The Practical Implementation of Directive 2000 53 EC in EU

The Practical Implementation of Directive 2000/53/EC in EU Member States Based on the Report for the European Parliament on the End-of-Life Vehicles (ELV) Directive Assessment of the current state of implementation by Member States, IEEP’s March ’ 07 manuscript Ross Bartley, Environmental & Technical Officer, European Ferrous Recovery & Recycling Federation’s European Shredder Group

EU Member States covered in report n n n Austria Belgium Ireland n n Germany Italy UK Czech Republic Hungary n Malta n The Netherlands Sweden n n

Focus on: Transposition of the Directive (by 21 April ‘ 02 or by Accession 1 May ‘ 04) Free Take Back (for all ELVs from 1 Jan ’ 07) Recycling Target Achievements (by 1 Jan ’ 06) Reuse and Recycling ≥ 80 wt. % Reuse and Recovery ≥ 85 wt. % Recall the Directives slow progress in both Parliament and Council, why? More stringent arrangements for the take back Producers made responsible for the cost of take back result strong opposition by the carmakers

…analysis… Recyclers Citizen Govt ELVs AU Transposition Free Take Back _94, 500 Late by 3 months √ ≈ x Late by 24 months √ x √ Late by 48 months √ x x (2005) BE 131, 000 (2006) IE 176, 000 (2000) Tgt 85% Reuse & Recovery Tgt 80% Reuse & Recycling Citizen

…analysis… Recyclers Citizen Govt ELVs Transposition Free Take Back CZ ? ? No infringement proceeding taken HU 150, 000 Late by 12 months √ x x √ √ x (2005) Tgt 85% Reuse & Recovery Tgt 80% Reuse & Recycling x ? ? Citizen

…analysis… Recyclers Citizen Govt ELVs DE Transposition Free Take Back 540, 000 On time / with infringement √ x x Late by 14 months x x x 2, 045, 000 Late by 12 months √ √ x (2004) IT 1, 300, 000 (2005) UK Tgt 85% Reuse & Recovery Tgt 80% Reuse & Recycling Citizen

…analysis… Recyclers Citizen Govt ELVs NL Transposition Free Take Back 246, 500 Late by 3 months √ √ √ On time √ √ ? ? (2005) SE 235, 000 (2004) Tgt 85% Reuse & Recovery Tgt 80% Reuse & Recycling Citizen

…analysis… Recyclers Citizen Govt ELVs MT Transposition Free Take Back _14, 000 On time ‘theorectical’ x x (2005) Tgt 85% Reuse & Recovery Tgt 80% Reuse & Recycling Citizen x Could compare with CY LU

…analysis… Recyclers Citizen Govt ELVs DK FI EE LV LT GR Transposition Free Take Back Tgt 85% Reuse & Recovery Tgt 80% Reuse & Recycling

…analysis… Recyclers Citizen Govt ELVs PL SK SL FR PT ES Transposition 500, 000 1 st April 2005 Free Take Back Tgt 85% Reuse & Recovery Tgt 80% Reuse & Recycling

General Implementation of the Directive n Pioneer states: Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, but significant difficulties, delays and setbacks in implementing in many countries, reasons a) Waste disposal arrangements vary significantly from one state to another The Directive did not specify how the disposal of cars would be funded during the transition period of 2002 -2007 The requirements have increased the cost of car disposal Administrative arrangements too complex (national systems or standards versus responsibility of the Regions or municipal authorities) Reporting, procedures difficult / complex “Disposal of carmakers’ products is not their core business” Countries from the EU-10: recent adoption of “acquis communautaire” do not have a high level of administrative resource b) c) d) e) f) g)

Free take back n Article 5 the last owner of the vehicle could return the vehicle to a treatment facility at no cost (for all cars from 1 January 2007) n Transporting a vehicle to a disposal site = cost for cars unable to be taken to the site on their own power = administrative charges = barrier to complete take-up n Density of the disposal network varies from country to country different levels of ambition in different Member States (new networks being built up, new sites licensed) n ! Best practice: a clearinghouse organisation to handle the flow of payments and documentation (PRO) ! Best practice: a central fund (charges on new cars and second hand cars – from producers and importers) n

Achievements of Recycling and Recovery Targets n No reliable reporting in many countries that implemented late (eg % of material being used or recovered)

Cars and car scrappage n n n n EU-15 high disposable income so more luxury cars EU-10 older average vehicles, significant legacy issues In some countries scrappage by unlicensed operators Some cars still abandoned rather than scrapped Second-hand trade causes some illegal activities export of wrecked or stolen cars some end-of-life vehicles ‘garaged’ rather than scrapped Export of second-hand cars before reaching end-of-life important and growing feature of the European car market What will the MEPs learn from this report? Will they consider changing the Directive?