Final Report - European Commission · 2018-10-24 · Laura Baroni, Koen Rademaekers, Rob Williams,...

Study in support of evaluation of the

Directive 2006/66/EC

on batteries and

accumulators and

waste batteries and

accumulators

Final Report

Under the Framework contract on

economic analysis of environmental and resource efficiency policies

ENV.F.1./FRA/2014/0063

Presented by

Trinomics B.V.

Westersingel 32a

3014 GS Rotterdam

The Netherlands

Contact main author

Dr. Hartmut Stahl

Oeko-Institut e.V.

T: +49-6151 8191180

E: [email protected]

Date

8 October 2018

Contract details

European Commission – DG Environment A.2.

Service request “Evaluation of the Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste

batteries and accumulators” (Ref. Ares (2016) 5667354)

under framework contract No. ENV.F.1./FRA/2014/0063

Disclaimer

This document has been prepared for the European Commission; however, the information and views

set out in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the

Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this report.

Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for

the use which may be made of the information contained therein.

This report shall use the term ‘batteries’ to include both batteries and accumulators, unless otherwise

specified.

This report is based on results received by June 2018, unless otherwise specifically mentioned.

Rotterdam, 8 October 2018

Client: European Commission – DG Environment A.2

Service request

“Evaluation of the Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries and

accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators”

under framework contract ENV.F.1/FRA/2014/0063

Evaluation of the Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and

waste batteries and accumulators

Authors:

Hartmut Stahl, Yifaat Baron, Diana Hay, Andreas Hermann, Georg Mehlhart (Oeko-Institut e.V.)

Laura Baroni, Koen Rademaekers, Rob Williams, (Trinomics)

Sandeep Pahal (Ernst & Young)

In association with:

Evaluation of the Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators

V

Table of contents

Table of contents ...................................................................................... V

List of Figures ......................................................................................... IX

List of Tables .......................................................................................... XI

Abbreviations / Glossary ........................................................................... XIII

Abbreviations for Countries ........................................................................ XV

Abstract ................................................................................................. 1

Résumé .................................................................................................. 2

Executive Summary ................................................................................... 3

Introduction and background on the Batteries Directive ........................................... 3

Evaluation framework and stakeholder consultation ................................................ 3

Current situation ............................................................................................. 4

Conclusions with regard to the evaluation questions ............................................... 5

Sommaire exécutif ................................................................................... 11

Introduction et contexte de la Directive relative aux piles ...................................... 11

Cadre d'évaluation et consultation des parties prenantes ....................................... 11

Situation actuelle .......................................................................................... 12

Conclusions concernant les questions d'évaluation ................................................ 14

1 Introduction ........................................................................ 21

1.1 Objectives of the study ......................................................................... 21

1.1 Scope of the study ............................................................................... 22

2 Background on the Batteries Directive ....................................... 22

2.1 Basic information ................................................................................. 22

2.2 Intervention logic ................................................................................ 24

3 Evaluation questions ............................................................. 29

4 Consultation and evaluation .................................................... 37

4.1 The evaluation process and its main activities ............................................ 37

4.2 Consultation of stakeholders .................................................................. 38

4.2.1 Mapping stakeholders .............................................................................. 38

4.2.2 Public consultation ................................................................................. 38

4.2.3 Survey for members of the Expert Group on Waste (Batteries Directive) .................. 39

4.2.4 Interviews ............................................................................................ 39


VI

4.2.5 Meetings and Workshops ........................................................................... 40

5 Description of the current situation ........................................... 41

5.1 Batteries – figures and information .......................................................... 41

5.1.1 Results on the battery mass flows for the EU28 ................................................ 43

5.1.2 Chemistry and application of batteries .......................................................... 44

5.1.3 Critical raw materials in batteries ............................................................... 47

5.1.4 Metal recycled from waste batteries contributing to supply: example cobalt ............. 48

5.1.5 Emerging trends .................................................................................... 48

5.1.6 Batteries in municipal waste ...................................................................... 50

5.1.7 Collection of industrial batteries ................................................................. 50

5.1.8 Losses of automotive batteries ................................................................... 51

5.1.9 Export of waste batteries ......................................................................... 52

5.2 Economic conditions for the batteries sector ............................................. 53

5.2.1 Production volume.................................................................................. 53

5.2.2 Profitability of collection, safe transport and recycling of waste batteries ................ 53

5.2.3 Different concepts for EPRs depending on battery classification ............................ 54

5.2.4 Other economic aspects ........................................................................... 55

5.3 Collection rates and recycling efficiencies ................................................. 56

5.3.1 Main findings ........................................................................................ 58

5.3.2 Reliability of the results related to recycling and collection ................................. 59

5.4 Environmental impacts of batteries .......................................................... 60

5.4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 60

5.4.2 Overview on battery life cycle and environmental impacts .................................. 61

5.4.3 Lead-acid batteries ................................................................................. 63

5.4.4 Alkaline batteries ................................................................................... 65

5.4.5 Li-ion batteries ...................................................................................... 65

5.4.6 NiCd batteries ....................................................................................... 68

5.4.7 Quantitative environmental impacts of batteries .............................................. 69

5.4.8 Main findings ........................................................................................ 73

6 Reliability of data and results .................................................. 76

6.1 Confidence in our results ....................................................................... 78

7 Results of the evaluation questions ........................................... 78

7.1 Relevance .......................................................................................... 78

7.1.1 Evaluation question: Relevance for environmental objectives (1) ........................... 78

7.1.2 Evaluation question: Persistent problems (2) ................................................... 81

7.1.3 Evaluation question: Technical and scientific progress (3) ................................... 82

7.2 Effectiveness ...................................................................................... 86

7.2.1 Evaluation question: progress towards achieving the objectives (1) ........................ 86

7.2.2 Evaluation question: Impact of the Directive towards achievement of objectives (2) .... 92

7.2.3 Evaluation question: Positive and negative changes (3) ...................................... 95


VII

7.3 Efficiency........................................................................................... 97

7.3.1 Evaluation question: costs and benefits (1) ..................................................... 97

7.3.2 Evaluation question: costs proportionate to the benefits (2) ................................ 99

7.3.3 Evaluation question: best practices for efficient achievements of results (3) ........... 100

7.3.4 Evaluation question: unnecessary burden (4) ................................................. 101

7.3.5 Evaluation question: internal market and the creation of a level playing (5) ........... 101

7.3.6 Evaluation question: emerging business-models (6) ......................................... 102

7.4 Coherence ........................................................................................103

7.4.1 Evaluation question: External Coherence (1) ................................................. 103

7.4.2 Evaluation question: Internal Coherence (2) ................................................. 107

7.5 EU added value ..................................................................................108

7.5.1 Evaluation question: Achievements of EU intervention ..................................... 108

7.5.2 Evaluation question: Functioning of the EU single market .................................. 109

8 Conclusions ....................................................................... 110

8.1 Relevance .........................................................................................110

8.2 Effectiveness .....................................................................................113

8.3 Efficiency..........................................................................................116

8.4 Coherence ........................................................................................119

8.5 EU added value ..................................................................................119

8.6 Overview on the results .......................................................................119

9 References ....................................................................... 122

10 Annex A: Evaluation questions and evaluation matrix ................... 131

10.1 Relevance (A) ....................................................................................131

10.1.1 Impact on functioning of the internal market (A2) .......................................... 131

10.1.2 Appropriateness of further risk management measures for heavy metals (A3) .......... 132

10.1.3 Possibility of introducing further targets (A5) ................................................ 132

10.1.4 Extended producer responsibility (A7) ......................................................... 133

10.1.5 Emerging trends and new developments (A8) ................................................ 133

10.2 Effectiveness (B) .................................................................................134

10.2.1 Impact on the environment (B1) ................................................................ 134

10.2.2 Impact on functioning of the internal market (B2) .......................................... 135

10.2.3 Appropriateness of further risk management measures for heavy metals (B3) .......... 136

10.2.4 Appropriateness of the minimum collection targets (B4) ................................... 137

10.2.5 Appropriateness of the minimum recycling requirements (B6) ............................ 137

10.3 Efficiency (C) .....................................................................................139

10.3.1 Impact on functioning of the internal market (C2) .......................................... 139

10.3.2 Appropriateness of further risk management measures for heavy metals (C3) .......... 140

10.3.3 Extended producer responsibility (C7) ......................................................... 141


VIII

10.4 Coherence (D) ....................................................................................141

10.5 EU added value (E) ..............................................................................142

11 Annex B: Methods for consultation and evaluation ....................... 144

11.1 Public consultation ..............................................................................144

12 Annex C: Current situation .................................................... 145

12.1 Batteries – figures and information .........................................................145

12.1.1 Mass flows of batteries........................................................................... 145

12.1.2 Chemistry and application of batteries ........................................................ 150

12.1.3 Emerging trends .................................................................................. 154

12.1.4 Batteries in municipal waste .................................................................... 156

12.1.5 Collection of industrial batteries ............................................................... 158

12.2 Economic conditions for the batteries sector ............................................160

12.2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 160

12.2.2 EU Battery Production ........................................................................... 160

12.2.3 Revenues for secondary raw materials from the battery recycling ........................ 165

12.2.4 Portable batteries ................................................................................ 170

12.2.5 Industrial batteries ............................................................................... 176

12.2.6 Automotive batteries ............................................................................. 179

12.2.7 Main findings ...................................................................................... 180

12.3 Collection rates and recycling efficiencies ................................................183

12.3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 183

12.3.2 Status of transmission ............................................................................ 183

12.3.3 Collection and recycling targets ................................................................ 183

12.3.4 Reported compliance / non-compliance with the targets .................................. 184

12.3.5 Evaluation of data on recycling ................................................................. 189

12.4 Environmental impacts of batteries .........................................................190

12.4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 190

12.4.2 Overview on battery life cycle and environmental impacts ................................ 191

12.4.3 Specific aspects for mining within the EU ..................................................... 194

12.4.4 Lead-acid batteries ............................................................................... 195

12.4.5 Alkaline batteries ................................................................................. 198

12.4.6 Li-ion batteries .................................................................................... 199

12.4.7 NiCd batteries ..................................................................................... 202

12.4.8 Quantitative environmental impacts of batteries ............................................ 203

12.4.9 Transport of batteries............................................................................ 207

12.5 Additional aspects of the current situation for batteries ..............................208

12.5.1 Problems to distinguish portable and industrial lead-acid batteries ...................... 208

12.5.2 Waste portable batteries collection rates and calculation methodology ................. 210


IX

List of Figures

Figure 2-1: Intervention Logic .................................................................................. 27

Figure 5-1: Mass flow diagram of batteries; EU28 for reference year 2015 (in tonnes)................ 42

Figure 5-2: Scenario of global battery capacities (GWh) of Li-ion batteries in the mobility sector,

years 2015, 2030 and 2050 .......................................................................... 49

Figure 5-3: Monthly average trade prices for lead-acid batteries, lead, and spent lead-acid batteries

in Euro per tonne ................................................................................... 54

Figure 5-4: Recycling efficiencies (%) for lead-acid batteries, reference year 2016 (and 2012 to 2015)

........................................................................................................ 57

Figure 5-5: Schematic overview on the battery life cycle .................................................. 61

Figure 12-1: Mass flow diagram of batteries, EU28 for reference year 2015 (in tonnes) .............. 146


years 2015, 2030 and 2050 ...................................................................... 155

Figure 12-3: EU28* sales and collection from 2009 to 2015 (tonnes, portable batteries).............. 158

Figure 12-4: EU28 import-, production- and export-value for lead-acid batteries ..................... 161

Figure 12-5: Import-, production- and export-value for lead-acid batteries; breakdown by Member

State for 2016 ..................................................................................... 162

Figure 12-6: EU28 import-, production- and export-value for primary cells and primary batteries .. 163

Figure 12-7: Import-, production- and export-value for primary cells and primary batteries;

breakdown by Member State for 2016 ......................................................... 163

Figure 12-8: EU28 import-, production- and export-value for NiCd, NiMH, Li-ion, lithium polymer,

NiPb and other electric batteries .............................................................. 164

Figure 12-9: Import-, production- and export-value (€) for NiCd, NiMH, Li-ion, lithium polymer, NiPb

and other electric batteries; breakdown by Member State for 2016 ...................... 164

Figure 12-10: Monthly average trade prices for lead-acid batteries, lead, and spent lead-acid batteries

in € per tonne ..................................................................................... 166

Figure 12-11: Monthly average trade prices for nickel commodities in € per tonne ..................... 167

Figure 12-12: Monthly average trade prices for cobalt commodities in € per tonne ..................... 169

Figure 12-13: Monthly average trade prices for lithium commodities in € per tonne .................... 169

Figure 12-14: Mapping of the portable batteries sector: Physical, monetary and reporting flows .... 170

Figure 12-15: Average fees paid by producers per kg placed on the market by type and size of primary

batteries ........................................................................................... 175

Figure 12-16: Average fees paid by producers per kg placed on the market by type and size of

secondary batteries for Germany............................................................... 175

Figure 12-17: Mapping of the industrial batteries sector; producer takes back EoL batteries ......... 178

Figure 12-18: Mapping of the industrial batteries sector; EoL batteries sent to recycler ............... 178

Figure 12-19: Mapping of the automotive batteries sector .................................................. 180


...................................................................................................... 187

Figure 12-21: Recycling efficiencies (%) for NiCd batteries, reference year 2016 (and 2012 to 2015) 187

Figure 12-22: Recycling efficiencies (%) for other batteries, reference year 2016 (and 2012 to 2015) 188

Figure 12-23: Schematic overview of the battery life cycle ................................................. 191

Figure 12-24: Recycling of lead-acid batteries in Ghana, storage of lead-acid batteries (left), lead

smelter (right) .................................................................................... 198


X

Figure 12-25: Salar de Uyuni in Bolivien ....................................................................... 200

Figure 12-26: Schematic presentation of the recycling steps and associated material recovery in

battery recycling ................................................................................. 201

Figure 12-27: Calculation methodology of the collection rate .............................................. 210


XI

List of Tables

Table 3-1: Overview of evaluation criteria, sub-areas and questions .................................... 31

Table 3-2: Linkages between general evaluation questions per criterion and detailed evaluation

questions ............................................................................................. 33

Table 4-1: Overview on submitted answers to the questionnaire ......................................... 39

Table 4-2: Overview on targeted interviews ................................................................. 40

Table 5-1: Application and chemistry of batteries (weight-based shares in %) ......................... 45

Table 5-2: Application of Li-ion batteries (tonnes), battery market in EU28; reference year 2015 . 46

Table 5-3: Critical raw materials in battery applications .................................................. 47

Table 5-4: Collection rates (%) for portable batteries, 2012-2016 ........................................ 57

Table 5-5: Quantitative results of the environmental impact assessment of batteries in the EU 2015;

selected impact categories ........................................................................ 71

Table 5-6: Comparison of LCA data (emission factors) for different batteries .......................... 73

Table 5-7: Main environmental impacts of the battery life cycle ......................................... 73

Table 6-1: Overview on data and information gaps and data quality .................................... 76

Table 7-1: Overview on prohibited hazardous substances ................................................. 82

Table 7-2: Public consultation: selected aspects on costs and benefits ................................. 99

Table 12-1: Comparison of battery types in the Batteries Directive/mass flows and PRODCOM ..... 149

Table 12-2: Application and chemistry of batteries (weight-based shares in %) ....................... 150

Table 12-3: Chemistry of batteries (weight-based shares in %), battery market in France, in 2015 152

Table 12-4: Application of Li-ion batteries (tonnes), battery market in EU28; reference year 2015 152

Table 12-5: Chemistry of industrial batteries, placed on the market in France, reference year 2015 .

...................................................................................................... 153

Table 12-6: EU28 battery production, import and export value by 2016 ................................ 165

Table 12-7: Recycling treatment fees for NiCd and NiMH batteries ..................................... 167

Table 12-8: Potential revenues from secondary raw materials in lithium-ion batteries based on

available recycling technology (2015) ......................................................... 168

Table 12-9: Number of collection points for portable batteries .......................................... 171

Table 12-10: EPR schemes in the EU for portable batteries ................................................ 172

Table 12-11: Cost efficiency for selected EPR schemes for portable batteries .......................... 174

Table 12-12: The compliance scheme management fees of (portable) waste batteries when placed on

the market in 2018; STIBAT, Netherlands ..................................................... 176

Table 12-13: Overview of data submission performance, as of 4 Jan 2018 .............................. 183

Table 12-14: Collection rates (%) for portable batteries, 2012-2016 ...................................... 184

Table 12-15: Recycling efficiencies (%) for three types of batteries; reference year 2016 (also for

2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015), as of 4 Jan 2018 ................................................ 186

Table 12-16: Rates of recycled content (% Pb and % Cd) for lead-acid and NiCd batteries; reference

year 2016 (and 2014, 2015), as of 4 Jan 2018 ................................................ 189

Table 12-17: Mine production of selected materials in Europe; year 2014; source (BGS 2016) ....... 195

Table 12-18: Quantitative results of the environmental impact assessment of batteries in the EU 2015;

selected impact categories ...................................................................... 206

Table 12-19: Comparison of LCA data (emission factors) for different batteries ........................ 207

Table 12-20: Share of lead-acid portable batteries of all portable batteries by country, placed-on-the-

market and collected, in %; 2009 to 2015; calculation Oeko-Institut as of July 2017 ... 209


XII

Table 12-21: Calculation of the collection rate of portable batteries based on the Batteries Directive,

Annex I; calculation Oeko-Institut; as of July 2017 .......................................... 213

Table 12-22: Comparative calculations of the collection rate of portable batteries; as of July 2017 214


XIII

Abbreviations / Glossary

ACEA European Association of Automobile Manufactures

AlMn Aluminium-manganese

BAT Best available techniques, for more details with relevance for the non-ferrous metal

industries please refer (BREF, 2017)

Batteries Directive refers to Batteries Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste

batteries and accumulators (short: Directive)

Bc Button cell (battery)

BEUC European Consumer Organisation

CLP Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Regulation ((EC) No 1272/2008)

CPT Cordless power tool

CRM Critical Raw Material

EBRA European Battery Recycling Association

EC European Commission

ECHA The European Chemicals Agency

EEA European Economic Area

EEA countries Here defined as the three (non EU MS) countries IS, LI, NO; referred to as such to

differentiate them from EU Member States.

EEE Electric and electronic equipment

EHS Environment(al), health and safety

EoL End-of-life (=waste; = spent)

EPBA European Portable Battery Association

EPR Extended Producer Responsibility

EUCOBAT European Compliance Organisations for Batteries

European LoW European List of Waste

EV Electric Vehicle

EWC European Waste Catalogue

IEC International Electrotechnical Commission

HTP Human toxicity potential

Li-ion batteries Lithium-ion batteries

LCA Life Cycle Assesment

LCO lithium cobalt oxide; cathode active materials of Li-ion batteries


XIV

LFP lithium iron phosphate; cathode active materials of Li-ion batteries

LMO lithium manganese oxide; cathode active materials of Li-ion batteries

LNCA lithium nickel cobalt aluminium oxide; cathode active materials of Li-ion batteries

LNMC lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide; cathode active materials of Li-ion batteries

MS EU Member State(s); in total the Batteries Directive addresses 28 MS currently

NiCd Nickel-cadmium

NiMH Nickel-metal-hybrid

NiZn Nickel-zinc

Pb-acid Lead-acid

PoM Placed on the market

PRO Producer Responsibility Organisation

Producer any person in a Member State that places batteries or accumulators, including those

incorporated into appliances or vehicles, on the market for the first time within the

territory of that MS on a professional basis (Batteries Directive, Article 3(12))

PV Photovoltaic

REACH Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18

December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of

Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive

1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation

(EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives

91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC

RECHARGE European Association for Advanced Rechargeable Batteries

RoHS Directive 2011/65/EC, Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous

substances in electrical and electronic equipment

SLI Starting, lighting, ignition

T tonnes

ToR Terms of Reference for this Evaluation Study

WEEE Waste electric and electronic equipment

WEEE Directive Directive 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)

WFD Waste Framework Directive

WShipR Waste Shipment Regulation, Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and

of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste

WStatR Waste Statistics Regulation, Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002 on EU waste statistics


XV

ZnAir Zinc-air

ZnC batteries Zinc-carbon batteries

ZnCl2 batteries Zinc-chloride batteries

Abbreviations for Countries

AT Austria

BE Belgium

BG Bulgaria

CH Switzerland

CY Cyprus

CZ Czech Republic

DE Germany

DK Denmark

EE Estonia

EL Greece

ES Spain

FI Finland

FR France

HR Croatia

HU Hungary

IE Ireland

IS Iceland

IT Italy

LI Liechtenstein

LT Lithuania

LU Luxembourg

LV Latvia

MT Malta

NL Netherlands

NO Norway

PL Poland

PT Portugal

RO Romania

SE Sweden

SI Slovenia

SK Slovakia

UK United Kingdom


1

Abstract

This study assesses whether Directive 2006/66/EC on Batteries adequately addresses and implements

the Directive’s objectives. One main objective of the Batteries Directive is to minimise the negative

impact of batteries and waste batteries on the environment. The other main objective is the smooth

functioning of the single European market. The evaluation addresses legal, environmental, and

economic and social aspects.

The Directive was assessed with regard to five evaluation criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency,

coherence and EU added value. A set of evaluation questions guides the evaluation to focus on relevant

aspects.

Answers to the evaluation questions were compiled from Member States’ data submitted to Eurostat,

contributions to the stakeholder consultation and many other sources.

This study concludes that the waste battery collection within the EU is insufficient; a large amount of

batteries end up in municipal waste. Other losses of batteries occur due to the insufficient practice of

battery removal from WEEE. Improving and increasing collection need to be at the highest priority of

the revision of the Batteries Directive.

Furthermore, while effectively all stakeholders agree that the Directive supports the functioning of the

single European market, the Directive is not well adatped to new developments, in particular

concerning Li-ion batteries and battery re-use.

Li-ion batteries for electric mobility and for decentralised power storage, for which the greatest growth

is predicted, currently fall under the category of industrial batteries. For this category, the Batteries

Directive does not specify collection targets, minimum collection infrastructure requirements, reporting

requirements or extended producer responsibility.

The recycling targets for waste Li-ion batteries are too low and are also not material-specific, as it

would be necessary to prevent potential supply risks resources and to support the reduction of

environmental impacts. A main shortcoming regarding consumer information is that end-users do not

have enough information to make an informed purchase regarding better battery performance.


2

Résumé

La présente étude évalue si la Directive 2006/66/CE relative aux piles répond de manière adéquate aux

objectifs de la Directive et si elle les met en œuvre de manière adéquate. L'un des principaux objectifs

de la Directive relative aux piles est de minimiser l'impact négatif des piles et des piles usagées sur

l'environnement. L'autre objectif principal de la Directive est le bon fonctionnement du marché unique

européen. L'évaluation porte sur les aspects juridiques, environnementaux, économiques et sociaux.

La Directive a été évaluée au regard de cinq critères d'évaluation: pertinence, efficacité, efficience,

cohérence et valeur ajoutée de l’Union européenne. Un ensemble de questions d'évaluation oriente

l'évaluation de manière à mettre l'accent sur les aspects pertinents.

Les réponses aux questions d'évaluation ont été compilées à partir des données des États membres

soumises à Eurostat, des contributions fournies lors de la consultation des parties prenantes et de

nombreuses autres sources.

La présente étude conclut que la collecte des piles usagées au sein de l'Union européenne est

insuffisante ; une grande quantité de piles aboutit dans les déchets municipaux. D'autres pertes de piles

se produisent en raison de la pratique insuffisante d'enlèvement des piles des déchets d'équipements

électriques et électroniques. L'amélioration et l'augmentation de la collecte doivent figurer au premier

rang des priorités de la révision de la Directive relative aux piles.

En outre, si toutes les parties prenantes s'accordent effectivement à reconnaître que la Directive

soutient le fonctionnement du marché unique européen, elle n'est pas bien adaptée aux nouveaux

développements, en particulier en ce qui concerne les batteries Li-ion et leur réutilisation.

Les batteries Li-ion utilisées pour la mobilité électrique et pour le stockage décentralisé de l'énergie,

pour lesquelles la plus forte croissance est attendue, entrent actuellement dans la catégorie des

batteries industrielles. Pour cette catégorie, la Directive relative aux piles ne précise pas d'objectifs de

collecte, ni d'exigences minimales en matière d'infrastructure de collecte, ni d'exigences de déclaration

ni de responsabilité élargie des producteurs.

Les objectifs de recyclage pour les batteries Li-ion usagées sont trop bas et ne sont pas non plus

spécifiques aux matériaux, tel qu’il le serait nécessaire afin de prévenir les risques potentiels

d'approvisionnement en ressources et de favoriser la réduction des impacts environnementaux. L'une

des principales lacunes concernant l'information des consommateurs réside dans le fait que les

utilisateurs finaux n'ont pas suffisamment d'informations à leur disposition concernant l'amélioration des

performances des piles pour faire un achat avisé.


3

Executive Summary

Introduction and background on the Batteries Directive

This evaluation study assesses whether Directive 2006/66/EC1 adequately addresses and implements the

Directive’s objectives and whether the Directive’s legal requirements at the EU level and their

implementation at the Member State level support the general objectives of EU environmental policy.

The evaluation is performed in line with the EC Better Regulation Guidelines2, and helps the European

Commission assessing the actual performance of the Directive compared to initial expectations.

The evaluation addresses legal (e.g. consistency and coherence), environmental (e.g. along the entire

battery life cycle), and economic and social aspects (e.g. costs and benefits, consumer related issues).

All substantive provisions in the Batteries Directive are considered as well as any necessary provisions in

related Commission Decisions and Regulations.

The study is an ex-post evaluation. It incorporates earlier results from the “fitness check” in 20143, but

goes much further both in scope and detail. The current evaluation intends to ensure a comprehensive

approach and makes use of the most recent sources of information.

The primary objective of the Batteries Directive is to minimise the negative impact of batteries and

waste batteries on the environment, thus contributing to the protection, preservation and improvement

of the quality of the environment. In parallel with environmental objectives, the Directive seeks to

ensure the smooth functioning of the single European market by harmonising product and labelling

requirements for batteries.

The Batteries Directive applies to all batteries placed on the market within the European Union and

categorises batteries as portable, industrial or automotive.

The Directive establishes objectives and targets (on e.g. collection and recycling); it specifies measures

(such as phasing out mercury or establishing national schemes for collection) and enables actions (e.g.

reporting or labelling) to achieve them.

Evaluation framework and stakeholder consultation

In line with the EC Better Regulation Guidelines2, Directive 2006/66/EC was assessed with regard to five

evaluation criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value. In addition,

the criteria for review defined in Article 23 of the Directive were considered. Under each standard

criterion, a set of evaluation questions was developed to focus the evaluation on relevant aspects.

Answers to the evaluation questions were compiled from Member States’ data submitted to Eurostat,

contributions to stakeholder consultation and many other sources.

Stakeholders from national public administrations, industry associations, the general public, consumers,

and environmental protection organisations were identified and contacted to encourage their

participation in a 12-week public consultation. Where appropriate, their input was accepted to a survey

for members of the Expert Group on Waste (Batteries Directive), targeted interviews or workshops. The

results from the different consultation activities can be confidently assumed to provide comprehensive

and sufficient information on the stakeholders’ opinions and positions.

1 In the following, the “Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators”

is referred to as the “Batteries Directive” or simply “Directive”. 2 See https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/better-regulation-guidelines-evaluation-fitness-checks.pdf and

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/better-regulation-toolbox-47_en_0.pdf 3

Commission Staff Working Document, SWD/2014/0209, at

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=SWD:2014:0209:FIN


4

Current situation

The current situation of batteries was investigated addressing mass flows, uses, chemistry, life cycle,

market, legislative framework, target achievement, environmental impacts, emerging trends and other

aspects.

Battery mass flows

For the reference year 2015, the amount of batteries (in tonnes) was calculated per use-category

(portable, industrial or automotive) that were placed on the market, collected and recycled, allowing

losses to become visible. This calculation reveals that a large amount of portable batteries (ca. 35 000 t

yearly or 16 % of the amount of placed-on-the-market, 212 000 t, in 2015 and 41 % of the amount

collected, 84 000 t, in 2015) end up in municipal waste instead of being collected for recycling. The

Batteries Directive does not require reporting or systematic analysis of battery “losses4”, e.g. batteries

in mixed municipal waste, waste electric and electronic equipment (WEEE) or exported electric and

electronic equipment (EEE). Likewise, for automotive and industrial batteries, data on the mass flows is

limited since no reporting obligations are in effect. Therefore, the situation regarding potential losses

also remains unclear for automotive and industrial batteries.

The Directive differentiates between lead-acid, nickel-cadmium and ‘other’ batteries. Lead-acid

batteries present by far the most relevant share of all batteries (ca. 86 %), mainly due to automotive

lead-acid batteries, which in 2015 amounted to about 1.1 million tonnes. A more than fourfold increase

of Li-ion batteries is expected in the years to come, with e-mobility being the main driver of growth.

The total of placed-on-the-market Li-ion batteries, which are categorized as ‘other batteries’, already

amounted to about 75 000 t in 2015. Portable Li-ion batteries in 2015 held about a 17 %-share of the

total portable batteries, compared to only 4 % for lead-acid and nickel-cadmium batteries together.

Several of the materials contained in batteries (e.g. cobalt, natural graphite) are considered "critical

raw materials". For instance, 44 % of global use of cobalt can be allocated to Li-ion batteries.

Hazardous substances

The environmental problems addressed in the Directive focus on hazardous substances contained in

batteries; the Directive in particular mentions mercury, cadmium and lead. Li-ion batteries do not

contain mercury, cadmium or lead and are not addressed in the Directive specifically. The contents

found in Li-ion batteries, however, indicate various hazardous properties; certain materials in different

types of Li-ion batteries are suspected5 to cause cancer (LNMC or LNCA cathode materials) or contain

hazardous substances (e.g. LiPF6).

Recycling

Recycling raw materials from waste batteries is preferable to producing primary raw materials for

batteries. The effect on greenhouse gas emissions of using recycled versus primary materials is limited

as the contribution of the entire battery sector equals only 0.2 % of the entire greenhouse gas emissions

in the EU28. Nevertheless, recovering battery materials reduces the energy demand and greenhouse gas

emissions; e.g. lead-acid battery recycling, which produces secondary lead, supports reducing

greenhouse gas emissions by two thirds compared to primary production of lead. The reduction in

hazardous substance emissions from secondary lead production in comparison to emissions from primary

lead production is more significant; the human toxicity potential (HTP) for producing primary lead is

about 18 times higher compared to that of secondary lead. Recycling therefore fulfils several EU goals

4 “Losses” are, for total amounts of all (portable) batteries, the difference between ‘placed on the market’ and

‘collected’. 5 According to self-classifications provided by companies to ECHA in REACH Registrations, compiled per substance on

the ECHA advanced search for chemicals data base: https://echa.europa.eu/advanced-search-for-chemicals.


5

simultaneously: to protect the environment and human health, to use resources efficiently, to reduce

greenhouse gases, and to stimulate the EU economy.

Environmental targets

The collection target (collection rate of 45 %) for portable batteries, one of the Directive’s main

targets, was in 2016 met by 14 Member States6 (MS), with one additional unusually high rate reported.

The remaining 13 MS did not meet the target or did not report. A collection rate of 45 %, which is

anyhow not met by all Member States, means that more than half of all portable batteries placed on

the market in the EU are not collected.

The recycling efficiency targets, the Directive’s other main set of targets, were met by all but one

Member State that submitted data. Depending on the battery type, 6 to 10 MS did not report a specific

recycling efficiency.

Economy

The EU’s battery industry generates products worth more than € 7 billion annually, representing a

significant portion of the global production of lead-acid (automotive) batteries. Further down the

battery life cycle, collection and recycling of automotive (lead-acid) batteries is generally profitable;

for other battery chemistries, the costs for safe collection, storage and transport significantly reduce

profitability. For all battery types and chemistries, recyclers are strongly impacted by volatile prices

for raw materials.

Extended producer responsibility

To manage waste portable batteries and comply with obligations on extended producer responsibility

(EPR), producers within each MS set up producer responsibility organisations (PROs) to compensate the

costs associated with collecting and recycling batteries. Nonetheless, it has been observed that PROs

exceeding the Batteries Directive targets have no economic benefit; the collection and recycling

efficiency targets set by the Directive give no incentive for performance above the minimum. PROs

may, however, have economic incentive to compete for recycling the most profitable battery

chemistries, not necessarily supporting resource efficiency.

Conclusions with regard to the evaluation questions

Relevance

Environmental aspects

Overall, the main environmental problems addressed by the Directive still exist. Batteries still contain

hazardous substances and present a risk to the environment when they are landfilled, incinerated or

improperly disposed of. Since more than half of the amount of portable batteries is not collected and a

relevant amount of these batteries not collected still end up in municipal waste, this risk is currently

very likely to be realised. Battery losses and inappropriate treatment also occur when batteries are not

removed from WEEE before shredding.

The vast majority of all batteries placed on the market are lead-acid batteries, which contain lead, one

of the hazardous materials addressed in the Directive though not prohibited. Industrial nickel-cadmium

batteries containing cadmium are also not prohibited and thus still placed on the market.

A high potential for environmental risks is also attributed to resource extraction and processing of raw

materials for batteries, in particular outside the EU when only sub-standard extraction/ processing is

performed. However, these risks are not specifically addressed in the Directive.

6 A data cross-check with Eurostat data was last carried out in June 2018. EEA countries are not considered in this

Executive Summary, but they are considered in the figures presented in chapter 5.3.


6

Resource efficiency

Until 2017 the recycling of lithium from waste Li-ion batteries was considered not profitable. As a

result, commercial processes focused on nickel, cobalt and copper; lithium ended in the slags of the

pyro chemical process, which is recovered for use in construction materials. More recently, the

recycling of lithium from slags has started. Forecasts for the lithium raw material demand indicate the

need to establish reliable targets for lithium recycling.

This study finds that the importance of policies on resource efficiency and critical raw materials is not

sufficiently addressed in the Directive. In particular, the Directive does not orient recycling efficiency

towards raw materials recovery (e.g. lithium or cobalt). The possibility of introducing further targets

and provisions related to resource efficiency and also related to sustainable production and

environmental standards should be considered.

New developments: battery types, applications and recycling technologies

The battery sector is dynamic and innovative: new applications, new battery types and new recycling

technologies have been developed and new trends have emerged since the development of the

Directive. As stated by the European Commission7, the batteries sector is regarded as “a strategic

imperative for Europe in the context of the clean energy transition and is a key component of its

automotive sector”. Yet the Directive no longer adequately reflects these developments. Several

aspects are of particular relevance.

The category ‘other battery’ does not represent the amount and relevance of Li-ion batteries. Target

rates of recycled content (e.g. for cobalt) are also missing.

Industrial batteries are increasingly used by private users for new applications such as e-bikes or

electricity storage. Problems arise with the definitions of and resulting obligations surrounding

industrial versus portable batteries. The collection of these batteries causes difficulties because

collection schemes for industrial batteries lack detailed regulation.

The Batteries Directive addresses R&D for new recycling technologies. However, the Directive does not

support the application of such new technologies, in particular since achieving a higher recycling

efficiency than the minimum requirement is not supported.

Generally, the Directive does not provide any criteria (e.g. amount, hazardous substances, economic

relevance) to determine when new battery types should be addressed separately, when separate

reporting is required and when a separate recycling efficiency should be applied. Overall, the Directive

is not well-adapted and not specific enough to address new developments.


Though mercury, cadmium and lead can be understood to be hazardous under the Directive,

prohibitions are not consistently specified for these substances across all three battery categories. The

lack of a definition in the Directive for hazardous substances does not allow an evaluation on whether

other substances should also be considered hazardous under the Directive. Furthermore, the relation

between the definition of a substance as hazardous and its prohibition under the Directive is not clear.

It is consequently also not clear on what basis (i.e. criteria) hazardous substances in batteries should be

potentially prohibited.

Battery labelling

Many stakeholders commented on the need to adapt chemistry labelling for the recycling industry in

order to ensure safe handling during the sorting and recycling processes (e.g. for Li-ion batteries).

7 COM(2018) 293


7

Battery labelling should also include information to support better sorting and subsequently an

increased recycling efficiency.

Labelling related to safety risks is also relevant for end-users, e.g. when hoarding Li-ion batteries or in

case of damaged Li-ion batteries.

Various proposals for alternative labelling of chemical content exist. However, there is still no

standardisation or consensus as to a system that would support communication of information to end-

users as well as supporting safe handling during sorting and recycling.

Battery removability from appliances

At present, battery removability from appliances is in practice increasingly relevant and yet not

sufficiently followed. Better enforcement is necessary to avoid battery losses during treatment of WEEE

and to achieve higher collection rates. An increase is also observed in batteries that can only be

removed by qualified professionals or that cannot be removed without destroying the device. Battery

replaceability is important for extending the lifetime of products once a battery reaches end-of-life and

thus supports resource efficiency and the circular economy.

Re-use of batteries

There is a broad consensus between stakeholders that the “preparation for re-use” and “re-use” of

batteries should be regulated in the Directive, which is currently not the case. At present, this study

finds that the unclear legal situation is an obstacle to an ecologically and economically desired re-use

of batteries for other than the intended purpose when placed on the market (e.g. batteries from e-

vehicles used as energy storage in households). It is unclear who takes producer-responsibility for re-

used batteries and how re-used batteries should be reported.

Effectiveness

Collection of waste batteries

The insufficient level of collection of batteries is a major shortcoming of the Directive and its

implementation. A main target of the Directive, the 45 % collection rate for portable batteries, is only

met by 14 MS. The Directive has not foreseen reporting or systematic analysis of battery “losses”, e.g.

the ever increasing relevance of batteries being not removed from WEEE and the export of EEE or in

case of automotive batteries the export of used vehicles and ELV. At the same time, the consultant’s

analysis revealed huge amounts of batteries ending up in municipal waste.

Similarly, the effectiveness of the collection of waste industrial batteries remains unclear because no

reporting exists. The lack of specific and sufficient provisions in the Directive to address the collection

and the return of waste industrial batteries and Li-ion batteries are of particular high concern. This is

especially significant for industrial batteries used by private consumers and in connection with the

expectation that Li-ion batteries will be increasingly applied in the near future as e-mobility is

becoming more common. The analysis of the batteries mass flows indicates discrepancies between the

amounts of industrial batteries placed on the market and collected; however, due to lacking reporting

obligations and thus missing concrete data, this cannot be proven. Consequently, the unclear situation

regarding collection of waste industrial batteries and reporting presents a main area for improvement

of the Directive.

Consequently, the Directive lacks a target or provisions for a monitoring system which addresses the

whereabouts of not collected batteries and thus more directly addresses environmental protection and

one of the Directive’s main objectives, i.e. minimising the disposal of batteries as mixed municipal

waste.

The main problem – insufficient collection – must be addressed and should not be obscured by other

shortcomings, such as an inadequate calculation methodology for the collection rate, an inappropriate


8

classification of batteries according to use-types (distinction of portable and industrial batteries) or

shortcomings in data reporting (e.g. differentiation between portable and industrial lead-acid batteries

or online sales of batteries).

Recycling efficiency

A major achievement of the Directive is that recycling efficiency targets are generally reached. All

countries reporting data except Croatia met the recycling efficiency targets for the year 2016.

The current methodological approach under which MS report country-specific recycling efficiencies,

however, is not in line with the recycling efficiencies being process specific. Also taking into account

the absence of monitoring and certification of recycling, the problems with data availability from

recyclers in other countries (inside and outside the EU) and the accounting of slags for recycling not

being harmonized between MS, the Directive’s methodological approach for the recycling efficiency

should be revised to help develop a level playing field for the recyclers.

Consumer information and awareness

Consumer information is found to not be effective enough, neither regarding collection of waste

batteries nor regarding battery performance. In practice, information on how and where to dispose of

waste batteries is often lacking. Where campaigns are held, a temporary increase in collection is

observed. Moreover, end-users are not provided with sufficient information to make an informed

purchase for better battery performance. It is suggested for the revision of the Batteries Directive to

develop framework conditions that allow consumers to assess the performance of primary and

rechargeable batteries.

Efficiency

Cost and benefits

The cost for collection, safe storage, transport and recycling are currently covered for lead-acid

batteries by revenues from recycling, as long as no additional costs arise and collection and recycling

remain economically viable. A sufficiently high price for secondary lead is a precondition for this

assessment. For all other batteries, produced in mass, the revenues from recycling are very often not

sufficient to cover the entire EoL chain.

Based on available information and assumptions, the total cost for producers to recover their costs for

collecting and recycling portable batteries is around € 118 million. This cost is included in price

calculations, to be covered by consumer prices.

Private consumers who own industrial batteries (e.g. power storage batteries for PV) carry a potential

economic risk, since the Directive only vaguely stipulates who is responsible for establishing collection

infrastructure and paying for safe battery storage and transport. When serving their customers, such

risks might also fall to the retailers.

Overall, stakeholders saw that the benefits reached could be directly attributed to the Directive. A

majority of the participants in the public consultation agree or strongly agree that the costs involved in

implementing the Directive are justified given the benefits that have already been achieved and that

will be achieved in the longer term. The commercial stakeholders represented by associations clearly

prefer a harmonised approach to addressing waste batteries across the EU instead of only having

individual action by MS.

Differences across the Member States

A simple explanation does not sufficiently account for the large price range for battery collection and

treatment in 2016; no general conclusions can be drawn since information on expenditures for

consumer awareness is rare.


9

Stakeholders did not address distributional differences between Member States. However, it should be

noted that recycling of waste batteries is highly concentrated in a few MS only, and these MS benefit

from the gross added value induced by the effort spent for collection in other MS.

Single European market for the batteries industry

One aim of European policy is to have equal and non-discriminating conditions for competing

producers/ sellers within the EU, thus ensuring the conditions for a single European market regarding

batteries. The following concerns apply for establishing a level playing field.

Few MS make an effort to control (spot checks) correct labelling and correct application of maximum

concentrations of heavy metals in batteries. As a result, batteries are placed on the market which do

not comply with the Batteries Directive. Different levels of enforcement across MS distort the level

playing field for those producers that ensure strict compliance with the Directive’s requirements.

Stakeholders support the concept of certifying recycling plants both in the EU and abroad in third

countries.

What is considered or not as part of recycling is handled differently between MS. Stakeholders stated

that in some MS the recycling output slag is counted as part of recycling, while in others it is not. Thus,

dealing differently with slag seems to hamper the development of a level playing field for recyclers.

Good practice

Of the two types of PROs found in the EU – competitive schemes and single scheme per MS – single

organisation schemes appear to out-perform competitive schemes in terms of awareness campaigns and

the number of collection points. For MS not having defined minimum requirements for awareness

campaigns and collection points, there is the risk that PROs compete by minimising the effort for these

measures. In addition, competing PROs might tend to be highly selective of which batteries they collect

and the performance of the existing PROs might be jeopardised.

Coherence

The Batteries Directive interacts with several other EU sectoral regulations, including the WFD, WShipR,

WStatR, WEEE, RoHS, ELV or REACH/ CLP-Regulation as well as international conventions like the Basel

Convention. Contradictions and missing links between the various regulations exist as regard scope,

definitions, restrictions for hazardous substances and reporting obligations.

Whereas the WFD defines the terms “re-use” and “preparing for re-use”, those terms are not defined in

the Batteries Directive, giving rise to legal uncertainty for the actors under the Batteries Directive on

their responsibilities related to extended producer responsibility and to the reporting of re-used

batteries.

There are de jure overlaps between REACH/ CLP Regulation and the Batteries Directive as both

regulate the prohibition of hazardous substances in articles. Duplication or contradictions regarding

restrictions for hazardous substances between REACH and the Batteries Directive are possible, but have

not occurred so far. Overlaps could be avoided if restrictions on hazardous substances in batteries are

regulated in only one regulation.

Categories of batteries under the Batteries Directive, the WShipR and the WStatR are not coherent and

thus prevent implementing options for reducing the burden of double reporting and hinder the

comparability and complementary use of data.

The Batteries Directive has several inherent inconsistencies and incoherent aspects.

The distinction between portable and industrial batteries according to their definition is not consistent.

For example, batteries for e-bikes or photovoltaic systems in private households are, by definition,

industrial batteries although they are used by private individuals. This distinction is becoming more

important as an increasing number of industrial batteries are used in appliances by private end-users.


10

As a consequence, the responsibility to provide infrastructure for the collection of these batteries as

well as the associated economic burden is not clearly allocated to the respective producers.

The Batteries Directive prohibits placing batteries containing certain hazardous substances on the

market, without however defining “hazardous substances”. This leads to uncertainty about the

intervention logic of the Batteries Directive.

Furthermore, both, the Batteries Directive and the WEEE-Directive, establish the clear aim to remove

batteries from collected WEEE before treatment. However, the role “replaceability” of batteries plays

in the Batteries Directive, in the sense of extending product life-times and protecting resources, is not

well defined.

Regulation 1103/2010/EU on capacity labelling of portable secondary (rechargeable) and automotive

batteries and accumulators shows several gaps, i.e. no harmonised rules for labelling primary (non-

rechargeable) batteries as well as no labelling requirements for portable secondary (rechargeable)

batteries incorporated or designed to be incorporated in appliances. Moreover, capacity labelling is not

mandatory for industrial batteries.

EU added value

The Batteries Directive harmonises the conditions for the sale, collection and recycling of batteries

across Europe and establishes collection and recycling targets. As a result, all stakeholders support its

EU added value, as opposed to regulation of these aspects at only a Member State level.

The majority of stakeholders are convinced that the Batteries Directive has served the well-functioning

of the single market for batteries. They agree that trade barriers are lower compared to only following

regulation on the MS level.


11

Sommaire exécutif

Introduction et contexte de la Directive relative aux piles

La présente étude d'évaluation a pour objet de vérifier si la Directive 2006/66/CE8 répond aux objectifs

et les met en œuvre de manière adéquate, et si les exigences juridiques de la Directive au niveau de

l'Union européenne et leur mise en œuvre au niveau des États membres répondent aux objectifs

généraux de la politique environnementale de l’Union européenne. L'évaluation est réalisée

conformément aux lignes directrices de la Commission européenne pour une meilleure réglementation9

et aide la Commission européenne à évaluer les résultats réels de la Directive par rapport aux attentes

initiales.

L'évaluation porte sur les aspects juridiques (p. ex. logique et cohérence), environnementaux (p. ex.

tout au long du cycle de vie des piles) et économiques et sociaux (p. ex. coûts et avantages, questions

relatives aux consommateurs). Toutes les dispositions fondamentales de la Directive relative aux piles

sont prises en compte, de même que toutes autres dispositions nécessaires dans les décisions et

règlements connexes de la Commission.

L'étude est une évaluation ex post. Elle intègre les résultats antérieurs du "fitness check" de 201410,

mais va beaucoup plus loin, tant dans sa portée que dans ses détails. La présente évaluation vise à

assurer une approche globale et recourt aux sources d'information les plus récentes.

L'objectif principal de la Directive relative aux piles et accumulateurs est de réduire au minimum

l'impact négatif des piles et des piles usagées sur l'environnement, contribuant ainsi à la protection, à

la préservation et à l'amélioration de la qualité de l'environnement. Parallèlement aux objectifs

environnementaux, la Directive vise à assurer le bon fonctionnement du marché unique européen en

harmonisant les exigences en matière de produits et d'étiquetage des piles.

La Directive relative aux piles s'applique à toutes les piles mises sur le marché de l'Union européenne et

les classe dans les catégories portables, industrielles ou automobiles.

La Directive fixe des objectifs et des cibles (par exemple en matière de collecte et de recyclage) ; elle

précise des mesures (telles que l'élimination progressive du mercure ou l'établissement de systèmes

nationaux de collecte) et permet d'entreprendre des actions (par exemple, la déclaration ou

l'étiquetage) pour atteindre ces objectifs.

Cadre d'évaluation et consultation des parties prenantes

Conformément aux lignes directrices de la Commission européenne pour une meilleure réglementation,

la Directive 2006/66/CE a été évaluée au regard de cinq critères d'évaluation : pertinence, efficacité,

efficience, cohérence et valeur ajoutée de l’Union européenne. En outre, les critères de réexamen

définis à l'article 23 de la Directive ont été pris en compte. Pour chaque critère standard, une série de

questions d'évaluation a été élaborée afin de centrer l'évaluation sur les aspects pertinents.

Les réponses aux questions d'évaluation ont été compilées à partir des données des États membres

soumises à Eurostat et des contributions obtenues lors de la consultation des parties prenantes ainsi

qu’à partir de nombreuses autres sources.

8 Dans le reste du présent document, la Directive 2006/66/CE relative aux piles et accumulateurs et aux piles et

accumulateurs usagés est intitulée “Directive relative aux piles” or simplement “Directive”. 9 Cf. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/better-regulation-guidelines-evaluation-fitness-checks.pdf et

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/better-regulation-toolbox-47_en_0.pdf 10

Commission Staff Working Document, SWD/2014/0209, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=SWD:2014:0209:FIN

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/better-regulation-guidelines-evaluation-fitness-checks.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/better-regulation-toolbox-47_en_0.pdf




12

Les parties prenantes, issues d’administrations publiques nationales, d’associations industrielles, du

grand public, de consommateurs et d’organisations de protection de l'environnement, ont été

identifiées et contactées pour encourager leur participation à une consultation publique d’une durée de

douze semaines. Le cas échéant, leur contribution a été acceptée dans le cadre d'une enquête destinée

aux membres du Groupe d'Experts sur les déchets (Directive relative aux piles), d'entretiens ciblés ou

d'ateliers. Les résultats des différentes activités de consultation peuvent être qualifiés avec certitude

comme étant des sources d’informations complètes et suffisantes sur les opinions et positions des

parties prenantes.

Situation actuelle

La situation actuelle des batteries a été étudiée en abordant les flux massiques, les utilisations, la

chimie, le cycle de vie, le marché, le cadre législatif, l’atteinte des objectifs, les impacts

environnementaux, les nouvelles tendances et autres aspects.

Débits massiques des batteries

Pour l'année de référence 2015, la quantité de piles (en tonnes) a été calculée par catégorie

d'utilisation (portable, industrielle ou automobile) qui ont été mises sur le marché, collectées et

recyclées, permettant ainsi de mettre en évidence les pertes. Ce calcul révèle qu'une grande quantité

de piles portables (environ 35 000 tonnes par an ou 16 % de la quantité de piles mises sur le marché,

212 000 tonnes en 2015 et 41 % de la quantité collectée, 84 000 tonnes, en 2015) finissent dans les

déchets municipaux au lieu d'être collectées pour recyclage. La Directive relative aux piles n'exige pas

la déclaration ou l'analyse systématique des "pertes"11 de piles, par exemple l’élimination des piles

dans les déchets municipaux, les déchets d'équipements électriques et électroniques ou les

équipements électriques et électroniques exportés. De même, pour les batteries automobiles et

industrielles, les données sur les flux massiques sont limitées car aucune obligation de déclaration n'est

en vigueur. Par conséquent, la situation concernant les pertes potentielles n'est pas claire non plus pour

les batteries automobiles et industrielles.

La Directive établit une distinction entre les batteries au plomb-acide, les batteries nickel-cadmium et

les "autres" batteries. Les batteries au plomb représentent de loin la part la plus importante de

l'ensemble des batteries (environ 86 %), principalement en raison des accumulateurs au plomb acide

pour automobiles, qui représentaient en 2015 environ 1,1 million de tonnes. Dans les années à venir, les

batteries au lithium-ion (Li-ion) devraient être multipliées par plus de quatre, l'e-mobilité étant le

principal moteur de la croissance. La totalité des batteries Li-ion mises sur le marché, qui sont classées

dans la catégorie "autres batteries", s'élevait en 2015 déjà à environ 75 000 tonnes. En 2015, les

batteries portables Li-ion représentaient environ 17 % du total des batteries portables, contre

seulement 4 % pour les batteries plomb-acide et les batteries nickel-cadmium réunies.

Plusieurs des matériaux contenus dans les batteries (cobalt, graphite naturel, etc.) sont considérés

comme des "matières premières critiques". Par exemple, 44 % de l'utilisation mondiale de cobalt peut

être attribuée aux batteries Li-ion.

Substances dangereuses

Les problèmes environnementaux abordés dans la Directive se concentrent sur les substances

dangereuses contenues dans les piles et batteries ; la Directive mentionne en particulier le mercure, le

cadmium et le plomb. Or, les batteries Li-ion ne contiennent ni mercure, ni cadmium, ni plomb et ne

sont pas spécifiquement visées par la Directive. Le contenu des batteries Li-ion révèle toutefois

diverses propriétés dangereuses ; certains matériaux de différents types de batteries Li-ion sont

11 Les "pertes" sont, pour les quantités totales de toutes les piles (portables), la différence entre "mises sur le

marché" et "collectées".


13

soupçonnés12 de provoquer le cancer (matériaux cathodiques lithium-nickel-manganèse-cobalt (LNMC)

ou lithium-nickel-cobalt-aluminium (LNCA) ou de contenir des substances dangereuses (p. ex.

hexafluorophosphate de lithium (LiPF6)).

Recyclage

Le recyclage des matières premières provenant des piles et piles usagées est préférable à la production

de matières premières primaires utilisées pour leur fabrication. L'effet sur les émissions de gaz à effet

de serre de l'utilisation de matériaux recyclés par rapport aux matériaux primaires est limité puisque la

contribution de l'ensemble du secteur des piles ne représente que 0,2 % des émissions totales de gaz à

effet de serre dans l'Union européenne. Néanmoins, la récupération des matériaux des batteries réduit

la demande d'énergie et les émissions de gaz à effet de serre ; par exemple, le recyclage des batteries

plomb-acide, qui produit du plomb secondaire, permet de réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre

de deux tiers par rapport à la production primaire de plomb. La réduction des émissions de substances

dangereuses provenant de la production de plomb de deuxième fusion par rapport aux émissions

provenant de la production de plomb de première fusion est plus importante ; le potentiel de toxicité

pour l'homme de la production de plomb de première fusion est environ 18 fois supérieur à celui du

plomb de deuxième fusion. Le recyclage répond donc simultanément à plusieurs objectifs de l'Union

européenne: protéger l'environnement et la santé humaine, utiliser efficacement les ressources,

réduire les gaz à effet de serre et stimuler l'économie européenne.

Objectifs environnementaux

L'objectif de collecte (taux de collecte de 45 %) pour les piles et accumulateurs portables, l'un des

principaux objectifs de la Directive, a été atteint en 2016 par 14 États membres13 et surpassé par un

Etat membre ayant atteint un taux de collecte supérieur et exceptionnellement élevé. Les 13 autres

États membres n'ont soit pas atteint l'objectif, soit pas présenté de rapport. Un taux de collecte de

45 %, qui n'est de toute façon pas atteint par tous les États membres, signifie que plus de la moitié des

piles portables mises sur le marché dans l'Union européenne ne sont pas collectées.

Les objectifs d'efficacité de recyclage, l'autre grand ensemble d'objectifs de la Directive, ont été

atteints par tous les États membres qui ont communiqué des données, sauf un. Selon le type de

batterie, 6 à 10 Etats membres n'ont pas déclaré une efficacité de recyclage spécifique.

Économie

L'industrie européenne des piles et accumulateurs génère des produits d'une valeur de plus de 7

milliards d'euros par an, ce qui représente une part importante de la production mondiale de batteries

au plomb-acide (automobiles). Plus en aval du cycle de vie des batteries, la collecte et le recyclage des

batteries automobiles (plomb-acide) sont généralement rentables ; pour les autres produits chimiques

des batteries, les coûts de collecte, de stockage et de transport sécurisés réduisent considérablement

leur rentabilité. Pour tous les types de piles et de produits chimiques, les recycleurs sont fortement

impactés par la volatilité des prix des matières premières.

Responsabilité élargie des producteurs

Pour gérer les déchets de batteries portables et se conformer aux obligations de responsabilité élargie

des producteurs, les producteurs de chaque État membre créent des organisations de responsabilisation

des producteurs pour compenser les coûts liés à la collecte et au recyclage des piles. Néanmoins, il a

12 Selon les auto-classifications fournies par les entreprises à l’Agence européenne des produits chimiques dans les

enregistrements REACH, compilées par substance dans la base de données de recherche avancée de l’Agence européenne des produits chimiques : https://echa.europa.eu/advanced-search-for-chemicals 13

Un recoupement des données avec les données d'Eurostat a été effectué pour la dernière fois en juin 2018. Les

pays de l'Espace économique européen ne sont pas pris en compte dans le présent résumé, mais ils le sont dans les chiffres présentés au chapitre 5.3.

https://echa.europa.eu/advanced-search-for-chemicals


14

été observé que les organisations de responsabilisation des producteurs qui dépassent les objectifs de la

Directive n'ont aucun avantage économique; les objectifs d'efficacité en matière de collecte et de

recyclage fixés par la Directive ne donnent aucune incitation à des performances supérieures au-delà

du seuil minimum. Toutefois, les organisations de responsabilisation des producteurs ont un intérêt

économique à se faire concurrence pour recycler les produits chimiques les plus rentables des

batteries, ce qui ne contribue pas à une gestion efficace et efficiente des ressources.

Conclusions concernant les questions d'évaluation

Pertinence

Aspects environnementaux

Dans l'ensemble, les principaux problèmes environnementaux visés par la Directive existent toujours.

Les piles contiennent encore des substances dangereuses et présentent un risque pour l'environnement

lorsqu'elles sont mises en décharge, incinérées ou éliminées incorrectement. Étant donné que plus de la

moitié de la quantité de batteries portables n'est pas collectée et qu'une partie importante de ces piles

non collectées continue de finir dans les déchets municipaux, le risque environnemental est

actuellement très probable. Des pertes de piles et un traitement inapproprié se produisent également

lorsque les piles ne sont pas retirées des déchets des équipements électriques et électroniques avant

broyage.

La grande majorité de toutes les batteries mises sur le marché sont des batteries au plomb-acide, qui

contiennent du plomb, l'une des matières dangereuses visées par la Directive, mais ne sont pas

interdites. Les piles industrielles nickel-cadmium contenant du cadmium ne sont pas non plus interdites

et donc toujours mises sur le marché.

Un potentiel élevé de risques environnementaux est également attribué à l'extraction des ressources et

à la transformation des matières premières utilisées pour la fabrication des batteries, en particulier en

dehors de l'Union européenne lorsque seule une extraction/un traitement inférieur aux normes est

effectué. Toutefois, ces risques ne sont pas spécifiquement traités dans la Directive.

Efficacité des ressources

Jusqu'en 2017, le recyclage du lithium provenant des déchets de batteries Li-ion était considéré comme

non rentable. Par conséquent, les procédés commerciaux se sont concentrés sur le nickel, le cobalt et

le cuivre ; le lithium s'est retrouvé dans les scories du procédé pyrochimique, qui est récupéré pour

être utilisé dans les matériaux de construction. Plus récemment, le recyclage du lithium provenant des

scories a commencé. Les prévisions concernant la demande de matières premières de lithium indiquent

la nécessité d'établir des objectifs fiables pour le recyclage du lithium.

La présente étude constate que l'importance des politiques relatives à l'efficacité des ressources et aux

matières premières critiques n'est pas suffisamment prise en compte dans la Directive. En particulier,

la Directive n'oriente pas l'efficacité du recyclage en vue d’une valorisation des matières premières

(lithium ou cobalt, par exemple). Il conviendrait d'envisager la possibilité d'introduire d'autres objectifs

et dispositions liés à l'efficacité des ressources ainsi qu’aux normes de production durable et aux

normes environnementales.

Nouveaux développements : types de piles, applications et technologies de recyclage

Le secteur des piles est dynamique et innovant : de nouvelles applications, de nouveaux types de piles

et de nouvelles technologies de recyclage ont été développés et de nouvelles tendances sont apparues

depuis l'élaboration de la Directive. Comme l'a déclaré la Commission européenne14, le secteur des

14 COM(2018) 293


15

batteries est considéré comme "un impératif stratégique pour l'Europe dans le contexte de la transition

vers une énergie propre et constitue un élément clé de son secteur automobile". Or, la Directive ne

reflète plus de manière adéquate ces évolutions. Plusieurs aspects revêtent une importance

particulière.

La catégorie "autres batteries" ne reflète pas la quantité et la pertinence des batteries Li-ion. Les taux

cibles de contenu recyclé (par exemple pour le cobalt) sont également absents.

Les batteries industrielles sont de plus en plus utilisées par les utilisateurs privés pour de nouvelles

applications telles que les vélos électriques ou le stockage d'électricité. Des problèmes se posent en ce

qui concerne les définitions et les obligations qui en découlent pour les piles industrielles et les piles

portables. La collecte de ces piles pose des difficultés car les systèmes de collecte des piles

industrielles ne sont pas réglementés en détail.

La Directive relative aux piles et accumulateurs porte sur la recherche et le développement de

nouvelles technologies de recyclage. Toutefois, la Directive n’encourage pas la mise en œuvre de ces

nouvelles technologies, en particulier parce qu'elle n’encourage pas l'obtention d'une efficacité de

recyclage supérieure à celle de l'exigence minimale.

D'une manière générale, la Directive ne fournit aucun critère (par exemple : quantité, substances

dangereuses, pertinence économique, etc.) permettant de déterminer si les nouveaux types de piles

doivent être traités séparément, si une déclaration séparée est requise et si une efficacité de recyclage

séparée doit être mise en œuvre. Dans l'ensemble, la Directive n'est pas bien adaptée et pas

suffisamment spécifique pour tenir compte des nouveaux développements.

Substances dangereuses

Bien que le mercure, le cadmium et le plomb puissent être considérés comme dangereux au titre de la

Directive, les interdictions ne sont pas spécifiées de manière cohérente pour ces substances dans les

trois catégories de piles. L'absence de définition des substances dangereuses dans la Directive ne

permet pas d'évaluer si d'autres substances doivent également être considérées comme dangereuses en

vertu de la Directive. En outre, la relation entre la définition d'une substance comme dangereuse et son

interdiction en vertu de la Directive n'est pas claire. Il n'est donc pas clair non plus sur quelle base

(c'est-à-dire sur quels critères) les substances dangereuses contenues dans les piles devraient être

potentiellement interdites.

Etiquetage de batteries

De nombreuses parties prenantes ont souligné la nécessité d'adapter l'étiquetage des produits chimiques

pour l'industrie du recyclage afin d'assurer une manipulation sans danger pendant les processus de tri et

de recyclage (par exemple, pour les batteries Li-ion). L'étiquetage des piles devrait également inclure

des informations afin d’encourager une amélioration du tri et, par conséquent, une efficacité accrue du

recyclage.

L'étiquetage relatif aux risques pour la sécurité est également pertinent pour les utilisateurs finaux, par

exemple lors de la mise en réserve de batteries Li-ion ou en cas de batteries Li-ion endommagées.

Diverses propositions en vue d’un autre étiquetage de la teneur en produits chimiques existent.

Toutefois, il n'y a toujours pas de normalisation ou de consensus quant à un système qui faciliterait la

communication des informations aux utilisateurs finaux ainsi que la manipulation sans risque pendant le

tri et le recyclage.

Possibilité d'enlever les piles des appareils

Actuellement, l'amovibilité des piles des appareils est de plus en plus importante dans la pratique et

n'est pas encore suffisamment suivie. Une meilleure mise en œuvre est nécessaire pour éviter les pertes

de piles lors du traitement des déchets des équipements électriques et électroniques et pour atteindre


16

des taux de collecte plus élevés. Une augmentation du nombre d’appareils équipés de piles qui ne

peuvent être retirées que par des professionnels qualifiés ou qui ne peuvent être retirées sans détruire

l'appareil, est également observée. Or, le remplacement des piles est important pour prolonger la

durée de vie des produits une fois qu'une pile a atteint sa fin de vie, ce qui par conséquent favorise une

gestion efficace des ressources et l'économie circulaire.

Réutilisation des piles

Il existe un large consensus entre les parties prenantes sur le fait que la "préparation à la réutilisation"

et la "réutilisation" des piles devraient être réglementées dans la Directive, ce qui n'est pas le cas

actuellement. À l'heure actuelle, la présente étude montre que le manque de clarté de la situation

juridique constitue un obstacle à une réutilisation des piles et accumulateurs qui serait souhaitable

d’un point de vue écologique et économique, autre que celle prévue lors de leur mise sur le marché

(par exemple, les batteries des véhicules électriques utilisées comme stockage d'énergie dans les

ménages). Il n'est pas clair qui assume la responsabilité du producteur pour les batteries réutilisées et

comment celles-ci devraient être déclarées.

Efficacité

Collecte des batteries usagées

Le niveau insuffisant de collecte des batteries est une lacune majeure de la Directive et de sa mise en

œuvre. L'un des principaux objectifs de la Directive, à savoir le taux de collecte de 45 % pour les

batteries portables, n'est atteint que par 14 États membres. La Directive n'a pas prévu de déclaration

ou d'analyse systématique des "pertes" de piles, par exemple l'importance toujours croissante du fait

que les piles ne sont pas retirées des déchets des équipements électriques et électroniques ainsi que de

l'exportation des équipements électriques et électroniques ou, dans le cas des batteries automobiles,

de l'export de véhicules d'occasion et de véhicules hors d'usage. Simultanément, l'analyse du consultant

a révélé que d'énormes quantités de batteries finissaient dans les déchets municipaux.

De même, l'efficacité de la collecte des déchets de piles industrielles reste incertaine car il n'existe

aucun rapport. L'absence de dispositions spécifiques et suffisantes dans la Directive concernant la

collecte et le retour des déchets de piles industrielles et des batteries Li-ion est particulièrement

préoccupante. Ceci est particulièrement important pour les batteries industrielles utilisées par les

consommateurs privés, et pour les batteries Li-ion dont il est escompté qu’elles seront de plus en plus

utilisées dans un avenir proche, à mesure que l'e-mobilité devient plus courante. L'analyse des flux

massiques de batteries révèle des écarts entre les quantités de batteries industrielles mises sur le

marché et celles collectées ; toutefois, en raison de l'absence d'obligations de déclaration, et donc de

données concrètes, ceci ne peut être prouvé. Par conséquent, le manque de clarté de la situation

concernant la collecte des déchets de piles industrielles et leur déclaration, constitue un domaine

majeur d’amélioration de la Directive.

Ainsi, la Directive ne comporte pas d'objectif ni de dispositions concernant un système de surveillance

qui permette de localiser les piles non collectées et donc de traiter plus directement de la protection

de l'environnement, et notamment de l'un des principaux objectifs de la Directive, à savoir réduire au

minimum l'élimination des piles dans les déchets municipaux.

Le problème principal - l'insuffisance de la collecte - doit être traité et ne pas être masqué par d'autres

déficiences, telles qu'une méthodologie de calcul inadéquate pour le taux de collecte, une

classification inappropriée des piles selon les types d'utilisation (distinction entre piles portables et

industrielles) ou des lacunes dans la communication des données (par exemple, distinction entre piles

portables et industrielles au plomb acide, ou vente en ligne des piles).


17

Efficacité du recyclage

L'une des principales réussites de la Directive est que les objectifs en matière d'efficacité du recyclage

sont en général atteints. Tous les pays ayant communiqué des données, à l'exception de la Croatie, ont

atteint les objectifs d'efficacité du recyclage pour l'année 2016.

L'approche méthodologique actuelle selon laquelle les États membres déclarent le niveau d'efficacité

du recyclage par pays n'est toutefois pas en phase avec le fait que l'efficacité du recyclage dépend des

procédés utilisés. Compte tenu également de l'absence de surveillance et de certification du recyclage,

ainsi que des problèmes de disponibilité des données des recycleurs d'autres pays (à l'intérieur et à

l'extérieur de l'Union européenne) et du fait que la comptabilisation des scories destinées au recyclage

n'est pas harmonisée entre les États membres, l'approche méthodologique adoptée dans la Directive

concernant l'efficacité du recyclage devrait être révisée pour contribuer à développer des conditions

équitables pour les entreprises de recyclage.

Information et sensibilisation des consommateurs

Il s'avère que l'information des consommateurs n'est pas suffisamment efficace, ni en ce qui concerne la

collecte des piles usagées, ni en ce qui concerne les performances des piles. Dans la pratique, fort est

de constater régulièrement l’absence d’informations sur la manière d'éliminer les piles usagées et où

elles doivent l'être. Lorsque des campagnes d’informations sont organisées, une augmentation

temporaire de la collecte est alors observée. De plus, les utilisateurs finaux ne disposent pas de

suffisamment d'informations concernant l'amélioration des performances des piles pour faire un achat

avisé.

Il est suggéré, dans le cadre de la révision de la Directive relative aux piles, d'élaborer des conditions-

cadres permettant aux consommateurs d'évaluer les performances des piles primaires et des piles

rechargeables.

Efficacité

Coûts et avantages

Les coûts de la collecte, de l'entreposage sécuritaire, du transport et du recyclage des accumulateurs

au plomb-acide est actuellement couvert par les recettes provenant du recyclage, à condition qu'aucun

coût supplémentaire ne survienne et que la collecte et le recyclage demeurent économiquement

viables. Un prix suffisamment élevé pour le plomb de deuxième fusion est une condition préalable à

cette évaluation. Pour toutes les autres piles, produites en masse, les recettes issues du recyclage sont

très souvent insuffisantes pour couvrir l'ensemble de la chaîne de fin de vie.

Sur la base des informations et des hypothèses disponibles, le coût total pour les producteurs pour

récupérer leurs coûts de collecte et de recyclage des piles portables est d'environ 118 millions d'euros.

Ce coût est inclus dans le calcul des prix et doit être couvert par les prix à la consommation.

Les consommateurs privés qui possèdent des batteries industrielles (par exemple, des batteries de

stockage d'électricité photovoltaïque) portent un risque économique potentiel, étant donné que la

Directive ne prévoit que vaguement qui est responsable de la mise en place des infrastructures de

collecte et du paiement des coûts de transport et de l’entreposage sécuritaire des batteries. En

fournissant des batteries industrielles à leurs clients, les détaillants peuvent encourir ces risques

également.

Dans l'ensemble, les parties prenantes ont estimé que les avantages obtenus pouvaient être

directement attribués à la Directive. La majorité des participants à la consultation publique sont

d'accord ou tout à fait d'accord que les coûts liés à la mise en œuvre de la Directive sont justifiés

compte tenu des avantages qui ont déjà été obtenus et qui le seront à plus long terme. Les acteurs

commerciaux représentés par les associations préfèrent clairement une approche harmonisée pour


18

traiter les déchets de piles dans l'ensemble de l'Union européenne plutôt qu'une action individuelle des

États membres.

Différences entre les États membres

Une explication simple ne suffit pas pour expliquer la large fourchette de prix pour la collecte et le

traitement des piles en 2016 ; aucune conclusion générale ne peut être tirée car les informations sur les

dépenses effectuées pour la sensibilisation des consommateurs sont rares.

Les parties prenantes n'ont pas abordé les différences de répartition entre les États membres. Il

convient toutefois de noter que le recyclage des déchets de piles et accumulateurs est fortement

concentré dans quelques États membres seulement, et que ces États membres bénéficient de la valeur

ajoutée brute induite par l'effort consacré à la collecte dans d'autres États membres.

Marché unique européen pour l'industrie des batteries

L'un des objectifs de la politique européenne est de créer des conditions égales et non discriminatoires

pour les producteurs/vendeurs concurrents au sein de l'Union européenne, assurant ainsi les conditions

d'un marché européen unique pour les batteries. Les préoccupations suivantes s'appliquent à

l'établissement de règles du jeu équitables.

Peu d'États membres s'efforcent de contrôler (par sondage ponctuel) l'étiquetage correct et la mise en

œuvre correcte des concentrations maximales de métaux lourds dans les piles. En conséquence, des

piles sont mises sur le marché qui ne sont pas conformes à la Directive. Les différents niveaux de mise

en œuvre dans les États membres faussent l'égalité des conditions de concurrence pour les producteurs

qui veillent au strict respect des exigences de la Directive.

Les parties prenantes soutiennent le concept de certification des installations de recyclage dans l'Union

européenne et à l'étranger dans les pays tiers.

Ce qui est considéré ou non comme faisant partie du recyclage est traité différemment d'un État

membre à l'autre. Les parties prenantes ont déclaré que, dans certains États membres, les scories

issues du recyclage sont comptabilisées comme faisant partie du recyclage, alors que dans d'autres,

elles ne le sont pas. Ainsi, le fait de traiter différemment les scories semble entraver la mise en place

de règles du jeu équitables pour les recycleurs.

Bonnes pratiques

Parmi les deux types d'organisations de responsabilisation des producteurs que l'on trouve dans l'Union

européenne - régimes concurrentiels et régime unique par État membre - les régimes à organisation

unique semblent donner de meilleurs résultats en termes de campagnes de sensibilisation et de nombre

de points de collecte que les régimes concurrentiels. Pour les États membres qui n'ont pas défini

d'exigences minimales pour les campagnes de sensibilisation et les points de collecte, le risque existe

que les organisations de responsabilisation des producteurs se fassent concurrence en minimisant

l'effort pour ces mesures. En outre, les organisations de responsabilisation des producteurs

concurrentes pourraient avoir tendance à être très sélectives quant aux piles qu'elles collectent et les

performances des organisations de responsabilisation des producteurs existantes pourraient être

compromises.

Cohérence

La Directive relative aux piles et accumulateurs interagit avec plusieurs autres réglementations

sectorielles de l'Union européenne, y compris:

• la Directive 2008/98/CE relative aux déchets,

• le Règlement (CE) Nº 1013/2006 concernant les transferts de déchets,

• le Règlement (CE) Nº 2150/2002 relatif aux statistiques sur les déchets de l’UE,

• la Directive 2012/19/UE relative aux déchets d'équipements électriques et électroniques,


19

• la Directive 2011/65/UE relative à la limitation de l’utilisation de certaines substances dangereuses

dans les équipements électriques et électroniques,

• la Directive 2000/53/CE relative aux véhicules hors d'usage,

• le Règlement (CE) N°1907/2006 concernant l'enregistrement, l'évaluation et l'autorisation des

substances chimiques ainsi que les restrictions applicables à ces substances (REACH),

• ainsi qu'avec des conventions internationales comme la Convention de Bâle.

Il existe des contradictions et des liens manquants entre les différents règlements en ce qui concerne le

champ d'application, les définitions, les restrictions concernant les substances dangereuses et les

obligations de déclaration.

Alors que la Directive 2008/98/CE relative aux déchets définit les termes "réutilisation" et "préparation

à la réutilisation", ces termes ne sont pas définis dans la Directive relative aux piles et accumulateurs,

ce qui engendre une incertitude juridique pour les acteurs au titre de cette Directive, notamment en ce

qui concerne leurs responsabilités en matière de responsabilité étendue de producteur et de

déclaration des piles et accumulateurs réutilisés.

Il existe des chevauchements de jure entre d’une part le Règlement (CE) N°1907/2006 concernant

l'enregistrement, l'évaluation et l'autorisation des substances chimiques ainsi que les restrictions

applicables à ces substances (REACH) et la Directive relative aux piles et accumulateurs d’autre part,

étant donné que les deux réglementent l'interdiction des substances dangereuses. Des doublons ou des

contradictions concernant les restrictions relatives aux substances dangereuses entre le Règlement (CE)

N°1907/2006 et la Directive relative aux piles sont possibles, mais ne se sont pas encore produits. Les

chevauchements pourraient être évités si les restrictions concernant les substances dangereuses dans

les piles étaient réglementées par un seul règlement.

Les catégories de piles telles que définies dans la Directive relative aux piles, dans le Règlement (CE)

Nº 1013/2006 concernant les transferts de déchets et dans le Règlement (CE) Nº 2150/2002 relatif aux

statistiques sur les déchets, ne sont pas cohérentes et empêchent par conséquent la mise en œuvre

d'options visant à réduire la charge de la double déclaration et entravent la comparabilité et

l'utilisation complémentaire des données.

La Directive relative aux piles présente plusieurs divergences inhérentes et aspects incohérents.

La distinction entre les piles portables et les piles industrielles selon leur définition n'est pas cohérente.

Par exemple, les batteries pour les vélos électriques ou les systèmes photovoltaïques chez les ménages

privés sont, par définition, des batteries industrielles, bien qu'elles soient utilisées par des particuliers.

Cette distinction est d'autant plus importante qu'un nombre croissant de batteries industrielles sont

utilisées dans des appareils utilisés par des utilisateurs finaux privés. Par conséquent, la responsabilité

de fournir l'infrastructure nécessaire à la collecte de ces piles ainsi que la charge économique associée

ne sont pas clairement réparties entre les producteurs respectifs.

La Directive relative aux piles interdit la mise sur le marché de piles contenant certaines substances

dangereuses, sans toutefois définir les "substances dangereuses". Il en résulte une incertitude quant à la

logique d'intervention de la Directive.

En outre, aussi bien la Directive relative aux piles que la Directive 2012/19/UE relative aux déchets

d'équipements électriques et électroniques, fixent clairement l'objectif de retirer les piles des déchets

des équipements électriques et électroniques collectés avant leur traitement. Toutefois, le rôle que

joue dans la Directive relative aux piles la possibilité de remplacer des piles, en ce sens qu'elle

prolonge la durée de vie des produits et protège les ressources, n'est pas bien défini.

Le Règlement (UE) n°1103/2010 relatif au marquage de la capacité des piles secondaires

(rechargeables) et accumulateurs portables et des piles et accumulateurs automobiles, présente

plusieurs lacunes, à savoir l'absence de règles harmonisées pour l'étiquetage des piles primaires (non

rechargeables) ainsi que l’absence d'exigences d'étiquetage pour les piles portables secondaires


20

(rechargeables) intégrées ou conçues pour être intégrées dans des appareils. De plus, l'étiquetage de

capacité n'est pas obligatoire pour les batteries industrielles.

Valeur ajoutée de l'Union européenne

La Directive relative aux piles et accumulateurs harmonise les conditions de vente, de collecte et de

recyclage des piles dans toute l'Europe et fixe des objectifs de collecte et de recyclage. Par

conséquent, toutes les parties prenantes soutiennent sa valeur ajoutée européenne, par opposition à

une réglementation de ces aspects au niveau des États membres individuellement.

La majorité des parties prenantes est convaincue que la Directive relative aux piles a contribué au bon

fonctionnement du marché unique des piles. Ils s'accordent à dire que les barrières commerciales sont

moins élevées que s’ils devaient seulement se conformer à la réglementation au niveau des États

membres.


21

1 Introduction

1.1 Objectives of the study

Batteries are an essential energy source in our society, but at the same time batteries pose a risk to the

environment. To minimize the negative impacts of batteries, the EU Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries

and accumulators15 and waste batteries and accumulators was adopted. The implementation of the

Batteries Directive16 involves different stakeholders and brings a series of challenges. To assess whether

these challenges have been met, in other words whether the Batteries Directive’s objectives have been

fulfilled in practice, the Batteries Directive is reviewed by using a standardised ‘Evaluation’.

An ‘Evaluation’ is the tool applied by the European Commission to assess the actual performance of a

Directive compared to initial expectations. By evaluating, the Commission takes a critical look at

whether desired changes have been delivered to see to what extent the challenges to implementing the

Directive have been effectively overcome. The outcome of this evaluation will furthermore help the

Commission in adapting the Batteries Directive to challenges which might not have been appropriately

dealt with in the past.

The Batteries Directive has already been amended17 and partially evaluated, as part of an ex-post

evaluation of some waste stream Directives (the fitness check) in 201418. This fitness check already

addressed some of the issues identified by stakeholders. This current evaluation nevertheless intends to

adopt a broader approach to ensure that aspects not previously addressed are properly taken into

account and to make use of more comprehensive and recent sources of information.

An evaluation is a requirement of the Batteries Directive itself. Article 23 of the Directive tasks the

European Commission with reviewing the implementation of the Directive and its impact on the

environment and the functioning of the single European market. This evaluation is intended to be the

first step of the review process. The general aim of this “Study in support of evaluation of the Directive

2006/66/EC”, conducted by Oeko-Institut e.V., Trinomics and E&Y, is to assist the European

Commission in the process of the Evaluation of the Directive. In the following document, 'evaluation'

refers to the tasks and activities covered in the present study19.

The overarching aim of this evaluation is to assess whether the objectives of the Batteries Directive are

sufficiently addressed and implemented and if the legal requirements at the EU level and the

implementation at the national level support the general objectives of EU environmental policy. The

evaluation gave particular attention to aspects that have been more challenging to implement.

15 This report shall use the term ‘batteries’ to include both batteries and accumulators, unless otherwise specified. 16 In the following, the “Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators”

is referred to as the “Batteries Directive” or simply “Directive”. 17 In March 2008 (Directive 2008/12/EC, L 76, 19.3.2008), November 2008 (Directive 2008/103/EC, L 327, 5.12.2008)

and November 2013 (Directive 2013/56/EU L 329, 10.12.2013) 18 Commission Staff Working Document, SWD/2014/0209, at

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=SWD:2014:0209:FIN 19 Not to be confused with the overall ‘Evaluation’ and the official document of the European Commission Services

that might be adopted afterwards.


22

1.1 Scope of the study

This evaluation study follows the EC Better Regulation Guidelines and considers the five criteria

relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency and EU added value of the Directive’s provisions and

the legislation implementing it. The study covers the analysis, compilation, assessment and synthesis of

evidence related to the requirements established by the Directive and what impacts these may have.

In addition to the five criteria mentioned above, the study evaluates, as specified in the Directive,

evaluate the appropriateness of further risk management measures for batteries containing heavy

metals, the appropriateness of the minimum collection targets for all waste portable batteries, the

possible introduction of further targets, and the appropriateness of recycling efficiency levels set by

the Directive.

The scope of the study covers all substantive provisions in the Directive, and, where necessary,

provisions in Commission Decisions and Regulation stemming from the Directive are addressed. The

study addresses all relevant issues:

legal aspects, e.g. consistency, definitions;

environmental aspects, e.g. environmental impacts of batteries along their whole life cycle; and

economic and social aspects, e.g. costs and benefits, consumer related issues.

One focus of the evaluation is on the Directive’s main targets, i.e. the collection rate and the recycling

efficiencies. This included related issues such as the methodology for the calculation of collection rates

and recycling efficiencies. The evaluation identified shortcomings of the Directive and, in doing so,

determined whether they resulted from the Directive itself, e.g. internal inconsistencies, or from

implementation, monitoring and control activities of Member States. The study also took into account

recent developments such as ‘new’ battery types or new applications and uses of batteries (e.g.

lithium-ion batteries, re-use of batteries from electric vehicles).

The study presents an ex-post assessment and, as such, examines the years since adoption of the

Batteries Directive. It also considers the latest developments and indicates future developments. The

results of this evaluation can help identify measures for improving the Directive and its

implementation. However, concrete proposals and details of measures which must be accompanied by

an impact assessment are outside the scope of this evaluation study. The present evaluation report

shall only pave the way to prepare such an impact assessment.

2 Background on the Batteries Directive

2.1 Basic information

The Batteries Directive spells out key objectives, identifies actions to deliver them (i.e. ensuring a high

collection level of waste batteries), and establishes further provisions enabling and fulfilling these key

requirements. The primary objective of the Batteries Directive is to minimise the negative impact of

batteries and waste batteries on the environment, thus contributing to the protection, preservation and

improvement of the quality of the environment.


23

Article I of the Batteries Directive states that the Directive establishes rules regarding the placement

on the market of batteries and, in particular, a prohibition on the placing on the market of batteries

containing hazardous substances, as well as specific rules for the collection, treatment, recycling and

disposal of waste batteries, supplementing relevant Community legislation on waste, and promoting a

high level of collection and recycling of waste batteries.

The Batteries Directive also seeks to improve the environmental performance of batteries and of the

activities of all economic operators involved in the life cycle of batteries, e.g. producers, distributors

and end-users and, in particular, those operators directly involved in the treatment and recycling of

waste batteries. The Directive lays down provisions that cover the entire life cycle of batteries (design,

placing on the market, end-of-life, collection, treatment and recycling of spent batteries).

The Directive furthermore intends to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market and to avoid

distortion of competition within the Community by harmonizing requirements concerning the heavy

metal content and labelling of batteries. Thus, for instance, Article 4 of the Batteries Directive lays

down prohibitions (and exemptions) for batteries placed on the market (PoM) containing cadmium and

mercury20.

The Batteries Directive also sets targets for collection and recycling. It establishes requirements to

maximise the separate collection of waste batteries, thereby minimising battery disposal as mixed

municipal waste. The Directive additionally specifies measures to achieve its objectives, such as setting

up collection schemes so that end-users can discard all waste portable batteries conveniently and free

of charge. Through the Extended Producer Responsibility Principle, producers of batteries and

producers of other products that incorporate a battery are given responsibility for the management of

waste batteries that they place on the market, in particular the financing of collection and recycling

schemes.

To avoid end-user confusion about the different waste management requirements for different

batteries, this Directive applies to all batteries placed on the market within the European Union. In

particular, Directive 2006/66/EC specifies the collection and recycling targets for batteries and lays

down rules for monitoring Member State (MS) compliance:

The collection rates for portable batteries are 25 % by 26 September 2012, rising to 45 % by

September 2016.

Prohibiting disposal of waste industrial and automotive batteries in landfills or by incineration implicitly

demands 100% collection and recycling of all waste industrial and automotive batteries. More detailed

information as well as how the rates of recycled content for lead and cadmium should be calculated are

given in the Commission Regulation (EU) No 493/2012 on recycling efficiencies. There it states that

recycling processes shall achieve the following minimum recycling efficiencies:

recycling of 65 % by average weight of lead-acid batteries;

recycling of 75 % by average weight of nickel-cadmium batteries;

recycling of 50 % by average weight of other batteries.

20 Please note that the exemption to put lead-acid batteries for automotive purposes on the market is driven by

the ELV Directive establishing a prohibition to use lead, but giving (time limited) exemptions at the same time.


24

Recycling of lead and cadmium (rate of recycled content) shall be done to the highest degree

technically feasible while avoiding excessive costs.

The Directive established the obligation for producers to finance the costs of collecting, treating and

recycling all collected batteries minus their profits earned through selling the materials recovered.

However, the detailed Articles of the Batteries Directive establish different approaches for the three

battery categories (portable, industrial and automotive). For automotive and industrial batteries, the

stipulations regarding the cost for collection and safe transport are vague while the stipulations for

portable batteries are explicit.

The Directive allows the MS a flexible approach when implementing extended producer responsibility

(EPR) schemes to enable financing schemes that reflect differing national circumstances and to take

into account existing schemes. In consequence, the MS established different financing schemes for

portable batteries.

To date, all Member States have established EPR schemes for portable batteries. The number of

Producers Responsibility Organisations (PROs) in these national EPR schemes varies. Nine MS established

one PRO each, responsible for all producer responsibility (“collective”), while others have competing

PROs within the MS, each contracted by several producers (also “collective”). In addition, some PROs

are responsible for one individual producer only.

2.2 Intervention logic

Background

The Batteries Directive and its different components, its objectives and the problems it was intended to

solve can be summarised into an intervention logic. The intervention logic brings together how the

different components were expected to interact.

In any policy evaluation, a key activity is to review the intervention logic of the policy. The

intervention logic frames the evaluation questions the study seeks to answer as well as defines the

scope and depth of the analysis. This study’s intervention logic (see Figure 2-1) starts with the rationale

and objectives of the Directive along with the problems the Directive was designed to address. It then

describes the activities (actions and measures) devised under the policy, the expected results (outputs)

and the wider impacts. As part of reviewing the intervention logic, the individual steps within the logic

of the intervention are explored. It is seen that the intervention logic is generally in line with

expectations.

Analysis

The Directive generally addresses environmental problems and problems with the functioning of the

internal market (European Commission 2014).

The environmental problems addressed focus on hazardous substances contained in batteries; the

Directive in particular mentions mercury, cadmium and lead. The environmental impacts resulting from

hazardous battery materials at the end of a battery’s life-cycle, when a waste battery is incinerated or

goes to a landfill, are a major concern. Problems before the implementation of the Batteries Directive


25

hampered the European single market in various aspects: different national standards for labelling of

Batteries and different national thresholds for hazardous content.

The objectives of the Directive (see Figure 2-1) focus on two areas: the protection of the environment

(objectives 1, 3 and 4) and the functioning of the internal market (objectives 2 and, 5). They reflect

the problems which the Directive aims to solve. These objectives, and through this the problems, are

addressed by several targets and provisions on the level of actions and measures (see Figure 2-1).

Environmental protection

The two most relevant targets in the Directive, both very concrete and quantitative, are the collection

rate and the recycling efficiencies of batteries. These targets are directly linked to objective 3 of the

intervention logic (see Figure 2-1).

The rate of recycled content21, equally important to address environmental protection (related to the

hazardousness of heavy metals), remains comparatively vague, with no concrete target specified:

Recycling of lead and cadmium content shall be done to the highest degree that is technically feasible

while avoiding excessive costs (Directive, Annex III).

While the scope of the Directive covers all batteries, the three battery types are addressed differently

and targets and provisions do not apply equally. The Directive’s prescribed collection rate applies only

for portable batteries. For industrial and automotive batteries, a collection target is only indirectly

addressed through a ban on landfilling or incinerating these battery types.

Another aspect of objective 3, minimising the disposal of batteries as mixed municipal waste, is not

directly addressed through any target. Batteries being collected cannot end in the municipal waste

stream and thus collection indirectly addresses the objective of minimising the disposal of batteries.

Objective 4 of the intervention logic generally addresses improving the environmental performance of

batteries and the activities of all economic operators involved in the battery life cycle. However, the

Directive does not further specify what exactly needs to be reached and which concrete targets should

be fulfilled within the context of objective 4. Promoting research, encouraging improvements in

batteries’ overall environmental performance and developing batteries which contain smaller quantities

of dangerous or less polluting substances are mentioned in this respect. The prohibition of cadmium and

mercury as well as the collection and recycling targets support objective 4, although collection and

recycling directly address objective 3.

Generally, the binding nature and concreteness of the objectives is not uniform of the Directive’s

targets and provisions that address environmental protection varies. Collection rates, recycling

efficiencies and the prohibition of cadmium and mercury are measurable and can be monitored and

evaluated as prescribed by the Directive. However, the Directive does not specify any concrete

measurements of or reporting on less precise targets and provisions, e.g. collection of industrial

21

The rate of recycled content addresses the recycling of the lead and cadmium content in waste batteries. The

method for the calculation of the rate of recycled content is defined in the Commission Regulation (EU) No 493/2012, Annexes II and III.


26

batteries, promoting research or decreasing the quantities of dangerous substances used in batteries.

The Directive leaves the methods for monitoring and evaluation open for interpretation.

Functioning of the internal market

Objective 2 of the intervention logic is addressed by harmonising product requirements for batteries. In

this context, the prohibition of cadmium and mercury is the most relevant provision. Within the

Directive such prohibition is developed just as concretely as the quantitative collection and recycling

targets that address the environmental objectives.

Similar to the prohibition of cadmium and mercury, battery labelling requirements also directly aim to

harmonize product requirements for batteries. These labelling provisions – referred to in objective 5

and building on objective 2 –very precisely detail the symbols to be used yet are less concrete for

capacity labelling. Here too, differences are apparent in relation to the different battery types. All

batteries are required to be marked with the crossed-out wheeled bin and with symbols for heavy metal

content (Cd, Hg and/or Pb), whereas for example capacity indication is required only on portable and

automotive batteries.


27

Figure 2-1: Intervention Logic

Objectives

1. To protect, preserve and improve the quality of the environment,

2. To ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market, avoiding competition distortion

3. To minimise the negative impact of batteries and waste batteries on the environment, maximising the separate collection of waste batteries, minimising the disposal of batteries as mixed municipal waste, and achieving a high level of recycling (efficiencies) for all waste batteries.

4. To improve the environmental performance of batteries and of the activities of all economic operators involved in the life cycle of batteries.

5. With reference to objective 2 the maximum content of heavy metals and labelling should be harmonized

Actions and Measures (Objectives 1, 3 ,4)

Establish collection schemes

Achieve collection targets

Ensure take back

Prohibit the disposal /incineration of industrial and automotive batteries (and exemptions)

Ensure the removal of batteries from appliances

Treat and recycle all collected batteries within the EU or abroad (under equivalent conditions)

Achieve minimum values for recycling efficiency to be reached

Use BATs

Actions and Measures (Objectives 2, 5)

Prohibit Hazardous substances

Promote an increasingly low content of H substances

Ensure that design allows for removability

Promote and use new recycling technologies

Provide information to end-users

Ensure adequate product labelling

Use economic instruments

Apply extended producer responsibility schemes

Ensure battery registration

Avoid discrimination against imported batteries, trade barriers or distortions of competition

Minimise costs (collection and recycling schemes)

Penalties (rules, implement)

Actions and Measures (Governance)

Take into account the double legal base (environment and single market)

Develop secondary legislation via Delegated and Implementing Acts

Meet reporting obligations on implementation and compliance

Review the Directive


28

Outputs

Level of collection achieved (for portable, but also for all kinds of batteries);

Level of recycling efficiencies achieved;

Number of EPR schemes in place;

National reports on implementation, collection and recycling submitted;

Content of hazardous substances in batteries prohibited, with exemptions.

Outcomes (Impacts)

The quality of the environment is protected, preserved and improved, because o The impact of batteries is minimised, because,

The disposal of batteries as hazardous waste is low, because disposal is prohibited (exemptions) The recycling efficiencies and the amount of batteries going to recycling are high, and The hazardousness of batteries' components is low

The smooth functioning of the internal market is ensured, because o The use of economic instruments and of EPR schemes do not distort competition o End-user's rights are respected.

Directive is kept up-to-date by adaptation to technical progress

External factors

Transposition and compliance by Member States

Other legislation (e.g. WEEE)

Stakeholders / public concerns

Technological progress

Market trends (e.g. number of players, new uses)


29

3 Evaluation questions

All evaluations conducted by the European Commission use the widely known criteria relevance,

effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value (five standard criteria, as given in the Better

Regulation Guidelines)22. For this study, under each of these five standard criteria, a set of general

evaluation questions to guide each criterion’s evaluation were designed, as presented in Table 3-2.

The Batteries Directive specifies that the Commission review certain aspects (Batteries Directive,

Article 23.2). On this basis, eight sub-areas were formulated as the focus of the evaluation. Within

these sub-areas, detailed evaluation questions were developed23. These detailed questions are intended

to provide the necessary information, data, details and results to then abstract precise responses to the

evaluation criteria and the general questions.

The sub-areas, listed below, are structured across the five standard criteria:

1. impact on the environment,

2. impact on functioning of the internal market,

3. appropriateness of further risk management measures for batteries containing heavy metals,

4. appropriateness of the minimum collection targets for all waste portable batteries,

5. possibility of introducing further targets,

6. appropriateness of the minimum recycling requirements,

7. additional, extended producer responsibility, and

8. emerging trends and new developments.

While the five standard criteria and the general questions represent a rather abstract evaluation level,

the sub-areas and their detailed evaluation questions provide a practical and applicable level. Thus, the

detailed questions of the sub-areas offer a deeper understanding of the criteria and the general

questions. The detailed questions determine the extent and scope of this evaluation and hence define

the work of the study.

Answers to the evaluation questions were compiled from MS data submitted to Eurostat, other

information sources, the Batteries Directive and related legislation, and the findings from the

stakeholder consultation.

Analysis was performed for all detailed questions and subsequently answers to all detailed questions

were developed. The answers to all detailed questions provided the basis for the results of the general

questions in chapter 7.

Connections between evaluation criteria, sub-areas and evaluation questions

As part of the evaluation framework’s development, the complex interaction of standard criteria and

sub-areas on the one hand and general and detailed evaluation questions on the other was identified

and analysed. Connections between the criteria and the different sub-areas were elaborated. Then, the

evaluation questions were grouped and allocated to criteria and sub-areas, which culminated in the

22 See https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/better-regulation-guidelines-evaluation-fitness-checks.pdf and

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/better-regulation-toolbox-47_en_0.pdf 23 A detailed question is a heading for even more precise questions developed within the study.


30

evaluation matrix. A summary of the five standard criteria, the sub-areas and the general and detailed

evaluation questions is given in the evaluation matrix in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 below.

Table 3-1 reveals the structure of the five standard criteria and the eight sub-areas. In the table, the

eight sub-areas (1-8) are vertically placed to the five criteria (A-E); certain sub-areas are only relevant

for a few criteria. In this way, the sub-areas are mapped to the standard criteria. For each mapping, a

set of detailed evaluation questions was identified from which the appropriate information to respond

to the criteria and sub-areas could be abstracted24.

As can be seen in Table 3-2, under each standard evaluation criterion, a set of general evaluation

questions was identified. Like for the mapping between the standard evaluation criteria and the sub-

areas (i.e. in Table 3-1), all general evaluation questions can be answered by abstracting the necessary

information collected through associated detailed questions; all detailed questions are linked to one (or

more) general questions. These links, based on the structure of the evaluation matrix (Table 3-1), are

presented in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2 consists of two parallel tables of two columns each. The general evaluation questions in the

left table are mapped to the relevant detailed questions (‘Linked questions’). The sub-areas relevant

for a certain standard criterion are also mapped to the detailed questions in the right two columns of

Table 3-2. It should be noted that there is no direct link between sub-areas and general questions.

24 Detailed questions are headings for a more precise question list that was developed in an earlier step of this

study. These are numbered according to the five criteria (A to E) and eight sub-areas (1 to 8), e.g. B41. The second digit in the number indicates which particular question is addressed, i.e. “1” in B41 means the first question in the set B4.


31

Table 3-1: Overview of evaluation criteria, sub-areas and questions

Evaluation criterion

Sub-area

A. Relevance B. Effectiveness C. Efficiency D. Coherence E. EU added

value

1. Impact on the environment

--

B11 Improve environmental performance

B12 Positive changes

B13 Negative changes

-- -- --

2. Impact on functioning of the internal market

A21 Most frequent use for batteries

A22 Design features

A23 Consumer expectations

B21 Functioning of internal market

B22 Consumer information and awareness

C21 Operators

C22 Cost and benefits at national level

C23 Cost and benefits at EU level

-- --

3. Appropriateness of further risk management measures for heavy metals

A31 Status of hazardous substances

A32 Battery labelling

B31 Hazardous substances prohibition

B32 Battery labelling

C31 Hazardous substances

C32 Battery labelling -- --

4. Appropriateness of the minimum collection targets

--

B41 Waste batteries collection rates

B42 Collection schemes

B43 Remove batteries

-- -- --

5. Possibility of introducing further targets

A51 Resource efficiency

A52 Calculation methodologies

-- -- -- --

6. Appropriateness of the minimum recycling requirements

--

B61 Recycling efficiency targets

B62 Ensure recycling within EU or abroad

B63 Prohibit disposal

B64 BAT

-- -- --

7. Extended producer responsibility

A71 Safety risks --

C71 Good practices for cost effectiveness

C72 Less cost-effective provisions

-- --


32

Evaluation criterion

Sub-area

A. Relevance B. Effectiveness C. Efficiency D. Coherence E. EU added

value

8. Emerging trends and new developments

A81 Emerging trends

A82 New battery systems

A83 New applications for batteries

A84 New recycling technologies

-- -- -- --

Other, cannot be allocated to a specific sub-area

-- -- --

D1 Interaction

D2 Reporting obligations

D3 Internal consistency

E1 Effectiveness

E2 Efficiency

E3 Synergy

E4 Other


33

Table 3-2: Linkages between general evaluation questions per criterion and detailed evaluation questions

General evaluation questions per criterion Linked questions

Sub-areas Detailed evaluation questions

Relevance A Relevance

1) How well do the original objectives of the Directive correspond to current environmental, technical, economic and social conditions and needs, as regards the use of batteries within the EU? How relevant are the provisions of the Batteries Directive for achieving its environment and market-related objectives?

A31, A32, A51 2. Impact on functioning of the internal market

A21 Most frequent use for batteries

A22 Design features

A23 Consumer expectations

2) To what extent do the problems addressed by the Batteries Directive still persist within the EU?

A21, A22, A31 3. Appropriateness of further risk management measures for heavy metals

A31 Status of hazardous substances

A32 Battery labelling

3) How well adapted is the Directive to (subsequent) technical and scientific progress?

A21, A22, A23, A31, A32, A52,A71, A81, A82, A83, A84

5. Possibility of introducing further targets

A51 Resource efficiency

A52 Calculation methodologies

7. Extended producer responsibility

A71 Safety risks

8. Emerging trends and new developments

A81 Emerging trends

A82 New battery systems

A83 New applications for batteries

A84 New recycling technologies

Effectiveness B Effectiveness

1) What progress has been made over time towards achieving the objectives and targets set out in the Directive? Have the environmental impacts of batteries been reduced since the introduction of the Directive? To what extent is this progress in line with initial expectations? In particular, what progress has been made to achieve the collection, recycling and recycling efficiency targets?

B11, B31, B32, B41, B61, B62

1. Impact on the environment

B11 Improve environmental performance

B12 Positive changes

B13 Negative changes


34



2) What has been the impact of the Directive towards ensuring the achievement of the objectives? Which main factors (e.g. implementation by Member States, action by stakeholders) have contributed to or stood in the way of achieving any of these objectives?

B11, B22, B42, B43, B63, B64


B21 Functioning of internal market

B22 Consumer information and awareness

3) Beyond these objectives, what other significant changes both positive and negative can be linked to the Directive, if any? Is there any identifiable contribution to achieving the objectives of EU policies on Climate Change, Resource Efficiency, internal market, innovation and job creation or consumer's rights? On the contrary, does the implementation of the Directive undermine the achievement of the objectives of these policies?

B12, B13, B21 3. Appropriateness of further risk management measures for heavy metals

B31 Hazardous substances prohibition

B32 Battery labelling

4. Appropriateness of the minimum collection targets

B41 Waste batteries collection rates

B42 Collection schemes

B43 Remove batteries

6. Appropriateness of the minimum recycling requirements

B61 Recycling efficiency targets

B62 Ensure recycling within EU or abroad

B63 Prohibit disposal

B64 BAT

Efficiency C Efficiency

1) What are the costs and benefits (monetary and non-monetary) associated with the implementation of the Directive for the different stakeholders and society at large, at national and EU level? Are there significant distributional differences between Member States?

C21, C22, C23, C31


C21 Operators

C22 Cost and benefits at national level

C23 Cost and benefits at EU level

2) To what extent are the costs associated with the Directive proportionate to the benefits it has brought? How are costs and benefits distributed between the different sectors involved?

C21, C23, C31, C32

3. Appropriateness of further risk management measures for heavy metals

C31 Hazardous substances

C32 Battery labelling

3) Any good or bad practices that can be identified in terms of efficiency in the achievement of results? If there are significant cost/benefit differences between Member States, what is causing them?

C71, C72, C31 7. Extended producer responsibility

C71 Good practices for cost effectiveness

C72 Less cost-effective provisions


35



4) Is there any evidence that the implementation of the Directive has caused unnecessary regulatory burden or complexity? What factors identify this burden or complexity as unnecessary or excessive?

C22

5) To what extent does the Directive support the EU internal market and the creation of a level playing field for economic operators, especially SMEs?

C21, C71

6) To what extent do emerging business-models (on e.g. transport or energy distribution) accommodate to the Directive?

C21, C71

Coherence D Coherence

1) To what extent does the Directive complement or interact with other EU sectoral instruments? Are there de facto or de jure overlaps, contradictions, missing links?

D1, D2 Other, cannot be allocated to a specific sub-area

D1 Interaction

D2 Reporting obligations

D3 Internal consistency

2) To what extent is the Directive internally consistent and coherent? Are there any overlaps, contradictions, missing links...?

D3

EU added value E EU added value

1) What has been the EU added value of the Batteries Directive compared to what could be achieved by Member States at national level? To what extent do the issues addressed by the Directive continue to require action at EU level?

A23

E1, E2, E3

Other, cannot be allocated to a specific sub-area

E1 Effectiveness

E2 Efficiency

E3 Synergy

E4 Other

2) Is the EU single market for EU batteries fully functioning? Is the Directive responsible for any barriers that prevent trade of batteries and waste batteries?

B21

E4


37

4 Consultation and evaluation

The main activities and methods applied for consultation and evaluation are presented and described in

the subsequent sub-sections. Chapter 4.1 provides an overview of the evaluation and its main activities.

Chapter 4.2 focuses on the stakeholder consultation and its tools. Other important tasks of the

evaluation process are covered in separate chapters (e.g. evaluation questions, current situation, etc.)

4.1 The evaluation process and its main activities

Establishing the evaluation framework was the starting point of the evaluation study and thus

influenced all subsequent tasks and steered the evaluation process. The main activities related to the

evaluation framework were reviewing the intervention logic (chapter 2.2), developing the evaluation

questions and the evaluation matrix (chapter 3), and developing a methodology for consultation of the

stakeholders and a related working and time plan. As requested by the ToR, the evaluation framework

has been developed and adapted several times to reflect the interim results and other difficulties

found.

This study’s online presentation (www.batteryevaluation-study.eu) provides information about the

overall evaluation process and its progress. A platform website, ready for online publication in March

2017, allowed project-relevant information to be easily disseminated to project members and

stakeholders.

The assessment of the national implementation reports of the Member States was another task resulting

in a separate project report: the Implementation Report (Trinomics 2017).

The review of relevant information and evidence allowed building a knowledge base for preparing the

“Current Situation” (see chapter 5) and the subsequent evaluation. The main tasks were completed by

June 2017 and the database of information sources developed in parallel. However, the list of

information sources was continuously further developed until the end of the project.

Within the evaluation process, the consultation of stakeholders aimed at capturing the views and ideas

of relevant stakeholders, allowing them to provide relevant and robust information for assessing the

performance and suitability of the Directive. The consultation strategy25 outlines the different steps

and consultation activities which fed into the evaluation:

Stakeholder survey and a related Expert Group meeting on Waste (Batteries Directive); the

meeting was held in June 2017 and answers to the survey were received until July 2017.

Targeted interviews; held during June and July 2017.

Public consultation; held for 12 weeks from September to November 2017.

Extraordinary meeting of the Expert Group on Waste (Batteries Directive); held in March 2018

gathering final comments until early April 2018.

25 The Consultation Strategy can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/batteries/pdf/ConsultationStrategy_finaldraft_ENV_19JUL.pdf


38

4.2 Consultation of stakeholders

4.2.1 Mapping stakeholders

The main stakeholder groups were categorised as follows:

Public administrations: The experience gathered by National Administrations in the implementation of

the Directive is very relevant and highly specific. National Administrations were consulted through the

participation of the members of the Expert Group on Waste, formed by experts designated by Member

States.

Industry associations (producers, waste batteries collectors and recyclers, including small and medium

enterprises): The experience and knowledge of industry is very important to assess the impact of the

Directive on the different stages of battery production and use. Industrial operators constitute a well-

structured sector. Several organizations at the EU-level cover the whole life cycle of batteries and are

able to convey the different interests and views of their members.

General public, consumers, environmental protection organisations: The views of end-users and

consumers who directly experience the impact of the Batteries Directive in their day–to-day life are

essential for assessing if the Directive has met its objectives. Of particular interest are views that go

beyond purely technical considerations. The contribution of environmental NGOs is of high interest to

link the particular case of batteries with broader considerations concerning the circular economy,

pollution, waste management, environmental legislation, etc.

Other stakeholders (e.g. academia, think-thanks, etc.): Those stakeholders with an interest in the

Batteries Directive could be consulted on specific issues.

4.2.2 Public consultation

A public EU stakeholder consultation was held between 6 September 2017 and 28 November 2017,

lasting 12 weeks and targeting all citizens and organisations. Among others, organisations and

individuals with relevance to the Batteries Directive were identified at an earlier stage in the study (see

chapter 4.2.1) and invited by the consultants to take part in the consultation. The European

Commission also sent participation invitations to various parties. A number of organisations were as

well contacted directly and asked to help disseminate the survey link. To maximise the response rate, a

link to the survey was placed on the Waste Policy webpages within the EUROPA website and was made

publicly available. Among other goals, the public consultation sought to engage with stakeholders who

may not have been included in other forms of consultation.

Two separate questionnaires were developed for the purposes of the public consultation: one for

citizens with a general interest on batteries and another one for citizens and organisations with specific

interest and knowledge on batteries and waste batteries. The latter was targeted at a broad range of

stakeholder groups, including public authorities and bodies responsible for implementing and/or

enforcing the Directive, industry and sectorial associations representing companies concerned,

environmental and consumer NGOs, universities and research institutes, and any other organisations

interested in responding to the survey. Both questionnaires were made available in English, German and

French and uploaded to the EU survey tool. Additionally, stakeholders could provide written input,


39

which allowed the submission of position papers and any other written comments as well as additional

data. By the end of the consultation period, 151 participants had responded to the consultation:

15 respondents submitted the completed survey for “citizens with a general interest on batteries

and waste batteries”;

136 respondents submitted the completed survey for “citizens and organisations with specific

interest and knowledge on batteries and waste batteries”; and

27 respondents submitted additional written contributions.

4.2.3 Survey for members of the Expert Group on Waste (Batteries Directive)

A questionnaire was developed and circulated to all members of the Expert Group on Waste (Batteries

Directive). The questionnaire was structured according to the standard evaluation criteria. Special

focus was placed on the reporting of battery data. At the group’s meeting held on 20 June 2017 in

Brussels some of the aspects of the questionnaire were discussed. Group members should submit their

contributions by the end of July 2017. In total, nine Member States provided answers to the

questionnaire, see Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Overview on submitted answers to the questionnaire

Member State Answer

AT, Austria Answers to the questionnaire (incl. data on batteries in residual waste)

BE, Belgium Answers to the questionnaire, data file

BG, Bulgaria Answers to the questionnaire (incl. data)

DE, Germany Answers to the questionnaire (incl. data), additional email

DK, Denmark Answers to the questionnaire (incl. data)

ES, Spain Answers to the questionnaire, data file

FI, Finland Answers to the questionnaire, study on waste, email with data

HR, Croatia Answers to the questionnaire

PT, Portugal Answers to the questionnaire

Additional information and studies on batteries in municipal waste were provided by five Member States

(BE, DK, FI, LU, NL). MS also submitted data on industrial and automotive batteries placed on the

market and collected.

4.2.4 Interviews

Targeted interviews (seven telephone interviews) were performed to allow direct correspondence with

relevant stakeholders, namely industry associations, consumer organisations and environmental NGOs.

Interviews were used to validate and clarify aspects understood from initial data gathering as well as

aspects that had emerged through cross-referencing data from different sources. Interviews were also

used to address areas where more detailed understanding and additional information were required.

Specific guidelines for each interview were developed and submitted to interviewees in advance to

allow them to become familiar with the aspects to be discussed. Minutes were prepared to document

the interviews and to provide information for the evaluation report.

The identification and selection of stakeholders to be interviewed is described in chapter 4.2.1. The

selected stakeholders should ensure that all battery life cycle stages are considered and that


40

representation of all stakeholder groups concerned is guaranteed. An overview of the interviewed

stakeholders is provided in Table 4-2. Interviews were held in English and were finalized by the end of

July 2017.

Table 4-2: Overview on targeted interviews

Type and name of stakeholder Method of consultation

EU Association representing Industry/ batteries; European Battery Recycling Association (EBRA)

Interview guideline / telephone interview

EU Association representing Industry/ batteries; European Portable Battery Association (EPBA)


EU Association representing Industry/ batteries; International Association for Advanced Rechargeable Batteries (Recharge)


EU Association representing Industry/ collectors; European association of national collection schemes for batteries (EUCOBAT)


EU Association representing Industry/cars; European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA)


EU Association representing Industry/ producer; Association of European Automotive and Industrial Battery Manufacturers (Eurobat)


EU Association representing Consumers; European Consumer Organization (BEUC) Interview guideline / telephone interview

Finding an environmental NGO with a clear focus on batteries proved rather difficult. As the EEB

completed the public consultation and provided comprehensive written input, it was decided that no

additional interview was required.

Regarding consumer organisations, only the European Consumer Organization BEUC was identified. No

representatives at an EU level could be identified for organizations of SME (small and medium

enterprises). However, as SME are also represented in the different EU battery organizations, this was

considered to not be of relevance.

Generally, the number of EU organisations dealing with batteries is rather restricted. It has become

evident that in principle all relevant stakeholders at the EU level provided input to the public

consultation and in particular also provided additional written submissions. Hence, input to the public

consultation and the interviews overlap to a very large extent. As a consequence, the results from the

public consultation, the interviews and the stakeholder survey can be confidently assumed to provide

comprehensive and sufficient information on the stakeholders’ opinions and positions.

4.2.5 Meetings and Workshops

Expert Group meeting on Waste

A meeting of the Expert Group on Waste (Batteries Directive) of the European Commission was held on

20 June 2017 in Brussels. The initial results of the assessment of the national measures for the

implementation of the Directive were presented. In addition, a detailed presentation of the information

requested from Member States took also place.

Stakeholder workshop


41

An extraordinary meeting of the Expert Group on Waste (Batteries Directive) was held on 14 March

2018, wherein the initial results of the study in support of the evaluation were presented and discussed

and further feedback was offered. The workshop was also held to gather evidence related to specific

evaluation areas.

5 Description of the current situation

5.1 Batteries – figures and information

To explore the current situation of batteries in the EU requires quantifying the amounts of batteries

related to battery production, use, collection and recycling. The main purpose of analysing the amounts

of batteries within their different life cycle stages, and thus tracing battery flows, is to provide an

overall picture of the batteries sector and a better understanding of the interconnections of battery

flows, stakeholders and processes.

To start the analysis, mass flows of batteries for the year 2015 were analysed; an overview is presented

in Figure 5-1 for the EU28. The concept of the mass flow diagram for the EU28 in Figure 5-1 is based on

the following three dimensions:

The different types of batteries, as defined by the Batteries Directive: portable, industrial and


The further differentiation between types of batteries based on chemistry and as defined by the

Directive: Pb-acid, NiCd and other batteries.

The different stages of the battery mass flows: placed on the market (PoM), losses (meaning the

gap between ‘placed on the market’ and ‘collected’26), collected and recycling.

Not considering service life of batteries in this flow diagram permits assumptions of a market where

increasing or decreasing effects are not relevant for the overall picture. However, when establishing

collection targets for different battery chemistries, such effects would need more attention (Eucobat

2017).

The applied approach and the assumptions used for calculating the mass flows of batteries are

explained in chapter 12.1.1.

26 For the mass flow diagram losses are defined according to the following mathematical formula: ‘losses’ = ‘placed on the market’ - ‘collected’. Batteries disposed of in municipal waste, batteries not removed from WEEE, hoarding etc. are included in losses. More details on losses are detailed later in the text.


42

Figure 5-1: Mass flow diagram of batteries; EU28 for reference year 2015 (in tonnes)

Sources: Mass flow diagrams – Oeko-Institut; Data: Eurostat, several additional sources and own calculations.


43

5.1.1 Results on the battery mass flows for the EU28

The EU28 mass flow diagram (Figure 5-1) is intended to summarise the movements of batteries.

In broad terms, automotive batteries (for starting, lighting, ignition = SLI) represent by far the largest

share in weight of all batteries placed on the EU market in 2015. They amount to about 1.10 million

tonnes of lead-acid batteries, which correspond to 61 % of the weight of all batteries placed on the

market (PoM). The total amount of batteries PoM in 2015 is about 1.8 million tonnes. The second

largest share, 27 % or about 0.49 million tonnes, is from industrial batteries and accounts for nearly half

the weight of automotive batteries. The remaining 12 %, 212 000 t, of batteries fall into the category

‘portable batteries’.

About 6 700 t of all portable batteries are lead-acid batteries and another almost 4 000 t are NiCd

batteries. The remaining ca. 201 000 t or 95 % belong to the category ‘Other batteries’. Thereof, about

37 000 t are portable Li-ion batteries.

Mass flows of portable batteries show that the amounts of NiCd (and lead-acid batteries) are rather

small. Data on ‘placed on the market’ reported to Eurostat (voluntary reporting from about a dozen MS)

for previous years indicate an overall decrease of NiCd batteries in the EU. However, it remains to be

seen whether or when the prohibition of portable NiCd batteries, which began January 2017, will be

mirrored in the reported data for ‘placed on the market’.

In 2015, 84 000 t of waste portable batteries were collected in the EU28. The amount of collected

waste NiCd batteries is higher than the amount placed on the market. This higher amount of collected

waste batteries may be due to the phasing out of NiCd batteries.

The difference in total amounts of all portable batteries between ‘placed on the market’ and

‘collected’ – here termed “losses” - is about 128 000 t of batteries for the year 2015 (not considering

the service life of the batteries). Potential explanations for these losses are:

Batteries disposed of in municipal waste;

Hoarding of batteries by the end consumer (longer life time of batteries or more batteries are accumulated, e.g. increase of electric appliances with batteries incorporated);

Losses through WEEE (batteries are not removed from WEEE and are instead shredded together with the appliances); and

Export (outside the EU) of used EEE with their batteries still incorporated.

No reporting on collected automotive batteries is available for the EU. Therefore, the amount of

collected batteries is derived by assuming that nearly all batteries placed on the market will be

collected and sent to recycling. Only a smaller amount, about 21 000 t or about 2 % of all automotive

batteries, is estimated to be unavailable for collection due to a net export of used vehicles and end-of-

life vehicles (ELV); see chapter 5.1.8.

No data is directly available for collected industrial batteries. Therefore, their amount was estimated

by calculating backwards: recycled (and collected) portable and automotive batteries were subtracted

from the totals (Eurostat data); the remaining amount was allocated to industrial batteries. The

difference between the amounts of batteries in ‘placed on the market’ and ‘collected’ results in about

56 000 t of losses compared to about 436 000 t being collected; see chapter 5.1.7.


44

Generally, data availability is best for portable batteries. A detailed analysis for potential losses is not

possible because of missing data, for example on export of used EEE and losses, where batteries are not

removed from WEEE. Despite these shortcomings, it is obvious that a relevant amount of (portable)

waste batteries end up in municipal waste.

The situation is worse for automotive and especially for industrial batteries. For both categories, no

reporting obligations exist. As a consequence, data on automotive and industrial batteries mass flows

are very limited and their reliability, in particular for industrial batteries, is low. This is of even higher

significance, as automotive and industrial batteries are by far responsible for the highest share of mass

flows.

5.1.2 Chemistry and application of batteries

Battery chemistries and applications are considered to be similar throughout the EU within the same

battery types, as defined by the Directive (i.e. portable, automotive and industrial). Shares of certain

battery types and their applications may possibly differ depending on the specific Member State.

Nevertheless, without additional data available, the presented examples for chemistry and application

of batteries are considered representative for the whole EU.

Information on the chemistries of batteries placed on the market in the EU and their applications is

displayed in Table 5-1. The shares of the chemistries are presented in weight-based percentages. When

considering different types and chemistries of batteries, it must be noted that there are significant

differences in the weight per unit of battery. Consequently, a presentation of market data on batteries

varies largely, depending on whether tonnes of batteries or units of batteries are presented.

Automotive batteries (Starting, Lighting, Ignition - SLI) are almost solely lead-acid batteries (upper part

of Table 5-1); no other chemistries are so far relevant on the EU market; see chapter 5.1.5 for more

details. Only a very small amount of Li-ion batteries (0.001 % of the vehicle fleet) are used for special

SLI applications in high performance sports cars (Oeko-Institut and Eunomia 2016).

Among industrial batteries, four different battery types are relevant: Pb-acid, Li-ion, NiCd and NiMH.

The data on battery chemistry (left part of Table 5-1) represents the EU market and is based on battery

mass flows in Figure 5-1. The Li-ion battery share is based on estimates from Table 5-2 for electric cars,

hybrid cars, E-bikes and electrical energy storage.

Applications (right part of Table 5-1) for industrial batteries are based on data for the reference year

2010 in Germany (GRS 2012). 2015 data on electric cars, hybrid cars and E-bikes were added (KBA 2015,

Statista 2015). All mobility and transport applications together account for about half of all industrial

applications: about 8 % electric cars, hybrid cars and E-bikes; 27 % forklifts and similar applications;

11 % railway vehicles; and about 5 % other transport applications. The other half are applications

related to power supply: e.g. 30 % USV, 8 % back-up, emergency power supply and 6 % emergency

lighting.


45

Table 5-1: Application and chemistry of batteries (weight-based shares in %)

Automotive batteries (EU), industrial battery market (chemistry in the EU; application in Germany) and portable battery market (chemistry and application in Germany); reference year 2015; bc = button cell

chemistry application

Automotive batteries (EU) 100% Applications (EU)

Pb-acid 100% SLI battery (starting, lighting, ignition) 100%

Industrial batteries (EU) 100% Applications (DE)

Pb-acid 90% E-cars 5 %

Ni-Cd, rechargeable 1% hybrid cars 1 %

Other: 9% E-bikes 1 %

Li-ion 8% forklifts etc. 27 %

other chemistry 1% wheelchairs/scooters 3 %

cleaning and other technical vehicles 1 %

golf carts 0.4 %

railway vehicles 11 %

UPS (uninterrupted power supply) 30 %

back-up, emergency power supply 8 %

emergency lighting 6 %

security technology (e.g. alarm systems, video surveillance, access control)

2 %

other stationary systems (e.g. renewable energy, telecommunication, traffic signal systems)

2 %

pasture fence 0.4 %

hospital beds 0.2 %

warehouse/merchandise management 0.2 %

others 1 %

Portable batteries (DE) 100% Applications (DE)

Pb-acid, rechargeable 3% unknown 3 %

Ni-Cd, rechargeable 1%

cordless power tools for turning, milling, sanding, grinding, sawing, cutting, shearing, drilling, making holes, punching, hammering, riveting, screwing, polishing or similar processing of wood, metal and other materials, as well as for mowing, cutting and other gardening activities

1 %

Other 96%

Primary: 75%

toys, flashlights, remote controls, hearing aids, watches, normal household applications, others

75 %

Alkaline (thereof about 0.8% bc) 61%

Zinc carbon 10%

Lithium (thereof about 37% bc) 3%

Silver oxide, zinc air (100% bc) 1%

Rechargeable 22%

Li-ion (thereof about 0.2% button cells)

16%

cell phones 2 %

portable PC 10 %

cordless power tools for turning, milling, sanding, grinding, sawing, cutting, shearing, drilling, making holes, punching, hammering, riveting, screwing, polishing or similar processing of wood, metal and other materials, as well as for mowing, cutting and other gardening activities.

1 %

video games, camcorders, home cordless phones, toothbrush, cleaners, MP3 players, portable medical devices, others.

2 %

NIMH (thereof about 0.6% button cells)

6%

home cordless phones, toothbrush, cleaners, portable medical devices, others

2 %

portable PC 1 %

single cell market 3 %

other rechargeable 0.1%

Source: table Oeko-Institut (discrepancies in column 100% result from rounding); data sources are given in the text


46

Data on portable batteries (the lower part of Table 5-1) is similar for Germany (ERP 2015, GRS 2015, IFA

2015, Rebat 2015) and France (ADEME 2016). Rechargeable lead-acid and NiCd batteries together

account for about 4 % of all portable batteries placed on the market in 2015. Primary batteries account

for about three-quarters of all portable batteries. Primary alkaline batteries are the most important

portable batteries (61 % in Germany; 64 % in France). Amongst the rechargeable batteries, Li-ion

batteries are the most relevant portable batteries (16 % in Germany; 18 % in France).

Applications of portable batteries are mainly based on information found in Recharge, Avicenne (2010),

as this source provides the most detailed and country-specific data for rechargeable batteries.

According to this data from reference year 2009 and the sources ERP (2015), GRS (2015), IFA (2015),

and Rebat (2015), portable PCs account for about 11 % of all portable batteries (Li-ion and NiMH),

which is almost half of all rechargeable batteries. For comparison, the source SagisEPR and Perchards,

EPBA 2016 states that about 30 % of all portable batteries are used in IT equipment and consumer

electronics.

Applications of rechargeable Li-ion and NiMH batteries in video games, camcorders, home cordless

phones, toothbrushes, cleaners, MP3 players, portable medical devices and other appliances account

for about 4 % of all portable batteries. Cordless power tools, which use rechargeable NiCd and Li-ion

and are used for turning, milling, sanding, grinding, sawing, cutting, shearing, drilling, etc. as well as

for mowing, cutting and other gardening activities only account for about 3 % of all portable batteries.

Typical applications for primary batteries, accounting for 75 % of all portable batteries, include toys,

flashlights, remote controls, hearing aids, watches and normal household applications.

Information on the Li-ion battery market in the EU28 is presented in Table 5-227. The most relevant

application for Li-ion batteries is in electric vehicles, accounting for about 30 000 t. Li-ion batteries in

portable PCs account for about 24 000 t and thus present the second-highest share.

Table 5-2: Application of Li-ion batteries (tonnes), battery market in EU28; reference year 2015

Sources: Column 1: (Elwert 2015), (Recharge, Avicenne 2010), (Statista 2015), (EcoBatRec 2016) and calculations

from Oeko-Institut; Column 2: (ProSUM 2018); table compiled by Oeko-Institut

27 The analysis refers to Column 1, author’s own calculations. For comparison data, column 2 presents data

extracted from ProSUM.

Placed on the EU28 market Tonnes ProSUM Tonnes

portable batteries 36 950 34 531

mobile phones 4 700 5 354

portable PC / tablets 24 000 19 381

power tools 3 100 4 276

other consumer 5 150 5 520

industrial batteries 37 956 36 165

E-bikes 4 142 1 446

electric vehicles (BEV, PHEV) 30 448 28 044

electrical energy storage / other 3 366 6 675

Total 74 906 70 969


47

Li-ion batteries account for about 75 000 t of batteries placed on the market in 2015 (for comparison,

ProSUM data indicates about 71 000 t), compared to only about 10 000 t of NiCd batteries (mainly

industrial batteries). Portable Li-ion batteries already in 2015 had a share of about 17 % of the total

portable batteries, compared to only 4 % of lead-acid and NiCd batteries together.

5.1.3 Critical raw materials in batteries

The use of critical raw materials28 in batteries was analysed in European Commission (2018) and JRC

(2017). The main results are presented in Table 5-3. Several of the materials contained in batteries

(e.g. cobalt, natural graphite) are considered "critical" according to the European Commission

(European Commission 2017). These critical raw materials are important for battery chemistries and

especially for making Li-ion batteries. Yet, none of these materials is mentioned in the Batteries

Directive and there is no requirement for recycling these materials. While the value of cobalt provides

sufficient motivation to recover it from waste batteries, graphite is usually not recycled.

Table 5-3: Critical raw materials in battery applications

Sources: (European Commission 2018), (JRC 2017)

Lithium, which might in future become a critical raw material, is another main battery material of

highest relevance for new applications in Li-ion batteries. The study (Oeko-Institut 2017) examines

whether specific raw materials (i.e. lithium, cobalt, nickel and graphite for batteries) are available in

sufficient quantities for large-scale production of electric vehicles. A main result of the study is29:

Temporary supply bottlenecks and price increases are possible, particularly for cobalt and

lithium. This is predominantly attributable to two factors: First, some new mining sites may not

be operational in due time. Second, source countries may not be able to export raw materials in

sufficient quantities at all times.

28

Critical Raw Materials (CRMs) are defined as raw materials of both high importance to the EU economy and high

risk associated with their supply. 29

Similar results are published by (Blagoeva et al. 2016)

Critical

raw

material

Share of

batteries

from

global use

Comment / battery type

antimony 32 % Pb-acid, has declined due to new battery

technologies

cobalt 44 % Li-ion

natural

graphite 10 % different batteries, e.g. Li-ion

indium 5 % alkaline

lanthanum 10 % NiMH

cerium 6 % NiMH


48

5.1.4 Metal recycled from waste batteries contributing to supply: example cobalt

The recycling of waste batteries offers an important source for secondary raw materials. For instance,

secondary cobalt from waste Li-ion batteries can significantly contribute to the cobalt supply, as

demonstrated in the following sample calculation:

In 2015, about 37 000 t portable Li-ion batteries were placed on the market in the EU. Based on the

assumption that all of these Li-ion batteries would be collected and recycled (with a 95 % rate of

recycled Co content, see chapter 5.4.5), about 1 500 t of secondary cobalt could potentially be

recovered. This amount of cobalt would be sufficient for manufacturing approximately 200 000 Li-ion

batteries for battery electric vehicles (BEV)30 and thus sufficient for all BEV placed on the market in

Europe in 2015.

Today only a limited amount of portable Li-ion batteries are collected. The much bigger Li-ion

batteries from hybrid vehicles or BEV offer a future, more accessible source for secondary cobalt.

Such secondary cobalt can reduce the environmental effects from mining primary cobalt and

contribute to diversifying the sources for cobalt.

When considering cobalt use for electric vehicles in practice, some aspects need to be considered:

Electric vehicles are considered the main driver for the expected strong increase of the Li-ion

battery market (see chapter 5.1.5),

Li-ion batteries from electric vehicles will be available for recycling only after a time delay

because of the long lifetime of these batteries. A global scenario of the cobalt demand for Li-

ion electric vehicle batteries therefore assumes that secondary material from L-ion vehicle

batteries will account for 10 % of cobalt usage in electric vehicles in 2030 and 40 % in 2050

(Oeko-Institut 2017).

Secondary cobalt from battery recycling in the EU will not automatically feed into the (currently

non-existent) EU battery cell production but simply become available as an additional commodity

on global markets.

5.1.5 Emerging trends

Li-ion battery market - trends

The most dynamic markets for portable batteries are IT applications. Roland Berger (2012) provides a

market forecast for notebooks, mobile phones and tablets on a global level. Sales of notebooks are

expected to increase from 1 335 million battery cells in 2011 to about 2 714 million battery cells in

2020. This corresponds to an increase of 200 % within 10 years. Battery cells in mobile phones will

increase from 1 573 million cells to 2 529 million cells during the same period, an increase of about

160 %. The highest increase, 550 %, although with a lower total amount, is expected for tablets: from

154 million cells in 2011 to 850 million cells in 2020.

30 This scenario considers exclusively LNMC batteries as portable batteries and batteries for BEV; Co-content

ca. 4 % (Oeko-Institut and ZSW 2015) and 156 kg battery weight for BEV (ProSUM 2017).


49

Li-ion batteries are used for all IT applications, also summarized under the category “connectivity”. IT

is not the only application for Li-ion batteries at present for which an outstanding increase is expected

in the years to come. Other applications with a predicted increase include all electric vehicles and e-

bikes as well as electricity storage for renewable energies and grid applications. Applications in robots,

such as lawnmowers and vacuum cleaners, are another already existing category with huge growth

potential. Another application for Li-ion batteries is drones.

Umicore31 expects continuous growth for the Li-ion battery market of more than fourfold from 2015 to

2025 (Umicore 2017). The electrification of the mobility sector (vehicles) is identified as the main

driver of growth.

The outlook on the global mobility sector is presented in Figure 5-2. The scenario describes the increase

of global Li-ion battery capacity from 2015 to 2050 for different mobility applications.


years 2015, 2030 and 2050

Source: calculations Oeko-Institut based on (Oeko-Institut 2017)

While the amounts of certain battery types are expected to increase, amounts of other battery types

might decrease. For example, automotive lead-acid batteries might be decreasinglyy used, whereas Li-

ion batteries in electric vehicles might be increasingly applied. Or even more, automotive lead-acid

batteries might no longer be applied at all, should the exemption from the ELV prohibition of lead in

vehicles be revoked. NiMH batteries might also be affected by changes in the mobility sector. A main

application of NiMH batteries is in hybrid vehicles, which Li-ion batteries are expected to replace.

New types of automotive batteries

For cars, 48-volt battery systems are a new development. Such battery systems are required because

of:

1) Stricter CO2-limits (use of start-stop-systems and recuperation systems) and

31 Umicore NV/SA is a Belgian materials technology and recycling group headquartered in Brussels. The company

employs almost 10,000 people worldwide.


50

2) Increasing electricity demand in cars (IT-systems, air-conditioning compressor, electric

heaters, steering systems, etc.)

A 48-volt battery most likely means a Li-ion battery. While Autoweek (2016) states that 48-volt systems

will replace the current 12-volt Pb-acid battery, other sources describe adding a 48-volt system to the

existing 12-volt system.

Online sales of batteries

Online trading has steadily increased in recent years. Batteries are sold directly as separate products or

incorporated into other products (e.g. electronic appliances). It is questionable to what extent these

batteries are registered as placed on the market. No information on the relevance of the amount of

batteries sold online is available. This has a direct impact on PRO (Producer Responsibility Organisation)

financing, including “free-riding” and the collection rate, i.e. batteries sold online are not included in

placed-on-the-market reporting but are included in collection amounts, thereby impacting collection

rates.

5.1.6 Batteries in municipal waste

According to Article 7 of the Batteries Directive, the objective of minimising the negative impact of

waste batteries on the environment also implies “…minimis[ing] the disposal of batteries and

accumulators as mixed municipal waste…”. The battery mass flow diagram of the EU28 for the year

2015 presented in Figure 5-1 shows the large amounts of portable batteries found in municipal waste: in

the EU28 approximately 35 000 tonnes, which corresponds to 27 % of all losses, 41 % of the amount of

collected waste batteries and 16 % of the amount of placed on the market in 2015.

The calculation of these amounts of batteries in municipal waste are based on waste analyses of seven

Member States (AT, BE, DE, DK, IE, LU, NL). Data was provided with MS questionnaires, literature and

other sources (AVAW 2017), (Steiermark 2018), (Bigum 2016), (Luxemburg 2014), (Argus 2017). Results

of the waste analysis are mainly provided as a percentage (%) of batteries in household waste or in kg of

batteries per capita and year (kg batteries/(p*a)) and are based on different years.

The ca. 35 000 tonnes of batteries calculated to be in waste results from calculating weighted averages

based on the data of the seven MS (see chapter 12.1.4, two different calculation methods were

applied). BE, for example, with one of the highest collection rates of all MS, makes only a comparably

small contribution to the weighted average. Data from other countries with low collection rates and at

the same time large populations, however, are missing, e.g. IT, ES, UK, FR or PL. One might assume

that an average including these MS might result in even higher amounts of batteries in municipal waste.

5.1.7 Collection of industrial batteries

The Batteries Directive does not have a target for the collection of waste industrial batteries; however,

there is a prohibition on disposal or incineration of industrial batteries.

The Commission Service document ‘Frequently Asked Questions on Directive 2006/66/EU on Batteries

and Accumulators’ (European Commission 2014) assume that “nearly 100 % of industrial and automotive

batteries are already being collected”. However, preliminary findings from analyses of the current

situation in the EU indicate that differences between ‘placed on the market’ and ‘collected’ occur for

industrial batteries. Thus, in practice, less than 100 % of industrial batteries might be collected. As


51

displayed in Figure 5-1 about 491 000 t of industrial batteries were placed on the market (PoM) in the

EU28 in 2015 and 435 000 t were collected. The difference is of about 56 000 t (11 %). Discrepancies

between the amounts of batteries placed on the market and collected might be explained, at least in

part, based on the following arguments:

The long lifespan of batteries in industrial applications (up to 20 years, according to (ADEME

2016)).

Changes (increase, decrease, fluctuation) of the yearly data in the timeline for placed on the

market as well as collected batteries might increase or decrease the difference between the

amounts of placed on the market and collected batteries.

The export of used batteries or of used products containing batteries. According to (ADEME 2016),

significant amounts of industrial batteries placed on the market in France end their life cycle in

third countries.

According to French placed on the market data, industrial Pb-acid batteries account for only about

one-fourth of all industrial battery units, although on a weight basis they have a share of about

three-fourths of all industrial batteries. Against this background, the assumption that nearly 100 %

of industrial batteries are already being collected, given that Pb-acid recycling is economically

profitable, should be questioned.

As regards the collection of waste industrial batteries, the Batteries Directive (Article 8) only

establishes that:

3. Member States shall ensure that producers of industrial batteries and accumulators, or third parties

acting on their behalf, shall not refuse to take back waste industrial batteries and accumulators from

end-users, regardless of chemical composition and origin.

The Batteries Directive does not provide further details on the collection of industrial batteries, in

particular for returning industrial batteries. This is especially significant for industrial batteries used by

private consumers (e.g. for e-bikes, e-cars, renewable energy storages).

This becomes even more important in connection with the expectation that Li-ion batteries will be

increasingly applied in the near future as e-mobility is more frequently used. The weak and lacking

provisions in the Directive to address the collection of waste industrial batteries and Li-ion batteries

specifically are of even higher concern.

Overall, there is no evidence to support the assumption that all waste industrial batteries are

collected. The analysis indicates discrepancies between the amounts of industrial batteries placed on

the market and collected. However, without concrete data this cannot be proven.

5.1.8 Losses of automotive batteries

Losses of automotive batteries resulting from exports of used vehicles and end-of-life vehicles (ELV) are

methodologically difficult to assess. A methodological approach of Pb-acid batteries placed on the

market based on registration figures does not foresee any export and import of used vehicles or these

figures are respectively already displayed in the current situation of registered vehicles. Accordingly,

the Eurobat report (Eurobat 2014) does not disclose any exports of batteries through used vehicles,

resulting in a collection rate of 99 % of automotive batteries on the EU level.


52

Physical exports of used vehicles and associated “losses” of automotive batteries take place. Based on

export figures of Eurostat on used vehicles32, losses of about 21 000 tonnes of Pb-acid batteries result

for EU2833. Apart from the officially reported figures of used vehicles, there is an additional

approximately 4 million of so called “vehicles of unknown whereabouts” (Mehlhart 2017). It is likely

that a certain amount of these vehicles is exported as well. The share of vehicles with unknown

whereabouts being exported outside the EU cannot be specified. However, it is assumed that the main

share of “vehicles of unknown whereabouts” is treated within the EU (Mehlhart 2017). Assuming that a

quarter of the 4 million vehicles with an unknown destination are exported to countries outside the

EU28, the batteries exported together with the used vehicles would increase by another 18 000 tonnes

of Pb-acid batteries. However, as shown in (Mehlhart 2017), this cannot be proven and is therefore not

considered in Figure 5-1.

As a consequence, estimates of losses of automotive batteries might differ considerably depending on

the applied calculation methodology (including or not (net-) exports of used vehicles). Nevertheless,

this does not change the overall assessment or result of the battery mass flows in Figure 5-1, as about

21 000 to 39 000 tonnes correspond to only about 2 % to 4 % of all automotive batteries only.

According to (European Commission 2014) it is assumed that nearly 100 % of automotive batteries are

being collected. The main argument is the batteries’ economic value motivates collection by

professionals.

Apart from the above mentioned losses due to export of used vehicles, we are not aware of any other

relevant losses.

After collection, all batteries are assumed to undergo recycling. As explained in detail in chapter

12.1.1, about 1.08 million tonnes of automotive Pb-acid batteries enter into recycling facilities

5.1.9 Export of waste batteries

Information on the export of waste batteries is available from the Waste Shipment Regulation

(Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on shipments of waste) and the national implementation reports

(Trinomics 2017).

In 2015, about 0.3 million tonnes of waste batteries were exported inside the EU (between MS)34. This

corresponds to about one fifth of the input fractions of the recycling in the EU28 (ca. 1.49 million

tonnes of waste batteries). The amount or percentage of batteries exported differs widely depending

on the specific MS. Small MS, such as CY, MT or DK, do not have their own recycling facilities, and thus

export all of their waste batteries. In parallel, in large MS, for example DE or IT, about 10% of the input

fractions to recycling is sent abroad for recycling.

In the years 2012 to 2015, up to 3 158 tonnes per year of waste batteries were exported to third

countries outside the EU34. This is less than 0.3 % of the input fractions to recycling in the EU28 (ca.

32 1.15 million used vehicles exported in 2014 33 1.15 million used vehicles each with a battery of 18 kg = 20 700 tonnes (ca. 21 000 tonnes). Export means export

outside the EU and does not consider exports between MS. 34 Exports of used vehicles and end-of-life vehicles (ELV) and hence the automotive batteries from these vehicles,

as well as export of used EEE and WEEE and the batteries contained therein, are not included in the figures on the export of waste batteries.


53

1.49 million tonnes waste batteries, year 2015).While these amounts of exported batteries are not

relevant for the EU or for larger MS, such as for UK, FI or FR, the situation is different for CY and MT.

These two small MS export 20 % to 80 % of their waste batteries to third countries.

Canada, Israel, South Korea, Switzerland, the United States, Serbia, China, Japan and Norway are the

principle countries where waste batteries are exported. However, the relevance of recycling in third

countries outside the EU might increase in future when waste Li-ion batteries are exported for recycling

(Tytgat 2018 and Vassart 2018). European recyclers indicate that there is already now fierce

competition for waste Li-ion batteries as a source of raw materials for new batteries. Gaining access to

secondary raw materials for Li-ion battery production might become even more important as the e-

mobility sector gains importance and e-vehicles continue to be the main driver of Li-ion battery market

growth.

5.2 Economic conditions for the batteries sector

5.2.1 Production volume

The battery industry in the EU generated products with a total value of more than € 7 billion in 2016.

The highest volumes of production are located in Germany, France and the UK for all battery

chemistries and in Belgium for primary and secondary batteries. Relevant production of lead-acid

batteries is also located in Italy, Poland, Spain, Czech Republic, and Slovenia.

Compared to global production values, EU lead-acid battery production represents a share of

approximately 15 % of global production, which is similar to the EU’s share of global GNP (between 16 %

and 17 %). For lead-acid batteries, the EU is a net exporter. As Eurostat’s production statistics do not

consider export of batteries incorporated into products, this conclusion is even more valid, considering

that the EU is a net exporter of vehicles (with incorporated lead-acid batteries).

Compared to global production, EU production of NiCd, NiMH and Li-ion batteries represents a share of

approximately 5 % of global production, which is much less than the EU’s share of global GNP.

Consequently, the EU is a net importer of NiCd, NiMH and Li-ion batteries.

Eurostat’s statistical data on production values do not consider batteries incorporated into products

such as electric and electronic equipment (EEE) or electric vehicles (EV). As a result, Eurostat’s data on

production do not match the volumes for “placed on the market”, as is reported according to the

Batteries Directive (including batteries incorporated into products).

5.2.2 Profitability of collection, safe transport and recycling of waste batteries

Collection and recycling of lead-acid batteries is usually profitable; in 2017, the average trade price for

spent lead-acid batteries was about €900 per tonne. However, the revenues for spent lead-acid

batteries are very volatile, illustrated by a drop in prices for spent lead-acid batteries from March 2008

to January 2009, when the price dropped by over three quarters within 10 months (from 1160 €/t to

280 €/t), as displayed in Figure 5-3.


54

Figure 5-3: Monthly average trade prices for lead-acid batteries, lead, and spent lead-acid batteries in Euro per tonne

Source Eurostat: Reporter: EU28; Partner: EU28-intra and EU28-extra, Flow: Import and Export

Collection and recycling of most other relevant battery chemistries is usually not profitable and

determined by the costs for collection, safe storage and transport. Depending on the chemistry and the

volume, recycling might be profitable when the spent batteries are delivered free of charge to the

recycling plants. However, the benefits for recyclers are strongly affected by the risks born by volatile

prices for secondary raw materials. Without legal conditions that make collection and recycling

obligatory even in phases of weak prices for secondary raw materials, investment in battery recycling

plants (other than lead recycling) would be very risky35. Consequently, without legal stipulations, such

batteries would end up in disposal facilities (e.g. landfill or incinerator).

5.2.3 Different concepts for EPRs depending on battery classification

Economic relations between producers/ importers, users and collectors/ recyclers depend on the

categories as established by the Batteries Directive:

• For portable batteries the producers have established producer responsibility organisations (PROs)

in all Member States to organise the EPR obligations, including collection, safe storage, transport

and recycling of relevant batteries. The level of fees paid by the producers differs across the EU.

Competing PROs have no benefits when exceeding the targets for collection. Consequently, PROs

might compete (in the best case) to exactly meet — not less and not more — the required

collection rate. In worse cases, PROs might compete by selecting profitable batteries, making use

35 From May 2017 to April 2018, the the price for cobalt increased by nearly 90 %, making Li-ion battery recycling

more profitable. However, this is not in contradiction to the general observations mentioned.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500200

601

200

605

200

609

200

701

200

705

200

709

200

801

200

805

200

809

200

901

200

905

200

909

201

001

201

005

201

009

201

101

201

105

201

109

201

201

201

205

201

209

201

301

201

305

201

309

201

401

201

405

201

409

20

15

01

201

505

201

509

201

601

201

605

20

16

09

201

701

201

705

Eu

ro / t

on

Lead acid accumulators Spent electric Lead-acid accumulators

Unwrought Lead, refined


55

of battery collection of “other than from private consumers” or even “trading” collection and

recycling volumes, only without any operative activity.

• Regarding industrial batteries, the user is responsible for handling spent batteries and the

producer is obliged to “not refuse to take back waste industrial batteries”. This renders the end

user responsible for safe collection, storage and transport of spent industrial batteries to the

producer (or more likely to recycling sites). Private persons are becoming more and more relevant

as consumers of industrial batteries. However, the Batteries Directive does not establish

requirements for EPR obligations for collecting such industrial batteries like batteries for e-bikes,

electric cars or power storage for photovoltaic power. According to the Batteries Directive, the

private consumer is responsible for caring for safe collection, storage and transport of spent

industrial batteries to the producer (or more likely to recycling sites).

• For automotive SLI batteries, which are nearly entirely dominated by lead-acid batteries, the

value chain for recycling is apparently profitable and prohibitions to dispose of lead-acid batteries

are implemented by the Member States. The conditions for collection (schemes) are different

across the Member States. Risks remain in relation to volatile prices that might jeopardise the

economic viability for recyclers and in relation to far distances to collection points and little

revenues for the last owner for a single spent lead-acid battery, which might also cause losses of

spent batteries, and in consequence possibly illegal disposal.

5.2.4 Other economic aspects

In general, waste battery collection mechanisms for all types of batteries vary greatly across the

Member States. Fees and penalties are used as a financial incentive for battery producers to collect

batteries. Producers working in different Member States are exposed to costs for adapting to specific

national compliance schemes that co-exist within the EU. These costs could be lowered if the

differences among MS in compliance schemes and on reporting requirements were levelled.

The waste batteries recycling sector has entry barriers, such as the following:

• Research and development barriers exist for the battery recycling sector as a consequence of

advanced technologies; battery chemistries are increasingly complex, especially for Li-ion

batteries (Sørensen, S. Y.; Olsen, S. M. et.al., 2013).

• High capital investment is required that makes battery recycling a highly concentrated sector

(Sørensen, S. Y.; Olsen, S. M. et.al. 2013). This weakens the potential for SMEs to become key

actors in the waste battery value chain.

• Lack of cooperation in research and development exists between producers and recyclers for

developing cost-effective recycling technologies, which could increase the return-on-investment

of research and development investments (Lebedeva, N.; Di Persio, F.; Boon-Brett, L. 2016).

Stakeholders also indicated a number of issues in relation to the economic implications of the Directive:

• Due to the accounting of batteries incorporated in EEE in the Batteries Directive, some

stakeholders expressed the risk of issues with double charging for batteries, as they are also

included in the scope of the WEEE Directive.

• Recycling of cadmium can become more challenging following the ban of NiCd batteries for

portable batteries. Battery recyclers welcome the ban on Cd for portable batteries, but warn

about the resulting cost increase for recycling NiCd batteries, as NiCd recyclers will face a

decrease in the quantity of spent NiCd batteries available for recycling. Consequently, existing


56

recycling plants will operate with lower than optimal loads. At the same time, (as no portable

NiCd batteries are placed on the market) there will be no dedicated fees for portable NiCd

batteries for refunding such efforts. At a certain point in time, another effect of the ban could

be the lack of possible re-use of the cadmium fraction recovered from the recycling of spent NiCd

batteries. For the time being, there is a global market for secondary cadmium, including

industrial NiCd batteries in the EU. Once this market declines or is interrupted by legal

conditions, the secondary cadmium fraction will then need to be disposed of in a safe (and

costly) manner.

• By increasing the collection rates target, the Batteries Directive would support an increase in the

supply of waste batteries for recyclers.

• By increasing the recycling rates target, the Batteries Directive would facilitate more research

and development into efficient recycling technologies.

5.3 Collection rates and recycling efficiencies

EU-wide levels of compliance with respect to the obligations (laid down by the Batteries Directive), in

particular targets for collection and recycling efficiencies, were analysed and assessed, including

statistics on batteries in 28 Member States (MS) of the European Union (and three EEA countries: IS, LI,

NO) for the year 2016. The deadline for data delivery to Eurostat was 30 June 2017.

The reporting obligations included data on ‘sales’ and ‘collection’, data on recycling input and output

and data on ‘recycling efficiencies’ and ‘rates of recycled contents’ for batteries (including three

different types of batteries)36. The status quo of March 2018 was taken into account. The analysis is

based on the validation report on batteries for the reference year 2016 for Eurostat (Oeko-Institut

2018).

An overview on recycling efficiencies, with lead-acid batteries as the example, is presented in Figure

5-4. Further down, a summary of the results regarding compliance with the recycling efficiency targets

is provided for all three battery types (lead-acid, NiCd and other batteries). More details, including

figures for NiCd and other batteries, are provided in chapter 12.3.

Figure 5-4 presents data for the EU28 and EEA countries (IS, LI, NO) for the years 2012 to 2016. MS are

sorted according to their recycling efficiencies in 2016; the MS with the highest value is presented on

the left side, the one with lowest value on the right. The EEA countries are always presented rightmost.

The recycling efficiency target (65 %) is included in the figure for comparison.

36 See Eurostat datasets env_wasbat and env_waspb; http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database


57


Source: Eurostat, env_wasbat, download 4.1.2018

In addition to data from Eurostat, data from other sources was also incorporated into the analyses of

the collection rates. Table 5-4 presents the collection rates reported by each Member State and the

EEA country NO to Eurostat for the period 2012-2016. In a few cases, data was not available from the

Eurostat database but was submitted in the national implementation report (see explanations at the

bottom of Table 5-4). In one case (HR in 2012), the rate presented by the European Portable Batteries

Association (EPBA 2016a) is specified. Grey cells indicate missing data (for all sources).

Table 5-4: Collection rates (%) for portable batteries, 2012-2016

Collection rate in %

MS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

BE 52 53 55 56 71

BG 34 39 45 45 48

CZ 29 31 31 36 52

DK 45 41 44 46 45

DE 42 43 44 45 46

EE 26 40 22 42 31

IE 28 31 33 33 48

EL 36 34 37 34

ES 34 34 36 41 38

FR 35 34 37 39 45

HR 29 20 19 29 100

IT 27 29 34 36

CY 12 16 19 27

LV 28 27 28 25 30

LT 33 36 33 43 53

LU 73 63 65 60 63

HU 34 39 37 44 53


58


MS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

MT 20 41 21 39

NL 43 44 45 46

AT 52 53 54 55 49

PL 29 30 33 38 39

PT 31 31 28 31 42

RO 11 30 32 21

SI 33 32 29 35 36

SK 61 48 66 53 48

FI 33 41 46 47 46

SE 61 64 59 61 45

UK 29 32 36 40 44

IS

LI

NO 34 41 44 32 80

Eurostat, env_waspb; download 4.1.2018

Figures from national implementations reports

(EPBA 2016a)

Missing data (for all sources)

Target not met

Data inconsistent

5.3.1 Main findings

Data reporting

22 Member States (all except EL, IT, CY, MT, NL, RO) reported data to Eurostat. In addition, data were

received from two EEA countries, LI and NO. The EEA country IS did not report data.37

Methodological reports

In addition to the transmission of national data, Member States also have to provide a 'Methodological

Report' (Art. 10, 3 and Art 12, 5 of the Batteries Directive). These methodological reports are required

to explain how the data has been obtained in the MS.

All countries except the Member States BG, EL, IT, RO, MT, SE and the EEA countries IS and NO

submitted methodologies on how their data was compiled (23 submitted in total; 8 missing documents).

These descriptions varied considerably in scope and quality.

Collection target

The collection target (collection rate of 45 %) was met by 14 Member States in 2016. Four out of the 14

MS reported collection rates with an unusually sharp increase (partly explainable or under

investigation). In addition to the 14 Member States, the EEA country NO reported an unusual collection

rate of 80% and the MS HR an unusual collection rate of 100%.

37

In total 31 countries have to report to Eurostat, EU28 plus three EEA countries, NO, IS, LI.


59

The remaining 15 countries did not meet the target. Out of these 15 countries, 7 MS did not reach the

collection rate of 45 %, whereas 6 MS (EL, IT, CY, MT, NL, RO) and 2 EEA countries (IS, LI) did not report

data on collection rates.

Overall, the collection rates increased from 2012 to 2016. However, there are some countries without a

clear trend or with fluctuating figures.

Recycling efficiency targets

Generally, recycling efficiency targets were met by all countries reporting data except the Member

State HR.

For lead-acid batteries, 22 MS and 1 EEA country (NO) met the recycling efficiency target in 2016. Eight

countries (6 MS and 2 EEA countries IS and LI) did not report their recycling efficiency.

Regarding NiCd batteries, all reporting countries (19) except Member State HR met the recycling

efficiency target (17 MS and 1 EEA country NO) in 2016. Nine MS and 2 EEA countries did not report a

recycling efficiency (BG reported ’0’).

As concerns the category ‘other batteries’, 21 MS and the EEA country NO met the recycling efficiency

target in 2016. Seven MS and two EEA countries did not report a recycling efficiency.

5.3.2 Reliability of the results related to recycling and collection

Data gaps

The validation report for reference year 2016 (Oeko-Institut 2018) still reveals an unsatisfactory

situation regarding data gaps, especially for the data about recycled content of cadmium. In total, 13

Member States and 2 EEA countries did not provide rates of recycled cadmium content or specified the

figure “0”. Generally, data gaps are more common in relation to NiCd batteries recycling than in

relation to lead-acid batteries.

Export of waste batteries

Countries still deal differently with data on exports of batteries for recycling. Explanations from the

countries’ methodologies suggest that there is still a problem with recycling data from other countries

(EU and non-EU countries). While national authorities are aware that they need to take into account

the results of the recycling processes of the waste batteries collected in their countries, also when

these are performed in another country, the provision of data by the foreign recyclers concerned is

problematic.. Apart from problems on the availability of information in general, a particular problem is

posed by the lack of differentiation of batteries’ origin by some recycler.

Data quality

Problems with data quality still occur concerning Commission Regulation (EU) No 493/2012 and the

rates of recycled content. In comparison to data from the previous year, no fundamental improvement

is evident. Data checks, which were performed by calculating the share of lead and cadmium in the

batteries, indicate data inconsistencies for recycled battery content. Additionally, data checks of the

input fractions to the recycling process showed breaks in the time series for 16 MS and the EEA

countries.


60

The issue related to data from foreign recyclers is a main problem of data reporting and affects data

comparability and reliability.

5.4 Environmental impacts of batteries

5.4.1 Introduction

Environmental impacts from batteries are manifold. Many compositions of batteries contain hazardous

chemicals which are currently considered as not substitutable (like e.g. lead in automotive SLI

batteries, cadmium in some industrial batteries or cobalt in certain Li-ion batteries)38. These hazardous

materials should not be released into the environment and should not be disposed of together with

mixed municipal waste. Instead batteries need to be collected separately and the materials recycled

properly.

Impacts on the environment as well as on human health may occur throughout the entire life cycle of

batteries: from extraction of battery resource materials to the recycling of waste batteries. Some

environmental and human health impacts are measurable and can be quantified, while others may only

be described qualitatively.

The Batteries Directive mentions the environmental performance in general and addresses the entire

life cycle of batteries: “…and improved environmental performance of all operators involved in the life

cycle of batteries and accumulators, e.g. producers, distributors…” (recital 5). This is for instance

relevant for mining activities, as resource extraction of battery raw materials mainly takes place

abroad and must be considered.

The Strategic Action Plan on Batteries (COM (2018) 293, Annex II) annexed to the IIIrd Package on

mobility of the European Commission highlights the need to adopt a circular approach to promote the

sustainable manufacturing of batteries. The supply of materials (raw and secondary) receives particular

attention, as well as the role to be paid by the regulatory framework.

Battery recycling is a main activity under the Directive (“…in particular, those operators directly

involved in the treatment and recycling of waste batteries and accumulators.”, recital 5) and is

addressed by a main target of the Directive. One focus is on the environmental benefits resulting from

collecting batteries - thus preventing batteries from being disposed - and from recycling.

By quantifying the environmental impacts of batteries, it is of interest whether the Batteries Directive

contributes to the prevention of impacts on the environment and health. Such quantification also allows

identifying the life cycle stages which trigger the most relevant environmental impacts. As the

Directive applies to the entire EU, this analysis differentiates between the stages of the life cycle which

take place within and outside the EU.

38 Cobalt is especially essential for drive batteries (NMC, NCA) of electric vehicles. Cobalt-free LFP batteries are

widely used in the PR China. However, they are also increasingly being replaced there by the more powerful NMC batteries.


61

5.4.2 Overview on battery life cycle and environmental impacts

The environmental impacts from batteries vary depending on the different battery chemistries. Aspects

related to production, the use phase, recycling and disposal apply for all battery chemistries and are

addressed below in more detail. Aspects related to hazardous substances, battery safety during the use

phase and resource extraction are specific to the particular battery chemistry and are explained for

lead-acid batteries in chapter 5.4.3, for alkaline batteries in chapter 5.4.4, for Li-ion batteries in

chapter 5.4.5 and for NiCd batteries in chapter 5.4.6. Quantifiable environmental aspects are addressed

in chapter 5.4.7.

Figure 5-5 below presents a schematic overview of the battery life cycle and the life cycle stages most

relevant for the analysis of environmental impacts. The left side of the figure indicates whether the life

cycle stages take place within or outside the EU.

Figure 5-5: Schematic overview on the battery life cycle

Resource extraction

The extraction of primary resources and the first processing stage are often associated with high

(substance-specific) environmental impacts, though these can be site-specific and depend on the

applied extraction and processing methods. Mining is relevant to the sourcing of some substances (e.g.

lead, lithium, cobalt, and nickel).

Battery production

Battery production is a main stage of the battery life cycle and a main part of the quantitative

environmental impact assessment of batteries. During manufacturing, the energy demand for producing

battery materials and for cell and battery assembly are significant and dominate some impact

categories, e.g. global warming potential or acidification potential.


62

Direct emissions of hazardous substances are not considered to be of significant relevance during the

production processes for cell and battery assembly because production sites with appropriate licensing

procedures should dominate in the relevant regions (Europe and Asia).

In production, environmental regulations and occupational safety regulations are generally applied.

Production, in particular of Li-ion batteries, usually takes place in a protective atmosphere, since

materials and compounds are sensitive to oxygen and moisture exposure usually present in the

uncontrolled environment.

While hazardous substances are considered to be less relevant during cell and battery assembly,

emissions of hazardous substances (e.g. from furnaces) can be expected in upstream processes

(processing of battery (raw) materials) when producing for example Pb (for lead-acid batteries).

Batteries are generally produced inside and outside the EU. Li-ion batteries, or at least the battery

cells they contain, are typically still produced outside the EU, while assembly is performed both in the

EU and abroad.

Use phase

During the use phase, the discharging and recharging of batteries need to be assessed. Thus, only for

rechargeable batteries the use phase (electricity demand for recharging) is relevant. The use phase

cannot, however, be analysed without considering the product for which the energy is demanded (e.g.

electric car versus diesel car). A potential result could be that the use phase of a Li-ion battery (e.g. in

an electric car) produces no net environmental impacts, but instead an environmental credit (e.g. when

compared to a diesel car).

The use phase (and re-use and unintended use) generally takes place in the EU, since only batteries

placed on the market in the EU are considered. However, exported used vehicles and EEE, and the

batteries incorporated into these products, are used outside the EU.

Unintended use

Unintended use (e.g. accident, damage or littering) is an exceptional case compared to the normal use

of batteries. Nevertheless, the specific local environmental and health impacts are potentially

significant.

Potential hazardous releases as a result of the battery encapsulation being destroyed through fire or

physical damage must be evaluated. Data availability addressing these aspects is, however, insufficient,

and an assessment of potential environmental risks is thus beyond the scope of this study.

Batteries, i.e. the electrolyte (mainly alkaline solutions or acids) that they contain, may also leak.

Leaking batteries cause a risk to the environment and human health.

End-of-life - Recycling

Recycling of waste batteries is an important stage in the battery life cycle. The calculation of

quantitative environmental impacts takes into account, for example, the energy demand associated

with the recycling process. Resulting impact categories include global warming potential, depletion of

abiotic resources, acidification potential, eutrophication potential, etc.


63

Thousands of tonnes of waste batteries are recycled per year in different recycling facilities, depending

on the recycling technology and the individual plant size. Hazardous substances might be released in

different steps of the recycling processes. Emissions from recycling (e.g. dust, hazardous substances,

organic solvents) also depend on the chemistry of the waste batteries and the technology and

performance of the individual plant. Hazardous substance emissions during recycling are in principle

also taken into account by a quantitative environmental impact assessment.

During recycling, battery materials, such as secondary lead, cobalt, nickel, copper or cadmium, are

recovered. The production (battery recycling) of these secondary raw materials usually results in less

environmental impacts than the production of the primary materials. Thus, the replacement of primary

materials by secondary materials usually results in environmental credits.

Recycling of waste batteries collected in the EU almost completely takes place within the EU (only

about 0.3 % is exported for recycling). However, battery recycling in connection with the export of used

vehicles/ ELV and EEE/ WEEE as well as export of industrial batteries incorporated into the respective

products takes place outside the EU.

End-of-life - Disposal

Certain amounts of waste batteries end up in municipal waste. The main risk of emissions is associated

with possible leaching of hazardous substances from ashes and slags (incinerated waste batteries) or,

where relevant, from landfilled waste batteries. Leaching of hazardous substances in principle could be

covered by a quantitative environmental impact assessment. However, a reliable assessment of the

environmental impacts from ashes, slags and landfilling related to waste batteries at the EU level is

difficult and beyond the scope of the current study.

Environmental impacts also result from emissions into the air from waste battery incineration in waste

incineration plants. The emission of hazardous substances (e.g. mercury and cadmium) depends on the

quality of the flue gas cleaning and on the chemistry of the battery.

Another potential source of emissions is dusts and associated heavy metals from shredder facilities. This

is relevant for WEEE when batteries are not removed before shredding.

Waste batteries not being recycled but instead being disposed of in e.g. landfills or incineration plants

offer the most relevant source of environmental impacts from batteries within the EU (European

Commission 2003).

5.4.3 Lead-acid batteries


Lead is a toxic heavy metal and one of the three hazardous substances specifically addressed in the

Batteries Directive. As a consequence, the Directive defines a rate of recycled lead content and

requires recycling lead as much as possible. The rates of recycled lead content of all reporting MS

reveal that between 90 % and 100 % of lead is recovered (except in BG, with only 65 %), with most MS

reporting rates of 97 % and higher.

Lead-acid batteries are considered hazardous because of the substances they contain, and they are also

addressed as such by the Directive, though currently not prohibited. Under the CLP Regulation, lead is


64

classified39 in relation to its toxicity to reproduction (H362 - may cause harm to breastfed children;

H360FD - may damage fertility and may damage an unborn child). The ECHA substance information

database also lists lead as ‘Persistent Bio-accumulative and Toxic (PBT)’ on the basis of REACH

registration notifications. Specific lead compounds used in batteries, such as lead oxide and lead

dioxide, are also suspected as toxic to aquatic life (H400, H410), as harmful if swallowed or inhaled

(H302, H332), as causing damage to organs through prolonged or repeated exposure (H372) and of

causing cancer (H351).

Sulfuric acid, which is also used in lead-acid batteries, is classified under CLP as “Causes severe skin

burns and eye damage” (H314). Antimony, also a constituent of some lead-acid batteries, is also

suspected as hazardous (H351 - carcinogen, H60, H362 - toxic to reproduction, H412 - toxic to aquatic

life, H373 - causes harm to organs).

Battery safety

Batteries containing liquid electrolyte must be serviced. Hydrogen build-up in the event of overcharging

must be taken into account. Rooms were lead-acid batteries are kept must be adequately ventilated.

Battery casings may fail in the event of severe overcharging and over discharge. Sulphuric acid and

lead-containing particles can be released in the process.

Resource extraction

The mined production of lead in Europe amounts to about 6.4 % of the world mined production. In

comparison to about 344 000 tonnes mined production of lead (metal content) in Europe, the total

volume of lead-acid batteries placed on the market in the EU28 in 2015 equalled about 1.6 million

tonnes of batteries or about 0.9 million tonnes of lead in batteries.

Heavy metals, such as lead, are usually a problem in connection with ore mining and processing

(primary production of metallic raw materials). Lead, for example, is extracted from sulphide ores,

which can cause acid mine drainage; see chapter 5.4.6.

Recycling

BREF (2017) provides some information on production capacities for secondary lead for the year 2006.

The main input stream for secondary lead is waste lead-acid batteries. The capacity was about 0.97

million tonnes of secondary lead in 2006. In addition, there was a further capacity of 0.78 million

tonnes of primary or combined primary and secondary lead, though, without any information on the

share of secondary lead capacity. Production of 0.97 million tonnes of secondary lead corresponds to

about 1.7 million tonnes of lead-acid batteries, assuming that all secondary lead was produced from

waste lead-acid batteries. In comparison, the input fractions to recycling of lead-acid batteries in the

EU28 in 2015 amounted to 1.42 million tonnes or about 0.8 million tonnes of secondary lead.

Related to secondary lead, BREF (2017) states:

The secondary lead industry is characterised by a large number of smaller installations, many

of which are independent. There are approximately 30 secondary smelters/refiners in the EU

39 The term “classified” is used when the classification is based on a CLP harmonised classification. “Suspected of” is used where a harmonized classification does not exist. In this case, suspected classifications are based on hazardous classifications notified to the ECHA in relation to the substance in the registration of substances, required by the REACH Regulation.


65

producing from 5 000 t/yr to 65 000 t/yr. They recycle and refine scrap generated in their

local area. The number of these refineries is decreasing as the large multinational

companies, and the major battery manufacturing groups as well, acquire the smaller

secondary facilities or set up their own recycling operations.

5.4.4 Alkaline batteries


Alkaline batteries are not addressed in the Directive specifically; however, alkaline batteries are

associated with various hazardous substances and properties. For example, manganese dioxide is

classified under CLP as harmful if swallowed or if inhaled (H3012, H332). Zinc powder is classified as

toxic to the aquatic environment (H400, H410) and flammable (H250, H260), and potassium hydroxide,

which is used as the electrolyte in alkaline batteries, is classified as harmful if swallowed (H302) and as

causing severe skin burns and eye damage (H314).

Battery safety

In the event of fire, alkaline batteries can release inhalable vapours of caustic potassium hydroxide,

which is highly corrosive to the respiratory tract and eyes.

Batteries may also leak. Leaks might contaminate the water or ground and can cause significant

environmental damage. During use, leaks can harm the user.

Resource extraction

The production of about 459 000 tonnes of manganese ore in the EU corresponds to about 2.6 % of world

production (17.8 million tonnes manganese ore; USGS Manganese 2016). Manganese (as manganese

dioxide) is a main battery material for primary alkaline batteries. In 2015, about 130 000 to 140 000

tonnes of alkaline batteries (incl. about 50 000 t of manganese dioxide) were placed on the market in

the EU28 (rough estimates based on the consultants own analysis of the current situation; extrapolation

from French and German figures).

Zinc ores, another raw material for alkaline batteries, are almost always associated with lead ores.

Both types of ores can cause acid mine drainage; see chapter 5.4.6.

Recycling

The main output from alkaline battery recycling is secondary zinc. Yet alkaline batteries are of minor

importance for secondary zinc production. While there are no specific recycling technologies for

alkaline battery recycling, they act as a feedstock into the general secondary zinc production

processes. Generally, physical separation, melting and other high-temperature treatment techniques

are used for alkaline battery recycling.

5.4.5 Li-ion batteries

Li-ion batteries, or at least their battery cells, are generally produced outside the EU, while battery

assembly is performed both in the EU and abroad. Resource extraction and processing of the raw

materials are life cycles stages which currently take place outside the EU. Most recycling takes place in

the EU.


66


Li-ion batteries contain environmentally relevant heavy metals such as nickel (for more details see

chapter 5.4.6) and cobalt.

Nonetheless, Li-ion batteries are not addressed in the Directive specifically, yet an investigation of

their contents indicates that they are also associated with various hazardous properties.

For example, lithium metal40 itself is classified under the CLP Regulation as “causes severe skin burns

and eye damage” (314) and “in contact with water, releases flammable gases which may ignite

spontaneously” (H260). Dimethylcarbonat is classified as a highly flammable liquid and vapour (H225).

LNMC and LNCA are both suspected of causing cancer (H351) and may cause an allergic skin reaction

(H317). Lithiumhexafluorophosphat (LiPF6) is also suspected as hazardous (H301 - toxic if swallowed,

H314 – causes sever skin burns and eye damage, H318 – causes serious eye damage, H372 causes damage

to organs through prolonged or repeated exposure).

In the event of fire, the release of hazardous gases and dust must be expected. Conductive salts can

decompose when moisture enters and, with fire, produce hydrofluoric acid.

Battery safety

Risk of fire is well known in different applications of Li-ion batteries. The organic electrolytes of

lithium-ion batteries are also flammable.

Resource extraction

According to USGS Lithium (2016), about 17 500 tonnes of lithium minerals (total EU production)

corresponds to about 300 tonnes of Li content. 300 tonnes Li content therefore equalled about 0.9 % of

world production (excluding from the US) in 2014. In 2015, about 65 000 tonnes of Li-ion batteries were

placed on the market in the EU28 (rough estimates based on the consultant’s own analysis of the

current situation), with Li-content equalling about 1 000 tonnes of lithium (based on the assumption of

1.5 % lithium in Li-ion batteries).

Mined production of cobalt in Finland (about 2 100 tonnes Co content) provides about 1.7 % of the

world’s mined production in 2014 (123 000 tonnes Co content; (USGS Cobalt 2016)). Cobalt is an

important battery material for Li-ion batteries with NMC and NCA cathodes.

An analysis of the resource extraction of materials relevant for the production of Li-ion batteries is

performed in Oeko-Institut (2016a). This qualitative analysis of cobalt extraction revealed that the

environmental risks associated with cobalt extraction are related to pollution from heavy metals.

Industrially mined cobalt is mostly a by-product of copper mines and therefore associated with sulfidic

ores. This kind of ore poses a risk of acid mine drainage41, which in turn leads to the formation of acidic

waters that can solute heavy metals and pollute the environment.

40

One of the most important mechanisms of lithium-ion cell aging is considered to be the process of metal lithium

deposition on an anode (Galushkin 2018). 41 Sulphide ores can cause - under influence of oxygen and water – sulphuric acid, which releases further heavy

metals from the ore and causes long-term damage to the water supply and the surrounding environment.


67

While most of the world’s primary production of cobalt is mined in large scale industrial mining, a

significant share, of up to 30 %, is extracted by artisanal and small-scale miners, which are often

associated with child labour and inadequate work safety standards. Environmental aspects that are

usually not addressed by small-scale mining include the proper handling of toxic reagents or mine

closure.

Lithium is mined using two principal methods. In the first, lithium is extracted from hard rock mines. A

large number of these are located in Australia, which provides 45 % of global production. In the second,

lithium is derived from salt lakes. These two extraction methods may impact the environment and the

surrounding population in a range of ways. In Australia, spodumene mining carries the usual

environmental risks of any ore mining. It requires significant energy consumption and generates both

greenhouse gas emissions and mining waste. Furthermore, sulphuric acid has to be processed carefully

after use to prevent it from entering the surrounding environment (BGS 2016).

Primary extraction in the form of the production of minerals from salt lake brines inevitably has a

severe impact on nature: lithium extraction is associated with high water demand (evaporation ponds in

arid areas) and has a potentially high impact on the natural landscape. In Bolivia, for example, there

are plans to mine the world’s largest lithium deposits; they are, however, in the world’s largest salt

lake (Salar de Uyuni), which is itself a natural heritage site (SZ 2015).

Graphite is both mined and synthetically produced. Almost two thirds of worldwide mining output

comes from China. Many Chinese graphite mines emit massive quantities of dust. This dust settles in the

surrounding area, affecting the health of local residents. Likewise, local water supplies are often

contaminated by mining waste (Whoriskey 2016).

Recycling

The most important environmental aspects of the recycling of Li-ion batteries are discussed here. The

presented information is mainly based on Oeko-Institut and ZSW (2015).

The first stage of recycling is usually to separate the housing or the surrounding installation from the

battery cells or cell modules. Significant quantities of recyclable mass metals (e.g. (high-grade) steel,

aluminium, copper) and plastics are obtained from these housings, and care should be taken to ensure

that these materials are recycled. The battery management system (BMS), including high voltage

management, contains valuable materials such as tin, silver and gold. Therefore, BMS is also relevant

for recycling.

Li-ion cells and modules are currently recycled in existing industrial facilities such as those of Umicore.

In such a pyrometallurgical process, metals like cobalt, nickel and copper can be recovered. Recycling

efficiencies for recycling Li-ion batteries and their battery materials are estimated to be about 95 % for

Co and Ni, 80 % for Cu and 50 % for Al, depending on the specific process. Titanium and graphite, and

lithium up until recently, are not recovered.

Recycling processes also suitable for the recovery of lithium were explored in research projects such as

LithoRec II and EcoBatRec (2015). However, processes for the recovery of lithium running on an

industrial scale are still an exception. However, Umicore meanwhile also recovers lithium from the slag

fraction of its pyrometallurgical process (Umicore 2018).


68

In 2016, Accurec developed and opened a recycling plant for Li-ion batteries (Accurec 2017). The

recycling process is designed for a current technical treatment capacity of 5 000 tonnes per year.

According to LiBRi (2011), high amounts of greenhouse gas emissions result from the pyrometallurgical

process. The subsequent refining of copper, cobalt and nickel is also energy intensive and produces

additional greenhouse gas emissions which are, however, more or less compensated for by the credit

for the recovery of Co and Ni (replacing primary production of Co and Ni). An additional credit results

from the recovery of high-grade steel and other materials from the dismantling process. In total, the

process results in a credit of about 0.7 tonnes of CO2eq per tonne of Li-ion battery recycling (not taking

into account a potential recovery of Lithium).

Recovery of Co, Ni and Cu generally results in a credit for the acidification potential, as recycling

replaces primary production of these metals using sulphide ores.

With the need to conserve raw materials and reduce the frequently severe environmental impacts of

primary production at the forefront, it is important that battery recycling optimize material recovery.

This applies especially for lithium in light of its anticipated huge demand for the production of Li-ion

batteries for electric vehicles in the years to come (Oeko 2017).

The environmental impacts of recycling lithium as a major component of Li-ion batteries in comparison

to the primary production of lithium have always been estimated only on the basis of laboratory

findings: no relevant environmental assessment results, based on industrial-scale recycling, are

available according to our knowledge. It can be assumed that the environmental impacts of recycling

Li-ion batteries will decrease as the development and refinement of industrial processes develops.

In connection with the environmental assessment of secondary lithium in comparison to primary

extraction, it should be acknowledged that assessments to date are based on easily extractable primary

sources. Since the demand for lithium is likely to rise sharply, it is probable that deposits that are more

costly/ difficult to access and the extraction of which can be expected to have greater environmental

impacts, will need to be exploited. In any case, a comparative assessment that considers only energy

consumption and issues such as airborne pollutants does not properly consider the differences between

primary and secondary extraction.

5.4.6 NiCd batteries


Cadmium is a toxic heavy metal and one of the three hazardous substances specifically addressed in the

Batteries Directive. As a consequence, the Directive defines a rate of recycled cadmium content and

requires recycling cadmium as much as possible. Eleven MS report rates of recycled cadmium content of

100 %, two other MS reported rates of 98 % and 99 %. However, three MS reported rates between only

42 % and 85 %.

NiCd batteries are considered hazardous and are also addressed as such by the Directive, which

prohibits their use in portable batteries. Their use as industrial batteries is currently still allowed.

Under the CLP Regulation cadmium compounds are classified as very toxic to aquatic life (H400, H410),

harmful if swallowed, inhaled or in contact with skin (H3012, H332, H312 respectively). Cadmium


69

hydroxide, which is used in such batteries, is classified as carcinogenic (H350) and mutagenic (H340) as

well as being harmful if swallowed, inhaled or coming into contact with skin (H3012, H332, H312

respectively). It is also classified as causing damage to organs (kidney, bone) through prolonged or

repeated exposure (H372) and toxic to the aquatic environment (H400, H410).

Nickel oxide hydroxide, a constituent of such batteries, is currently not classified; however, nickel

oxide is classified under CLP as a possible carcinogen through inhalation (H350i), possibly causing long

lasting effects to aquatic life (H413), causing damage to organs through prolonged or repeated exposure

(372) and possibly causing an allergic skin reaction (H317).

Potassium hydroxide, which is also used in NiCd batteries, is classified as harmful if swallowed (H302)

and as causing severe skin burns and eye damage (H314).

Resource extraction

Nickel is extracted in almost equal quantities from sulphide ores and lateritic deposits. Sulphide ores

can cause acid mine drainage, which can have a long term impact on the surrounding soil and water

supply. Mining for lateritic deposits therefore generates higher greenhouse gas emissions; these

currently lie between 25 and 46 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of primary metal. Mining for sulphide ores, by

contrast, generates only 10 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of primary metal. Both forms of mining release

sulphur dioxide, which causes acid rain. Optimising ore processing methods can nonetheless

significantly reduce the quantity of sulphur dioxide released (Mudd 2010). Nickel mining in Canada and

Russia has had a range of environmental consequences, including biodiversity losses, acid rain and

heavy metal contamination (Mudd 2010).

Waste water and dust from the mining and smelting processes of Ni production contaminate the

environment. Therefore, exposure to Ni through inhalation, direct skin contact, and oral consumption is

possible. Breathing in Ni-contaminated dust from Ni mining and smelting leads to significant damage to

lungs and nasal cavities. (J Cancer Prev 2015)

Recycling

Apart from primary cadmium production, another main source of cadmium is from recycling NiCd

batteries. NiCd battery recycling processes recover cadmium and nickel and consist of three recycling

steps: sorting, preparation for recycling and cadmium distillation. Along with pure cadmium, another

output of the recycling process is a Ni-Fe fraction, which can be sold to the stainless steel industry.

5.4.7 Quantitative environmental impacts of batteries

Simplified material flow analysis

The calculation of the environmental impacts of batteries takes into account different life cycle stages,

including upstream processes. Results are generated according to different environmental impact

categories. The calculation presented in this study is based on literature data, the ecoinvent database

(ecoinvent 3.3) and the LCA tool “openLCA” (openLCA 2017). Detailed results of the calculations are

presented for selected impact categories in Table 5-5.

The quantification of batteries’ environmental impacts focuses on battery production (incl. upstream

processes such as mining and further processing, regardless whether inside or outside the EU), battery


70

transport, and the recycling of the waste batteries. The amounts of batteries42 in Figure 5-1 are based

on the battery mass flows for the EU28. Battery production considers the amounts of batteries placed

on the market in the EU28 and differs between the battery chemistries (Table 5-5, upper part). Battery

recycling includes the amounts entering the recycling process (Table 5-5, middle part). Recycling is

dominated by the recycling of lead-acid batteries. The recovery of secondary lead, the main output of

the recycling process, is hence compared with the primary production of lead (Table 5-5, lower part).

The difference between secondary lead and the alternative of primary lead results in a net reduction

and thus represents a credit for recycling.

The applied approach and main assumptions used for quantifying the environmental impacts of

batteries are described in chapter 12.4.8.

42 NiCd batteries are not included because of their small amount and the data gaps in several impact categories.


71

Table 5-5: Quantitative results of the environmental impact assessment of batteries in the EU 2015; selected impact categories

Environmental impact categories

Acidification

potential

Climate change - GWP100

Depletion of abiotic resources

Eutrophication

Freshwater aquatic

ecotoxicity - FAETP

Human toxicity - HTTP

Ozone layer

depletion

Photo-chemical oxidation

Depletion of abiotic resources -

fossil fuels

Operation

batteries million tonnes

tonnes SO2 eq.

million tonnes CO2eq.

tonnes antimony

eq.

tonnes PO4 eq.

"million tonnes

million tonnes 1,4-

dichlorobenzene eq.

tonnes CFC-11 eq.

tonnes ethylene eq.

million MJ

Production 2015 batteries

Pb acid 1.55 44 500 4.21 22 000 24 700 5.83 9.06 0.5 1 850 53

Other primary 0.15 no data 0.5 no data no data no

data no data

no data

no data no data

Other rechargeable (NiMH)

0.02 22 600 0.3 0 1 100 0.4 0.6 1.6 930 3

Other rechargeable Li-ion

0.07 10 400 1.9 100 7 200 1.7 3.8 17.1 490 16

Total 1.80 77 500 7.0 22 100 33 100 8.0 13.5 19.1 3 270 73

Recycling 2015 batteries

Pb acid 1.42 14 292 0.45 4 857 0.35 0.28 0.20 678 4.87

Other batteries 0.06 173 0.04 no data 13 0.00 0.01 0.01 no data no data

Total 1.48 14 465 0.50 4 870 0.35 0.29 0.21 678 4.87

Difference Lead

Pb primary 0.80 33 012 1.3 4 286 9 732 2.3 4.9 0.1 1 248 11

Pb secondary (Pb acid recycling)

0.80 14 292 0.5 4 857 0.4 0.3 0.2 678 5

Difference 0.00 -18 720 -0.9 -4 282 -8 875 -2.0 -4.7 0.1 -570 -6

Source: Oeko-Institut, own calculation; figures related to production are rounded


73

In Sullivan Gaines (2012), an overview of different sources of LCA data of e.g. lead-acid and NiMH

batteries is provided. In Table 5-6, greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 respectively CO2eq)43 extracted from

Sullivan Gaines (2012) are compared with the emission factors used for the calculations carried by

Oeko-Institut for this study (last column, for more details please see chapter 12.4.8).

Table 5-6: Comparison of LCA data (emission factors) for different batteries

Battery Process (Sullivan Gaines 2012) (Sullivan Gaines 2012) This study

range

kg CO2/kg battery

average

kg CO2/kg battery kg CO2eq/kg battery

Pb-acid production about 1.1 to 6.4 3.2 2.7

NiMH production about 8.3 to 19.5 13.6 18.6

Pb-acid recycling

0.60 0.32

Source: (Sullivan Gaines 2012) and Oeko-Institut

Generally, the emission factors applied for lead-acid batteries and NiMH batteries in this study are in

the range of the values provided in Sullivan Gaines (2012). Lead-acid batteries are by far the most

relevant battery type because so many of them are in use (about 86 % of the total batteries in EU28).

The emission factor for production applied in this study is similar to that found in Sullivan Gaines

(2012), and the one for recycling is about half of the value found in Sullivan Gaines (2012).

The ILA (International Lead Associations) announced a new LCA of lead-acid batteries in comparison

with other batteries at the aabc (advanced automotive battery conference) (ILA 2018).

Emission factors for Li-ion batteries in literature vary widely. Apart from different Li-ion chemistries,

the specific energy demand for cell production is a main reason for differences. The emission factor

applied in this study (about 26 kg CO2eq/kg battery) is considered to be in the upper range of values.

5.4.8 Main findings

The environmental problems addressed in the Batteries Directive focus on hazardous substances

contained in batteries and environmental impacts resulting from hazardous battery materials when a

waste battery is incinerated or goes to a landfill (European Commission 2003); see chapter 2.2. The

Directive addresses these environmental risks in two different ways. Firstly by way of precaution:

certain hazardous materials are prohibited in batteries and the development of batteries which contain

smaller quantities of dangerous substances or less polluting substances is promoted. Secondly by way of

collecting and recycling high amounts of batteries: this avoids inappropriate disposal of waste

batteries.

Main environmental impacts which occur during the individual stages of the battery life cycle are

summarised in Table 5-7.

Table 5-7: Main environmental impacts of the battery life cycle

Life cycle Environmental impacts Comments

43 Sullivan Gaines (2012) does not provide any sum parameters for other environmental impact categories such as

acidification or resource depletion.


74

Life cycle Environmental impacts Comments

Resource extraction

Acid mine drainage, heavy metals

emissions (dusts), land use, biodiversity

losses etc.

High risks of impacts depending on the specific

extraction site; mainly outside the EU; sub-

standards might apply

Battery production Greenhouse gas emissions, hazardous

substance emissions

Main source of greenhouse gas emissions within

the life cycle of batteries (excluding the

electricity to charge accumulators); occurs

inside and outside the EU

Use Only indirect; electricity generation Low relevance for the battery sector

Disposal Leaching and air emissions of hazardous

substances

Life cycle stage with high potential of hazardous

substance emissions within EU

Recycling

Air emissions of heavy metals, greenhouse

gases; credits for secondary raw materials

from recycling

Life cycle stage with comparable low relevance;

BAT applies within EU

The disposal of waste batteries (landfilling, incineration) is considered a main life cycle stage where

potential hazardous substance might be emitted per battery unit. Thus, the environment is at high risk

when waste batteries are not collected and properly recycled.

High environmental risks also occur for resource extraction and processing, in particular outside the EU

when only sub-standard extraction / processing is performed.

Development options of batteries containing less hazardous substances, however, are limited. Li-ion

batteries indeed no longer contain mercury, cadmium or lead, but certain cathode materials in Li-ion

batteries are, for example, suspected of causing cancer.

The main strategy to reduce environmental impacts, namely through collection and recycling, is

addressed in various parts of the Directive (Article 1, 7, 12, 13). As shown in Table 5-7, the high

standards of the recycling stage in the EU result in low environmental impacts compared to resource

extraction and processing, battery production and disposal.

In the following, some of the most relevant aspects related to the environment are explained in more

detail.


The ban of mercury in batteries is effective. It supports the general chemical policy on mercury. The

ban on cadmium applies for portable batteries only and is therefore only partially effective. Other

hazardous substances continue to be used in batteries and for battery production. For example, certain

cathode materials in Li-ion batteries are suspected of causing cancer and other Li-ion battery materials

such as lithiumhexafluorophosphat are also suspected as hazardous. Zinc powder, a metal contained in

alkaline batteries, is classified as toxic to the aquatic environment.

The impacts of these hazardous substances on health and the environment from production in the EU28,

use phase in the EU28 and recycling in the EU28 are considered limited. Damage, accident, littering and

disposal instead of collection and recycling at end-of-life present persistent risks in the EU28.


75

Disposal of waste batteries

A relevant amount of portable batteries containing hazardous substances are not separately collected

but end up in mixed municipal waste and are subsequently disposed of in landfills or waste incineration

plants. Another source of emissions from batteries is from shredder facilities when batteries are not

removed from WEEE before shredding. Concerns about release of hazardous substances from such

disposal, which is a main environmental problem addressed by the Directive, still persist.

Recycling

Recycling of raw materials from waste batteries is preferable compared to production of primary raw

materials. The effect on greenhouse gas emissions of using recycled versus primary materials is limited

as the contribution of the entire battery sector (i.e. batteries placed on the market in the EU28) equals

only 0.2 % of the entire greenhouse gas emissions in the EU28 (see chapter 12.4.8). Nevertheless, lead-

acid battery recycling (about 86 % of the total batteries in EU28 are lead-acid batteries), which

produces secondary lead, supports the EU’s climate policy and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by two

thirds compared to primary production of lead.

The reduction in hazardous substance emissions from secondary lead production in comparison to

emissions from primary lead production is more significant. In this sense, battery recycling helps

mitigate problems stemming from hazardous substances. The human toxicity potential (HTP)44 for the

production of about 0.8 million tonnes of primary lead is about 18 times higher compared to the HTP of

the same production amount of secondary lead (from lead-acid battery recycling in EU28 in 2015).

The advantages of recycling are even more striking when depletion of abiotic resources45 is considered:

about 4 300 tonnes of antimony eq. are needed for primary lead production compared to only 4 tonnes

of antimony eq. for secondary lead.

Effects beyond EU28

The majority of mining and processing that produces battery raw materials for the EU market takes

place in third countries (outside the EU). The produced materials, however, are used for battery

production in the EU and are contained in batteries which are imported to the EU. For resource

extraction and processing in third countries, often only sub-standards are applied. Also, sub-standard

recycling is observed in third countries and evidence is available that such sub-standard (secondary)

resources enter the EU market.

The Directive has no stipulations (e.g. requirements for certified raw materials/ certified batteries) to

avoid such sub-standard recycling, mining and processing. As a result, concerns indicate that EU

consumption might cause relevant health and environmental impacts in third countries.

Inclusion of environmental requirements for the sustainable production of e-mobility batteries could be

considered as part of the revision of the Batteries Directive as indicated in COM(2018) 293. Such

requirements would have to be designed to address the whole process chain.

44 The human toxicity potential (HTP) is a calculated index, given as 1.4-dichlorobenzene equivalents, that reflects

the potential harm of a unit of chemical released into the environment. 45 The depletion of abiotic resources is calculated as antimony equivalents.


76

6 Reliability of data and results

In the context of the evaluation of the Batteries Directive, the availability of data and information and

the quality of figures and information play an essential role. The reliability of the results of this study

depends on the access to high-quality information sources and robust data. These factors determine the

strength and robustness of the results.

Table 6-1 summarises the most relevant data gaps and data-quality issues. The reliability of the

respective results (e.g. collection rates or batteries in municipal waste), which are based on this data,

is assessed and weaknesses are indicated. More background information and details are given in the

specific chapters.

The overall validity of the conclusions is addressed for each general evaluation question in chapter 7. At

this point, the level of reliability also includes other information and sources.

Table 6-1: Overview on data and information gaps and data quality

Content Gaps / data quality Reliability (high, medium, low)46

Refer-ence

Collection rates The collection target (collection rate of 45%) defines the minimum requirement for the share of portable batteries the MS have to collect. Reporting is obligatory.

6 MS and 2 countries did not report data. 4 out of 14 MS reported collection rates with an unusually sharp increase (partly explainable or under investigation). In addition to the 14 MS, NO reported an unusual collection rate of

80% and HR an unusual collection rate of 100%.

Medium; Eurostat data, but significant data gaps and some

inconsistencies; data check ongoing

Chapter 5.3

Collection data on portable Pb-acid batteries Some MS voluntarily report on portable Pb-acid batteries (placed on the market and collected; reporting total portable is mandatory). This data determines the collection rates.

Significant inconsistencies for 5 MS; assumed that industrial Pb-acid are misleadingly reported as portable --> collection rates

would be too high

In principle medium; but lower for 5 MS because of

significant inconsistencies

Chapter 12.5.1

Recycling efficiencies Recycling efficiency targets define the minimum efficiency requirements for recycling of all battery types. Reporting is obligatory.

Lead-acid: 6 MS and countries IS and LI did not report the recycling efficiency.

NiCd: 9 MS and countries IS and LI did not report (BG reported ’0’).

Other: 7 MS and countries IS and LI did not report.

Slags accounting for recycling is not harmonized between MS.

Medium; Eurostat data, but significant

data gaps

Chapter 5.3

Data from foreign recyclers Reporting of recycling efficiencies when recycling takes place in foreign countries still presents a problem. Issues exist with data availability and data quality.

Problems in receiving recycling efficiency data from foreign recyclers exist, e.g. data is

based on total volumes treated by the recycler and not only on the imported amount

of a specific country.

The challenge is collecting information from recycling processes, where recycling is performed in many steps and the first

recycler is responsible for gathering all the information.

Low; some data from foreign recyclers are

inconsistent and data quality might

be potentially unreliable as there

is no controlling

Chapter 7.2.1

46 The reliability of data and results is considered. High, medium and low are relative terms applied within this study to compare the data and information addressed in this table.


77


Refer-ence

Batteries in municipal waste Individual waste analysis in 7 MS indicate high amounts of batteries in municipal waste

No reporting or systematic analysis on batteries in waste at EU level; no timeline

Medium; estimates for extrapolation on EU28, but order of

magnitude is considered reliable

Chapter 5.1.6

Losses of batteries Batteries in municipal waste represent only one explanation for the huge gap between batteries placed on the market and batteries collected. Other potential losses include battery hoarding and export of used products with incorporated batteries.

A detailed analysis for potential losses is not possible because of missing data on hoarding

and export of used EEE (electric and electronic equipment).

Low; the Directive only addresses

collected batteries but not losses or

gaps

Chapter 7.2.1

Batteries in WEEE Data is lacking on batteries removed from WEEE (waste electric and electronic equipment) and batteries recycled together with WEEE.

Data is lacking about what share of the batteries incorporated into WEEE are actually

removed from WEEE and sent for separate recycling. It is thus not possible to conclude the degree of compliance with the Batteries

Directive Article 11 provision: neither in relation to the removability

requirement (i.e. the number of batteries actually removed and the design of batteries as removable by the end-user or by qualified

professionals); nor in relation to its objective (i.e.

compliance of such batteries with collection and recycling requirements of the Directive). A single estimate was found in the literature (ProSum 2017), calculating that on average

7% of batteries are removed (ranging from 1-20%). There is also no data as to the

efficiency at which batteries still incorporated in WEEE are recycled (i.e.

battery RE as opposed to WEEE RE).

Low: The estimate specifies a relatively wide range (1-20%). It is not clear how it was derived and it seems to be a first rough estimation.

Chapter 7.2.2

Industrial batteries placed on the market and collected Estimates of the European situation indicate differences between placed-on-the-market (ca. 491 000 t of industrial batteries) and collected (ca. 435 000 t).

There is no reporting or systematic analysis of data for industrial batteries placed on the

market and collected at EU level. There is no evidence to support the

assumption that all industrial batteries are collected and no evidence to support the

assumption of losses of industrial batteries.

Low; rough estimates for

extrapolation on EU28, no systematic

data/analysis on industrial batteries

available

Chapter 5.1.7

Automotive batteries Based on export figures of used vehicles from Eurostat (Eurostat 2017), losses of about 21 000 t of lead-acid batteries result for EU28.

There is no reporting or systematic analysis of losses caused by export of used vehicles on

EU level Vehicles of unknown whereabouts also add to

battery losses. This amount cannot be estimated.

Medium; estimates based on Eurostat export figures of used vehicles.

Unknown battery losses related to unknown where-

abouts of vehicles.

Chapter 5.1

Online battery sales Online trading, with batteries sold directly as a separate product or incorporated into products, has steadily increased in recent years. . It is questionable to what extent these batteries are registered as placed-on-the–market, which has a direct impact on PRO financing and the battery collection rate.

No information on the amount of batteries sold online is available. Likewise, no

information on the registered share of batteries being sold online is available.

Low; no information available

Chapter 5.1.5

Export of waste batteries inside and outside the EU The Waste Shipment Regulation provides data on waste battery export and import. This data in theory could provide complementary information to data on the basis of the Batteries Directive.

The Waste Shipment Regulation provides detailed data on waste battery export inside and outside the EU. However, data structure and basic systematics are not identical with

the Batteries Directive.

Medium, different data structure and

systematics

Chapter 5.1.9


78


Refer-ence

Environmental impacts of battery life cycle Calculation of the environmental impacts from batteries follows a simplified approach of a material flow analyses. The calculation takes into account different life cycle stages, including upstream processes. Results are generated according to different environmental impact categories.

The consultant’s calculations, based on professional assumptions and estimates, present a good overview of the impacts.

There are many LCAs on batteries available, but most of them are not in accordance with

this study’s approach.

Medium, (good quality, given the limited resources

for this task)

Chapter 5.4.7

On a general level, data gaps mainly occur under the topic “economy”. Monetary data, e.g. costs of

different sectors or batteries’ production value chains, are very limited, often for confidentiality

reasons. Particularly important are the gaps found in relation with the information needed to assess the

efficiency, for instance:

• Costs and/or benefits for operators resulting from the ban on NiCd in cordless power tools.

• Costs and benefits for recyclers in comparison with other sectors (manufacturers, retailers).

• Costs and benefits from restricting use of hazardous metals in batteries for the recycling sector.

• Supplementary costs for battery recyclers from having to treat batteries as hazardous waste (e.g.

Member States where all batteries are recognized as hazardous waste versus Member States where

not all batteries types are recognized as hazardous waste).

• Difference of administrative costs between Member States in implementing the Batteries

Directive.

6.1 Confidence in our results

The discussion of methods in the preceding chapters and in particular chapter 6 highlights the key

weaknesses, the data and information gaps and the overall reliability of the mains aspects of the

evaluation. Given the detailed and specific nature of the questions related to batteries, a relatively

small number of organisations and individuals across Europe have the technical, practical and policy

knowledge to answer these questions. Therefore, we are confident that our approach is as

comprehensive and in depth as is possible given the resources provided for this work.

7 Results of the evaluation questions

7.1 Relevance

7.1.1 Evaluation question: Relevance for environmental objectives (1)

1) How well do the original objectives of the Directive correspond to current environmental,

technical, economic and social conditions and needs, as regards the use of batteries within the EU?

How relevant are the provisions of the Batteries Directive for achieving its environmental and

market-related objectives?

Generally, the main objectives of the Batteries Directive – to protect, preserve and improve the quality

of the environment and to ensure the functioning of the internal market, avoiding competition

distortion – are well in accordance with the current needs and have not lost relevance. On the contrary,

the market-, EPR- and competition-related aspects have become even more important when taking into


79

account globalization in association with competition amongst international businesses and global

product and material flows.

Rechargeable batteries more strongly influence society’s technical, economic and social conditions and

needs. The dependency on mobile phones, tablets and other appliances as well as applications in e-

mobility are an expression of this development. Regarding e-mobility, the struggle for battery raw

materials, apart from environmental considerations, is a major issue. Therefore, resource efficiency

presents an objective of high relevance which so far is not adequately covered in the Directive.

From the stakeholders answering the public consultation as citizens and organisations with a specific

interest and knowledge on batteries, 77 % agreed that the objectives established by the Batteries

Directive are still relevant and 16 % disagreed with this statement. In relation to the requirements

established by the Directive, 55 % agreed that the requirements are still relevant while 31 % of the

participants disagreed with this statement.

The targets and provisions of the Directive generally correspond well to the Directive’s environmental

and market-related objectives. Collection rates, recycling efficiencies, prohibition of hazardous

substances but also setting-up collection schemes, promoting new recycling technologies or removal of

batteries from appliances (see Figure 2-1, actions and measures) are all important provisions for

achieving the objectives.

In the following, resource efficiency, removability, labelling and the relevance of these aspects are

addressed in more detail. Other relevant provisions will be covered in subsequent chapters, e.g.

collection and recycling efficiency.

Resource efficiency

Generally, resource efficiency has become an important issue since adaption of the Directive; it is

addressed too generally and therefore not adequately in the Directive.

Awareness on resource efficiency and critical raw materials (i.e. raw materials of high importance to

the EU economy and of high risk associated with their supply) has been growing in the last decade. The

flagship initiative a ‘resource-efficient Europe’ was developed some years after the adaption of the

Batteries Directive in 2010. The first list of critical raw materials for the EU was published by the

European Commission in 2011 as part of the EU Raw Materials Initiative.47

In particular, lithium and the critical raw materials of high importance for battery production –

antimony, cobalt (44 % of global use can be allocated to Li-ion batteries), natural graphite, indium, and

certain rare earth metals – are not addressed by the Directive; see chapter 5.1.3.

Stakeholders report that the Directive does not adequately address resource efficiency through

recycling of raw materials. Indeed, the Directive’s definition of recycling efficiency is not oriented

towards recovering battery materials, regardless whether critical raw materials or other materials, e.g.

steel or aluminium. No clear priority to high-quality recycling as opposed to downcycling is indicated.

47 The third and most recent list was published in 2017. See http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/raw-

materials/specific-interest/critical_en


80

However, recycling (with a focus on resource efficiency) would reduce battery production dependency

on primary materials, further reducing the negative environmental and social impacts from primary raw

material production. This is especially true for Li-ion batteries due to their importance for new

applications. Achieving recycling efficiencies above the minimum target is currently not supported by

the provisions of the Directive.

When considering resource efficiency and the recovery of battery materials such as lithium, low

revenues for secondary materials and the prices of primary materials need to be taken into account and

require provisions in support of materials.

Stakeholders mention that they would prefer that the Directive clearly specifies the materials to be

recovered.. In addition, stakeholders underline that cherry picking (i.e. the possibility to choose freely

the parts or materials of the batteries to undergo recycling) does not necessarily lead to higher

resource efficiency or better circular economy.

Design features - removability

Removability of batteries incorporated into appliances (see chapter 7.2.2, which also addresses the

related aspects of battery replaceability, device repairability and extension of product lifetime) is still

important for complying with the Directive’s collection and recycling requirements. Amplifying the

importance of removability, a higher incidence of batteries that can only be removed by qualified

professionals or that cannot be removed without destroying the device has been observed.

At present, since removability is not sufficiently complied with, neither the collection objective nor the

recycling objective can be sufficiently fulfilled. Better enforcement of removability could increase

separate collection and recycling of batteries incorporated into appliances.

Battery replaceability (see chapter 7.2.2) and appliance repairability are furthermore important to

extending product lifetime once a battery reaches EoL, which in general supports resource efficiency

and the circular economy.

Battery labelling

Article 21 of the Batteries Directive requires batteries to be labelled as follows:

• The ‘separate collection’ symbol needs to be marked on all batteries.

• Contents of mercury, cadmium and lead above certain thresholds need to be marked on all

batteries.

• Battery capacity needs to be marked on portable and automotive batteries.

The Directive indicates that the purpose of the labelling system is to provide transparent, reliable and

clear information to end-users on batteries and their heavy metal content. The role of end-users in the

management of waste batteries (in support of collection) is also relevant. According to stakeholders,

labelling is understood to be important for providing end-consumers with information on chemical

content (labelling of heavy metals) and separate collection and thus for supporting the environmental

objectives of the Directive. The crossed-out wheeled bin symbol, indicating that batteries should not be

disposed of with normal waste, is still considered necessary. Though individuals not familiar with the

meaning of the symbol do not necessarily separate batteries from other waste, those familiar with it


81

respect the label; additional campaigns providing the public with information on this aspect could

improve separation.

Validity of the conclusion

Source of information: Batteries Directive, public consultation, MS questionnaire, targeted interviews,

consultants analysis

Level of reliability: high

Remaining gaps: -/-

If available evidence is insufficient, what effort was undertaken to gather evidence: -/-

7.1.2 Evaluation question: Persistent problems (2)

2) To what extent do the problems addressed by the Batteries Directive still persist within the EU?

The Directive addresses two categories of problems, namely environment and market related issues

(see chapter2.2). Both problems still persist48 or, in some respect, have even increased in relevance.

Environmental problems

The main environmental problem – related to hazardous substances and in particular mercury, cadmium

and lead – still persists and is dealt with in the following sub-section.


Though Hg, Cd and Pb can be understood to be hazardous in the Batteries Directive, prohibitions are

only listed for Hg and Cd (see Table 7-1). While prohibition of lead in automotive batteries is at least

addressed (though currently not operational given the exemption in the ELV Directive Annex II),

prohibition of lead-acid portable and industrial batteries is not mentioned at all. Similarly, for NiCd

batteries, portable batteries are prohibited but industrial batteries are not mentioned at all. There is

no explanation why such other batteries are not addressed through prohibition (e.g. lead-acid portable,

NiCd industrial), nor on what basis this would become necessary (criteria) – neither for the three

substances Hg, Cd, Pb, nor for other substances.

Taking into account that industrial lead-acid batteries represent the second largest share of all

batteries after automotive batteries and that industrial NiCd batteries are more relevant than portable

NiCd (given the prohibition of the latter), the problem of hazardous substances being spread through

batteries still persists within the EU despite prohibitions.

In a sense, the problem of hazardous substances in batteries has even increased as new battery

chemistries and associated other hazardous battery materials have become relevant; see chapter 5.4.8.

48 In this context, the term “persistent problems” is understood to be the case when generally the problem, e.g.

that heavy metals in waste batteries cause a risk to the environment, is still relevant and thus prohibition is still required.


82

Table 7-1: Overview on prohibited hazardous substances

Portable Industrial Automotive

Mercury Prohibited in Batteries Directive

Cadmium Prohibited in

Batteries Directive

Prohibition for use in vehicles through ELV. Other applications allowed

Lead

Prohibition for use in vehicles through ELV however currently exempted

The Directive considers environmental issues associated with hazardous substances by mainly focussing

on the end-of-life stage of the battery life cycle (chapter 5.4.2). Such problems related to the

environmental impacts of batteries ending up in waste streams (5.1.6) and being landfilled or

incinerated still persist and are covered in more detail in chapter 7.2.1.

The problem of recovery of battery materials also still exists and is addressed under resource efficiency

in chapter 7.1.1.

Problems related to the functioning of the internal market

Adaption of the Batteries Directive broadly lifted the burden for producers that had been caused by

different national requirements. The Directive thus supports the functioning of the single European

market. Regulations harmonising requirements for placing batteries on the market continue to be

necessary and of added value. Some aspects addressing to freeriders or unfair competition, as outlined

in chapter 7.3.5, are not sufficiently avoided and need attention.


Source of information: Public consultation, MS questionnaire, targeted interviews, consultants analysis

on environmental impacts, Batteries Directive


Remaining gaps: -/-


7.1.3 Evaluation question: Technical and scientific progress (3)

3) How well adapted is the Directive to (subsequent) technical and scientific progress?

The battery sector is dynamic and innovative. The Batteries Directive in turn was adopted more than 10

years ago in 2006. It is therefore hardly surprising that new applications, new battery types and new

recycling technologies occur and new trends have emerged since the Directive was developed. In the

following, the main results of this study’s evaluation of the Directive in the context of technical

progress are presented. Several aspects were identified where the Directive is not up-to-date.

Therefore, the overall Directive is not well adapted to new developments.


83

Most frequent use and new applications of batteries

Battery use has changed since the Batteries Directive was introduced, and the Directive no longer

adequately reflects already existing developments and the most frequent uses of batteries. “New”49

applications include in particular electric vehicles, e-bikes, smartphones, tablets, robots, drones as

well as stationary applications, e.g. energy storage systems on grid level (see chapter 5.1.2). At the

same time, existing applications (laptops, mobile phones, electric shavers, etc.) are more frequently

used since the introduction of the Directive. All these applications are dominated by Li-ion batteries.

New battery applications in households, e.g. e-bikes, e-cars and energy storage systems for renewable

energies, are categorised as industrial batteries but are applied by private consumers. The problems

exist in the Directive’s definition of industrial batteries needing a clear distinction from portable

batteries. The collection of these batteries causes difficulties, since for industrial batteries EPR

related-provisions are not well defined and detailed regulations comparable to portable batteries are

missing; see chapter 5.2.3.

Re-use of batteries

The most relevant aspect related to new applications is the re-use50 of batteries. There is broad

consensus on the need to address battery re-use in the Batteries Directive, which is so far not the case.

Due to a lack of definitions and regulations in the Batteries Directive on re-use, preparing for re-use or

second use, there is an unclear legal situation, especially for battery producers. Instead, applying the

provisions of the WFD to batteries would mean that batteries for re-use are not waste whereas

batteries prepared for re-use are waste for recovery. Batteries for re-use for purposes other than the

purpose intended when placed on the market (e.g. batteries from e-vehicles used as energy storage in

households) are not batteries for re-use. It is also unclear who takes producer-responsibility for re-used

batteries and how re-used batteries should be reported.

Micro batteries

For electrified products like food packing, textiles and other appliances using micro/ printed/ thin film

batteries, it needs to be clarified whether the Batteries Directive is applicable and, if so, to which type

of batteries electrified products belong. So far, the Batteries Directive does not contain a special

category for thin film batteries. In addition, it is not clear which provisions apply to collecting

electrified products containing micro/ printed/ thin film batteries. For example, food packaging

containing printed batteries (e.g. electronic price display on the packaging) could be classified as

electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) with built-in batteries. In this case, the batteries would need

to be removed from the waste packaging. If a thin film battery cannot be removed from a product or

only with reasonable effort, this conflicts with the duty specified in the Batteries Directive to remove

batteries from electrified products.

Emerging trends

Apart from new applications, there are also some important new trends appearing since the Batteries

Directive was adopted. Yet there is no link between the Batteries Directive and these new trends; the

Directive is also not prepared to deal with such new developments. A most relevant trend is the online

sales of batteries (chapter 5.1.5).

49 “New” does not mean that these applications did not already exist. However, their amount was not relevant. 50 Also often referred to as second-use.


84

New battery types and chemistries and new recycling technologies

In principle, the Batteries Directive covers all types and chemistries of batteries. A more detailed look

at the implementation or application of the Directive, however, shows that it does not adequately

address certain aspects of new battery types.

Li-ion is the only relevant “new” battery type (chapter 5.1.2). Other new battery chemistries have not

(at least so far) achieved relevant market penetration. Generally, new types of batteries fall under the

category ‘other battery’. This is no longer adequate to the amount and relevance of Li-ion batteries.

The Batteries Directive does not address recycling important metals from batteries (e.g. there is no

recycling efficiency target for Li-ion batteries and no rate of recycled content of e.g. cobalt). A 50 %

recycling efficiency for other batteries does not ensure the recovery of important battery materials,

including lithium, critical resources (see chapter 5.1.3) or other materials where the primary extraction

and processing results in high environmental impacts. With regard to environmental protection (risk of

releasing hazardous substances into the environment), the recovery of hazardous materials contained in

Li-ion batteries is also not guaranteed.

New battery types might cause high costs for collection and recycling without providing respective

profit for the recycled materials to recover the entire chain51. Thus a financial incentive and an

economic motivation for collection and recycling are missing and for industrial batteries no collection

target exists. In such cases where the market itself is not a strong driver, regulation is missing to

support the recycling of important battery material.

The Directive does not adequately addresses certain new types of batteries, for example, printed

batteries (chapter 12.1.3). In particular, the Directive does not address the relevance of new battery

types, for example by defining criteria/ thresholds for relevance (amount, hazardous substances,

economic etc.). In this respect, the Directive is not specific enough to deal with such new

developments.


support the application of such new technologies. In this respect, the Directive has not foreseen an

increase of recycling efficiency targets and thus adaptation to new and improved recycling

technologies. The Directive also does not support specific technologies for new batteries. For example,

there are no efficiency targets for Li-ion batteries or rates of recycled contents for new battery

materials.

The Directive does not specify a methodology for evaluating the (environmental) performance of

batteries, i.e. to determine using new battery technologies what substances should be prohibited,

replaced, recycled, recovered, etc.

51 From May 2017 to April 2018 the the price for cobalt increased by nearly 90 %, making Li-ion battery recycling

more profitable. Before that increase, the profit from recycling was regarded as insufficient to recover expenditures for collection, safe storage and transport.


85

The battery reporting system should match with the most relevant types of batteries on the market;

this means, in effect, reporting Li-ion batteries in their own category separate from ‘other batteries’.

Generally, there are no criteria for such a change and the Directive does not provide any guidance on

what should be reported and respectively what the criteria might be for reporting (e.g. type and

chemistry of batteries, hazardous substances, amount/ relevance of batteries, life time, critical raw

materials). Although the Batteries Directive refers to BAT (best available techniques), recital 17, no

BAT exists for any new type of battery (e.g. for Li-ion batteries; see chapter 7.2.2).

Consumer expectations

Generally, the Batteries Directive is not prescriptive for battery features such as durability, number of

charging cycles, safety requirements and energy efficiency. Though it can be understood that some of

these features have changed (e.g. generally improved) since the Directive came into force, it is also

observed that in some cases further improvements are needed and could be addressed through the

Directive. At present the Directive does not address such aspects and thus also does not ensure that

consumer requirements are fulfilled. Two specific points were highlighted in the consultation: battery

durability and performance.

The durability of batteries has been raised by consumer organisations as a feature that should be

addressed in the Directive to provide consumers with more certainty as well as to support resource

efficiency and the circular economy. Though it is clear that the lifespan of batteries has improved, at

least for some products, further improvements are needed in certain applications (e.g. mobile phones,

laptops).

Generally it seems that consumers would benefit from additional information about the performance of

batteries. As raised by some stakeholders, e-vehicle design may prevent safety hazards, whereas

consumers need to be informed of how to handle batteries (charging, replacing). For e-vehicles,

consumer organisations raise the need to ensure durability as well as replaceability at the battery cell

level.


From a comparison of chemical substance classifications (CLP, notified self-classifications), it can be

observed that aside form Hg, Cd and Pb, there are additional substances present in batteries that are

classified as hazardous despite their not being addressed in the Directive, e.g. lithiumcobaltoxide in Li-

ion batteries (see chapter 5.4.5). The lack of a definition in the Batteries Directive for hazardous

substances does not allow evaluating whether other substances should also be considered hazardous.

Additionally, the relation between the definition of a substance as hazardous and its prohibition under

the Directive is not clear; criteria for prohibition are not stipulated in the Directive. Consequently, it is

not clear whether and to what degree the potential prohibition of hazardous substances in new battery

applications is relevant. In this respect, the Directive is not well adapted to new developments.

Battery labelling

Many stakeholders commented on the need to adapt chemistry labelling in order to ensure safe

handling during sorting and recycling processes. Li-ion batteries were given as examples for safety risks

related to false sorting. Labelling related to safety risks is also relevant for end-users, e.g. when

hoarding or storing Li-ion batteries or in case of damaged Li-ion batteries.


86

New batteries require an adapted chemical labelling system to support better sorting and subsequently

increased recycling efficiency. Labelling of electro-chemical systems is particularly relevant for Li-ion

sub-chemistries. Considerations of stakeholders for new labelling of chemical content included:

• System should be internationally recognized and standardized;

• Possible options: colour-coding similar to that of the Battery Association of Japan; barcode (not

consumer friendly); black and white code.

Stakeholders (MS) still view it as relevant for the chemical labelling system to provide information to

end-users as to hazardous substances that they contain. In this sense it is noted that possible

adaptations of the labelling system should ensure that such information is clearly and transparently

communicated to end-users.

Though battery sorting may be supported by labelling hazardous content, it is not specified as an

intention in the Directive. Some new industrial batteries are used by end-users (e-bikes). However,

capacity labelling does not cover such new industrial batteries and their applications.


Source of information: Batteries Directive, Public consultation, MS questionnaire, targeted interviews,

consultants analysis


Remaining gaps: Some aspects are based on stakeholders’ opinions


7.2 Effectiveness

7.2.1 Evaluation question: progress towards achieving the objectives (1)

1) What progress has been made towards achieving the objectives and targets set out in the

Directive? Have the environmental impacts of batteries been reduced since the introduction of the

Directive? To what extent is this progress in line with initial expectations? In particular, what

progress has been made to achieve the collection, recycling and recycling efficiency targets?

In the following, objectives related to environmental protection and related to the functioning of the

internal market (see chapter 2.2) will be addressed separately.

Protection of the environment

Overall, environmental impacts of batteries have decreased since the introduction of the Directive

mainly due to an increase in collection of waste batteries and the prohibition of mercury in batteries

and of cadmium in portable batteries. Regarding the progress made, a differentiated consideration is

necessary, as results for specific objectives and targets vary.

Collection of batteries, a target of fundamental importance for the Directive, has increased over time

but still remains too low; too many batteries still end up in other than the battery waste stream (e.g.

municipal waste) and are lost. In this respect, progress is clearly not in line with initial expectations.

The Directive’s other main target, recycling efficiencies, can be considered fulfilled as long as only the

target achievement is assessed. Not less important, the prohibition of mercury and cadmium is


87

successfully implemented. Expectations for other objectives (e.g. improved environmental performance

of batteries) are not clearly defined and require a more detailed analysis (see sub-sections below).

The achievement of targets and provisions will be individually assessed in subsequent sub-sections and

associated issues and shortcomings will be addressed.

From the stakeholders answering the public consultation as citizens and from organisations with a

specific interest and knowledge on batteries, most participants (83%) viewed the Directive as effective

in achieving the objective of protecting the environment in relation to batteries. Only 10 participants

viewed the Directive as ineffective in this respect.74 % of the participants think that the Directive has

been effective in achieving the objectives of protecting human health, while only 4 % disagreed.

Collection targets

The collection rate (45 % by 26 September 2016) is one of the main targets defined in the Directive. . In

total, 15 countries did not fulfil the collection target. Of these, 7 MS reached lower collection rates and

6 MS as well as IS and LI did not report a collection rate. 14 MS reached the collection rate target. In

addition to these 14 MS, NO reported an unusual collection rate of 80 % and HR an unusual collection

rate of 100 %. See chapter 5.3 and Table 5- for more details.

The calculation methodology, the distinction between portable and industrial lead-acid batteries as

well as additional issues are directly linked to the collection rate and are addressed in more detail

here.

Calculation methodology of the collection rate

The calculation rules for the collection rate are generally well described in the Directive. However,

there is a problem that the average length of the battery life cycle is longer than three years, and thus

the calculation method does not correctly represent the collection performance in practice. This study

therefore analysed the influence of a number of successive years of placed-on-the-market data taken

into account for the calculation of the collection rate (see chapter 12.5.2).

It was found that, first of all, a calculation method based on using placed-on-the-market data from 6

successive years (“6a”) would reduce the availability of data for the collection rate significantly.

Further on, no clear argument is evident for using 6a instead of the current method that takes into

account 3 successive years – at least not for the current situation. A sharp increase in the current year’s

collection may result in an unusually high collection rate (e.g. collection rate of 100 %). This is

independent of whether 6 or 3 successive years of placed–on- the–market data are applied in the

calculation method. Finally, the collection rates are vulnerable to breaks in the time series (i.e.

strongly increasing or decreasing volumes of portable batteries) of figures for placed-on-the-market and

of collection.

Distinction of portable and industrial lead-acid batteries

The distinction between portable and industrial lead-acid batteries causes difficulties and subsequently

influences the collection rate. From assessing portable and industrial lead-acid batteries, it can be

concluded that the share of portable lead-acid batteries out of the total collected portable batteries is

implausibly high for CZ, IT, ML, NL and UK (UK: about 75 %). Therefore, it might be that industrial lead-

acid batteries are (misleadingly) reported under the category portable batteries. The overall result may

be that the reported collection rates for CZ, IT, ML, NL and UK are too high.


88

Stakeholders addressed additional concerns. They stated that portable batteries are not being reported

as placed-on-the-market because of non-registered producers (e.g. online sales) or batteries being

wrongly classified as industrial. Hoarding also has an increasing effect because of an increasing share of

long-life Li-ion batteries that are placed on the market (increasing share of applications, e.g.

smartphones, tablets, cordless power tools, etc.). Some MS as well mentioned that the deadline for

data reporting is too ambitious; June of the following year is too early.

Recycling efficiencies

Recycling efficiencies represent another main objective defined by concrete targets to be achieved by

the countries (see chapter 5.3 for more details). Overall, recycling efficiency targets (year 2016) were

met by all countries reporting data except HR, which did not reach the nickel-cadmium batteries

target. Data gaps are an issue; depending on the battery type, between 8 and 12 countries did not

report their recycling efficiency.

Other aspects associated with recycling efficiency also affect the effectiveness of recycling and the

achievement of the objectives, as addressed in subsequent sections.

Calculation methodology of the recycling efficiency

A main aspect affecting the reliability of recycling efficiencies and subsequently also the effectiveness

of the Directive is the calculation methodology of the recycling efficiency and related issues.

Calculation and reporting of recycling efficiencies were often a reason for disagreements in the past.

Although, the situation has improved, problems still exist. The problem, however, is not the calculation

rules as such but the availability and quality of data from foreign recyclers (inside and outside the EU).

Information indicates that the differentiation of the batteries’ origin might be a problem in the data of

some recyclers apart from data availability in general (Oeko-Institut 2018). For example, data is based

on total volumes treated by the recycler and not only on the imported amount from a specific country.

Recycling efficiencies of foreign recyclers are generally not related to the amount of actually exported

waste batteries. The efficiencies apply for the entire plant. A differentiation of individual imported

batches with different compositions of waste batteries is not possible.

Recycling efficiencies of an MS are based on the specific efficiency of recycling plants and represent

the weighted average of all recycling plants involved. When batteries are exported to other MS, the MS’

recycling efficiency depends on the plants in which the recycling takes place. Thus, the recycling

efficiency is more a decision on where the waste batteries are sent for recycling and represents less the

efficiency of the MS exporting the waste batteries (efficiency is not country-specific).

From MS answers it seems that the focus regarding recycling efficiencies of foreign recyclers is mainly

to ensure that recycling efficiency targets are met. There is no indication that any kind of approval or

certification, for example by independent third parties, exists to confirm recycling conditions.

There is no control system in place to verify reported recycling efficiencies. Certification of calculation

methodology, data and the resulting recycling efficiency and BAT compliance would help to develop a

level playing field for the recyclers. This would be important within the EU and outside – that all work

is performed at the same quality level.


89

Finally, Member States expressed that the reporting deadline of 6 months is not sufficient and should

be extended to 18 months, especially when recycling takes place in other countries. As a consequence,

data gaps result and monitoring of the progress and thus the effectiveness is hampered.

Another important issue related to the recycling efficiency is the quality and subsequent use of an

output fraction of the recycling process. What counts for recycling is handled differently by MS. In some

MS the output slag is considered recycled; in others not. This is not harmonized between MS, though it

affects the reported recycling efficiency and the comparison of MS and their recycling processes.

Achieving a recycling efficiency higher than the minimum requirement is not supported by the

provisions of the Directive. The definition of recycling efficiency is not oriented towards recovery of

important battery materials. For example, in the case of slags for road construction, a recycling

efficiency is achieved though no material returns can be achieved towards high-quality applications.

The Directive does not give a clear priority to high-quality recycling compared to downcycling.

Recycling efficiencies of lead-acid batteries for a vast majority of countries were above 75 % in 2016

(compared to a target of 65 %). The range of recycling efficiencies of ‘other batteries’ is much broader

than for lead-acid batteries: from 50 % to about 80 % for most countries (compared to a target of 50 %).

In this context, a comparison with current technical standards of the recycling processes and a

potential adjustment of the recycling efficiency targets might be considered.

Rate of recycled content

In order to recover heavy metals, the Directive stipulates in Annex III (part B) that recycling of the lead

and cadmium content shall be done to the highest degree that is technically feasible while avoiding

excessive costs and Commission Regulation (EU) No 493/2012 in this respect defines the rate of

recycled content (see chapter 2.2 of this report). This primarily addresses the Directive’s objective to

protect the environment (risk of releasing hazardous substances into the environment). As a result,

there are only targets for recycling Pb and Cd specified in the Directive but for no other battery

materials (e.g. not for critical raw materials like cobalt or other heavy metals). This is not consistent

with the goal of achieving a high level of material recovery expressed by the Directive. The Directive

should therefore attach higher importance to the recovery of raw materials. Apart from considering

only Pb and Cd, the requirements are legally vague as no precise quantitative targets are defined.

Further on, very small amounts of Hg still remain in some battery types. So far, there is no obligation to

recover (or more safely dispose of) these small amounts of Hg after separation; there is no target for

recycling the remaining Hg as there is for Pb and Cd recycling.

Batteries in municipal waste

The objective of minimising the negative impact of waste batteries on the environment also means

“…minimis[ing] the disposal of batteries and accumulators as mixed municipal waste…” (Batteries

Directive, Article 7, Overarching objective). The assessment of waste batteries in chapter 5.1.6

revealed that large amounts of waste batteries, ca. 35 000 t in EU28, are being disposed of as part of

municipal waste.

Therefore, the collection rate does not effectively achieve the objective of minimising the negative

impact of batteries on the environment. A collection of 45 % of waste batteries means that still 55 %

end up somewhere else. Furthermore, batteries in municipal waste present yearly losses of batteries.


90

These batteries or respectively the battery materials accumulate over many years in landfills or

somewhere else. In this respect, minimising batteries in municipal waste would mean more directly

achieving the actual aim. For the time being, no target addressing waste batteries in residual waste is

established.

Collection of industrial batteries

The results from our analysis of the EU situation indicate that, for industrial batteries, differences

between data for batteries placed on the market and collected might occur. As there is no reporting or

systematic analysis of data for industrial batteries placed on the market and collected at an EU level,

the issue cannot be conclusively assessed. Overall, there is no evidence to support the assumption that

all waste industrial batteries are collected. At the same time, potential discrepancies between the

amounts of industrial batteries placed on the market and collected cannot be proven because of

missing data.

A major argument supporting the assumption that all industrial batteries are collected is that lead-acid

battery recycling is economically profitable. However, when taking the number of units into

consideration, industrial lead-acid batteries in France in 2015 accounted for only about one fourth of all

industrial batteries placed on the market there.

Environmental performance of all operators

Environmental and health impacts from the entire life cycle of batteries inside (and outside) the EU

should be considered. This is also relevant for mining activities for battery materials, since resource

extraction of battery raw materials mainly takes place abroad.

The Batteries Directive aims at reducing quantities of heavy metals and other hazardous substances

contained in batteries. The Directive addresses lead (Pb-acid batteries), cadmium (NiCd batteries) and

mercury and these are thus understood to be by far the most problematic hazardous substances. “New”

batteries (Li-ion batteries) no longer use lead, cadmium or mercury, but instead use, for example,

LNMC or LNCA, which are both suspected of causing cancer (H351). Lithiumhexafluorophosphat (LiPF6)

is also suspected as hazardous (H301, H314, H318, H372); see chapter 5.4.5. While the environmental

impact caused by mercury and cadmium decreased new substances used in Li-ion batteries cause new

concerns about environmental impacts. Whether these new substances are less problematic than other

substances is difficult to assess without a comprehensive analysis and without criteria that clarify when

a substance should be considered hazardous and addressed as such through the Directive.

Environmental impacts from landfilled and incinerated waste batteries present one of the main

problems being addressed by the Directive (see chapter 5.4.2). Considering the still large amounts of

batteries ending up in waste streams other than that for batteries, and taking into account that

batteries accumulate in landfills, are incinerated and are shredded when not removed from WEEE,

environmental impacts of batteries did at least not sufficiently decrease since the introduction of the

Directive. Thus, the Directive clearly falls short of expectations.

Environmental and health impacts from resource extraction of battery materials (e.g. mining of Pb or

Co; see chapter 5.4.8) are potentially significant but are not explicitly addressed in the Directive.


91


Overall, the Directive ensures the functioning of the internal market, avoiding competition distortion.

Collection, recycling and financing schemes are implemented by the Member States. The same applies

to the provisions regarding substance prohibitions and labelling. Nevertheless, there are some aspects

which hamper the Directive’s effectiveness in developing a level playing-field. Recycling efficiencies

and slags are addressed in this chapter further above. Online sales of batteries is covered in chapter

7.3.5.

In the following sub-sections, progress and expectations regarding hazardous substance prohibition and

labelling are analysed.

Hazardous substance prohibition

When considering whether the Directive is in line with its initial expectations in relation to hazardous

substances, the prohibition of certain battery substances needs to be considered.

Mercury is completely prohibited (the exemption expired in October 2015). A decline in collected

batteries has been observed and is expected to continue. In its response to the MS questionnaire

Finland stated that a Finish survey on mercury content in button cells at the end of 2016 examined 49

products and found mercury in only 9 button cells. In most cases, the mercury found in batteries was

from products placed on the market before 1 October 2015.

Cadmium is prohibited in portable batteries. A decline in portable NiCd batteries placed on the market

has been observed and is expected to continue. However, it is only expected that reported data in the

next years will show whether the prohibition reflected in data represent not only a decline but an

actual end to the placing on the market of NiCd batteries.

The Batteries Directive does not prohibit the use of lead in batteries, and in this sense a decrease in

use cannot be attributed to the Directive. In the case of automotive batteries, restrictions are

addressed through Directive 2000/53/EC (ELV), which prohibits the presence of, inter alia, lead in

vehicles52. An exemption for the use of Pb in automotive lead-acid batteries generally still exists from

this prohibition and is due for review in 2021.

Overall, the initial expectations are in line with the current status regarding prohibition of hazardous

substances, and in this respect the Directive is effective in harmonizing product requirements for

batteries.

Labelling of batteries

Generally, progress has been made in relation to labelling and information for consumers. However,

there are some aspects which are not in line with initial expectations.

Some stakeholders think that the meaning of battery labelling is not sufficiently clear to end-users nor

is the significance of the end-user’s role regarding separate collection. The crossed-out wheeled bin

symbol is not sufficiently clear for consumers and hence does not provide them with information.

Explanatory information (campaigns, web-based info) is needed to enhance understanding.

52 Please note that the ELV Directive addresses passenger cars and light commercial vehcles only.


92

In relation to capacity labelling, Regulation 1103/2010 sets rules for portable rechargeable and

automotive batteries. An assessment of harmonized rules for primary portable batteries is

recommended. CENELEC (2012) assessed the feasibility of capacity labelling of primary batteries and

found it not feasible because:

the capacity very much depended on the use of the equipment;

standardization was lacking; and

information was not effective in conveying performance of primary batteries.

Nonetheless, primary batteries are still required to be capacity labelled in the Directive. Multiple

stakeholders have raised this aspect, requesting the provision to be revised.

Regarding automotive batteries, multiple stakeholders have mentioned that the labelling requirements

for starter batteries (SLI) require a capacity indication according to IEC with an accuracy of +/-10 %.

However, the IEC standard was explained to be stricter and thus, the Directive’s requirement is said to

be inconsistent in relation to the IEC’s recommendations.


Source of information: Eurostat, stakeholder consultation, consultants analysis and literature, Batteries

Directive / Regulation (EU) No 493/2012


Remaining gaps: Problem of availability of data from recyclers abroad; insufficient data quality in some

areas (e.g. Cd content in NiCd); no reporting or systematic analysis of batteries in residual waste at EU

level; no reporting on industrial (and automotive) batteries; see Table 6-1

If available evidence is insufficient, what effort was undertaken to gather evidence: consultants

analysis/calculations and literature review in case of data gaps; see Table 6-1

7.2.2 Evaluation question: Impact of the Directive towards achievement of objectives (2)

2) What has been the impact of the Directive towards ensuring the achievement of the objectives?

Which main factors (e.g. implementation by Member States, action by stakeholders) have

contributed to or stood in the way of achieving any of these objectives?

Regarding the achievements of objectives focusing on the protection of the environment, the most

relevant targets and provisions of the Directive concern collection rates, recycling efficiencies and

rates of recycled content. These provisions have contributed to an increased rate of collected waste

batteries, improved recycling efficiencies and the recovery of lead and cadmium. The prohibition of

placing portable NiCd batteries on the market and of mercury-containing batteries has contributed to

the reduction in the amount of these hazardous substances in waste batteries.

The achievement of objectives related to functioning of the internal market is addressed by provisions

aiming at harmonizing product requirements for batteries, i.e. the prohibition of cadmium and mercury

and the labelling of batteries. These provisions have contributed to the harmonization of rules for

placing batteries on the market.

Several of the factors which in addition have contributed to achieving the Directive’s objectives as well

as those that hindered the fulfilment of the objectives are presented below.


93

Protection of the environment

Prohibition of disposal

The prohibition of disposing of waste industrial and automotive batteries in landfills or by incineration,

established by Article 14 of the Directive, is implemented by Member States. At least seven have

performed inspections of documents and waste intended to be landfilled, and have issued sanctions for

violation of the disposal ban.

With the exception of SE (30 tonnes of mercury derived from batteries were disposed of in DE in 2012),

the exception established in Article 12, for Member States to dispose of collected portable batteries

containing Cd, Hg or Pb in landfills or underground storage when no viable end market is available or as

part of a strategy to phase out heavy metals, has not been applied by MS according to the national

information submitted (Trinomics 2017).

The provisions and the measures applied by the MS indirectly contributed to an increased collection of

industrial and automotive batteries and thus have supported the achievement of the environmental

objectives.

BAT

BAT (best available techniques) represents another factor which should have contributed to achieving

the objective of the Batteries Directive.

For battery recycling, no specific BAT has been defined. Instead, recycling of lead-acid batteries and

NiCd batteries is covered under the category “non-ferrous metals industries”53, where specific battery

recycling processes are described (BREF 2017). For primary alkaline batteries and Li-ion batteries, only

BAT apply of general industrial processes and not specific battery processes.

In addition, the Batteries Directive has no obligations or procedures for Member States to exchange

information regarding compliance with Regulation (EU) No 493/2012 on recycling efficiencies, e.g. by

making the information exchange mandatory on the approvals for recycling facilities between Member

States.

In principle, BAT should support the protection of health and the environment (e.g. through integrated

pollution control) and the single European market (through EU-wide BAT standards). However, as not all

battery recycling processes are covered, the provision is not sufficiently effective.

Battery removal

With data lacking, it is generally difficult to conclude whether Article 11 of the Batteries Directive

stipulating the removability provision is effective. It is not possible to estimate what share of batteries

could be expected to be removable as a starting point for estimating the effectiveness of Article 11.

The lack of data about actual batteries removed does not allow concluding the degree to which the

requirement is complied with nor in what share of cases non-removability is justified.

MS and stakeholders responding to both surveys have made various statements that the share of

batteries that cannot be removed is increasing, at least in certain types of appliances (e.g. mobile

53 Due to transitional periods, BAT standards might not have to be applied in practice in every Member State.


94

phones), which suggests that the provision is not sufficiently effective. Thus, the Directive’s provision

about removability is a relevant factor blocking the ability to reach the collection targets.

Various stakeholders raised the issue that the share of non-removable batteries and of batteries

removable only by professionals is increasing, often resulting in early EoL of the appliances in which the

batteries are incorporated. Battery replaceability is not specified as an objective of Article 11:

batteries are required to be removable, however replaceability is not mentioned let alone required.

Though removability can be designed to facilitate repaceability, MS and stakeholders have stated that

an increase in appliances where batteries are not removable by the end-user (and thus subsequently

replaceability) is observed and that in various products, battery lifetime is too short in comparison with

the device life. Where the battery cannot be replaced this was said to result in the device needing

replacement once the battery degrades (e.g. mobile phones) prior to appliance reaching their

potential lifetime. This is considered an adverse consequence of the formulation of Article 11 (lack of

criteria for the exemption from removability) and of its enforcement and as is inefficient in terms of

resource use.

Economic measures

Economic measures related to the environmental performance of batteries comprise environmental fees

that have been used by four MS (LT, MT, PL, SE) to promote the collection and the use of less polluting

substances (Trincomics 2017). Several MS (e.g. AT, BE, CZ, EE, DE, LT, PL) mention public funding of

battery-related issues, such as for environmentally friendly batteries and recycling methods. Two more

MS (FI, FR) mentioned R&D projects carried out by stakeholders (not necessarily promoted or funded by

the MS as such). Eight MS (CZ, EE, DE, HU, LT, PL, PT, RO), also mentioned the participation of

producers or recyclers in EMS (environmental management schemes), but only few explained whether

or how this is encouraged by the MS.

Although the Batteries Directive supports R&D for new recycling technologies, it does not directly

support the application of such new technologies. In this respect, the Directive has not foreseen an

increase of recycling efficiency targets and thus an adaption to new and improved recycling

technologies. Overall, R&D is important for an increased protection of the environment, but without

provisions supporting the application of new technologies the Directive falls short of its opportunities.



The Directive generally provides for consumer information and awareness to support the achievement

of its objectives (collection of waste batteries, awareness to risks related to batteries and hazardous

substances they contain), however there is still room for improvement: though the Directive requires

specific information to be available to consumers all over the EU through labelling, such information is

limited in its scope and does not always serve its purpose.

The Directive requires batteries to be marked with the crossed-out wheel bin symbol to communicate

that such batteries must be collected separately. Only 30 % of the respondents to the citizen survey

were aware of the symbols meaning, though most bring spent batteries to separate collection points.

Nonetheless, some of the same respondents also assume that “the vast majority of consumers throw

their batteries away with the general waste, rather than recycle them” and it is likely that respondents

level of compliance is not representative of the general public. From MS and stakeholders it is


95

understood that the level of awareness of end-users to how spent batteries are to be disposed of differs

between MS and between regions, e.g. in light of consumer access to collection points. Awareness

raising activities (campaigns) are observed to improve collection and thus also result in differences

between MS.

Though labelling specifies when lead, mercury and cadmium are present in a battery, other substances

with potential hazards are not specified (e.g. lithium is associated with safety risks such as explosion).

Both stakeholders and MS have addressed the need for harmonized labelling of Li-ion batteries to

support among others end-consumer awareness to safety risks.

Furthermore, end-users are often not aware as to what available information (label, packaging,

campaigns) is relevant to distinguish between batteries in relation to better performance. Though

capacity labelling is mandatory and harmonised for rechargeable portable batteries and for automotive

batteries, consumers do not always know how to use this information and there is no harmonisation for

primary portable batteries. As for rechargeable batteries, despite not being required by the Directive,

the number of recharging cycles is sometimes specified (e.g. on packaging), however end-users are

often not aware of how to use rechargeable batteries to extend their lifetimes.

Additional aspects related to labelling and consumer information are presented in chapter 7.2.1.


Source of information: Batteries Directive and other legislation, stakeholder consultation, consultants

analysis


Remaining gaps: The level of detail allows for identifying shortcomings; developing options for

improvement requires a more detailed analyses.


7.2.3 Evaluation question: Positive and negative changes (3)

3) Beyond the objectives, what other significant changes both positive and negative can be linked

to the Directive, if any? Is there any identifiable contribution to achieving the objectives of EU

policies on Climate Change, Resource Efficiency, internal market, innovation and job creation or

consumer's rights? On the contrary, does the implementation of the Directive undermine the

achievement of the objectives of these policies?

Generally, the Batteries Directive supports the achievement of EU objectives. Battery recycling plays a

major role in relation to EU objectives. On the hand, recycling has a positive impact on climate change

and on the other hand, it supports the circular economy by providing secondary raw materials.

The consultation revealed that all responding MS clearly expressed positive impacts of the Batteries

Directive on EU objectives. Different positive impacts were addressed: general positive effects on the

environment, resource efficiency, job creation, innovation and research, and internal market. In the

following, potential positive and negative impacts of the Directive are analysed in more detail.


96

Positive impacts on achieving the objectives of EU policies

Climate change and resource efficiency

Climate change and resource efficiency are the two main environmental policy areas where the

Batteries Directive has a positive impact resulting from waste battery recycling.

Recycling of lead (secondary lead) causes much less environmental impact than extraction and

production of primary lead. The recycling of lead-acid batteries has a positive impact, i.e. it reduces

the emissions by 0.88 million tonnes CO2eq. Lead-acid batteries are by far the dominating battery type

(about 86 % of all batteries PoM). There are also published LCA results for the recycling of Li-ion

batteries54 and NiMH batteries55 which prove the environmental advantages of battery recvcling.

Resource efficiency is another main policy area of high relevance to the battery sector. The high

relevance of battery recycling for resource efficiency is reflected in the high advantage secondary lead

has compared to primary lead. Battery recycling generally reduces the dependency on primary

resources and the need to import battery raw materials, which shall become even more relevant for Li-

ion batteries for e-mobility in the future.

Hazardous substance emissions occur during recycling and raw material processing, e.g. from

production furnaces for the production of primary and secondary lead. Specific hazardous substance

emissions from secondary lead production are much lower than from primary lead production.

Therefore, battery recycling also helps mitigating problems stemming from hazardous substances.

An interviewee mentioned that the Directive has supported the increase of recycling capacities. This

led to the creation of additional jobs in the past. However, as capacities have since long reached a

constant level, job creation came to an end.

Resource efficiency was also addressed by an interviewee. The EPR was the starting point that drove

more collection and more recovery of material which usually could be used in the same product family.

In this sense, a reduction in the use of primary resources can be associated to some degree with the

Directive. However, other interviewees are of the opinion that recycling efficiency is in part driven by

the Directive but also by economic decisions, especially once recycling efficiency is achieved.

Effects on the internal market are outlined in chapter 7.3.5, job creation in chapter 7.3.1 and

consumer aspects in chapter 7.2.2.

Negative impacts on achieving the objectives of EU policies

No significant negative changes were identified that can be linked to the Batteries Directive, and none

of the interviewees who replied to the question shared any negative impact on e.g. climate change,

internal market, innovation, job creation, etc.

However, increasing transport of waste batteries since the adaption of the Batteries Directive might be

an issue. The increase in collection and (intra EU) export of about one fifth of the total waste batteries

going to recycling are associated with considerable transport activities in the EU. Some initial estimates

54 See for instance: (LibRi 2011), (LithoRec II and EcoBatRec 2015) 55 (Buchert 2010)


97

of emissions from waste battery transport indicate a comparably low relevance of greenhouse gas

emissions from battery transport compared to the production of batteries (see chapter 12.4.8).

However, a systematic analysis of battery-related transport (incl. industrial and automotive batteries)

does not exist according to the author’s knowledge. Battery-related transport emissions potentially

might be more relevant in less densely inhabited areas or countries where all batteries are sent to

recyclers abroad.

Economic aspects, e.g. uneven distribution of income from recycling, are addressed in chapter 7.3.


Source of information: Stakeholder consultations, consultants analysis on environmental impacts

Level of reliability: medium

Remaining gaps: LCAs of batteries and comprehensive analysis of the battery sector and its

environmental impacts; see Table 6-1

If available evidence is insufficient, what effort was undertaken to gather evidence: calculation of

environmental impacts by the consultant; see Table 6-1

7.3 Efficiency

7.3.1 Evaluation question: costs and benefits (1)

What are the costs and benefits (monetary and non-monetary) associated with the implementation of

the Directive for the different stakeholders and society at large, at national and EU level? Are there

significant distributional differences between Member States?

While business and industrial associations clearly associate significant costs for their organisation with

the Directive, they also generally support that the Directive has also induced a number of benefits for

the operators concerned. Whether the Directive has reduced costs for the sector (e.g. due to

harmonised rules and facilitation of intra-EU trade) is a point of dispute: 32 % disagree or strongly

disagree that costs have decreased for the recycling sector and 22 % agree or strongly agree that they

have decreased.

MS do not experience unnecessary regulatory burdens related to the Directive.

The costs for collection, safe storage, transport and recycling of lead-acid batteries are covered by

revenues from recycling; no additional costs are incurred and collection and recycling is economically

viable. This might not apply for very remote areas, where transport distances dominate the cost

structure. Sufficiently high prices for primary and secondary lead are a precondition for this

assessment.

For other battery chemistries produced in mass, the costs for collection, storage and safe transport are

not sufficiently covered by revenues from recycling56.

56 Sorting of silver oxide batteries would be in theory also economically viable, however with regard to the volume

they are not of relevance. This might apply for some very specific battery types as well.


98

Data on costs for collection and recycling of portable batteries are available for a limited number of MS

only. An extrapolation of French data (Monier, V.; Hestin, M.; 2014) results in an estimation of around

€ 118 million per year for EU28. These costs are covered by the fees paid by the producers when placing

batteries on the market. The occurring costs are market-based, as the services are tendered by the

PROs. The costs mentioned before for management of waste portable batteries has generated at least

1 000 to 2 000 full time job equivalents. However, it is assumed that some of these jobs were

generated regardless of the EU’s Batteries Directive, as a number of national legislations were in force

prior to the Batteries Directive. The employment effects of profitable activities (recycling) is not

considered for the estimation of generated jobs.

Recently (in May 2018), the revenues from secondary cobalt increased dramatically, impacting the cost

structure of the recycling of Li-ion batteries. It is yet to be seen if these increased revenues shall last

for the long term or not and to what degree they shall allow compensating the costs of collection, safe

storage, transport and recycling.

Diversification of the market conditions is likely caused by the different amounts of effort for collection

per tonne of waste Li-ion batteries. The total costs of collection plus recycling for larger Li-ion

batteries (e.g. for EV) may be profitable, while for small and medium size waste Li-ion batteries (up to

the scale of e-bikes) collection plus recycling might not be profitable.

Unknown economic risks are apparent for private consumers owning industrial batteries e.g. e-bike

batteries, traction batteries for EV and power storage batteries for PV in households. The stipulations in

the Batteries Directive only vaguely specify who is in charge of establishing collection infrastructure

(and also vaguely define which collection infrastructure is appropriate). As well, the Directive vaguely

indicates who is in charge of carrying the costs for safe storage and transport to collection points

respectively recyclers.

The stakeholders did not address distributional differences between Member States. However, it might

be worth mentioning that the recycling of waste batteries is concentrated in particular for Li-ion

batteries in Germany and Belgium and France and these MS benefit from the gross added-value induced

by the effort spent on collection in other MS.



Level of reliability:

The reliability of the stakeholder opinion is high as the sector is well covered;

The reliability of the estimation of total costs for management of portable batteries and the amount of

full time job equivalents is low and based on a number of assumptions of the contractor;

Sufficient prices for primary and secondary lead are preconditions for the economic viability of the

management of Pb-acid batteries. For the past years and the near future this consideration is valid. The

same applies for the cost structure for the management of other batteries.

Remaining gaps: Economic figures for the PROs across Europe, required to calculate the overall costs,

are availalble only for a very small number of PROs.

If available evidence is insufficient, what effort was undertaken to gather evidence: additional

interviews to ensure that no potential sources were overlooked.


99

7.3.2 Evaluation question: costs proportionate to the benefits (2)

To what extent are the costs associated with the Directive proportionate to the benefits it has brought?

How are costs and benefits distributed between the different sectors involved?

Costs of the management of waste lead-acid batteries are covered by recycling revenues, i.e.,

collection and recycling is regarded as profitable. The total costs of collection, safe storage, transport

and recycling of portable batteries are covered by manufacturers through various PROs in the MS.

Effort and costs for awareness campaigns are quite diverse across Europe, and not all MS have defined

the amount to be spent for public awareness nor indicated if this amount and effort shall be covered by

the PROs. Calculating the total costs for the management of portable batteries is difficult, as not all

PROs disclosed there economic files. Based on several assumptions, the total cost for the producers of

portable batteries might be around € 118 million in EU28 (see chapter 12.2.4). A relevant amount of

portable batteries remains in mixed municipal waste, for which the associated costs of treatment are

unknown.

Harmonised requirements for labelling are not considered as a relevant cost but a mean to ensure the

single European market.

A majority of participants in the public consultation (questions C-12.1 to C-12.7) see benefits incurring

as a result of the Directive implementation, in particular to reach:

• An improved corporate image of the different sectors involved (manufacturers, producers,

collectors and recyclers);

• Better Innovation;

• Better environmental performance;

• More market opportunities;

• A level playing field for all operators involved within the EU;

• Environmental protection;

• Protection of human health;

It is disputed whether the Directive has reduced costs for the batteries sector (e.g. due to harmonized

rules and facilitation of the single European market) (question C-12.8 of the public consultation). 32 %

of respondents disagree or strongly disagree and only 22 % agree or strongly agree.

More generally, the majority of the participants of the public consultation agree or strongly agree

(questions C-12.9 and 12.10) that the costs involved in implementing the Directive are justified given

the benefits that have already been achieved and that will be achieved in the longer term.

Answers of the participants to the mentioned questions are summarised below in Table 7-2.

Table 7-2: Public consultation: selected aspects on costs and benefits

Question Agree or

strongly agree Disagree or

strongly disagree

C-12.8 The Directive has reduced costs for the sector (e.g. due to harmonised rules and facilitation of intra-EU trade)

22% 32%

C-12.9 The costs involved in implementing the Directive are justified given the benefits that have already been achieved

43% 11%


100

C-12.10 The costs involved in implementing the Directive are justified given the benefits that will be achieved in the longer term

47% 10%

The same comments as for chapter 7.4.1 apply with regard to the validity of the conclusions.

7.3.3 Evaluation question: best practices for efficient achievements of results (3)

Are there any good or bad practices that can be identified in terms of efficiency in the achievement of

results? If there are significant cost/benefit differences between Member States, what is causing them?

While economic information is of crucial importance to make cost-benefit comparisons along the value

chain, transparency of data related to the different stages of the battery life cycle is not sufficiently

developed in the batteries sector. Real costs are rarely publicly available, as their confidentiality

pertains to the competitive advantage of economic stakeholders (producers, collectors, recyclers). For

BE, FR, NL and CH the specific fees for 2016 amounted to between € 0.23 and € 1.69 per inhabitant and

year, (respectively between € 826 and € 6 917 per kg of collected batteries and year). However, there

is no simple reasoning available for why the collection rates differ so broadly between MS. The

information for this limited number of MS does not allow drawing any general conclusions. Information

on expenditures for improving consumer awareness is rare and does not allow drawing any general

conclusions.

Once the collection targets are met, competing PROs might tend to selectively choose which battery

types to recycle and free riders57 might enter the market. Such conditions might jeopardise the

performance of the existing PROs and the entire collection scheme. The Directive does not make any

provisions to avoid such developments, e.g.: minimum requirements of performance (other than only

the collection rate), minimum share of expenditure for public awareness in correlation to the market

share (on a per weight of batteries basis) of the PRO, minimum requirements with regard to regional

coverage of collection schemes (less dense areas) and minimum contributions for R&D to address new

developments.

With state funded collection schemes (costs recovered through dedicated fees / taxes) there is the risk

that the Government may decide to allocate collected funds to environmental programmes not related

to the products from which the funds have been raised.

The argument of being charged twice for (W)EEE and Batteries (or for automotive batteries and ELVs) is

not valid as there is also a shared responsibility for separation, collection, safe transport and recycling.

Recycling of NiCd batteries might become (economically) more challenging following the ban of

portable NiCd batteries.



Level of reliability: medium

Remaining gaps: Economic figures for the PROs across Europe, required for benchmarking competing

57 For instance such freeriders might not have operative activities in collection of batteries but trade with surplus

collection volumes (weighing slip) only.


101

PROs in the MS or across EU are available for a very small number of MS only. Details for the few MS

display huge differences in specific system costs. Real benchmarking between countries is not possible

due to the limited information on system costs and therefore it is not possible to draw valid conclusions

from the data for the few MS.

If available evidence is insufficient, what effort was undertaken to gather evidence: additional

interviews to ensure that the study did not missed any potential sources.

7.3.4 Evaluation question: unnecessary burden (4)

Is there any evidence that the implementation of the Directive has caused unnecessary regulatory

burden or complexity? What factors identify this burden or complexity as unnecessary or excessive?

While having some detailed proposals for improvement, the MS do not see the costs of implementing

the Directive as unnecessary regulatory burdens.


Source of information: MS questionnaire

Level of reliability: medium - 9 of 31 MS and EEA countries used the opportunity to reply to the

questionnaire submitted to the MS separately from the public consultation (AT, BE, BG, DE, DK, ES, FI,

HR, PT); of these, 5 addressed the question on efficiency. This response rate might indicate that there

is no unnecessary burden for the MS as there is no need to intervene and make use of the opportunity to

reply to the questionnaire. The conclusion appears valid.

Remaining gaps: only a minority of the MS addressed this aspect when replying to the questionnaire


7.3.5 Evaluation question: internal market and the creation of a level playing (5)

To what extent does the Directive support the EU internal market and the creation of a level playing

field for economic operators, especially SMEs?

Internal market

Commercial stakeholders clearly prefer a harmonised approach for the regulation of new batteries

placed on the European market and of the management of waste batteries across Europe over

individual action of the MS.

Distortions of the level playing field

Few MS make an effort to control (spot checks) correct labelling and correct application of maximum

concentrations of heavy metals in batteries. As reported in Recknagel S.; Radant, H. (2013), a relevant

number of producers place batteries on the market which do not comply with the stipulations of the

Batteries Directive. This gap of enforcement is a distortion of the level playing field for those producers

that ensure strict compliance with the requirements of the Directive.

Online sales are in principle covered by the Batteries Directive. However enforcement is difficult to

ensure that producers, placing batteries on the market via internet sales, contribute (financially) to

national PROs. Spot checks / campaigns might be needed to ensure that such producers contribute to


102

the PROs. To make illegal placing on the market less attractive minimum penalties might be needed on

European level.

Stakeholders raised concerns that sub-standards and different levels of recycling by recycling plants

might cause unfair competition. Stakeholders support the concept to certify recycling plants for both

EU plants and plants abroad in third countries. This would allow ensuring the same standards for

battery recycling are applied and thus support a level playing field.

Once the collection targets are met, competing PROs might more selectively choose the battery types

they wish to collect and recycle and free riders might enter the market. Such conditions might

jeopardise the performance of the existing PROs and the entire collection scheme. Therefore, minimum

requirements of performance (other than only the collection rate) are necessary (see chapter 7.3.3

before)

SME involvement

Waste management at the level of collection and sorting is traditionally fragmented and many SMEs

coexist with large enterprises. Few companies in few MS are able to conduct proper recycling of other

than lead-acid batteries, which results in an imbalance between the MS of benefits from the recycling

activity. However, as demonstrated for the recycling of Li-ion batteries, newcomer SMEs are able to

enter this emerging market.



Level of reliability: high; stakeholder involvement represented a broad range of the involved

stakeholders and the replies of these stakeholders are considered when drafting the above conclusions.

Remaining gaps: -/-


7.3.6 Evaluation question: emerging business-models (6)

To what extent do emerging business-models (on e.g. transport or energy distribution) accommodate to

the Directive?

Emerging business in the transport sector (as for instance batteries for electric vehicles, e-bikes) and

decentralised storage of PV power at household level are not accommodated to the aim of promoting

well-balanced producer responsibility of the Batteries Directive. These kinds of batteries are classified

as industrial batteries but owned by consumers and households. The responsibility is vague for the

collection, safe storage and transport to collection points or recycling facilities for such industrial

batteries. Some producers have established commercial models to lease these batteries to consumers

and thus retain responsibility for the waste batteries. Some retailers (voluntarily) offer take back

systems to their customers e.g. for e-bike batteries. However, it is less a question of whether the

business complies with the Batteries Directive but rather a question of whether the stipulations of the

Batteries Directive address new and fast emerging (technological) developments in an appropriate

manner.


103




Remaining gaps: -/-


7.4 Coherence

7.4.1 Evaluation question: External Coherence (1)

1) To what extent does the Directive complement or interact with other EU sectoral instruments?

Are there de facto or de jure overlaps, contradictions, missing links?

The Batteries Directive interacts and overlaps to a large extent with several other EU sectoral

regulations such as the WFD, WShipR, WStatR, WEEE, RoHS, ELV and REACH / CLP-Regulation as well as

international conventions, like the Basel Convention. Contradictions and missing links between the

regulations exist, such as in scope, definitions, restrictions of hazardous substances and reporting

obligations.

Basic concepts: the Batteries Directive and the Waste Framework Directive.

As indicated by the Fitness Check, “there is, in principle, coherence between the Directive and other

waste law, notably the WFD. Some adjustments might have to be made with regard to a legally binding

reference to the waste hierarchy, life cycle thinking and certain definitions.”

The different definitions of "recycling" in the WFD and the Batteries Directive are potentially

problematic. A comparison between the two definitions in the two Directives shows a more logical,

comprehensive and differentiated definition in the WFD. There are no reasons why the WFD definition

should not be used unaltered in the Batteries Directive. There is also a difference in their definitions of

"treatment", with a clearer definition in the WFD.

Whereas the WFD defines the terms “re-use” and “preparing for re-use”, those terms are not defined in

the Batteries Directive, giving rise to legal uncertainty for the actors under the Batteries Directive on

the responsibilities related to extended producer responsibility (EPR) and to the reporting of re-used

batteries.

Batteries Directive, REACH and RoHS

Duplications or contradictions on restrictions for hazardous substances between REACH and the

Batteries Directive are possible but have not occurred so far. Overlaps could be avoided if restrictions

of hazardous substances in batteries were regulated only in one regulation. Should the restrictions

remain under the Batteries Directive, articles within its scope could be excluded from REACH

restrictions, as is done in relation to articles within the scope of RoHS.

There are de jure overlaps between REACH and the Batteries Directive, as both regulate the prohibition

of hazardous substances in their articles. According to REACH, producers, importers and down-stream

users may not use and place on the market substances that are considered to be of very high concern

(SVHCs) and which are included in the list of substances subject to authorization in Annex XIV of


104

REACH, except for cases where an authorisation for use has been granted. However, it is not forbidden

to import items containing SVHC into the EU; suppliers of an item only have to report about the

presence of SVHC in their products if it is above a certain threshold (cf. Art. 33 REACH). De facto, lead

compounds currently listed in Annex XIV are understood to not be in use in the production of batteries

(entries 10, 11 and 12 for lead chromate, lead sulfochromate yellow and lead chromate molybdate

sulphate red respectively).

Battery producers are further obliged to ensure that their batteries comply with the restrictions set out

in Annex XVII REACH. Though various restrictions refer to mercury, cadmium and lead compounds, none

of these substance restrictions is understood to apply to batteries. For example, entries 16 and 17

restrict the use of certain lead compounds in paints and entry 63 restricts the use of lead in jewellery

but exempts portable zinc-carbon batteries and button cell batteries (exemption to be reviewed by

1.7.2019). The Batteries Directive’s prohibitions and exemptions for mercury and cadmium are not

contradicted or duplicated with current restrictions listed in Annex XVII of REACH nor is the use of lead

in batteries affected.

Contradictions currently do not exist between the Batteries Directive and the RoHS Directive

(2011/65/EU). Recital 14 of RoHS 2 specifically states that RoHS should apply without prejudice to the

Batteries Directive, and Recital 29 of the Batteries Directive states that RoHS does not apply to

batteries and accumulators used in electrical and electronic equipment (EEE).

Several stakeholders propose regulating hazardous substance in batteries under a single legislation, e.g.

REACH. Such an approach should take into account that:

Measures based upon the WFD provisions follow a hazard-based approach, where if a risk of impacts

on the environment (or health) exists, then proper regulatory action must be taken. Conversely,

REACH follows a risk-based approach, where if risks can be controlled, there would not be any

need to take regulatory action. In relation to waste, since not all batteries are collected and

treated appropriately, there is an existing risk that hazardous substances impact the environment.

This is relevant in relation to possible impacts, both where batteries are not collected (the current

targets for portable batteries are below 100 %) as well as where batteries are not treated and

recycled properly.

The introduction of a risk-based framework for batteries needs to define criteria for the

assessment of risks for the environment (and human health), for the definition of applying specific

restrictions or general prohibitions of substances in batteries, and for authorizations or exemptions

therefrom. Such criteria are currently lacking in the Batteries Directive, in which it is not clear on

which basis decisions about substance restrictions and exemptions therefrom can be taken. Both

REACH and RoHS systems could define the terms and the applications of such criteria to batteries.

Batteries Directive and ELV Directive

Further de jure overlaps exist with the ELV Directive. The ELV Directive stipulates separating

automotive batteries from ELV. This aspect does not contradict the Batteries Directive’s targets for

battery recycling. Recycling of automotive batteries is counted against the recycling and recovery

targets according to the ELV Directive.


105

EPR schemes

In our understanding, no overlaps or double counting exists with regard to responsibility of sectoral EPR

schemes. The vehicle manufacturer is to be considered the party placing a battery in a new vehicle on

the market. A battery that replaces a vehicle’s original battery might be considered as placed-on-the-

market by a battery producer or via other retailers. The vehicle manufacturer and battery producers

have a shared responsibility (depending on their market share) for waste batteries and carry the burden

for if/ when dismantling and/or recycling of automotive batteries is no longer economically viable. The

same principle applies for EEE and incorporated batteries placed on the market together with EEE and

replaced batteries.

Batteries Directive and Waste Shipment Regulation

Categories of batteries under the Batteries Directive, the Waste Shipment Regulation (WShipR) and the

Waste Statistics Regulation (WStatR) are not coherent and thus prevent implementing options for

reducing the burden of double reporting and hinder the comparability and complementary use of data.

Whereas the Batteries Directive defines three types of batteries based on their use (portable, industrial

and automotive batteries), the Decision 2000/532/EC establishing a List of Wastes classifies batteries

according to their chemical composition. Problems arise for those battery types in the Batteries

Directive that embrace different chemical battery types within one category, i.e. there are portable

batteries with diverging chemical composition. Consequently, figures from reporting for the Batteries

Directive and figures on batteries according to waste statistics are not necessarily congruent.

The Batteries Directive and the WShipR are not fully coherent as regards the classification of batteries

for their treatment, recycling and disposal, leading to different classification of the “same type of

waste” by different waste exporters and competent authorities throughout the EU. As the WShipR, the

Basel Convention and the OECD Decision do not define the term “type of waste”, the Decision

2000/532/EC is applied, i.e. the type of waste is related to one entry in the LoW and is fully

characterized by the six digit code. According to WShipR individual notifications can only use one waste

code shall. In case the waste is not classified under one single entry in Annexes III, IIIB, IV or IVA of the

WShipR, the classification could be done using the corresponding code from the European Waste

Catalogue (EWC). For example, the WShipR has a general waste code for waste batteries conforming to

a specification, excluding those made with lead, cadmium or mercury (B 1090). Although for waste

lead-acid batteries (whole or crushed) a separate waste type (A1160) exists, all other batteries

containing cadmium or mercury are not listed as a separate waste type. However, as crushed materials

these substances can fall under “waste streams containing lead, mercury, cadmium” in Annex V WShipR

(List A (Annex VIII to the Basel Convention)):

• “metal wastes and waste consisting of alloys like cadmium, lead and mercury (A 1010) or

• “waste having as constituents or contaminants, excluding metal waste in massive form like cadmium

(cadmium compounds) or lead (lead compounds) (A 1020).

Batteries Directive and Ecodesign

Within the recently adopted Strategic Action Plan for Batteries58, the Commission has decided to

explore the possibility to establish eco-design requirements for batteries, without precluding the legal

framework in which they would be based (the Batteries Directive or the Ecodesign Directive).

58 Annex to COM(2018) 293 final


106

The Fitness Check had already indicated the insufficiency of the eco-design measures established by the

Directive. In this respect, the Directive addresses battery design with regard to removability and the

prohibition of some heavy metals, but other design aspects (e.g. durability or replaceability) are not

dealt with.

Some stakeholders (MS, ZVEI) have suggested that battery removability be taken under the Ecodesign

Directive. Such measures would be implemented through regulations, which have the advantage of not

requiring national transposition. Respective requirements can thus come into force more quickly once

decided upon, and differing interpretations between MS can be avoided. The advantage in terms of

time needed for implementation could, however, be offset by time needed for the development and

adoption of these regulations (4-5 years are usually needed from initiation to allow completion of the

various development stages). Another problem exists in that the 2016-2019 Ecodesign working plan59

should explore establishing more product-specific and/or horizontal requirements in areas such as

durability, reparability and design for disassembly. The working plan, however, does not specifically

address batteries.

Addressing batteries in existing product-specific regulations would not provide a comprehensive

solution, as only few of the currently regulated products are typically battery operated, resulting in a

gap should provisions be removed from the Batteries Directive for other products. There is also a risk

that the process shall conclude that regulation under other frameworks (e.g. Batteries Directive) is

more appropriate.

The specific aspects that could be considered for regulation under Ecodesign are shortly discussed in

the following:

• Restriction of hazardous substances has rarely been done through Ecodesign measures. Several

pieces of legislation exist (e.g. REACH and the Directive itself) for such regulation.

• Battery removal: In addition to being relevant for the use of products, removal also affects end-

of-life, ensuring that batteries are separated from WEEE and treated. Ecodesign is not considered

appropriate for the latter purpose.

• Battery replacement: Though this topic is difficult to separate from battery removability, recent

development of Ecodesign regulations has been looking more and more into aspects of minimal

product life and into the availability of replacement parts and of instructions allowing consumers

to replace relevant parts. Depending on the results of such discussions in regulations currently

being updated, it could be considered whether the approach could be suitable for developing

requirements for battery replacement. For the sake of legal certainty, the same instrument

(Batteries Directive or Ecodesign Directive) should deal with both removability and replaceability.

• Labelling of battery capacity and other parameters that support consumers’ choice of products

based on better performance: Capacity labelling is currently regulated through the Batteries

Directive and other relevant parameters could also be further developed therein. Nonetheless, the

inclusion of a broad range of stakeholders in the Ecodesign process, and particularly of

59

EU COM (2016) Communication from the Commission Ecodesign Working Plan 2016-2019, Brussels, 30.11.2016

COM(2016) 773 final: As part of the Ecodesign Working Plan 2016-2019the Commission has committed to exploring “the possibility of establishing requirements in areas such as durability (e.g. minimum. life-time of products or critical components), reparability (e.g. availability of spare parts and repair manuals, design for repair), upgradeability, design for disassembly (e.g. easy removal of certain components), information (e.g. marking of plastic parts) and ease of reuse and recycling (e.g. avoiding incompatible plastics)...”. section 5, pg. 9


107

stakeholders representing consumers, could support the development of such labelling, i.e. of

aspects being labelled in a way that provides consumers with appropriate information for making

their purchase choices. Labelling provisions developed in the Ecodesign process are usually

implemented through the Energy Label Directive - it is assumed that relevant parameters could be

linked to energy consumption. This route could have certain advantages in light of the possible

deeper involvement of stakeholders, though such involvement could also be applied in

development of labelling under the Batteries Directive. Addressing labelling of capacity and other

energy related parameters under Ecodesign could be considered.



Level of reliability: high: Stakeholder involvement covered a broad range of the involved stakeholders

and the replies of these stakeholders are considered when drafting the above conclusions.

Remaining gaps: -/-


7.4.2 Evaluation question: Internal Coherence (2)

To what extent is the Directive internally consistent and coherent? Are there any overlaps,

contradictions, missing links?

The Batteries Directive contains several inconsistencies. Thus, as for instance indicated by the fitness

check, the Directive focuses on batteries at their end-of-life and does not sufficiently integrate the life-

cycle concept.

Inconsistencies and missing links are also found regarding the distinction between portable and

industrial batteries; the prohibition of hazardous substances the definition of replaceability;

exemptions from the removability of batteries; missing capacity labelling for some rechargeable

portable batteries, primary portable and industrial batteries; and the reporting deadlines for the

collection rate. In particular, due to the increasing use of industrial batteries by private end-users as

well as to an increase in Li-ion batteries, a clearer legal distinction between portable and industrial

batteries gains importance (e.g. with respect to setting up national collection schemes and defining

collection and recycling targets as well as reporting).

The absence of more detailed criteria to distinguish different types of batteries (above all ‘portable’

and ‘industrial’) could lead to a non-harmonized implementation of relevant provisions. The

implementation of the distinction between portable and industrial batteries across the EU is not

coherent, as at least 5 MS apply (different) thresholds by weight as national criteria for the distinction.

The logic behind the prohibition of hazardous substances is not properly presented in the Directive.

Though Hg, Cd and Pb can be understood to be hazardous, prohibitions are only listed for Hg and Cd

(portable batteries only). There is no explanation of why other substances (respectively battery types)

are not prohibited (e.g. lead-acid portable and industrial, NiCd industrial) nor the basis explained upon

which this prohibition would become necessary. The criteria used to classify substances as hazardous

remain unclear. For instance, even if additional substances used in batteries are classified in EU


108

legislation as hazardous (e.g. zinc), they are not addressed as such in the Directive (see chapter 5.4 for

details).

The role that “replaceability” of batteries plays in the Directive, in the sense of extending product life-

time and protecting resources, is not well defined in contrast to removability of batteries. Moreover, it

is unclear if removability means that batteries can be removed from the appliance without damaging

the product. Precise criteria are missing for appliances for which the continuity of power supply is

necessary according to Article 11(2) to be exempted from the general rule that batteries must be

removable, as given in Article 11(2). This gap opens a loophole for manufacturers designing appliances

in a way that does not support battery removal by the end-user.

Although most rechargeable portable and all automotive batteries must carry a capacity label, no

labelling is required for portable rechargeable batteries incorporated or designed to be incorporated in

appliances before being provided to end-users and not intended to be removed pursuant to Art. 11.

Capacity labelling is also not mandatory for primary portable batteries and not for industrial batteries.

Inconsistent deadlines for reporting duties on the collection rates and the reporting year were found, as

the collection target for the reference year 2016 is 26 September 2016 (cf. Article 10(2)). According to

the Waste Statistics Regulation, Member States have to report data within 18 months of the end of the

reporting year for which data are collected.

No contradictions between provisions in the Batteries Directive and no obsolete provisions were

identified.



Level of reliability: high; Stakeholders involvement covered a broad range of the involved stakeholders

and the replies of these stakeholders are considered when drafting the above conclusions.

Remaining gaps: -/-


7.5 EU added value

7.5.1 Evaluation question: Achievements of EU intervention

What has been the EU added value of the Batteries Directive compared to what could be achieved

by Member States at national level? To what extent do the issues addressed by the Directive

continue to require action at EU level?

The EU added value of the Batteries Directive has been significant and manifold. Nevertheless, to reach

the aims of the Directive, especially the collection and recycling targets, action on the EU level must

be continued.

As a result of the Batteries Directive a level-playing field for producers and importers placing batteries

on the market has been established, namely by introducing and harmonizing the restrictions for

hazardous substances and labelling as well as collection and recycling targets. Restrictions to the single

EU market for producers and importers of batteries caused by diverse national regulations restricting


109

hazardous substances and requiring specific national labelling have been lifted by the Batteries

Directive. The Batteries Directive establishes harmonised and challenging but achievable collection and

recycling targets and supports the MS in establishing the principle of producer responsibility.

Subsequently, through the transposition of the Directive, a number of MS have implemented regulations

for batteries for the first time, with others introducing the principles of producer responsibility for the

first time. Only few MS established higher and/or interim collection targets.

Effectively all stakeholders prefer to keep the Batteries Directive at the EU level instead of reverting to

regulation strictly at the MS level.

The introduction of harmonized collection and recycling rates has not led to higher costs for producers

in the MS compared to single national regulations, considering the (diverse) structure of collection

schemes in the MS. Due to harmonised requirements across the EU, costs for compliance schemes can

be compared across the EU and (even if the costs differ remarkably) a slight trend to more similar costs

is detectable. Nevertheless, comparable conditions across the MS theoretically makes it possible to

conduct benchmarking between the costs and conditions (achieved collection level) between MS/ EEA

countries. However, a benchmarking of the costs is not envisaged by the Batteries Directive and is

currently hampered by the fact that most PROs do not publish their economic figures. Benchmarking

would also allow identifying the most efficient solutions.



Level of reliability: high: 59 answers received in the stakeholder consultation state that without the

Batteries Directive the protection of human health would be worse or much worse and only 19 found

that the protection of human health would be better or much better with measures at national level (32

answers state that it makes no difference). 67 answers received state that without the Batteries

Directive the protection of the environment would be worse or much worse and only 21 found that

environmental protection would be better or much better with measures at national level (21 answers

state that it makes no difference). The result supports the validity of the conclusion.

Remaining gaps: -/-


7.5.2 Evaluation question: Functioning of the EU single market

Is the EU single market for EU batteries fully functioning? Is the Directive responsible of any

barriers that prevent trade of batteries and waste batteries?

The Batteries Directive has served the well-functioning of the EU’s single market for batteries and trade

barriers are lower compared to regulation on the MS level. Innovation is not hampered by the Directive.

Whether the Directive has reduced costs for the batteries sector (e.g. due to harmonised rules and

facilitation of intra-EU trade) is a point of dispute.

The establishment of Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs) in each MS and the need for the

producers to register for each single MS when placing batteries on the market affects free trade within

the EU. However, it is evident that managing waste batteries needs to be regulated and would be

necessary on the level of MS, too, as it was the case for several MS before the EU’s Batteries Directive


110

entered into force. Such national legislations without any EU Directive might even cause more

distortions of the single market. For instance, different restrictions for hazardous substances and

labelling requirements across the EU might even worsen the functioning of the single European market.

There is also a common understanding that target compliance must be enforced and monitored at a

national level; thus, a simple, EU-wide producer responsibility with EU registration of products placed

on the market and following EU targets for collection and recycling without any national break down

would not work.



Level of reliability: high: 53 answers received in the stakeholder consultation state that, without the

Batteries Directive, the functioning of the internal market would be worse or much worse, and only 18

found that the internal market would be better or much better without the Batteries Directive (31 state

that it makes no difference). The result supports that the conclusion appears valid.

Remaining gaps: -/-


8 Conclusions

8.1 Relevance

Environmental aspects

Overall, the main environmental problems that the Directive addresses still exist. Batteries still contain

hazardous substances and present a risk to the environment when they are landfilled, incinerated or

improperly disposed of.

About 86 % of all batteries placed on the market are lead-acid batteries. Lead is one of the hazardous

materials addressed in the Directive, however, it is not prohibited. Industrial NiCd batteries containing

cadmium are also not prohibited and thus still placed on the market. Thus, hazardous substances in

batteries are not sufficiently reduced. ”New” battery chemistries also contain hazardous substances.

Further on, the collection of waste batteries to avoid inappropriate disposal of waste batteries is not

maximised. Large amounts of waste portable batteries still end up in municipal waste. Battery losses

and inappropriate treatment also occur when batteries are not removed from WEEE before shredding.

A high potential for environmental risks is also attributed to resource extraction and processing, in

particular outside the EU when only sub-standard extraction / processing is performed. However, these

risks are not specifically addressed in the Directive.

The effect on greenhouse gas emissions of batteries production is limited as the contribution of the

entire battery sector equals only 0.2 % of the entire greenhouse gas emissions in the EU28.

Nevertheless, the Batteries Directive contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Recovering battery materials reduces the energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions; e.g. lead-acid

battery recycling, which produces secondary lead, supports reducing greenhouse gas emissions by two

thirds compared to the primary production of lead.

Resource efficiency

Awareness of resource efficiency and critical raw materials has been growing in the last decade, but

both concepts play an insignificant role in the Batteries Directive. This is evident from the fact that,


111

while many metals, e.g. critical raw materials or lithium are of high importance for battery production,

neither of these materials is addressed in the Directive. Therefore, the possibility of introducing more

targets and provisions related to resource efficiency should be considered for the forthcoming revision

of the Directive.

While the Batteries Directive grants recyclers the freedom to choose what battery components and

materials to recycle in order to achieve recycling efficiency targets, this freedom does not necessarily

lead to higher resource efficiency or a better circular economy (e.g. there is no priority for high-quality

recycling compared to downcycling). The recycling efficiency is not oriented towards recovery of

(critical) materials and the Directive does not address what kind of materials should be “saved” as

resources.

New developments: battery types, applications and recycling technologies

The battery sector is dynamic and innovative. The Batteries Directive was adopted more than 10 years

ago in 2006, and it is therefore hardly surprising that since then new applications, new battery types

and new recycling technologies have been developed and new trends have emerged. Relevance has

changed and the Directive no longer adequately reflects current developments, e.g. new battery types

or new applications.

Generally, new types of batteries appeared since the adoption of the Directive, are categorized as

‘other battery’. This category no longer adequately represents the amount and relevance of Li-ion

batteries. Already in 2015, a large amount of Li-ion batteries (ca. 75 000 t) were placed on the market.

Within the portable batteries category, Li-ion batteries had a share of about 17 % of all portable

batteries placed on the market, compared to only 4 % for lead-acid and NiCd batteries combined. A

50 % recycling efficiency for ‘other batteries’ and thus for Li-ion batteries does not ensure the recovery

of, for example, lithium and other resources contained in these batteries (a target rate of recycled

content of e.g. cobalt is missing, too).

Lithium is one of the main battery materials for e-mobility. The recovery of lithium through Li-ion

battery recycling, which was only recently transferred for the first time into industrial practice, leads

the way to an important new development. The revision of the Directive needs to address and provide

provisions for recycling lithium.

New battery applications in households - for example e-bikes, e-cars and electricity storage - have the

status of industrial batteries but are used by private consumers. Thus, collection schemes for portable

batteries do not apply for these applications/ batteries and the Directive does not in other ways

adequately cover collection of these batteries. For portable batteries, collection is obligatory and

detailed regulations exist for setting up collection schemes and financing the net cost of collection,

treating and recycling of waste batteries. For industrial batteries, take back of waste batteries is

obligatory but detailed regulations comparable to those for portable batteries are missing. Problems

exist within the definition of industrial batteries, demanding a clear distinction from portable batteries

in the Directive.


support the application of such new technologies in practice. There is no incentive in the Directive’s


112

provisions for achieving a recycling efficiency higher than the minimum requirement. Once targets are

achieved, the total cost of collection and recycling drives the choice of technology.

Generally, the Directive is not well adapted to new developments. The Directive does not give any

guidance on when new battery types should be addressed separately, when separate reporting is

required and when a new/ separate recycling efficiency should be applied. In effect, no criteria or

threshold is defined for the relevance of new batteries (e.g. amount, hazardous substances, economic

relevance, etc.).


Although Hg, Cd and Pb can be understood as hazardous substances in the Batteries Directive,

prohibitions are only listed for Hg and Cd. While a prohibition of lead in automotive batteries is at least

addressed (though currently not operational given the exemption in the ELV Directive Annex II), the

prohibition of lead-acid portable and industrial batteries is not mentioned at all. Similarly for NiCd

batteries, portable batteries of this type are prohibited but industrial batteries are not mentioned at

all. There is no explanation why such other batteries are not prohibited (e.g. lead-acid portable), nor

on what basis this would become necessary – neither for the three substances Hg, Cd, Pb, nor for other

substances.

Besides Hg, Cd and Pb, there are additional substances present in batteries that are classified as

hazardous, despite their not being addressed in the Directive. The lack of a definition in the Directive

for hazardous substances does not allow evaluating whether other substances should also be considered

under the Directive as hazardous. Further on, the relation between the definition of a substance as

hazardous and its prohibition under the Directive is not clear. Consequently, it is not clear on what

basis (criteria) hazardous substances in new battery applications should potentially be prohibited.

The environmental problems addressed by the Directive focus on hazardous substances contained in

batteries. In this respect, the Directive’s risk management for batteries containing hazardous

substances is considered inappropriate, as basic requirements are missing (i.e. a definition of hazardous

substances, or a basis for prohibition of other hazardous substances in batteries).

Battery labelling

Through the public consultation and in interviews performed for this study, many stakeholders

commented on the need to adapt chemistry labelling (e.g. for Li-ion batteries) in order to ensure safe

handling during sorting and recycling processes. Labelling related to safety risks is also relevant for

end-users, e.g. when hoarding Li-ion batteries or in case of damaged Li-ion batteries.

New batteries require an adapted chemical labelling system to support better sorting and subsequently

an increased recycling efficiency. Labelling of electro-chemical systems is particularly relevant in

relation to Li-ion sub-chemistries.

Some new industrial batteries are used by end-users (e-bikes). However, capacity labelling does not

cover such new industrial batteries and their applications.

Battery removal

At present, battery removal and removability are not sufficiently complied with; better enforcement is

seen as necessary to achieve collection rates and efficiency targets. An increase has also been observed


113

in batteries that can only be removed by qualified professionals or that cannot be removed without

destroying the device. Battery replaceability and appliance repairability are important for extending

the lifetime of products once a battery reaches EoL and in general to support resource efficiency and

the circular economy. Overall, the relevance of removability for the Batteries Directive (including

aspects like battery replaceability, device repairability, and product life extension) not only persists

but has increased.

Re-use of batteries

There is a broad consensus between stakeholders that the re-use of batteries should be regulated in the

Batteries Directive. At present the unclear legal situation presents an obstacle to an ecologically and

economically desired re-use of batteries for other purposes than the intended purpose when placed on

the market (e.g. batteries from e-vehicles used as energy storage in households). For example, it is

unclear who assumes producer-responsibility for re-used batteries and how re-used batteries should be

reported.

8.2 Effectiveness

Collection of waste batteries

Compliance with target

The Batteries Directive’s collection target of 45 % is one of the Directive’s most important targets and

addresses its primary objective: protection of the environment. Eurostat’s newest data for 2016 show

that 14 Member States60 fulfilled the target and one MS reported an unusually high collection rate. The

remaining 13 MS did not meet the target (7 MS) or did not report (6 MS).

Collection rates and protection of the environment

A collection rate of 45 % of waste portable batteries means that 55 % of losses still occur and 55 % of

waste batteries are not collected. The consultant’s analysis indicates that annually ca. 35 000 t of

batteries entered EU28 municipal waste. That equals 41 % of the amount of portable batteries being

collected and 16 % of portable batteries placed on the market in 2015. Furthermore, batteries in

municipal waste mean annual losses of batteries. These batteries or respectively the battery materials

accumulate over many years in landfills or elsewhere and thus present a steadily growing risk to the

environment.

As for batteries in municipal waste, the Batteries Directive has not foreseen reporting or systematic

analysis of battery “losses”, e.g. export of EEE, WEEE or hoarding. In this respect, this study considers

the collection of portable batteries to not be sufficient for providing information on the status of

environmental protection. The Directive lacks a target or a monitoring system which addresses the

whereabouts of not collected batteries and thus more directly addresses environmental protection and

one of the Directive’s main objectives to minimise the disposal of batteries as mixed municipal waste.

Weaknesses in collection rate reporting

Analysis of voluntarily reported MS data on portable lead-acid batteries (placed on the market and

collected) indicate that the share of portable lead-acid batteries out of the total collected portable

batteries is implausibly high (up to about 75 %) for five MS. A likely explanation is that industrial lead-

acid batteries are (misleadingly) reported under the category portable batteries. Thus, the distinction

60 EEA countries are not considered in this section, but they are considered in the figures presented in chapter 5.3.


114

of portable and industrial lead-acid batteries causes reporting difficulties and subsequently inflates the

collection rate.

An increasing amount of batteries being sold online might potentially also affect the reporting of

portable batteries placed on the market and thus the collection rate. Several stakeholders expressed

their concerns that batteries sold online are not registered (and consequently not included in reporting

and in the PRO).

Reporting of batteries placed on the market and collected proved to not be effective and should thus

be subject to revision. Reporting issues are diverse and numerous: difficulties in differentiating

between portable and industrial lead-acid batteries, distinction between portable and industrial

batteries if applied by private consumers (e-bikes etc.), missing information (collection rate; gap

between placed on the market and collected?) on industrial batteries, reporting challenges of new

developments (online sales, re-use of batteries, Li-ion batteries, critical raw materials).

A basic question concerns the appropriateness of classifying batteries according to use-types, in

particular the distinction of portable and industrial batteries. Portable lead-acid batteries play almost

no role anymore. It remains furthermore unclear why portable NiCd batteries are prohibited but not

portable lead-acid batteries. Instead, the effectiveness of the collection of industrial batteries remains

unclear because no reporting exists.

Weak and lacking provisions in the Directive to address the collection of waste industrial batteries and

Li-ion batteries are of particular high concern. The unclear situation regarding industrial batteries

presents a main area for improvement of the Directive.

The analysis of the batteries mass flows indicates discrepancies between the amounts of industrial

batteries placed on the market and collected. However, without any reporting and concrete data this

cannot be proven.

Missing information about the export of automotive batteries (used vehicles, ELV) or about the export

of batteries in EEE and WEEE are other data gaps relevant for an assessment of the Directive’s

objectives and effectiveness.

Given the huge amount of automotive batteries and in parallel the lack of concrete statistical data on

batteries PoM, export of used batteries and waste batteries collection, this is a relevant area for

improvement and requires a close coordination between Batteries Directive (with regard to PoM and

waste batteries collected) and ELV Directive (with regard to the export of used vehicles).

Calculation methodology of collection rates

The average service life of batteries is longer than three years and thus the calculation of the collection

rate as defined in the Directive does not correctly represent the collection performance in practice.

The stakeholder consultation revealed an explicit demand to adapt the calculation methodology of the

collection rate. Different proposals were offered in the stakeholder consultation as well as in

literature. However, shortcomings of the current calculation method do not necessarily mean that an

alternative method is more suitable. For example, an initial analysis of a potential alternative that

takes into account 6 instead of 3 successive years of batteries placed on the market does not

necessarily result in clear advantages compared to the current methodology.


115

In any case, any potentially new methodology needs to be assessed and compared to the current

methodology. Any new calculation methodology would require developing a new collection target.

Overall, this evaluation study clearly identifies insufficient collection of batteries as a major

shortcoming. In this respect the Directive is not effective and the main objectives to maximise the

separate collection of waste batteries and minimise the battery disposal as municipal waste are not

fulfilled. Increasing collection levels must be a focus of the revised Batteries Directive. The increasing

trend of batteries directly installed into appliances and batteries not sufficiently being removed from

appliances make this failure even worse.

An inadequate calculation methodology for the collection rate and shortcomings in reporting (e.g. lead-

acid batteries or online sales of batteries) should not cover up the main problem - insufficient

collection. Improving and increasing collection need to be at the highest priority of the revision of the

Directive.

Recycling efficiency

Compliance with target

The recycling efficiency targets, one of the most relevant targets in the Directive, are generally

reached and thus represent a major achievement of the Batteries Directive in general and its

environmental objective specifically. The recycling efficiency targets (year 2016) were met by all

countries reporting data except HR (NiCd target was not met).

Methodological approach

Although the recycling efficiency targets are achieved, the underlying methodology presents problems.

The current approach that MS report country-specific recycling efficiencies is not in line with process-

specificity of the recycling efficiencies. This goes in hand with problems related to data availability and

reporting. Several comments from the stakeholder consultation show that receiving recycling data from

recyclers in other countries is problematic (i.e. when batteries of a MS are recycled elsewhere).

There is no indication that any kind of approval or certification exists to confirm recycling conditions.

Certification, which could be required for the calculation methodology, data and resulting recycling

efficiency, would help to develop a level playing field for the recyclers and thereby support the

Directive’s objective to support a single European market.

Taking into account the discrepancy between MS-specific and plant-specific recycling efficiency, the

missing monitoring and certification of recycling and the problems with data availability from recyclers

of other countries (inside and outside the EU), it is questionable whether the Directive’s

methodological approach for the recycling efficiency is appropriate. An investigation into alternative

approaches to the recycling efficiency could be useful for guiding any changes in the methodological

approach.

As concerns the recovery of hazardous metals, the Directive is too vague and thus not effective.

Concrete targets are missing which could be defined based on the performance of recycling processes.

Furthermore, the Directive lacks provisions for additional materials (e.g. critical raw materials).


116

Some stakeholders claimed in the consultation that the reporting deadline of 6 months is not sufficient

and should be extended to 18 months. This issue was also mentioned in relation to collection rates.


Generally, the suitability and effectiveness of information for end-users differs between the MS.

Multiple stakeholders state that information on how and where to dispose of waste batteries is often

lacking. Consumers do not know where to take waste batteries and end up disposing of them in

municipal waste bins. Where awareness campaigns are held, a temporary increase in collection is

observed. Some stakeholders think that the meaning of the crossed-out wheeled bin symbol is not

sufficient for providing consumers with information. Explanatory information (e.g. campaigns, web-

based info) is needed to enhance understanding and needs to be provided periodically to be effective

over time.

A main shortcoming regarding consumer information is that end-users do not have enough information

to make an informed purchase regarding better battery performance. Capacity labelling for primary

batteries is not harmonised and not effective in conveying performance of such batteries. For

rechargeable batteries, for example, there is not enough information on the lifetime of the batteries.

Generally, how the Directive addresses consumer information is considered to not be effective enough,

neither regarding collection of waste batteries nor regarding battery performance. The revision of the

Batteries Directive needs to develop framework conditions which allow the consumer to assess the

performance of primary and rechargeable batteries. As for information available to consumers, non-

replaceability of batteries by the end-user is often not clearly marked on appliance packaging. This

hinders consumers from basing their purchase choices on whether a battery is removable or not and

subsequently on the possibility of extending product lifetime.

Stakeholders also stated that end-consumers are not always aware of risks related to substances used in

batteries and the related risks (safety risks of new batteries).

8.3 Efficiency

Cost and benefits



developed in the batteries sector. Real costs are rarely publicly available as their confidentiality

pertains to the competitive advantage between economic stakeholders (producers, collectors,

recyclers).

Collection and recycling of lead-acid batteries is usually profitable. The sufficient price for secondary

lead is a precondition for this assessment.

The total cost for collection and recycling of most other relevant battery chemistries is usually not

recovered by revenues of the generated secondary raw materials61. The costs are determined by the

61 From May 2017 to April 2018 the the price for cobalt increased by nearly 90%, making recycling of Li-ion batteries

more profitable. However this is not in contradiction to the general observations mentioned.


117

costs for collection, safe storage and transport. Without legalisation making collection and recycling

obligatory, investment in battery recycling plants (other than lead recycling) would be very risky.

A minority of PROs across the EU disclosed their economic files. Based on available documents and on

several assumptions, the total costs for the producers associated with collection and recycling of

portable batteries might be around €118 million across the EU, which is included in battery price

calculations, i.e., covered in the consumer price. The occurring cost/ fees are market-based for most

MS.

It is expected that recycling of NiCd batteries might become (economically) more challenging following

the ban of portable NiCd batteries, as it is expected to become more expensive as the availability of

batteries for recycling decreases (less turnover in the recycling plants cause higher costs, however

over-capacities might also induce for an interim period declining prices until capacities are adopted to

the demand). No or only minimal fees are collected by PROs for this kind of portable battery.

Unknown economic risks apply for private consumers owning industrial batteries e.g. e-bike batteries,

traction batteries for EV and power storage batteries for PV in households. The Directive is vague in

defining who is responsible for establishing collection infrastructure (and also vague about which

collection infrastructure is appropriate) and is vague for who is in charge of carrying the costs of safe

storage and transport to recyclers.

A majority of participants in the public consultation saw benefits directly attributed to the Directive, in

particular to:

• improve the corporate image of the different sectors involved (manufacturers, producers,

collectors and recyclers),

• innovate,

• improve environmental performance,

• open market opportunities,

• achieve a level playing field for all operators involved within the EU,

• help protect the environment, and

• help protect human health.

A majority of the participants in the public consultation agreed or strongly agreed that the costs

involved in implementing the Directive are justified given the benefits that have already been achieved

and that will be achieved in the longer term. Whether the Directive has reduced costs for the sector

(e.g. due to harmonized rules and facilitation of intra-EU trade) is a point of dispute. A relevant

amount of portable batteries remains in mixed household waste, but the associated costs are unknown.

Overall, MS do not see unnecessary regulatory burdens resulting from the development and

implementation of the Batteries Directive.

The commercial stakeholders represented by associations clearly prefer a harmonised approach for

placing batteries on the single European market and regulating management of waste batteries across

Europe instead of regulations on an individual MS level.


118

Differences across the MS

The specific fees for disposing of batteries in 2016 varied greatly between MS. However, no simple

explanation can account for the large price range, since the collection rates as well as several other

conditions might differ as well. The information available on fees for a limited number of MS does not

allow a general conclusion to be drawn. Information about expenditures on consumer awareness is rare

and does not allow any general conclusions.

The stakeholders did not address distributional differences between Member States. However, it should

be noted that treatment/ recycling of waste batteries is highly concentrated in a few MS only, and

these MS benefit from the gross added value induced by the effort spent for collection in other MS.

Competitiveness of the batteries industry within the EU

Few MS made an effort to control (spot checks) correct labelling and correct application of maximum

concentrations of heavy metals in batteries. As reported in Recknagel S.; Radant, H. (2013), a relevant

number of producers place batteries on the market that do not comply with the stipulations of the

Batteries Directive. Gaps in enforcing the Directive further distort the level playing field for those

producers that ensure strict compliance with Directive requirements.

Enforcement is difficult to ensure that producers, placing batteries on the market via internet sales,

contribute (financially) to national PROs. Spot checks / campaigns and penalties of relevant amount

might make illegal placing on the market less attractive.

What is considered or not as part of recycling is handled differently between MS. Stakeholders stated

that in some MS the recycling output slag is counted as part of recycling, in others not. Dealing

differently with slags seems to hamper the development of a level playing field for recyclers.

Stakeholders support the concept of certifying recycling plants both in the EU and abroad in third

countries. This would allow ensuring that the same standards for battery recycling are applied and

would support a level playing field in this respect.

Once collection targets are met, competing PROs might tend to be highly selective of which batteries

they accept, allowing free riders to enter the market. Such freeriders might not have operative

activities in collection of batteries but trade with surplus collection volumes (weighing slip) only.

Such conditions might jeopardise the performance of existing PROs and the entire collection scheme.

Therefore, minimum requirements on performance of PROs (other than only the collection rate) are

necessary, such as stipulating a minimum share of expenditure for public awareness in correlation to

the market share of the PRO, minimum requirements on regional coverage (less dense areas) and

minimum contributions for R&D on recycling to address new developments.

Waste management at the level of collection and sorting is traditionally fragmented, and many SME

coexist with large enterprises. Only a few companies are able to conduct proper recycling. However, as

demonstrated for the recycling of Li-ion batteries, newcomers/ SME are able to enter this emerging

market.


119

Good or bad practices

There are two types of PRO found in the EU: competitive schemes and single schemes per MS. Single

organisation schemes appear to out-perform competitive schemes in terms of awareness campaigns and

number of collection points. For MS not having defined minimum requirements for awareness campaigns

and collection points, there is the risk that PROs compete by minimising the effort for these measures

Some MS have established minimum awareness creation measures. Other MS with a competing

organisations model have approved organisations to compete without central coordination or fiscal

enforcement instruments. As a result, minimum requirements on PRO performance are necessary.

With state funded collection schemes (i.e. costs covered by dedicated fees/ taxes), there is the risk

that the government may decide to allocate collected funds to environmental programmes not related

to the products from which the funds have been raised.

8.4 Coherence

The Batteries Directive interacts with several other EU sectoral regulations, including the Waste

Framework Directive (WFD), Waste Shipment Directive (WShipR), Waste Statistics Regulation (WStatR),

Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE), Restriction of Hazardous Substances

Directive (RoHS), End-of-life Vehicles Directive (ELV) and Regulation for Registration, Evaluation,

Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP)

Regulation, as well as international conventions like the Basel Convention. Contradictions and missing

links between the regulations exist for scope, definitions, restrictions for hazardous substances and

reporting obligations.

The Batteries Directive is to a large extent consistent and coherent. Inconsistencies and missing links

were found regarding the distinction between portable and industrial batteries, the prohibition of

hazardous substances, the definition of replaceability, exemptions from the removability of batteries,

missing capacity labelling for primary portable, some secondary (rechargeable) portable and for

industrial batteries and the reporting deadlines for the collection rate.

8.5 EU added value

The Batteries Directive harmonises the conditions for the sale, collection and recycling of batteries

across Europe and establishes collection and recycling targets. Effectively all stakeholders prefer to

keep the Batteries Directive at the EU level instead of regulation at the MS level only.

The majority but not all stakeholders are convinced that the Batteries Directive has served the well-

functioning of the single market for batteries and that trade barriers are lower compared to regulation

on the MS level. Innovation is not hampered by the Directive.

8.6 Overview on the results

Areas for improvement and significant success

Some of the necessary improvements can essentially be applied through better enforcement in Member

States at the national level. This concerns, above all, compliance with or exceeding the established

collection targets and the removal of batteries from WEEE. At the same time it might be supportive to

have European targets and reporting requirements to avoid disposal of waste batteries with municipal

waste.


120

Other improvements that benefit both the environment and the common European market can be

better regulated at EU level.

In general, a higher collection level must be a focus for improvement.

The Directive must be better adapted to new developments, in particular concerning Li-ion batteries:

Li-ion batteries for electric mobility and for decentralised power storage, for which the greatest

growth is predicted, currently fall under the category of industrial batteries. For this category,

the Batteries Directive does not specify collection targets, minimum collection infrastructure

requirements, reporting requirements or extended producer responsibility. As many of these

batteries are owned by private consumers, such aspects need to be clarified in a revised

Directive.

Current recycling efficiencies are no longer appropriate for Li-ion batteries in light of their

growing relevance. Specific targets for the recovery of lithium and other raw materials are

necessary to take account of the importance of resource efficiency, circular economy and the

reduction of environmental impacts.

Battery re-use is not addressed in the Directive. Provisions are in particular needed for the

effects on the EPR.

Considering the alternatives to Pb-acid and NiCd batteries, the prohibition of lead and cadmium is not

coherent in the Directive. While cadmium is prohibited for portable batteries it is not prohibited for

industrial batteries and while lead is prohibited in automotive batteries (according to the ELV Directive)

it is not prohibited for industrial and portable batteries. When introducing new prohibitions transitional

periods and procedures for exemptions will be necessary.

End-users do not have enough information to make an informed purchase regarding better battery

performance. Better labelling for consumers and at the same time labelling for safety aspects and

better sorting should be introduced and harmonised during the course of a revision of the Directive.

Removability and replaceability need more attention. This applies for the aspect of lifetime extension

of products containing batteries and also for the separation of batteries from WEEE.

The Directive interacts with several other EU sectoral regulations, including the WFD, WShipR, WStatR,

WEEE, RoHS, ELV or REACH/CLP-Regulation as well as international conventions like the Basel

Convention. Contradictions and missing links between the various regulations exist as regard scope,

definitions, restrictions for hazardous substances and reporting obligations. Harmonisation is needed,

but not possible for all aspects, this would need a more general approach and roadmap for all the

affected legislation.

There are also significant successes of the Batteries Directive.

The Directive replaced national measures that were likely to discriminate against imports, with EU-wide

regulations. This concerns in particular harmonisation with regard to permissible hazardous substance

contents and labelling.

With regard to the environment, the prohibition of mercury in batteries and the prohibition of cadmium

in portable batteries mark important milestones to prevent the risk of the release of these heavy

metals.


121

In order to meet the collection targets for portable batteries, all member states have installed PROs.

This is necessary because, for most portable batteries, the costs of collection and safe transport cannot

be covered by the revenue from recycling. Insofar the establishment of the PRO is a success of the

Directive.

However, the EPR concept of the Directive does not establish minimum requirements for awareness

campaigns and collection points. In consequence PROs compete by minimising the effort for these

measures and have no incentive for reaching higher collection targets than legally required.


122

9 References

Accurec (2017): http://www.accurec.de/about download 22.6.2017

ACEA (2015): http://www.acea.be/statistics/tag/category/by-country-registrations download

14.3.2017

ACEA (2017): http://www.acea.be/press-releases/article/eu-automotive-and-battery-industries-

welcome-expert-recognition-of-importan, accessed 2017 10 23

ADEME (2016), Deloitte Développement Durable, RAPPORT ANNUEL DU REGISTRE PILES ET

ACCUMULATEURS, DONNÉES 2015, ADEME, Septembre 2016

Argus (2017): ARGUS - Statistik und Informationssysteme in Umwelt und Gesundheit GmbH, unpublished

data from waste analyses projects in Germany; personal communication; email 15.3.2017

ARN: http://www.arn.nl/news/lagere-recyclingbijdrage-autos-en-autobatterijen/ accessed 24.10.2017

Autoweek (2016): The 12-volt car battery is about to be a thing of the past;

http://autoweek.com/article/technology/48-volt-systems-are-bringing-more-power-and-better-fuel-

economy ; download 24.1.2018

AVAW (2017): The proportion of portable batteries and lithium batteries in residual waste - an analysis

(in German), http://avaw.unileoben.ac.at/media/TNigl_Poster_OeWAV-Tagung_2017.pdf; download

7.12.2017

BAT (2016): COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2016/1032 of 13 June 2016 establishing best

available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of

the Council, for the non-ferrous metals industries (notified under document C(2016) 3563); Official

Journal of the European Union; 30.6.2016

BEUC (2016): Low carbon cars in the 20umico20s - Consumer impacts and EU policy implications

BGS (2016): British Geological Survey. 2016. European Mineral Statistics 2010-14. (Keyworth,

Nottingham: Britisch Geological Survey.)

Bigum (2016): Bigum, M. K. K., Christensen, T. H., & Scheutz, C. (2014). Life cycle assessment of the

management of special waste types: WEEE and batteries. Kgs. Lyngby: DTU Environment

http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/103008116/Marianne_Bigum_PhD_Thesis_WWW_Version.pdf

Binnemans, P., EUCOBAT (2018): information provided by e-mail the 16 Februiary 2018

Blagoeva et al.( 2016): Blagoeva, D.T.; Alves Dias, P.; Marmier, A.; Pavel, C.C.: Assessment of potential

bottlenecks along the materials supply chain for the future deployment of low-carbon energy and

transport technologies in the EU. Wind power, photovoltaic and electric vehicles technologies, time

frame: 2015-2030, EUR 28192 EN; doi: 10.2790/08169


123

BNM (2013): Removability requirements of batteries, The British National Measurement Office of the

Enforcement Authority, last viewed 01.02.2018, available under: http://www.btha.co.uk/wp-

content/uploads/2013/08/Removability-requirements-of-batteries.pdf

BREF (2017): Gianluca Cusano, Miguel Rodrigo Gonzalo, Frank Farrell, Rainer Remus, Serge Roudier, Luis

Delgado Sancho; Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the main Non-Ferrous Metals

Industries, EUR 28648, doi:10.2760/8224; European Union 2017.

Buchert (2010): Buchert, M., Life cycle assessment (LCA) of Nickel Metal Hydride Batteries for HEV

application; IARC, Basel, 4th March 2010.

CENELEC (2012): Dittrich, T.; Feasibility Study on Labelling and Efficiency of Primary Batteries, M/494

dated 01.11.2012, last accessed 01.02.2018, available under:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/batteries/pdf/CENELEC%20feasibility%20study.pdf

DIGITALEUROPE (2009): Position paper: Implementation of the EU Batteries Directive, Ensuring the

workability of the battery removal requirement, last accessed 01.02.2018, available under:

http://www.digitaleurope.org/Portals/0/Documents/ENV/Waste/joint%20position%20paper%20on%20ba

tteries%20removability%20150609.pdf

Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-

life vehicles, OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34. Directive as last amended by Commission Decision

2005/63/EC (OJ L 25, 28.1.2005, p. 73).

EBRA (2017): Interview with EBRA (European Battery Recycling Association), telephone conference,

18.5.2017

ECHA (2017): Guideline on the scope of the Entry 63 (paragraphs 7 to 10) of Annex XVII to REACH on:

Lead and its compounds in articles supplied to the general public that can be mouthed by children;

download at: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13563/lead_guideline_information_en.pdf (as

from 08.02.2018).

EcoBatRec (2016): Accurec, IME RWTH Aachen, Final report on the joint project Demonstration plant for

cost-neutral, resource-efficient processing of spent Li-ion batteries from electromobility (in German),

EcoBatRec, Förderkennzeichen: 16EM1002, funded by the German Federal Environmental Ministry, 2016

ecoinvent 3.3: http://www.ecoinvent.org/home.html; database, Version 3.3 was released on the 15th

August 2016

Elwert (2015): Tobias Elwert, Daniel Goldmann, Felix Römer, Matthias Buchert, Cornelia Merz, Doris

Schueler and Juergen Sutter; Current Developments and Challenges in the Recycling of Key Components

of (Hybrid) Electric Vehicles; Recycling 2015, 1, 25-60

EPBA (2016a): Perchards and SagisEPR, study on behalf of EPBA; The collection of waste portable

batteries in Europe in view of the achievability of the collection targets set by Batteries Directive

2006/66/EC, August 2013, update December 2016


124

EPBA (2016b): EPBA comments on the Evaluation Roadmap of the Batteries Directive (2006/66/EC), 16

September 2016

ERM (2006): Prepared by: Karen Fisher, Erika Wallén, Pieter Paul, Laenen and Michael Collins (ERM),

study on behalf of DEFRA UK, Battery Waste Management Life Cycle Assessment, 2006

ERP (2015): European Recycling Platform (ERP) Deutschland GmbH; 2015 performance review in

accordance with §15 (2) Battery Act, approved manufacturer's own take-back system for batteries in

Germany, public report (in German)

Eucobat (2017): Desmet, B.; Colin, J. ; Möbius on behalf of Eucobat, How battery life cycle influences

the collection rate of battery collection schemes, Consolidated European report, January 2017

Eurobat (2014): EUROBAT, ILA, ACEA, JAMA, KAMA and HIS, The availability of automotive lead-based

batteries for recycling in the EU

European Commission (2003): Commission Staff Working Paper, Directive of the European Parliament

and of the Council on batteries and accumulators and spent batteries and accumulators, Extended

Impact Assessment, COM(2003)723 final; 24.11.2003

European Commission (2010): Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Regulation (EC) 1013/2006 on

shipments of waste.

European Commission (2012): Guidance on the interpretation of key provisions of Directive 2008/98/EC

on waste.

European Commission (2014): European Commission, Directorate General Environment, Frequently

Asked Questions on Directive 2006/66/EU on Batteries and Accumulators and Waste Batteries and

Accumulators; Updated version, May 2014

European Commission (2015): Guidance document on the definition and classification of hazardous

waste (Draft version from 8 June 2015).

European Commission (2017): “Study on the review of the list of critical raw materials”, European

Commission report. 2017 https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/08fdab5f-

9766-11e7-b92d-01aa75ed71a1/language-en

European Commission (2018): European Commission, Report on Critical Raw Materials and the Circular

Economy, Commission Staff Working Document , SWD(2018) 36 final, Brussels, 2018

COM(2018) 293: Communication from the EC to the EuP, the Council the European Economic and Social

Committee of the Regions: Europe on the Move , Sustainable Mobility for Europe: safe, connected and

clean (17.5.2018)

Eurostat (2017): Eurostat, Foreign Trade Statistics, extra EU, new and used vehicles; download 9 March

2017

Fab4Lib(2018): TerraE Holding, MEET, Helmholtz-Institut Münster – Forschungszentrum Jülich, Öko-

Insitut, RWTH Aachen, ZSW, BMZ, StreetScooter, SGL Carbon, Umicore, Solvay Fluor, Custom Cell


125

Itzehoe, Leclanche, Litarion, Manz, M+W Group, Siemens, tk SY thyssenkrupp System Engineering;

Research on measures for an improved material and process efficiency of Li-ion cell production,

supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education, 2018

Filippo Girardi (2016): Presentation at Eurobat, Annual Forum, 16-17 June 2016, Berlin, Germany.

Galushkin (2018): N. E. Galushkin, N. N. Yazvinskaya, and D. N. Galushkin, Mechanism of Thermal

Runaway in Lithium-Ion Cells; Journal of The Electrochemical Society,165(7) A1303-A1308 (2018)

GRS (2012), Die Welt der Batterien - Funktion, Systeme, Entsorgung, publisher: Stiftung Gemeinsames

Rücknahmesystem Batterien, Hamburg 2012

GRS (2015): Stiftung Gemeinsames Rücknahmesystem, Batterien Annual Review 2015, Reporting in

accordance with §15 (1) Batteriegesetz (Batteries Act)

GRS (2017): Stiftung Gemeinsames Rücknahmesystem: List of disposal contribution valid from

01.01.2017 http://www.grs-batterien.com/producers/contracts-and-documents.html (accessed 2017-

10-24)

Hagelüken, C.; Treffer, F. (umicore) (2017): Recycling of Li-ion Batteries-Status, opportunities,

challenges: Presentation in Würzburg (Germany) during the conference on competitiveness of the

lithium industry, 11-12 October 2017

Hübner (2015): Hübner G., HdM (Hochschule der Medien), Printed Batteries overview, status, recent

developments, future perspectives, 07th Sept. 2015;

http://jpmtr.org/iarigai_conference/3A4_Huebner_2015_09_07%20%20IARIGAI%20GH.pdf; download

13.2.2018

IFA (2015): IFA Ingenieurgesellschaft für Abfallwirtschaft und Umweltlogistik, ÖcoReCell Batterie

Rücknahme Systeme, Dokumentation 2015, Success control according to the specifications of the

battery law (in German)

ILA (2018): Alistair Davidson, International Lead Association, How to measure and reduce the footprint

of lead and lead batteries, presentation at the aabc (8th International Advanced Automotive Battery

Conference Europe), Mainz, Germany, 29 January 2018.

INICA (2007): Natural Resources and Trade Flows in the Great Lakes Region, Phase 1 Report. Initiative

for Central Africa BP 4654, Kigali, Rwanda; 2007 http://www.estellelevin.com/wp-

content/uploads/2013/12/INICA-2007-NaturalResourcesTradeFlows.pdf

J Cancer Prev (2015): Hyun Soo Kim, et al: An Overview of Carcinogenic Heavy Metal: Molecular Toxicity

Mechanism and Prevention, Journal of Cancer Prevention Vol. 20, No. 4, 2015

JRC (2016): Lebedeva, N., Di Persio, F., Boon-Brett, L., Lithium ion battery value chain and related

opportunities for Europe, European Commission, Petten, 2016

JRC (2017): Mathieux, F., Ardente, F., Bobba, S., Nuss, P., Blengini, G., Alves Dias, P., Blagoeva, D.,

Torres De Matos, C., Wittmer, D., Pavel, C., Hamor, T., Saveyn, H., Gawlik, B., Orveillon, G., Huygens,

D., Garbarino, E., Tzimas, E., Bouraoui, F. and Solar, S., Critical Raw Materials and the Circular


126

Economy – Background report. JRC Science-for-policy report, EUR 28832 EN, Publications Office of the

European Union, Luxembourg, 2017, ISBN 978-92-79-74282-8 doi:10.2760/378123 JRC108710.

KBA (2015): http://www.kba.de/DE/Statistik/Fahrzeuge/Neuzulassungen/n_jahresbilanz.html

download 15.3.2017

Lebedeva, N.; Di Persio, F.; Boon-Brett, L. (2016): Lithium ion battery value chain and related

opportunities for Europe, Science for Policy Report, Joint Research Centre, 2016

LiBRi (2011): Öko-Institut, Entwicklung eines realisierbaren Recyclingkonzepts für die

Hochleistungsbatterien zukünftiger Elektrofahrzeuge – LiBRi, Teilprojekt: LCA der Recyclingverfahren,

im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU), 2011

LiBRi (2011a): Umicore, Daimler, Öko-Institut, TU Clausthal, Entwicklung eines realisierbaren

Recyclingkonzepts für die Hochleistungsbatterien zukünftiger Elektrofahrzeuge – LiBRi Lithium-Ionen

Batterierecycling Initiative, R&D Final Report, on behalf of Bundesministeriums für Umwelt,

Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU), 2011

LithoRec II und EcoBatRec (2015): Ökobilanzen zu den Recyclingverfahren LithoRec II und EcoBatRec für

Lithium-Ionen-Batterien - LCA-Li-Bat-Recycling. Öko-Institut in Kooperation mit TU Braunschweig,

Volkswagen, RWTH Aachen, Rockwood Lithium GmbH, Electrocycling GmbH, Solvay Fluor GmbH, Audi

AG, Accurec Recycling GmbH im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz und

Reaktorsicherheit (BMU)

Luxemburg (2014): Hans-Jürgen Beyer et al, ECO-Conseil, Restabfallanalyse 2013/2014 im

Großherzogtum Luxemburg, Band 1 Endbericht; Administration de l’environnement, Division des

Déchets; Dezember 2014

Majeau-Bettez, G.; Hawkins T.R.; Strømman A.H. (2011): Life Cycle Environmental Assessment of

Lithium-Ion and Nickel Metal Hydride Batteries for Plug-in Hybrid and Battery Electric Vehicles.

Supporting Information. Environmental Science and Technology, Ausgabe 45, Heft 10, Seiten 4548-4554.

Mehlhart (2017): Mehlhart, G.; Kosińska, I.; Baron, Y. Hermann, A.: Assessment of the implementation

of Directive 2000/53/EU on end-of-life vehicles (the ELV Directive) with emphasis on the end of life

vehicles of unknown whereabouts, Study commissioned by the European Commission and carried out by

Oeko-Institut

MS (2017): Member State’s communication of France’s governmental battery expert with the European

Commission; email 28.12.2017

Monier, V.; Hestin, M. et. al. (2014): Development of guidance on extended producer responsibility

(EPR), report commissioned by the European Commission and carried out by BIO Intelligence Service et.

al.

Mudd (2010): Mudd, Gavin M. Global trends and environmental issues in nickel mining: Sulfides versus

laterites; in: Ore Geology Reviews 38 (1 – 2). page 9 – 26.


127

Mudgal, S.; Kong, M.S.; Mitsios, A. et. al. (2014): Ex-post evaluation of certain waste stream Directives,

report commissioned by the European Commission and carried out by BIO Intelligence Service et. al.

Mudgal, S.; Le Guern, Y. (2011): Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment of nickel cadmium (NiCd) batteries

used in Cordless Power Tools (CPTs) vs. their alternatives nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) and lithium-ion

(Li-ion) batteries, study commissioned by the EC – DG ENV

O’Driscoll (2017): Mike O’Driscoll, Director, IMFORMED, Indsutrial mineral recycling in Li-ion batteries,

Presentation at the aabc Europe, 30 January – 2 February 2017, Mainz Germany.

Oeko-Institut (2016a): Germany 2049 – On the path to sustainable raw materials management

[Deutschland 2049 – Auf dem Weg zu einer nachhaltigen Rohstoffwirtschaft], Buchert, M.; Degreif, S;

Stahl, H.; Bulach, W.; Hünecke, K.; Schmidt, G.; Schulze, F.; Manhart, A.; 2016, Commissioned by: Own

project of Oeko Institut e. V.

Oeko-Institut (2016b): The Lead Recycling Africa Project – Standards für Bleihütten: Für eine starke

Umweltbewegung in Afrika, Manhart, A.; Degreif, S.; Schleicher, T.; in Zusammenarbeit mit Amera, T.;

Kuepouo, G.; Mng‘anya, S., Öko-Institut e.V. in Kooperation mit PAN Ethiopia; CREPD Cameroon &

AGENDA Tanzania (2016), Eigenprojekt Öko-Institut e.V.; unterstützt durch Spenden

Oeko-Institut (2016c): Global circular economy of strategic metals (Bo2W) [Best-of-two-worlds (Bo2W) -

Globale Kreislaufführung strategischer Metalle]; Dr. Buchert, M.; Manhart, A.; Dr. Mehlhart, G.;

Degreif, S. (Öko-Institut) in cooperation with Umicore; Johnson Controls Power Solutions;

Vacuumschmelze GmbH & Co. KG; CEDARE; City Waste Recycling; 2016; With funding provided by the

German Federal Ministry of Education and Research [Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung

(BMBF), Berlin

Oeko-Institut (2017): Strategien für die nachhaltige Rohstoffversorgung der Elektromobilität;

Synthesepapier zum Rohstoffbedarf für Batterien und Brennstoffzellen, Dr. M. Buchert, S. Degreif, P.

Dolega; Commissioned by Agora Verkehrswende

Oeko-Institut (2018): H. Stahl, Oeko-Institut, Validation report on data on batteries and accumulators

for the Reference Year 2016; Reporting according to Directive 2006/66/EC and Commission Decision

2008/763/EC; Contract No. 08232.2013.005-2013.705 European Commission, ESTAT, Directorate E;

2018; not published

Oeko-Institut and Eunomia (2016): 8th Adaptation to scientific and technical progress of exemptions

2(c), 3 and 5 of Annex II to Directive 2000/53/EC (ELV); Report for the European Commission DG

Environment under Framework Contract No ENV.C.2/FRA/2011/0020, Final Report, 2016

Oeko-Institut and ZSW (2015): Innovative energy storage solutions for the future: Recycling and

environmental requirements and strategies for avoiding supply risks of their production [Zukünftige

innovative Energiespeicher: Recycling- und Umweltanforderungen und Strategien zur Vermeidung von

Versorgungsrisiken für deren Fertigung], Stahl, H.; Schüler, D.; Bauknecht, D.; Hermann, A.; Vogel, M.,

in Kooperation mit Zentrum für Sonnenenergie- und Wasserstoff-Forschung Baden-Württemberg (ZSW);

2015, Commissioned by: German Federal Environment Agency (UBA), Dessau


128

Olivetti et. al (2011): Olivetti, E.; Gregory, J.; Kirchain, R.: Life cycle impacts of alkaline batteries with

a focus on end of life; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Materials Systems Lab; Study conducted

for the national electrical manufacturers association, USA, Feb 2011.

openLCA (2017):LCA software; http://www.openlca.org/

PE International (2014): Life Cycle Assessment of Lead-based Batteries for Vehicles; Viviana Carrillo

Usbeck, Arnav Kacker, Dr. Johannes Gediga, PE International; Commissioned by, Eurobat, ACEA, JAMA,

KAMA, ILA; April 2014

Pillot, C. (2015): The Rechargeable Battery Market and Main Trends 2014-2025, Presentation at 32nd

International battery seminar & exhibit, 9 March 2015

Printed Electronics (2017): https://www.printedelectronicsnow.com/issues/2017-03-

01/view_features/the-flexible-battery-market/46383; download 13.02.2018

ProSUM (2017): Prospecting Secondary raw materials in the Urban mine and Mining waste - CRM

assessment strategy for waste flows and deposits - Deliverable 4.2,, Prepared by Chancerel, P.,

Huisman, H., Guzman-Brechu, M., Habin, H., Herrera, L., Ljunggren-Söderman, M., Paul-Maehlitz, C.,

Ueberschaar, M., Hallberg, A., Løvik, A. N., Nerby. T., Rotter, V. S., TUB, UNU, WF, SGU , EMPA,

funded by Horizon 2020, last accessed 01.02.2018, available under:

http://www.prosumproject.eu/sites/default/files/170106%20ProSUM%20Deliverable%204.2%20Report%2

0Final.pdf

ProSUM (2017a): ProSUMFinal Information Network Event, 10 November 2017, Perrine Chancerel (TU

Berlin), Claude Chanson, Peter Binnemans, Johanna Emmerich, Paul Mählitz et al.

http://www.prosumproject.eu/sites/default/files/Huisman%2C%20Ljunggren%20S%C3%B6derman%2C%2

0Emmerich%20%26%20Halberg%20-The%20Knowledge%20Base%20Today.pdf; download 8.2.2018

ProSUM (2018): Urban Mine Platform,

http://www.urbanmineplatform.eu/urbanmine/batteries/weight/detail; download 18.4.2018

rebat (2015): CCR Logistics Systems AG, Erfolgskontrolle 2015, gemäß § 15 (1) Batteriegesetz

Recharge, Avicenne (2010): The Portable Rechargeable Battery (PRB) market in Europe (2008-2015);

Presentation: A report prepared by Avicenne for RECHARGE aisbl, December 2010

RECHARGE (2014): Re-Use and Second Use o Rechargeable Batteries, download at:

www.rechargebatteries.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/RECHARGE-Information-Paper-on-Re-use-

and-second-use-October-2014-v.14.pdf (as from 08.02.2018).

Recknagel S.; Radant, H. (2013): Survey of Mercury, Cadmium and Lead Content of Batteries.Analysis of

Samples of Customary Batteries and Batteries Sold in Appliances. Preparation of a Sampling Plan,

Purchase of Samples and Analysis, UBA-TEXTE 09/2013

Roland Berger (2012): Presentation, The Lithium-Ion Battery Value Chain, Istanbul, October 2012


129

Recharge (2018): PEFCR - Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules for High Specific Energy

Rechargeable Batteries for Mobile Applications; Version H, Recharge, The Advanced Rechargeable &

Lithium Battery Association, published February 2018.

SagisEPR and Perchards, EPBA (2016): SagisEPR and Perchards, Study on behalf of the European

Portable Battery Association (EPBA), The collection of waste portable batteries in Europe in view of the

achievability of the collection targets set by Batteries Directive 2006/66/EC, August 2013, update

December 2016

Steiermark (2018): Problemstoffe inkl. Batterien - Abfallaufkommen und Mengenentwicklung, download

at http://www.abfallwirtschaft.steiermark.at/cms/beitrag/10168734/4373950/

STIBAT (2017): https://www.stibat.nl/assets/uploads/2017/10/Tarievenlijst-beheerbijdrage-per-1-

januari-2018-NL.pdf accessed 24.10.2017

Sorteeranalyses (2015): Samenstelling van het huishoudelijk restafval, sorteeranalyses 2014 ;

Gemiddelde, driejaarlijkse samenstelling 2013 / Rijkswaterstaat. – Utrecht : Rijkswaterstaat, 2015. - 46

p.: fig., tab. - ISBN 978-94-91750-11-3. www.rwsleefomgeving.nl

Statista (2015): http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/152721/umfrage/absatz-von-e-bikes-in-

deutschland and http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/167047/umfrage/gesamter-absatz-von-

e-bikes-in-europa; download 12.3.2017

Sørensen, S. Y.; Olsen, S. M. et.al. (2013): Treating Waste as a Resource for the EU Industry. Analysis of

Various Waste Streams and the Competitiveness of their Client Industries, Report commissioned by the

European Commission, DG Enterprise and Industry, August 2013

Sullivan, J.L.; Gaines, L. (2012): Status of life cycle inventories for batteries. Energy Conversion and

Management, Ausgabe 58, Seiten 134-148.

Sullivan, D.; Morse, T.; Patel, P.; Patel, S.; Bondar, J.; Taylor, L. (1980): Life-Cycle Energy Analyses of

Electric Vehicle Storage Batteries. Energy Conservation. Hittman Associates, Inc. im Auftrag des U.S.

Department of Energy, S. V-9 – V-10.

SZ (2015): „Pure Energie“ von Boris Herrmann, Süddeutsche Zeitung Nr. 43, 21./22. Februar 2015

Trinomics (2017): Implementation report on Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and

waste batteries and accumulators. Report to the European Commission, DG Environment.

UBA (2012): Umweltbundesamt; Batteries and accumulators: Your questions, our answers about

batteries, accumulators and environment – Batterien und Akkus: Ihre Fragen – unsere Antworten zu

Batterien, Akkus und Umwelt, Dessau

Recknagel S.; Radant, H.: Survey of Mercury, Cadmium and Lead Content of Batteries.Analysis of

Samples of Customary Batteries and Batteries Sold in Appliances. Preparation of a Sampling Plan,

Purchase of Samples and Analysis, UBA-TEXTE 09/2013

Umicore (2017): Dr. Paul Spurk, Umicore; Cathode Material development for Lithium Ion Batteries; EIT

Raw Materials, 2017

http://www.abfallwirtschaft.steiermark.at/cms/beitrag/10168734/4373950/


130

Umicore (2018): Hagelüken, C.: Recycling of Li-ion batteries – imperative for sustainable e-mobility,

aabc europe Mainz, 29.1.-1.2. 2018.

USGS Cobalt (2016): U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2016; Cobalt

USGS Lithium (2016): U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2016; Lithium

USGS Manganese (2016): U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2016;

Manganese

Vassart (2018): Feedback by EBRA to the meeting of the Expert Group on Waste (Batteries Directive),

held on 14 March 2018 in Brussels; email A. Vassart, EBRA, 23.3.2018.

Whoriskey (2016): Whorsikey, Peter. In Your Phone, in Their Air. in: Washington Post. URL:

www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/batteries/graphitemining-pollution-in-china/. download

23.05.2017.

Xara etal (2015): Susana Xará, Manuel Fonseca Almeida, Carlos Costa; Life cycle assessment of three

different management options for spent alkaline batteries; Waste Management 43 (2015), 460–484

ZVEI et al. (2016) Zentralverband Elektrotechnik- und Elektronikindustrie e.V., Zweirad-Industrie-

Verband e.V. and Battery Safety Organization; Position paper


131

10 Annex A: Evaluation questions and evaluation matrix

The following sub-chapters provide a comprehensive list of all detailed evaluation questions. All

detailed evaluation questions were addressed during the evaluation. The analyses performed on the

detailed questions and building on that the answers to the detailed questions provide the basis for the

results of the general questions in chapter 7.

10.1 Relevance (A)

General questions:

• To what extent do the problems addressed by the Batteries Directive still persist within the EU?

• How well do the original objectives of the Batteries Directive correspond to current

environmental, technical, economic and social conditions and needs for the use of batteries

within the EU? Is the Batteries Directive well adapted to incorporating new technologies or

developments? Are new technical or scientific developments covered by the Batteries Directive?

• How relevant to EU citizens is the EU’s intervention through the Batteries Directive in relation to

battery applications and handling waste batteries?

10.1.1 Impact on functioning of the internal market (A2)

Detailed questions

(A21) Most frequent use of batteries: Changing structure of (portable) battery streams

Has the use/ application of batteries changed since the Batteries Directive was

introduced?

Does the Batteries Directive still adequately address the most frequent uses and purposes

of batteries?

Do the definitions of portable, industrial and automotive batteries reflect all types of

batteries and uses in an adequate manner, for example stationary batteries in private

households and small business? Should the definitions be adapted?

Does the Batteries Directive address the right types of batteries?

o To what extent are these battery types still relevant (related to sales of new

batteries and collection and recycling of waste batteries)?

(A22) Design features: Relevant design features such as removability, replaceability, reparability,

fitness for second use.

Are batteries’ design features adequately addressed in the Batteries Directive?

Have design features changed since introduction of the Batteries Directive? Are provisions

in the Batteries Directive sufficient?

(A23) Expectations of consumers: Consumer requirements for the batteries


132

Do battery specifications, such as durability, number of charging cycles, safety

requirements and energy efficiency, meet consumer requirements?

10.1.2 Appropriateness of further risk management measures for heavy metals (A3)

Detailed questions

(A31) Status of hazardous substances: Exemptions for hazardous substances and hazardousness of

current/new battery systems

What is the relevance to date of the current exemptions for hazardous substances? Are

they no longer required or do they need to be adapted?

Are there any new potentially hazardous substances and developments which should be

addressed in the Batteries Directive (e.g. nano-materials)? In this respect, should criteria

for the definition of hazardous substances be developed?

For the phase out of Hg and Cd and a potential future phase out of Pb: which related

strategies were developed or are in preparation at the EU level and/or Member State

level?

(A32) Labelling: New battery systems and additional/changing labelling requirements

Is the current labelling system, namely those intended to inform end users, still necessary

and adequate? Are there new needs to be taken into account (e.g. on recyclability,

safety)? Do new battery systems require additional or different labelling?

10.1.3 Possibility of introducing further targets (A5)

Detailed questions

(A51) Resource efficiency: Resource efficiency aspects of batteries and their content along the life

cycle of batteries.

Is resource efficiency adequately addressed in the Batteries Directive?

Has resource efficiency become more important since original introduction of the

Batteries Directive?

Should ‘critical materials’ be addressed in the Batteries Directive?

Should conflict minerals be addressed in the Batteries Directive?

(A52) Calculation methodologies: Methodologies for calculating collection rate and recycling

efficiencies

Is the methodology for calculating collection rates and recycling efficiencies adequate?


133

10.1.4 Extended producer responsibility (A7)

Detailed questions

(A71) Safety risks: concerns related to Li-ion and other batteries

Are safety issues for batteries adequately addressed in the Batteries Directive? Have

further safety issues arisen in practice or are there any concerns anticipated in future?

10.1.5 Emerging trends and new developments (A8)

Detailed questions

(A81) Emerging trends: Emerging trends and important new developments

What are the most important new situations and emerging trends appeared since the

Batteries Directive was adopted?

Has the Directive contributed to the emergence of these new trends?

(A82) New battery systems: Changing battery systems with different components and substances.

How well does the Batteries Directive address the issues entailed by new types of

batteries, e.g. Li-ion batteries?

(A83) New applications of batteries: Use in electric vehicles, electricity storage, etc.

How well adapted is the Batteries Directive to new use or applications for batteries?

How well adapted is the Batteries Directive to reuse and recovery of batteries?

Should monitoring and reporting of batteries take into account reuse and recovery of

batteries? If so, how should reporting on reuse and recovery of batteries be incorporated

into the current reporting?

(A84) New recycling technologies: Changing battery systems and corresponding recycling

technologies.

How well adapted is the Batteries Directive to recycling new battery systems?

Is there a need to define new battery types and new recycling efficiencies (e.g. for Li-ion


134

batteries)?

10.2 Effectiveness (B)

General questions:

• What progress has been made over time towards achieving the objectives and targets set out in

the Batteries Directive? In particular, to what extent is this progress aligned with initial

expectations to protect, preserve and improve the quality of the environment and to ensure the

smooth functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition within the

Community, as indicated by the original intention of the Batteries Directive? What other

significant changes, both positive and negative, can be linked to the Directive, if any?

• What progress has been made to achieve the collection, recycling and recycling efficiency

targets?

• How did the Batteries Directive influenced (positively or negatively) the achievement of the

objectives of EU policies on climate change, resource efficiency, internal market, innovation and

job creation or consumer's rights (e.g. durability, number of charging cycles, safety requirements

and removability of batteries)?

• Have the environmental impacts of batteries been reduced since the introduction of the Batteries

Directive?

• Which main factors (e.g. implementation by Member States, action by stakeholders) have:

o contributed to achieving any of these objectives?

o inhibited achieving any of these objectives?

10.2.1 Impact on the environment (B1)

Detailed questions

(B11) Improve environmental performance: Improve batteries’ environmental performance

throughout their entire life cycle (e.g. avoid negative environmental impact of transport; promote

research; development and marketing of batteries with smaller quantities of hazardous substances;

development of new recycling technologies)

How relevant are the provisions of the Batteries Directive for achieving environmental

objectives?

Does the Batteries Directive adequately address environmental and health impacts from

battery manufacturing and use in Europe?

Have Member States encouraged the development (incl. voluntary steps taken by

producers) of new battery systems with reduced quantities of heavy metals and less

hazardous substances?

Have Member States encouraged the development of new recycling and treatment

technologies, and promoted research into environmentally friendly and cost-effective

recycling methods for all types of batteries and accumulators? Which measures did

Member States take?


135

(B12) Positive changes: Significant positive changes that can be linked to the Batteries Directive.

Have the environmental performance of batteries and the economic performance of all

economic operators improved (in particular in relation to technical innovation, efficient

use of resources, promotion of jobs and smart growth and decarbonisation of European

transport and economy) as a result of Batteries Directive objectives and prohibitions?

Does the implementation of the Batteries Directive have any positive impact on

o achieving the objectives of EU policies (e.g. addressing climate change, resource

efficiency, internal market, innovation and job creation)

o consumer rights (e.g. durability, number of charging cycles, safety requirements and

removability of batteries)?

If so, please describe the impacts.

(B13) Negative changes: Significant negative changes that can be linked to the Batteries Directive.

Does the implementation of the Batteries Directive have any significant negative impact

on achieving the objectives of EU policies (e.g. climate change, internal market,

innovation and job creation or consumer's rights)?

10.2.2 Impact on functioning of the internal market (B2)

Detailed questions

(B21) Functioning of the internal market: Create a common market with full respect for the four

pillars of free movement – goods, services, capital and workers – while paying due attention to

legitimate and proportionate public policy interests. In the internal market, all citizens and

companies are treated equally and in a non-discriminatory manner, and the cross-border provision

of goods and services should be as easy as within each individual Member State.

Has the proper functioning of the internal market for relevant products and services been

supported, including the end users’ and consumers’ interests (e.g. durability, number of

charging cycles, safety requirements and removability of batteries)?

(B22) Consumer information & awareness: Provide information to end-users (desirability of separate

collection, potential effects on the environment and human health, the collection schemes

available and end- users' role in the management of waste batteries)

Are end-users in all Member States adequately informed about

o separate battery collection and recycling,

o environmental concerns from batteries,

o battery labelling,

Is information available on the share of consumers who know the meaning of the symbol of

the crossed-out wheeled bin and the chemical symbols Hg, Cd and Pb?


136

Transposition of Batteries Directive: Results and evidence for this area are provided by the

assessment of the implementation reports of the Member States.

What are the results from assessments of national implementation reports?

To what degree do Member States implement the Batteries Directive?

10.2.3 Appropriateness of further risk management measures for heavy metals (B3)

Detailed questions

(B31) Hazardous substance prohibition: Prohibit hazardous substances (i.e. Hg, Cd, Pb), excluding

exemptions.

Is there information about non-compliant batteries placed on the EU market? If yes,

o How many tonnes of portable batteries are non-compliant on the EU market?

o What kind of prohibited or restricted materials are found in the batteries?

To identify non-compliant batteries, what control systems do Member States use and,

where relevant, does the EU have (e.g. RAPEX - rapid alert system for dangerous non-food

products)?

Is enforcement of compliance with the Batteries Directive on the national level sufficient

to ensure prohibitions are followed (e.g. spot checks or chemical analyses of batteries

placed on the market)?

Is there information available about specific Member States not complying with the

requirements in the Batteries Directive? Where can this information be found

Are there any specific applications for which non-compliant batteries are still being used?

What is the current situation for exemptions from the prohibition of hazardous substances?

Are any exemptions still valid or should be extended?

How many portable waste batteries containing Cd, Hg or Pb disposed of in landfills or

underground storage?

What happens to Cd and Hg in portable waste batteries after recycling (phase out)?

(B32) Labelling of batteries: Labelling systems provide end-users with transparent, reliable and

clear information on batteries and any heavy metals (e.g. marked with symbols shown in Annex II;

Hg, Cd or Pb; capacity).

Are batteries still being placed on the EU market without proper capacity labelling? If so,

approximately what share of the overall batteries market in the EU do they represent?

What characteristics define the batteries that are not properly labelled (e.g. a certain

battery chemistry, shape, use, etc.)?

Are such unlabelled batteries locally manufactured in the EU or primarily imported? If

imported, from which countries?

How often does a manufacturer provide capacity information?

Is enforcement of the Batteries Directive requirements for battery labelling on the

national level sufficient (spot checks of labels of batteries placed on the market)?


137

10.2.4 Appropriateness of the minimum collection targets (B4)

Detailed questions

(B41) Waste battery collection rates: Achieve the collection targets.

Compliance or non-compliance of the Member States with the collection rate targets: How

many Member States meet the targets? Which Member States do not comply with the

targets? Is there any explanation to this situation?

Is recent data on collection rates and related data (e.g. sales, collection) available? Which

data gaps exist?

Is the official Eurostat data sufficient or are more or other data categories required?

Is the methodology for calculating collection rates well defined in the Batteries Directive?

If not, what are the main points for possible revision?

(B42) Collection schemes: Set up collection schemes (free of charge, an accessible collection point

in their vicinity etc.)

How many Member States have set up a battery collection scheme? Which types (individual

vs multiple)?

Are those collection schemes free of charge for consumers?

What is the number of inhabitants per collection point in each Member State?

What is the collection frequency of waste batteries from the collection points?

How are the collection points organised? In particular, are there different collection points

for button cells, primary and secondary portable batteries, or batteries from WEEE?

(B43) Battery removal: Remove batteries from collected WEEE; design appliances accordingly.

Are consumers able to remove batteries from appliances?

Is data or information available on whether consumers or exclusively recyclers remove

batteries from WEEE? If so, what are those data or experience?

What is the (estimated) share of portable batteries still being used in appliances where the

batteries are difficult to remove?

What types of appliances do not allow easy battery extraction? Who are the manufacturers

for such appliances?

10.2.5 Appropriateness of the minimum recycling requirements (B6)

Detailed questions

(B61) Recycling efficiency targets: Reach minimum values for recycling efficiencies.

Compliance or non-compliance of the Member States with the recycling efficiency targets:


138

How many Member States meet the targets? Which Member States do not comply with the

targets? Is there any explanation to this situation?

Is recent data on recycling efficiencies and related data (e.g. input/output fractions into

the recycling) available?

Are rules on calculation of recycling efficiencies sufficiently clear and equally

implemented by all Member States?

What is the average and range of recycling efficiency of processes used in European waste

treatment plants for recycling batteries (lead-acid, NiCd, NiMH, Lithium, Alkaline, ZnCl,

etc.)?

What is the total installed capacity (in tonnes/year) of the existing battery waste

treatment plants in the EU?

Is this installed capacity sufficient (or excessive) to handle the current and near future

requirements of waste battery recycling in the EU for all chemistries of waste batteries?

(B62) Ensure recycling within EU or abroad: Ensure that all collected batteries actually undergo

recycling (within EU or abroad).

How many waste batteries are exported in your Member State?

Are waste batteries also exported outside the EU for waste treatment? If so:

o To which countries?

o How much (in tonnes)?

o How do you ensure that the recycling takes place under conditions equivalent to those

set out in the Batteries Directive?

o What information is available about the average recycling efficiencies in such cases?

Are there any issues with the reporting/ data of battery recycling outside the EU?

Is the methodology for reporting/ data of battery recycling outside the EU well-defined in

the Batteries Directive? If not, what are the main points for possible revision?

How is it verified/ possible to verify that all collected batteries actually undergo

treatment and recycling (in Member States or abroad)?

(B63) Prohibit disposal: Prohibit the disposal/incineration for industrial and automotive batteries.

Only dispose of collected portable batteries containing cadmium, mercury or lead in landfills or

underground storage as part of a strategy to phase out heavy metals or when there is no viable end

market.

Do any Member States dispose of batteries in landfills? If so, which countries and which

battery types and amounts of batteries?

Do any Member States dispose of batteries in underground storages? If so, which country

and which types and amounts of batteries?

If a Member State disposes of batteries, is this part of a strategy to phase out hazardous

metals? What is the strategy?


139

(B64) BAT: Treatment and recycling schemes should use best available techniques (BAT).

Do all recycling facilities in Member States use the best available techniques for battery

recycling? Are these BATs specific for batteries or part of general industrial practices on

e.g. smelting? Which industrial processes are being used that cannot be considered BAT?

10.3 Efficiency (C)

General questions:

• What are the costs and benefits (monetary and non-monetary) associated with implementing the

Batteries Directive? In particular, for the different stakeholders and operators and society at

large? At Member States and EU level?

• What is the cost for public authorities implementing and enforcing the Batteries Directive?

• Can any good or bad practices be identified in terms of efficiency in the achievement of results?

• Are there significant distributional differences between Member States? If there are significant

costs/ benefits differences between Member States, what is causing them?

• What possible impacts of the Directive on the competitiveness of the batteries industry within

the EU could be identified?

10.3.1 Impact on functioning of the internal market (C2)

Detailed questions

(C21) Operators: Cost and benefits for operators.

Is there any provision in the Directive that makes a cost effective implementation more

difficult?

How are costs and benefits from the Batteries Directive distributed between the different

sectors involved?

What are the costs and benefits for:

o producers,

o distributors,

o collectors,

o recyclers or

o other operators?

Are competitive collection schemes in place?

Are financial incentives used to achieving the goals of the Batteries Directive?


140

(C22) Costs and benefits at national level:

What are the costs and benefits associated with implementing the Batteries Directive at

national level?

Is there any evidence that the implementation of the Batteries Directive has caused

unnecessary regulatory burdens or complexities?

o What factors identify this burden or complexity as unnecessary or excessive?

How many additional jobs did the public authority need to create at a national level?

o What jobs specifically?

o Which additional tasks have to be fulfilled

(C23) Costs and benefits at EU level:

What are the costs and benefits associated with the implementation of the Batteries

Directive at the EU level?

What additional jobs were created at the EU level to implement the Batteries Directive?

o How many additional jobs?

o Which additional work tasks have to be fulfilled?

10.3.2 Appropriateness of further risk management measures for heavy metals (C3)

Detailed questions

(C31) Hazardous substances: Costs and benefits of restricting and prohibiting hazardous substances

in batteries.

What are the costs and benefits of restricting the use of hazardous metals in batteries?

Is the use of less polluting substances promoted by using economic instruments such as

differential tax rates?

(C32) Labelling: Costs and benefits of battery labelling.

What are the costs and benefits of battery labelling?


141

10.3.3 Extended producer responsibility (C7)

Detailed questions

(C71) Good practices on cost effectiveness:

What good practices in terms of cost-effective implementation of the Batteries Directive

in Member States can be identified (e.g. use of economic instruments such as cost-

effective producer responsibility schemes or product policies)?

Are sufficient funds allocated for consumer awareness programmes?

Does the Directive address changes likely to be triggered by new situations (e.g. second

use)?

(C72) Less cost-effective provisions:

Do any specific provisions in the Batteries Directive make cost-effective implementation

more difficult?

Are producers charged twice for collection of batteries in relation to the Batteries

Directive and also for EoL vehicles or WEEE?

Is prohibition on using NiCd batteries in CPTs less cost-effective?

10.4 Coherence (D)

General questions:

• To what extent does the Batteries Directive complement or interact with other EU sectoral

instruments? Are there de facto or de jure overlaps, contradictions or missing links?

• To what extent is the Directive internally consistent and coherent? Are there any overlaps,

contradictions or missing links?

Detailed questions

(D1) Interaction: Complementarity and interaction of the Batteries Directive with other EU sectoral

instruments / actions and other international actions.

To what extent does the Batteries Directive satisfactorily complement other parts of EU

waste law (especially the Waste Framework Directive, WFD) and coherently reflect

conceptual changes, such as the five-step waste hierarchy, life-cycle thinking and resource

efficiency?

Can any specific inconsistencies and unjustified overlaps (e.g. in terms of definitions and

key concepts, and also in relation to monitoring and reporting activities) across different

Directives concerned and between them and other parts of EU waste law be identified

(e.g. WFD, ROHS, ELV-Directive, REACH, CLP-Regulation)?

To what extent is the intervention coherent with the Basel Convention?

What are the needs, and possible scope for aligning key aspects across the Directives

concerned (legal base, provisions related to export)?


142

(D2) Reporting obligations: Comparison of data in Batteries Directive, Waste Shipment Regulation

and Waste Statistics Regulation.

To what extent does the scope of the data on batteries in the Batteries Directive, the

Waste Shipment Regulation and the Waste Statistics Regulation overlap?

What would be the synergies between the Waste Shipment Regulation, the Waste

Statistics Regulation and the Batteries Directive?

(D3) Internal consistency: Internal consistency and coherence of the Batteries Directive.

What, if any, specific inconsistencies and unjustified overlaps in the Batteries Directive

(e.g. in terms of definitions and key concepts) can be identified?

What, if any, obsolete provisions in the Batteries Directive can be identified?

Information type and origin: Batteries Directive, expert judgement

Stakeholders:

Indicators:

10.5 EU added value (E)

General questions:

• What has been the EU’s added value with the Batteries Directive compared to what could have

been achieved by MSs at their national levels?

• To what extent do the issues addressed by the Directive continue to require action at the EU

level? What would be the most likely consequences of stopping or withdrawing the existing EU

intervention?

Detailed questions

(E1) Effectiveness: Where EU action is the only way to get results to create missing links, avoid

fragmentation and realise the potential of a border-free Europe.

Would the protection of the environment (e.g. collection of batteries and hazardous

substances) in the Member States have been as effective as without the Batteries

Directive?

Do batteries still require intervention on an EU level?

o Would action on a Member State level be sufficient?


143

(E2) Efficiency: Where the EU offers better value for money, because externalities can be

addressed, resources or expertise can be pooled, and action can be better coordinated.

Would achieving the same results on an individual Member State level have been more

expensive (sum of costs of all Member States) compared to the cost of implementing the

Batteries Directive on the EU level?

(E3) Synergy: Where EU action is necessary to complement, stimulate, and leverage action to

reduce disparities, raise standards, and create synergies.

Which synergies can be linked to the Batteries Directive? What would be the synergies

between the Eco-design Directive and the Batteries Directive?

Would the same results found today have been achieved on an individual Member State

level without the Batteries Directive?

(E4) Other:

Is the EU single market for EU batteries fully functional?

Do any barriers that prevent trade of batteries and waste batteries directly result from

the Batteries Directive?

Are there any good practices that could be replicated from abroad?


144

11 Annex B: Methods for consultation and evaluation

11.1 Public consultation

Report on public consultation: electronic version only.


145

12 Annex C: Current situation

12.1 Batteries – figures and information

12.1.1 Mass flows of batteries

To explore the current situation of batteries in the EU requires quantifying the amounts of batteries

related to battery production, use, collection and recycling. The main purpose of analysing the amounts

of batteries within their different life cycle stages and thus tracing battery flows is to provide an

overall picture of the batteries sector and a better understanding of the interconnections of battery

flows, stakeholders and processes. Having a better understanding of battery flows and their

interconnections represents a prerequisite for identifying potential shortcomings in context with the

Batteries Directive and their provisions.

To start the analysis, mass flows of batteries for the year 2015 were analysed; an overview is presented

in Figure 12-1 for the EU28. The concept of the mass flow diagram for the EU28 in Figure 12-1 is based

on the following three dimensions.

The different types of batteries, as defined by the Batteries Directive: portable, industrial and


The further differentiation between types of batteries based on chemistry and as defined by the

Directive: Pb-acid, NiCd and other batteries.

The different stages of the battery mass flows: placed on the market (PoM), losses (meaning the

gap between ‘placed on the market’ and ‘collected’62), collected and recycling.

Not considering service life of batteries in this flow diagram permits assumptions of a market where

increasing or decreasing effects are not relevant for the overall picture. However, when establishing

collection targets for different battery chemistries, such effects would need more attention (Eucobat

2017).

62 For the mass flow diagram losses are defined according to the following mathematical formula: ‘losses’ = ‘placed on the market’ - ‘collected’. Batteries disposed of in municipal waste, batteries not removed from WEEE, hoarding etc. are included in losses. More details on losses are detailed later in the text.


146

Figure 12-1: Mass flow diagram of batteries, EU28 for reference year 2015 (in tonnes)

Sources: Mass flow diagrams – Oeko-Institut; Data: Eurostat, several additional sources and own calculations.


147

Results on the battery mass flows for the EU28

The analysis of data for the EU situation revealed several data gaps which need to be filled with this

study’s own calculations and assumptions. Basically, the following data and assumptions are applied:

• Eurostat data on “Placed on the market” and “collection” is for portable batteries only and

displayed in Figure 12-1 accordingly.

• Data on industrial batteries placed on the market for EU28 in 2015 is based on figures from six

Member States (BE, BG, ES, FI, DE, FR). Extrapolation to EU28 was done by applying the ratio of

industrial batteries to portable batteries placed on the market in 2015 (232 %63 in average of the

6 MS). In total, an amount of about 0.49 million tonnes of industrial batteries being placed on the

market in EU28 results.

• Automotive batteries placed on the market account for about 1.1 million tonnes in 2015 (61 % of

the total batteries placed on the market in EU28). Automotive batteries are estimated by using

data on newly registered vehicles according to vehicle category (ACEA 2015), after market data

(replacement of batteries) (Filippo Girardi 2016) and data on export of vehicles (Eurostat 2017).

- In principle, PRODCOM (Eurostat’s production statistics and database) presents a potential data source for batteries placed on the market. For the following reasons PRODCOM data is not considered as a relevant source for the mass flows addressed by the Batteries Directive: Different to the mass flows addressed by the Batteries Directive, PRODCOM does not take into account batteries and accumulators in products (e.g. Li-ion in electronic products or lead-acid starter batteries in vehicles).

- PRODCOM data is given in units of p/st (= Number of items) or ce/el (= Number of elements) but not in mass units.

- Battery types considered in the Batteries Directive and in PRODCOM are difficult to set into relation with one another. Table 12-1 below shows a comparison of the Directive and PRODCOM.

• The distinction of portable batteries in Pb-acid, NiCd and other batteries is voluntary for the

reporting on ‘placed on the market’ and ‘collection’. The figures displayed for Pb-acid, NiCd and

other batteries are based on an own evaluation of the voluntary data of about a dozen MS

reporting to Eurostat. Li-ion batteries (portable and industrial batteries) present a highly relevant

share of other batteries and are based on Table 12-4.

• Portable batteries ending up in municipal waste are described in detail in chapter 12.1.4.

Estimates resulted in about 35 000 tonnes.

• Losses also occur for industrial batteries, see chapter 12.1.5.

• Eurostat data on “recycling” does not differentiate between the origins of the batteries and thus

presents the totals of portable, industrial and automotive together.

• The amount of industrial batteries collected is calculated by deducting the amount in relation to

industrial batteries recycled. The latter is based on the remaining batteries once automotive and

portable batteries are subtracted from the total amounts of batteries recycled.

• In order to present data of one specific year (2015), the diagram was simplified by not taking into

account the life time of the batteries.

• “?” attached to mass flows indicates that no reliable data or assumption is available/ possible.

The EU28 mass flow diagram (Figure 12-1) is intended to summarise the movements of batteries.

In broad terms, automotive batteries (for starting, lighting, ignition = SLI) represent by far the largest

share in weight of all batteries placed on the EU market in 2015. They amount to about 1.10 million

63 For comparison, (SagisEPR and Perchards, EPBA 2016) applied a factor of about 260 % for estimating industrial batteries from portable batteries.


148

tonnes of lead-acid batteries, which correspond to 61 % of the weight of all batteries placed on the

market (PoM). The total amount of batteries PoM in 2015 is about 1.8 million tonnes. The second

largest share, 27 % or about 0.49 million tonnes, is from industrial batteries and accounts for nearly half

the weight of automotive batteries. The remaining 12 %, 212 000 t, of batteries fall into the category

‘portable batteries’.

About 6 700 t of all portable batteries are lead-acid batteries and another almost 4 000 t are NiCd

batteries. The remaining ca. 201 000 t or 95 % belong to the category ‘Other batteries’. Thereof, about

37 000 t are portable Li-ion batteries.

Mass flows of portable batteries show that the amounts of NiCd (and lead-acid batteries) are rather

small. Data on ‘placed on the market’ reported to Eurostat (voluntary reporting from about a dozen MS)

for previous years indicate an overall decrease of NiCd batteries in the EU. However, it remains to be

seen whether or when the prohibition of portable NiCd batteries, which began January 2017, will be

mirrored in the reported data for ‘placed on the market’.

In 2015, 84 000 t of waste portable batteries were collected in the EU28. The amount of collected

waste NiCd batteries is higher than the amount placed on the market. This higher amount of collected

waste batteries may be due to the phasing out of NiCd batteries.

The difference in total amounts of all portable batteries between ‘placed on the market’ and

‘collected’ – here termed “losses” - is about 128 000 t of batteries for the year 2015 (not considering

the service life of the batteries). Potential explanations for these losses are:

Batteries disposed of in municipal waste;

Hoarding of batteries by the end consumer (longer life time of batteries or more batteries are accumulated, e.g. increase of electric appliances with batteries incorporated);

Losses through WEEE (batteries are not removed from WEEE and are instead shredded together with the appliances); and

Export (outside the EU) of used EEE with their batteries still incorporated.

No reporting on collected automotive batteries is available for the EU. Therefore, the amount of

collected batteries is derived by assuming that nearly all batteries placed on the market will be

collected and sent to recycling. Only a smaller amount, about 21 000 t or about 2 % of all automotive

batteries, is estimated to be unavailable for collection due to a net export of used vehicles and end-of-

life vehicles (ELV); see chapter 5.1.8.

Batteries in municipal waste are discussed in more detail in chapter 12.1.4. For the other three

potential losses no data is available.

Modelling of battery massflows in (ProSUM 2017a) produced also data on battery stocks in EU28. The

results of the modelling show an increase of the batteries in stocks of about 200 000 tonnes from 2010

to 2015 (not only portable batteries but all batteries but excluding lead batteries). This corresponds to

about 40 000 tonnes of batteries per year which might be allocated to “hoarding” (increase in stocks

mainly due to an increase of Li-ion batteries). However, the batteries mass flows resulting from the

model in (ProSUM 2017a) differ considerably from Eurostat data. According to Eurostat data about 1.81

million tonnes of batteries were placed on the market and about 1.49 million tonnes of batteries went

to recycling in 2015 (EU28). In comparison, (ProSUM 2017a) presents figures of about 2.42 million


149

tonnes of batteries placed on the market and only about 1.01 million tonnes of waste batteries

collected in 2015 (EU28+2).

No data is directly available for collected industrial batteries. Therefore, their amount was estimated

by calculating backwards: recycled (and collected) portable and automotive batteries were subtracted

from the totals (Eurostat data); the remaining amount was allocated to industrial batteries. The

difference between the amounts of batteries in ‘placed on the market’ and ‘collected’ results in about

56 000 t of losses compared to about 436 000 t being collected. Please refer to chapter 12.1.5 for more

details on the collection of industrial batteries.

Generally, data availability is best for portable batteries, although the breakdown of data according to

chemistry presents an uncertainty and detailed assessments are hampered. A detailed analysis for

potential losses is not possible because of missing data, for example on export of used EEE and losses,

where batteries are not removed from WEEE. Despite these shortcomings it is obvious that a relevant

amount of (portable) waste batteries end up in municipal waste (please refer to chapter 12.1.4 for

more details).

The situation is worse for automotive and especially for industrial batteries. For both categories, no

reporting obligations exist. As a consequence, data on automotive and industrial batteries mass flows

are very limited and their reliability, in particular for industrial batteries, is low. This is of even higher

significance, as automotive and industrial batteries are by far responsible for the highest share of mass

flows.

While amounts of automotive batteries can at least be estimated by taking EU-wide vehicle registration

figures into account, no such modelling is possible for mass flows of industrial batteries. Data on

industrial batteries is based on some MS data. However, extrapolation to EU28 and industrial battery

data in general are associated with a significant uncertainty. In consequence, it is not possible to

investigate the reasons for potential differences in the amounts of industrial batteries in the categories

placed on the market and collected. A discussion of the issue about industrial batteries follows in

chapter 12.1.5.

Table 12-1: Comparison of battery types in the Batteries Directive/mass flows and PRODCOM

Directive / mass flows Prodcom link

Portable batteries

lead acid

NiCd

other batteries

27201100 - Primary cells and primary batteries no match

27202300 - Nickel-cadmium, nickel metal hydride, lithium-ion, lithium

polymer, nickel-iron and other electric accumulatorsno match

Industrial batteries

lead acid27202200 - Lead-acid accumulators, excluding for starting piston

enginesapprox.

NiCd

Li-ion

NiMH

27202300 - Nickel-cadmium, nickel metal hydride, lithium-ion, lithium

polymer, nickel-iron and other electric accumulatorsno match

Automotive batteries

lead acid 27202100 - Lead-acid accumulators for starting piston engines match


150

12.1.2 Chemistry and application of batteries

Battery chemistries and applications are considered to be similar throughout the EU within the same

battery types, as defined by the Directive (i.e. portable, automotive and industrial). Shares of certain

battery types and their applications may possibly differ depending on the specific Member State.

Nevertheless, without additional data available, the presented examples for chemistry and application

of batteries are considered representative for the whole EU.

Information on the chemistry of batteries placed on the market in the EU (automotive and industrial),

Germany (portable) and France (automotive, industrial and portable) is displayed in Table 12-2 and

Table 12-3. The shares of the chemistries are presented in weight-based percentages.

Table 12-2: Application and chemistry of batteries (weight-based shares in %)

Automotive batteries (EU), industrial battery market (chemistry in the EU; application in Germany) and portable battery market (chemistry and application in Germany); reference year 2015; bc = button cell

chemistry application

Automotive batteries (EU) 100% Applications (EU)

Pb-acid 100% SLI battery (starting, lighting, ignition) 100%

Industrial batteries (EU) 100% Applications (DE)

Pb-acid 90% E-cars 5 %

Ni-Cd, rechargeable 1% hybrid cars 1 %

Other: 9% E-bikes 1 %

Li-ion 8% forklifts etc. 27 %

other chemistry 1% wheelchairs/scooters 3 %

cleaning and other technical vehicles 1 %

golf carts 0.4 %

railway vehicles 11 %

UPS (uninterrupted power supply) 30 %

back-up, emergency power supply 8 %

emergency lighting 6 %

security technology (e.g. alarm systems, video surveillance, access control)

2 %

other stationary systems (e.g. renewable energy, telecommunication, traffic signal systems)

2 %

pasture fence 0.4 %

hospital beds 0.2 %

warehouse/merchandise management 0.2 %

others 1 %

Portable batteries (DE) 100% Applications (DE)

Pb-acid, rechargeable 3% unknown 3 %

Ni-Cd, rechargeable 1%

cordless power tools for turning, milling, sanding, grinding, sawing, cutting, shearing, drilling, making holes, punching, hammering, riveting, screwing, polishing or similar processing of wood, metal and other materials, as well as for mowing, cutting and other gardening activities

1 %

Other 96%

Primary: 75%

toys, flashlights, remote controls, hearing aids, watches, normal household applications, others

75 %

Alkaline (thereof about 0.8% bc) 61%

Zinc carbon 10%

Lithium (thereof about 37% bc) 3%

Silver oxide, zinc air (100% bc) 1%

Rechargeable 22%

Li-ion (thereof about 0.2% 16% cell phones 2 %


151

button cells) portable PC 10 %

cordless power tools for turning, milling, sanding, grinding, sawing, cutting, shearing, drilling, making holes, punching, hammering, riveting, screwing, polishing or similar processing of wood, metal and other materials, as well as for mowing, cutting and other gardening activities.

1 %

video games, camcorders, home cordless phones, toothbrush, cleaners, MP3 players, portable medical devices, others.

2 %

NIMH (thereof about 0.6% button cells)

6%

home cordless phones, toothbrush, cleaners, portable medical devices, others

2 %

portable PC 1 %

single cell market 3 %

other rechargeable 0.1%

Source: table Oeko-Institut (discrepancies in column 100% result from rounding); data sources are given in the text

The chemistries of industrial batteries in France are presented in Table 12-3. This data is based on

concrete figures from ADEME (2016). The shares of Li-ion (13 %), NiCd (7 %) and NiMH (4 %) are higher

than the estimates for the EU market.

Data on portable batteries is similar for Germany (ERP 2015, GRS 2015, IFA 2015, Rebat 2015) and

France (ADEME 2016). Rechargeable lead-acid and NiCd batteries together account for about 4 % of all

portable batteries placed on the market in 2015. Primary batteries account for about three-quarters of

all portable batteries. Primary alkaline batteries are the most important portable batteries (61 % in

Germany; 64 % in France). Amongst the rechargeable batteries, Li-ion batteries are the most relevant

portable batteries (16 % in Germany; 18 % in France).

Automotive batteries (Starting, Lighting, Ignition - SLI) are almost solely lead-acid batteries; no other

chemistries are so far relevant on the EU market. Only a very small amount of Li-ion batteries (0.001 %

of the vehicle fleet) are used for special SLI applications in high performance sports cars (Oeko-Institut

and Eunomia 2016).

Among industrial batteries, four different battery types are relevant: lead-acid, Li-ion, NiCd and

NiMH64. Table 12-2 presents data on chemistries on the EU market and is based on the battery mass

flows in Figure 12-1. The share of Li-ion batteries is based on estimates for electric cars, hybrid cars, e-

bikes and electrical energy storage in Table 12-4.

64

NiMH battery: also referred to as ‘nickel metal hydrid’ battery in other literature


152

Table 12-3: Chemistry of batteries (weight-based shares in %), battery market in France, in 2015

Source: (ADEME 2016); table Oeko-Institut; rounded values may result in the total differing from 100 %

Information on the Li-ion battery market in the EU28 is presented in Table 12-465. The most relevant

application for Li-ion batteries is in electric vehicles, accounting for about 30 000 t. Li-ion batteries in

portable PCs account for about 24 000 t and thus present the second-highest share.

Li-ion batteries account for about 75 000 t of batteries placed on the market in 2015 (for comparison,

ProSUM data indicates about 71 000 t), compared to only about 10 000 t of NiCd batteries (mainly

industrial batteries). Portable Li-ion batteries already in 2015 had a share of about 17 % of the total

portable batteries, compared to only 4 % of lead-acid and NiCd batteries together.

Table 12-4: Application of Li-ion batteries (tonnes), battery market in EU28; reference year 2015


portable batteries 36 950 34 531

mobile phones 4 700 5 354

portable PC / tablets 24 000 19 381

power tools 3 100 4 276

other consumer 5 150 5 520

industrial batteries 37 956 36 165

E-bikes 4 142 1 446

electric vehicles (BEV, PHEV) 30 448 28 044

65 The analysis refers to Column 1, author’s own calculations. For comparison data, column 2 presents data

extracted from ProSUM.

share chemistry

60% Automotive batteries 100%

Pb-acid 100%

share chemistry

25% Industrial batteries 100%

Pb-acid 76%

Ni-Cd, rechargable 7%

Other 17%

Li-ion 13%

NIMH 4%

other chemistry 0,4%

share chemistry

14% Portable batteries 100%

Pb-acid, rechargable 2%

Ni-Cd, rechargable 2%

Other 96%

primary 73%

Alkaline 64%

Zinc air 1%

Lithium 1%

others 5%

button cells 2%

rechargable 27%

Li-ion 18%

NiMH 5%

other rechargable 0,0%

Ind

ustr

ial

batt

eri

es

Po

rtab

le b

att

eri

es


153


electrical energy storage / other 3 366 6 675

Total 74 906 70 969

Sources: Column 1: (Elwert 2015), (Recharge, Avicenne 2010), (Statista 2015), (EcoBatRec 2016) and calculations

from Oeko-Institut; Column 2: (ProSUM 2018); table compiled by Oeko-Institut

When considering different types and chemistries of batteries, it must be noted that there are

significant differences in the weight per unit of battery. Consequently, a presentation of market data

on batteries varies largely depending on whether tonnes of batteries or units of batteries are

presented. To better understand these differences, placed on the market data of industrial batteries

for France are presented in Table 12-5.

Table 12-5: Chemistry of industrial batteries, placed on the market in France, reference year 2015

rechargable primary totals

Pb acid NiCd NiMH Li-ion alkaline Zinc-air lithium others

tonnes 43 248 4 118 2 217 7 308 13 6 213 12 5 7135

units 4 052 4 966 1 845 991 443 2 3 784 881 16 964

% (tonnes) 76% 7% 4% 13% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 100%

% (units) 24% 29% 11% 6% 3% 0.0% 22% 5% 100%

Source: (ADEME 2016); table Oeko-Institut; rounding may create discrepancies in reaching 100 %. Please be aware,

meanwhile the totals in tonnes have been updated (71 000 tonnes, (MS 2017)). Table 12-5 shall be used for

comparison of units and tonnes in percentages only.

Due to the unique characteristics of industrial NiCd batteries:

• superior ability to operate in hot and/or cold conditions,

• ability to withstand electrical (deep discharge and overcharge) and mechanical (shock and

vibrations) abuse,

• the possibility to monitor the aging of the battery which allows an accurate predictive

maintenance,

• their very long life,

they are used in applications where other technologies find their limitations and cannot provide the

required level of service.

Therefore, industrial NiCd batteries are used in transportation and mission-critical industrial back-up

power and cycling applications for:

• air transportation (most commercial and military aircrafts use this technology),

• train/metro/tram transportation (lighting, HVAC, door control, communication as well as diesel

engine starting in difficult conditions),

• industrial back-up where critical processes, assets, or human life need to be protected (such as

back-up power for IT centers, electricity, rail, data & telecom networks under harsh climate

conditions, difficult to reach locations where maintenance is complex and costly, remote

gensets),


154

• nuclear and conventional power stations, oil and gas exploration, sea platforms and refining

assets, pipe-line networks, as well as several emergency and alarm systems.

Price levels for NiCd batteries are approximately 3 to 4 times higher than for Pb acid batteries, so this

technology is chosen when its performance justifies the price difference (which is usually captured by a

total cost of ownership (TCO) assessment).

Battery applications

Automotive batteries exclusively include uses for starting, lighting and ignition.

Applications of industrial batteries are based on data for the reference year 2010 in Germany (GRS

2012). 2015 data on electric cars, hybrid cars and E-bikes were added (KBA 2015, Statista 2015). All

mobility and transport applications together account for about half of all industrial applications: about

8 % electric cars, hybrid cars and E-bikes; 27 % forklifts and similar applications; 11 % railway vehicles;

and about 5 % other transport applications. The other half is applications which are related to power

supply: e.g. 30 % USV, 8 % back-up, emergency power supply and 6 % emergency lighting. Details on the

application of NiCd industrial batteries have already been discussed above.

Applications of portable batteries are mainly based on information found in (Recharge, Avicenne 2010),

as this source provides the most detailed and also country-specific data for rechargeable batteries.

According to this data from the reference year 2009 and (ERP 2015, GRS 2015, IFA 2015, Rebat 2015),

portable PCs account for about 11 % of all portable batteries (Li-ion and NiMH), which is almost half of

all rechargeable batteries. It must be noted that primary batteries account for 75 % of all portable

batteries in Germany. For comparison, the source (SagisEPR and Perchards, EPBA 2016) states that

about 30 % of all portable batteries are used in IT equipment and consumer electronics.

Application in video games, camcorders, home cordless phones, toothbrushes, cleaners, MP3 players,

portable medical devices, and other appliances account for about 4 % (rechargeable Li-ion and NiMH) of

all portable batteries. Cordless power tools are used for turning, milling, sanding, grinding, sawing,

cutting, shearing, drilling, making holes, punching, hammering, riveting, screwing, polishing or similar

processing of wood, metal and other materials, as well as for mowing, cutting and other gardening

activities; Batteries Directive, Recital (11). However, these applications only account for about 3 % of

all portable batteries (rechargeable NiCd and Li-ion).

Typical applications for primary batteries, accounting for 75 % of all portable batteries, are toys,

flashlights, remote controls, hearing aids, watches and normal household applications.

12.1.3 Emerging trends

Li-ion battery market - trends

The most dynamic markets for portable batteries are IT applications. Roland Berger (2012) provides a

market forecast for notebooks, mobile phones and tablets on a global level. Sales of notebooks are

expected to increase from 1 335 million battery cells in 2011 to about 2 714 million battery cells in

2020. This corresponds to an increase of 200 % within 10 years. Battery cells in mobile phones will

increase from 1 573 million cells to 2 529 million cells during the same period. This means an increase

of about 160 %. The highest increase, 550 %, although with a lower total amount, is expected for

tablets: from 154 million cells in 2011 to 850 million cells in 2020.


155

Li-ion batteries are used for all IT applications, also summarized under the category “connectivity”. IT

is not the only application for Li-ion batteries at present for which an outstanding increase is expected

in the years to come. Other applications with a predicted increase include all electric vehicles and e-

bikes as well as electricity storage for renewable energies and grid applications. Applications in robots,

such as lawnmowers and vacuum cleaners, are another already existing category with huge growth

potential. Another application for Li-ion batteries is drones.

Umicore66 expects continuous growth for the Li-ion battery market of more than fourfold from 2015 to

2025 (Umicore 2017). The electrification of the mobility sector (vehicles) is identified as the main

driver of growth.

The outlook on the global mobility sector is presented in Figure 12-2. The scenario describes the

increase of global Li-ion battery capacity from 2015 to 2050 for different mobility applications.

Figure 12-2: Scenario of global battery capacities (GWh) of Li-ion batteries in the mobility sector, years 2015, 2030 and 2050

Source: calculations Oeko-Institut based on (Oeko-Institut 2017)

While the amounts of certain battery types are expected to increase, amounts of other battery types

might decrease. For example, automotive lead-acid batteries might be decreasinglyy used, whereas Li-

ion batteries in electric vehicles might be increasingly applied. Or even more, automotive lead-acid

batteries might no longer be applied at all, should the exemption from the ELV prohibition of lead in

vehicles be revoked. NiMH batteries might also be affected by changes in the mobility sector. A main

application of NiMH batteries is in hybrid vehicles, which Li-ion batteries are expected to replace.

New types of automotive batteries

For cars, 48-volt battery systems are a new development. Such battery systems are required because

of:

3) Stricter CO2-limits (use of start-stop-systems and recuperation systems) and

66 Umicore NV/SA is a Belgian materials technology and recycling group headquartered in Brussels. The company

employs almost 10,000 people worldwide.


156

4) Increasing electricity demand in cars (IT-systems, air-conditioning compressor, electric

heaters, steering systems, etc.)

A 48-volt battery most likely means a Li-ion battery. While Autoweek (2016) states that 48-volt systems

will replace the current 12-volt Pb-acid battery, other sources describe adding a 48-volt system to the

existing 12-volt system.

Online sales of batteries

Online trading has steadily increased in recent years. Batteries are sold directly as separate products or

incorporated into other products (e.g. electronic appliances). It is questionable to what extent these

batteries are registered as placed on the market. No information on the relevance of the amount of

batteries sold online is available. This has a direct impact on PRO (Producer Responsibility Organisation)

financing, including “free-riding” and the collection rate, i.e. batteries sold online are not included in

placed-on-the-market reporting but are included in collection amounts, thereby impacting collection

rates.

Printed batteries

Micro, printed and thin film batteries represent a new generation of batteries. (Hübner 2015)

summarises printed batteries, with the following information based on this source.

Several advantages can be seen for printed batteries: freedom of design, thin and flexible (bendable),

costly tools unnecessary but instead replaced by printing processes. Printed batteries appeared on the

market around the year 2000. A common chemistry of printed batteries is Zn-MnO2, a chemical closely

related to that found in alkaline batteries. Applications of printed batteries include wearables, clothes,

medical and beauty patches, temperature logger for cold chain monitoring systems (e.g. food,

medicine), RFID and in general the internet of things (IoT).

According to (PrintedElectronics 2017), the global market for thin film batteries was USD 200 million in

2015 and is expected to grow to more than USD 1.5 billion in 2024. One company, for example,

specializes in solid state, ultra-thin lithium polymer batteries and has sold more than 15 million flexible

batteries for applications in the market.

In contrast to conventional batteries, reporting printed batteries in tonnes is not meaningful because its

weight is negligible.

12.1.4 Batteries in municipal waste

According to Article 7 of the Batteries Directive, the objective of minimising the negative impact of

waste batteries on the environment also implies “…minimis[ing] the disposal of batteries and

accumulators as mixed municipal waste…”. The battery mass flow diagram of the EU28 for the year

2015 presented in Figure 5-1 shows the large amounts of portable batteries found in municipal waste: in

the EU28 approximately 35 000 tonnes, which corresponds to 27 % of all losses, 41 % of the amount of

collected waste batteries and 16 % of the amount of placed on the market in 2015.

The calculation of these amounts of batteries in municipal waste are based on waste analyses of seven

Member States (AT, BE, DE, DK, IE, LU, NL). Data was provided with MS questionnaires, literature and

other sources (AVAW 2017), (Steiermark 2018), (Bigum 2016), (Luxemburg 2014), (Argus 2017). Results


157

of the waste analysis are mainly provided as a percentage (%) of batteries in household waste or in kg of

batteries per capita and year (kg batteries/(p*a)) and are based on different years.

The ca. 35 000 tonnes of batteries calculated to be in waste results from calculating weighted averages

based on the data of the seven MS (see below, two different calculation methods were applied). BE, for

example, with one of the highest collection rates of all MS, makes only a comparably small contribution

to the weighted average. Data from other countries with low collection rates and at the same time

large populations, however, are missing, e.g. IT, ES, UK, FR or PL. One might assume that an average

including these MS might result in even higher amounts of batteries in municipal waste.

In order to estimate the amounts of batteries in municipal waste in EU28 all figures on batteries in

household waste were re-calculated into kg batteries per capita and year (kg batteries/(p*a)) – if the

original values are not already given in form of this units. A weighted average of about 0.075 kg

batteries/(p*a) results based on the seven MS from which waste analysis are available. A subsequent

extrapolation based on the EU28 population results in an estimated amount of about 38 000 tonnes of

batteries in household waste for EU28 in 2015.

A second methodology was applied to calculate the amount of batteries in municipal waste. The

original data of the seven MS was re-calculated into absolute tonnes of batteries in household waste per

MS and year. Extrapolation to EU28 was done by applying the ratio of the batteries in household waste

to portable batteries placed on the market in 2015 (15 % as a weighted average). An amount of about

31 000 tonnes of batteries ending up in municipal waste results.

Finally, an amount of about 35 000 tonnes of batteries in waste results by calculating the mean value of

both methods from above.

Figure 12-3 shows the development of the collection and put-on-the-market data of portable batteries

in the EU28 / EU 27. Placed on the market data has remained relatively stable: a minimum of about

207 000 tonnes in 2013 and a maximum of about 220 000 tonnes in 2010. A very moderate increase from

the 2013 minimum occurred in 2014 and 2015. In contrast, collection of waste batteries in EU28 / EU 27

has increased continuously since 2009.

Although the collection figures increased continuously, this does not necessarily mean that amounts of

batteries in municipal waste actually decreased considerably or in the same way as collection

increased. Because of missing information about hoarding, export of used EEE and losses of waste

batteries as part of WEEE, the situation remains unclear.


158

Figure 12-3: EU28* sales and collection from 2009 to 2015 (tonnes, portable batteries)

* EU27 for 2009-2011

Source: Eurostat (online data code: env_waspb), download 21.12.2016

12.1.5 Collection of industrial batteries

The Batteries Directive does not have a target for the collection of waste industrial batteries; however,

there is a prohibition on disposal or incineration of industrial batteries.

The Commission Service document ‘Frequently Asked Questions on Directive 2006/66/EU on Batteries

and Accumulators’ (European Commission 2014) assume that “nearly 100 % of industrial and automotive

batteries are already being collected”.

However, preliminary findings from analyses of the current situation in the EU indicate that differences

between ‘placed on the market’ and ‘collected’ occur for industrial batteries. Thus, in practice, less

than 100 % of industrial batteries might be collected. As displayed in Figure 12-1 about 491 000 t of

industrial batteries were placed on the market (PoM) in the EU28 in 2015 and 435 000 t were collected.

The difference is of about 56 000 t (11 %).

In order to clarify this issue an analysis of the Member State’s data from the MS questionnaire was

performed. In principle, all available MS’ data confirm that collected amounts of industrial batteries

are significantly lower than amounts placed on the market for a given year. However from MS’ data

providing timelines of figures, it can be realized that the amounts of industrial batteries increased in

recent years or in case of one MS fluctuated. Thus, taking the long life time of industrial batteries into

account differences between placed on the market and collected for a given year might result from

lower amounts of placed on the market in the past years.

Discrepancies between the amounts of batteries placed on the market and collected might be

explained, at least in part, based on the following arguments:


159

• The long lifespan of batteries in industrial applications (up to 20 years, according to (ADEME 2016)).

• Changes (increase, decrease, fluctuation) of the yearly data in the timeline for placed on the

market as well as collected batteries might increase or decrease the difference between the

amounts of placed on the market and collected batteries.

• The export of used batteries or of used products containing batteries. According to (ADEME 2016),

significant amounts of industrial batteries placed on the market in France end their life cycle in

third countries.

• According to French placed on the market data, industrial Pb-acid batteries account for only about

one-fourth of all industrial battery units, although on a weight basis they have a share of about

three-fourths of all industrial batteries. Against this background, the assumption that nearly 100 %

of industrial batteries are already being collected, given that Pb-acid recycling is economically

profitable, should be questioned.

As regards the collection of waste industrial batteries, the Batteries Directive (Article 8) only

establishes that:

3. Member States shall ensure that producers of industrial batteries and accumulators, or third parties

acting on their behalf, shall not refuse to take back waste industrial batteries and accumulators from

end-users, regardless of chemical composition and origin.

The Batteries Directive does not provide further details on the collection of waste industrial batteries,

in particular for returning industrial batteries. This is especially significant for industrial batteries used

by private consumers (e.g. for e-bikes, e-cars, renewable energy storages).

This becomes even more important in connection with the expectation that Li-ion batteries will be

increasingly applied in the near future as e-mobility is more frequently used. The weak and lacking

provisions in the Directive to address the collection of waste industrial batteries and Li-ion batteries

specifically are of even higher concern.

Main findings

The following can be concluded from assessing the collection of waste industrial batteries:

• There is no reporting or systematic analysis of industrial batteries placed on the market data and

collected at EU level.

• There is no evidence to support the assumption that all waste industrial batteries are collected.

• The results from our analysis of the EU situation indicate that differences between placed on the

market and collected occur: about 491 000 tonnes of industrial batteries were placed on the

market, but only about 435 000 tonnes were collected (difference of about 56 000 tonnes).

• There is no clear evidence to support the assumption of losses of industrial batteries. The long

service life of industrial batteries and increases und fluctuations in timelines do not allow for

reliable conclusion.

• It is argued that lead-acid battery recycling is economically profitable. However, industrial lead-

acid batteries account for only about one-fourth of all industrial batteries (unit-based) placed on

the market in France in 2015.

Overall, there is no evidence to support the assumption that all waste industrial batteries are

collected. The analysis indicates discrepancies between the amounts of industrial batteries placed on

the market and collected. However, without concrete data this cannot be proven.


160

12.2 Economic conditions for the batteries sector

12.2.1 Introduction

This section presents the findings based on literature reviews, information gathered through

stakeholders’ interviews, responses to the questionnaire survey by the Member States and contributions

to the public consultation.

The chapter aims to identify the relevance of the production of new batteries in the EU and the

economic conditions of the collection and recycling for portable, industrial and automotive batteries.



developed in the batteries sector. Real costs are rarely publicly available, as their confidentiality

pertains to the competitive advantage between economic stakeholders (producers, collectors,

recyclers).

Even if not all economic details are disclosed by the different stakeholders, it is important to

understand who bears what costs and whether the costs are reasonable for the party that bears them as

well as whether specific practices allow the Directive to function efficiently. A model is therefore

developed for each of the battery types (portable, automotive and industrial) that should allow

performing an analysis in this context.

In the first section, the production of batteries within the EU is discussed. The second section

summarises the revenues from secondary raw materials, followed by an analysis of the interaction

between the different actors for three different types of batteries (portable, industrial and

automotive). In the last section, the key outcomes are discussed.

12.2.2 EU Battery Production

Eurostat provides data on Sold production, exports and imports by PRODCOM list (NACE Rev. 2), annual

data for the three categories of batteries:

Lead-acid batteries,

Primary cells and primary batteries and

Nickel cadmium, nickel metal hydride, lithium ion, lithium polymer, nickel iron and other electric batteries.

Unfortunately these categories do not match the categories of the Batteries Directive; however,

production and trade statistics can give insight as to the total volume of EU production. It is important

to note that Eurostat data on foreign trade does not take into account the value of batteries included/

incorporated into products. The data on import and export do not match with the data for placed on

the market, as requested by the Batteries Directive67. Considering this shortcoming, production

statistics provide a first impression of the relevance of the batteries sector, as outlined below.

67 With regard to portable batteries incorporated in EEE, SagisEPR and Perchards, EPBA (2016) states the following:

Data from the few battery organisations that require producers to indicate separately the volume of batteries

placed on the market in EEE, suggest that batteries in EEE contribute around 20% to 30% of portable batteries

placed on the market. Few comparable data are available on a country basis and the share of portable batteries


161

The lead-acid battery industry directly employs around 20 000 workers in the EU (ACEA 2017) and had

an annual production volume of approximately € 5 141 million batteries in 2016 in the EU28, as

displayed in Figure 12-4 below. Details on import, production and export for single Member States of

the EU are given in Figure 12-5. Production data for Austria, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary,

Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, and Spain are not published by Eurostat due to confidentiality of the data;

these MSs’ batteries represent in total € 1 923 million. Why the production data of Belgium and

Netherlands is not published is unexplained. However, for some of the countries where production is

not displayed by Eurostat in Figure 12-5, the net export (export - import) indicates the order of

magnitude of the production. As a consequence, countries with large production volumes are Germany,

Italy, Poland, France, Spain, Czech Republic, Slovenia and the UK.

Figure 12-4: EU28 import-, production- and export-value for lead-acid batteries

Source: Eurostat, Prodcom

POM volumes of portable batteries as a percentage of EEE POM show wide variations: On average, the batteries

volume is 2.4% of EEE volume. In 2010 it ranged from 1% - 1.5% in SK, LU, PT, GR, BE to above 3% in SE, LT, EE.

The share of reported waste batteries removed from WEEE is usually much lower. Due to prior trading,

organisations are often not able or willing to identify the share of waste batteries removed from WEEE in total

collection volume. Public and confidential data from organisations suggest the share of batteries removed from

WEEE is on average 7% in the 19 countries investigated, and ranges from 1% to 20%. On the basis of individual

systems, shares are much higher for a few systems.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

mill

ion

€

IMPVAL PRODVAL EXPVAL

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

mill

ion

€



162

Figure 12-5: Import-, production- and export-value for lead-acid batteries; breakdown by Member State for 2016

Source: Eurostat, Prodcom; Note: Confidential production data not displayed for Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic,

Greece, Hungary, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Spain, in total representing € 1 923 million).

The data on primary cells and primary batteries covers a range of different chemical types of batteries.

Unfortunately, production statistics do not provide a more detailed breakdown by battery chemistry.

The total production volume for the EU28 was about € 812 million in 2016, as displayed inFigure 12-6.

Details on import, production and export for single Member States of the EU are given in Figure 12-7

below. Production data for Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, and Sweden represent

in total € 255 million, though not published by Eurostat for data confidentiality reasons. However, for

Belgium, where the production is not displayed by Eurostat in Figure 12-7, the net export (export -

import) indicates the order of magnitude of the production. Consequently, countries with large

production volumes are Germany, France, Belgium and the UK.

0

200 000 000

400 000 000

600 000 000

800 000 000

1 000 000 000

1 200 000 000

1 400 000 000

1 600 000 000

1 800 000 000

IMPVAL

PRODVAL

EXPVAL

INDICATORS

DECL

Summe von Value

PERIOD_LABEL PRCCODE_LABEL


163

Figure 12-6: EU28 import-, production- and export-value for primary cells and primary batteries


Figure 12-7: Import-, production- and export-value for primary cells and primary batteries; breakdown by Member State for 2016

Source: Eurostat, Prodcom; Note: Confidential production data not displayed for Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Norway,

Poland, Slovenia and Sweden, in total representing € 255 million.

The data on nickel cadmium, nickel metal hydride, lithium ion, lithium polymer, nickel iron and other

electric batteries is presented as a total and covers a range of different chemical types of batteries.

Unfortunately, the production statistics do not provide a more detailed breakdown by battery

chemistry. The total production volume for the EU28 in 2016 was about € 1 083 million, as displayed in

Figure 12-8. Of interest is that the imported value, € 3 418 million in 2016, was three times higher than

the production. Details on import, production and export are given in Figure 12-9 below. Production

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

m

illio

n €


0

200

400

600

800

1,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

m

illio

n €


0

100 000 000

200 000 000

300 000 000

400 000 000

500 000 000

600 000 000

700 000 000

IMPVAL

PRODVAL

EXPVAL

INDICATORS

DECL

Summe von Value

PRCCODE_LABEL PERIOD_LABEL


164

data for Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, and Sweden (in total representing

€ 400 million) is not published by Eurostat for data confidentiality reasons. As a consequence, Member

States with large production volumes are Germany, the Netherlands, France and the UK.

Figure 12-8: EU28 import-, production- and export-value for NiCd, NiMH, Li-ion, lithium polymer, NiPb and other electric batteries


Figure 12-9: Import-, production- and export-value (€) for NiCd, NiMH, Li-ion, lithium polymer, NiPb and other electric batteries; breakdown by Member State for 2016

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

mill

ion

€


0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

mill

ion

€


0

200 000 000

400 000 000

600 000 000

800 000 000

1 000 000 000

1 200 000 000

1 400 000 000

1 600 000 000

1 800 000 000

IMPVAL

PRODVAL

EXPVAL

INDICATORS

DECL

Summe von Value

PRCCODE_LABEL PERIOD_LABEL


165

Source: Eurostat, Prodcom; Note: Confidential production data not displayed for Austria, Czech Republic, Greece,

Ireland, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden in total representing € 400 million.

Table 12-6 summarises EU production, import and export for 2016 for the different battery chemistries.

Compared to global production values published by Pillot (2015):

the EU lead-acid accumulators production represents a share of approximately 15% of the global

production, which is similar to the EU’s share of global GNP (between 17 and 16 %) and

the EU’s NiCd, NiMH and Li-ion accumulators production represents a share of approximately 5%

of the global production, which is much less than the EU’s share of global GNP.

The contractor is currently not aware of a public data source for the global production value of primary

cells.

Table 12-6: EU28 battery production, import and export value by 2016

Production Million €

Import Million €

Export Million €

Lead-acid batteries 5 141 1 346 1 452

Primary cells and primary batteries 812 763 354

Nickel cadmium, nickel metal hydride, lithium ion, lithium polymer, nickel iron and other electric batteries

1 083 3 418 738

Total 7 037 5 526 2 545


12.2.3 Revenues for secondary raw materials from the battery recycling

The potential revenues from secondary raw materials produced from recycling the different types of

batteries vary greatly depending on the content of certain materials in certain battery chemistries and

on the recycling efficiency. Additionally, market prices of secondary raw materials are volatile over

time and thus impact the revenues.

Lead-acid batteries

Figure 12-10 displays the specific price per tonne of new lead-acid batteries (blue line), per tonne of

unwrought lead (green line) and per tonne of spent lead-acid battery (red line). Please be aware that

Figure 12-10 refers to all kinds of border-crossing trade during the mentioned period, including trade

based on long term contracts, which smooths out the volatility. The data might be different from

figures provided by stock exchange sources, which might refer to different trade flows.

Considering that a lead-acid battery’s weight consists of about 60 % lead, around 40 % of the value of a

new lead-acid battery is represented by the value of the (unwrought) lead content. The specific value

of the spent lead-acid batteries is much lower, with a minimum of € 195 per tonne in 2006 and a

maximum of € 1 060 in 2008. Again, the fact needs to be considered that 60 % of the weight of a spent

lead-acid battery is from lead. Considering the current value of around € 1 000 per tonne for spent

lead-acid batteries, a typical 15kg lead-acid battery has a value of about € 15. If the revenue for spent


166

lead-acid batteries drops below € 200/ t (as it was in 2006), the valuedrops to only € 3.00 for a typical

15 kg battery. The revenues from secondary materials recovered from spent lead-acid batteries must

cover the economic effort of collection, safe storage and transport to the recycling site.

The recyclers (where not integrated in facilities for battery production) benefit from selling unwrought

lead to the battery manufacturers. The revenues generated from the current price of around € 2 000

per tonne of unwrought lead must cover the effort for:

buying the spent batteries from the market (see before),

crushing,

separation of plastic, acid and lead,

smelting,

refining (producing defined alloys, with higher revenues than unwrought lead) and

disposal of non-recoverable components of the spent batteries.

Advanced concepts for recycling include recycling the plastic housing and the electrolyte. However, the

detailed cost-recovery contribution of the different components (lead/ alloys/ plastic housing/

electrolyte) is not available to the consultants and possibly it is not driven by the revenue for the

secondary raw material only, but also by the avoided cost for disposal.

Figure 12-10: Monthly average trade prices for lead-acid batteries, lead, and spent lead-acid batteries in € per tonne


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

200

601

200

605

200

609

200

701

200

705

200

709

200

801

200

805

200

809

200

901

200

905

200

909

201

001

201

005

201

009

201

101

201

105

201

109

201

201

201

205

201

209

201

301

201

305

201

309

201

401

201

405

201

409

201501

201

505

201

509

201

601

201

605

201609

201

701

201

705

Eu

ro / t

on

Lead acid accumulators Spent electric Lead-acid accumulators

Unwrought Lead, refined


167

Nickel cadmium (NiCd) and nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries

The economic benefits of recycling waste from NiCd and NiMH batteries primarily comes through

extracting as much nickel as can be found in the batteries (Mudgal, S.; Le, Y. 2011). The three major

EU battery-recycling companies SNAM, Accurec and Umicore provided their estimates on the costs

associated with the recycling as displayed in Table 12-7. As a result, the recycler either buys (when

nickel price is high) the waste batteries from the collectors or they ask the collector to pay (when

nickel prices are low) for the treatment of waste batteries. This financial transaction between the

supplier (e.g. a collection organisation) of waste batteries and the receiver of these batteries (waste

batteries recyclers) is known as the recycling treatment fee. However the information displayed in

Table 12-7 is not up-to-date and the treatment cost might have been reduced by innovation and scaling

effects.

Table 12-7: Recycling treatment fees for NiCd and NiMH batteries

Waste battery chemistry

Waste recycling treatment fees (€/tonne)

Scenario 1: high nickel price of

€ 20 000/tonne

Scenario 2: low nickel price of

€ 10 000/tonne

NiCd battery +500 -500

NiMH battery +1 200 +800

Source: Mudgal, S.; Le Guern, Y. (2011)

In the above table, a “+” value signifies that the recycling company buys the waste batteries from

the supplier whereas a “-” value signifies that the recycling company asks the supplier to pay for

the treatment of the waste batteries

As displayed in Figure 12-11, the price for unwrought nickel peaked in spring 2011 at around € 20 000

per tonne and declined to less than € 10 000 per tonne in 2016 and 2017. Consequently, one can assume

that, since 2012, NiCd batteries do not generate any profit for the collector but rather require payment

of a recycling treatment fee, in contrast to NiMH batteries, which generate a profit when they are sold

to the recycling plant.

Figure 12-11: Monthly average trade prices for nickel commodities in € per tonne


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

200601

200604

200607

200610

200701

200704

200707

200710

200801

200804

200807

200810

200901

200904

200907

200910

201001

201004

201007

201010

201101

201104

201107

201110

201201

201204

201207

201210

201301

201304

201307

201310

201401

201404

201407

201410

201501

201504

201507

201510

201601

201604

201607

201610

201701

201704

201707

Eu

ro / t

on

NICKEL, NOT ALLOYED, UNWROUGHT

NICKEL OXIDES AND HYDROXIDES

WASTE AND SCRAP, OF NON-ALLOY NICKEL (EXCL. INGOTS OR OTHER SIMILAR UNWROUGHT SHAPES, OF REMELTED NON-ALLOY NICKEL WASTE AND SCRAP, ASHES AND RESIDUES CONTAINING NON-ALLOY NICKEL)NICKEL ORES AND CONCENTRATES


168

Li-ion batteries

The Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs) in 2017 did not consider collection, safe storage and

transport, and recycling of Li-ion batteries profitable. Instead, the PROs must collect a fee from the

producers of (portable) Li-ion batteries later on (see Figure 12-16 and Table 12-12). The main costs to

be recovered are generated by collection, sorting, safe storage and transport, while recycling might

generate benefits depending on the detailed chemistry and market conditions for secondary raw

materials.

As displayed in Table 12-8, the main contributions to revenues from recycling of, for example, lithium-

nickel-manganese-cobalt-oxide batteries (LNMC) are generated by nickel, cobalt, lithium and copper.

For other battery chemistries the contributions differ.

As reported by recyclers, until 2016 the recycling of lithium was considered not profitable. As a result,

commercial processes focused on nickel, cobalt and copper; lithium ended in the slags of the pyro

chemical process, which is recovered for use in construction materials. More recently, the recycling of

lithium from slags has started (Hagelüken, Treffer 2017), most likely triggered by demand forecasts and

the rising prices for lithium (Oeko-Institut 2017), as shown in Figure 12-13. As outlined by Oeko-Institut

(2017) in its forecast for the lithium raw material demand for Li-ion batteries, it is essential to establish

reliable targets for lithium recycling.

Table 12-8: Potential revenues from secondary raw materials in lithium-ion batteries based on available recycling technology (2015)

Secondary raw materials

Market price (€/kg Material)

C-LNMC (€/kg Battery)

C-LNCA (€/kg Battery)

C-LFP (€/kg Battery)

LTO-LFP (€/kg Battery)

Stainless steel 0.60 0.13 0.17 0.19 0.09

Aluminium 1.30 0.002 0.012 0.016 0.004

Copper 4.90 0.06 0.15 0.19 0.07

Nickel 11.90 0.47 1.03 - -

Manganese 1.70 0.06 - - -

Cobalt 23.30 0.92 0.38 - -

Lithium carbonate or hydroxide

5.20 0.30 0.30 0.17 0.80

Aluminium - Cell 1.30 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07

Copper – Cell 4.90 0.27 0.29 0.25 0.29

Source: (Oeko-Institut and ZSW 2015)

The market prices indicated in Table 12-8 are however not permanently set but instead remain volatile,

as shown in Figure 12-11 for nickel, Figure 12-12 for cobalt68 and Figure 12-13 for lithium. For nickel,

the prices are moderately below the level mentioned in Table 12-8, but this is more than compensated

for by the doubled price for cobalt. Secondary lithium is not reported by Eurostat. However, the prices

for primary lithium have nearly doubled compared to the values in Table 12-8. The reason for the drop

68 Recently (in May 2018), the revenues from secondary cobalt increased dramatically, impacting the

cost structure of the recycling of Li-ion batteries. It is yet to be seen if these increased revenues shall

last for the long term or not and to what degree they shall allow compensating the costs of collection,

safe storage, transport and recycling.


169

in lithium oxide and hydroxide prices in July 2017 is not known. It has yet to be seen if this last price

for lithium oxide or hydroxide is stable or if the price will recover soon.

Figure 12-12: Monthly average trade prices for cobalt commodities in € per tonne


Figure 12-13: Monthly average trade prices for lithium commodities in € per tonne


Other materials, for example from the protective casing for the Li-ion battery (for instance containing

aluminium), electronic components of larger batteries or steel casing for other batteries, might

contribute to the revenues of the dismantler and recycler. The volatility of the metal scraps prices

tends to raise concerns for recyclers. Such variations might inhibit recyclers to always maintain an

economically viable level without any intervention from public authorities, Producer Responsibility

Organisations (PROs) or compliance schemes. Investments without such compliance schemes would be

very risky. Each battery chemistry has nevertheless its own economic structure and associated costs, as

will be presented in the next three sub-sections concerning portable, industrial and automotive

batteries.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

200601

200604

200607

200610

200701

200704

200707

200710

200801

200804

200807

200810

200901

200904

200907

200910

201001

201004

201007

201010

201101

201104

201107

201110

201201

201204

201207

201210

201301

201304

201307

201310

201401

201404

201407

201410

201501

201504

201507

201510

201601

201604

201607

201610

201701

201704

201707

Eu

ro / t

on

COBALT MATTES AND OTHER INTERMEDIATE PRODUCTS OF COBALT METALLURGY; UNWROUGHT COBALT; COBALT POWDERS

COBALT OXIDES AND HYDROXIDES; COMMERCIAL COBALT OXIDES

COBALT WASTE AND SCRAP (EXCL. ASH AND RESIDUES CONTAINING COBALT)

COBALT ORES AND CONCENTRATES

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

200601

200604

200607

200610

200701

200704

200707

200710

200801

200804

200807

200810

200901

200904

200907

200910

201001

201004

201007

201010

201101

201104

201107

201110

201201

201204

201207

201210

201301

201304

201307

201310

201401

201404

201407

201410

201501

201504

201507

201510

201601

201604

201607

201610

201701

201704

201707

Eu

ro / t

on

LITHIUM OXIDE AND HYDROXIDE LITHIUM CARBONATES


170

12.2.4 Portable batteries

Figure 12-14 below demonstrates the key relations between actors in relation to waste portable

batteries. It shows a simplified model of the positioning and role of Producer Responsibility

Organisations (PROs) within the portable batteries value chain in the Member States. Multiple PROs may

coexist within MS. The PROs receive a fee per battery (or per kg of battery type) from the producers.

Figure 12-14: Mapping of the portable batteries sector: Physical, monetary and reporting flows

Red line: volumes placed on the market, relevant for the fee paid to the PRO and for collection target

Blue dotted line: payment of producer to PRO

Green dotted line: payment of PRO (based on competitive bids) for compensation of economically not viable activity

Source: Oeko-Institut e.V.

The producers can be the manufacturers, if they are established in the Member State, or the economic

operators that put the portable batteries on the market (especially operators that place products on

the market that incorporate batteries). The volumes considered for reporting on placed–on-the–market

products are displayed with red arrows in Figure 12-14. The producer must pay a fee to the PRO

accordingly.

The waste portable batteries are collected through a comprehensive network of collection points,

depending on the national legal situation, including retailers, schools, municipalities, offices, and

industry. Information on the absolute number of collection points or the number per inhabitant is

available only for a few MS, as shown in Table 12-9. The implementation report (Trinomics 2017) and

EPBA (2016a) indicate that, for quite a number of MS, retailers are not obliged to maintain collection

points. However, information on number and accessibility of collection points for portable batteries is

incomplete and does not provide detailed information for all MS.


171

Table 12-9: Number of collection points for portable batteries

Member

State Statements from the implementation report

AT 2 000 municipal collection points and unknown number of other collection points

(Trinomics 2017).

BE Wallonia: 24 000 active collection points for waste portable and industrial batteries

(Trinomics 2017).

CZ 25 500 take-back points for two collection schemes, including nearly 2 500

stationary containers in municipalities (Trinomics 2017).

EE 100 hazardous waste collection points managed by the municipalities (EPBA 2016).

FI About 10 000 retailers and 3 000 other free collection points (Trinomics 2017).

FR 55 000 collection points (Trinomics 2017).

GR

Approx. 7 000 collection points (Trinomics, 2017);

There are over 63 000 (1 830 new in 2015) waste portable battery collection points

in Greece, or one per 172 residents (2015, AFIS*) cited from (EPBA 2016a)

HU Approx. 41 000 collection points for batteries and portable accumulators, i.e. about

one collection point for every 240 citizens (Trinomics 2017).

IE 10 500 battery collection points, one per 441 citizens people (Trinomics 2017).

SK

According to national legislation, producers of batteries have to ensure at least one

collection point for waste portable batteries and at least one facility for collection

of waste automotive and industrial batteries in each district town (Trinomics 2017).

Once collected, portable batteries are sorted by their chemistry or their corresponding recycling

process: alkaline manganese, zinc carbon, lithium manganese dioxide, button cells, nickel cadmium,

nickel metal hydride, lead-acid, lithium ion, lithium polymer, etc. Sorted batteries are transported to

recycling facilities that have to fulfil the recycling efficiency targets of the Batteries Directive. The

PROs compensate for efforts, such as collection or sorting, that are not covered by the revenues from

secondary raw materials. Contracts for recycling waste batteries are based on a tendering process by

the compliance schemes. As PROs compete with each other, the fee collected from the producers might

from time to time change depending on the effort or results of tenders for collection, sorting, recycling

and other market conditions.

Following the established principles, competing PROs have no benefits when exceeding the targets for

collection. As a result, PROs might compete (in best case) to exactly meet the required collection rate,

not less and not more. In worse cases, PROs might compete by selecting only (“cherry picking”)

profitable battery types, making use of battery collection from non-private consumers, or even by only

“trading” collection and recycling volumes, without any operative activity. As the origin of batteries in

bulk volumes is difficult to assess, such approaches enable unfair competition by free riders (Sørensen,

S. Y.; Olsen, S. M. et.al. 2013).


172

Recyclers do not benefit from exceeding the recycling target rates as long as the additional recycling is

not covered by additional profits. Technological and technical progress needs to be considered from

time to time to adjust the recycling targets in the Batteries Directive accordingly and thereby support

recycling even further.

Table 12-10 indicates the start of the EPR schemes across the EU and the number of PROs active in 2015

and during the few years before (exact start date is unknown). To date, all Member States have

established EPR schemes for the implementation of the Batteries Directive. However, the number of

PROs varies from one PRO in a country to 13 in Italy (in 2015). Characteristics of the implementation

are quite diverse across the EU. For several MS, only one PRO is responsible for all producer

responsibility (“collective”), while others have competing PROs each contracted by several producers

(also “collective”). In addition, some PROs are responsible for one individual producer only. If

collective systems and individual systems coexist, the table indicates “both”.

Table 12-10: EPR schemes in the EU for portable batteries

Member State + CH +NO

Start date of EPR scheme(s)

source (1)

Number of PRO active in 2015

source (1)

Number of PRO active

source (2)

Characteristics of PROs

source (2)

AT 2008 4 4 Collective

BE 1996 1 2 Both

BG 2009 4 3 Both

CH 2001 1 1 Collective

CY 2009 1 1 Collective

CZ 2002 2 1 Both

DE 1998 4 1 Collective

DK 2009 3 4 Both

EE 2009 2 N/A Both

ES 2000 4 1 Collective

FI 2009 2 4 Both

FR 2001 2 2 Both

GR 2004 1 3 Both

HU 2005 3 6 Both

HR 2007 1* 1 Collective

IE 2005 2 2 Both

IT 2008 13 21 Both

LT 2009 2 1 Both

LU 2009 1 1 Both

LV 2006 3 3 Both

MT 2014 2 1 Both

NL 1995 1 1 Both

NO 1999 1

PL 2003 0** 3 Both


173

Member State + CH +NO

Start date of EPR scheme(s)

source (1)

Number of PRO active in 2015

source (1)

Number of PRO active

source (2)

Characteristics of PROs

source (2)

PT 2002 3 5 Both

RO 2008 4 Both

SE 2009 1 3 Both

SI 2009 3 3 Both

SK 2001 11*** 1 Collective

UK 2009 5 5 Collective

* Public PRO established; ** The Battery Act does not recognize collective schemes; *** 6 PROs 5 Battery Recyclers

Source (1): Binnemans, P., EUCOBAT (2018):

Source (2): Monier, V.; Hestin, M. et. al. (2014),

The cost effectiveness in 2011 and 2016 of the portable battery compliance schemes in five countries is

displayed in Table 12-11. Quite diverse conditions across the MS can be seen. While all MS exceeded the

EU collection target rate of 45 % in 2016, some countries have much higher collection rates, up to 70 %.

These countries (Belgium and Switzerland) have at least three times higher specific costs (both per

inhabitant and per tonne collected portable batteries) as other Member States just barely reaching the

45 % target. This might indicate that the effort to increase collection rates beyond the target (45 %) is

significantly higher.

For example, for Belgium it is known that significant effort is expended for public awareness

campaigns, with costs exceeding 20 % of the total fee. The number of PROs, as displayed in Table

12-12, and the level of control by producers (or the level of competition between PROs) might have an

effect on the cost-efficiency of waste batteries management as well. However, the three countries BE,

CH and NL have one collective PRO only and the specific effort is quite different. The limited number of

countries available for this comparison does not allow any strict conclusions to be drawn.

The limited information on fees for portable batteries placed on the market, as seen in Table 12-11,

complicates making accurate estimations for the EU level. The lowest displayed specific fee per capita

in 2011, reported in France at € 0.23 per capita, can be extrapolated for the EU28 with 511 million

inhabitants to a budget of € 118 million for fees for portable batteries to be placed on the market.

Using the hourly labour cost of € 21.5 in 2016 for the NACE Sector “Water supply; sewerage, waste

management and remediation activities” (Eurostat) as well as taking half of the fees collected for

portable batteries for paying for the workforce, the collection and recycling would generate

approximately 1 000 to 2 000 full time jobs in EU28. The total is vague, since for larger MS like Italy,

Germany, UK, Spain and Poland no specific information or estimate is available. Some of these jobs

were generated regardless of the EU’s Batteries Directive, as a number of national legislations were in

force prior to the Batteries Directive. The effects on employment of profitable activities (recycling) are

not considered for the estimation of generated jobs.


174

Table 12-11: Cost efficiency for selected EPR schemes for portable batteries

Year AT BE FR NL CH

Portable batteries collected in tonnes

2011 1 738 2 406 17 397 3 385 2 375

2016 -/- 3 153 13 677 3 946 2 804

Collection rate 2011 49% 52% 36% 42% 72%

2016 70.7% 46.4% 49.0% 67.8%

Total fee in 1000 €

2011 1 987 21 810 11 300 5 400 12 050

2016 -/- 17 674 15 586 8 610 14 231

Inhabitants in 1000

2016 8 772 11 268 66 940 16 979 8 402

Portable batteries collected per inhabitant in kg / year

2011 0.198 0.214 0.260 0.199 0.283

2016 0.280 0.204 0.232 0.334

Fee per inhabitant in € per year

2011 0.23 1.94 0.17 0.32 1.43

2016 1.57 0.23 0.51 1.69

Fee per collected portable batteries in € per tonne

2011 1 143 9 065 650 1 595 5 074

2016 6 917 826 1 368 4 297

Source for 2011: Monier, V.; Hestin, M. et. al. (2014)

Source for 2016: P. Binnemans, EUCOBAT (2018)

An example from Germany of more detailed data on specific fees for different batteries placed on the

market can be found in Figure 12-15 for primary batteries and Figure 12-16 for secondary batteries.

Fees for the Netherlands are shown in Table 12-12 From this data, it is obvious that for most of the

different types of portable batteries the producer must pay a fee when placing them on the market.

The fees in Germany for Zn- or Mn-containing batteries were around € 30 and € 90 per tonne of

batteries placed on the market. For Li batteries, a fee of € 80 to € 180 per tonne must be paid. For the

Netherlands, the general observation is the same: fees for Li batteries are higher than fees for other

batteries.

For portable batteries in Germany, the fees for button cells containing AlMn were the highest, at € 30

to € 90 per tonne placed on the market (PoM); for the bigger portable batteries, the fees for NiCd were

the highest at around € 50 per tonne PoM.


175

Figure 12-15: Average fees paid by producers per kg placed on the market by type and size of primary batteries

Source : (GRS 2017), own calculations

Figure 12-16: Average fees paid by producers per kg placed on the market by type and size of secondary batteries for Germany

Source : (GRS 2017), own calculations

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

€-c

en

t p

er

kg

Po

M

Size of the battery in gram

Primary

Li

AlMn/NiZn

Zn Air

ZnC

ZnC/Zn Air

Abbreviation

Gramm

Summe von cent per kg

Type Battery_chemistry

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

€-c

en

t p

er

kg

Po

M

Size of the battery in gram

Secondary

AlMn

Li-Ion

NiCd

NiMH

Pb

Abbreviation

Gramm

Summe von cent per kg

Type Battery_chemistry


176

Table 12-12: The compliance scheme management fees of (portable) waste batteries when placed on the market in 2018; STIBAT, Netherlands

Category Types Management fee per battery,

excluding VAT

Lithium /

Lithium-Ion Others

(excluding lead)

I Non-rechargeable and rechargeable up to 50 g, excluding button cells

€ 0.02 € 0.017

II Non-rechargeable and rechargeable 51 to 150 g, excluding button cells

€ 0.10 € 0.09

III Non-rechargeable and rechargeable 151 to 250 g € 0.20 € 0.16




V Coin/button cells € 0.005 € 0.002

VI Portable batteries Non-rechargeable and rechargeable, heavier 1000 g

€ 2.37 € 1.23

VII Industrial batteries Non-rechargeable and rechargeable heavier than 1 000 g (excluding VII E-Bike)

€ 0.00

VII E-Bike Industrial batteries (lithium-ion) used to power E-bikes € 3.00 per kg

X Portable or industrial lead batteries, other than in category VIII and IX

€ 0.00

Source: STIBAT (2017)

12.2.5 Industrial batteries

The vast majority of industrial batteries are (up to now) lead-acid batteries (Figure 12-1), for instance

used in fork lifts. The total effort for collection plus recycling of such batteries is currently covered by

the revenues from recycled lead, as demonstrated in Figure 12-10. As mentioned in chapter 12.2.3,

such cost coverage might not occur if the revenue for spent lead-acid batteries drops below a certain

value for a longer period.

For other battery chemistries that do not generate the same revenues as waste lead-acid batteries, the

collection, safe storage, transport and recycling of most types of spent batteries can currently not be

financed through the revenues of recycling alone. If the last owner manages very high volumes and the

collection effort is negligible, NiMH might generate a revenue when sold to the recycler (see Table

12-7); however, this is an exception.

The Batteries Directive is vague regarding the necessary collection infrastructure for spent industrial

batteries and as well as in relation to who carries the burden for shipping spent batteries to collection

points or recycling facilities. According to Article 8 (3) of the Batteries Directive, the producer (“or

third parties acting on their behalf”) is obliged to “not refuse to take back waste industrial batteries”.

In consequence, the end user is in charge of safe collection, storage and transport of spent industrial

batteries to the producer (or more likely to recycling sites). The general situation is displayed in Figure

12-17 for the case when the producer takes back the batteries. Figure 12-18 shows the situation if third

parties and recyclers are involved.


177

As for some of the industrial batteries, long life times (including hoarding times) are likely.

Consequently, the functioning of producer responsibility is not ensured once the producer no longer

exists.

As industrial batteries are not only used by commercial end-users, the Regulation causes confusing

situations. Examples include the growing volume of lithium-ion batteries for e-bikes and traction

batteries for electric vehicles, considered by the Batteries Directive as industrial batteries. Household

battery storage for power supply is, as far as not considered as portable, also considered industrial

batteries. According to legal conditions, the private consumer should individually arrange (also

financially) for the spent batteries of e-bikes to be sent to the producers as displayed in Figure 12-17.

In practice, in many cases it is currently the distributor who takes back (free of charge) spent lithium-

ion batteries from e-bikes. But according to the Directive it is not obliged to do so. In consequence the

distributor is exposed to the financial risk of carrying the burden for transport to the producer (or

recycling facility) and, as the distributors are not experienced in handling of lithium-ion batteries,

storage and shipment to recycling and disposal facilities is not always safe (risk of fire and HF-emissions

(LiBRi 2011a)). In some MS, the PROs, which were established for the management of portable

batteries, have entered the market and offer services to this sector. However, such services and

contractual relations are not backed by any legal obligation of the producers.

In principle the same concerns apply for NiMH and Li-ion batteries used for hybrid electric vehicles or

battery electric vehicles sold to private consumers; however, the car manufacturers are aware of the

issue and tend to establish “take back systems”, which are in fact battery replacement systems via

their retailer networks. The management of the batteries at the end-of-life of the vehicle is covered by

the ELV-Directive 2000/53/EC.

Take back systems for (spent) industrial batteries with the purpose of checking and preparing the

batteries for reuse (or second life), as discussed for the traction batteries of electric vehicles, are not

yet sufficiently in place for them to be relevant. Preparation for reuse of traction electric vehicle (EV)

batteries represents a potential end-of-life option to extend the lifetime of batteries no longer usable

in EV in line with the Circular Economy principles. The recently adopted Commission Decision

concerning the Innovation Deal on “From E-Mobility to recycling: the virtuous loop of the electric

vehicle” shows that second-life applications have a potential also for industry. Manifold aspects of such

systems, including questions like who is the producer and who must carry the producer responsibility,

are not addressed by the Batteries Directive.


178

Figure 12-17: Mapping of the industrial batteries sector; producer takes back EoL batteries

Note 1: Reuse is not considered in the figure, as the battery does not became waste when it is simply reused but

instead, for example, the ownership changed or the battery is reused by the same owner for different purposes.

This would not change the general structure of the figures.

Note 2: Preparation for reuse considers that the battery became waste. Therefore, the concept of the EoL

batteries displayed in the figures applies. It is up to the producer if EoL batteries are recycled or prepared for

reuse.

Source: Oeko-Institut

Figure 12-18: Mapping of the industrial batteries sector; EoL batteries sent to recycler


The Dutch ARN published fees for the management of batteries, some of which could be considered

industrial batteries (ARN, 2017). The fees for the year 2018 are:


179

Management fee for lead-acid and NiMH (starter) batteries and batteries: € 0.05 (excluding VAT).

The fee for Li-ion (starter) batteries in 2018 (including VAT) are:

o € 9 per battery with weight ≤5 kg

o € 22.50 per battery with weight > 5 kg and ≤ 25 kg

o € 65 per battery with weight > 25 kg and ≤ 100 kg




12.2.6 Automotive batteries

Automotive batteries are by definition starter batteries for vehicles, and the vast majority are lead-

acid batteries. The value chain of automotive batteries is different from that of portable and industrial

batteries. Article 8(4) of the Batteries Directive stipulates: “Member States shall ensure that producers

of automotive batteries and accumulators, or third parties, set up schemes for the collection of waste

automotive batteries and accumulators from end-users or from an accessible collection point in their

vicinity, where collection is not carried out under the schemes referred to in Article 5(1) of Directive

2000/53/EC. In the case of automotive batteries and accumulators from private, non-commercial

vehicles, such schemes shall not involve any charge to end-users when discarding waste batteries or

accumulators, nor any obligation to buy a new battery or accumulator.”

The stipulation is vague regarding the definition of what might be “accessible in their vicinity” and

what kind of schemes for collection should be established.

The positive market value of spent automotive batteries (lead-acid batteries) supports their collection.

As mentioned in chapter 12.2.3, recycling the lead-acid batteries is currently economically viable.

However, volatile prices might jeopardise the economic viability. Additionally, far distances to

collection points and low revenues payable to the last owner for a single, spent lead-acid battery might

also cause losses of spent batteries. Such losses might occur where batteries are sent to municipal

disposal sites (prohibited by the Batteries Directive and, as seen from the implementation report

(Trinomics 2017), implemented accordingly in the Member States). However, some flux might occur and

batteries may go missing through other illegal disposal means.

The relations between different actors and activities are displayed in Figure 12-19.


180

Figure 12-19: Mapping of the automotive batteries sector


Considering that automotive batteries are, for the vast majority, lead-acid batteries, other battery

chemistries are not considered for the time being. The future of using other batteries as starter

batteries might change along with the situation mentioned in chapter 12.2.5.

12.2.7 Main findings

The outcomes below are derived from the findings in the previous sections and in addition to the

mentioned literature sources or interviews, as indicated.

The battery industry in Europe generates products with a total value of more than € 7 billion in 2016, as

displayed in Table 12-6. The highest volumes of production are located in Germany, France and the UK

for all battery chemistries and in Belgium for primary and secondary batteries. Relevant production of

lead-acid batteries is also located in Italy, Poland, Spain, Czech Republic, and Slovenia.

Compared to global production values, the EU’s lead-acid accumulator production represents a share of

approximately 15 % of global production, which is similar to the EU’s share of global GNP (between 16 %

and 17 %). For lead-acid batteries, the EU is a net exporter. As production statistics do not consider

Import/ Export of EoL batteries

Recycling

EoL batteries

EoL vehicles

Dismantling & depollution

Collection of EoL batteries

Retailer

Producer

Car manufacturer

National retailer

primary other

secondary lead

secondary other

Reuse

primary lead

Consumers

Replacement of EoL accumulator

Export

Import / Export

Import/ Export of used vehicles

Export

Import

Disposal


181

export of batteries that are incorporated into products, this conclusion is even more valid, considering

that the EU is a net exporter of vehicles (with incorporated lead-acid batteries).

Compared to the global production, the EU’s production of NiCd, NiMH and Li-ion accumulators

represents a share of approximately 5 % of global production, which is much less than the EU’s share of

global GNP. In consequence, the EU is a net importer of NiCd, NiMH and Li-ion accumulators.

The statistical data on production value do not consider batteries incorporated into products like

electric and electronic equipment (EEE) or electric vehicles (EV). Displayed data do not match with the

volumes “placed on the market”, as is reported by the Batteries Directive (including batteries

incorporated into products).

Collection and recycling of lead-acid batteries is usually profitable; however, the revenues for spent

lead-acid batteries are very volatile, illustrated by a drop of prices for spent lead-acid batteries from

March 2008 to January 2009, wherein the price dropped to less than a fourth within 10 months (from

1160 €/t to 280 €/t), as displayed in Figure 12-10.

Collection plus recycling of all other relevant battery chemistries is in total usually not profitable and

dominated by the costs for collection, safe storage and transport. Depending on the chemistry and the

volume, recycling might be profitable when the spent batteries are delivered free of charge to the

recycling plants. However, the recyclers are strongly affected by the risks inherent to volatile prices for

secondary raw materials. Without legal conditions, making recycling obligatory, also in phases of weak

prices for secondary raw materials, investment in battery recycling plants (other than lead recycling)

would be very risky. Without legal stipulations to collect and recycle (portable) batteries, such

batteries would end up in disposal facilities (landfill or incinerator).

The relations between the stakeholders involved in production and import, the use phase and recycling

are different for each of the three categories established by the Batteries Directive:

For portable batteries the producers have established producer responsibility organisations

(PROs) in all Member States to compensate for the efforts for the collection, safe storage

transport and recycling of relevant batteries. The level of fees paid by the producers differs

between the MS.

Competing PROs have no benefits when exceeding the targets for collection. Consequently, PROs

might compete (in the best case) to meet exactly the required collection rate, not less and not

more. In worse cases, PROs might compete by selectively choosing the most profitable battery

types, thereby making use of battery collection of batteries “other than from private consumers”

or even “trading” collection and recycling volumes only without any operative activity.

For industrial batteries, the industrial user is in charge of the handling the spent battery and the

producer is obliged to “not refuse to take back waste industrial batteries”. As a consequence, the

end user is in charge of safe collection, storage and transport of spent industrial batteries to the

producer (or more likely to recycling sites). Private persons are becoming more and more

relevant as consumers of industrial batteries. However the Batteries Directive does not establish

requirements for producer responsibility for the collection of such industrial batteries, like

batteries for e-bikes. According to the Batteries Directive the private consumer is in charge of

caring for safe collection, storage and transport of spent industrial batteries to the producer (or

more likely to recycling sites).


182

For automotive batteries, which are effectively 100% lead-acid batteries, the value chain for

recycling is apparently profitable. Prohibitions to dispose of lead-acid batteries are implemented

by the Member States. However, the conditions for collection (schemes) are different across the

Member States. Risks remain in relation to volatile prices that might jeopardise the economic

viability for recyclers and in relation to far distances to collection points and little revenues for

the last owner of a single, spent lead-acid battery, which might also cause spent batteries to not

be recycled properly and in consequence possibly be disposed of illegally.

In general the waste battery collection mechanisms for all types of batteries vary greatly across the

Member States. Fees and penalties are used as a financial incentive for battery producers to collect

batteries. Companies intervening in different Member States are exposed to adaptation costs to the

specific national compliance schemes co-existing within the European Union. This effort could be

diminished by increased harmonisation of the compliance scheme systems and of reporting

requirements.

The value chain of the waste batteries recycling sector has entry barriers, summarised as follows:

• Research and development barriers exist for the battery recycling sector resulting from advanced

technologies used in batteries. Battery chemistries are increasingly complex, especially for Li-ion

batteries (Sørensen, S. Y.; Olsen, S. M. et.al., 2013).

• High capital investment is required and makes batteries recycling a highly concentrated sector

(Sørensen, S. Y.; Olsen, S. M. et.al., 2013). This weakens the potential for SMEs to become key

actors in the waste battery value chain.

• As has been stated by the Communication on an Integrated Strategic Energy Technologies Plan

(SET-Plan), a lack of cooperation in research and development exists between producers and

recyclers for developing cost-effective recycling technologies that could increase the return on

investment of research and development investments. (Lebedeva, N.; Di Persio, F.; Boon-Brett,

L., 2016).

Other concerns mentioned during interviews with stakeholders include:

• Due to the accounting of batteries incorporated in EEE in the Batteries Directive, some

stakeholders expressed that there was a risk of double charging for these batteries, as they are

also included in the scope of the WEEE Directive.

• Recycling of cadmium could become more challenging following the ban of NiCd batteries for

portable batteries. Battery recyclers welcome the ban on Cd for portable batteries, but warn

about the consequential cost increase for recycling NiCd batteries, as NiCd recyclers will face a

decrease in the quantity of spent NiCd batteries available for recycling. In consequence, existing

recycling plants will run with lower than optimal load. At the same time (as no NiCd batteries are

placed on the market), there will be no dedicated fees for NiCd batteries for refunding such

efforts. At a certain point, another the ban could reduce the possibilities for re-use of the

cadmium fraction recovered from the recycling of spent NiCd batteries. For the time being there

is a global market for secondary cadmium. Once this market declines or is interrupted by legal

conditions, the secondary cadmium fraction will then have to be disposed of in a safe (and costly)

manner.

• By increasing the collection rates target, the Batteries Directive supports an increase in the

supply of waste batteries for recyclers.

• By increasing the recycling rates target, the Batteries Directive facilitates more research and

development into efficient recycling technologies.


183

12.3 Collection rates and recycling efficiencies

12.3.1 Introduction

EU-wide levels of compliance with respect to the obligations (laid down by the Batteries Directive), in

particular targets for collection and recycling efficiencies, were analysed and assessed, including

statistics on batteries in 28 Member States (MS) of the European Union (and three EEA countries: IS, LI,

NO) for the year 2016. The deadline for data delivery to Eurostat was 30 June 2017.

The reporting obligations included data on ‘sales’ and ‘collection’, data on recycling input and output

and data on ‘recycling efficiencies’ and ‘rates of recycled contents’ for batteries (including three

different types of batteries)69. The status quo of March 2018 was taken into account. The analysis is

based on the validation report on batteries for the reference year 2016 for Eurostat (Oeko-Institut

2018).

12.3.2 Status of transmission

According to Directive 2006/66/EC countries have to deliver data on batteries to Eurostat. The deadline

for data delivery to Eurostat is 30 June for each year. Reporters will have to deliver both national data

and a methodological report. Table 12-13 displays the conclusions on the performance of submission.

Table 12-13: Overview of data submission performance, as of 4 Jan 2018

In total 24 countries reported data for batteries for the reference year 2016. Six Member States, EL, IT,

CY, MT, NL, RO and one country, IS, did not submit any data for batteries for the reference year 201670.

12.3.3 Collection and recycling targets

The Directive 2006/66/EC defines the targets for the collection rates and for the recycling efficiencies

of batteries.

The collection target for the reference year 2016 is given in Article 10 (2) of the Directive, while Annex

I of the Directive explains how the collection rates shall be calculated.

Collection rates for portable batteries: 45 % by 26 September 2016.

69 See Eurostat datasets env_wasbat and env_waspb; http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database 70 EL and CY did submit a data file but no data for the reference year 2016. LI reported only one single figure.


184

Recycling efficiencies had to be met for three types of batteries by no later than 26 September 2011.

More information and the recycling targets are given respectively in Article 12 (4) of the Directive and

in Annex III (Part B: Recycling).

Recycling processes shall achieve the following minimum recycling efficiencies:

(a) recycling of 65% by average weight of lead-acid batteries;

(b) recycling of 75% by average weight of nickel-cadmium batteries;

(c) recycling of 50% by average weight of other batteries.

Starting with the reference year 2014, recycling efficiencies have to be calculated according to

Commission Regulation (EU) No 493/2012. Details are given in Annexes I, IV, V and VI of the Regulation.

Recycling of lead and cadmium (rate of recycled content) shall be done to the highest degree that is

technically feasible while avoiding excessive costs according to Directive 2006/66/EC, Annex III (Part B:

Recycling).

Commission Regulation (EU) No 493/2012 also defines how the rates of recycled content of lead and

cadmium have to be calculated (Annexes II and III). Member States had to report rates of recycled

content for the third time for reference year 2016.

12.3.4 Reported compliance / non-compliance with the targets

Collection rates

In addition to data from Eurostat, data from other sources was also incorporated into the analyses of

the collection rates. Table 12-14 presents the collection rates reported by each Member State and the

EEA country NO to Eurostat for the period 2012-2016. In a few cases, data was not available from the

Eurostat database but was submitted in the national implementation report (see explanations at the

bottom of Table 12-14). In one case (HR in 2012), the rate presented by the European Portable

Batteries Association (EPBA 2016a) is specified. Grey cells indicate missing data (for all sources).

Table 12-14: Collection rates (%) for portable batteries, 2012-2016


MS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

BE 52 53 55 56 71

BG 34 39 45 45 48

CZ 29 31 31 36 52

DK 45 41 44 46 45

DE 42 43 44 45 46

EE 26 40 22 42 31

IE 28 31 33 33 48

EL 36 34 37 34

ES 34 34 36 41 38

FR 35 34 37 39 45

HR 29 20 19 29 100

IT 27 29 34 36


185


MS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CY 12 16 19 27

LV 28 27 28 25 30

LT 33 36 33 43 53

LU 73 63 65 60 63

HU 34 39 37 44 53

MT 20 41 21 39

NL 43 44 45 46

AT 52 53 54 55 49

PL 29 30 33 38 39

PT 31 31 28 31 42

RO 11 30 32 21

SI 33 32 29 35 36

SK 61 48 66 53 48

FI 33 41 46 47 46

SE 61 64 59 61 45

UK 29 32 36 40 44

IS

LI

NO 34 41 44 32 80

Eurostat, env_waspb; download 4.1.2018

Figures from national implementations reports

(EPBA 2016a)

Missing data (for all sources)

Target not met

Data inconsistent

15 countries did not meet the target. Out of these 15 countries, 7 MS did not reach the collection rate

of 45 %, whereas 6 MS (EL, IT, CY, MT, NL, RO) and 2 EEA countries (IS, LI) did not report data on

collection rates.

Collection rates from at least 2 other countries (NO, HR) are ‘unusual’: NO reported a collection rate of

80%, and the MS HR reported a collection rate of 100%.

Four more countries (BE, CZ, IE, LT) display a sharp increase in 2016, which is caused by a sharp

increase of the collection figures.

Thus, 14 MS met the 45% target in 2016. In addition to the 14 Member States, the EEA country NO

reported an unusual collection rate of 80% and the MS HR an unusual collection rate of 100%. Out of the

14 MS 4 MS display an unusual sharp increase of their collection rate.

Overall, the collection rates increased from 2012 to 2016. However, there are some countries without a

clear trend or with fluctuating figures.

Recycling efficiencies

The recycling efficiency targets for batteries are 65% (lead-acid batteries), 75% (nickel cadmium

batteries) and 50% (other batteries).


186

Table 12-15 shows that all countries submitting data for the reference year 2016, except HR, met the

efficiency rates (with reference to countries with available data). HR did not meet the recycling

efficiency target for NiCd batteries. BG reported “0” for NiCd batteries.

Table 12-15: Recycling efficiencies (%) for three types of batteries; reference year 2016 (also for 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015), as of 4 Jan 2018

target not met “0” was reported Source: (Oeko-Institut 2018)

Lead-acid batteries:

Figure 12-20 presents data for the EU28 and EEA countries (IS, LI, NO) for the years 2012 to 2016. MS

are sorted according to their recycling efficiencies in 2016; the MS with the highest value is presented

on the left side, the one with lowest value on the right. The EEA countries are always presented

rightmost. The recycling efficiency target (65 %) is included in the figure for comparison.

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

%

Lead-Acid

Batteries

Lead-Acid

Batteries

Lead-Acid

Batteries

Lead-Acid

Batteries

Lead-Acid

Batteries

Ni-Cd

Batteries

Ni-Cd

Batteries

Ni-Cd

Batteries

Ni-Cd

Batteries

Ni-Cd

Batteries

Other

Batteries

Other

Batteries

Other

Batteries

Other

Batteries

Other

Batteries

BE 89 91 78 81 82 0 0 77 82 82 71 54 55 63 73BG 97 97 98 98 98 75 75 78 0 63 68 71 69 68CZ 67 65 66 74 80 81 81 95 95 95 57 59 59 60 59DK 100 99 100 80 80 82 75 83 79 82 60 53 57 59 57DE 95 94 83 85 85 89 80 81 78 79 58 65 67 76 77EE 94 80 79 79 80 0 80 50 52 54 74IE 79 79 86 90 86 75 82 78 78 85 57 64 78 83 57EL 75ES 77 77 80 81 73 83 79 64 80 86FR 82 70 85 82 81 77 79 78 81 81 53 57 58 64 61HR 73 76 77 82 67 75 70 66 67 81IT 84 79 90 91 79 78 81 84 60 60CY 77 84 70 86 78 76 51 63LV 66 67 66 70 70 76 77 76 76 76 51 52 51 52 52LT 77 4 5 18 82 0 0 76 44 48 57LU 76 74 84 90 92 83 78 78 81 80 0 0 56 59 58HU 96 85 98 91 95 75 75 86 0 75 56 56 63 60 98MT 0 79 0 0 0 0NL 84 80 79 78 81 81 78 79 57 57 56 56AT 91 91 84 84 85 78 78 77 82 82 52 79 60 82 86PL 99 93 77 77 77 91 99 86 100 100 102 95 57 67 64PT 69 69 73 71 71 75 83 94 77 63 57 81 84RO 81 82 82 82 0 0 85 19 0SI 84 82 76 77 77 0 78 78 0SK 97 93 87 92 91 0 83 76 80 81 90 89 64 61 65FI 85 85 82 83 83 80 80 80 80 79 70 70 94 96 96SE 87 95 75 74 74 98 97 75 77 77 75 88 40 67 67UK 98 89 90 55 0 95 88 86IS 65 90 10LI

NO 65 65 65 78 66 75 75 75 78 77 50 59 50


187



For lead-acid batteries, 22 MS and 1 EEA country (NO) met the recycling efficiency target in 2016. Eight

countries (6 MS and 2 EEA countries IS and LI) did not report their recycling efficiency.

Recycling efficiencies remained about constant over the years, also taking into account improved data

quality and an adapted calculation method.

NiCd batteries:

Figure 12-21 presents data for the EU28 and EEA countries (IS, LI, NO) for the years 2012 to 2016.

Figure 12-21: Recycling efficiencies (%) for NiCd batteries, reference year 2016 (and 2012 to 2015)



188

Regarding NiCd batteries, all reporting countries (19) except Member State HR met the recycling

efficiency target (17 MS and 1 EEA country NO) in 2016. Nine MS and 2 EEA countries did not report a

recycling efficiency (BG reported ’0’).

Similar to recycling efficiencies of lead-acid batteries, there is no visible trend for the country specific

data; recycling efficiencies for NiCd batteries vary for the period 2012 to 2016.

Other batteries:

Figure 12-22 presents data for the EU28 and EEA countries (IS, LI, NO) for the years 2012 to 2016.

Figure 12-22: Recycling efficiencies (%) for other batteries, reference year 2016 (and 2012 to 2015)


As concerns the category ‘other batteries’, 21 MS and the EEA country NO met the recycling efficiency

target in 2016. Seven MS and 2 EEA countries did not report a recycling efficiency.

Recycling efficiencies for individual countries vary significantly from 2012 to 2016 and no overall trend

is visible.

Rates of recycled content

There are no quantitative recycled content target rates for lead and cadmium from lead-acid and NiCd

batteries. However, according to the Regulation, the recycling of lead and cadmium shall be done to

the highest degree that is technically feasible while avoiding excessive costs.

Table 12-16 shows that, in the case of lead recycling, 20 countries (19 MS plus NO) reported rates of

recycled content between 94% and 100%; 1 MS (BG, 69%) reported a(considerably) lower rate and 10

countries delivered no data.

In relation to cadmium, 13 countries (12 MS plus NO) reported rates of recycled content between 98%

and 100%; another 3 MS (LV, LU, SK) reported considerably lower rates (42% to 85%) and 15 countries

delivered no data or a figure of “0” (BG).


189

Table 12-16: Rates of recycled content (% Pb and % Cd) for lead-acid and NiCd batteries; reference year 2016 (and 2014, 2015), as of 4 Jan 2018

“0” was reported Source: (Oeko-Institut 2018)

12.3.5 Evaluation of data on recycling

Data validation was conducted for data on recycling efficiency (%). From the countries’ data and

methodological reports, it became clear that there is a high share of data with inconsistencies. This can

be attributed to Member States dealing differently with exports of batteries for recycling. It seems that

data availability from recyclers abroad still is an issue.

Lead-acid batteries

Almost all recycling efficiencies of lead-acid batteries vary between 70% and 92%. However, some data

on recycling efficiencies is not plausible at first view: a very high recycling rate of 98% (BG) still

appears in 2016.

In general, the time series 2012 to 2016 does not show a clear trend: recycling efficiencies increase,

decrease or fluctuate depending on the specific country.

NiCd batteries

Most recycling efficiencies of NiCd batteries vary between 75% and 85 %. However, recycling

efficiencies of 95 % and higher (CZ, PL) are not plausible at first view (please refer to Table 12-15).

As in the case of lead-acid batteries, there is no significant change in NiCd batteries recycling

efficiencies resulting from the Regulation as well as no clear general recycling efficiency trend.

Recycling Recycling Recycling Recycling Recycling Recycling

2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016

%

Lead

Content

Lead Content Lead Content Cadmium

Content

Cadmium

Content

Cadmium

Content

BE 99 98 98 100 100 100BG 70 69 65 0CZ 99 98 99 99 99 99DK

DE 97 99 100 100 100 100EE 100 99 100 0 100IE 100 100 100 100 100 100EL 89

ES 100 97FR 99 99 99HR 98 98 99 0 100 100IT 97 97

CY 96 98 99 100

LV 90 90 90 85 85 85LT 14 96 98LU 84 90 94 78 81 42HU 85 87 83 0

MT 0 91 0 0

NL 416 487 268 270

AT 97 97 97 100 100 100PL 96 97 97 100 100 100PT 98 99 99 100 100RO 88 88 100

SI 98 98 98 100 100

SK 95 98 97 51 47 50FI 96 97 97 100 100 100SE 97 97 97 100 100 100UK 97 97 0

IS

LI

NO 65 97 99 75 100 100


190

Other batteries

Most recycling efficiencies of other batteries vary between 57% and 86%. However, recycling

efficiencies from two Member State are much higher (FI 96%, HU 98%) and seem not plausible at first

view (please refer to Table 12-15). Once again, the time series for other batteries does not show a

clear trend for the development of recycling efficiencies.

12.4 Environmental impacts of batteries

12.4.1 Introduction

Environmental impacts from batteries are manifold. Many compositions of batteries contain hazardous

chemicals which are currently considered as not substitutable (like e.g. lead in automotive SLI

batteries, cadmium in some industrial batteries or cobalt in certain Li-ion batteries)71. These hazardous

materials should not be released into the environment and should not be disposed of together with

mixed municipal waste. Instead batteries need to be collected separately and the materials recycled

properly.

Impacts on the environment as well as on human health may occur throughout the entire life cycle of

batteries: from extraction of battery resource materials to the recycling of waste batteries. Some

environmental and human health impacts are measurable and can be quantified, while others may only

be described qualitatively.

The Batteries Directive mentions the environmental performance in general and addresses the entire

life cycle of batteries: “…and improved environmental performance of all operators involved in the life

cycle of batteries and accumulators, e.g. producers, distributors…” (recital 5). This is for instance

relevant for mining activities, as resource extraction of battery raw materials mainly takes place

abroad and must be considered.

The Strategic Action Plan on Batteries (COM (2018) 293, Annex II) annexed to the IIIrd Package on

mobility of the European Commission highlights the need to adopt a circular approach to promote the

sustainable manufacturing of batteries. The supply of materials (raw and secondary) receives particular

attention, as well as the role to be paid by the regulatory framework.

Battery recycling is a main activity under the Directive (“…in particular, those operators directly

involved in the treatment and recycling of waste batteries and accumulators.”, recital 5) and is

addressed by a main target of the Directive. One focus is on the environmental benefits resulting from

collecting batteries - thus preventing batteries from being disposed - and from recycling.

By quantifying the environmental impacts of batteries, it is of interest whether the Batteries Directive

contributes to the prevention of impacts on the environment and health. Such quantification also allows

identifying the life cycle stages which trigger the most relevant environmental impacts. As the

Directive applies to the entire EU, this analysis differentiates between the stages of the life cycle which

take place within and outside the EU.

71 Cobalt is especially essential for drive batteries (NMC, NCA) of electric vehicles. Cobalt-free LFP batteries are

widely used in the PR China. However, they are also increasingly being replaced there by the more powerful NMC batteries.


191

12.4.2 Overview on battery life cycle and environmental impacts

The environmental impacts from batteries vary depending on the different battery chemistries. Aspects

related to production, the use phase, recycling and disposal apply for all battery chemistries and are

addressed below in more detail. Aspects related to hazardous substances, battery safety during the use

phase and resource extraction are specific to the particular battery chemistry and are explained for

lead-acid batteries in chapter 12.4.4, for alkaline batteries in chapter 5.4.4, for Li-ion batteries in

chapter 12.4.6 and for NiCd batteries in chapter 12.4.7. Quantifiable environmental aspects are

addressed in chapter 12.4.8.

Figure 12-23 below presents a schematic overview of the battery life cycle and the life cycle stages

most relevant for the analysis of environmental impacts. The left side of the figure indicates whether

the life cycle stages take place within or outside the EU.

Battery life cycles are generally based on global material flows. Therefore, the Batteries Directive’s

scope is not necessary compatible with the physical material flows in real life. European battery

producers place their batteries on the market in Europe and elsewhere. At the same time, batteries

placed on the market in Europe are produced abroad and are imported to Europe. Secondary raw

materials from battery recycling in the EU may be used for new batteries or other products. In addition,

European battery production is increasing and batteries are being exported. Thus, the amount of

secondary battery materials incorporated into batteries placed on the market in the EU will differ from

what is recovered during battery recycling in the EU.

Figure 12-23: Schematic overview of the battery life cycle

Resource extraction

The extraction of primary resources and the first processing stage are often associated with high

(substance-specific) environmental impacts, though these can be site-specific and depend on the

applied extraction and processing methods. Mining is relevant to the sourcing of some substances (e.g.

lead, lithium, cobalt, and nickel).


192

Battery production

Battery production is a main stage of the battery life cycle and a main part of the quantitative

environmental impact assessment of batteries. During manufacturing, the energy demand for producing

battery materials and for cell and battery assembly are significant and dominate some impact

categories, e.g. global warming potential or acidification potential.

Direct emissions of hazardous substances are not considered to be of significant relevance during the

production processes for cell and battery assembly because production sites with appropriate licensing

procedures should dominate in the relevant regions (Europe and Asia).

In production, environmental regulations and occupational safety regulations are generally applied.

Production, in particular of Li-ion batteries, usually takes place in a protective atmosphere, since

materials and compounds are sensitive to oxygen and moisture exposure usually present in the

uncontrolled environment.

While hazardous substances are considered to be less relevant during cell and battery assembly,

emissions of hazardous substances (e.g. from furnaces) can be expected in upstream processes

(processing of battery (raw) materials) when producing for example Pb (for lead-acid batteries).

Batteries are generally produced inside and outside the EU. Li-ion batteries, or at least the battery

cells they contain, are typically still produced outside the EU, while assembly is performed both in the

EU and abroad.

Use phase

During the use phase, the discharging and recharging of batteries need to be assessed. Thus, only for

rechargeable batteries the use phase (electricity demand for recharging) is relevant. The use phase

cannot, however, be analysed without considering the product for which the energy is demanded (e.g.

electric car versus diesel car). A potential result could be that the use phase of a Li-ion battery (e.g. in

an electric car) produces no net environmental impacts, but instead an environmental credit (e.g. when

compared to a diesel car). For more details, see chapter 12.4.2.

The use phase (and re-use and unintended use) generally takes place in the EU, since only batteries

placed on the market in the EU are considered. However, exported used vehicles and EEE, and the

batteries incorporated into these products, are used outside the EU.

Use phase: particular aspects of rechargeable batteries

During the use phase, the recharging of rechargeable batteries would need to be assessed. However, an

approach to simply calculate a battery’s electricity demand on an aggregated level (e.g. EU28) is

misleading as explained further down.

LCAs taking into account the use phase of batteries are manifold, especially for Li-ion batteries in

electric vehicles. However, such LCAs compare electric drives with conventional drives (for more

details please see below) and do not have an isolated view on the use phase of batteries. Other LCAs

compare different types of batteries. Again, a comparison of different products is considered and does

not isolate the use phase.


193

An analysis of the use phase would have to address a multitude of different applications, each of which

would need to be considered individually. An assessment of battery recharge during use would depend

on the national electricity mix, which differs between Member States and thus would add another

complexity to assessing the use phase.

Several aspects should be acknowledged:

• The largest share of all batteries is used in vehicles as a starter battery (SLI). These automotive

batteries are recharged by the vehicles’ engines. In theory, a certain share of the vehicles’ fuel

demand could be allocated to recharging theses batteries. However, this would not be in

accordance with the real functionality of the vehicles, in which the fuel demand is allocated to

driving and not to recharging the battery.

• Industrial batteries present the second largest share of all batteries. Their applications are very

diverse, though it is understood that most industrial batteries are used as a back-up system.

Thus, dis-/ recharging should occur infrequently.

• Batteries of electric vehicles might also be looked at differently. The electricity demand during

the use phase is responsible for the biggest share of the complete energy consumption over the

vehicle’s entire life cycle. However, the electric vehicle’s energy demand during the use phase is

smaller compared to an alternative conventional vehicle, because the electric drive is more

energy efficient. Therefore, one might even argue that using the battery saves energy rather

than consumes it.

These considerations related to batteries in electric vehicles apply for all forms of electric

mobility including cars, busses, etc. but in principle also for forklifts, one of the main

applications for industrial batteries.

• For rechargeable portable batteries, the batteries in portable PCs (laptops) account for the

greatest portion. However, the difference between the grid-connected use of the appliance

where the battery is recharged and the disconnected use where the battery is discharged is

difficult to assess.

Taking these considerations into account, no simple approach for assessing the use phase of

rechargeable batteries is applicable. Furthermore, assessing battery charging is misleading because it

allocates environmental burdens to batteries without taking into account the benefits of battery use.

Comparing different applications and products fulfils the assessment of the use phase much better than

a simple calculation of the electricity demand when charging batteries. Therefore, the use phase has

been excluded in the following calculation of the quantitative environmental impacts of batteries.

Unintended use

Unintended use (e.g. accident, damage or littering) is an exceptional case compared to the normal use

of batteries. Nevertheless, the specific local environmental and health impacts are potentially

significant.

Potential hazardous releases as a result of the battery encapsulation being destroyed through fire or

physical damage must be evaluated. Data availability addressing these aspects is, however, insufficient,

and an assessment of potential environmental risks is thus beyond the scope of this study.

Batteries, i.e. the electrolyte (mainly alkaline solutions or acids) that they contain, may also leak.

Leaking batteries cause a risk to the environment and human health.


194

End-of-life - Recycling

Recycling of waste batteries is an important stage in the battery life cycle. The calculation of

quantitative environmental impacts takes into account, for example, the energy demand associated

with the recycling process. Resulting impact categories include global warming potential, depletion of

abiotic resources, acidification potential, eutrophication potential, etc.

Thousands of tonnes of waste batteries are recycled per year in different recycling facilities, depending

on the recycling technology and the individual plant size. Hazardous substances might be released in

different steps of the recycling processes. Emissions from recycling (e.g. dust, hazardous substances,

organic solvents) also depend on the chemistry of the waste batteries and the technology and

performance of the individual plant. Hazardous substance emissions during recycling are in principle

also taken into account by a quantitative environmental impact assessment.

During recycling, battery materials, such as secondary lead, cobalt, nickel, copper or cadmium, are

recovered. The production (battery recycling) of these secondary raw materials usually results in less

environmental impacts than the production of the primary materials. Thus, the replacement of primary

materials by secondary materials usually results in environmental credits.

Recycling of waste batteries collected in the EU almost completely takes place within the EU (only

about 0.3 % is exported for recycling). However, battery recycling in connection with the export of used

vehicles/ ELV and EEE/ WEEE as well as export of industrial batteries incorporated into the respective

products takes place outside the EU.

End-of-life - Disposal

Certain amounts of waste batteries end up in municipal waste. The main risk of emissions is associated

with possible leaching of hazardous substances from ashes and slags (incinerated waste batteries) or,

where relevant, from landfilled waste batteries. Leaching of hazardous substances in principle could be

covered by a quantitative environmental impact assessment. However, a reliable assessment of the

environmental impacts from ashes, slags and landfilling related to waste batteries at the EU level is

difficult and beyond the scope of the current study.

Environmental impacts also result from emissions into the air from waste battery incineration in waste

incineration plants. The emission of hazardous substances (e.g. mercury and cadmium) depends on the

quality of the flue gas cleaning and on the chemistry of the battery.

Another potential source of emissions is dusts and associated heavy metals from shredder facilities. This

is relevant for WEEE when batteries are not removed before shredding.

Waste batteries not being recycled but instead being disposed of in e.g. landfills or incineration plants

offer the most relevant source of environmental impacts from batteries within the EU (European

Commission 2003).

12.4.3 Specific aspects for mining within the EU

In order to better understand the relevance of the environmental impacts from mining of battery

materials within the EU, mining activities taking place in the EU were evaluated. For this purpose,

mining data from BGS (2016) of selected materials relevant for the production of batteries were

analysed.


195

Table 12-17: Mine production of selected materials in Europe; year 2014; source (BGS 2016)

Year 2014 Mine

production of lead

Production of lithium

minerals

Mine production of

cobalt

Production of manganese

ore

Country tonnes (metal

content) tonnes

tonnes (metal

content) tonnes

Bulgaria 15 600

75 000

Finland

2 104

Greece 16 700

Hungary

51 000

Ireland 40 500

Macedonia 43 810

Montenegro 2 755

Poland 83 150

Portugal 3 192 17 459

Romania

12 662

Serbia 3 700

Slovakia 162

Spain 1 200

Sweden 70 848

Turkey 62 190

320 000

United Kingdom 100

Total 343 907 17 459 2 104 458 662

For the mining data in Table 12-17, please be aware that production volumes do not allow conclusions

about the subsequent use from mine production. This means, in effect, that the materials might be

used for the production of batteries as well as for any other applications of the respective raw

material. With regards to cobalt, for example, (Umicore 2017) states that the EU sources are not

suitable for producing battery chemicals.

12.4.4 Lead-acid batteries


Lead is a toxic heavy metal and one of the three hazardous substances specifically addressed in the

Batteries Directive. As a consequence, the Directive defines a rate of recycled lead content and

requires recycling lead as much as possible. The rates of recycled lead content of all reporting MS

reveal that between 90 % and 100 % of lead is recovered (except in BG, with only 65 %), with most MS

reporting rates of 97 % and higher.

Hazardous statements

The hazardous statements have been extracted from the ECHA substance information data bank based

on substance CAS number and are reproduced “as is”, regardless of relevance to use in batteries.

Where possible, hazardous statements have been extracted from harmonized classifications (i.e. listed

in the CLP Regulation) and are understood to have a high level of certainty. In such cases the substance

is referred to as being “classified as...”. Where a harmonized classification is lacking, hazardous

statements are reproduced from the summary of self-classifications submitted in REACH registrations of

substances and referred to as “suspected of being harmful/toxic to...”. In such cases, hazardous

statements are taken from joint classifications where available (considered to have a higher level of


196

reliability) or from the classification/s with the largest number of notifiers (registrants). It is noted that

the actual hazardousness of an item, in this case a battery, depends on various factors, such as its

actual composition (the actual amount of each constituent used or its concentration when in a

solution), the risk for emissions during the various lifecycle phases etc. The fact that the constituents

of a battery are classified or suspected to possess certain hazardous properties, increases the

probability of a substance of being associated with potential hazardous risks, but is not sufficient in the

context of this review to clarify the level of hazardousness of the product and whether it should be

restricted in the future.

Lead-acid batteries are considered hazardous because of the substances they contain, and they are also

addressed as such by the Directive, though currently not prohibited. Under the CLP Regulation, lead is

classified72 in relation to its toxicity to reproduction (H362 - may cause harm to breastfed children;

H360FD - may damage fertility and may damage an unborn child). The ECHA substance information

database also lists lead as ‘Persistent Bio-accumulative and Toxic (PBT)’ on the basis of REACH

registration notifications. Specific lead compounds used in batteries, such as lead oxide and lead

dioxide, are also suspected as toxic to aquatic life (H400, H410), as harmful if swallowed or inhaled

(H302, H332), as causing damage to organs through prolonged or repeated exposure (H372) and of

causing cancer (H351).

Sulfuric acid, which is also used in lead-acid batteries, is classified under CLP as “Causes severe skin

burns and eye damage” (H314). Antimony, also a constituent of some lead-acid batteries, is also

suspected as hazardous (H351 - carcinogen, H60, H362 - toxic to reproduction, H412 - toxic to aquatic

life, H373 - causes harm to organs).

Battery safety

Batteries containing liquid electrolyte must be serviced. Hydrogen build-up in the event of overcharging

must be taken into account. Rooms were lead-acid batteries are kept must be adequately ventilated.

Battery casings may fail in the event of severe overcharging and over discharge. Sulphuric acid and

lead-containing particles can be released in the process.

Resource extraction

The mined production of lead in Europe amounts to about 6.4 % of the world mined production. In

comparison to about 344 000 tonnes mine production of lead (metal content) in Europe, the total

volume of lead-acid batteries placed on the market in the EU28 in 2015 equalled about 1.6 million

tonnes of batteries or about 0.9 million tonnes of lead in batteries.

Heavy metals, such as lead, are usually a problem in connection with ore mining and processing

(primary production of metallic raw materials). Lead, for example, is extracted from sulphide ores,

which can cause acid mine drainage; see chapter 12.4.7.

72 The term “classified” is used when the classification is based on a CLP harmonised classification. “Suspected of” is used where a harmonized classification does not exist. In this case, suspected classifications are based on hazardous classifications notified to the ECHA in relation to the substance in the registration of substances, required by the REACH Regulation.


197

BREF (2017) provides some information on production capacities for secondary lead for the year 2006.

The main input stream for secondary lead is waste lead-acid batteries. The capacity was about 0.97

million tonnes of secondary lead in 2006. In addition, there was a further capacity of 0.78 million

tonnes of primary or combined primary and secondary lead, though, without any information on the

share of secondary lead capacity. Production of 0.97 million tonnes of secondary lead corresponds to

about 1.7 million tonnes of lead-acid batteries, assuming that all secondary lead was produced from

waste lead-acid batteries. In comparison, the input fractions to recycling of lead-acid batteries in the

EU28 in 2015 amounted to 1.42 million tonnes or about 0.8 million tonnes of secondary lead. There is

no doubt that used lead-acid batteries are the main source of secondary lead in the EU. The recycling

of used batteries is an essential source of lead for battery manufacturers.

Related to secondary lead, BREF (2017) states:

The secondary lead industry is characterised by a large number of smaller installations, many

of which are independent. There are approximately 30 secondary smelters/refiners in the EU

producing from 5 000 t/yr to 65 000 t/yr. They recycle and refine scrap generated in their

local area. The number of these refineries is decreasing as the large multinational

companies, and the major battery manufacturing groups as well, acquire the smaller

secondary facilities or set up their own recycling operations.

Recycling of automotive batteries abroad

Missing standards for the recycling of automotive Pb-acid batteries including a lack of awareness for the

handling of hazardous substances is a well-known environmental concern in many African countries, for

example in Ghana (Oeko-Institut 2016c). Figure 12-24 shows some examples of the recycling of lead-

acid batteries in Ghana. At the same time, African countries present an important destination for the

export of used vehicles from Europe incl. automotive lead-acid batteries. Risks and consequences of

missing environmental and health standards of recycling of lead-acid batteries in African countries were

subject of a recent study of the Oeko-Institut (Oeko 2016b). Several deaths have been documented to

have resulted from lead-acid battery recycling in some African countries.

Secondary lead from African countries presents a potential input – of low volume relevance but of high

relevance regarding environmental and health impacts - for the production of lead-acid batteries for

the EU market and replaces primary lead. Thus, when addressing the environmental performance of all

operators and the entire life cycle of batteries, health and environmental impacts resulting from

secondary lead as well as impacts from resource extraction need to be equally considered.


198

Figure 12-24: Recycling of lead-acid batteries in Ghana, storage of lead-acid batteries (left), lead smelter (right)

Source: Oeko-Institut (Oeko 2016c)

12.4.5 Alkaline batteries


Alkaline batteries are not addressed in the Directive specifically; however, alkaline batteries are

associated with various hazardous substances and properties. For example, manganese dioxide is

classified under CLP as harmful if swallowed or if inhaled (H3012, H332). Zinc powder is classified as

toxic to the aquatic environment (H400, H410) and flammable (H250, H260), and potassium hydroxide,

which is used as the electrolyte in alkaline batteries, is classified as harmful if swallowed (H302) and as

causing severe skin burns and eye damage (H314).

Battery safety

In the event of fire, alkaline batteries can release inhalable vapours of caustic potassium hydroxide,

which is highly corrosive to the respiratory tract and eyes.

Batteries may also leak. Leaks might contaminate the water or ground and can cause significant

environmental damage. During use, leaks can harm the user.

Resource extraction

The production of about 459 000 tonnes of manganese ore in the EU corresponds to about 2.6 % of world

production (17.8 million tonnes manganese ore; USGS Manganese 2016). Manganese (as manganese

dioxide) is a main battery material for primary alkaline batteries. In 2015, about 130 000 to 140 000

tonnes of alkaline batteries (incl. about 50 000 t of manganese dioxide) were placed on the market in

the EU28 (rough estimates based on the consultants own analysis of the current situation; extrapolation

from French and German figures).

Zinc ores, another raw material for alkaline batteries, are almost always associated with lead ores.

Both types of ores can cause acid mine drainage.

Recycling

The main output from alkaline battery recycling is secondary zinc. Yet alkaline batteries are of minor

importance for secondary zinc production. While there are no specific recycling technologies for

alkaline battery recycling, they act as a feedstock into the general secondary zinc production


199

processes. Generally, physical separation, melting and other high-temperature treatment techniques

are used for alkaline battery recycling.

12.4.6 Li-ion batteries

Li-ion batteries, or at least their battery cells, are generally produced outside the EU, while battery

assembly is performed both in the EU and abroad. Resource extraction and processing of the raw

materials are life cycles stages which currently take place outside the EU. Most recycling takes place in

the EU.


Li-ion batteries contain environmentally relevant heavy metals such as nickel (for more details see

chapter 12.4.7) and cobalt.

Nonetheless, Li-ion batteries are not addressed in the Directive specifically, yet an investigation of

their contents indicates that they are also associated with various hazardous properties.

For example, lithium itself is classified under the CLP Regulation as “causes severe skin burns and eye

damage” (314) and “in contact with water, releases flammable gases which may ignite spontaneously”

(H260). Dimethylcarbonat is classified as a highly flammable liquid and vapour (H225). LNMC and LNCA

are both suspected of causing cancer (H351) and may cause an allergic skin reaction (H317).

Lithiumhexafluorophosphat (LiPF6) is also suspected as hazardous (H301 - toxic if swallowed, H314 –

causes sever skin burns and eye damage, H318 – causes serious eye damage, H372 causes damage to

organs through prolonged or repeated exposure).

In the event of fire, the release of hazardous gases and dust must be expected. Conductive salts can

decompose when moisture enters and, with fire, produce hydrofluoric acid.

Battery safety

Risk of fire is well known in different applications of Li-ion batteries. The organic electrolytes of

lithium-ion batteries are also flammable.

Resource extraction

According to USGS Lithium (2016), about 17 500 tonnes of lithium minerals (total EU production)

corresponds to about 300 tonnes of Li content. 300 tonnes Li content therefore equalled about 0.9 % of

world production (excluding from the US) in 2014. In 2015, about 65 000 tonnes of Li-ion batteries were

placed on the market in the EU28 (rough estimates based on the consultant’s own analysis of the

current situation), with Li-content equalling about 1 000 tonnes of lithium (based on the assumption of

1.5 % lithium in Li-ion batteries).

Mined production of cobalt in Finland (about 2 100 tonnes Co content) provides about 1.7 % of the

world’s mined production in 2014 (123 000 tonnes Co content; (USGS Cobalt 2016)). Cobalt is an

important battery material for Li-ion batteries with NMC and NCA cathodes.

An analysis of the resource extraction of materials relevant for the production of Li-ion batteries is

performed in Oeko-Institut (2016a). This qualitative analysis of cobalt extraction revealed that the

environmental risks associated with cobalt extraction are related to pollution from heavy metals.


200

Industrially mined cobalt is mostly a by-product of copper mines and therefore associated with sulfidic

ores. This kind of ore poses a risk of acid mine drainage73, which in turn leads to the formation of acidic

waters that can solute heavy metals and pollute the environment.

While most of the world’s primary production of cobalt is mined in large scale industrial mining, a

significant share, of up to 30 %, is extracted by artisanal and small-scale miners, which are often

associated with child labour and inadequate work safety standards. Environmental aspects that are

usually not addressed by small-scale mining include the proper handling of toxic reagents or mine

closure.

Lithium is mined using two principal methods. In the first, lithium is extracted from hard rock mines. A

large number of these are located in Australia, which provides 45 % of global production. In the second,

lithium is derived from salt lakes. These two extraction methods may impact the environment and the

surrounding population in a range of ways. In Australia, spodumene mining carries the usual

environmental risks of any ore mining. It requires significant energy consumption and generates both

greenhouse gas emissions and mining waste. Furthermore, sulphuric acid has to be processed carefully

after use to prevent it from entering the surrounding environment (BGS 2016).

Primary extraction in the form of the production of minerals from salt lake brines inevitably has a

severe impact on nature: lithium extraction is associated with high water demand (evaporation ponds in

arid areas) and has a potentially high impact on the natural landscape. In Bolivia, for example, there

are plans to mine the world’s largest lithium deposits; they are, however, in the world’s largest salt

lake (Salar de Uyuni), which is itself a natural heritage site (SZ 2015).

Figure 12-25: Salar de Uyuni in Bolivien

Source: Oeko-Institut (Stefanie Degreif, 2007)

Graphite is both mined and synthetically produced. Almost two thirds of worldwide mining output

comes from China. Many Chinese graphite mines emit massive quantities of dust. This dust settles in the

73 Sulphide ores can cause - under influence of oxygen and water – sulphuric acid, which releases further heavy

metals from the ore and causes long-term damage to the water supply and the surrounding environment.


201

surrounding area, affecting the health of local residents. Likewise, local water supplies are often

contaminated by mining waste (Whoriskey 2016).

Recycling

The most important environmental aspects of the recycling of Li-ion batteries are discussed here. The

presented information is mainly based on Oeko-Institut and ZSW (2015).

Figure 12-26 presents the most relevant steps in a generic battery recycling process. The first stage of

recycling is usually to separate the housing or the surrounding installation from the battery cells or cell

modules. Significant quantities of recyclable mass metals (e.g. (high-grade) steel, aluminium, copper)

and plastics are obtained from these housings, and care should be taken to ensure that these materials

are recycled. The battery management system (BMS), including high voltage management, contains

valuable materials such as tin, silver and gold. Therefore, BMS is also relevant for recycling.

For stationary batteries and depending on a battery’s size, dismantling might have to take place on

site. Thus, transport might be necessary between dismantling locations and the actual location of

recycling processes.

Figure 12-26: Schematic presentation of the recycling steps and associated material recovery in battery recycling

Source: (Oeko-Institut and ZSW 2015)

Li-ion cells and modules are currently recycled in existing industrial facilities such as those of Umicore.

In such a pyrometallurgical process, metals like cobalt, nickel and copper can be recovered. Recycling

efficiencies for recycling Li-ion batteries and their battery materials are estimated to be about 95 % for

Co and Ni, 80 % for Cu and 50 % for Al, depending on the specific process. Titanium and graphite, and

lithium up until recently, are not recovered.

Recycling processes also suitable for the recovery of lithium were explored in research projects such as

LithoRec II and EcoBatRec (2015). However, processes for the recovery of lithium running on an

industrial scale are still an exception. However, Umicore meanwhile also recovers lithium from the slag

fraction of its pyrometallurgical process (Umicore 2018).

In 2016, Accurec developed and opened a recycling plant for Li-ion batteries (Accurec 2017). The

recycling process is designed for a current technical treatment capacity of 5 000 tonnes per year.


202

According to LiBRi (2011), high amounts of greenhouse gas emissions result from the pyrometallurgical

process. The subsequent refining of copper, cobalt and nickel is also energy intensive and produces

additional greenhouse gas emissions which are, however, more or less compensated for by the credit

for the recovery of Co and Ni (replacing primary production of Co and Ni). An additional credit results

from the recovery of high-grade steel and other materials from the dismantling process. In total, the

process results in a credit of about 0.7 tonnes of CO2eq per tonne of Li-ion battery recycling (not taking

into account a potential recovery of Lithium).

Recovery of Co, Ni and Cu generally results in a credit for the acidification potential, as recycling

replaces primary production of these metals using sulphide ores.

With the need to conserve raw materials and reduce the frequently severe environmental impacts of

primary production at the forefront, it is important that battery recycling optimize material recovery.

This applies especially for lithium in light of its anticipated huge demand for the production of Li-ion

batteries for electric vehicles in the years to come (Oeko 2017).

The environmental impacts of recycling lithium as a major component of Li-ion batteries in comparison

to the primary production of lithium have always been estimated only on the basis of laboratory

findings: no relevant environmental assessment results, based on industrial-scale recycling, are

available according to our knowledge. It can be assumed that the environmental impacts of recycling

Li-ion batteries will decrease as the development and refinement of industrial processes develops.

In connection with the environmental assessment of secondary lithium in comparison to primary

extraction, it should be acknowledged that assessments to date are based on easily extractable primary

sources. Since the demand for lithium is likely to rise sharply, it is probable that deposits that are more

costly/ difficult to access and the extraction of which can be expected to have greater environmental

impacts, will need to be exploited. In any case, a comparative assessment that considers only energy

consumption and issues such as airborne pollutants does not properly consider the differences between

primary and secondary extraction.

12.4.7 NiCd batteries


Cadmium is a toxic heavy metal and one of the three hazardous substances specifically addressed in the

Batteries Directive. As a consequence, the Directive defines a rate of recycled cadmium content and

requires recycling cadmium as much as possible. Eleven MS report rates of recycled cadmium content of

100 %, two other MS reported rates of 98 % and 99 %. However, three MS reported rates between only

42 % and 85 %.

NiCd batteries are considered hazardous and are also addressed as such by the Directive, which

prohibits their use in portable batteries. Their use as industrial batteries is currently still allowed.

Under the CLP Regulation cadmium compounds are classified as very toxic to aquatic life (H400, H410),

harmful if swallowed, inhaled or in contact with skin (H3012, H332, H312 respectively). Cadmium

hydroxide, which is used in such batteries, is classified as carcinogenic (H350) and mutagenic (H340) as

well as being harmful if swallowed, inhaled or coming into contact with skin (H3012, H332, H312


203

respectively). It is also classified as causing damage to organs (kidney, bone) through prolonged or

repeated exposure (H372) and toxic to the aquatic environment (H400, H410).

Nickel oxide hydroxide, a constituent of such batteries, is currently not classified; however, nickel

oxide is classified under CLP as a possible carcinogen through inhalation (H350i), possibly causing long

lasting effects to aquatic life (H413), causing damage to organs through prolonged or repeated exposure

(372) and possibly causing an allergic skin reaction (H317).

Potassium hydroxide, which is also used in NiCd batteries, is classified as harmful if swallowed (H302)

and as causing severe skin burns and eye damage (H314).

Resource extraction

Nickel is extracted in almost equal quantities from sulphide ores and lateritic deposits. Sulphide ores

can cause acid mine drainage, which can have a long term impact on the surrounding soil and water

supply. Mining for lateritic deposits therefore generates higher greenhouse gas emissions; these

currently lie between 25 and 46 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of primary metal. Mining for sulphide ores, by

contrast, generates only 10 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of primary metal. Both forms of mining release

sulphur dioxide, which causes acid rain. Optimising ore processing methods can nonetheless

significantly reduce the quantity of sulphur dioxide released (Mudd 2010). Nickel mining in Canada and

Russia has had a range of environmental consequences, including biodiversity losses, acid rain and

heavy metal contamination (Mudd 2010).

Waste water and dust from the mining and smelting processes of Ni production contaminate the

environment. Therefore, exposure to Ni through inhalation, direct skin contact, and oral consumption is

possible. Breathing in Ni-contaminated dust from Ni mining and smelting leads to significant damage to

lungs and nasal cavities. (J Cancer Prev 2015)

Recycling

Apart from primary cadmium production, another main source of cadmium is from recycling NiCd

batteries. NiCd battery recycling processes recover cadmium and nickel and consist of three recycling

steps: sorting, preparation for recycling and cadmium distillation. Along with pure cadmium, another

output of the recycling process is a Ni-Fe fraction, which can be sold to the stainless steel industry.

12.4.8 Quantitative environmental impacts of batteries

Simplified material flow analysis

The calculation of the environmental impacts of batteries takes into account different life cycle stages,

including upstream processes. Results are generated according to different environmental impact

categories. The calculation presented in this study is based on literature data, the ecoinvent database

(ecoinvent 3.3) and the LCA tool “openLCA” (openLCA 2017). Detailed results of the calculations are

presented for selected impact categories in Table 12-18.

The quantification of batteries’ environmental impacts focuses on battery production (incl. upstream

processes such as mining and further processing, regardless whether inside or outside the EU), battery


204

transport, and the recycling of the waste batteries. The amounts of batteries74 in Figure 5-1 are based

on the battery mass flows for the EU28. Battery production considers the amounts of batteries placed

on the market in the EU28 and differs between the battery chemistries (Table 12-18, upper part).

Battery recycling includes the amounts entering the recycling process (Table 12-18, middle part).

Recycling is dominated by the recycling of lead-acid batteries. The recovery of secondary lead, the

main output of the recycling process, is hence compared with the primary production of lead (Table

12-18, lower part). The difference between secondary lead and the alternative of primary lead results

in a net reduction and thus represents a credit for recycling.

Calculation model

In the following, the applied methodology and main assumptions used for quantifying the environmental

impacts of batteries are described.

Generally, quantifications for this simplified approach could not be newly developed within the scope

of this study. This means that no primary data, e.g. from producers or recyclers, were collected and no

new and detailed LCA was developed for individual production and recycling processes, but rather LCA

data were extracted from literature sources. The calculation presented is based on these literature

data and the ecoinvent database (ecoinvent 3.3).

Although much literature is available addressing the environmental impacts of batteries, its usability

for the present calculation is limited for various reasons, among which:

• the level of detail is not sufficient to extract relevant data;

• different functional units are applied;

• relevant input factors are not compatible to the scope of the present calculation; and/or

• results are given in aggregated parameters instead of individual impact categories.

A recent study on the product environmental footprint of rechargeable batteries for mobile applications

(Recharge 2018) for example considers the energy provided over the service life of battery as functional

unit and addresses different life cycle stages as compared to this study.

There are numerous articles and reports on LCAs of batteries available in the literature. However, a

majority of these LCAs focuses on Li-ion batteries and their application in electric vehicles in

comparison to conventional vehicles. Due to the comparably small market share of Li-ion batteries and

also considering a limited availability of LCA data, the recycling of Li-ion batteries is not separately

addressed in this chapter but instead described in more detail in chapter 12.4.6 in light of their

expected high relevance in the future.

Main assumptions and basic conditions of the present quantifications:

• The calculation model is based on the amounts of the mass flow diagram for EU28, reference

year 2015 (placed on the market; recycling; please refer to 12.1.1 and Figure 12-1); NiCd is not

included because of decreasing and low relevance.

• “Production” takes into account the amount of batteries placed on the market in the EU in 2015.

• “Recycling” takes into account the amount of batteries collected in the EU in 2015 and recycled

in the EU and abroad (Input fractions into the recycling process).

74 NiCd batteries are not included because of their small amount and the data gaps in several impact categories.


205

• Calculations are based on the LCA tool “openLCA” (openLCA 2017) and the data base “ecoinvent”

(ecoinvent 3.3).

• Environmental impacts are calculated and presented based on the impact categories provided in

ecoinvent (please refer to Table 12-18).

• Life cycle approach: all upstream process steps are taken into account; transports are included.

• Data sources for lead-acid battery production: Sullivan Gaines (2012), Sullivan (1980) and own

calculations. A mix of 50 % primary lead and 50 % secondary lead is considered. This assumption is

based on the LCA (PE International 2014) indicating 56% secundary/44% primary lead production.

• Data source for Li-ion battery production (LFP is used as representative): Majeau-Bettez (2011).

• Data source for NiMH battery production: “market for battery, NiMH, rechargeable, prismatic”

(ecoinvent 3.3).

• Recycling processes from ecoinvent: lead-acid “treatment of scrap lead-acid battery”, Li-ion

“market for used Li-ion battery” (ecoinvent 3.3).

• For recycling lead-acid batteries, all emissions or credits for material recovery are allocated to

lead, with no savings taken into account from, e.g. replacing primary plastics with secondary

plastics from lead-acid battery recycling.

• For Li-ion battery recycling valid LCA data which represents this new recycling market is not yet

available. In addition, there are very different battery compositions, which are also subject to

strong dynamics. Therefore LCA data for Li-ion battery recycling is not included in the table

below. For more details on the Li-ion battery recycling in general, please refer to chapter 12.4.6.

• Production of primary materials from ecoinvent: “primary lead production from concentrate”

(ecoinvent 3.3).

• Simplifying assumption: alkaline battery production (Olivetti etal 2011) replaces primary

batteries (“Other primary”) production; only greenhouse gas emissions (CO2eq) are available.

This CO2eq figure was applied because of the comparably high number of other batteries,

although no data is available for other environmental impact categories.

• Simplifying assumption: alkaline battery recycling (Xara etal 2015) was used for calculating the

total recycling of “Other batteries”.


206

Table 12-18: Quantitative results of the environmental impact assessment of batteries in the EU 2015; selected impact categories

Environmental impact categories

Acidification

potential

Climate change - GWP100

Depletion of abiotic resources

Eutrophication

Freshwater aquatic

ecotoxicity - FAETP

Human toxicity - HTTP

Ozone layer

depletion

Photo-chemical oxidation

Depletion of abiotic resources -

fossil fuels

Operation

batteries million tonnes

tonnes SO2 eq.

million tonnes CO2eq.

tonnes antimony

eq.

tonnes PO4 eq.

"million tonnes

million tonnes 1,4-

dichlorobenzene eq.

tonnes CFC-11 eq.

tonnes ethylene eq.

million MJ

Production 2015 batteries

Pb acid 1.55 44 500 4.21 22 000 24 700 5.83 9.06 0.5 1 850 53

Other primary 0.15 no data 0.5 no data no data no

data no data

no data

no data no data

Other rechargeable (NiMH)

0.02 22 600 0.3 0 1 100 0.4 0.6 1.6 930 3

Other rechargeable Li-ion

0.07 10 400 1.9 100 7 200 1.7 3.8 17.1 490 16

Total 1.80 77 500 7.0 22 100 33 100 8.0 13.5 19.1 3 270 73

Recycling 2015 batteries

Pb acid 1.42 14 292 0.45 4 857 0.35 0.28 0.20 678 4.87

Other batteries 0.06 173 0.04 no data 13 0.00 0.01 0.01 no data no data

Total 1.48 14 465 0.50 4 870 0.35 0.29 0.21 678 4.87

Difference Lead

Pb primary 0.80 33 012 1.3 4 286 9 732 2.3 4.9 0.1 1 248 11

Pb secondary (Pb acid recycling)

0.80 14 292 0.5 4 857 0.4 0.3 0.2 678 5

Difference 0.00 -18 720 -0.9 -4 282 -8 875 -2.0 -4.7 0.1 -570 -6

Source: Oeko-Institut, own calculation; figures related to production are rounded


207

In Sullivan Gaines (2012) an overview of different sources of LCA data of e.g. lead-acid and NiMH

batteries is provided. In Table 12-19, greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 respectively CO2eq)75 extracted

from Sullivan Gaines (2012) are compared with the emission factors used for the calculations carried by

Oeko-Institut for this study (last column).

Table 12-19: Comparison of LCA data (emission factors) for different batteries

Battery Process (Sullivan Gaines 2012) (Sullivan Gaines 2012) This study

range

kg CO2/kg battery

average

kg CO2/kg battery kg CO2eq/kg battery

Pb-acid production about 1.1 to 6.4 3.2 2.7

NiMH production about 8.3 to 19.5 13.6 18.6

Pb-acid recycling

0.60 0.32

Source: (Sullivan Gaines 2012) and Oeko-Institut

Generally, the emission factors applied for lead-acid batteries and NiMH batteries in this study are in

the range of the values provided in Sullivan Gaines (2012). Lead-acid batteries are by far the most

relevant battery type because so many of them are in use (about 86 % of the total batteries in EU28).

The emission factor for production applied in this study is similar to that found in Sullivan Gaines

(2012), and the one for recycling is about half of the value found in Sullivan Gaines (2012).

The ILA (International Lead Associations) announced a new LCA of lead-acid batteries in comparison

with other batteries at the aabc (advanced automotive battery conference) (ILA 2018).

Emission factors for Li-ion batteries in literature vary widely. Apart from different Li-ion chemistries,

the specific energy demand for cell production is a main reason for differences. The emission factor

applied in this study (about 26 kg CO2eq/kg battery) is considered to be in the upper range of values.

12.4.9 Transport of batteries

Transports are generally included in LCAs and the present quantifications. In order to get a better

understanding of the relevance of battery related transports, greenhouse gas emissions from transport

are compared with battery production and with battery recycling.

The hypothetical transport of 1 tonne of waste batteries by lorry over a distance of 1 000 km is taken as

a scenario assumption. Transport76 results in about 214 kg CO2eq (varies depending on the size of the

vehicle). In contrast, production of 1 tonne of lead-acid batteries results in almost 9 times higher

emissions (1 850 kg CO2eq) than transport.

In preparing to implement the Batteries Directive in the UK, different scenarios for collection and

recycling of portable batteries were assessed (ERM 2006). A comparison of the results in the category

greenhouse gas emissions shows that the absolute value of emissions from recycling (emissions from the

recycling process itself plus savings for the replacement of primary production) is about 3.5 times

higher than the emissions from transport (transport related to collection/sorting plus transport to

75 (Sullivan Gaines 2012) does not provide any sum parameters for other environmental impact categories such as

acidification or resource depletion. 76 ecoinvent 3.3: transport, freight, lorry 7.5-16 metric ton, EURO5


208

recyclers inside and outside the UK). Interestingly, transport emissions from collection were higher than

emissions from transport to the recyclers, even though some of the recyclers were located outside the

UK in France and Switzerland.

These examples indicate the comparably low relevance of greenhouse gas emissions from battery

transport. This is in accordance with broader experience that transport only plays a minor role in LCA

results.

A systematic analysis of battery-related transport (including industrial and automotive batteries) does

not exist based on the research for this study. Battery-related transport emissions might potentially be

more relevant in MS with large territories or countries where all batteries are sent abroad to recyclers.

12.5 Additional aspects of the current situation for batteries

12.5.1 Problems to distinguish portable and industrial lead-acid batteries

Lead-acid batteries are the most dominant battery type and account for almost 90 % of all batteries.

They are placed on the market in all three categories: portable, industrial and automotive. Automotive

batteries77 are clearly distinguished from portable and industrial batteries and thus not further

discussed. However, distinguishing between portable and industrial lead-acid batteries is difficult.

The Batteries Directive states:

Article 3, Definitions, (6) industrial battery or accumulator’ means any battery or accumulator

designed for exclusively industrial or professional uses or used in any type of electric vehicle;

and

Whereas (9), Examples of industrial batteries and accumulators include batteries and accumulators

used for emergency or back-up power supply in hospitals, airports or offices, batteries and

accumulators used in trains or aircraft and batteries and accumulators used on offshore oil rigs or in

lighthouses. Examples also include batteries and accumulators designed exclusively for hand-held

payment terminals in shops and restaurants, bar code readers in shops, professional video equipment

for TV channels and professional studios, miners' lamps and diving lamps attached to mining and diving

helmets for professionals, back up batteries and accumulators for electric doors to prevent them from

blocking or crushing people, batteries and accumulators used for instrumentation or in various types of

measurement and instrumentation equipment and batteries and accumulators used in connection with

solar panel, photo-voltaic, and other renewable energy applications. Industrial batteries and

accumulators also include batteries and accumulators used in electrical vehicles, such as electric cars,

wheelchairs, bicycles, airport vehicles and automatic transport vehicles. In addition to this non

exhaustive list of examples, any battery or accumulator that is not sealed and not automotive should

be considered industrial.

Industrial batteries are defined according to their application. However, when collecting batteries, size

and weight are important factors, whereas origin and application of the batteries might be difficult to

determine.

77 Battery Directive Article 3 (5): ‘automotive battery or accumulator’ means any battery or accumulator used for

automotive starter, lighting or ignition power.


209

Placed on the market data for portable lead-acid batteries (voluntary reporting to Eurostat, years 2009

to 2015) reveal implausibly high amounts of lead-acid-batteries for some countries. At the same time

(especially for the UK), collection data on portable lead-acid batteries is even higher than placed-on-

the-market data. This issue becomes even more striking when, instead of the absolute amount, the

share of portable lead-acid batteries out of the total collected portable batteries of a given MS is

considered; see Table 12-20. For the UK, more than 75 % of its total collected portable batteries are

lead-acid batteries. Unreasonably high percentages of lead-acid batteries also occur for CZ, IT, ML and

NL (figures marked in pink in Table 12-20).

It may be concluded that industrial lead-acid batteries are misleadingly reported under the category

portable batteries. Lead-acid batteries which are placed on the market are reported as industrial, and

subsequently when they become waste, they are counted as portable. The overall result is potentially a

higher collecting rate for portable batteries.

Table 12-20: Share of lead-acid portable batteries of all portable batteries by country, placed-on-the-market and collected, in %; 2009 to 2015; calculation Oeko-Institut as of July 2017

Data marked in pink: figures are considered to be too high for portable batteries only

Figures > 100%: inconsistent data; automotive batteries might misleadingly be included in lead-acid batteries

category.

Source: (Oeko-Institut 2018); table Oeko-Institut

Portable lead-acid batteries placed on the market are also rechargeable batteries. Overall, their share

of all portable batteries is about 8 %78 on the EU level and relatively small compared to Li-ion and NiMH

batteries. Li-ion batteries suggest a continuous and strong increase over the last decade.

Conclusions

The following could be concluded from assessing additional aspects for batteries:

Some countries reported high volumes of portable lead-acid batteries placed on the market.

The share of portable lead-acid batteries of all collected portable batteries is implausibly high for CZ, IT, ML, NL and UK.

78

This figure is calculated based on the Member States reporting to Eurostat for the reference year 2015. It does not take into account potential incorrect reporting of industrial lead-acid batteries.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

MKT MKT MKT MKT MKT MKT MKT COL COL COL COL COL COL COL

Pb-acid Pb-acid Pb-acid Pb-acid Pb-acid Pb-acid Pb-acid Pb-acid Pb-acid Pb-acid Pb-acid Pb-acid Pb-acid Pb-acid

3% 3% 2% 4% 4% 6%

46% 31%

8% 10% 14% 15% 13% 15% 16% 53% 53% 45% 51% 50% 53%

2% 2% 4%

2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 9% 8% 7% 8% 7% 7% 6%

3% 3% 2%

21% 21% 17% 22% 24% 23% 31% 30% 24% 17% 17% 17% 15% 15%

10% 5%

3% 3% 3% 4% 6% 9% 12%

4% 14%

45% 44% 39% 61%

6% 4% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 20% 23% 24% 19% 18% 16% 18%

7% 13% 7%

4% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% 13% 11% 12% 6% 6%

4% 7% 4%

3% 3% 1% 1% 58% 40% 19% 8%

5% 7% 9% 9% 7% 9% 9% 5% 6% 6% 6% 3% 5% 4%

7% 5% 8% 9% 7% 6% 6% 11% 11% 12% 12% 11% 10%

16% 15% 13% 8% 6% 6% 42% 74% 82% 86% 76%

Placed on the Market: Pb-acid share of all portables in % Collected: Pb-acid share of all portables in %


210

UK collection data on portable lead-acid batteries is even higher than placed on the market data.

It might be that industrial lead-acid batteries are (misleadingly) reported under the category portable batteries. It is difficult for a collection point to distinguish the categories by the product application, as this might no longer be detectable when collecting batteries (size and weight are important factors, but origin and application of the batteries might be difficult to determine).

The overall result will potentially be that reported collection rates for CZ, IT, ML, NL and UK are likely too high.

12.5.2 Waste portable batteries collection rates and calculation methodology

The calculation of the portable batteries collection rate (in %) takes into account three times the

amount of collected batteries (in tonnes) and the actual amount of batteries placed on the market (in

tonnes) within the last three years. Details are given in the Batteries Directive, Annex I (please refer to

Figure 12-27).

Figure 12-27: Calculation methodology of the collection rate

Source: Batteries Directive, Annex I

Different stakeholders and sources consider the calculation methodology to be inappropriate and

suggest a different approach for the collection rate (EPBA 2016a; SagisEPR and Perchards, EPBA 2016;

Eucobat 2017). Three aspects are mainly considered:

1. Replacing “Placed on the market” with waste batteries “Available for collection” (SagisEPR and Perchards, EPBA 2016)


211

2. Length of the battery life cycle is much longer than three years and thus a target/ calculation method should be used that correctly represents the collection performance (Eucobat 2017).

3. Use 6 successive years of “placed on the market” for the collection rate (SagisEPR and Perchards, EPBA 2016)

Other aspects influencing the collection rate include:

The definition and distinction between portable and industrial batteries; e.g. industrial batteries

misleadingly collected as portable batteries result in higher collection rates.

Implausible amounts of lead-acid-batteries; problems distinguishing portable and industrial lead-

acid batteries in waste portable battery collection volumes.

WEEE containing batteries being shredded without prior removal of the batteries.

Batteries from EEE being exported in second hand or refurbished EEE before the EEE becomes

waste.

Portable batteries not being reported as “placed on the marked” because of non-registered

producers (e.g. online sales) or wrongly classified as industrial.

Increasing effect of hoarding because of an increasing share of long-life Li-ion batteries along with

an increasing share of applications for such batteries, such as cordless power tools, garden

equipment, smartphones, tablets, etc.

These aspects are not addressed or discussed in this chapter but are considered elsewhere. Details are

explained in SagisEPR and Perchards, EPBA (2016).

Generally, when considering the collection rate and its calculation methodology, one needs to keep in

mind that such an approach will always be based on a theoretical model. Such a model never represents

the real world. The model that the calculation methodology is based on, however, corresponds to a

certain collection rate. Thus, changing a given model requires adapting or developing a new target for

the collection rate.

1. Replacing “Placed on the market” with waste batteries “Available for collection”

The EPBA study suggests a new calculation methodology: “placed on the market” data should be

replaced by “available for collection”. Due to exports of used EEE, only a certain share of batteries

becomes available for collection and thus it is proposed to apply only this available share for the

collection rate.

An option could be to give the MS the choice of basing the collection rate on either “placed on the

market” or “available for collection” values. Such a new methodology as along with its advantages and

disadvantages compared to the current methodology would need to be assessed. Potential problems in

determining “available for collection”, inaccuracy and possible errors of the method would need to be

identified.

A new calculation methodology would at the same time require developing a new collection target that

takes into account the reduced amount of batteries not available for collection. Thus, a higher

collection target should result. This would be in accordance with the approach for WEEE collection.

2. Length of the battery life cycle is much longer than three years and thus a target/ calculation method should be used that correctly represents the collection performance

Main findings of study (Eucobat 2017) include:


212

the EU target, as it is currently computed, is appropriate only for batteries for which the weight placed on market is stable on the long term.

…with varying weights placed on market and with life cycles longer than 3 years, the manner in which the EU target is calculated is not appropriate.

As the length of a battery’s life cycle is much longer than three years, the study recommends that a

target/ calculation method be used that correctly represents the collection performance. The results of

the study are based on the battery’s age. The battery age, however, includes both the use phase and

the hoarding time. Battery hoarding at private homes is not a favoured situation. Waste batteries

should be returned, especially because of the safety risks for Li-ion batteries among others. Thus,

hoarding times should be kept as short as possible.

Influence of the number of successive years of placed on the market on the collection rate

The average service life of portable batteries and/ or the storage period with consumers is potentially

longer than the 3 years that is used in the current calculation method. Therefore, the influence of the

number of successive years of placed-on-the-market data taken into account for the calculation of the

collection rate was analysed by Oeko-Institut. The result of this analysis is presented in Table 12-21 and

Table 12-22.


213

Table 12-21: Calculation of the collection rate of portable batteries based on the Batteries Directive, Annex I; calculation Oeko-Institut; as of July 2017


2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

3 a 3 a 3 a 3 a 3 a

BE 52,1 52,3 52,8 54,6 55,5

BG 14,8 34,4 38,9 45,2 44,6

CZ 27,5 29,2 31,0 31,5 36,3

DK 47,6 44,8 41,3 44,2 45,3

DE 43,2 42,1 43,1 44,2 45,3

EE 26,4 26,4 38,6 22,2 39,0

IE 29,2 27,6 31,0 32,6 33,2

EL

ES 29,8 34,1 34,1

FR 36,2 35,4 34,1 36,7 38,4

HR 0,0 0,0 20,1 18,8 29,2

IT 25,5 27,1 29,1 34,1 36,4

CY 13,5 11,8 15,9 18,9

LV 32,3 28,2 27,0 28,4 24,7

LT 28,1 32,7 36,2 32,9 42,5

LU 71,8 72,9 62,7 65,2 58,5

HU 23,6 33,6 38,7 45,9 47,4

MT 27,7 20,1 41,8 21,3 39,5

NL 42,5 42,8 42,9 44,9 46,1

AT 49,5 52,2 52,8 53,8 55,1

PL 34,1 29,1 30,1 33,1 38,4

PT 19,5 31,2 30,9 28,5 31,1

RO 5,8 10,5

SI 29,2 33,5 32,4 29,2 35,3

SK 44,7 60,6 47,9 66,3 52,9

FI 35,6 33,1 41,1 46,3 47,2

SE 53,2 61,3 64,1 58,7 60,7

UK 18,6 27,3 32,3 35,8

IS

LI

NO 34,7 33,6 40,6 43,9 32,7

collection rate %


214

Table 12-22: Comparative calculations of the collection rate of portable batteries; as of July 2017


Explanations

Comparative calculations were performed by applying 4, 5 and 6 successive years of placed-on-the-

market data instead of 3 years, as defined in the calculation methodology in the Batteries Directive

(please refer to Batteries Directive, Annex I). The calculations were done before the MS reported data

for the year 2016; thus, 2015 data was the newest data available.

3a = collection rate based on 'placed on the market' data of 3 successive years

difference = difference to 3a (e.g. 5a=difference between calculation based on 3 years and 5 years)

no data, own estimate = no data was reported for a certain year, which is relevant for the calculation of the collection rate; instead the previous year value or the successive year value was used for the comparative calculation.

2014 2015 2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015

6 a 6 a 6 a 6 a 3 a 4 a 5 a 6 a 3 a 4 a 5 a 6 a

BE 54,7 55,8 0 0 55,5 55,9 55,8 55,8 0 0 0 0

BG 43,2 43,5 2 1 44,6 46,5 47,5 43,5 0 -2 -3 1

CZ 34,6 38,3 -3 -2 36,3 36,7 37,5 38,3 0 0 -1 -2

DK 45,2 46,2 -1 -1 45,3 44,7 45,2 46,2 0 1 0 -1

DE 45,4 45,5 -1 0 45,3 45,3 45,3 45,5 0 0 0 0

EE 23,3 37,8 -1 1 39,0 37,3 37,1 37,8 0 2 2 1

IE 32,5 35,1 0 -2 33,2 34,6 35,0 35,1 0 -1 -2 -2

EL

ES

FR 37,0 37,7 0 1 38,4 38,0 37,7 37,7 0 0 1 1

HR 20,1 28,3 -1 1 29,2 27,7 28,1 28,3 0 1 1 1

IT 33,4 35,1 1 1 36,4 35,9 35,5 35,1 0 1 1 1

CY 17,8 1

LV 32,3 26,4 -4 -2 24,7 25,2 25,6 26,4 0 -1 -1 -2

LT 32,8 41,2 0 1 42,5 41,7 42,1 41,2 0 1 0 1

LU 65,2 59,4 0 -1 58,5 58,2 58,1 59,4 0 0 0 -1

HU 37,5 47,5 8 0 47,4 51,7 49,3 47,5 0 -4 -2 0

MT 21,0 37,2 0 2 39,5 37,8 38,3 37,2 0 2 1 2

NL 43,2 45,3 2 1 46,1 46,3 45,6 45,3 0 0 1 1

AT 56,6 58,7 -3 -4 55,1 56,6 57,9 58,7 0 -2 -3 -4

PL 35,2 41,3 -2 -3 38,4 39,3 40,5 41,3 0 -1 -2 -3

PT 25,6 33,7 3 -3 31,1 31,5 32,6 33,7 0 0 -2 -3

RO

SI 26,3 32,6 3 3 35,3 35,0 35,3 32,6 0 0 0 3

SK 65,8 51,1 0 2 52,9 51,7 51,2 51,1 0 1 2 2

FI 46,2 46,9 0 0 47,2 47,1 47,1 46,9 0 0 0 0

SE 59,0 60,5 0 0 60,7 61,2 61,3 60,5 0 0 -1 0

UK 33,0 3

IS

LI

NO 44,5 32,8 -1 0 32,7 32,6 32,7 32,8 0 0 0 0

no data, own estimate no data, own estimate

collection rate % difference %difference %collection rate %


215

Main results of the analysis

The calculation method based on placed-on-the-market data from 6 successive years (6a) results in

collection rates for only two reference years (2014 and 2015 (data for the year 2016 was not available

at the time of the comparative calculations)). Reporting started for the year 2009; applying 6

successive years results in a first collection rate for the year 2014. In comparison, the method based on

3 successive years (3a) results in a timeline from 2011 to 2015.

Applying the 6a method for reference year 2014 results in no data or own estimates (because of missing

data) for 10 countries. In comparison, the method based on 3a results in missing data for only 5

countries.

The 6a method for reference years 2014 and 2015 and resulting differences between 3a and 6a: no obvious pattern is observable; depending on the country, differences can have a negative or positive sign ("-" or "+"); differences (absolute values) from 2014 to 2015 can increase or decrease.

The 6a method for reference years 2014 and 2015 and resulting differences between 3a and 6a: minor differences (0%, 1%) are observed for 13 countries; large differences (4% or 8%) are observed for 3 countries.

The influence of inconsistent data/ data quality is estimated to be more important than the calculation

method (3a or 6a). Based on this analysis of the different calculation methods, no clear argument for

the use of 6a instead of 3a is evident.

Dependency of volatile figures

The validation check of the newest data for the year 2016 showed that a Member State reported a

collection rate of 100%. The calculation itself is correct, but a break in the time series for “collection”

occured: 337 tonnes in 2016 compared to figures from 72 tonnes to 98 tonnes between 2013 and 2015.

This example of a collection rate of 100% shows that the calculation method is very vulnerable to sharp

increases or volatile figures of collection.

For comparison, the same collection rate of 100% was recalculated by applying 6 successive years (6a,

see above) of placed-on-the-market data instead of 3a. The 6a calculation method resulted in a

collection rate of 97%. This example shows that when collection figures sharply vary (increase or

decrease), the resulting collection rate does not depend on whether 6 or 3 successive years of placed

on the market data are applied.

Regarding volatile data, Eucobat (2017) concludes that “the EU target, as it is currently computed, is

appropriate only for batteries for which the weight placed on market is stable on the long term.”

The example of the 100 % collection rate suggests that such unusually high collection rates might be

smoothed by applying not only the collection figure of the current year but also the collection figure(s)

of the previous year(s).

Conclusions

The analysis leads to the following conclusions:

A calculation method based on placed-on-the-market data from 6 successive years would

reduce the availability of figures for the collection rate significantly.

Based on the calculations in this study, no clear argument for the use of 6a instead of 3a is

evident, at least not for the current situation.


216

A sharp increase of the current year’s collection figure may result in an unusually high value

for the collection rate. This is independent of whether 6 or 3 successive years of placed-on-

the-market data are applied in calculation.

Such unusually high collection rates might be smoothed out by applying not only the collection

figure of the current year but also the collection figure(s) of the previous year(s).

The collection rates are vulnerable to breaks in the time series of figures of placed on the

market and of collection.

Any new methodology would need to be assessed and compared to the current methodology.

Potential problems, inaccuracies and possible errors would need to be identified.

A new calculation methodology would require developing a new collection target.


217


Trinomics B.V.

Westersingel 32a

3014 GS Rotterdam

The Netherlands

T +31 (0) 10 3414 592

www.trinomics.eu

KvK n°: 56028016

VAT n°: NL8519.48.662.B01

Trinomics B.V.

Westersingel 32a

3014 GS Rotterdam

The Netherlands

T +31 (0) 10 3414 592

www.trinomics.eu

KvK n°: 56028016

VAT n°: NL8519.48.662.B01

Final Report - European Commission · 2018-10-24 · Laura Baroni, Koen Rademaekers, Rob Williams,...

Documents

Transcript of Final Report - European Commission · 2018-10-24 · Laura Baroni, Koen Rademaekers, Rob Williams,...