In my previous article I advocated the cooperation between ATF associations and their networks among authorities, national politicians and MEPs. This issue I want to explain the phase of the process in which the proposal for the Vehicle Directive is and why it’s so important to stay in touch with the ones that are involved in the decision making process.

The Parliament now shares legislative authority with the Council. Co-decision requires consensus to be reached between the Council and the Parliament for legislation to be adopted. In the co-decision procedure, the European Parliament and the Council jointly adopt (i.e. co-decide) legislation. Since February the Belgian Presidency is working on selected chapters of the proposal. So called Working Parties are involved in all kind of topics and prepare working documents to help the Council and to steer the discussions. Think of items like ELV definition, (economical) repairability, used vehicle, vehicle collection, collection points, Certificate of Destruction, export, etc. The EP is expected to start after the elections, probably in September.

What is important is that in this phase amendments are made. This means the proposal will not be adopted in the form it was presented to us, but only after some changes. It is important to have an idea in which direction things are changed and it’s important to try to have things changed in a better way for the ATFs. This is not a transparent process, it’s between the Working Parties and the Parliament and later the Council. To have influence on this process, it’s evident to be in good contact with your network.

Be aware that others than us (ATFs) also try to have influence on the amendments. OEMs, but also other stakeholders try their best with more or less success, but this can sometimes not be in our interests. We mentioned the French plans before, in which an ATF can only continue to exist if they have a contract with the producer. Worst scenario would be that instead of independently assessable conditions, the producer simply decides who he will give a contract. What would really be bad is if similar constructions would be allowed in the final Regulation and other countries follow this example. We should also be able to sell all our parts, there should not be any limits for that in the Regulation. We see the Swedish interpretation of battery reuse in which they state that it needs to be prepared for reuse which means EPR counts for ATFs. Such a statement should never be possible in the Vehicle Regulation. It would contradict any intention for reuse, circularity and sustainability, but we need to stay sharp on this.

We could mention many other examples. We already did in other documents and columns. It’s now of importance that any of us that has access to officials uses these contacts for our mission. The proposal is now still workable. Once it’s adopted, it’s poured in concrete and it will be law.

Follow the process here: