.gif){kind=small}
BACK TO HOME
PAGE BACK TO HOME
PAGE EUROPEAN REVIEW
FOLLOWING THE EU DIRECTIVE on 'end of-life vehicles' (see European Review issues 10 and 11), the legislators have turned their attention to electrical equipment. The German MEP, Karl-Heinz Florenz, introducing a debate on the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive in the European Parliament, referred to the six million tonnes of electrical waste produced in Europe every year. 'In about ten years' time, we expect this electronic scrap heap to have doubled in size'. He also underlined the difference between the current directive and the former one 'in
|
that the recovery of electrical and electronic waste involves hundreds and thousands of manufacturers, whereas the salvaging of vehicle components concerns only 50 or 60'. The supporters of the directive in the parliament came up with a number of possible ways in which these appliances could be collected at the end of their useful life. The most favoured scheme seems to be one in which collection points would be provided for consumers to dump their unwanted electrical goods. The manufacturers would then pay for the collection, recovery and treatment of their own |
|
products. The companies preferred this option to a group scheme because of the dangers of short-lived, 'free-rider' manufacturers springing up, who would get the profits from providing the goods but then go out of business before it was time to pick up the bill for recovering them. The products would include TVs, videos, radios, computers, printers, fridges, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, hairdryers, irons, toys, lights, fans and sewing machines. David Bowe, Labour's Environment Spokesman in the European Parliament, backed the scheme. | |
|
Could bottles and newspapers soon be joined by a host of other electrical cast-offs ? | |||
He said: 'We are saying to the big manufacturers, your responsibilities do not end until the stream of waste from your worn out products has been disposed of in an environmentally friendly way'. Replying to the debate, Commissioner Margot Wallström quoted more interesting statistics 'Each of us produces on average about 14 kilogrammes per year of such waste...40% of the lead in landfills and 50% of the lead in incineration comes from this type of equipment'. She confirmed that the Commission would accept 36 of the 100 amendments proposed by the Parliament. The manufacturers, while supporting the idea of the new law, were concerned about the costs. Hugh Peltor, head of environmental affairs at the Federation of the Electronics Industry said that prices could go up 10% to 15% depending on the product in question. This contradicts the Commission's estimate of 1% to 3%. The proposals must now go to the Council of Ministers although it is likely to be 2010 before the directive is fully operational.
WE HAVE REPORTED IN THE European Review previously (see issue 15 page 7) on the proposals by the Council of Ministers for an EU directive on the control of noise pollution. It has taken a year to translate this into legislation agreed with the European parliament. One reason for this has been a campaign against the directive by critics, not least those in Britain, who used the likely impact on the entertainment industry to attack the measure. 'The minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (Noise)' directive was passed, after amendments, in early March. According to the Guardian newspaper 'the European parliament bowed to common sense and opted to silence critics who had made a series of increasingly surreal claims about the directive's fallout....detractors had suggested that the legislation would require a raft of draconian and often ludicrous measures. Scotland's bagpipes would fall silent for the first time since the Battle of Culloden in 1746, it was claimed, while footballers would have to wear earmuffs'.
The Parliament gave the entertainment industry a five year opt-out from the directive while the Commission assesses its likely impact and whether the sector should have a permanent exemption. Labour MEP Stephen Hughes said after the debate 'The stories which have been flying about have been rather exaggerated to say the least. This directive will not apply to anyone who is self employed and if you're a bagpipe player in a band and properly employed this won't apply to you either'. The directive will act as a framework, standardising Member States' collection and measurement of noise statistics. Further detailed directives on sectors such as construction, road, rail and air traffic can be introduced in four years time. The Parliament also voted for an amendment to lower the maximum noise exposure limit for workers without ear protection from 90 to 87 decibels (this represents a 50% cut in noise level). Other amendments concerned the rights of workers to be consulted and informed about subjects like risk assessment and ear protection. 'This is a balanced result and a victory for common sense and public health' summed up Stephen Hughes. 40.000 cases of industrial deafness involving £60 billion of costs could be avoided by the directive.
|
The Common Position of the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament on the Commission Proposals for the Noise Directiveis available on the internet at : |
http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc? |
|
Back to |
Forward to |
Up to |
Back to |
