plastics and other materials which are depleting or which are under threat of supply shortage, but today only 20% of the WEEE generated in EU is recycled.

---

In reaction to today’s European Parliament plenary vote, CECED notes some progress to improve the Directive. MEPs have however missed one central issue: the need for the revised legislation to cover all WEEE, and not only the WEEE that producers take care of. Today approximately 2/3 of the WEEE is not handled by producers and falls outside the treatment requirements of the Directive.

 

Says Luigi Meli, CECED Director General: “We welcome progress in some areas of the EP report. However some key issues have been missed. If policy makers want to resolve the problems of WEEE then they must ensure that treatment requirements and reporting obligations cover all WEEE, not just the WEEE handled by producers. This loophole of the present WEEE legislation is one of the main reasons why so much WEEE slips through the system today.

 

Elsewhere CECED welcomes that:

 

·         In comparison to the original Commission proposal, the European Parliament has opted for an improved collection target based on the amount of WEEE that generated. MEPs have also confirmed that it is for Member States to achieve this target - not producers.

 

·         MEPs have supported the positive proposal for financing the improvement of the collection of WEEE from households.

 

On the reuse of WEEE for which the European Parliament has proposed targets, CECED highlights that it is now essential to create quality criteria for refurbished appliances and the activities of refurbishers to ensure that refurbished products will not jeopardise environmental and consumer protection and do not become an alibi for illegal export of waste.

 

---

  

Today, the European Parliament voted on the recast of the WEEE (waste electrical and electronic equipment) directive. The vote is clearly in favour of more harmonisation and a real internal market for EEE. In particular, the parliament confirmed  three Commission decisions:

-         the  change of definition of ‘placing on the market’ from a national to a Community definition

-         the harmonisation of registration and reporting obligations and

-         making national registers interoperable.

 

“These measures should simplify administration and reduce costs, provided the harmonisation does not lead to an EU wide application of the most bureaucratic practices” said Xavier Durieu, EuroCommerce Secretary General. “The switch to a community definition for ‘placing on the market’ will also benefit the environment by providing further incentives for manufacturers to recycle. It will prevent a shift of responsibility from the producer to the distributor when an EEE is moved from one member state to another.

 

Collection and recycling schemes are essential for the ambitious targets Parliament has set. However, the current proposal that retailers should become collection points for very small volume waste (with an exemption for micro companies) is not the best option.

 Many retailers already go beyond the current 1:1 take-back system in countries operating on this basis.

 

Mr Durieu explained, “Obliging retailers who sell phones to take-back toasters is unwise. It will create some safety issues (light bulb containing mercury break when deposited in the shop) and could also jeopardise existing systems for the collection of small volume waste. Eurocommerce has always agreed that small volume waste should be collected in a similar way to normal waste i.e. at the door step of the household. Consumers are used to sorting out their waste. A new sort of bag for small volume waste would prove the most effective way to address the issue. Technically advanced sorting systems can already separate WEEE from packaging. Under these conditions, households would not even need an extra bin”.