Controversy continues to surround the review of the EU Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive and the EU Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive. The European Commission proposed that the two directives be recast on December 3 2008. However, certain aspects of the reviews have become mired in controversy, and after repeated delays, the European Parliament is yet to vote on either directive. On June 2 and 3 2010 the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety will finally vote on parliamentary reports on the two directives which have been prepared by rapporteurs Karl-Heinz Florenz (in the case of the WEEE Directive) and Jill Evans (in the case of the RoHS Directive).
WEEE Directive
One of the main changes that the commission would like to introduce to the WEEE Directive concerns collection targets. In the existing directive, the target is 4 kilograms per inhabitant per year. Due to the fact that some member states can apparently exceed this target easily, while others (eg, Romania) are struggling to meet it, the commission proposes that the directive set a target of 65% of the average weight of products that were placed on the market in that state in the preceding two years. The commission proposes that such targets become binding in 2016. Thus, the different economic situations in each of the member states will be taken into account.
It has come to light that the commission is open to discussion on a proposal, apparently being pushed by some members of the European Parliament (MEPs), to increase the 2016 collection target to 85%. According to one official, this ambitious target would be welcomed by the commission, but it is recognized that the law may have to be adapted to reflect the reality of the economic situation in certain member states. MEPs also support other core aspects of the recast proposal. These include plans to:
* increase standards regarding the treatment of electrical waste;
* prevent illegal waste shipments to countries such as China and India; and
* establish rules on the registration of producers and importers that were less burdensome.
The issue of scope of products covered is less clear. Certain influential MEPs are calling for a wider scope of products to fall within the new directive's ambit, although plans to introduce an entirely open scope now appear to be less in favour. However, one official has stated that the commission has not studied the impact of open scope (for either directive), which may mean that the scope of the directives will not be radically altered.
RoHS Directive
With regard to the RoHS Directive, difficulties remain over certain core issues, such as whether to extend the list of hazardous substances to be banned in electrical and electronic goods sold in the European Union, and over the scope of the recast directive.
In its 2008 proposal the commission set out a new Annex III containing a list of priority substances, with a view to eventually adding them to a new Annex IV as prohibited substances. The substances placed in Annex III by the commission are hexabromocyclododecane, di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, butyl benzyl phthalate and dibutylphthalate. Thus, although these substances are not intended to be banned immediately, the commission foresees that they could be prohibited in future.
Contrary to the commission's wishes, certain MEPs - including lead rapporteur Evans - want to ban brominated flame retardants and polyvinyl chloride, three years after the entry into force of the new RoHS Directive. This issue is proving troublesome, as some MEPs claim that there is insufficient justification for the new bans. They maintain that no new ban should be introduced without an impact assessment being performed (including on costs to the industry). Nonetheless, Evans is persevering with her demands. She has stated that: "the question is not whether the electrical and electronic equipment industry can phase out these chemicals, but when".
With regard to the directive's scope of products to be covered, a number of MEPs continue to disagree as to whether it should be left as it is, widened to include some new products or be made entirely 'open'. Evans favours open scope, while others fear that opening the scope without limit could result in legal uncertainty and new cost burdens for industry. A commission official commented that the extension of the scope of the directive had not been foreseen as part of the recast discussions. Thus, it seems likely that the commission will attempt to oppose any move towards the introduction of open scope.
Comment
Once the Parliamentary Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety has voted on the Evans and Florenz reports, the recast of the two directives will go to the full European Parliament for a vote at first reading. Although the commission had hoped for a final adoption before the end of 2010, such a timeframe now appears unrealistic.
Originally published in ILO newsletter. Republished with author's authorization.
