Kompromiss zur Batterien-Richtlinie gefährdet[en] 

The Commission proposed on 25 November 2003 a directive creating an EU-wide framework for the collection and recycling of batteries. The directive is aimed at preventing pollution from batteries ending up in incinerators or landfills and to recover the metals that they contain. These include hazardous metals such as mercury, lead and cadmium.

In a first reading on 20 April 2004, the Parliament voted in favour of a generalised ban on Nickel-Cadmium batteries, which were presented as particularly hazardous by the rapporteur, Hans Blokland. A list of applications to be exlcuded from the ban was introduced. The Commission's initial proposal, however, did not contain such bans and the Commission said it would reserve its right to table a modified proposal and rejected some of the MEP's amendments (see EurActiv,   21 April 2004).

The EU market for batteries amounts to about 800,000 tonnes of automotive batteries, 190,000 tonnes of industrial batteries and 160,000 tonnes of consumer batteries every year.

A last-minute  compromise agreement by the Dutch Presidency on the controversial batteries directive could be stalled in the Environment Council on 20 December.

Although described by the Presidency as "acceptable by a large number of [member states] delegations", the compromise could be blocked as the Commission, backed by France and the UK, has threatened to withdraw its initial proposal.

An agreement on the directive would then need unanimous backing from the member states instead of qualified majority, leaving France and the UK in a position to block the compromise.

Asked by EurActiv, the Commission declined to comment about whether or not it intended to withdraw the proposal.

The Dutch compromise would maintain ban exemptions on Nickel-Cadmium batteries already listed in the initial Commission proposal. The exemptions relate to medical equipment, emergency lighting and power tools used in construction sites or by consumers at home.

However, the Dutch have suggested including power tools at a later stage, a move which would have far-reaching consequences for SAFT, an Anglo-French company leading the market for Nickel-Cadmium batteries.

Power tools are of specific interest since they account for 70% of Nickel-Cadmium contained in all batteries, a source close to the dossier told EurActiv. If the ban exemptions on power tools were to be lifted, the source said SAFT would fear it could be generalised to cover industrial batteries, which account for the bulk of the company's profits (into safety applications for buildings, industrial plants and mass transportation, medical equipment, electric vehicles, etc.).

Contacted by EurActiv, a spokeswoman for SAFT said she was "not at all in favour of restrictive measures" on Nickel-Cadmium batteries, arguing that a ban would be "disproportionate when compared with environmental risks". 

"It is not by withdrawing a handful of [consumer] batteries from landfills that you are going to protect the environment." Instead, she pronounced herself in favour of higher collection targets, pointing that the bulk of used consumer batteries are kept at home, not thrown away.

In an attempt to reach a political agreement on 20 December, the Dutch Presidency proposed to lower collection targets to 20% instead of 50% proposed by Parliament last April (see EurActiv,   21 Apr. 2004). The collection targets would, however, concern all batteries with no exceptions.