J
ANUARY 2004
Policy Department
Economic and Scientific Policy
End of Life Vehicles (ELV) Directive
An assessment of the current state of implementation by Member
States
(IP/A/ENVI/FWC/2006-172/Lot 1/C1/SC2)
STUDY
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
This study was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health
and Food Safety
Only published in English.
Authors: Malcolm Fergusson, IEEP
Administrator: Gian PaoloMENEGHINI
Policy Department Economy and Science
DG Internal Policies
European Parliament
Rue Wiertz 60 - ATR 00K072
B-1047 Brussels
Tel: +32 (0)2 283 22 04
Fax: +32(0)2 284 69 29
E-mail: gianpaolo.meneghini@europarl.europa.eu
Manuscript completed in March 2007.
The opinions expressed in this document do not necessarily represent the official position of the
European Parliament.
Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised provided the source is
acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and receives a copy.
E-mail: poldep-
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Acknowledgements
The authors at the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) would like to thank
the various colleagues who undertook the national case studies. These were: Catherine
Bowyer (IEEP, London), Alena Dodoková (IEP, Prague), Kristof Geeraerts (IEEP, Brussels),
Gábor Harangozó (Corvinus University, Budapest), Peter Hjerp (IEEP, London), Alexander
Neubauer (Ecologic, Berlin), Frans Oosterhuis (IVM, Amsterdam), and Carolina Valsecchi
(IEEP, London).
We are also grateful for the contributions of stakeholders to whom they spoke in the course of
the research for this report. Thanks are also due to Ian Skinner, now at AEA Technology,
who managed a bulk of the project and commented on drafts. As ever, responsibility for any
errors remains with the authors.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
Page i
PE 385.625
STUDY FOR THE EP COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, PUBLIC HEALTH AND
FOOD SAFETY
IP/A/ENVI/FWC/2006-172/C1/SC2
END-OF LIFE VEHICLES (ELV) DIRECTIVE:
ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT STATE OF IMPLEMENTATION BY MEMBER
STATES
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................v
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND................................................................9
Background to the Report...........................................................................................9
Purpose of the Report..................................................................................................9
Methodology................................................................................................................10
AUSTRIA....................................................................................................................12
Introduction to ELVs in Austria ..............................................................................12
Transposition of the Directive...................................................................................12
Implementation of free take back.............................................................................13
Implementation/achievement of recycling targets..................................................14
Other issues.................................................................................................................14
BELGIUM..................................................................................................................15
Introduction to ELVs in Belgium.............................................................................15
Transposition of the Directive...................................................................................15
Implementation of free take back.............................................................................16
Implementation/achievement of recycling targets..................................................17
Other issues.................................................................................................................17
CZECH REPUBLIC..................................................................................................18
Introduction to ELVs in the Czech Republic..........................................................18
Transposition of the Directive...................................................................................18
Implementation of free take back.............................................................................19
Implementation/achievement of recycling targets..................................................20
Other issues.................................................................................................................20
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
Page ii
PE 385.625
GERMANY ................................................................................................................22
Introduction to ELVs in Germany...........................................................................22
Transposition of the Directive...................................................................................23
Implementation of free take back.............................................................................24
Implementation/achievement of recycling targets..................................................24
Other issues.................................................................................................................25
HUNGARY.................................................................................................................26
Introduction to ELVs in Hungary............................................................................26
Transposition of the Directive...................................................................................26
Implementation of free take back.............................................................................27
Implementation/achievement of recycling targets..................................................28
Other issues.................................................................................................................29
IRELAND...................................................................................................................30
Introduction to ELVs in Ireland...............................................................................30
Transposition of the Directive...................................................................................32
Implementation of free take back.............................................................................33
Implementation/achievement of recycling targets..................................................34
Other issues.................................................................................................................35
ITALY.........................................................................................................................36
Introduction to ELVs in Italy ...................................................................................36
Transposition of the Directive...................................................................................38
Implementation of free take back.............................................................................39
Implementation/achievement of recycling targets..................................................39
Other issues.................................................................................................................40
MALTA.......................................................................................................................42
Introduction to ELVs in Malta.................................................................................42
Transposition of the Directive...................................................................................43
Implementation of free take back.............................................................................44
Implementation/achievement of recycling targets..................................................44
Other issues.................................................................................................................45
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
Page iii
PE 385.625
THE NETHERLANDS..............................................................................................46
Introduction to ELVs in the Netherlands................................................................46
Transposition of the Directive...................................................................................46
Implementation of free take back.............................................................................47
Implementation/achievement of recycling targets..................................................48
Other issues.................................................................................................................48
SWEDEN....................................................................................................................49
Introduction to ELVs in Sweden..............................................................................49
Transposition of the Directive...................................................................................49
Implementation of free take back.............................................................................50
Implementation/achievement of recycling targets..................................................51
Other issues.................................................................................................................51
UNITED KINGDOM.................................................................................................52
Introduction to ELVs in the UK...............................................................................52
Transposition of the Directive...................................................................................53
Implementation of free take back.............................................................................54
Implementation/achievement of recycling targets..................................................55
Other issues.................................................................................................................56
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................57
Background of the General Situation ......................................................................57
General Implementation of the Directive................................................................58
Free Take-Back..........................................................................................................60
Implementation and Achievement of Recycling Targets .......................................62
Other Issues................................................................................................................63
Wider Implications ....................................................................................................63
ANNEX I: SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CASE STUDIES........................65
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
Page iv
PE 385.625
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The proposal for a Directive on End-of Life Vehicles (ELVs) was the first to arise from the
Commission’s priority waste streams programme, and it is well known that most Member
States and car companies experienced difficulties in implementing it. This report provides an
assessment of various aspects of the ELV Directive
1
that were of particular interest to the
European Parliament’s Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee, on the basis
of a series of case studies. It focuses in particular on transposition of the Directive; free take
back and disposal arrangements; and the extent to which recycling targets were met.
Cars and Car Scrappage
The quality of statistics on car scrappage is extremely variable across Europe, although there
are signs that the Directive itself is beginning to bring about some improvements in this. In
some countries, though, it is not yet even possible to estimate precisely how many end-of life
vehicles are being scrapped each year, as by no means all older cars are yet disposed of as
prescribed under the Directive:
• Export of second-hand cars before they reach their end of life is an important (and
possibly growing) feature of the European car market.
• The legitimate second-hand trade masks some illegal activities, such as the export of
wrecked or stolen cars.
• A significant number of cars in some countries are being scrapped by unlicensed
operators who remove the economically desirable parts.
• Some cars are still abandoned rather than properly scrapped.
• Some end-of-life vehicles are ‘garaged’ rather than scrapped.
In most cases, it should be stressed that these practices predate the implementation of the
ELV Directive and were not therefore caused by it. Little evidence was found that the ELV
Directive has adversely affected the levels of such practices, and the requirement to provide
free take back seems to have led to some improvements in the disposal of old cars in some
cases.
General Implementation of the Directive
A small number of countries with a good level of resource, effective administrative systems,
and early experience of operating a highly regulated system of car disposal, have been able to
implement the directive relatively smoothly. The Netherlands and Sweden are good examples
in this respect, with Sweden having enacted its first car scrappage law in 1975, and
implemented producer responsibility from 1998. Germany and Austria also implemented the
Directive in a systematic and quite timely way.
Many, however, have experienced significant difficulties, delays and setbacks in
implementing the Directive. Reflecting this, the Commission has taken some form of legal
action against most of the EU-15 Member States in relation to this Directive, in particular for
late implementation. The EU-10 have also experienced additional problems as outlined
below.
1
Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on end-of life vehicles
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
Page v
PE 385.625
There are a number of reasons that have contributed to these problems and help to explain the
particular difficulties being experienced. Some of these are inherent in the complexity of the
tasks required, and some arise from the specific terms and requirements of the Directive.
• Waste disposal arrangements vary significantly in detail and in effectiveness from one
state to another. Many of these arrangements date back many years, and were not
originally designed to meet the requirements of the ELV Directive.
• The Directive sought to make producers responsible for the cost to take back their
products, not only for those yet to be put on the market, but also for those already on
the market. The latter proved particularly controversial and was strongly opposed by
the carmakers, and the Directive did not specify how the disposal of these cars would
be funded during the transition period of 2002-2007.
• The requirements of the Directive have increased the cost of car disposal, for example
by requiring levels of reuse and recycling that will force all countries to go beyond the
recycling of scrap metal, which was generally economically viable, and to begin to
address recycling of other materials, combustion of certain wastes with heat recovery,
etc.
• Administrative arrangements have also been complex. For example, some of the
requirements of the Directive need the establishment of national systems or standards,
whereas waste management is often the responsibility of the Regions or municipal
authorities. Other responsibilities may have been given to a national EPA
2
, or may
rest with local authorities. Furthermore, in some countries, strict environmental
standards and licensing requirements have been imposed on car dismantlers and
scrappers for the first time, and this has been demanding in terms of resources for
inspection and administration.
• In most Member States the requirements for reporting and for certificates of
destruction have required whole new systems, procedures and administrative
structures to be put in place.
• Car manufacturers hitherto did not have to regard the disposal of their products as a
part of their core business. Where a clearinghouse authority was established to
mediate between manufacturers and dismantlers, things appear to have gone relatively
smoothly. Elsewhere, however, manufacturers have clearly struggled to get to grips
with understanding the diverse waste management systems of 25 different Member
States.
• Countries from the EU-10 have experienced particular difficulties arising in part from
specific aspects of their car fleets and historic disposal arrangements, but also from
their relatively recent adoption of the acquis communautaire. More generally, those
countries that do not have a high level of administrative resource in the relevant areas
have found it particularly difficult to implement this complex Directive effectively
• As noted above, there are a number of routes to the disposal of a vehicle, some legal,
and some not. Where the Directive requires extra procedures and incurs extra costs in
disposal, there is an obvious disincentive for full compliance, and additional
enforcement action is needed to ensure that more cars are covered by the system.
2
EPA, Environment Protection Agency
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
Page vi
PE 385.625
Most of the difficulties listed above can be overcome given sufficient time, effort, and
resources. In many cases there is evidence that delays and problems are of a transitional
nature and can and will be solved in due time. Indeed, some problems have already been or
are being addressed, both in the transposition of the legislation itself, and in its
implementation. More specifically, where figures are available they do generally show
progress towards the reuse, recovery and recycling targets, as discussed below.
Free Take Back
In most Member States, the central requirement for free take back has been implemented,
improving conformity with the Directive’s standards and encouraging last owners to deliver
their cars for disposal.
In some cases it was observed that certain administrative charges were being levied, and
hence take back was not completely free as it ideally should be. It was further argued that
transporting a vehicle to a disposal site could incur a significant cost for vehicles unable to be
taken to the site under their own power. In only a few countries such costs for transport to
disposal appear to be also covered under free take back; elsewhere this may remain a barrier
to complete take-up.
On a related matter, the density of the disposal network appears at this time to vary
substantially from country to country. To some extent this reflects different levels of ambition
in different Member States, but it may in some cases also be a question of transition where
implementation has been slow, and networks are still being built up and new sites licensed.
In general, the financial arrangements between the various actors appear to have worked well
when there is an established clearinghouse organisation to handle the flow of payments and
documentation. In Sweden and the Netherlands, scrappage is funded by a charge applied to
all new cars. Things seem to have gone less smoothly elsewhere, with voluntaristic attempts
to create clearinghouse systems having failed in some cases. Where no such system exists, a
great number of transactions have to be dealt with both by car manufacturers and by
dismantlers and scrappers. Disputes over the level of charges and costs have been reported in
several countries.
During the transition period, there has been a particular difficulty over who should bear the
costs of cars already on the roads before 2002. In countries which had existing funds to
handle disposal of end-of-life vehicles, this appears not to have been a problem. Elsewhere,
though, manufacturers have been extremely resistant to incurring extra costs prior to the date
on which this was made mandatory by the Directive, and in such cases, final owners
continued to have to bear any costs during the transition period. Fortunately, a sharp rise in
the value of scrap metal over this period helped to offset such costs.
Implementation and Achievement of Recycling and Recovery Targets
Although the first set of reuse, recycling and recovery targets relates to 1 January 2006, it is
still too early to draw definitive conclusions as to whether these targets have been widely met
or not. That is, the many countries that implemented the Directive rather late still do not have
reliable reporting systems in place to allow firm conclusions to be drawn as to the
percentages of material that are being reused or recovered in some way, and even the more
'advanced' countries are likely to experience some delays in assembling definitive data.
There are also a range of other reasons why data remain incomplete and are often estimates at
best. Furthermore, in countries where only a relatively small proportion of vehicles are being
scrapped fully under the aegis of the Directive and have received a certificate of destruction
to prove it, the data available have to be regarded as selective and not fully reliable.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
Page vii
PE 385.625
Sweden and the Netherlands already reached the 85% target for reuse and recovery in 2005.
The Netherlands even met the reuse and recycling targets by 1997; but this situation is rather
exceptional. Belgium met the 80% reuse and recycling target in 2005, but it is still unclear
whether it will reach the 85% reuse and recovery target.
In general, a few of the countries that had made an early start in implementing strong targets
for cars are on track to meet the reuse and recycling targets, but most fall somewhat short. By
weight, it is possible to get a long way towards the reuse and recycling target simply by
recycling scrap metal parts of a vehicle, particularly iron and steel, which is in any case
economic to do. Hence it seems likely that a number of other countries will have met the 80%
reuse and recycling target, or at least will do so soon.
However, further efforts are needed in order to reach the reuse and recycling targets in full,
typically including greater efforts to recycle glass, plastics and other materials. Only a few
Member States have so far implemented such systems, though more are now seeking to do
so. It appears, however, that there is little or no market for some of these recycled materials.
A few are also considering more advanced systems to sort the light shredder fraction and
‘fluff’ that remains after the main recyclable components have been dismantled.
The reuse and recovery targets are also proving challenging in almost all Member States,
with few likely on current trends to reach the target, although some others will come close.
Some are now looking actively at the possibility of incineration with heat recovery of parts of
the post-shredder waste stream in order to comply.
Wider Implications
It is sobering to reflect on how many difficulties have been encountered in seeking to impose
a regime of safe and sustainable disposal of end-of-life vehicles, and a degree of producer
responsibility. It can be concluded that many problems, possibly more than currently
observed, will arise in efforts to improve the reuse, and recycling and recovery of materials
from other waste streams, most obviously under the WEEE Directive
3
.
3
Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
(WEEE).
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
Page viii
PE 385.625
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Background to the Report
The proposal for a Directive on End-of Life Vehicles (ELVs) was the first to arise from the
Commission’s priority waste streams programme, which sought to bring together
government, environmental and industrial interests with the aim of building a consensus to
identify how to address such major waste streams. The aim of the ELV proposal was to
address the estimated 8 to 9 million tonnes of waste generated annually from the disposal of
ELVs. Around 25 % of this waste was considered to be hazardous, which amounted to
around 10 % of the total hazardous waste generated each year in the EU, and was landfilled.
The proposal was first published in July 1997, but its progress in both the Parliament and
Council was slow as a result of the concerns of some Member States and the motor industry.
Not only did the Directive propose considerably more stringent arrangements for the take
back and disposal of ELVs than those that were in place at that time in most Member States,
but it also sought to make producers responsible for the cost of take back of their products,
not only for those yet to be put on the market, but also for those already in use. The latter
proved particularly controversial and was strongly opposed by the carmakers.
When the Directive
4
came into force, it quickly became clear that many Member States were
struggling to implement some of its requirements, and enforcement actions by the
Commission followed. Carmakers also complained bitterly about the difficulties of dealing
with different waste management systems and different administrative arrangements in each
Member State.
Given these difficulties and the fact that this was the first Directive that sought to impose
major new environmental requirements for a priority waste stream and a degree of producer
responsibility, the European Parliament’s Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
Committee considered that it would be valuable to undertake an independent assessment to
see what lessons might be learned. In addition, the principal reuse and recovery targets of the
Directive were intended to be met in 2006, while the last of the main provisions of the
Directive should have come into force on 1 January 2007. It therefore appeared timely to
undertake an assessment of progress now.
Purpose of the Report
The purpose of this report is to undertake an assessment of various aspects of the ELV
Directive that were of particular interest to the European Parliament’s Environment, Public
Health and Food Safety Committee. The report therefore addresses primarily the following
questions and is structured accordingly:
• Transposition – Article 10(1) required Member States to have implemented the Directive
by 21 April 2002 (new Member States by accession), but this was not achieved in all
cases. When did legislation to implement the Directive enter into force? Did those dates
correspond with what it is required by the Directive? What enforcement action has the
Commission taken against each Member State? How did the Member State respond, and
have the reasons for the enforcement action now been addressed?
4
The ELV Directive covers any vehicle designated as category M1 or N1 defined in Annex IIA to Directive 70/156/EEC, and three
wheel motor vehicles as defined in Directive 92/61/EEC, but excluding motor tricycles. Classification of the relevant vehicles is as
follows: Category M1 are vehicles used for the carriage of passengers and comprising no more than 8 seats in addition to the driver's
seat – i.e, cars; Category N1 are vehicles used for the carriage of goods and having a maximum weight not exceeding 3.75 metric tons
– i.e. light vans.
In this context 3-wheeled vehicles are small cars or vans with only 3 wheels, but not motor tricycles.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 9 of 67
• Free take back – Article 5(4) of the Directive required Member States to ensure that the
last owner of the vehicle could return the vehicle to a treatment facility at no cost. Article
12(2) states that Article 5(4) applies to vehicles put on the market after 1 July 2002 from
that date (i.e. 1 July 2002) and to all vehicles (no matter when they were put on the
market) from 1 January 2007. How and when did the Member States implement this
aspect of the Directive? Were changes to existing systems necessary or have new systems
been put in place? If there were any delays in transposing the provisions of Article 5,
what were the reasons for these?
• Reuse, recycling and recovery targets – Article 2(a) requires Member States to take
measures to ensure that, by 1 January 2006, ‘economic operators’ on average reuse and
recover annually at least 85 % of ELVs by weight and reuse and recycle at least 80 %.
What measures has each Member State taken to increase the reuse, recovery and
recycling of ELVs since 2000, and have these been successful in meeting targets?
• Other issues - Were there any specific issues or problems in the Member States arising
from the requirements of the Directive (for example. in relation to the ban on the use of
certain hazardous substances (Article 4(2))?
Note that this is an overview report based primarily on case studies, in order to address some
of the broader themes of the Directive and its implementation and to highlight general lessons
learned. The case studies sought to answer the questions set out above, but fall far short of a
detailed legal analysis of the Member States’ compliance with the terms of the Directive, and
should not be taken as such.
Methodology
The analysis is based on case studies from a representative sample of Member States, as it
was judged impractical to survey them all with the resources available. Case studies were
structured around responses to a short questionnaire reflecting the main themes and questions
set out above. Each case study was undertaken by a national expert, and the results were
subsequently compiled and analysed by IEEP. The content of the questionnaire is set out in
Annex I.
The experts used a range of information sources in compiling their reports, including the
following:
• Relevant documentation produced by the Commission and the European Court of Justice,
including that for the purposes of legal proceedings;
• Review of legislation and other relevant government documentation, including national
impact assessments;
• National progress reports and other data sources;
• Documentation produced by NGOs, industry (manufacturers, but also the recycling
industry), other stakeholders (e.g. local authorities) on the issue;
• Interviews with representatives of NGOs, industry, other stakeholders, government.
The authors sought to select a representative range of Member States, including some of the
newer Member States, in order to capture the particular difficulties and issues that might arise
across the Community as a whole. Our choices and rationale for selecting particular countries
were to ensure a diverse range of conditions in terms of car markets and local environmental
laws. We also had some information on which to judge which countries had implemented the
system well and which had experienced specific problems, so we were able to choose diverse
situations to illustrate a range of problems and solutions.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 10 of 67
Our final choices were as follows:
• Several of the large Member States with significant car fleets and manufacturing interests
from the EU-15 (Germany, United Kingdom, Italy);
• Similarly for EU-10 (Hungary, Czech Republic);
• Two states that were known to have implemented the Directive well (Sweden, the
Netherlands);
• Other small to medium-sized states in a range of geographical situations (Ireland, Austria,
Belgium);
• A small island state (Malta).
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 11 of 67
AUSTRIA
Introduction to ELVs in Austria
The automotive industry is of considerable importance in Austria. Cars and other vehicles are
produced in the country (for instance buses, tractors, lorries, military equipment; see e.g.
MAN Austria). In particular, the production of lorries and lorry parts is of economic
importance. Even though there is a significant production of cars (230,505 units produced in
2005
5
), nearly all are exported: only a small number of models belonging to mainly
European (often German) car manufacturers are produced for use within the country (of the
230,505 units of cars and vans produced in 2005 in the country, 224,398 were exported.
6
). In
this sense, then, the problem of end-of life vehicles is one that concerns mainly retailers and
importers of vehicles. According to Austria’s Statistical Yearbook 2006, the registered cars
(including small vans) in the country were 4,156,743 in the year 2005.
7
367,992 new cars
8
and 16,820 second-hand cars were imported during 2005, whereas 37,248 second-hand cars
were exported during that same year
9
.
92,188 ELVs were treated in Austria in the year 2003.
10
The official numbers of ELVs
treatment reported to the EU-Commission for 2004 and 2005 were 98,819 and 94,520.
Even before the ELV Directive was enacted, Austria had considerable experience in the ELV
take back and recovery area, due to an agreement between the Austrian Federal Economic
Chamber (“Wirtschaftskammer Österreich”), the Ministry for Environment and the Ministry
for Economic Affairs in 1992. Since 2002, an ordinance determines the requirements of ELV
take back and treatment/recovery.
Interviewees (Ministry and industrial association) reported that they are not aware of any
increase of illegal shipment or dumping of cars for disposal since the implementation of the
ELV Directive. It is true, however, that with the coming-into-effect of the ELV Ordinance,
there is a decline in numbers of ELVs requiring disposal. As the Economic Chamber of
Austria reported, an important number of old cars are exported to Germany or the new
Member States of the European Union.
Transposition of the Directive
1. Legal situation
Before the ELV Directive was transposed into national law, there was a take back-system for
end-of life vehicles based on a voluntary agreement between the Ministry for the
Environment, the Ministry for Economic Affairs and the Federal Economic Chamber.
5
http://www.wk.or.at/fahrzeuge/main_frame/statistik/statistikjahrbuch/jahrbuch_2006/Seite4.3-4.5%202006.pdf
(20 January 2007).
6
http://www.wk.or.at/fahrzeuge/main_frame/statistik/statistikjahrbuch/jahrbuch_2006/Seite1.3-1.8%202006.pdf
(20 January 200
7).
7
http://www.wk.or.at/fahrzeuge/main_frame/statistik/statistikjahrbuch/jahrbuch_2006/Seite5.2%202006.pdf
(20 January 2007).
8
http://www.wk.or.at/fahrzeuge/main_frame/statistik/statistikjahrbuch/jahrbuch_2006/Seite4.13%202006.pdf
(20 January 2007).
9
http://www.wk.or.at/fahrzeuge/main_frame/statistik/statistikjahrbuch/jahrbuch_2006/Seite5.7%202006.pdf
(20 January 2007).
10
http://www.altauto.at/text/afz_bericht_2003.pdf
(20 January 2007).
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 12 of 67
This agreement became widely obsolete (see below) with the coming-into-force of the new
“Verordnung über die Abfallvermeidung, Sammlung und Behandlung von Altfahrzeugen”, in
short “Abfallfahrzeugeverordnung”, hereinafter ELV-Ordinance, which transposed the ELV
Directive into national law. Most of the provisions of the ordinance entered into force on 6
November 2002, which is some months after the required implementation deadline of 21
April 2002 as set in the Directive. The core of the ELV system, the free take-back system for
cars put on the market from 1 July 2002 should have been installed by this date, for cars put
on the market before 1 July 2002 it should be installed by 1 January 2007. The Directive,
thus, was not transposed into national law quite within the term required by the Directive. As
a consequence, the delay of the legal - i.e. not necessarily the practical - implementation
amounted to a few months.
The Austrian ELV-Ordinance covers the cars M1 and N1 as required by the EU Directive,
and the definitions of M1 and N1 comply with the definitions of Directive 70/156/EEC
11
, as
required by the ELV Directive. The Austrian Ordinance also covers M1 “combined cars”,
which are used for both the transport of passengers and consumer goods.
2. Amendment of Austrian Ordinance after EU Commission’s Complaints
The ordinance (from 2002) was criticised by the European Commission as not being
sufficient to transpose the ELV Directive into national law. The Commission’s main criticism
was that the Austrian ordinance restricts the producers’ obligation to only take back cars of
their own brand and registered in Austria.
12
Upon these complaints the Austrian Government
enacted an amendment to the ELV-Ordinance stating that producers or importers have to take
back all end-of life-vehicles of their brand. In the event that an end-of life vehicle of a brand
that has not been put into circulation in Austria (e.g. an East-German TRABANT) becomes
an ELV, the producer or importer with the closest take-back point to the ELV must take the
vehicle back (i.e. another car firm).
13
There have not been any other complaints from the EU Commission since the 2005
amendment.
Implementation of free take back
The take back system became legally mandatory in Austria on 6 November 2002. The legal
requirement that the take back system is cost-free is laid down in § 5 No. 2 of the ELV-
Ordinance. The costs that the producers have to bear to finance a take-back and treatment
system for ELV are to be included in the price for new cars.
No operative problems with the take-back system have been reported. As ELVs contain
valuable materials – especially metals, for which good prices can be realised – no major
problems with the cost-free take back are to be expected.
An overview of take back points is published on the homepage of the Austrian Ministry for
the Environment.
14
The Ministry for the Environment regularly checks to ensure that the
number of take back points is numerically sufficient and complies with the requirements of §
5 No. 1 of the ELV-Ordinance. The Economic Chamber views the present number of take
back points, which almost equal the number of sale points, as definitely sufficient.
11 Council Directive 70/156/EEC
on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor-vehicles
and their trailers.
12 Press release of 19 January 2005, Environment: Commission pursues legal action against Austria and Germany and
http://portal.wko.at/wk/format_detail.wk?AngID=1&StID=171763&DstID=0
.
13 BGBl. II Nr. 168/2005.
14
http://umwelt.lebensministerium.at/misc/altfahrzeuge/list/?SectionIDOverride=122
(25 January 2007).
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 13 of 67
Implementation/achievement of recycling targets
In Austria, the recycling targets of the ELV Directive were not achieved by the Voluntary
Agreement between Industry and Ministries. In 2002, a study analysed the possibilities of
attaining the recovery/reuse rates, especially the “recovery quota” (including energetic
recovery) as opposed to the “recycling quota”
15
as laid down in the ELV Directive.
In order to meet the recycling rate target set up by the ELV Directive, the study in 2002
recommended stimulating an increase in tyre and shredder residue recycling. In 2002, the
capacity for the recycling of rubber from car tyres has been greatly stepped up with the
inauguration of a new recycling plant – “GVG Gummiverwertungs Gesellschaft mbh".
16
Nevertheless, a study commissioned by the Austrian Ministry for the Environment calculated
that the recovery of the average ELV in Austria in 2004 only amounted to about 79 % (reuse,
recovery and recycling) and fell therefore short of the 85 % reuse-and-recovery objective.
17
This study suggested that the recycling of car tyres could be used to a higher extent
(production of rubber granulate) and glass should be recycled at a high standard. Both the
recycling of the tyres and glass are, however, assessed as economically less attractive than
other ways of treatment (i.e. co-incineration of tyres in cement kilns).
18
In the event that the recycling targets are not met by the economic operators, the legal
framework in Austria might be modified in the sense that certain parts of ELVs would be
required to be recycled in a certain way; but there is as yet no formal proposal to do this.
Besides the experiences and studies concerning ELV treatment practice developed on the
basis of the voluntary ELV agreement, there are both information and training events on the
ELV issue organised by the Austrian Ministry for the Environment.
Other issues
The Economic Chamber (Upper Austria) reported occasional problems concerning
compliance with the lead ban on balance weights (sale and import). Other problems have
been reported concerning spare parts for cars. Spare parts, which have been produced in
compliance with the transitional exceptions (Annex II No. 2a, 4, 7a, 10, 13a, 13b), can also
be used for vehicles that were put into circulation after 1 July 2003. A consultation procedure
was organised following concerns in December 2006.
At the beginning of ELV treatment there have also been a few problems connected with
Austrian permitting law. Treatment processes have to be permitted according to the Trade,
Commerce and Industry Regulation Act and to the Waste Act. These, however, were mainly
transitional issues that have been resolved in the meantime.
15 Up to 2006, the recovery and recycling quote should be 80
% whereas the recovery and reuse quote should be 85
%, so a maximum of
5
% thermal recovery was allowed.
16 The plan has a yearly capacity of 30.000 tons of waste tyres. It can produce 15.000 to 18.000 tons of rubber granulate and 3,000 to
6,000 tons rubber flour.
17
http://www.umweltnet.at/filemanager/download/15136
(25 January 2007)
18
http://www.umweltnet.at/filemanager/download/15136
, p28 (25 January 2007).
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 14 of 67
BELGIUM
Introduction to ELVs in Belgium
Almost all foreign makes of car sold elsewhere in Europe are also represented in Belgium.
Every year about one million cars and 90,000 commercial vehicles, buses and (motor)
coaches are assembled in Belgium. The car industry (assemblers, producers and importers)
has a major impact on the economy and employment. Directly and indirectly some 360,000
persons are employed in the sector (10 % of employees). The Belgian fleet comprised on 31
December 2006 3,582,031 private cars, 1,347,253 cars for both private and commercial use,
523,161 vans and 105,065 lorries. Furthermore, 25,000 persons are employed in more than
260 companies acting as suppliers for the motorcar industry. In 2006 131,074 vehicles (N1
and M1 vehicles) were officially scrapped.
The low number relative to the size of the car fleet is partly explained by the fact that
Belgium has a significant export market for second-hand vehicles. The major destinations for
these exports are West Africa, the Middle East and the former Eastern bloc countries.
However, many of these exports are illegal. Many scrapped cars (wrecks) are exported under
the guise of second-hand cars. According to a Flemish expert, there is no link between the
directive’s implementation and illegal dumping and export. These phenomena already existed
in Belgium before the ELV Directive.
As the competences regarding the implementation of the Directive within Belgium are
divided between the federal and regional authorities, several actors have been made
responsible for the three-yearly reporting on the implementation of the ELV-directive: the
Flemish OVAM (Openbare Vlaamse Afvalstoffenmaatschappij), the Walloon OWD (Office
Wallon des Déchets) and the Brussels BIM/IBGE (Brussels Instituut voor
Milieubeheer/Institut Bruxellois pour la Gestion de l’Environnement). To this end these three
administrations work closely with FEBELAUTO, a non-profit body established in 1999 by
twelve occupational federations from three sectors
19
in order to organise and observe the
management of end-of life vehicles for the whole of Belgium. To gather all the data on the
collected end-of life vehicles every single recognised treatment facility makes use of EMS-
software (End-of life vehicles Monitoring System). FEBELAUTO has access to the
information of the whole network of recognised treatment facilities and is, thanks to this, able
to determine figures on reuse, recovery and recycling.
Transposition of the Directive
For the sake of conciseness, we only discuss the transposition measures taken by the federal
and Flemish authorities. In the Flemish Region the directive was transposed by changes to the
Flemish waste decree, the VLAREA-rules on waste prevention and waste management
(Vlaams Reglement inzake Afvalvoorkoming en –beheer), the decree on environmental
permits, the rules on environmental permits (VLAREM I and VLAREM II), the decree on
economic support policy and the decision regarding support to enterprises for ecological
investments and the environmental policy agreement concluded between the Flemish
government and the economic operators. Some changes were made and entered into force
before 21 April 2002, others only after this date. VLAREA for example, was adapted in order
to bring complete conformity with the Directive. This new VLAREA entered into force on 1
June 2004, two years after the deadline of 21 April 2002.
19
The three sectors are: the sector of the assemblers, producers, importers and end sellers, the treatment and recycling sector and the sector
of the suppliers and the raw materials industry.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 15 of 67
The old VLAREA, however, already implemented a significant part of the Directive, as it had
already introduced the obligation of economic operators to take back end-of life vehicles in
1999. Besides, the Flemish legislation and rules do cover both light commercial vehicles (N1
vehicles) and passenger cars (M1 vehicles), as required by the directive.
The federal government on the other hand did not manage to transpose article 4 (on
prevention) and article 8 (on component and material coding standards) on time, as it adopted
the decision regarding product norms for vehicles, only on 19 March 2004. However article 5
paragraph 2 regarding the setting up of a system, according to which the presentation of a
certificate of destruction is a condition for deregistration of the end-of life vehicle, was
transposed on time by the decision on the registration of vehicles of 20 July 2001, but was
initially not communicated to the Commission.
Because of these late transpositions and some non-communication, the Commission took
enforcement action against Belgium. In 2002 it opened a non-communication case against
Belgium. In 2003 the Commission even decided to refer Belgium to Court for its failure to
adopt national legislation transposing the Directive. In 2004, however, the Commission
closed the infringement procedure because Belgium had adopted and communicated its
transposition measures. In 2005 a new enforcement action was set up as a result of a
conformity inquiry by the Commission. The Commission sent a letter to Belgium on 16
March 2005 with questions which needed to be clarified by the authorities. The Flemish
Region responded to these questions in July 2005 and promised to make and actually made
some changes to its legislation. The information sources consulted indicated no further steps
by the European Commission.
Implementation of free take back
In the Flemish Region the economic operators (end sellers, middlemen and
producers/importers) are obliged to take back end-of life vehicles since 1999. This obligation
was laid down in the VLAREA-regulation and the environmental policy agreement
concluded in 1999 between the Flemish government and the economic sector. The free take
back, however, was only introduced with the entering into force of the new VLAREA on 1
June 2004, whereas the Directive requires that the free take back must apply on vehicles put
on the market after 1 July 2002 from 1 July 2002. All other vehicles, however, were already
subject to the free take back system since 1 January 2006, one year earlier then required by
the directive.
The economic operators do pay for the take back and the transport of end-of life vehicles to
the recognised treatment facilities since 1999. They are encouraged by the environmental
policy agreement(s) concluded with the Flemish government (and the other regional
governments) to provide for a network for collection of end-of life vehicles either via
recognised treatment facilities or via points of sale. However, before 2004 owners of end-of
life vehicles could only leave their car at the points of sale, if they bought a new vehicle.
Since the new environmental policy agreement of 2004 they are not obliged to buy a new car.
The treatment of end-of life vehicles takes place in a national network of recognised
treatment facilities, co-ordinated and supported by the clearinghouse body FEBELAUTO.
These treatment facilities are inspected by independent inspection bodies. On the basis of the
reports made by these inspection bodies, the responsible administrations (OVAM for the
Flemish Region) decide about the recognition of these facilities. In 2005 the Flemish Region
had 45 recognised treatment facilities (Wallonia 9 and Brussels 2). The Belgian treatment
facilities collected 131,074 vehicles in 2006, while only 38,822 in 2002.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 16 of 67
In order to increase the traceability of vehicles and improve the collection rate, the federal
agency responsible for registration of vehicles (DIV or Dienst Inschrijving Voertuigen)
started recently a study on the feasibility and opportunity to introduce a new registration
system in Belgium. The federal government aims to introduce in 2009 a procedure by which
seller and buyer of a vehicle need to identify themselves via their electronic identity card and
need to confirm the transaction via an electronic signature. Thereby the chassis number will
be registered too. At this moment only the number plates are linked with identity details of
individuals. In order to encourage people to deregister their end-of life vehicle and to get a
certificate of destruction, the policy makers are considering options to financially reward
people for doing this. A possible way of doing this, is to exempt these persons from paying
their car tax. The regional waste authorities and FEBELAUTO have been zealous advocates
of this new registration system.
A difficulty that has arisen with respect to the free take back and the requirement that
producers pay at least a significant part of the costs, is the fact that it is quite difficult to
determine these costs. Most producers and importers in Belgium have made agreements with
the recognised treatment facilities to organise the collection of end-of life vehicles. So the
costs are shared between the ‘producers’ and the treatment facilities. As this is commercial
information, the waste agencies do not know exactly how much the producers pay.
Implementation/achievement of recycling targets
Besides the take back system, the Flemish Region took additional measures to increase the
reuse, recovery and recycling of end-of life vehicles. First, the software used by these
treatment facilities was upgraded in order to register data on reuse, recovery and recycling
more adequately: transition was made from the EDP system (Electronic Data Processing
System) to the EMS system (End-of life vehicles Monitoring System). Second, the code of
good practice for treatment facilities was transposed to the rules regarding environmental
permits (VLAREM). As a result, this code of good practice is now part of the treatment
facilities’ environmental permits (as a set of obligatory conditions) which makes its
application subject to control by the environmental inspection. Third, FEBELAUTO and the
regional authorities took action to bring the legislation and obligations regarding end-of life
vehicles to the notice of insurance companies and authorities in order to increase the level of
collection, reuse, recycling and other types of recovery.
In 2004 and 2005 the economic operators within Belgium attained a reuse and recovery rate
of 81% by an average weight per vehicle and year (EU target is 85% by 2006), while the
reuse and recycling rate in 2005 was 80% (EU target is 80% by 2006). So the reuse and
recycling target imposed by the Directive was already reached in 2005. Progress has been
made over the years: in 2002 the reuse and recycling rate was 76%, while the reuse and
recovery rate was 77%. Currently available data do not suggest that significant further
progress is being made in terms of recovery, however, there are difficulties in establishing
full information on this point, and it has been suggested that final figures may be more
favourable.
The figures mentioned come from FEBELAUTO, the Belgian management body. At this
moment there is, however, still some discussion about (the method to determine) these
figures. More in particular there is some discussion on how to take into account data from
post shredder treatment technology.
Other issues
None raised.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 17 of 67
CZECH REPUBLIC
Introduction to ELVs in the Czech Republic
The Czech Republic is a country with relatively aged car fleet (in 2005 – average age of a car
was 13.57 years
20
) although during the recent years the amount of new cars sold on the
market increased a number of times. Still, the country’s market for second-hand cars ranks
among the biggest in the EU, with the majority of these cars imported from abroad; the
import in 2005 increased by 20 % and was the highest in history (approximately 150,000 cars
were imported in relation to 130,000 new cars sold).
21
The Czech car manufacturer ŠKODA
Auto is well established and after it became part of the Volkswagen Group, ŠKODA cars are
now frequently sold and well-known across the EU. Car components are manufactured and
marketed by ŠKODA Holding.
In 2005, there were 3,958,708 cars/vans registered in the Czech Republic – the size of the
car/van fleet grew by 500,000 since the year 2000.
22
The end-of life vehicle agenda is administered by the Ministry of the Environment (ME).
Other competent authorities are regional authorities and so-called Municipalities with
Extended Competences (MECs). Certain competencies were also delegated to the Ministry of
Industry and Trade and Ministry of Health. The ME is a final collection place of the reports
from the MECs that were submitted by producers and operators of authorised take-back
facilities and operators of authorised treatment facilities, who are responsible for keeping the
reports. Producers
23
are required to submit annual reports on meeting the recovery and
recycling targets by 31 March of the following year. The system of reporting has been
criticized from the side of the obligated authorities for its complexity. Following the “audit”
of environmental legislation, the Ministry started to draft a new and separate Decree
regulating exclusively end-of life vehicles (a major improvement would be that the report in a
standardized format can be submitted in electronic form). While waiting for this Decree to be
adopted and to enter into force, the Ministry issued a communication on keeping the reports
for 2007.
24
The communication has been issued in the beginning of 2007 to regulate the
issue for the time being.
Transposition of the Directive
The ELVs Directive was transposed by Act no. 185/2001 Coll. on wastes
25
. More technical
requirements of the Directive on the authorised treatment facilities and reporting of
information were transposed by the amendment to Decree no. 383/2001 Coll. of the Ministry
for the Environment. Reuse and recovery targets have been transposed in the Mandatory Part
of the Waste Management Plan (WMP) of the Czech Republic
26
and also in the Waste Act.
Act no. 188/2004 Coll. added to, respectively amended accordingly, Sections 36-37e of the
Waste Act and entered into force on 23 April 2004. The amendment to the Decree entered
into force on 21 April 2005. The Mandatory Part of the WMP is effective since 1 July 2003.
20
This methodology also counts cars that are registred but may not be used regularly any more.
21
Kvítek, J. : Problémem autogramů není jenom přesná , in Odpady 1/2006
22
Statistical Yearbook of Transportation, Ministry of Transportation. 2006
23
Producers are both car manufacturers and accredited importers
24
Communication of the Waste Department of the Ministry of the Environment from 2 January 2007 concerning the reporting standards
for 2007
25
Sections 36- 37e
26
Government Regulation No. 197/2003 Coll. on the Waste Management Plan of the Czech Republic.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 18 of 67
The Czech legislation distinguishes between “end-of life vehicle” in general (for all vehicle
types) and “specific end-of life vehicle”, for which more stringent measures are applicable.
The definition of “specific end-of life vehicle” reflects the coverage of the ELV Directive, i.e.
it covers both N1 and M1 vehicles and three wheel motor vehicles excluding motor tricycles
as defined by the relevant Directives. According to the Seventh Annual Survey on the
implementation and enforcement of Community environmental law, no infringement
proceedings have been brought against the Czech Republic with regard to the ELV Directive.
Implementation of free take back
Article 5(4) of the ELV Directive was transposed by the amendment to the Waste Act. Free
take back for final users is only applicable since 1 January 2007 for all cars/vans. Also, since
1 January 2007, producers (manufactures and authorised representatives) are obliged to take
back all cars of own brand if delivered to the authorised take-back facility by the last owner
(up to this date, this obligation only applied to cars manufactured after 1 July 2002).
Authorised take-back facilities are independent facilities that have been authorised by the
competent authorities (regional authority) to be run in order to take back all end-of life
vehicles and specific end-of life vehicles free of charge (as applicable of 1 January 2007),
issue certificates on the delivery, deliver the end-of life vehicles to the treatment facilities,
store them in accordance with legal obligations, keep records of end-of life vehicles received
and delivered to the treatment facilities and send them to the competent authorities and
participate in the information system of the “flow” of specific end-of life vehicles as
stipulated by the relevant legislation. Producers that do not offer free take back in their own
facilities, contract these facilities to provide for free take back of end-of life vehicles of their
brand (this is a common practice). In other cases (non-existence of a contract with a
producer), the operators are allowed to charge fees for the take-back (inter alia for old car
brands). These facilities are not obliged to carry out treatment themselves. In such cases, their
operators are legally bound to deliver the end-of life vehicles collected to the authorised
treatment facilities. The list of authorised take back and treatment facilities is publicly
available on the internet and at the regional authorities.
All importers (including individual importers) are obliged to pay a fee of 5,000 CZK (about
€180) for importation of a second-hand car, which does not meet the technical standards
required by the amendments to Directive 70/220/EEC.
27
The fee is transferred to the State
Environmental Fund and allocated for the collection, treatment, reuse and disposal of end-of
life vehicles.
A person applying for withdrawal of a car from the car register in accordance with the special
Act
28
is required to submit, apart from other documents, a certificate of the delivery of the
end-of life vehicle to the authorised take back facility (Potvrzení o převzetí autovraku do
zařízení na sběr autovraků). However, reasonable doubts exist about the certificate being
easily counterfeited or the obligation otherwise evaded.
27
Section 37e of the Act no. 185/2001 Coll.
28
Act no. 56/2001 Coll. on the conditions of road traffic, as amended (zákon o podmínkách provozu na pozemních komunikacích)
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 19 of 67
Implementation/achievement of recycling targets
Producers prepare an annual report on meeting the recycling targets which is specified by
Decree 383/2001 and send it to the Ministry of the Environment. According to the
responsible ministerial officials, these targets have not yet been monitored separately (started
from the second half of 2006) therefore no separate data is available, as this has only been put
into effect after Decision no. 2005/293/EC laid down this obligation.
29
At present, end-of life vehicles in the Czech Republic are from 18 – 24 years of age. It
concerns several generations of cars that differ also in their material structure, which is
important with regard to the achievement of recycling targets. The differences are
quantitative (amount of irons, plastics, rubber and other parts) and also qualitative (use of
“modern metals” such as platinum, rhodium etc., different plastics and hazardous materials).
This makes benchmarking with the EU data (where end-of life vehicles are much younger)
complicated and demands different separation and recycling technologies.
In general, transformation of a common “car landfill” operation (as operated before) to a
treatment facility demanded costly investments, which only a part of the operators was
willing to bear.
30
Other issues
To sum up, problematic issues in relation to end-of life vehicles are, apart from rather
complicated legislation and massive importation of second-hand cars, cost-demanding
investment into the treatment facilities, system of fees, a lack of capacity to process certain
material parts (glass, plastics and rubber) and the existence of so-called “car cemeteries”.
31
Car cemeteries are illegally operated sites where people leave their unused cars (end-of life
vehicles in fact) and there is no consequent treatment process. These car depots are a long-
term phenomenon - they used to serve as a “storage” of spare car components in the past and
end-of life vehicles dumping sites. Instruments, which were adopted to prevent this from
happening, are:
1. Certificate of the delivery of the end-of life vehicle to the authorised take-back
facility (Potvrzení o převzetí autovraku do zařízení na sběr autovraků) which is a
mandatory document to be submitted together with the application for a withdrawal
of a car from the car register (as mentioned above). This requirement is imposed by
law and is now fully effective. Although occurrence of forgeries is presumed, there
are no statistics of these. Statistics of the development trend do not exist either.
29
2005/293/EC: Commission Decision of 1 April 2005 laying down detailed rules on the monitoring of the reuse/recovery and
reuse/recycling targets set out in Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on end-of life vehicles
30
At present, there are more than 400 authorised take-back facilities – they either have capacities to treat the end-of life vehicles or
contract with an authorised treatment facility. The Czech Republic has 14 regions and its territory has 78,866 km
2
– car owners are
concentrated in Prague where the distance is short. On the other hand, from some remote areas, it might be even 25 km or more.
However, there is no fixed distance criterion in the Czech legislation. Authorised take-back facilities are to be evenly spread with
regard to regions, not municipalities.
31
Melčák, M.: Autovraky – včera, dnes a zítra, in Odpadové fórum 10/2006
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 20 of 67
2. So-called “car deposit” (temporary withdrawal of a car from a register), which in
practice means that the owner returns back his licence plates and is not obliged to
pay the insurance, is now limited to 12 months (in exceptional situations may be
extended by half a year) after which the registration has to be renewed or the car
permanently withdrawn (in the latter case, the owner has to submit the certificate as
mentioned in the first bullet)
32
.
3. Regarding sanctions, the Czech Environmental Inspectorate is competent in the
field.
The Centre for Waste Management of the T.G. Masaryk Water Research Institute has been
executing a project, which monitors amounts of hazardous substances in samples of treated
parts obtained from two treatment facilities. The project will be concluded by the end of
2011. However, the period is not long enough to acquire samples from the end-of life
vehicles manufactured after 1 July 2003.
32
Section 13 of the Act no. 56/2001 Coll. on the conditions of road traffic, as amended (zákon o podmínkách provozu na pozemních
komunikacích) – the amended Section 13 is effective since 1 July 2006
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 21 of 67
GERMANY
Introduction to ELVs in Germany
Germany hosts a variety of car producers, and a high proportion of buyers are loyal to the
national brands. Consequently, many of the cars sold and used in Germany have also been
manufactured in the country. The German Association of the Automotive Industry’s (VDA)
statistics show that 5,350,187 cars and 407,523 lorries were produced in 2005.
33
46 millions
cars were registered in Germany in 2005.
34
Of the 3.2 million cars, which were de-registered from German registration in 2005, about 2.4
million cars are supposed to have been exported. There is no clue as to whether they were
kept in circulation as “used cars” or scrapped abroad.
35
A great deal of informal evidence
suggests that a significant proportion is exported to the new Member States and other
countries still further east. New statistical information about ELV recovery indicates that
540,000 ELVs were treated in 2004, which amounts to less than 20 % of the cars that were
de-registered from the German market.
The 2005 German report on the implementation of the ELV Directive
36
according to Art.
9(1) of Directive 2000/53/EC states the export of second-hand cars as the main reason for this
decrease in numbers; the factual basis for this judgement, though, is not provided. It is not
clear if the reduction in the number of cars being scrapped in Germany is associated with the
new strength of the ELV regulations, or with other factors such as changes in the economic
context of other countries or regions (e.g. Eastern Europe) which could have led to an
increased demand for second-hand cars out of Germany.
One estimation for illegal car dumping was delivered by a Bavarian Environmental NGO,
which in 2001 estimated the number of cars dumped in the countryside to be between 50,000
and 100,000 in Germany per year.
37
This estimate was delivered before the ELV Directive
came into force. The German Ministry for the Environment judges that the implementation of
the ELV Directive in Germany would lead to an end of the ELV dumping in the
countryside.
38
There are no current statistics about illegal dumping of cars. However,
because of the high prices of steel, even before 2007, owners of ELVs could hand in their
cars to take back points/treatment facilities on a cost-free basis or even earn a small profit.
The motivation for illegal dumping has therefore been limited.
39
Regardless, the problem of illegal (i.e. non certified/permitted) ELV collection and recovery
was mentioned by ARGE Altauto, a forum (‘working group’) dealing with ELV issues. ELV
recovery, which is not in line with the requirements of the ELV Directive, is motivated by the
recovery of highly priced materials as metals, etc. In these cases end-of life vehicles are
bought by non-certified “recoverers” and the valuable materials are then sold on the market
(e.g. Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Serbia, etc.) without respecting the technical treatment
requirements of the Directive.
33
http://www.vda.de/de/aktuell/statistik/jahreszahlen/automobilproduktion/index.html
(24 January 2007).
34
http://www.bmu.de/fb_abf/?fb=2985
(24 January 2007).
35
http://www.bmu.de/fb_abf/?fb=2985
(24 January 2007), same statement by German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA). .
36
See http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/Converters/convertDocument?file=de/eu/elv/envq_mnia/questionnaire.xml&conv=rem_9
footnote 3
(24 January 2007).
37
http://www.bund-naturschutz.de/oekotipps/muellentsorgung/altautos.html
(24 January 2007).
38
http://www.bmu.de/abfallwirtschaft/doc/3730.php
(24 January 2007).
39
Information also given by VDA.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 22 of 67
Transposition of the Directive
1. Legal history
The Directive was transposed into German national law in 2002 by the “Act on the disposal
of end-of life vehicles / End-of life Vehicles Act”
40
. The core piece of this act was an
amendment to the already existing End-of life-vehicle-Ordinance (hereinafter ELV-
Ordinance). This ordinance had come into effect in 1998 and already laid down certain
requirements for the treatment/recovery of end-of life vehicles including recovery and
recycling targets, but had to be adapted to the provisions of the EU Directive.
The ordinance amendment (version adapted to the Directive) came into force on 1 July 2002
while the Directive required the national transposition by 21 April 2002 for most of the
stipulations. Therefore the delay of formal transposition was – if of any importance – only a
matter of 2 and one half months.
2. European Commission demands amendments
The 2002 Ordinance transposing the ELV Directive did not satisfy the European
Commission. In the following, the various points that were referred to by the Commission as
not being in accordance with the ELV Directive are listed and the steps by Germany to
overcome these problems described
41
:
• Scope: The 2002 ordinance covered M1 and N1 vehicles but contrary to the ELV
Directive limited the scope of the ordinance for vehicles designed for special use to
vehicles with a maximum weight of 3.5 tonnes (see § 1 para. 3 ELV Ordinance 2002).
Upon complaints by the European Commission, the German Government extended the
scope of the Directive to all M1 vehicles making use of the clause in Art. 3 No. 4 of the
ELV Directive, which says “Special purpose vehicles as defined in the second indent of
Art. 4(1)(a) of Directive 70/156/EEC shall be excluded from the provision of Article 7 of
this Directive”.
• Exceptions from cost-free take back system: The German 2002 ordinance made a free
take back system obligatory only for cars registered according to the German registering
procedure. In addition, free take back could be denied if the German car documents
(“Fahrzeugbrief”) are not handed over. The EU Commission did not regard the restriction
to cars run in accordance with German national procedures compatible with EU law and
principles. Upon complaints by the European Commission, the amendment to the ELV
Ordinance extended the obligation to take back ELVs on a cost-free basis to cars
registered in the European Union. The free take back of an ELV can be denied if the car
papers (German document or EU Document) have not been handed in.
42
40
BGBl. I, 2002, p. 2199.
41
The Amendment of the German ELV-Ordinance, which remedied the shortcomings referred to by the EU-Commission, was enacted in
2006 (see BGBl I, 2006, p. 326).
42
A further amendment concerns cars produced in a multi-stage process, see new § 3 no. 7.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 23 of 67
Other critical points mentioned by the EU Commission concern the ban of certain substances
for the car production
43
, the provision of information regarding the decomposition of
ELVs
44
and the definition of ’economic operators’
45
.
With the amendments enacted in 2006 the legal transposition of the ELV Directive into
German national law has been accomplished.
Implementation of free take back
The German ELV-Ordinance foresees a take-back obligation (§3 para.1) in line with the
requirements of the ELV Directive. Car producers have to take back all the vehicles of their
brand in an authorised permitted collection facility or an authorised dismantling facility
designated by the car producer. At the collection or dismantling facility, the owner is given a
certificate of destruction.
The take back system for end-of life cars is explicitly required to be cost free. The German
ordinance also requires the installation of a “sufficiently comprehensive network of
authorised collection facilities or authorised dismantling facilities”. No practical problems
with the cost-free take-back system have been reported
46
. Currently, the high steel prices
rather favour the cost-free take back. The take-back system works effectively. Dismantling
facilities even report the problem of the decreasing number of ELVs being presented for
dismantling, which makes it hard for them to fill their capacities. In effect the car
manufacturers have to bear the costs of the take-back system. The recovery of ELVs is
subject to market mechanisms. High steel prices thus make the recovery of ELVs at least
cost-neutral.
There is a tightly knit web of take back and dismantling points in Germany. 1116 treatment
facilities for ELV were registered at the Joint Point ELV (Gemeinsame Stelle
Altfahrzeuge).
47
The treatment facilities are certified by external experts.
48
ARGE Altauto, however, referred to occasional enforcement problems of the ELV-Ordinance
by the local authorities. For example the submission of a certificate of deconstruction in line
with the ELV ordinance as a precondition of car deregistration is not always respected.
Implementation/achievement of recycling targets
Based on data from the Federal Statistical Office Germany, the German Federal
Environmental Agency has calculated the reuse and recycling rate for 2004 at 77.2 % and the
reuse and recovery rate at 79.7 %. Therefore, the recycling and recovery targets (at least 80 %
reuse and recycling, 85 % reuse and recovery as from 1 January 2006) might not be achieved.
ARGE Altauto estimates the de facto recycling rate to be lower (around 70 % as an optimistic
number). In particular, the reuse/recycling of glass and synthetic materials has been criticised.
43
These aspects will not be further explored in this briefing, see for the amendments: § 1 para. 3, § 8 para. 2.
44
Now to be provided generally and not only on request.
45
For the definition of economic operators the group of “distributors” had to be added in § 2 no. 22.
46
Unanimous position of VDA, ARGE Altauto and the Federal Environmental Agency. VDA, however, rejects the free-take back
system as too burdensome for the car manufacturing industry. Age and state of the ELV are decisive for the costs and profits of the
recovery process and cannot be influenced by the car manufacturing industry.
47
http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/Converters/convertDocument?file=de/eu/elv/envq_mnia/questionnaire.xml&conv=rem_9
(25 January
2007).
48
In accordance with the ELV-Ordinance of 1998, an ELV- take-back system had already been in place in Germany when the ELV-
Directive was passed on the European level. However, the take-back system was not generally cost-free, but a price had to be
negotiated between the treatment facility and the owner of the ELV. The take-back was only cost-free for cars produced from 1998
onward.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 24 of 67
The material is often stored at the site of car treatment facilities due to a lack of further uses
identified for it. The lack of enforcement of the recycling standards by many authorities was
also criticised by ARGE Altauto. The German Federal Environmental Agency refers to the
shredder residues as the fraction, which has so far been largely landfilled. The statistics for
2006 will be available in 2008. VDA suggests that the recycling targets could still be met.
In order to foster compliance with the prescribed recycling targets of the ELV-Ordinance,
Germany has enacted an amendment to the German Waste Disposal and Landfill Ordinances
(Abfallablagerungs- und Deponieverordung), banning waste featuring a calorific value of
over 6,000MJ/Mg from landfills, also for those landfills for ELV-specific waste streams.
There are also guidelines by technical associations (e.g. the association of German engineers,
VDI) aiming at fostering the reuse of ELV parts. In the future, the focus of recycling and
recovery research will lie on the light shredder fraction, which may no longer be put to
landfills. A mechanical recovery of this fraction is carried out for example in a treatment
plant in Saxony where it is separated into different recoverable streams. In the future, the
automobile industry will focus on post-shredder technology to recover non-metallic fractions.
Other issues
Principally the technical treatment requirements of the ELV are complied with in the
treatment facilities. Of course, there are problems with illegal collectors of ELVs, who only
wish to recover the valuable materials and do not comply with the high standard of ELV
treatment.
The car manufacturing and spare part industry is unhappy with bans of certain materials,
which also apply for cars where these materials have been used and where the material may
no more be used even for repair purposes.
As for component and material coding standards, in Germany there is no general coding
guideline, so coding is not very developed.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 25 of 67
HUNGARY
Introduction to ELVs in Hungary
Hungary has not been a car manufacturer country in the last decades (it was specialized in
buses and trucks within the socialist bloc), it used to import the main part of its car/van fleet.
However from the beginning of the 1990s a couple of international car and car-component
manufacturers have started to operate in the country.
At present the major car manufacturer in Hungary is Suzuki (22,000-25,000 cars per year for
the domestic market – roughly a market share of 10 %). Audis are also produced in Hungary,
but mainly for export. The major component manufacturers are: VW/Audi, GM/Opel, Ford,
Denso etc.
The car fleet (M1) in 2005 accounted for 2,900,000 vehicles, the van fleet (N1)
approximately 230,000, both are about 20 % higher than the 2000 data.
In the recent years approximately 220,000 new cars have been registered per year plus 3,000-
30,000 second-hand cars. The second-hand cars are coming mainly from Western-Europe
(the most popular source is probably Germany). The high volatility of the second-hand
import data is due to the frequent changes of the regulation of imports in the last years;
second-hand imports are currently decreasing as regulation is getting stricter. There is no
reliable data on second-hand export quantities (from a couple of thousands to a couple of ten
thousands), but the main destinations are Ukraine, Russia and Serbia. Until very recently
Romania was also one of the most important destinations but parallel to EU integration those
exports seem to decline. As the car fleet on average is so old (11 years on average) the second
hand car import helps to make it a bit younger (not much as they are not very significant in
total number). Of course if all the second hand import would be replaced by new cars it
would be even better, but this is not likely to happen in the near future.
In 2005 about 140,000-150,000 cars and 10,000-12,000 vans have been scrapped (it is rather
an estimation than official data – see details later).
Illegal exports from Hungary are not unknown (for instance in the case of stolen cars for use
or for car-parts) but this issue does not seem to be linked with the implementation of the
Directive.
The car “producers” (although in the Hungarian context this means importers in most cases)
are responsible for the reporting requirements set out in Article 9(2). The authorities check
the reuse/recovery/recycling targets (by the ELV-processing network, the contractors of the
car producers) – however, it is not unproblematic (see Section 6.4).
Transposition of the Directive
The implementation of the Directive happened 1 January 2005, by Order number 267/2004.
Due to the challenge of the law harmonization by that time, it was rather later than Hungary’s
EU entry on 1 May 2004 – the required date of transposition. Although Order 267/2004
covers the whole Directive in its generality and there has been much harmonisation work
done with other laws, the enforcement of these rules is still unclear at some points (see free
take back and processing ELVs later).
The Hungarian legislation covers both M1 and N1 categories and all provisions required by
the Directive.
There is no information on any enforcement action by the Commission against Hungary.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 26 of 67
Implementation of free take back
This aspect of legislation is also implemented (267/2004) and in force since 1 January 2005
(for pre-July 2002 cars/vans) and 1 January 2007 for all cars/vans. Thus the first deadline was
missed reflecting Hungary’s relatively recent accession, but the second was met on time.
Hungarian law prescribes that the ELV processing facilities must be able to be reached within
50 km on public road from any points of the country.
Take back is now theoretically free for final users (as stated in 267/2004) although there is
still an older parallel rule that lets ELV processing facilities charge a fee of about €16 for
certifying the take back (which is not always applied in practice) and there is an official fee
of about €6 for the final withdrawal from traffic of the vehicle. An extra – but potentially
high– cost can be the transport to the processing facility, if the ELV can not do it under its
own power.
Making producers pay has been a very tough and unclear task so far, which is closely
connected to the main characteristics of Hungarian ELV issue. Because of the high demand
for motorization and cars in Hungary and the still not very high living standards of the
population, the car and van fleet is still very old. The average age of these vehicles is
approximately 11 years (25 % of the car fleet is older than 16 years), the average age of
withdrawal from traffic is approximately 21.5 years; these numbers do not seem likely to
decrease rapidly in the near future. Besides the significant market for old cars there is a
prospering market for car parts as well (the high quantity of old cars on the roads set a high
and stable demand for parts of the same models – and of course this demand is not satisfied
by purchasing new parts from producers). The main problem is that a central point of the
Directive (free take back of ELVs as they mostly have a negative market value) is not really
realistic as a) a 20-year-old car is usually far not an ELV yet and b) an ELV still has a
positive market value in most cases, as at least a couple of euros can be made out of it by
selling its parts. It should be emphasised that the number of older cars – especially for
socialist models – have a very modest model range, so the old car parts are compatible with
the surviving cars in most cases.
Because of this issue car “producers” argue that taking over and processing ELVs is not a
problem they should pay for, as it happens automatically on a market basis (which is not far
from reality in most cases – if we disregard environmental points of view at processing). As
the law requires them to ensure the free take back, they contract ELV processing facilities
with the required environmental permissions. Most of the “producers” contract with
coordinating organizations (more “producers” with the same organizations managing an ELV
processing network), however other producers have set up their own contractor network.
There was a plan to create one coordinator organization and a shared ELV-processing
network for all “producers” to decrease the total costs, but this failed because of the
resistance of producers – they refused to pay the costs. Although now all the producers are in
contract with ELV processing facilities or coordinators, it is unclear what part of the total
costs they pay. Thus a network or networks do exist, but are avoided in many cases because it
is more economic to dispose by other (informal or illegal) means as described below.
In the existing system of ELV processing facilities, car owners could leave (or in most cases
– sell) their vehicles there; the facilities sold what they could as car parts and secondary raw
material and the rest was deposited. Now there is a network for all “producers” with a
guarantee of free (or almost free – see above) take back (in this sense not very different from
the existing system) but at least operating with the required environmental permissions. The
main problem is still open, whether the free take back at the facilities in the new network is
incentive enough that most of the ELVs end up there (see next point).
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 27 of 67
Implementation/achievement of recycling targets
As it was stated before, the reuse/recovery/recycling of ELVs has happened (or not
happened) until recently mainly on a market basis. In addition there is now the administrative
requirement of reuse and recovery targets of the Directive.
It is very difficult to give exact numbers for reuse and recovery for 2000 as there was not an
exact database for that and the destination of most of the ELVs was unclear (this is still the
case), but the estimation of about 70-75 % for the processing facilities (reuse and mainly
material recovery) is probably not far from reality.
The ELV processing facilities (the ones in contract with “producers”) seem to have reached
the 85% reuse and recovery target for 2005 and 2006. They mainly specialize on material
recovery (scrap-metal etc.); reuse happens in smaller quantities while recovery (e.g.
incineration with heat recovery) is not significant.
This positive picture is clouded by the fact that far from all ELVs end up in these processing
facilities (with the environmental permissions). As stated above, about 140,000-150,000 cars
are scrapped per year (or at least disappear from the roads), but in 2006 only 44,000 have
gone to the appropriate processing facilities. It is not clear what happens with the rest, given
that the Directive and also the national law 267/2004 sets the requirement of a take back
certification from a “qualified” processing facility for the final withdrawal from traffic, but
this is clearly not the case for many cars. Some of the latter are dumped, some deregistered
and garaged, some processed through unregistered dismantlers, who use them to provide
second-hand car parts for the domestic and export market.
As was pointed out above, for owners free take back is not the most financially attractive way
for getting rid of their ELVs. They can probably sell it whole or at least some parts (engine,
body parts etc.) for a couple of tens or hundreds of euros (in the latter case, the rest of the car
will probably not be taken by the official processors for free – see also the Directive). In these
cases there is no data on reuse and recycling rates, and the fulfilment of environmental
standards is at least questionable. The question – how car owners choose these latter options,
if they need the processing certification for final withdrawal from traffic – is still open.
The problem is very complex, and it can be partly led back to the back doors of the
legislation and registration system of cars. In Hungary besides final withdrawal from traffic
there is also “temporary” (up to 6 months) and since very recently also “interim” (up to 10
years) withdrawal. These arrangements can usually be applied when a vehicle is not used for
a period and the owner does not want to pay the maintenance costs (insurance, taxes etc.) for
this time (for pensioners not using the car at winter etc.). Now many ELV owners choose
these options (after his ELV is not taken back for free, as he has already sold the engine for
instance) – of course in these cases no processor certification is needed. Probably because of
the interim withdrawal possibilities officially only 44,000 cars have been finally withdrawn
in 2006 (99 % of them already ended up in registered and qualified processing facilities at
least), compared to the 74,000 in 2005 (while the estimated number of scrapped cars is still
140,000-150,000 per year). Another not very uncommon method is stating that the ELV has
been stolen so then no processing certificate can be required by authorities, and the car can be
disposed of informally as indicated above.
A key problem is still that in most cases ELVs (in whole or in parts) have positive market
value, so free take back is not a real incentive for owners to take them to the right place.
Official networks cannot offer a competitive price as they have made huge investments to
ensure environmentally sound disposal but unregistered dismantlers have not had to do this,
and trading car parts is also not that big a business for official dismantlers (they do rather
recycling) if they follow the environmental rules (on storing parts etc.).
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 28 of 67
Other issues
Compared to the main problems stressed before, other issues seem to be less problematic
(hazardous substances, treatment, coding are regulated – of course the question is still
whether the ELV will be processed properly).
There is no information on any sorts of agreement between authorities and economic
operators concerning Article 10(3) of the Directive.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 29 of 67
IRELAND
Introduction to ELVs in Ireland
The vehicle fleet in Ireland has increased steadily over recent years, with a total of 1,682,221
vehicles, including 1,319,250 private cars, under current licence in 2000. The total vehicle
fleet increased by almost 60 % between 1990 and 2000, with a 66 % increase in private cars
in the same period
49
. Table 1 shows the rate of licensing of new and second hand private cars
and good vehicles demonstrating the rate of flux in the Irish market. According to work
published in 2001, by the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there are no
national statistics accounting for abandoned vehicles in the country. However, an estimate is
presented based on UK percentages of vehicle abandonment. Applying the 23 % ELV
abandonment rate, reported in the UK, to Ireland it can be estimated that up to 30,000
vehicles are abandoned in Ireland each year. It is, however, not possible to verify this
49
.
Table 1 - Motor Vehicles Licensed for the First Time
50
Type of
Vehicle
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
New Vehicles
Private
cars
170,322 225,269 160,908 150,485 142,992 149,635 166,270 173,273
Goods
vehicles
30,066 33,606 30,622 28,412 30,532 31,165 38,396 43,619
Second-hand vehicles
Private
cars
36,878 24,003 15,237 13,352 13,472 21,391 38,207 54,244
Goods
vehicles
9,285 6,983 5,958 5,285 6,294 7,948 11,590 15,228
It has been equally difficult to identify the actual numbers of end-of life vehicles arising in
Ireland. Up until the implementation of the ELV Directive there was no system for de-
registration in Ireland. Therefore, the levels of ELV production have been estimated in a
range of ways
51
. ‘Direct’ methods make use of directly-produced estimates of the numbers
of ELVs from relevant bodies; ‘indirect’ methods seek to estimate the number by calculations
based on other statistics. Tables 2 and 3 present a summary of the estimated numbers and
weight of ELVs based on the different estimation techniques for 1997 to 2000.
49
Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland, Ms Caitríona Collins, Mr Andrew Fanning, Dr Matthew Crowe and Mr Brian Meaney,
End-of life Vehicles in Ireland - A Sectoral Report, 2002
50
Central Statistics Office Ireland, http://www.cso.ie/statistics/motvehlicfirstime.htm
51
Results from the Government scrappage scheme provide the only definite information in relation to end-of life vehicle arisings in
Ireland. The total amount of scrap metal recovered in 1998 was reported to be 187,484 tonnes. This was predominantly steel and iron
scrap with other metals accounting for 17,484 tonnes. An estimated 30,000 tonnes of ferrous scrap arose from end-of life vehicles.
Based on 0.6 tonnes ferrous metal per end-of life vehicle in Ireland, this accounts for some 50,000 end-of life vehicles. Other methods
used to estimate levels included surveying the two operators of shredding facilities and one metal recycling company. Additionally
records were used from Irish Ispat was the only company involved in the recycling of ferrous metals in Ireland until its closure in June
2001. It processed fragmentised scrap from the shredding facilities located in the Republic of Ireland. Since the closure of Irish Ispat,
all scrap processed by the shredding facilities in the Republic of Ireland is exported for recovery abroad.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 30 of 67
Based on the results presented it is considered that the most reliable estimates are made by
the recovery operators method (Method 1), the projections of the vehicle stock method
(Method 3) and the vehicle inactivity method (Method 6). Now that a system for certificates
of destruction is in place, in future it should be possible to provide more accurate data on end-
of life vehicle arisings in Ireland.
Table 2 - Summary of results 1997-2000 – number of end-of life vehicles
49
Table 3 - Summary of results 1997-2000 – weight of end-of life vehicles (tonnes)
49
According to one source Ireland has developed a very strong automotive components
industry, which currently exports close to US$1 billion worth of automotive components
every year to customers in Europe, the US and the Far East. The products range from
turbochargers by Allied Signal and mirror glass by Donnelly Mirrors to cable harnesses by
Kromberg & Schubert. There are 24 U.S. automotive components manufacturers based in
Ireland that are manufacturing products to European market standards.
By looking at recent statistics on passenger car registrations it is possible to identify the key
players in the Irish market. These are Toyota, Ford, Volkswagen, Nissan, Opel and Renault,
each with over 5% of new car sales.
It should also be noted that the rate of used car imports is rising. In 2005 the Society for Irish
Motor Industry reported a rate of import of almost 20,000 per year. When comparing date
from the first 6 months of 2004 to those in 2003, a 45 % increase in the level of imports was
noted
52
.
52
The Society of the Irish Motor Industry , Pre Budget Submission 2005,
http://www.unison.ie/features/budget2005/SIMI_PreBudget_Submission_2005.pdf
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 31 of 67
Transposition of the Directive
In Ireland the ELV Directive has been transposed through the Waste Management (End-of
life Vehicles) Regulations 2006
53
; these came into force on 8 June 2006. The Regulations
place obligations on producers - vehicle manufacturers and professional importers - to
establish national collection systems for the recovery and treatment of end-of life vehicles
and require treatment facilities to meet specific environmental standards. The Regulations
cover both M1 and N1 vehicles, both are included within the definition of a ‘specified
vehicle’.
Under the system local authorities are charged with ensuring effective implementation
including the permitting of treatment facilities, approval of national collection plans for their
area, receipt of reporting data, etc. Producers have to register with local authorities
identifying the level of ELVs they anticipate being responsible for and the authorised
treatment facilities (ATFs) they plan to make use of in that area. The producer is charged
with primary reporting responsibilities, each year they must submit an annual report to the
local authority on the treatment of ELVs, including steps taken to encourage recycling and
reuse e.g. vehicle design
54
. The first reporting deadline is 31 January 2008, and every 31
January thereafter. Authorised treatment facilities must also hold some records i.e. details of
the ELVs processed.
Authorised treatment facilities must operate under a waste license, or as appropriate, a waste
permit and meet the minimum technical requirements for the –
• storage (including temporary storage) of end-of life vehicles prior to their being the
subject of appropriate treatment and recovery,
• appropriate treatment and recovery of end-of life vehicles,
• storage of components containing fluids, recoverable components and spare parts.
The Regulations also impose obligations upon producers to ensure that the materials and
components of specified vehicles do not contain lead, mercury, cadmium or hexavalent
chromium other than in specified cases. Producers must compile and maintain appropriate
documentation, for a period of seven years, to verify that the materials and components of
vehicles are in compliance with the provisions of the Regulations.
In October 2004 the European Court of Justice condemned Ireland for failing to transpose the
ELV Directive into national law (Case C-460/03)
55
. Following another formal notice from
the Commission in 2005, requesting Ireland to comply with the case ruling and implement
the Directive, the case was dropped in July 2006. This followed the transmission of Ireland’s
Waste Management Regulations 2006 to the Commission
56
.
53
S.I. NO. 282 of 2006, Waste Management (End-of Life Vehicles) Regulations 2006, Published by the Stationery Office, Dublin,
http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/DOEIPol.nsf/0/c8f71c4e05251d8280256f0f003bc802/$FILE/ELV%20Regs%202006%20(S.I.%20No.%
20282%20of%202006).pdf
54
The reporting template for annual reports from producers can be found at
http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/DOEIPol.nsf/0/c8f71c4e05251d8280256f0f003bc802/$FILE/Annual%20Report%20Template.pdf
55
European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document Annex to the 23rd Annual Report from the Commission on
Monitoring the Application of Community Law (2005) {Com(2006) 416 Final} Situation in the Different Sectors, Sec(2006) 999,
24.7.2006,
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/eulaw/pdf/XXIII_rapport_annuel/comm_pdf_sec_2006_0999_1_en_documentdetravail.pdf
56
Commission Press Release, Commission seeks further action to protect wild salmon, Brussels, 3 July 2006, IP/06/906,
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/906&format=PDF&aged=1&language=EN
&guiLanguage=en.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 32 of 67
Implementation of free take back
From 1 January 2007 owners of intact end-of life cars and vans can deposit them free of
charge at authorised treatment facilities. Under the 2006 Regulations each producer is
required to develop a national collection system consisting of at least one authorised
treatment facility in every city and county council area providing free take-back for vehicles
of that producer's brand or for which that producer has responsibility. Producers are required
to establish formal relationships with authorised treatment facilities, but any agreement must
not last longer than 3 years. Producers must send a formal notice to treatment facilities stating
the nature of the engagement, and this must be displayed for public information. The
producer is obliged to develop a network of treatment facilities that is ‘reasonably’ accessible
to all and that can meet the demand associated with that producer’s ELVs
Producers are required to have additional authorised treatment facilities in those counties and
cities with a larger population base (i.e. one additional facility for each additional 150,000
persons in the relevant county or city). Producers must register with each local authority – the
application form for this can be found online
57
and specifies details of vehicles placed on the
market and appropriate treatment locations.
The Irish Government had initially hoped to develop a collective scheme for take back. This
was to be run by the relevant economic operators: the producers i.e. those who import
vehicles into the State and the vehicle dismantling / metal recycling / shredding sectors;
mirroring efforts in the packaging waste field and building on Ireland’s previously successful
Producer Responsibility Initiatives (PRIs). It was, however, not possible to achieve the
necessary consensus between stakeholders in order to implement this approach. The self-
compliance approach was, therefore, pursued; this is similar to other EU countries, including
Germany and the UK
58
.
In Ireland, while local authorities are responsible for administering and enforcing the scheme,
it is essentially a producer responsibility initiative. Under the Regulations, therefore,
producers are responsible for establishing national collection systems – comprising of
authorised treatment facilities - for the appropriate treatment and recovery of end-of life
vehicles, registering with each local authority and submitting an Implementation Plan /
Annual Report / Registration Fee, keeping records, restricting the use of specified hazardous
substances in the manufacture of vehicles, making use of component and material coding
standards, providing technical documentation on request and making available dismantling
information for new vehicles within six months of their being placed on the market.
The costs for producers of conducting these operations are cited in the Regulatory Impact
Assessment (RIA). Work by the consultancy KPMG recommended a levy per ELV firstly of
€153 (excluding VAT), then offered a revised figure in a subsequent study of €120(excluding
VAT). The second report noted that there was scope for the price of any proposed levy to fall
to €60/€70 per vehicle. The Irish RIA also cites work on costs of dismantling identified in the
UK’s RIA. Finally it highlights costs associated with establishing new authorised treatment
facilities. While there is no accurate information available, the initial investment in Ireland to
ensure a national network of 43 contracted ATFs to the standards required by the Regulations
could cost in the range of €1.7m.
57
http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/DOEIPol.nsf/0/c8f71c4e05251d8280256f0f003bc802/$FILE/Application%20for%20Registration.pdfn
58
Statement on Regulatory Impact, Waste Management (end-of life vehicles) Regulations 2006, S.I. No. 282 0f 2006,
http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/DOEIPol.nsf/0/c8f71c4e05251d8280256f0f003bc802/$FILE/Statement%20on%20Regulatory%20Impac
t%20May%2006.pdf
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 33 of 67
In order to cover Local Authority costs in terms of administering the scheme and
enforcement, producers are charged a fee based on the scale of their operations in Ireland.
The charges are set out below.
• €1,000 for producers whose annual turnover was less than or equal to €50,000,000 in
the preceding twelve month period, or as appropriate,
• €2,500 for producers whose annual turnover was greater than €50,000,000 but less
than or equal to €100,000,000 in the preceding twelve month period, or as
appropriate,
• €6,000 for producers whose annual turnover was greater than €100,000,000 in the
preceding twelve month period,
• €1,000 for a producer -
(i) whose annual turnover was less than or equal to €1,000,000 and
(ii) who placed less than 10 specified vehicles on the market in the State
The registration fee system will have cost implications for industry estimated at €3.4m
annually, but enable cost recovery by local authorities.
One group of Local Authorities have reported that they will conduct activities such as audits
of waste collection facilities and waste permit holders to ensure accurate records are kept.
They also planned education campaigns for the public to coincide with the implementation of
the ELV Directive
59
. Little further information regarding the specific enforcement activity
was available aside from legislative requirements, these are expressed in general terms within
the Regulations.
Implementation/achievement of recycling targets
According to research by the Irish EPA, ELVs have traditionally undergone relatively high
levels of recycling due to their high content by weight of ferrous metal. There were a number
of potential routes that an ELV may take in Ireland, reported by the EPA in 2002. ‘At
dismantling facilities, parts may be removed and sold for re-use. The rest of the ELV may be
delivered to a metal merchant or directly to a metal shredder. Metal merchants often process
the ELV by crushing, before delivery to one of the shredding facilities. Metal shredders
process the metal to a required standard before it is shipped to a metal recycling company’. It
should be noted that before the reclassification of ELVs as hazardous waste auto shredder
residue, although not exclusively resulting from processing of end-of life vehicles, was
generally landfilled.
59
Replacement Waste Management Plan for Limerick/Clare/Kerry Region 2006-2011, Policy objectives & targets for priority wastes,
16.4 end-of life vehicles,
http://www.clare.ie/Environment/WasteMPlan/Priority_Wastes.pdf
Waste Management (end-of life vehicles) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No. 282 of 2006), Frequently Asked Questions,
http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/DOEIPol.nsf/0/c8f71c4e05251d8280256f0f003bc802/$FILE/Frequently%20Aske
d%20QuestionsParis.pdf
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 34 of 67
The Waste Regulations 2006 transpose directly the targets set in the ELV Directive expressed
as
• 85% reuse/recovery with 80% reuse/recycling by average weight per vehicle and year,
on and from the date of commencement of the Regulations, and
• 95% reuse/recovery with 85% reuse/recycling by average weight per vehicle and year,
by the 1 of January 2015.
It should be noted that the date of commencement of the Regulations was the 8 June 2006.
The Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) that accompanied the Regulations states that
achieving the recycling targets will pose a ‘significant challenge’ for the metal recycling and
vehicle dismantling sectors in Ireland. While the recycling of the 75 % steel and aluminium
may not be so problematic, it will be necessary to increase the recycling of the non-metal
components, plastics in particular. It was reported in the RIA that the EPA were planning to
conduct trials (working with shredders) to assess the material content of ELVs recovered in
Ireland.
Given that the Regulations were only implemented recently in Ireland reliable statistics could
not be identified on current recycling levels. According to the EPA report published in 2002,
Ireland did not have indigenous metal recyclers in operation. This followed the closure in
June 2001 of Irish Ispat, the only company involved in the recycling of ferrous metals in
Ireland. There are no details as to whether this situation has changed; this may mean that
considerable quantities of waste metal must be exported for recycling. Commonly exports of
such materials from Ireland go to the UK on account of its proximity.
Other issues
None raised.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 35 of 67
ITALY
Introduction to ELVs in Italy
The number of registered passenger cars in Italy amounts to 34,667,485; there are 3,637,740
commercial vehicles (i.e. categories N1, N2, N3) in a total of 45,185,101 vehicles. There are
several Italian car manufacturers: FIAT, Alfa Romeo, Lancia, Innocenti, Autobianchi.
Altogether they are responsible for 51 % of deregistered cars; of these, however, Fiat has by
far the largest share (32 %) of the total.
As shown in Table 4, in 2005, 2,862,576 passenger cars were deregistered (of which 15 %
were 20 or more years old). Of these, the majority, 42 %, were scrapped; 40 % were
deregistered by the public authority for being in breach of paying road taxes for more than 3
years
60
; 11 % were exported (of these, 98,729 (30 %) were exported as second hand cars);
and 4 % were garaged (i.e. deregistered for circulation only in private areas). There is no data
available on deregistrations of the other category included in the Directive, N1 vehicles.
However, more broadly, within a fleet of 3,637,740 commercial vehicles, 202,756 were
deregistered (6 % of the total). Of these, 49 % were cancelled from the public register for not
paying road taxes for more than 3 years; 32 % were scrapped; 9 % were exported (of these
11,932 (63 %) were second hand); while another 9 % was deregistered to be used only in
private areas (i.e. garaged).
Table 4 - Number of cars and commercial vehicles deregistered in Italy in 2005
Measures
Cars
Commercial
vehicles
(N, N1, N2, N3)
Scrapping 1,228,414 65,447
Exports 324,324 18,804
Garaging
(use in private areas)
138,649 18,257
In breach of road taxes for
more than 3 years
1,166,350 99,772
Other 4,839 476
TOTAL 2,862,576 202,756
TOTAL (net of cars in
breach of paying taxes and
garaged)
1,557,577
84,180
Source: ACI, Istat, 2006
The category ‘other’ in Table 4 includes mainly abandoned cars or commercial vehicles
removed by the police from public areas. This represents a small percentage of total
deregistrations, however it is still a considerable number.
60
Under this procedure deregistered cars can, if apprehended on the road, be seized by the authorities; but it is
likely that many remain in use illegally or have been abandoned.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 36 of 67
Perhaps more important, a very large share of cars deregistered, were found in breach of road
taxes payments, and this was considered mostly an indicator of car abandonment. On top of
these, until 2005, there was an extensive record of the use of the ‘garaging’ option; again,
there is evidence that this option was in fact used to abandon cars in private properties. On
this specific issue, the European Commission sent a reasoned opinion to Italy on 14
December 2004 (C(2004)5023), for this choice being inconsistent with European legislation.
Therefore, since 27 April 2006, cars used in private areas will have to be regularly registered.
Another indicator of ELVs abandonment (and possibly also garaging) practice in Italy
emerges by an analysis of historical series on deregistrations. As we can see from Table 5, the
number of passenger cars deregistered in 1997 almost doubled in correspondence with a Law
(30/1997) which offered incentives to car owners for scrapping their ELVs (the Law was
valid only in the years 1997 and 1998). Although since 2001 the number of deregistrations
increased again, compared to the previous decade, they never reached the level they did under
the incentives campaign, therefore providing another useful indicator of how, before and after
the incentives, many cars were probably not passing through deregistration and were dealt
with by an illegal method.
Table 5 - Vehicles deregistration between 1991 and 2005 (excl. cars not paying taxes)
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
1,225,400 1,395,441 1,094,180 2,037,426 1,231,480 1,784,711 1,806,322 1,701,469
Source: Automobil Club Italy (ACI)
Another element to take into consideration is car crime. Italy has the third highest number of
car thefts in the EU, after the UK and France, and there is evidence of a prosperous market of
car components and metals. In Italy, a considerable number of cars (97,182) were stolen in
2005 (World Vehicle Documents, 2006).
61
Responsibilities for the implementation of the ELV Directive in Italy are split among three
levels: the Competent Authority for the transposition of the Directive is the Minstero per la
Tutela dell’Ambiente e del Territorio (MATT – ministry for environmental protection and
landscape); the monitoring and national reporting is a competence of the Agenzia per la
Protezione dell’Ambiente e per i Servizi Tecnici (APAT – environment agency); permitting
and regional monitoring is a responsibility of Provinces. Some information on transposition
and implementation, although very incomplete, is available from the compilation, in March
2006, of the questionnaire on the implementation of Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of life
vehicles. No official data on recovery, reuse and recycling have been yet published at the
time of writing.
62
Information on the progress in achieving reuse, recycling and recovery
targets (required under art. 9.2.) has been published for the past seven years by the Joint
Trade Association of Reuse, Recycling and Recovery Industries (FISE UNIRE). The
collaboration with APAT and the National Observatory on Waste (ONR), part of MATT,
ensures that data are quite reliable.
61
http://www.vehicle-documents.it/statistica/AUTO1.pdf
62
Sources within APAT stated Italy will send the implementation report to the Commission in the first quarter of 2007.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 37 of 67
Transposition of the Directive
Italy transposed the Directive with Legislative decree no. 209 of 24 June 2003.
63
It includes
N1 and M1 categories and three wheel vehicles as categories of ELVs. However, in 2004,
2005 and 2006 (the last was 28 January 2006 (Official Journal C22/6), the Commission sent
reasoned opinions to Italy and then referred to the Court of Justice for non-conformity of the
national legislation transposing the ELV Directive: in particular, for failing to include the
necessary measures to ensure that definitions, scope and enforcement of the Directive are
transposed within the national legislation. In particular, the following points have been raised:
• Definitions: the definition of ELVs as waste and their treatment is not in line with the
Directive;
• Hazardous materials and components: it is not clear from the Italian legislation that
all dangerous components and materials included in Annex II should be stripped from
the ELVs before further treatment;
• Certificate of destruction: not ensuring that the certificate of destruction is issued only
by authorised scrapping centres and that the certificate is a condition for
deregistration;
• Free take back: the law does not appropriately address the need to ensure that
producers meet all, or a significant part, of the free take back provision of the
Directive;
• Depollution: it does not adequately ensure the depollution and adequate storage of
dangerous components of ELVs before treatment;
• Recycling: it does not adequately ensure that recycling has the priority over other
forms of recovery;
• Information and monitoring: it excludes certain important provisions of the Directive
within the agreements under Art. 10 of the Directive; it does not set a monitoring
system for the assessment of the recycling and recovery targets by 1st January 2006 as
required; it does not ensure that the appropriate information on vehicles and their
components is given to treatment centres; it does not put in place the necessary
monitoring and communication systems to ease public authorities and the European
Commission’s involvement in the process.
In order to address these requirements and to implement effectively the Directive, the Italian
government has integrated the transposition Law with a corrective legislative Decree (Dlgs.
no.149) on 23 February 2006.
64
On 2 May 2006, it also published a Decree addressing the
minimum technical requirements for treatment and treatment facilities (Art. 6 and Annex I of
the Directive).
65
63
Official Journal 7 August 2003, n. 182 – s.o. n.128/L.
64
Dlgs. 23 February 2006, n.149, ‘Disposizioni correttive ed integrative al decreto legislativo 24 giugno 2003, n. 209, recante attuazione
della direttiva 2000/53/CE in materia di veicoli fuori uso’ http://gazzette.comune.jesi.an.it/2006/86/1.htm
65
Decreto 2 May 2006 (Gazzetta ufficiale 16 maggio 2006 n. 112) (Art. 231 del Dlgs 3 april 2006, n. 152 - Requisiti relativi al centro di
raccolta e all'impianto di trattamento dei veicoli fuori uso non disciplinati dal Dlgs 24 giugno 2003, n. 209)
http://www.reteambiente.it/ra/normativa/rifiuti/2302_Dm02Mag_06_vige.htm
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 38 of 67
Moreover, a number of improvements were brought within the existing inadequate
monitoring system with a Decree (DCPM) on 22 December 2004,
66
which institutes a new
section for ELVs treatment facilities within the MUD
67
(the annual environmental statement
required under the IPPC Directive)
68
. This will represent the principal tool for monitoring
ELVs management operations. Sources within APAT told us that the first set of data coming
from the new monitoring mechanism should include, as of 2005, specific data on the number
of authorised treatment facilities, their input and output and on the specific type of wastes
treated therein. This data should be included in the first Italian implementation report.
Implementation of free take back
The transposition Law (209/2003) requires car manufacturers to be responsible for the
creation of a network of retailers or treatment plants for the free take back of vehicles. The
Law provides for this requirement to be in place by the end of 2003, for cars on the market
since 1 July 2002, and by 1 January 2007 for all ELVs. However, the Law postponed the date
by which the Ministry of the Environment had to issue the measures for the free take back of
vehicles to 1 January 2006; in practice the requirement for all cars was postponed to 1
January 2007. Indeed, there is no evidence before 2005 of car manufacturers creating the
networks required for the implementation of the free take back.
In May 2005 car manufacturers, represented by the trade association of Italian car
manufacturers (ANFIA) and the trade association of foreign car manufacturers (UNRAE),
signed an agreement with the car dealers trade association (FEDERAICPA) and the
association of dismantlers and scrap dealers (FISE UNIRE), in order to create a network to
facilitate the flow of ELVs and the demand/supply match on the national territory.
69
The
agreement states that producers will pay for the ELV take back, excluding the last owner’s
costs of transport to the retailer or to the treatment facilities and the administrative costs of
deregistration. On 10 November 2006, the above agreement was enlarged to include the
national trade association representing recovery and recycling industries (ASSOFERMET).
The agreements aim at creating networks that will facilitate the achievement of recovery
targets by minimising costs and achieving economic sustainability. By the end of 2006 almost
200 plants were operating within this network – although this is not a large number for a
country of the size of Italy. As a support measure, the Government decided to reduce VAT on
ELVs treatment operations by 10 %, in line with other wastes.
Implementation/achievement of recycling targets
An analysis shows that in 2000, circa 75 % of ELVs were either reused, recycled or
recovered in Italy. This percentage was almost entirely represented by scrap metals, totally
absorbed by existing recycling facilities. Moreover, 27,000 tonnes per year of plastic
components (only homogenous polymers) were absorbed by existing facilities, which had
potential for further expansion (however, there was no capacity available for composite
plastics materials). Also, the rubber recycling industry had a capacity equivalent to three
times the potential ELVs market (50,000 tonnes per year) of rubber at the time; as well as the
glass recycling capacity, which at the time could receive an additional 145,000 tons (ELVs
66
Dpcm 22 dicembre 2004, Approvazione del modello unico di dichiarazione ambientale per l'anno 2005 - cap. 1 sezione veicoli a fine
vita o fuori uso.
67
MUD, Modello Unico di Dichiarazione ambientale
68
The new section of the MUD was published before Decision 2005/293/CE on monitoring and control of the ELVs Directive’s targets;
however sources within ANPA state they will use it for the Decision’s purposes as it is a flexible tool.
69
On 12 May 2005 an agreement with FISE UNIRE and FEDERAICPA (retailers trade association).
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 39 of 67
glass being 35,000 tonnes per year). The installed capacity witnesses the existence of an
economically sustainable recycling market in 2000 for the above components and materials.
Still, most of the 25 % ELVs waste remaining from scrapping, the so called ‘fluff’ (e.g. seat
filling, fuel caps, textiles, gaskets, varnishes), was sent to Germany for recovery. In 2005,
still 82 % (247,000 tonnes per year) of ‘fluff’ was not yet recycled or recovered in Italy.
There is still no available energy recovery capacity in Italy, to the detriment of the
achievement of the targets set by the Directive. Indeed, FISE UNIRE estimates that if Italy
had a fluff combustion capacity, it would have met its 2006 target. However this is an
expensive option and in 2005, only 79.4 % of the total ELVs were reused, recycled or
recovered:
• Reuse: Components and parts (10 % of total ELVs weight or 120,000 tonnes per
year) were reused.
• Recycling: Hydrocarbons and fluids deriving from pre-treatment (1 % of total weight
or 14,000 tonnes per year); Metals (70 % of total weight or 800,000 tonnes per year).
• Recovery (energy): none.
On the contrary, the second target, concerning vehicles produced before 1 January 1980, was
reached: of these old cars, reuse and recovery is deemed at least at 75 % and reuse and
recycling at least 70 %.
70
More upstream, the real difficulties in Italy appear to be at the pre-treatment level. In 2005
there were 125, reported to become 200 by 2006, permitted facilities. The main obstacle is
the nature of treatment facilities in Italy. Indeed, these are constituted mainly by
multifunctional treatment platforms, which treat different wastes, such as municipal solid
waste, together with ELVs. The economic burden of upgrading such platforms to the
environmental requirements of the ELV Directive is a powerful deterrent for most of them,
who might decide to switch to other wastes, instead of upgrading. Additionally, there are a
vast number of scrapping plants (1,562) scattered on the territory, which are therefore very
difficult to licence and monitor. At the end of the treatment cycle, there are only 18 crushing
plants for scrap material in Italy; of these 17 treat ELV scrap.
Other issues
No producer and its vehicles have been exempted from Article 8 on component and material
standards and Article 9 on the publication of information relative to vehicle design and ways
to reuse, recycle and recover. On the latter, all Italian car manufacturers participate in the
international consortium called IDIS (International Dismantling Information System),
through which they provide dismantling information on a number of their models to
dismantling operators.
The materials and components listed in Art. 4.2. of the Directive are banned since 1 July
2003; Art. 9 of Decree 209/2003, tables the necessary measures to ensure the transposition
this requirement by that date. On the bans, the Italian car manufactures association (UNIRE)
told us there have not been issues on their side in implementing the ban of those substances.
70
Questionnaire established by Commission Decision 2001/753/EC concerning the implementation of Directive 2000/53/EC
on end-of life vehicles, March 2006:
http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/it/eu/elv/envq_ix2w
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 40 of 67
Also, linked to ELVs issue, is that of end-of life tyres. On this, with the aim of improving the
efficiency of recovery of end-of life tyres, a Decree in April 2006, no. 152
71
, makes tyre
producers and importers economically responsible for the recovery (on an annual basis at
least) of a quantity of end-of life tyres equal to the quantity sold in the market. Producers can
operate through another economic operator, ensuring that they take all the costs of the
recovery of a quantity equal to that sold in the previous year.
71
Decreto Legislativo 3 aprile 2006, n. 152 , ‘Norme in materia ambientale, National Official Journal n. 88, 14 April 2006,Supplemento
Ordinario n. 96.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 41 of 67
MALTA
Introduction to ELVs in Malta
In Malta, in 2005, the total number of vehicles on the road was 271,338, of which 206,548
(76 %) were passenger cars and 43,971 (16 %) commercial vehicles, the latter being a
category considerably wider than the N1 included in the ELVs Directive, as it includes goods
carrying vehicles, special purpose vehicles and tractor units. In that same year, 13,940 end-of
life vehicles were scrapped, 69 exported and 8,272 were garaged. Unfortunately, to the
detriment of our enquiry, data available on deregistration do not distinguish among types of
vehicle. Data are only available starting from 2003.
Table 6 - Vehicles deregistered in Malta
Measures 2003 2004 2005
Scrapped 2,798 5,529 13,940
Garaged 5,754 9,383 8,272
Exported 101 126 69
Source: ADT
72
Malta was required to implement the Directive upon the date of accession in 2004. However
it is still struggling to implement the requirements of the Directive. Abandoned cars and
illegal scrap yards have, until recently, been a common sight on the Maltese landscape.
However, in 2006, many were closed under charge of being in breach of land use legislation,
whilst the scrap material collected has been ‘sent for recycling’.
Some hints might also be derived by the data in Table 6, which suggests a significant
tightening of enforcement. Indeed, it is striking the almost fivefold increase in the number of
scrapping since 2003. Although we cannot attribute it all to the introduction of the ELV
Directive, and there is no mention of methodological changes or incentive campaigns for
scrappage for example, we can however not exclude the possibility that a significant part of
this is attributable to a more tightly regulated environment.
Also, the option of garaging cars
73
has been growing considerably in the last two years. The
number of cars deregistered for use in private areas increased, on average, by 53 %. This
option has been reported also in other MS to be a mechanism for not paying scrapping costs,
on the part of the owner, or of the treatment operator, in situations where there is not
sufficiently strict monitoring and control. This increase might be therefore an indicator that
the option of garaging is still, for the car owner or for facilities operators, more economically
viable than scrapping vehicles under the Directive’s requirements.
The Competent Authorities for the implementation of the ELV Directive are the Malta
Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA), responsible for permitting and for the
requirements concerning the entire ELVs treatment cycle, and the Authority for Transport
(ADT), responsible for example for the requirements concerning the ban on hazardous
substances and deregistration.
72
Statistics on Motor Vehicles, Authority for Transport, Malta:
http://www.maltatransport.com/en/tsd/transportstatistics/motorvehicleownership.shtml?s=D99670D2-7D7112122504-39EE
73
When a vehicle is garaged, the owner has to return the vehicle license, registration certificate, number plates and any other documents
related to the vehicle’s use on the road. Thus the owner can keep the vehicle without being effectively used on the road and without
paying any fees, such as road tax.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 42 of 67
Transposition of the Directive
The Directive was transposed in 2004 with Malta’s accession to the European Union, by the
Waste Management Regulations relative to End-of life Vehicles, published with Legal Notice
(LN) 99 in April 2004.
74
The Minister for Rural Affairs and the Environment set 1 May
2004 as the date when the said regulations would have had to come into force.
75
However,
the implementation in Malta is, at the moment of writing, only ‘theoretical’
76
. The report on
implementation of the Directive, due by 21 January 2006, has not yet been drafted by MEPA.
However, sources inside MEPA assured us the Commission is aware of the difficulties that
Malta is facing in the implementation of the vast legislative acquis with very limited
administrative resources, and that, so far, for this reason it has not taken any enforcement
action against the MS.
In line with the requirements of the Directive, the transposition law includes the vehicles
categories M1 and N1, including three wheel motor vehicles.
Implementation of free take back
The transposition Law is consistent with the text of the Directive in requiring that producers
should meet all, or a significant part of, the costs of collection, as prescribed under Art. 5.4.
of the ELV Directive. However, Malta’s interpretation of this Article was that free take back
should not necessarily be imposed on car manufacturers. Therefore, in practice, it placed the
obligation on treatment operators (i.e. scrapping facilities), placing an indirect obligation on
car manufacturers to finance the process. In this way, in order to get the authorisation to treat
cars under the Directive, scrap yards will have to include a copy of a contract with a car
manufacturer or importer. The contract will have to state that a car manufacturer or importers
will finance the costs of the free-take back, participating therefore in an authorised ELVs
collection and treatment scheme.
Also, under Article 11 of its transposition Law, Malta linked the participation in an
authorised ELV collection and treatment scheme to the exemption of car manufacturer or
importers from all, or part of, their reporting and information requirements (Article 9(2)).
These include the publishing of information on the design of vehicles, the removal of all
fluids, dismantling and ways to optimise reuse recycle and recover and on the progress
achieved so far. This is a further attempt to incentivise other economic operators to be
involved in the collection and treatment process and to favour agreements among economic
operators. However, apart from these provisions, there is no evidence of a coherent set of
agreements between car manufactures or importers and MEPA for a better implementation of
the Directive, as suggested by Article 10(3).
Presently, the registered owner of a car who wishes to scrap an ELV has to return all
documents/plates related to the vehicle and confirm that it will no longer be used.
Consistently with paragraph 5.3 of the Directive, the vehicle can be deregistered only upon
presentation of the certificate of destruction (art. 5 of the transposition law and Article 50 of
the Traffic Regulation ordinance (LN 476/2004 and LN 48 2006).
74
L.N. 99 of 2004 - Environment Protection Act (CAP. 435) Waste Management (End-of life Vehicles) Regulations, 2004.
75
L.N.164 of 2004 ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT, (CAP. 435), Commencement Notice of the Waste Management
(End-of life Vehicles) Regulations, 2004.
76
Many of the considerations included in this chapter have been collected through contacts with the Waste Management
Environmental Agency Malta
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 43 of 67
However, it has to be noted that in the Transport Authority web page, under the section for
practical guidance on scrapping and in the FAQ section there is no evidence of a specific
requirement that the certificate of destruction is presented as a condition for deregistration
77
.
It is just made a requirement for the owner to ‘confirm that it will no longer to be used on the
road and can never under any circumstances be registered or relicensed’ and, again, ‘the
owner is legally obliged to effectively physically scrap the vehicle’.
The car holder taking an ELV for scrapping, would in most circumstances have its ELV paid
for by scrap yards. These will in turn sell on the valuable material coming from the ELV for
recycling. However, it has to be noted, that this situation is affordable only when the operator
has not to pay for the costs of waste disposal, which would follow the appropriate
implementation of the Directive.
Implementation/achievement of recycling targets
The Maltese transposition Law, in line with Art. 7 of the Directive, requires that economic
operators reuse and recover at least 85 % on average of ELVs by weight, annually, and reuse
and recycle at least 80 % of ELVs by weight; while, for those vehicles produced before 1
January 1980, the Maltese Government allows the target to be lower, still not lower than 75
% for reuse and recovery and not lower than 70% for reuse and recycling. By 2015, for all
ELVs, reuse and recovery should increase to 95 %, while reuse and recycling should be
increased to a minimum of 85 %.
The application of this Article, however, is highly dependent on the application of previous
Article 6, requiring that ‘any establishment or undertaking carrying out treatment operations
obtains a permit or is registered’. However, at the time of writing, the Waste Management
team of MEPA is currently processing applications to assign permits under the ELV
Directive: there are no authorised facilities for the treatment of ELVs and also, no timeframe
is available or foreseeable on when treatment facilities in Malta will be in line with the
Directive.
This process is likely to be lengthy, as the Agency has set conditions for which a scrap yard,
in order to be in line with the ELVs Directive, has to apply both for a waste management
permit (envisaged by Waste Management regulations of 2001) and for a land-use permit. The
latter is required for the development of new activities on the territory.
Additionally, Maltese scrap yards will need to upgrade their capacity for pre-treatment, or
‘depollution’. Indeed, presently, facilities do not process ELVs with the care required for
stripping the car of hazardous material and separating these from other components.
Therefore, within the treatment, some of the requirements of Art.6 of the Directive are not yet
put in place.
Regarding recycling, Malta exports most of the recyclable parts of ELVs to other countries,
in particular lead from batteries, metals, plastic and glass. MEPA has not yet produced its
report on implementation (which was due for January 2006); there are no available data on
recovery, recycling and reuse of ELVs.
In short it will still take some time before all the conditions required can be put in place, and
even longer before accurate reporting against the targets will flow through the system. In the
light of the analysis performed for this study, as can be confirmed by sources within MEPA,
it can be concluded that there is not sufficient evidence available in order to assess the
achievement of the reuse and recovery targets included in Article 7(2a) of the Directive.
77
Authority for Transport web page on scrapping and garaging
http://www.maltatransport.com/en/new/motorvehicles/scrapping.shtml
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 44 of 67
Other issues
Malta was required to implement the Directive upon the date of accession in 2004. However
it is still struggling to implement the requirements of the Directive. The main problems that
the Member State is facing can be summarised as the following:
• Lack of capacity (there are no authorised treatment facilities in the country and the
exiting scrapping capacity needs to be upgraded);
• Bad practices are in place (i.e. poor implementation of Art. 6.2. relative to the
depollution of ELVs, stripping of hazardous materials and components);
• Lack of enforcement (there is an acknowledged difficulty in having operator
enforcing legislation once is in place);
• Lack of administrative resources to implement and administer the system.
As a consequence, most of the recyclable and reusable material is exported and what is
recovered is mostly done under inadequate conditions (see above for the implementation of
Article 6). Moreover, car manufacturers have been only marginally involved and there is no
evidence of agreement between these and the government.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 45 of 67
THE NETHERLANDS
Introduction to ELVs in the Netherlands
The number of cars in use in the Netherlands amounts to more than 8 million, of which more
than 7 million are passenger cars and almost 1 million light commercial vehicles (LCVs). In
recent years, the annual sales of new cars have been declining, reflecting an increase in
average life. In 2005, 465,196 passenger cars and 65,908 LCVs were sold. The number of
cars produced or assembled in the Netherlands is relatively small, and most of them are
exported. Only 0.4 % of the new cars sold in 2005 were produced domestically. About 60 %
of the newly registered cars are imported from Germany or France
78
.
In recent years, about 45,000 used cars were imported annually
79
. No data are available on
the countries of origin.
Data on the import of car wrecks are lacking, but it can at least be concluded that car wrecks
are not among the two largest types of imported waste
80
. In early 2006 an increase in the
import of car wrecks was noticeable, following a judgement by the European Court of Justice
that it should be possible to register imported cars even if they were not fit for use. The
imported car wrecks are probably used to change the license plates and chassis numbers of
stolen cars
81
.
In 2005, 508,000 cars were deregistered, of which 246,000 were scrapped and 262,000
exported
82
. The export of used cars has increased in recent years, especially to Poland and
other new EU Member States.
There are no indications of any major export of car wrecks for scrapping abroad. Car wrecks
are not among the eight largest types of exported waste
83
. The transport costs of car wrecks
are probably too high in comparison with the value of the materials they contain and the costs
of dismantling them domestically.
Transposition of the Directive
Directive 2000/53/EC was implemented in Dutch law by the Besluit beheer autowrakken
84
(Decree on car wreck management). This decree entered into force on 2 July 2002. As
required by the Directive, it applies to all passenger cars and commercial vehicles up to 3,500
kg (categories M1 and N1 in Annex IIA to Directive 70/156/EEC), as well as to three wheel
motor vehicles (excluding motor tricycles).
In December 2003 the Commission started an infringement procedure against the
Netherlands, concerning two elements of the Directive.
85
78
BOVAG-RAI (2006), Mobiliteit in cijfers 2006 – Auto’s. Stichting BOVAG-RAI Mobiliteit, Amsterdam.
79
BOVAG (2007), information from website www.bovag.nl
(accessed 02.01.2007).
80
SenterNovem (2005), Nederlands afval in cijfers, gegevens 2000-2004. SenterNovem, Uitvoering afvalbeheer, Utrecht,
October 2005.
81
Nederlands Dagblad (2006), “Ingevoerde sloopauto’s omgekat”. Nederlands Dagblad, 25 February 2006.
82
ARN (2006), Milieuverslag / Environmental Report 2005. Auto Recycling Nederland, Amsterdam.
83
SenterNovem (2005), Nederlands afval in cijfers, gegevens 2000-2004. SenterNovem, Uitvoering afvalbeheer, Utrecht,
October 2005.
84
Staatsblad 2002, 259. The Decree contains a table showing how each element of the Directive is implemented in Dutch
legislation.
85
2003/2190 C(2003)5142.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 46 of 67
These concern the definition of ‘treatment’ and the promotion of certified environmental
management systems in treatment plants. These issues are addressed in a draft amendment to
the Decree that was presented to Parliament on 10 July 2006.
86
Implementation of free take back
In the Netherlands, a voluntary system of free take back of ELVs was already introduced in
the 1990s. This was an initiative of the main business organisations in the car industry. The
organisation ‘Auto Recycling Nederland’ (ARN) was established to operate the system. ARN
cooperates with certified car scrapping and recycling firms and pays them for the unprofitable
parts of their operations. The payment is calculated on the basis of standard amounts for 20
different materials/components. The system includes provisions for monitoring and
enforcement.
The ARN system is financed by a fee that is levied on all new car registrations (except for
cars older than 25 years). From 2000 until 1 January 2007 this fee amounted to €45; it has
now been reduced to €15. The system is fully self-financing, so it can be said that the car
producers and importers (and ultimately the purchasers) pay the full cost of ELV
management.
87
Since the Decree on car wreck management entered into force, the previously voluntary
system has become legally binding. The ‘free take back’ provisions have been applicable to
all vehicles since the Decree entered into force in July 2002. Postponement until 2007 for
cars put on the market before 1 July 2002 was not deemed necessary.
The Decree stipulates that car wrecks have to be handed in at licensed dismantlers, car
dealers, garages or repair shops, or at foreign companies importing car wrecks in conformity
with the EU Regulation on waste shipment. In addition to the free take back of car wrecks,
producers and importers are obliged to ensure a collection system covering the whole
country, as well as a treatment system.
At present, companies affiliated to ARN treat about 91 % of the total number of ELVs in the
Netherlands
88
.
The Dutch system for the collection and treatment of ELVs is generally regarded as an
effective one. Implementation of article 5 of the Directive has not caused any major
problems. This should not come as a surprise, since the Commission’s proposal for the ELV
Directive was inspired by the pre-existing Dutch system.
86
Staatscourant 12 July 2006, nr. 133, p. 12.
87
In fact, the level of the fee may have been too high in the past. For this reason, the Commission started a state aid
procedure in 2001, as it suspected that the Netherlands overcompensated its car scrappers and recyclers. However, the
case was withdrawn eventually (Decision 2002/204/EC, OJ L68, 12.3.2002).
88
GHK (2006), A Study to Examine the Costs and Benefits of the ELV Directive – Final Report, Annex 4.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/study/annex4.pdf.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 47 of 67
Implementation/achievement of recycling targets
In 2005, the ARN related car scrappers in the Netherlands achieved 85.3 % recycling and
recovery, of which 82.5 % material recycling
89
. The reuse and recycling targets of 85 and 80
% had already been achieved in the Netherlands by 1997, well before the introduction of the
ELV Directive.
90
Given this head start, the national target was set at a more ambitious level:
the 95 % recovery target was set for 2007 instead of 2015.
ARN has announced plans to build a ‘Post Shredder Technology’ (PST) plant, which would
enable the further processing of shredder waste. Nevertheless, achievement of the 95 % target
by 2007 appeared to be unfeasible, and ARN has asked the State Secretary for the
Environment to postpone the target to 2015, as in the ELV Directive. This request has been
granted on the condition that the PST plant will actually be built.
Other issues
Car manufacturing in the Netherlands is relatively insignificant, and the development and
design of new models takes place elsewhere. No specific Dutch problems or issues can
therefore be identified relating to the ban on certain hazardous substances in article 4(2) of
the ELV Directive, or relating to material coding standards (article 8(1)).
By 2002, the car scrappers affiliated to ARN generally already complied with the
requirements for ELV treatment as specified in Article 6 of the Directive
91
.
As the Netherlands has implemented the Directive by means of a Decree, no use has been
made of the option given in Article 10(3) to transpose certain provisions by means of
agreements between the competent authorities and the economic sectors concerned.
Nevertheless, the Dutch system leans heavily on the voluntary ARN initiative, including the
disposal fee that was declared generally binding by the State Secretary for the Environment.
89
ARN (2007), information from website www.arn.nl (accessed 02.01.2007).
90
See the Explanatory Memorandum to the Decree on car wreck management, page 13.
91
Handhaving (2002), “Autowrakkenbesluit maakt handhavers sociaal”. Handhaving, issue 3, p. 27-29.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 48 of 67
SWEDEN
Introduction to ELVs in Sweden
The car industry is Sweden’s most important exporting sector, accounting for more than 15
% of total Swedish exports in 2004 with 290,400 cars manufactured in Sweden itself. Of all
cars on the road Volvo is the most common brand with 1,200,000 cars produced, followed by
Volkswagen (VW) with 500,000 cars and SAAB with 440,000
92
. The total number of
passenger cars in use at the turn of the year 2005/2006 was 4,153,674, which is an increase of
40,250 cars compared to the turn of the year 2004/2005.
93
In 2004 the number of scrapped cars under 3,500 kg was 234,860. The highest proportion of
cars scrapped is from year 1989 (32,882 cars), followed by year 1988 (27,980 cars) and year
1985 (20,954 cars).
There is no evidence of a considerable export market of second-hand cars/vans to less
prosperous countries. Neither is there any evidence of illegal exports from the Member State
linked to the implementation of the Directive.
The reporting requirements of the producer are controlled by the Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency (SwEPA). The producer is required to submit data to SwEPA, which
enables it to assess the degree of reuse/recovery/recycling. Bil Sweden, which represents
manufacturers and importers of cars, coordinates and collects the reporting from the
producers. Every year since 2001 the SwEPA has published a report on how waste subject to
producer responsibility has been dealt with. This report contains also a section on the current
state of play regarding producer responsibility and the scrapping of cars. The report also
includes recommendations by SwEPA, addressing any emerging problems.
In addition the Swedish Car Recyclers Association (SBR) carries out every year a
questionnaire survey among its members, producing data on the number of scrapping
certificates issued and on the quantity of waste generated for a number of selected waste
types.
94
Transposition of the Directive
Sweden has a long history of tackling the problem of abandoned cars prior to the
implementation of the ELV Directive. The Car Scrapping Law (SFS 1975:343) and the Car
Scrapping Ordinance (SFS 1975:348) were enacted in order to regulate the problems that had
been observed of end-of life vehicles being abandoned in the countryside. The Ordinance on
Producer Responsibility for Cars (SFS 1997:788), which came into force 1 January 1998, is
the main piece of legislation that covers the requirements of the ELV Directive. The
Government Bill 2000/01:47 dated 7 December 2000 and the parliamentary decision dated 14
March 2001 contain amendments to the Car Scrapping Law, implementing remaining parts of
the ELV Directive.
92
Statistics Sweden: http://www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart____34751.asp
93
SIKA Statistik (2006) Vehicles in counties and municipalities at the turn of the year 2005/2006 002:0601, Statens Institut
för Kommunikationsanalys, 2006:4
94
SwEPA (2006), Quality Report for statistics on generation and recovery and disposal of waste in Sweden 2004 according
to EU Regulation on Waste Statistics 2150/200, Report 5994, June 2006
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 49 of 67
The Ordinance on Producer Responsibility for Cars defines a vehicle as in the Ordinance on
Road Traffic Definition (2001:559), which covers light commercial vehicles as well as
passenger cars.
The dates of the Swedish requirements differ from those set in the ELV Directive. The year
when the total level of reuse, recovery and recycling is to reach 85 % was set at 2002,
compared to 2006 in the ELV Directive. However, the year for achieving the 95 % target is
set as in the ELV Directive for 2015.
In Sweden, free of charge handing-in is specified for all cars that were released on the market
after 1 January 1998 compared to 1 July 2002 in the ELV Directive. This free of charge
handing-in will be extended to apply to all cars from 1 July 2001, whereas the EC directive
specifies that this shall apply no later than 1 January 2007. In practice, the free of charge
handing-in has applied, in all important respects, to all cars in Sweden since 1975
95
.
There has been no enforcement action against Sweden regarding the ELV Directive.
Implementation of free take back
The Car Scrapping Law (SFS 1975:343) and the Car Scrapping Ordinance (SFS 1975:348)
were enacted in order to regulate the problems that had been observed of end-of life vehicles
being abandoned in the countryside. At the same time, a charge was levied when a new car
entered the Swedish market. The charges were collected in a non-interest fund known as the
Car Scrapping Fund that was under State control. The Fund was then used for paying
scrapping premiums in conjunction with the end of-life car being handed over to an
authorised car dismantler who has the right to issue a scrapping certificate. In practice, the
scrapping regulations of 1975 were an economic producer responsibility for the car industry.
The Ordinance on Producer Responsibility for Cars (SFS 1997:788) extended the producer
responsibility for new cars entering the market after 1 January 1998 and introduced a
replacement for the conventional deposit-refund system. The system is intended to be self-
financing – the scrapping fee that is paid by the first owner is supposed to cover expenditure
for the premium that is paid to the car’s last owner. The ordinance required that the
manufacturers and importers should take the responsibility for financing the treatment, and
also ensured that a system was established that took care of end-of life cars, regardless of
their age. At the same time, the principle was retained that cars that came on the market
before 1998 would be financed by charges on new cars.
96
Sweden experienced some problems when it increased the scrapping premium from 500 SEK
to 1500 SEK (around €58 to €174). From the end of the year 2000, six months before the
introduction of the new system, there was a drop in the number of cars being scrapped.
Several vehicle dismantling companies tried to cash in on the increased premiums and
illegally postponed the scrapping of cars.
97
When the premium increase began to take effect,
the number of cars being scrapped showed a marked increase. A month or so after the
premium was changed, the level went down but the number of scrapped cars still remained at
a higher level than in the years prior to the premium increase. In total, this meant that during
the full year 2001, almost twice as many private cars were scrapped as in the previous year.
95
Lindhqvist, T (2001). Extended Producer Responsibility for End-of life Cars – Analysis of Effectiveness and Socio-
economic Consequences. Study for the Producer Responsibility Investigation on the Instructions of BIL Sweden. Lund:
IIIEE, Lund University.
96
Lindhqvist, T (2001). Extended Producer Responsibility for End-of life Cars – Analysis of Effectiveness and Socio-
economic Consequences. Study for the Producer Responsibility Investigation on the Instructions of BIL Sweden. Lund:
IIIEE, Lund University.
97
Naturvårdsverket (2002), Samla in, återvinn! Uppföljning av producentansvaret för 2001,men också mycket mer…,
Rapport 5237, June 2002
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 50 of 67
Scrapping remained at this level through 2002. In 2003, the number of cars scrapped went
down somewhat but remained at a level that was higher than the years prior to the change in
premium.
98
As a consequence of the above problems the supervision of vehicle dismantling
companies has being strengthened by a combination of measures. The municipalities were
given a supervisory role over the Vehicle Dismantling Ordinance, which they had not had
previously. More and more municipalities started also conducting supervisory campaigns
directed at vehicle dismantling companies.
99
Although the fund pays for the scrappage, the transport costs of the car to any collection
points/scrap yards remain the responsibility of the car owner. During the consultation period,
several stakeholders voiced their concern that long transport distances would lead to even
more cars being abandoned in the countryside.
Note that a recent Government Proposal recommends the abolition of the scrapping fund and
the premium, due to the increase of abandoned cars. This Proposal is discussed in greater
detail under the “Other issues” heading.
Implementation/achievement of recycling targets
The proportion of reused, recovered and recycled ELVs was in 2000 as high as
83 %.
100
The target of 85 %, set by the Swedish legislation, was almost achieved for 2002,
with the proportion being just over 84 %. For 2005 the proportion reached 85 %. The
calculations are based on information from a 27 % proportion of all cars scrapped in Sweden.
This information is provided by Bil Sweden’s network.
The formula for calculating the reuse, recovery and recycling rates in Sweden differ slightly
from that set by the ELV Directive. The main difference is the way the weight of petrol is
calculated and hence the Swedish formula overestimates the proportion by 0.5 %.
101
Other issues
A new Proposal regarding ELV and producer responsibility has gone through the consultation
stage and was submitted by the Government to the Council of Legislation on 30 November
2006. The Proposal will remove the Car Scrapping Fund and clarify producer responsibilities.
According to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Proposal the numbers of abandoned cars
in the countryside and along roads increased significantly from around the time of the
scrapping premium increase in 2001. It is assumed that this has been a consequence of the car
acceptance fee for scrapping being often as high as the premium, such that there is no longer
a positive economic incentive to scrap cars according to the prescribed procedure. Because
the premium is no longer working as intended, the Proposal suggests abolishing the fund by
May 2007. The remaining money in the Fund will be allocated for the fees for scrapping car
models without catalysers, which are older than 1989 and for some other uses (abandoned
cars collected by the municipality, funds for campaigns etc.).
102
98
Naturvårdsverket (2004), Styrmedel för ökad skrotning av gamla bilar, Rapport 5415, December 2004
99
Naturvårdsverket (2003), Samla in, återvinn! Uppföljning av producentansvaret för 2002, Rapport 5299, June 2003
100
Naturvårdsverket (2003), Samla in, återvinn! Uppföljning av producentansvaret för 2002, Rapport 5299, June 2003
101
Naturvårdsverket (2006), Samla in, återvinn! Uppföljning av producentansvaret för 2005, Rapport 5599, July 2006
102
Council of Legislation (2006), Bilskrotningsfonden m.m, The Government, 30 November 2006
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 51 of 67
UNITED KINGDOM
Introduction to ELVs in the UK
1. Vehicles and Disposals
In the UK in 2005 there were 26,208 thousands cars and 3,019 thousands light duty vehicles.
There are 36 main vehicle manufacturers selling in the UK and 9 main vehicle producers
operating in the UK
103
. In addition, there are around 150-200 small volume vehicle
producers in the UK, many of which will be affected by some, or all, of the requirements of
the Directive. It is estimated there are some 7,000 vehicle component manufacturers in the
UK.
Approximately 2 million vehicles are scrapped in the UK each year: there is however as yet
no official data on the number of vehicles that is disposed of every year in the UK. The latest
data available are estimates produced by the Automotive Consortium On Recycling and
Disposal (ACORD) and by consultancy TRL for the Department of Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The latter estimated the number of ELVs at 2,045,993 in 2001.
Table 7 - Estimates for historic ELV arising in the UK
Source of
Estimate
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
ACORD
1,900,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 2,017,137 n/a
TRL
1,700,068 2,232,487 1,749,876 2,109,967 2,045,993
Source: RIA, 2005
104
In 2000, 238,000 ELVs were abandoned (Department for Transport (DfT) estimates). In the
following two years abandonments rose dramatically, due to the low price of metal and high
costs of scrapping, as previously the system had relied on the fact that the scrap value of a car
was high enough to make proper scrap page economically viable for dismantlers. It has been
argued that in these circumstances owners of ELVs produced before 2002 (as such not
included in the first phase of free take back (Art. 12)), were forced to this by the absence of
an interim support system to avoid this phenomenon
105
. These numbers are deemed to have
considerably decreased since then, however, due to the higher price of scrap metal, the
existence of a clearly defined network for collection and, only recently (from 1 January
2007), to the introduction of free-take back (see further). The estimates of ELVs abandoned
in 2006 are of approximately 65,000 vehicles
106
.
103
Regulatory Impact Assessment of End-of-Life Vehicle Directive, 2005
104
http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file30647.pdf
p. 7. TRL data are more accurate as they exclude exports, car stolen and unrecovered vehicles.
The estimate is calculated with the following methodology: Estimated ELV arisings in Year X = (Vehicles licensed at end of Year X-1)
+ (New vehicle registrations in Year X) – (Vehicles licensed at end of Year X) – (Exports of vehicles in Year X) – (Vehicles stolen and
unrecovered in Year X).
105 Fergusson M.and Skinner I., The Implications of UK implementation of the ELV Directive, Institute for European Environmental Policy,
January 2003.
106
Cartakeback, http://www.cartakeback.com
, 2007
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 52 of 67
Table 8 - Cars abandoned in England and in the UK, 2000 – 2006 (thousands)
Geo
g
raphic
Coverage
2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004
2004/2005 2005/2006
UK
238 290 310 233 n/a n/a
England
224 284 292 221 149 126
Source: Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), personal communication 2007
Note: UK=England+Scotland+Wales+N.Ireland
2. Implementation Arrangements
The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) leads on implementation of the majority of the
ELV Directive, while Defra leads on the implementation of Art. 6, on the permitting of
treatment facilities. Since 1 February 2004 all treatment facilities should hold a new permit
that will allow them to operate on the basis of the minimum technical standards required by
the Directive on an equal footing. The Environment Agency (England and Wales), the
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Scotland), and the Environment and Heritage
Service (Northern Ireland) are the authorities which enforce recovery and recycling
obligations from 2006 and monitor ATFs
107
activities.
The DTI services the register of producer marque and vehicle declarations, and assesses
producers' network plans. By 1 April 2007 producers and authorised treatment facilities
(ATFs) with recovery obligations are currently required under the UK Regulations (see
below) to send to DTI a Certificate of Compliance, confirming achievement of their target for
2006, and reporting the recovery rate achieved. Car manufacturers that have contracted one
or both of the two main service providers, Autogreen and Cartakeback, will get from these
the ATFs certificates of destruction (CoDs) and the reporting on marques of vehicles (DTI,
2006).
108
From this reporting, the DTI will derive the data relative to the recovery targets set
by the Directive: therefore official up to date data will not be available before early summer
2007 (see below).
The UK Regulations are clear that all information and reporting requirements under Art. 9 of
the Directive are with the producer or with ATFs, (in respect of ELVs for which they do not
have a manufacturer's contract) (Art. 20).
Transposition of the Directive
The UK has transposed the Directive through its ELV Regulations in 2003 and 2005. Like
many other countries it was late in doing so. In 2003, the European Court of Justice
condemned the UK (Case C-277/03) for non transposition of the Directive by the time
required (21 April 2002) and condemned the UK government to pay the costs of judgement.
The 2003 Regulations put in place most of the requirements of the Directive. The remaining
provisions were the subject of the 2005 Regulations (in force by March 2005) which set out
the requirements for vehicle producers to have available networks of facilities where last
owners of their brands of vehicles could take their ELVs for treatment.
107
Authorised Treatment Facilities (or ATFs) are sites licensed by the Environment Agency in England & Wales, the Scottish Environment
Protection Agency in Scotland or the Environment & Heritage Service in Northern Ireland, to de-pollute end-of life vehicles to
standards set by DEFRA. Only these sites are permitted to issue last owners with a Certificate of Destruction (CoD).
108
DTI (2006), Recovery Targets in the End-of Life Vehicles (Producer Responsibility) Regulations 2005, December 2006,
http://www.autogreen.org/default.asp?p=marketing
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 53 of 67
The regulations apply to end-of life vehicles which are in class M1, N1 and three wheeled
vehicles as defined in Directive 92/61/EEC.
Implementation of free take back
Although the The End-of life Vehicles Regulation 2003
109
gives responsibility to producers
to take back cars put on the market from 2002 (art. 39), in fact, only with the End-of life
Vehicles Regulation 2005
110
(art.7), a date was set from which producers would be
responsible for all vehicles placed on the market. This defines the producers’ responsibility,
which includes the take back, treatment, re-use, recycling, recovery and disposal of vehicles
they have declared responsibility for, or are assigned responsibility for by the DTI.
As far as the free take back is concerned, the UK Government decided to use the flexibility
left by the Directive in deciding how to fund take back and treatment between 2002 and
2007. Free take back provision has been in force since 1 January 2007 (Art. 12 reg. 2005),
while, until 2007, the ‘last owner’ of the vehicle continued to have responsibility for the costs
of disposal of the ELV.
The End-of life Vehicles Regulation 2005 introduces the framework for the achievement of
producers’ responsibility: producers will need to contract with a network of Authorised
Treatment Facilities (ATFs), and with the reprocessing and recycling industries. Each
producer’s network is to be approved by the DTI to ensure adequacy and accessibility of
ATFs to last holders/owners. On the latter, the UK introduced a very strict parameter for
which 75 % of last owners should be within 10 miles on average of the nearest ATF, and no
one should be more than 30 miles distance (or else free take back from the home applies)
111
.
This provision is one of the stricter in the EU; it is meant to guarantee a tight network of
ATFs on the territory, particularly in highly-populated areas. Indeed, from approximately 650
licensed treatment facilities in 2003, the network has grown to approximately 1,400 by 2006
(ACORD, 2007). Car manufactures contracted two service providers (Autogreen and
Cartakeback) to ensure the network complies with the information and recycling obligations,
and to act as an interface on the information requirements between the individual ATF and
the DTI. Treatment facilities channel through the service contractors the Certificate of
Destruction (CoD), which is issued by the DVLA to prove that a vehicle has been scrapped in
a lawful and environmentally sound manner, and counts for the annual target for recovery of
the car producer.
Producers will be responsible for the costs in relation to the number of vehicles they have put
on the market and will put on the market in the future and arise as ELVs in the UK. ATFs
who accept ELVs outside of a producer contract will be able to make a free market decision
on whether they take such ELVs or not.
109
The End-of life Vehicles (Producer Responsibility) Regulations 2003 (no. 2635).
110
The End-of life Vehicles (Producer Responsibility) Regulations 2005 (2005 no. 263).
111
In remote areas where this is not possible, one service contractor (Cartakeback) has established collection points to which vehicles can
be delivered for onward transportation to an Authorised Treatment facility for de-pollution.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 54 of 67
Implementation/achievement of recycling targets
Since the The End-of life Vehicles Regulation 2003 the regulating agencies have issued
around 1,400 licences to Authorised Treatment Facilities (ATFs). The Agencies are currently
ensuring that all facilities are licensed. During this process many fines have been issued as
indeed there are many other operators on the territory (i.e. the estimated number of operators
was around 2,500 in 2003, including dismantlers, salvage operators, scrap yards, and
secondary metal merchants dealing with ELVs, and many of these were small operators who
had not hitherto had to operate to demanding environmental standards. Also there were an
additional 500 to 800 sites operating illegally) (RIA, 2005).
However, ACORD reported to us that the number of CoDs gathered in the first nine months
of statutory target period have been much lower than expected. The UK Liberal Democrats
environment spokesman in the European Parliament, Chris Davies, explained this by arguing
that Britain's 1,200 authorised treatment facilities would issue about 500,000 CoDs in 2006,
while the remaining 1.5 million ELVs would be dismantled without the facility producing the
only document that guarantees the sound treatment of the ELV.
112
This is apparently due to
a lack of implementation by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) that
apparently allows last owners to tick a box on their vehicle deregistration form to state that
they have scrapped their car themselves, but without requiring the certificate. There is
however evidence that the responsible Agencies are now working to prevent operation by all
non licensed facilities, and DVLA is considering whether the alternative means of
notification should be withdrawn.
As regards ELV recovery, in 2000, the TRL Report for Defra estimated that ELVs’ material
re-use and recovery was 77 %. Again, for 2000, ACORD estimated that 69 % of materials
from ELVs were recycled, and 11 % of parts from ELVs were re-used.
Using data from the UK Shredder Trial Report, and from the Government/ Industry Used
Tyre Working Group and ELV Consultation Group, the DTI estimated an indicative ELV
recovery figure for 2004. These estimates are expected to remain similar for 2005, but may
be challenged by the wealth of data on actual recovery which should be produced by April
2007 (see above). However, these data will still be incomplete and may not be fully
representative of the entire ELV fleet.
Table 9 - ELVs recovery percentages in the UK in 2004 (%)
Parts of ELV recovered %
Metallic content re-used and recycled 75
Fuels re-used 1
Tyres re-used, recycled and recovered 2
Non-metallic parts re-used and recycled 2
Oils/fluids removed during depollution and
recovered
1
TOTAL 81
Source: DTI, 2007.
112
http://www.letsrecycle.com/materials/metals/news.jsp?story=5992
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 55 of 67
An estimate (RIA, 2005) states that the 2015 target of 95% will be hit through energy
recovery (combustion) of non-metallic materials, which is going to be an option equivalent in
terms of costs to that of landfills.
During 2006, the DTI produced guidelines for producers to report their compliance on the
recovery targets for 2006. The DTI is expecting producers and ATFs with recovery
obligations to send their certificate of compliance before 1 April 2007. Using the results of a
2005 shredder trial, the DTI established that the average weight of an ELV is 971 kilograms;
76% of that average weight, comprising the metal fraction and residual fuel, could be
assumed to be recovered (that is, to re-use, recycle or recover energy from) automatically.
This percentage is not subject to check as it is considered already economically sustainable
for operators to reach it. Therefore the DTI is asking producers to obtain evidence of recovery
only for the 9% left off the recovery and recycling target (around 87 kgs per ELV, from the
non-metallic fraction). Obligated businesses should provide evidence of the following (DTI,
2006):
113
• re-use of non-metallic parts (e.g. seats, part-worn tyres, windscreens, bumpers, fuel
etc);
• recycling of non-metallic materials (e.g. plastics, glass, rubber, tyres, textiles, fluids
etc);
• recovery of energy (up to a maximum of 5%) from non-metallic materials, including
automotive shredder residue; and
• reuse or recycling of metal in addition to the 76% assumption explained above.
Producers and ATFs claiming reuse activity must retain sales data for inspection by the
regulator, in a form which will enable him to identify the component. It will be for producers
and service providers to ensure that their contracted ATFs allocate re-used parts to marques
appropriately. Regarding recycling of non-metallic materials, DTI suggest to retain the
system whereby ATFs use the notes for which they are bound under duty of care legislation
on detailing tonnages of material they have passed to licensed or registered exempt
businesses recycling or reprocessing waste oils, fluids, glass, rubber, plastics, and textiles
reprocessors. The same transfer notes should be retained by the latter. Those fractions of non-
metallic ELV waste which are hazardous (e.g. drained oils) will be subject to the
consignment, movement and recording arrangements as set down in the 2005 Hazardous
Waste Regulations, which will similarly provide an audit trail. It should be noted that
businesses handling ELV waste may be subject to periodic inspection, under the mechanisms
that already exist under the Duty of Care regime, to ensure that the required controls are in
place.
Other issues
Regarding the phase out of the use of heavy metals in the manufacturing of vehicles, the UK
used the flexibility allowed by Annex II of the Directive. ACORD pointed out that there is a
controversial issue in the Directive: that of vehicles produced before the regulations were
exempted from this ban until 1 January 2007. This, it is argued, will make replacement parts
problematic, and thus creates an indirect driver for more and premature scrapping, where
banned spare parts are no longer available.
113
To simplify the gathering of evidence relating to non-metallic parts re-use by ATFs, the DTI created a ‘most popular components’
weight data base available here (see Annex I, DTI, 2006)
http://www.autogreen.org/default.asp?p=marketing&news_id=20
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 56 of 67
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
Background of the General Situation
1. Cars and Car Markets
Particularly in Western Europe, car ownership levels are high, giving rise to car fleets
numbering tens of millions in the larger Member States. Equally in such states, there may be
a requirement to dispose of several million end-of life vehicles each year. Owing to the
relatively high levels of disposable income, fleets include a significant proportion of large
and luxurious cars, and on average, the car fleets are quite young -- typically less than 10
years as the average age.
The situation is rather different in most of the EU-10. Here, car ownership levels are typically
significantly lower, although in most countries they are increasing rapidly towards those
already experienced further west. Also, the average age of cars is much older, with cars kept
on the road through repeated repairs and the use of second-hand parts from scrapped cars.
New car sales are also increasing, but the fleet is also being augmented by imported second-
hand cars, many of them from Western Europe. Another feature that is relevant to the
requirements of the ELV Directive is that there are still significant numbers of cars
manufactured by companies that operated in the former socialist bloc, and that are now
defunct. Taken together these represent significant legacy issues for the new Member States,
which were arguably not anticipated when the legislation was first conceived.
Car manufacturing is an important element of the European economy in general, and is
particularly important in a number of Member States, such as Germany, Belgium, France,
Italy, Sweden, Poland and the Czech Republic. Such countries tend to be particularly keen
not to impose excessive costs upon their car manufacturers, for example through
implementation of the ELV Directive.
2. Car Scrappage
The quality of statistics on car scrap page is extremely variable across Europe, although there
are signs that the Directive itself is beginning to bring about some improvements in this. In
some countries, though, it is not yet even possible to estimate precisely how many end-of life
vehicles are being scrapped each year. It is clear, however, that even now, in many of the EU
Member States, by no means all older cars are disposed of as prescribed under the Directive:
• Export of second-hand cars before they reach their end of life is an important (and
possibly growing) feature of the car market in most of the continental members of the
EU-15. The EU-10 countries appear to be the principal recipients of these cars and
will in turn have to dispose of them in due time. Some second-hand cars are taken
even further east, and there are reports of exports outside of Europe as well.
• Although it is difficult to provide firm evidence of such activities, it has been reported
that the legitimate second-hand trade masks some illegal activities, such as the export
of wrecked cars for recycling outside Europe. This practice is illegal, as end-of life
vehicles should be classified as hazardous waste and handled accordingly. It is also
suggested that many stolen cars are moved across national frontiers and replated, in
order to better avoid detection.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 57 of 67
• Equally, it is clear that in countries that do not have a strong licensing or enforcement
system, a significant number of cars are being scrapped by unlicensed operators who
remove the economically desirable parts of the wreck -- notably the scrap metal -- but
may dispose of the other materials illegally or in environmentally-damaging ways,
and certainly not as prescribed in the Directive. This is still cheaper than following the
terms of the legislation, so there is an economic incentive to take only what is
profitable.
• Some cars are still abandoned rather than properly scrapped, although the rate of
abandonment varies considerably from country to country, possibly reflecting in part
the rigour or otherwise of legal controls, vehicle licensing and the registration
arrangements. It is not always clear in what way abandoned vehicles are dealt with
and disposed of, if at all.
• Some end-of life vehicles are ‘garaged’ rather than scrapped, particularly in countries
where suspension of vehicle licensing is allowed. Such vehicles may be partly used
for spare parts for other vehicles or simply left on private ground. Part-dismantling
can in turn compromise the possibilities of scrapping them completely. There are
reported to be significant numbers of such vehicles in some countries, and these
appear to be storing up problems for the future.
In most cases, it should be stressed that these practices predate the implementation of the
ELV Directive and were not therefore caused by it. It is reasonable to suppose that, by
imposing additional requirements and hence costs, the Directive might have led to an increase
in such practices, whereas conversely, a general tightening of the conditions surrounding car
scrap page might (assuming it is accompanied by effective controls and enforcement) be
expected to lead to a reduction in informal or illegal practices. In reality however, little
evidence was found that either of these effects has taken place to any great extent. The
requirement to provide free take back, where properly implemented, does however seem to
have led to some improvements in the disposal of old cars in some cases. Furthermore, a
significant increase in the price of scrap metal since the time that the Directive was first
proposed has improved the economics of car scrap page.
It is also clear that the nature of pre-existing arrangements for car scrappage and for waste
disposal in general has a strong bearing on the way in which the Directive has been
implemented, and the degree of success or otherwise of these arrangements. For example, in
some countries, car disposal was already highly regulated, and/or handled through large
waste handling facilities at the municipal level. Elsewhere, the process has been handled
rather more informally and in a more decentralised way, with less prior regulation. Often in
these cases there are a large number of small operators, including some illegal ones, and it
has proved difficult either to bring these up to the required standards to be able to carry out
safe disposal within the terms of the Directive, or alternatively to prevent them from
practising.
General Implementation of the Directive
A small number of countries with a good level of resources, effective administrative systems,
and early experience of operating a highly regulated system of car disposal, have been able to
implement the directive relatively smoothly. The Netherlands and Sweden are good examples
in this respect, with Sweden having enacted its first car scrappage law in 1975, and
implemented producer responsibility from 1998. Germany and Austria also approached
implementation in a systematic and quite timely way.
Many, however, have experienced significant difficulties, delays and setbacks in
implementing the Directive. Reflecting this, the Commission has taken some form of legal
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 58 of 67
action against most of the EU-15 Member States in relation to this Directive, in particular for
late implementation. In Ireland, for example, the requisite legislation was only enacted in
2006. Some have also been taken to task for not fully reflecting the scope of the Directive, for
example by not applying it to three-wheeled vehicles. Even the Netherlands, which enjoyed
perhaps the smoothest introduction of the new system, suffered legal proceedings relating to
two technical points, while Italy had to adjust quite a number of different aspects of its
original legislation. Such legal actions have been common amongst the EU-15 States as late
as 2006, although many have now been dropped in response to Member States’ implementing
or amending their legislation. The EU-10 has experienced additional problems as outlined
below.
There are a number of reasons that have contributed to these problems and help to explain the
particular difficulties being experienced. Some of these are inherent in the complexity of the
tasks required, and some arise from the specific terms and requirements of the Directive.
• Waste disposal arrangements vary significantly in detail and in effectiveness from one
state to another. Many of these arrangements date back many years, and were not
originally designed to meet modern requirements, including those of EU directives
such as the ELV Directive;
• The Directive sought to make producers responsible for the cost to take back their
products, not only for those yet to be put on the market, but also for those already on
the market. The latter proved particularly controversial and was strongly opposed by
the carmakers. The Directive also did not specify how the disposal of these cars
would be funded during the transition period of 2002-2007. In a few countries such as
the Netherlands which made sensible and advance provision to build up a fund that
would cover the cost in these cases, few problems were experienced, but elsewhere,
there have been significant disagreements over costs and who should pay them;
• The requirements of the Directive, although arguably very necessary, have increased
the cost of car disposal, for example by requiring significant upgrades to the facilities
of many car breakers, and requiring levels of reuse and recycling that will force all
countries to go beyond the recycling of scrap metal, which was generally
economically viable, and to begin to address recycling of other materials, combustion
of certain wastes with heat recovery, etc;
• Administrative arrangements have also been complex in a number of respects. For
example, some of the requirements of the Directive require the establishment of
national systems or standards, whereas waste management is often the responsibility
of the regions in federal countries, or of municipal authorities in others. In Sweden
and some other countries, the main reporting and monitoring requirements rest with
the national EPA; in other cases such as Ireland, these rest with local authorities.
Hence questions of overlapping competencies have arisen. Furthermore, in some
countries, strict environmental standards and licensing requirements have been
imposed on car dismantlers and scrappers for the first time, and this has been
demanding in terms of resources for inspection and administration;
• Furthermore, in most states the requirements for reporting and for certificates of
destruction have required whole new systems, procedures and administrative
structures to be put in place. Where governments have imposed a central
clearinghouse body to handle these new arrangements, the systems appear to have
been developed quite smoothly; but elsewhere, things have often gone less well. Also,
the new requirements have had to be linked in to existing vehicle registration systems,
and this too has caused some difficulties;
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 59 of 67
• Car manufacturers had not had hitherto to regard the disposal of their products as a
part of their core business, and this was a significant adjustment. Where a
clearinghouse authority was established to mediate between manufacturers and
dismantlers, things appear to have gone relatively smoothly. Elsewhere, however,
manufacturers have clearly struggled to get to grips with understanding the diverse
waste management system of 25 different Member States, and in negotiating with
dismantlers and waste handlers;
• Countries from the EU-10 have experienced particular difficulties arising in part from
specific aspects of their car fleets and historic disposal arrangements, but also from
their relatively recent adoption of the acquis communautaire. More generally, those
countries that do not have a high level of administrative resource in the relevant areas
have found it particularly difficult to implement this complex Directive effectively;
• As noted above, there are a number of routes to the disposal of a vehicle, some legal,
and some not. Where the Directive requires extra procedures and incurs extra costs in
disposal, then there is an obvious disincentive for full compliance, and additional
enforcement action is needed to ensure that more cars do not fall out of the system.
Also, the new administrative procedures have sometimes contained ‘loopholes’ that
allow some of the requirements of the Directive to be circumvented. It is clearly still
possible in a number of countries to secure the deregistration of a vehicle without
obtaining a certificate of destruction, which is one of the central requirements of the
Directive. In the UK, for example, most of the requirements of the Directive now
appear to be in place, yet reportedly only a quarter of ELVs actually received a
certificate of destruction prior to deregistration in 2006.
Most of the difficulties listed above are real enough, but capable of being overcome given
sufficient time, effort, and resources. In many cases there is evidence that delays and
problems are of a transitional nature, and can and will be solved in due time. Indeed, there is
evidence from many areas that the problems have already been or are being addressed, both
in the transposition of the legislation itself, and in its implementation. More specifically,
where figures are available they do generally show progress towards the reuse, recovery and
recycling targets, as discussed below.
Free Take-Back
In most Member States, the central requirement for free take back has been implemented,
improving conformity with the Directive’s standards and encouraging last owners to deliver
their cars for disposal. In countries that have developed a dense network of authorised
takeback facilities and have effective enforcement, this appears to be developing quite
effectively.
Elsewhere, it can still be more economically advantageous to use unauthorised facilities that
can sell on the useful parts of the ELVs (principally spare parts and scrap metals), but do not
incur the cost of carrying out proper recycling or recovery of other parts. This gives rise to
additional waste and potential environmental hazards and can only be overcome by improved
enforcement and/or improved facilities to recycle or recover additional materials such as
glass, plastics and tyres.
In some cases it was observed that certain administrative charges were being levied, and
hence that take back was not completely free as it ideally should be. It was further argued that
transporting a vehicle to a disposal site could incur a significant cost for vehicles unable to be
taken to the site under their own power. In only a few countries does it appear that such
transport costs for disposal are also covered under free take back; elsewhere this may remain
a barrier to complete take-up.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 60 of 67
On a related matter, the density of the disposal network appears at this time to vary very
substantially from country to country. To some extent this reflects different levels of ambition
in different Member States, but also may in some cases be a question of transition where
implementation has been slow, and networks are still being built up and new sites licensed.
The UK, for example, has specified that most people should be less than 20km from an
authorised disposal site, and that transportation costs should be reimbursed to those beyond a
specified distance threshold.
Some states, including Germany and Austria, originally confined the take back obligation to
vehicles registered under their own national registration systems, but the Commission
complained that this was incompatible with the principles of EU law, and the provisions had
subsequently to be widened to cover take back of cars registered in other countries.
The fact that scrap metal prices are currently very high is an important component of the
overall financing of vehicle disposal, but other requirements of the Directive (ie for additional
recycling and recovery, and for safe disposal of hazardous materials) generally incur cost that
requires cross-subsidy if it is to be carried out in conformity with the Directive. In some
countries major new recycling and recovery facilities have required investment, and this has
to be recovered through the system, thereby incurring extra costs.
A few countries established central funds through charges on new cars, on second-hand
imports, or directly on producers and importers, and these have been able to finance proper
disposal within the terms of the Directive with few problems. In general, the financial
arrangements between the various actors appear to have worked well when there is an
established clearinghouse organisation to handle the flow of payments and documentation. In
Sweden and the Netherlands, scrappage is funded by a charge applied to all new cars, and this
avoids the expense falling upon the final owner, the producer, or the dismantler. This appears
in many respects to have been the most effective solution and arguably the most equitable
system, although Sweden is now planning to move away from this approach.
Elsewhere, some attempts were made to establish centrally-organised networks, but these
often failed owing to disputes over sharing of costs. Where no such arrangements exist,
manufacturers have had to enter into private contracts with take back and treatment facilities.
These are commercially confidential and complex, and therefore not transparent. Hence little
further information can be provided in these cases.
Disputes over the level of charges and costs have been reported in several countries, with car
manufacturers questioning the level of costs charged by the disposal sites and dismantlers. In
Ireland, a fixed levy has been established for each vehicle dismantled, and producers are
charged a further annual fee to cover local authority administration costs. A number of
countries have now established a fixed fee rate, but others have not, and fees vary from
country to country. In other cases, these costs are a private transaction between producers and
dismantlers.
During the transition period, there has been a particular difficulty over who should bear the
costs of cars already on the roads before 2002. In countries which had existing funds to
handle disposal of end-of life vehicles, this appears not to have been a problem. Elsewhere,
though, manufacturers have been extremely resistant to incurring extra costs prior to the date
on which this was made mandatory by the Directive, and in such cases, final owners
continued to have to bear any costs during the transition period. Fortunately, a sharp rise in
the value of scrap metal over this period helped to offset such costs.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 61 of 67
Implementation and Achievement of Recycling Targets
1. Achievement of Targets
Although the first set of reuse, recycling and recovery targets relate to 1 January 2006, it is
still too early to draw definitive conclusions as to whether these targets have been widely met
or not. That is, the many countries that implemented the Directive rather late still do not have
reliable reporting systems in place to allow firm conclusions to be drawn as to the
percentages of material that are being reused or recovered in some way, and even those that
are more advanced are likely to experience some delays in assembling definitive data. In
Germany, for example, final figures for 2006 will not be available until next year, and this
will be the first reporting period under the Irish legislation. Furthermore, in countries where
only a relatively small proportion of vehicles are being scrapped fully under the aegis of the
Directive and have received a certificate of destruction to prove it, the data available have to
be regarded as selective and not fully reliable.
Sweden and the Netherlands already reached the 85 per cent target for reuse and recovery in
2005. In the Netherlands too the reuse and recycling targets had already been met by 1997;
but these are very much the exceptions. Belgium appeared to have met the 80 per cent per
cent reuse and recycling target in 2005, but appears unlikely to reach the 85 per cent reuse
and recovery target completely.
Nonetheless, some general conclusions can be drawn. A few of the countries that had made
an early start in implementing strong targets for cars are on track to meet the reuse and
recycling targets, but most fall somewhat short. By weight, it is possible to get a long way
towards the reuse and recycling target simply by recycling scrap metal parts of a vehicle
effectively, particularly the iron and steel, which is in any case economic to do. Hence the
appears likely that a number of other countries will have met the 80 per cent per cent reuse
and recycling target in 2006 or soon after.
However, further efforts are needed in order to reach the reuse and recycling targets in full,
typically including greater efforts to recycle glass, plastics and other materials. Only a few
Member States have so far implemented such systems, though more are now seeking to do
so. It appears, however, that there is little or no market for some of these recycled materials.
A few are also considering more advanced systems to sort through the light shredder fraction
and ‘fluff’ that remains after the main recyclable components had been dismantled.
European car manufacturers association ACEA also reports that there are potential problems
with the tight definitions under the Waste Framework Directive that might prevent some uses
of shredder residue (i.e. in blast furnaces) as counting towards reuse and recovery targets. In
this case it will be very difficult in some countries to meet the 85 % target114.
There is also anecdotal evidence that significant quantities of fluff are now being exported to
developing countries, notably China, for further sorting and recycling. Such activity takes
advantage of the extremely low costs of sea container traffic from Europe to China, since
most containers would otherwise return empty, and also the much lower labour costs in
China. This allows a level of manual processing that would not be at all economic to do in
Europe.
The reuse and recovery targets are also proving challenging in almost all Member States,
with few likely on current trends to reach the target, although some others will come close.
Some are now looking actively at the possibility of incineration with heat recovery of parts of
the post-shredder waste stream in order to comply.
114
Personal Communication from ACEA representative
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 62 of 67
A number of countries have not yet had systems in place long enough to have produced any
meaningful official results of recycling rates, although other data from trade bodies may be
available. Furthermore, in countries where only a relatively small proportion of vehicles are
being scrapped fully under the aegis of the Directive, and have received a certificate of
destruction to prove it, then clearly what data are available will have to be regarded as
selective. In countries that have not yet got an effective system in place, it is reasonable to
assume that the recycling targets will not be fully met.
2. Data Quality and Availability for Recycling Rates
In most countries, some data were already available prior to implementation of the Directive
through recycling associations, for example. This applies most obviously to scrap metals,
which make up the majority of an ELV by weight. Other data were less readily available, and
are only developing in a reliable way where new reporting obligations have been imposed on
producers and/or disposal operations.
In many cases reporting is still incomplete. This is sometimes due to late implementation or
incomplete coverage, but elsewhere, complex new electronic systems have been needed to
track the various waste components effectively owing to the complexity of modern cars. Also
some elements of the disposal routes appear inherently difficult to report accurately, such as
heat recovery operations.
For all these reasons, reported data need to be supplemented through various estimation
techniques by national authorities. As against this the level and quality of reporting seems
overall to be improving over time.
Particularly where significant numbers of ELVs are still being disposed of outside of the
terms of the Directive, whatever figures are available can only be estimates, and are almost
certainly not representative of the ELV fleet as a whole.
Other Issues
The Directive requires the Member States under Article 8 to ensure that component and
material coding standards are pursued. However, the little information available on this issue
suggested that this requirement in particular has not advanced greatly in most countries.
The bans on the use of certain materials are generally in place, but pose specific problems
with repairs to older vehicles. This is because the bans also apply to cars where the banned
materials were used originally, but the materials and thus spare parts may no longer be used
even for repair purposes. Other reported problems appear relatively minor, and significant
complaints or resistance to the bans were not reported in the case studies.
However, it is most likely that the ban is not respected by operators who dispose of vehicles
illegally, and as noted, this still occurs frequently in some countries.
Wider Implications
Cars represent the most expensive, and probably the technically most complex of all
consumer appliances in common use. They are also extremely numerous and ubiquitous
across Europe. In this sense, it is perhaps not surprising that many technical difficulties have
been experienced in applying much higher standards of disposal and recycling to such an
important waste stream. Further problems have been encountered in imposing the cost of this
exercise upon the producers, in part retrospectively.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 63 of 67
Vehicles are in principle highly regulated, for safety and other reasons. Besides, they have to
be registered, taxed, and ensured in all countries. With this in mind, it is sobering to reflect on
how many difficulties have been encountered in seeking to impose a regime of safe and
sustainable management on end-of life vehicles, and a degree of producer responsibility. It
can be concluded that as many problems, or possibly more, will be encountered in efforts to
improve the reuse, and recycling and recovery of materials from other waste streams, most
obviously under the WEEE Directive.
Nonetheless, a high level of preparation, as well as an adequate level of administrative
resources and efforts towards licensing enforcement, help the implementation of the required
regulations and directives. State involvement in setting up some sort of agency to mediate
between producers and disposers also seems to lead to positive results.
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 64 of 67
ANNEX I: SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CASE STUDIES
The key issues that the Parliament wants us to focus on are the arrangements and
implementation of the free take back systems (e.g. to address the issues raised in c), below)
and progress towards achieving the reuse/recovery/recycling targets for 2006 (as in d)). It
would also be good, however, to have some general background information for the country
and information regarding the transposition of the Directive (a) and b)). Finally, there may be
other issues that arose in the course of the project and hence I have mentioned a number of
other aspects of the Directive (e)). So the issues that I would like you to cover are:
a) Introduction to ELVs - Could you provide an overview of the situation in the
country, to include:
o Actors, e.g. does the country have any major manufacturers of cars or their
components; or does it import most of its cars?
o Size of car/van fleet; number of cars/vans scrapped (for 2005, or most recent
year)
o Are second-hand cars/vans either imported or exported in significant
numbers? If so, please give any available indications as to the numbers of
these second-hand cars/vans and their sources or destination countries?
o Has there been any evidence of illegal dumping of ELVs in the Member State,
or illegal exports from the Member State that might be linked to the
implementation of the Directive?
o Who in the Member State has been made responsible for the reporting
requirements set out in Article 9(2)? Are there any systems in place to check
the quality of the data, particularly in relation to meeting the
reuse/recovery/recycling targets?
b) Transposition: Article 10(1) required Member States to have implemented the
Directive by 21 April 2002 (new Member States by accession)
o When did legislation to implement the Directive enter into force?
o Does the legislation cover light commercial vehicles (N1 vehicles) as well as
passenger cars (M1 vehicles), as required by the Directive?
o Did all the provisions come into force on the date required by the Directive? If
not, which were different?
o Has the Commission taken any enforcement action against the MS (see, for
example, the accompanying extracts from the Commission’s annual Survey of
Implementation and Enforcement of EU law)?
• If yes, why? How did the Member State respond?
• Have the reasons for the enforcement legal action now been addressed?
If so, when?
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 65 of 67
c) Free take back – Article 5(4) of the Directive required Member States to ensure that
the last owner of the vehicle could return the vehicle to a treatment facility at no cost.
It also requires that ‘producers’ should meet all, or a significant part, of the costs of
the implementation of the measure and/or take back vehicles. Article 12(2) states that
Article 5(4) applies to vehicles put on the market after 1 July 2002 from that date (i.e.
1 July 2002) and to all vehicles (no matter when they were put on the market) from 1
January 2007.
o How/when did the Member State implement this aspect of the Directive?
o Is take back now free for final users? From when did this provision apply for
pre-July 2002 vans/cars? For all cars/vans?
o Do ‘producers’ now pay all or a significant part of the costs? From when did
this provision apply? How are ‘producers’ made to pay?
o What systems were put in place to enable the collection and treatment of
ELVs (Articles 5(1) to 5(3))? Are they effective?
o Where changes to existing systems necessary or were new systems put in
place? (If existing systems were already in place, could you explain how these
operated/were affected, as appropriate?)
o What difficulties have arisen with respect to the free take back and the
requirement that producers pay at least a significant part of the costs?
o If there were any delays in transposing the provisions of Article 5, what were
the reasons for these?
d) Reuse and recovery targets – Article 7(2a) requires Member States to take measures
to ensure that, by 1 January 2006, ‘economic operators’ reuse and recover at least
85% on average of ELVs by weight, annually, and reuse and recycle at least 80%.
For older vehicles (those produced before 1 January 1980) these minimum rates are
10% lower.
o In addition to the take back systems referred to above, has the Member State
taken any additional measures to increase the reuse, recovery and recycling of
ELVs since 2000?
o What proportion of ELVs was reused/recovered/recycled in 2000?
o What proportion was reused/recovered/recycled in 2005 (or the most recent
year for which data is available)?
o Where changes to existing systems necessary to improve the
reuse/recovery/recycling rates or were new systems put in place? (If existing
systems were already in place, could you explain how these operated/were
affected, as appropriate?)
o What issues, if any, have arisen?
e) Other issues:
o Were there any issues/problems in the Member State in relation to the ban on
the use of certain hazardous substances (Article 4(2))?
o Were there any problems/issues in relation to the treatment of ELVs (Article
6).
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 66 of 67
o Were there any issues/problems re competent and material coding standards
(Article 8(1))
o Were any agreements made between competent authorities and economic
operators to implement the Articles of the Directive referred to in Article
10(3)? If so, do they meet the requirements specified in Article 10(3)?
o Did any other issues arise that are worth mentioning (e.g. links to other
legislation, e.g. landfill Directive’s ban on tyres, etc)?
IP/A/ENVI/ST/2006-29
PE 385.625
Page 67 of 67
