return to : MA Projects | Previous Page
|
|
Based
on the preceding analyses, several recommendations are offered to realize
WEEE’s goals of preventing, reducing and recycling electric and electronic
equipment without distorting competition or obstructing trade.
The first set of recommendations advocate the removal of the
two prohibitive provisions of the directive. The
second set of recommendations outline how industry and government can
work together to realize the objectives set forth by the directive and
solve the problems related with waste from electrical and electronic
equipment. Recommendations
for the WEEE Directive The
provisions of the WEEE Directive that ban essential materials and attribute
sole responsibility for the collection of end-of-life household products
should be eliminated. Presently,
through its regulations and requirements, the WEEE directive burdens
the electronics industry with unnecessary compliance costs, which would
better be used to support new innovations that lessen the environmental
impact from WEEE. In order
to do so, the ACEI should:
Recommendations
for Joint Action In
order to find solutions to the problems that occur because of waste
from electrical and electronic equipment, both government and industry
must work together. Representing
the US high-tech industry, ACEI has spearheaded the efforts on this
issue. Continuing in that
capacity, ACEI should facilitate a constructive dialogue between government
and industry on how best to achieve the objectives of reducing waste
and protecting the environment while not causing an undue burden on
industry. In order to do
so, ACEI should:
Issue For
four plus years, the US electronics industry, represented by ACEI, has
worked with DG XI Environment to draft a directive for dealing with
waste from electrical and electronic equipment.
Despite its best efforts, the present draft does not address
several of the industry’s key concerns, nor does it achieve its objectives.
A different course of action is needed to ensure that any WEEE
Directive accepted into EU law adequately addresses the interests of
industry as well as the environment. Introduction Our
aim is to provide an implementation plan for the recommendations on
the proposed WEEE Directive. By
examining the interests of all parties involved, using the preceding
analyses, and utilizing objective criteria such as WTO rules, we will
identify which key decision makers should be targeted through lobbying
and/or negotiations in order to garner support for ACEI’s recommendations.
Just
as there are two distinguishable sets of recommendations, so there are
two parts to the strategy. Part
I addresses how to change the directive to reflect the interests of
ACEI’s member companies. In
particular, it addresses the elimination of material bans from the directive,
and the institution of a shared responsibility system for the WEEE collection
and recovery of household products.
Part II introduces the idea of Joint Action with regards to dealing
with WEEE. Part I provides necessary steps for the electronics industry,
whereas Part II suggests how to coordinate WEEE’s management.
Part
I: Strategy for Implementation of Recommendations for the WEEE directive The
recommendations for changing the WEEE Directive are:
In
order to change the directive to reflect these recommendations, both
lobbying and negotiations will need to take place with key decision-makers
and interested parties. As
the WEEE issue has been ongoing for four plus years, coalitions have
already formed and international institutions such as the TransAtlantic
Business Dialog and TransAtlantic Legislative Dialog have taken notice
of the issue. These parties
and others have created a network that can be utilized to exert influence
on decision-makers. This
strategy examines the interests of the decision-makers as well as the
interested parties. By
doing so, a plan emerges for how to approach resolving the WEEE issue.
Lobbying and negotiations are the tools suggested to meet the
strategy objective. Media
Strategy Recognizing
the negative attention on trade and the environment at events such as
those in December 1999 in Seattle and April 2000 in Washington, DC,
public debate on the issue is not in ACEI’s interest.
In order to eliminate the two problematic provisions of the directive,
lobbying and negotiations will be necessary.
There are many individuals and groups who see any attempt to
change environmental legislation as negative, especially if the efforts
to do so are led by what they see as the “multinational corporations”
or “big business.” There
is little to gain, and more likely much to lose, if the ACEI were to
employ the media to influence European decision-makers. However,
there is a role for the media in garnering public recognition for joint
action by industry and government.
The conference should be highly publicized, notifying the public
that the problems associated with WEEE are being proactively and efficiently
dealt with through a cooperative effort by industry and government.
Interested
Parties Amiercan
Coalition Electronics Industry (ACEI) ACEI’s
main interest is to change the directive to represent the interests
of its 3000 member companies. In addition to its main office in Washington DC, it has eighteen
councils across the US and offices in Brussels and Tokyo. The breadth of this Association allows for grassroots level
support for policy action. As
such, a WEEE coalition has already formed and boasts membership of over
200 interested members. ACEI
and the coalition have led the issue thus far and will continue to do
so based on its interest in resolving the problems that the present
draft of the directive represent for its member companies. Eurobit/
Ectel Eurobit,
in conjunction with Ectel, represents 2000 companies in the electronics
sector in 14 countries in Europe.
Its interest is to change the directive to correlate with the
interests of European business.
Close ties exist between Eurobit and ACEI due to their similar
interests. Together, the
two combined represent nearly 5000 companies in the Information Technology
industry. Commission Within
the Commission, all have professed their objective to lessen the impact
of WEEE on the environment. However,
not all DGs agree on how best to realize this objective.
DG XI advocates for material bans and full producer responsibility
for collection and recovery. DG
XXIII, on the other hand, recognizes that it is not in industry’s interest
to have material bans or solely to bare the burden for collection and
recovery — doing so cripples the innovative capacity of business and
does not protect the environment.
DG I has been alerted (US-EU bilateral Demarche) of the directive’s
potential to be an obstacle to trade and is not interested in having
another trade war with the US. Thus, with the lobbying of DGs to support changes in the draft,
DG XI will not achieve a unanimous vote from the College of Commissaries.
ACEI should lobby directly Director General Erkki Liikanen for
Enterprise, Director General Fritz Bolkestein for Internal Market, and
Director General Pascal Lamy for Trade. It should also distribute materials
to staff members under the Director Generals who specialize on this
issue. EU
Council The
Council’s main interest is to make policy based on drafts by the Commission.
In order to do so, a qualified majority is needed to approve
proposed legislation. Sixty-five of eighty-seven possible votes are
needed from the Member State Council representatives in order to have
a qualified majority. However,
only twenty-three to twenty-five votes are needed to block a favorable
vote from being accepted. Each
Member State seeks policies to reflect what is best for its people.
ACEI should target the Council members from France, Germany, Italy,
The Netherlands and the United Kingdom because the WEEE Directive represents
a substantial burden to businesses in these key states.
Votes from these countries alone equal forty-five.
These countries also make up the majority of EU trade with the
US and are home to many US companies that provide continuing increases
in growth and employment. These
countries stand to lose the most from an US-EU WTO trade dispute. The
aforementioned Member States have both the incentive and the ability
to block the WEEE Directive if it is not changed. EU
Parliament The
central interest of the Parliament is to insure that EU policy making
reflect the interests of the people. Based on submissions made by citizens, the Parliament will
establish a committee to investigate policies drafted by the Commission.
Consultations conducted by the Commission have already noted
the ill affects the directive would have on business, without adequate
protection of the environment. Further submissions to the Parliament will raise awareness
and committees will be formed.
If a satisfactory result does not emerge, the Parliament can
alter the proposal when it comes to the floor for a vote.
In
order for a piece of proposed legislation to pass through Parliament,
314 votes are needed. Votes
from France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom
add up to 391 votes. If
the draft is not changed, and the Member States, especially those mentioned
above, do not see it to be in their interest, they can block passage
or edit it before approval. Therefore,
ACEI should lobby Parliamentarians from the five countries to block
passage of the directive if it is not changed. TransAtlantic
Business Dialog (TABD) The
TABD’s interest is to facilitate cooperation between the transatlantic
business community and the governments of the EU and US. This is accomplished
through an informal process whereby European and American companies
and business associations develop joint EU-US trade policy recommendations,
in conjunction with the European Commission and US Administration.
The TABD has played an active role thus far, issuing briefs and
communiqués to the EU on the WEEE issue.
Their recommendations for the directive mirror those of this
project. The TABD should
continue to coordinate efforts to resolve this issue.
Continued efforts to influence more DGs will increase the chances
for achieving industry’s objectives. TransAtlantic
Legislative Dialog (TALD) The
interest of this outfit is to pair US and EU policy makers with their
counterparts to discuss issues of mutual interest.
This dialogue is designed to share information and to help alleviate
potential problems that may arise for one by legislation drafted by
the other. The TALD is
a pertinent forum to discuss WEEE. US
Congress Members
of the House and Senate from states where the high-tech industry is
located would be interested in this issue and may choose to take it
up through the TALD. States
such as California, Oregon, Washington, Texas, Virginia, Florida, and
New York all have a vested interest in changing the WEEE Directive.
Representatives and Senators from these states (some of whom
constitute Congressional leadership) would be very interested to learn
of the potential negative effects of the directive.
ACEI member companies should talk with Representatives and Senators
in their districts and states, impressing upon them the importance of
this issue. United
States Trade Representatives (USTR) Office
The
USTR monitors potential barriers to trade.
The WEEE Directive is already on their radar screen.
USTR’s main interest is to avoid another trade conflict.
A resolution to the issue is preferred, but due to volatility
of trade relations between the US and EU, the USTR is not likely to
back down from a fight over this issue. Environmental
Protection Agency(EPA) The EPA
is interested in promoting the same objectives that DG XI advances in
the directive. It may also be interested in forming its own proposal for WEEE
if Europe is successful in doing so. Avenues
for ActionBy examining
the interests of the parties involved in the issue, several avenues
for action emerge. Presently, the directive is under wraps in the Commission at
DG XI. No one knows what
will be the result of the actions taken by DG XI, so the best course
of action right now is to lobby other key decision-makers on the shortcomings
of the directive and on the benefits of the recommendations herein.
Because DG XI is only the starting place for the WEEE legislation,
the thrust of the strategy is to contact all other parties and to convince
them of the need to eliminate the key provisions of the directive.
In effect, this strategy is to establish support for ACEI’s position
at every legislative and influential station outside of DG XI.
That means that other DGs in the Commission and majority members
in the Council and Parliament must be on side.
In order to accomplish this, ACEI must utilize the coalitions
it has formed and tap into the transatlantic dialogues that exist to
influence key decision-makers.
In case the strategy does not work, ACEI must also work with
USTR to secure its assurance that the US will take the EU to the WTO
for violations embodied in the directive. EU
Commission Strategy There
is already dissension within the ranks of the Commission (see Political
Analysis). DG XXIII Enterprise
does not share the same view as DG XI pertaining to the WEEE Directive.
The focus of the strategy for the Commission is to form a consensus
on removing the material bans and the collection and recovery requirements.
By doing so, the lack of unanimous support from the College of
Commissaries will force DG XI to be open to changing the draft.
At this stage, DG XI and the rest of the Commission can negotiate
the elimination of the provisions from the draft. ACEI
should target the Commissioners in order to impress upon them the potential
negative affects the directive would have on the areas they represent
as well as the problems that would be caused for the Commission with
the Council and the Parliament. The ACEI Brussels office and the Coalition led by Jennifer
Guhl at ACEI in Washington, DC will be instrumental in lobbying the
Commissioners, as will Eurobit/Ectel. EU
Council and Parliament Strategy The
strategies for the Council and for the Parliament are similar.
As noted above, a certain number of votes are needed for passage
in the Council and the Parliament — the Council sixty-five and the Parliament
314. By targeting the members
of the two bodies who represent the leading electronic sector economies,
enough votes will be collected to change the directive, or at the very
least block its passage. Just
as with the Commissioners, letters, phone calls, faxes, briefing sessions,
lunches, dinners and meetings with the representatives from France,
Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom are necessary
to lobby effectively for the recommended changes to the WEEE Directive. US
Congress Strategic
meetings with key Senators and Representatives on Capital Hill will
help garner domestic support for the efforts of the USTR, TABD, and
WEEE Coalition, as well as provide the TransAtlantic Legislative Dialog
with industry arguments and viewpoints on why and how the draft should
be changed. Meetings with
key members from high-tech states[1]
are the first course of action. BATNA
USTR
Strategy Maintaining
contact with the USTR is imperative.
Continually providing support and assistance on the issue will
enable the USTR to communicate effectively to the EU Commission on what
is wrong with the draft. Letters of support, and the inclusion of USTR on email lists
pertaining to WEEE, will keep USTR in the loop. The key contact at USTR is Jim Sanford. He and his boss Kathy Novelli are apprised of the situation.
Continued contact by member companies will also provide USTR
the support needed to take future action on behalf of the electronics
industry. Conclusion Part
I coordinates several sub-strategies to create one overall strategy.
This overall strategy is to ensure support from all decision-makers
involved in the process outside of DG XI.
The goal is to make DG XI realize that the directive in its present
form is not likely to pass into law. Realizing this, DG XI will revise
the draft to better represent the electronics industry and provide a
net benefit to the environment. Part
II: Strategy for Joint Action The
recommendations for Joint Action are:
In
order to implement these recommendations, government and industry must
share information. A conference
should be held with all the contributors to the life and end-life use
of electrical and electronic equipment (i.e. industry leaders, technicians,
product designers, waste management, recyclers, etc) along with policy-makers,
scientists, and academics. Participants should discuss material bans
and develop a system of shared responsibility to deal with the collection
and recovery of household waste from electrical and electronic equipment.[2]
The OECD may be the best venue for such a conference.
The basis for banning a material should be sound science.
The goal of the conference should be to utilize data submitted
by industry on the applications of materials in order to establish a
protocol for which substances in which applications are allowed to be
banned, due to the scientific determination that they are harmful to
the environment. The findings
of this conference should then be compiled in a database that can be
used by nations worldwide. Part
II represents a plan that both industry and government can incorporate
to deal proactively with WEEE.
While the focus of this strategy and indeed the project has been
on the US and the EU, such other countries as Australia, Canada and
Japan have also been following the WEEE Directive issue.
Including industry and government from these countries would
improve the chance for a multilateral mutual recognition agreement on
how best to deal with WEEE. The creation of a streamlined requirement
regime would be in the best interest of all nations and all producers,
and it would serve to protect the environment in more places than just
Europe. |