FEAD comments to the Commission on the WEEE Directive Revision presentation in the Expert Group on Waste

FEAD, the European Waste Management Association, welcomes the opportunity to react to the Commission’s presentation in the Expert Group on Waste on the Revision of the WEEE Directive. This position paper sets out FEAD’s feedback on selected policy options discussed with the European Commission during the Expert Group meeting. It also reflects FEAD feedback to the public consultation on the Circular Economy Act[1], of which the WEEE Directive Revision part can be found in Annex of this document.

Responsibility for meeting collection targets

FEAD supports clarifying and strengthening the responsibility of producers for meeting WEEE collection targets, as well as for the externalities of uncollected and mismanaged WEEE. Clear allocation of responsibility is essential to ensure accountability, improve performance, and avoid shifting the burden of underperformance onto waste management operators or public authorities. In this regard, penalties for non-compliance must be clearly defined and strictly and promptly enforced as part of a harmonised EPR framework, to prevent double counting or artificial cross-border ‘target chasing’.

In addition, producer responsibility must extend beyond merely meeting a numerical target. Even when targets are met, producers remain responsible for WEEE left in informal channels or for environmental and operational damage caused by issues such as battery fires. Beyond the collection and recycling of WEEE, EPR should cover final treatment and additional depollution costs associated with substances of concern in WEEE, targeted awareness campaigns, compositional surveys (including mixed municipal waste and other likely WEEE-bearing waste streams, such as construction and demolition waste and residual industrial waste), data gathering and reporting, and co-financing of upgrades to identify, sort, dismantle and recover materials from WEEE. For EEE with embedded batteries, EPR must contribute to fire prevention and mitigation (e.g. detection and suppression systems, insurance, emergency response and facility recovery).

Clarifying producer responsibility for targets should also go hand in hand with robust enforcement and controls to ensure a level playing field across Member States and to prevent free-riding.

Mandatory handover of WEEE to authorised treatment facilities

FEAD supports the introduction of a mandatory handover of WEEE to authorised treatment facilities. This would be an effective and necessary tool for reducing leakage into informal or unsafe treatment routes, improving depollution and recycling quality, and enhancing the recovery of valuable and critical raw materials. It would also strengthen traceability and enforcement across Member States, while clarifying operational duties and delivering tangible environmental benefits.

In addition, the standard EN 50625 that sets out the requirements for the collection, logistics and treatment of WEEE, should be mandatory for all WEEE operators, including collection operators, to ensure the implementation of safe and high-quality collection systems that preserve the embedded value of WEEE. This standard should be updated regularly to reflect ongoing market developments. This would help to ensure that all operators contribute equally to WEEE collection and treatment, thereby creating a level playing field.

Stronger upstream collection measures and downstream recycling support

If the mandatory handover obligation is implemented effectively and paired with supportive, efficient EPR schemes and a functional recycling market, prohibiting WEEE energy recovery should not be necessary. While recycling remains the preferred option, today and in practice, quantities of WEEE may be treated in energy recovery installations, notably when small WEEE appliances end up in residual waste streams or for unrecyclable fractions. In such cases, a substantial share of metals contained in WEEE is successfully recovered from bottom ash.

It is therefore important to recognise that WEEE which end up in energy recovery is not necessarily lost in material terms, and to understand the possible unintended consequences of such prohibition on the business models of Waste-to-Energy plant and on the overall metal recycling performances. FEAD therefore fully supports efforts to divert WEEE towards separate collection and high-quality treatment and calls for stronger upstream collection measures and downstream recycling market support, rather than an absolute prohibition on the energy recovery of WEEE. If such a ban on incineration is implemented, it shall remain the responsibility of the producers and cannot be applied directly to Waste-to-Energy operators.

Deposit-return systems for small equipment

FEAD is open to deposit-return systems where they demonstrably deliver environmental and safety benefits, provided that such schemes are carefully designed, targeted, and supported by robust environmental and economic impact assessments.

FEAD considers that deposit-return systems have clear potential when applied to lithium batteries and battery-embedded devices[2], where secure and incentivised return can significantly reduce fire hazards and improve capture rates. Such a financial incentive is essential to make citizens aware of the intrinsic value of waste batteries for the circular economy, thus ensuring that critical raw materials contained in batteries remain in the material cycle and are not lost in other waste streams. Any such system should be fully aligned with the ongoing work under the Battery Regulation, and the amount of the deposit must be carefully calibrated to be genuinely incentivising, while avoiding distortions to existing collection systems.

However, FEAD does not support the introduction of deposit-return systems for entire WEEE categories in the absence of prior environmental and economic impact assessments. FEAD therefore proposes developing such a DRS system for batteries and battery-embedded devices as a priority, before considering an extension to entire WEEE categories.  

More citizen-oriented collection systems

FEAD strongly supports the development of more citizen-oriented WEEE collection systems, provided that these systems are fully financed by EPR schemes. Improving convenience for citizens and small businesses is essential to increasing collection rates and reducing unsafe disposal practices.

WEEE collection must become a seamless and accessible experience through dense and well-distributed collection networks close to households and SMEs, combined with clear and simple drop-off options. With online retail steadily growing, FEAD considers it essential to require online sellers to provide free take-back at delivery through reverse logistics and to contribute financially to densification of collection networks. Ensuring a level playing field for all producers placing EEE on the EU market, including for non-EU producers, is a prerequisite for effective EPR systems.

To reflect actual consumer behaviour and increase clarity, FEAD supports obligations requiring retailers to accept WEEE regardless of where the product was originally purchased or whether a new EEE was bought. Product-specific national awareness campaigns are also very important to raise returns in low-performing categories. Such campaigns should be targeted and co-financed by PROs.

Collection methodology – Support for Scenario 3

FEAD supports the use of a collection methodology based on the average lifespan of EEE categories combined with differentiated time windows, as proposed under Scenario 3, provided that it is underpinned by sufficiently robust and mature data. Any chosen methodology must rely on data that are old enough and reliable enough to accurately reflect real waste generation.

The current methodology, which is based on placing products on the market, does not accurately reflect the dynamics of WEEE generation. The lifespan of EEE generally exceeds one year, with significant variation within the same category depending on product quality, usage patterns, repairability and consumer behaviour. The current three-year smoothing of placing-on-the-market data is therefore insufficient to capture these realities, making it structurally difficult to meet collection targets calculated on this basis.

Support for Scenario 3 is conditional on maintaining a high level of ambition, and any revision of the calculation method must not, in practice, lead to lower collected quantity. Robust traceability, verification and checks at Member State level are essential to ensure accountability and preserve incentives for investing in high-quality collection infrastructure. Methodological refinements must be complemented by sustained checks and support from the Commission to ensure the harmonised application of the chosen methodology by Member States.

Recovery of critical raw materials

FEAD shares significant reservations regarding the introduction of specific recovery targets for critical raw materials or mandatory separation requirements for CRM-rich components at this stage. These reservations are linked to the current lack of reliable data on CRM content in products, the limited availability of information along the value chain, and the absence of economic viability for recovering many CRMs present in very small quantities.

The main challenge is not the technical possibility of recovering CRMs, but rather the lack of economic viability under current market conditions[3]. CRM recovery works today only where there is sufficient economic incentive. In this context, imposing additional obligations on recycling plant operators would be ineffective and disproportionate, particularly in a context of stricter export rules for some CRM and in the absence of recycled content targets for most of CRMs.

FEAD therefore considers that priority should be given to upstream measures. Improving information flows from producers to recyclers and strengthening ecodesign requirements are prerequisites for any meaningful progress on CRM recovery. Producers should provide recyclers with clear, standardised, and actionable information on CRM content, including the type and estimated quantities of CRMs, their location within the product, and recommended dismantling and extraction procedures. Products should be designed to facilitate identification, access, removal, and safe extraction of components, as well as overall recyclability. The Digital Product Passport could play a role in increasing transparency and efficiency along the CRM recovery value chain, provided that it delivers information that is operationally useful for recyclers[4].

Economic incentives should be aligned accordingly. Ecomodulation of EPR fees should reward product designs that improve disassembly, recyclability, and the recovery of valuable and critical raw materials, as well as the use of recycled materials. EPR system should be designed to provide technical and financial support for the downstream recycling infrastructure to identify, sort and extract CRM-rich waste streams, and therefore cover the additional costs of improving sorting, dismantling and CRM recovery in the identified waste streams. This kind of collaboration is essential for creating an efficient and predictable supply chain for critical secondary raw materials.

Targeted reform of WEEE categories

FEAD supports targeted reform of WEEE categories where this demonstrably improves logistics, safety, and the recovery of valuable and critical raw materials, while avoiding unnecessary administrative complexity or duplication with existing regulatory frameworks.

FEAD strongly supports the creation of a dedicated category for photovoltaic panels. Photovoltaic panels do not fit within the current category 4 due to their long lifespan, specific material composition, and distinct collection and treatment routes. A dedicated category would support specialist handling, appropriate infrastructure planning, and improved recycling and recovery outcomes.

By contrast, FEAD expresses reservations regarding the creation of separate categories for wind turbines and for large-scale industrial equipment and installations. Such equipment is typically dismantled on site, with resulting fractions managed under existing WEEE categories or other material-specific regimes, and decommissioning plans are already required in several Member States for wind turbines. Creating additional WEEE categories would risk duplication, administrative burden, and limited added value. Where appropriate, specific EPR solutions for certain components, such as wind turbine blades, could be explored without applying a standard WEEE category approach.

FEAD supports replacing the current size-based limit for information technology and telecommunications equipment in Category 6 with a single category regardless of dimensions. Grouping all IT and telecommunications equipment together in Category 6 would better reflect material composition, support specialised treatment chains, and significantly improve the recovery of critical and precious metals. It must be noted that some large IT equipment may require specific treatment and regulations that differ from those applied to small devices. The grouping should therefore take into account some specific operational characteristics of large equipment.. In this context, the proposed Category 10 would not be needed.

Conclusions

FEAD considers that the revision of the WEEE Directive represents a critical opportunity to close collection gaps, reinforce producer responsibility, reduce safety risks notably from lithium batteries, and strengthen high-quality recycling and recovery of valuable materials. The positions set out in this paper aim to ensure high environmental ambition while remaining grounded in operational feasibility and economic reality.

FEAD stands ready to continue contributing constructively to the impact assessment process, with a view to supporting a coherent, enforceable, and effective European framework for WEEE management.

[1] CEA-FEAD-position-paper-10-policy-reommendations.pdf

[2] Please find more information on surging lithium battery fires in waste management and FEAD’s position on this critical issue here: Battery-Fires-in-Waste-Management_-Joint-Paper.pdf

[3] For example, door seals in fridges sometimes contain permanent magnets, e.g. neodymium. However, these magnets are not common in waste streams as most fridges have steel-iron magnets. Removing these magnets manually takes 5–10 minutes and costs €800 per tonne. This activity is not economically sustainable and can only be carried out with the financial support of the producers, in respect of the polluter pays principle.

[4] Please find more information about FEAD’s position on DPP here: 20250701_FEAD_Digital-Product-Passport_Public-Consultation.pdf

[5] Please find more information on FEAD’s position on the implementation of the Digital Product Passport here: 20250701_FEAD_Digital-Product-Passport_Public-Consultation.pdf

FEAD is the European Waste Management Association, representing the private waste and resource management industry across Europe, including 21 national waste management federations and 3,000 waste management companies. Private waste management companies operate in 60% of municipal waste markets in Europe and in 75% of industrial and commercial waste. This means more than 500,000 local jobs, fuelling €5 billion of investments into the economy every year. For more information, please contact: info@fead.be