As at 4 May 2007

• Speech by Ministerialdirektor Dr. Helge Wendenburg: BMU-Workshop "WEEE Registers" as 4 May 2007

• Date: 4 May 2007
• Location: Brussels

Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,

Do we actually need registers?
Doesn't control impinge on our guaranteed European freedoms?

Or is freedom without a guarantee that everyone will be treated equally – in other words, freedom without equality tantamount to injustice? These are the issues which I would like to raise in order to stimulate discussion at today's event.

First, let me say something about freedom. What we are talking about here are the economic freedoms that are enshrined in the EC Treaty, ever since the Treaty of Rome was signed exactly 50 years ago. They are the four freedoms the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital which, through the case law of the European Court of Justice, have in effect evolved into basic economic rights. To safeguard these rights as the basis for a common market in which barriers to trade are dismantled as far as possible, we of course have competition law and the European Commission in its role as guardian of the Treaties. But I believe we all have a responsibility to help reduce obstacles to freedom of movement and anti-competitive practices as far as possible, and help create conditions that are conducive to innovation and investment and that protect our natural environment at the same time.

But let's begin by considering a very basic barrier to trade which has nothing to do with market expansion and which is found at both national and international level: the barrier to trade that has fatal consequences when companies are driven out of the market completely because they can no longer keep pace, because their competitors are exploiting freedom by shirking their obligations and operating as free riders in the market!

What many who complain about the general registration requirement do not realise is that registration safeguards functioning competition. It ensures that companies which are now complaining about the obligation to register will not be driven out of the market sooner or later because others are failing to fulfil their obligations and can therefore sell their products more cheaply. And let's face it: does anyone really believe that any company can resist the temptation to evade its disposal obligations if no one knows how many appliances, if any, it is bringing to market year after year?

Let's not allow freedoms to be exploited and everyone to lose sight of the bigger picture!
There is growing awareness at long last at global level of the interconnectivity between climate protection and resource conservation, and the lesson we learn from this is that we are all dependent on one another. Or, to quote Federal Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel: environmental protection is justice and fairness put into practice.

Fraternity the third noble principle of a democratic society alongside liberty and equality is an imperative in this context. Unfortunately, however, experience has shown that fraternity in other words, fairness is not self-enforcing. What it needs instead are practical framework conditions.

In this context, it is essential to know who is operating in the market. An overview of who has bought a "disposal ticket" and is fulfilling their commitments is crucial. And if this overview is accessible to the public as well, everyone engaged in competition can assert their rights independently of the state's control.

But in practice, what form does this control through registration take here in Europe?

We can tell from the outcry from those affected that political remedies are urgently required, for the situation is as follows:
Each Member State has at least one register. This means that companies must register 27 times. They must provide 27 financial guarantees for the event of their insolvency, which must meet the different national criteria. They must also comply with 27 different registration procedures if they want to operate on an EU-wide basis.
What's more, the definitions of what an appliance is and when it falls into the B2B or the B2C category, or which type of equipment it is, may well differ in the Member States.
This naturally affects the small and medium enterprises particularly, but regardless of size, it is above all the justified complaints from those who are keen to comply that urge us to take action. These complaints have not only been received by us at the Environment Ministry. As you know, they have also alarmed Members of the European Parliament, who are now asking whether the latitude recently established in the WEEE Directive for transposition into the Member States' national law massively impedes the free movement of goods.

So the question asked at the start should be reframed: do we need so many registers?
The answer has to do with the specific features of the WEEE Directive, but also with Europe's fundamental structures.

The approach pursued in the WEEE Directive like the underlying matter which it is intended to address is extremely complex and is a relatively new approach for many people. The Member States had their work cut out at first to complete the formal transposition into national law more or less on deadline. Understandably, perhaps, everyone initially wanted to make sure that they did their homework at national level.

As the representative of a country with a federal structure, I know what I am talking about when I say that it was a stroke of luck that in Germany, through the concerted efforts of the Federal Government, the Länder and the business community, we managed to set up one single national register. Even in a country in which the organised interplay between the Federation and the Länderhas been well-established for half a century, this kind of solution is still always a cause for celebration!

So how much more difficult is it to harmonise the different conditions in 27 Member States? For that is exactly what characterises the triptych of freedom, equality and fairness: harmony.
Harmonisation in a general sense is of course already prescribed to some extent by the EC Directives themselves. Around half the goods traded in the EU are subject to harmonised legislation. The rest arises in non-harmonised sectors to which national technical regulations apply or no specific provisions at all.
As for our topic today, what is required is harmonised transposition that takes account of national needs. The principle of subsidiarity if it is applied sensibly is also no bad thing!
A straightforward comparison of the situation in the Member States is also instructive: we see that there are major national markets with many players. There are also national markets with no domestic producers of their own, with only importers bringing equipment on to the market. There are markets with many competitors of different sizes, with competition-neutral solutions being highly relevant. There are markets with simple disposal structures and those with extremely varied regional disposal systems, and so on and so forth to say nothing of the overarching political priorities in the individual Member States.
So from my perspective, one thing is abundantly clear: the problem cannot be solved on the basis of theoretical considerations which ignore reality. We have a saying in German that sums up that kind of approach: we talk about decisions being made at the green velvet table. It is a reference to the old Frankish Empire, and is closely linked linguistically with the term "bureaucracy". And that is precisely what we want to combat: bureaucratic measures which have no practical relevance.

A network of practitioners such as that which will be presented to us today is in my view far more likely to lead us harmoniously to our desired goal. It has the distinct advantage that the steps taken towards this goal can be regularly scrutinised by all stakeholders to determine their viability, and if necessary can be adjusted accordingly.

After all, our European Union is itself more akin to a network than a state. And we see today how strong a network the European Union has become. So I am convinced that an approach which enables initiatives to evolve from a practical basis and, after joint discussions, identifies solutions which everyone can ultimately endorse, can lead us towards our desired goal in this case too and show us that market control can be an effective instrument for environmental protection and economic development, provided that it has sufficient relevance to market realities.

In a year in which we celebrate the half-century of the Treaty of Rome, which marked the inception of Europe as we know it today, let me conclude with the words of the great European Robert Schuman:
"Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity."
I believe that our workshop offers us tangible opportunities to play a role here, especially this afternoon's session. In this spirit, I wish everyone every success!