; "AUTOMOTIVE")
According to the European association of dismantlers EGARA, the new EU regulation on end-of-life vehicles should not factor revenues from the sale of spare parts into the calculation of EPR fees owed by car manufacturers. ADA president Anselmo Calò: “Producers must cover the actual cost of treatment.”
As negotiations between the European Commission, Council and Parliament on the proposed regulation to increase the circularity of vehicles placed on the EU market move into full swing, associations representing the vehicle dismantling sector are once again raising their voices on one of the initiative’s key issues: the strengthening of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). Under the new system, car manufacturers will be required to contribute to the costs of properly managing their vehicles at end of life. In a statement released by the European Group of Automotive Recycling Associations (EGARA), which includes the Italian association ADA, operators call for a clear and fair methodology for calculating EPR contributions. “We have made it clear,” explains ADA president Anselmo Calò, “that any payment from manufacturers must be based on the actual cost of treatment.”
Within 36 months of the regulation entering into force, manufacturers will be required to set up individual or collective EPR schemes to ensure that treatment facilities achieve the targets of 85% reuse and recycling, and 95% recovery for vehicles placed on the market. To do so, the Commission’s proposal – along with the Council’s and Parliament’s negotiating positions – requires producers to cover collection and treatment costs, calculated net of revenues from the sale of recyclable materials and spare parts. In the legislators’ view, this provision should help safeguard the proper functioning of the free market for reuse and recycling. According to EGARA, however, the rule risks penalising dismantlers and shredders.
The association argues that removing materials and components is a mandatory activity that does not always generate predictable economic returns. Spare parts, in particular, cannot be regarded as a compensatory element when calculating EPR fees, as not all vehicles produce them, their value varies considerably across geographical and economic contexts, and their sale is never guaranteed. Moreover, preparing parts for resale entails its own cost, which operators must bear even when the part remains unsold.
For these reasons, EGARA insists that manufacturer contributions should be calculated solely net of “the materials contained in the vehicle, as if no sellable parts existed at all.” Revenues from spare parts, Calò reiterates, “belong to a separate market and cannot be used as a parameter to reduce EPR coverage.” European carmakers, meanwhile, continue to oppose stricter rules, warning of the additional costs associated with the new schemes and the potential impact on the competitiveness of an industry already under significant pressure.
