| Author (Person) | Blokland, Hans, Goodwill, Robert |
|---|---|
| Series Title | European Voice |
| Series Details | Vol.10, No.14, 22.4.04 |
| Publication Date | 22/04/2004 |
| Content Type | News |
|
Date: 22/04/04 MEPs voted in Strasbourg this week to ban nickel-cadmium rechargeable batteries and to increase the number of batteries recycled in Europe. Two MEPs debate the issues. When the waste stream contains less hazardous substances, recycling will be more environment-friendly, writes Hans Blokland IN THE last plenary session of April in Strasbourg, the European Parliament voted on two reports, which are important regarding recycling of waste. The first one is on the strategy on waste prevention and recycling, the second one is my report on batteries and accumulators. In the EU waste strategy the order of priority is: prevention, recycling, disposal. This means that we should first focus on prevention. In this area, I have to mention some disappointing facts. The average quantity of domestic refuse generated per capita in the EU has risen from approximately 400 kg (in 1995-97) to approximately 500 kg (in 1998-2000). The objective of stabilizing waste production in 2000 at the 1985 level of 300 kg per capita, as laid down in the European Commission's fifth environment action programme, has not been achieved. Member states should make far greater efforts to prevent and reduce waste generation and to put prevention or reduction of waste production at the top of their waste management plans. The second aim of prevention should be the avoidance of hazardous substances in the waste stream. The European Parliament therefore regrets that the Commission has not yet adopted proposals to develop a set of quantitative and qualitative reduction targets covering all relevant waste, to be achieved at EU level by 2010. Recycling rates for domestic refuse vary widely across member states: five (Austria, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden) have achieved rates of more than 40% while five (France, Greece, Ireland, Italy and the UK) have achieved less than 10%. The most widely used method of waste disposal is still dumping. Five member states even dump more than 60% of their waste. Incineration of waste with recovery of energy is the second most widely used method of disposal. Member states have to find ways to promote separate collection of recyclable waste, since this has been identified as a fundamental shortcoming in achieving higher levels of recycling. It is very positive that, in the new batteries directive, industrial and automotive batteries may not be disposed of in landfills or by incineration. This means that all industrial batteries have to be collected and recycled, for which a mandatory recycling efficiency is set. Collecting portable batteries is, however, more complicated, because consumers do not feel a strong urge to return them. They are small and therefore do not get in the way, but tend to be left lying in drawers, boxes and so on. In practice, the collection of only batteries containing mercury, lead or cadmium did not work, because consumers did not distinguish between batteries along these lines. Therefore, the Commission proposed the collection of all portable batteries in the new directive. The other reason is that valuable material from all batteries can be recycled, for which a mandatory recycling efficiency is set. The difficulties in collecting all portable batteries will still lead to heavy metals in the waste stream. In order to avoid this, we have to look at methods other than collection and recycling. In the directives of the Council of Ministers and Parliament regarding end-of-life vehicles and electrical and electronic equipment, the use of heavy metals, namely mercury, cadmium, lead and chromium (VI) are restricted. In line with this, we should also restrict the use of mercury, cadmium and lead in batteries and accumulators. When the waste stream contains less hazardous substances, recycling will be easier and more environment-friendly.
Amendments to the batteries directive have introduced clear contradictions in the text, argues Robert Goodwill LAST November, after six years work, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a new batteries directive, thereby aiming to amend the existing directive, which dated from the early 1990s. Parliament has now finished its first reading - and has discussed the batteries proposal in committee for perhaps a total of two hours. The text now barely resembles the one submitted by the Commission back in November. On the one hand, industry is pleading with one voice for workable legislation, having been saddled with the earlier poorly drafted directive - implemented in patchwork fashion across the EU. On the other hand, some green pressure groups are calling for the use of heavy metals to be banned - a small quantity of which is necessary to ensure the proper functioning of many batteries contained in appliances that we use daily. The better lawmaking package focused on waste legislation, ear-marking it for improvement. The batteries directive was a "guinea pig" for the Commission's new extended impact assessment procedure resulting from our institutions' reflections on improving waste legislation, with a view to improving the appalling implementation record. The Commission's proposal was, therefore, reasonably balanced and well-thought through with the possible exception of the "one size fits all" approach to national collection targets. However, it has now been rendered entirely unrecognizable by the rapporteur, supported by some colleagues who have electoral, rather than practical, goals in mind. Amendments voted in committee further compound this confusion, introducing direct contradictions to the text. An exemption voted for button cells used in hearing aids will not be effective, for example, since the cells in question are already banned by the minimum lead levels now included in the same article. The same goes for insulin pumps, baby thermometers and many other essential applications. Accession countries will be hit hard by the restrictions. More than 80% of zinc carbon batteries - banned due to their lead solder, which extends shelf-life without leakage and prevents dead cells - are sold in accession states. At least one observer MEP has already made a convincing case for the need to include the accession countries in discussions. We are just over one week away from enlargement. The directive should be workable in all 25 member states - currently, we are way off track. In the rush to adopt the first reading before June's Parliamentary elections, no semblance of an impact- assessment has been carried out for the restrictions on lead and mercury. These restrictions ban more than one-third of all batteries sold in the EU today. An assessment conducted on cadmium found that a ban was not justified. Amendments, from definitions to collection and recycling targets, show contradictory meanings and incompatible approaches to solving the issues that need to be addressed. As responsible forward-looking decision-makers for the future Europe, we MEPs should focus on leading by example and ensuring the passing of sustainable waste legislation. The battery business is not a significant contributor to the EU economy. But the industry makes a product which we all need and use daily. Indeed, the past decade has seen us move towards mobile technology in most aspects of our everyday lives. Batteries are a fundamental part of this technological revolution. The improved quality and safety of our lives brought to us by batteries is now in jeopardy.
The European Parliament voted on 20 April 2004 in favour of limiting the use of cadmium, lead and mercury in batteries wherever possible, and to increase the number of batteries recycled in Europe. In this article two MEPs, Hans Blokland and Robert Goodwill, debate the issues involved. |
|
| Source Link | http://www.european-voice.com/ |
| Related Links |
|
| Subject Categories | Environment |
