Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
ENVI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsPierfrancesco Maran
Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number 4.
Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Compromise number 5.
Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise number nine by roll call vote, I open the vote. I close the vote.
And it's adopted. Compromise number ten, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted.
Compromise number seven, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted.
Compromise number eight, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstain? Adopted. Final vote by roll call vote.
I open the vote. I close the vote. And it's adopted, fifty-seven in favor, fourteen against, one abstention. Thank you. Thank you.
Okay. Now we vote for the objection, the item number nine. It will be a roll call vote.
I open the vote. I close the vote. And it's adopted, 49 in favor, 22 against, one abstention. Now we have the item number 10, that is another objection by roll call vote. I open the vote.
I close the vote. And it's adopted, 48 in favor, 22 against, one abstention. Now we go to the objection item number 11.
I open the vote. I close the vote and it's adopted 48 in favor, 23 against, one abstention. Now we will have a break. I thank all the colleagues. We will have a break till 10:30.
Pierfrancesco Maran
The next item is the amending directive regarding the simplification of some requirements and reduction of administrative burden. It's the item 12 and 13. The rapporteur is Susana Solís Pérez, that today is replaced by Lídia Pereira. So, on behalf of the rapporteur, you have the floor for five minutes. Thank you.
Lídia Pereira
Thank you very much, Chair, Commissioner, colleagues. Thank you for the chance to present this draft report today.
It's not my approach, but I'm reading on behalf of my colleague Susana Solís. And so the approach to this file has been a constructive one. The intention is to find good workable solutions together. And this is not supposed to become a polarized file where each side holds a fixed position from day one. So the draft report reflects such an approach.
It is a moderate text. It seeks real simplification, not deregulation.
And it does this without lowering our environmental standards. So the rapporteur remains fully committed to the Union's climate and environmental goals, including climate neutrality by 2050. To prepare this report, we met with a wide range of voices, industry and also NGOs. We listened carefully to their requests. Where their concerns were well-founded, we took them on board.
But we always kept one rule in mind: simplify, do not deregulate. We will see this approach across all four files in this report: the Industrial Emissions Directive, the Batteries Regulation, the rules on medium combustion plants, and the Waste Framework Directive.
So let me give you a few examples. In the Industrial Emissions Directive, we no longer ask environmental management systems to repeat what BAT conclusions already require, because operators with EMAS or ISO 14001 already meet an equivalent standard. We introduce a bubble approach for installations that share gas, material, or energy flow, so emissions can be managed together as long as the environmental result is the same or better.
And in justified cases, we extend the timeline for deep industrial transformation because real transformation towards clean technologies takes time. In the batteries regulation, we set the threshold for module level repairability at 800 watt hours. This protects repairability where it matters most without putting a heavy cost on small batteries. We also allow digital labeling so companies are not forced to print and update labels in every language while citizens and authorities still have full access to the information they need.
And we make sure that owners of older vehicles can still find a spare battery, even once their model is no longer in production. For medium combustion plants, our change is small and technical. It does not lower the bar. It simply recognizes the physical reality of burning hydrogen, so that using more clean hydrogen does not automatically put an operator in breach of the law. On waste, we have made clear that the official annual report on extended producer responsibility goes to the competent authority once a year, through a fully digital system.
And we go one step further. We ask the Commission to bring forward in the upcoming Circular Economy Act a single EU-wide reporting tool. That is what will really help producers selling across borders, not just a change in frequency, but a change in the system itself. Now, let me turn to agriculture, because I know this is the most sensitive point for many of you and certainly for my own political group. On the agricultural provisions of the Industrial Emissions Directive, I have taken into account the draft opinion presented by Renew in the Agriculture Committee.
We have adopted that position in full.
For the EPP, this is about keeping a promise. In March 2024, in this very Parliament, Commissioner Sinkevičius committed on behalf of the Commission to work towards separating the industrial and agricultural regimes into two distinct legal instruments. Today's report moves us closer to that commitment.
It narrows the scope of the livestock provisions to genuinely intensive farms, gives Member States more flexibility in how they apply the rules, and removes the transitional timetable that no longer made sense once the thresholds changed. Colleagues, to reach this report, we slightly postponed our timeline in this committee in order to properly reflect the contributions of the opinion-giving committees. I thank you for your understanding. This gave me the time I needed to get a full picture of where every committee stands. So I remain committed to our overall timetable with a possible vote in plenary in November.
So let me close with this.
For the EPP, it remains a key priority that we do not end up at the end of this process with less ambition than what the Commission originally proposed. That is our line. But within that line, I'm genuinely open to good ideas from every single political group. I look forward to working with all of you and with the Commission to find solutions that are good for the environment, good for our people, and good for the competitiveness of our companies. Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we leave the floor to the shadow rapporteurs for two minutes each. We start with S&D, Thomas Bajada.
Thomas Bajada
Thank you, Chair. On this file, our starting point is simple: targeted and justified simplification, yes; deregulation, no. We support digitalization, harmonized reporting, and removing genuine duplication.
But we cannot allow what was supposed to be an exercise to reduce real administrative burdens to be hijacked and used to weaken environmental safeguards agreed only recently, or even to roll back public transparency, collection of installation-level environmental data, or the implementation of the best available techniques. The IED works because it is built on installation-level permitting, best available technique, and best available techniques reference documents.
And if we weaken the link between environmental management systems, the BAT, and the collection and reporting of installation level data, we do not simplify implementation, we actually are weakening the tools authorities need to set permits, enforce rules, and update standards. When it comes to the EMS, we can support reducing duplication, but we must protect the quality of installation specific environmental data. We believe that both chemical inventory and SKIP should be maintained.
Because by deleting chemical inventory, we are not removing only paperwork, we are undermining human health and risk reducing at source. By deleting SCIP, we would weaken information that waste operators, recyclers, and other circular economy actors depend on to do their jobs properly and also safely. On batteries, we remain open to technically justified amendments. Simplification must not create loopholes through which some can free-ride and give a free pass to others who have had sufficient time to prepare for the implementation of a regulation which was agreed years ago. Let me repeat: our guiding principle is very simple.
Yes to cutting unnecessary paperwork, no to less transparency. Yes to removing duplication, but no to less enforcement. Yes to better implementation, but no to weaker protection for our citizens' health, water, air, and the circular economy. S&D is ready to work constructively, I am ready to work constructively, but we will defend the line between simplification and deregulation. Thank you.
Ondřej Knotek
Thank you, thank you Mr. Chairman, dear colleagues. Today we are here in order to discuss the reduction of administrative burdens in the field of environmental legislation of the EU. And this is already a very good sign. What I can say, Patriots principally are in favor of the Commission proposals as they bring back some pragmatism to the legislation, environmental legislation as well, after years of ideology-driven policy making.
Thank you.
Ondřej Knotek
And it's true that in this honorable committee we have warned you that this is a bureaucratic monster, but many of you didn't listen. At least now you are able to admit that, and I'm thankful for this. This is very important especially for the Industrial Emissions Directive, but of course for the other regulations. Of course we must find a balance how to reduce the burden and also not to put much risk on environmental protection, but this is our work.
When it comes to the proposal of the rapporteur, it goes in a good direction, as expected. When it comes particularly to the Industrial Emission Directive, we definitely welcome the simplification and improvements in the EMS. We believe that also we can fully delete the EMS compared to other groups. We feel that this would help the industry and so on, but we will see where this will land. Also, we agree that the abolition of the obligations for the chemical inventory is a good step forward.
Also the repeal the obligation for operators to prepare specific transformation plan between 2030 and 2050, again, very good idea. Now a couple of points for the agriculture. We believe that simplification should strengthen, not weaken, the competitiveness of the EU agriculture. Environmental requirements must remain proportionate and take into account the economic realities faced by livestock farmers. Greater legal clarity is needed on distinction between existing livestock facilities and the new livestock facilities because existing livestock installations should not be expected to meet requirements designed for newly built facilities.
This is simply a reality.
Also, we believe that the livestock threshold should come back to the figures from 2010. When it comes to the Waste Framework Directive, we should foresee the deletion of the so-called SCIP database. It's a good, good idea. And also, we are in favor of harmonizing the reporting frequency under the EPR responsibility scheme. I have only three minutes, so to sum up, we are going in the good direction.
As a takeaway message, I would also like to invite to consider the stop-the-clock, especially for the IED, because now the member states are implementing and after a couple of months they should now receive new rules. So let's stop the clock and get back to the work after we know the final level of simplification, if not deregulation. Thank you very much.
Anna Zalewska
Thank you, Chair. I will speak Polish. Nie bójmy się słowa deregulacja, nie bójmy się walki z biurokracją. Tego oczekuje od nas gospodarka, biznes, który wie jedno, że Europa utraciła konkurencyjność.
Pokazują to dane, ekspertyzy, analizy. Tak mówi o tym cały świat, zresztą rzeczywistość i codzienność jest tego dowodem. Mamy przeregulowanie, mamy gąszcz przepisów. Nie możemy uczciwie w związku z tym konkurować z resztą świata.
Efekt jest taki, że inwestycje wynoszą się z Unii Europejskiej i właściwie nie chcą przychodzić z zewnątrz, bo nikt nie chce brnąć przez gąszcz tychże regulacji. Dlatego bardzo chciałabym podziękować sprawozdawczyni za dobre sprawozdanie, to znaczy pragmatyczne, biznesowe, które odpowiada na te najważniejsze potrzeby. Nie ukrywam, że jako grupa będziemy proponować poprawki, które będą szły jeszcze dalej, nie wychodząc poza zakres proponowanych rozwiązań.
Cieszę się, że jest większy realizm. Popieram zwłaszcza uznanie istniejących systemów zarządzania środowiskowego jako alternatyw dla SEM, większą elastyczność dla projektów transformacyjnych oraz zasadę unikania nakładania tych samych obowiązków wynikających z różnych aktów prawa. To rozwiązania, których przedsiębiorcy oczekiwali od dawna.
Chcę też zwrócić uwagę, że wreszcie zauważono, że trzeba inwestować w rozwiązania, które sprzyjają środowisku, ale jeżeli jest mizerny efekt, a duże nakłady, nie ma to najmniejszego sensu. Cieszę się również, że sprawozdawczyni z szacunkiem odniosła się do opinii Komisji Rolnictwa, dlatego że my nie możemy uznawać, że rolnictwo to przemysł ciężki, a rolnik nie zarządza hutą czy rafinerią. Nakładanie na gospodarstwa rolne obowiązków projektowanych dla instalacji przemysłowych oznacza wzrost kosztów, dodatkową biurokrację i spadek konkurencyjności europejskich producentów żywności. Dlatego cieszę się na dalsze dyskusje, na dalszą pracę.
Myślę, że osiągniemy kompromisy dla dobra europejskiej gospodarki.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. I also open the catch-the-eye if somebody wants to take the floor later. Now for Renew, Martin Hojsík.
Martin Hojsík
Thank you, and dear colleagues, please allow me to express some points on behalf of my colleague and Renew shadow rapporteur Michal Wiezik. Now, firstly, I would like to express gratitude to the rapporteur herself for the report and the spirit of cooperation she has expressed for work going forward in this omnibus. We are aware that the pressure is high and the expectations from this omnibus vary.
Large number of stakeholders aim not to have targeted omnibus, but rather a wide opening of the text agreed in 2024. We have serious concerns with a number of changes introduced by the Commission, including the repeal of the SCIP database in the Waste Directive and the EMS in the IED. Still, it is highly appreciated that your draft report largely stayed apart from livestock within the remit of the omnibus. Under the EPP rapporteur in 2024, the EP made a number of important gains for public health and the protection of environment, of water and air, and access to justice for the public.
As co-legislator, we have also accepted and moved to agree on carefully balanced compromises, balancing ambition with administrative burden. It is important that as a co-legislator, we strive to maintain the ambition that was achieved in this reform.
Now on livestock. With respect to the claim in the report that the support of the European Parliament for the inclusion of livestock rearing activities with slightly increased scope was secured thanks to the statement made by the Commission presenting the intention to prepare dedicated legislative instrument specifically addressing emissions from livestock rearing activities, I would like to clarify that the IED deal in 2024 was secured despite the AGRI vote against the deal and despite the procedural vote to open the deal, and the Commission is under no obligation to present any separate instrument for livestock. That is obvious, including from the directive having changed the title in 2024 to Directive on Industrial and Livestock Rearing Emissions.
Further, I would like to reiterate that nobody in this house in favor of this directive to cover some livestock installations aims to demonize agriculture activity, not at all. This said, the reality is that there are some discharge pollutants from large livestock installations covered by this activity and by the aggregation in our river basin districts. High emissions can lead to ecological collapse, the suffocation of aquatic life, and the poisoning of our drinking water. The toxic air pollution can pose an immediate danger to the human health, causing severe respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, and premature death. I therefore have a question in the other direction.
Are intensive pig and poultry installations more important than the health of EU citizens and local communities? Are intensive pig and poultry installations more important than the livable and healthy environment for our citizens, that the largest ones should be exempted for implementation of measures on prevention and control of pollution at source? Aren't we witnessing a deeply broken system if our agriculture receives more than 30% of EU budget and citizens of EU have to suffer pollution with no control applied out of nitrate vulnerable zones because the uniform conditions for operating rules devised with farmers and which take into consideration the nature, type, size of the farm and the economic viability, geographic and local conditions are deemed to be burdensome? But we have an answer.
We should be really rethinking the CAP and the fairness of the supply chain and now it's time for that. Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now from the Greens, Jutta Paulus that is remotely connected.
Jutta Paulus
Hello, I hope you can hear me because I'm using the proper equipment. Unfortunately I could not make it to Brussels because I only came back from Albania very late last night.
When it comes to the Industrial Emissions Directive, I was part of the negotiations in the last mandate and let's put it that way, the negotiations were very long and very difficult. The final compromise was a painful one for us Greens, but at least it secured essential environmental safeguards and took into account the challenges we are facing today with the need to address resource consumption, circular economy, water stress, droughts, the need to look at more than pollution only. But now the Commission and also the rapporteur want to reopen this compromise, not to improve it, but to further weaken it. So let's call it what it is, it's not simplification, it's deregulation.
On agriculture, the EPP wants to decrease the scope again, despite the clear environmental impacts of the largest factory farms. We Greens want to defend the current IED scope. We won't agree to go back to the levels of 2010. On environmental management, moving from installation level to company level makes no environmental sense because pollution and resource consumption happen at the installation level, not at the corporate organization charts. So this would weaken accountability and also transparency.
BAT conclusions, best available techniques. Scrapping the obligation to apply the strictest achievable emission limit within the BAT range means undermining the effectiveness of the whole system of BAT because best available technology means you differentiate. You look at what technology is used in this installation and what level of emissions is achievable. Ignoring the specificity of the installation which applies for a permit would take us back to 2001.
That's declining science and it's unacceptable. Chemicals, removing the chemical inventory, also under the guise of simplification, ignores that the data already exists because companies have to keep it for health purposes and also for liability purposes, and so they already have this database. So it's, this is only about reducing transparency, not about reducing bureaucracy. On transformation plans, I mean, this is really ridiculous because we made this amendment in the last mandate and we said we want mandatory transformation plans for at installation level.
So the compromise was, okay, let's make the plans, but let's not make them mandatory and let's only do them at company level. And now the argument, well, they're not mandatory to actually implement them, so we can scrap them. So actually this is going in the wrong direction because environmental crises don't go away just because we choose not to look at them. And also the industrial emissions portal, this is about reducing transparency, not about reducing red tape.
The SCIP database, deleting it would be a major setback for the circular economy where we want to go forward. We should of course improve it, we should of course simplify its use. But if we want to make circular economy happen, data about dangerous substances in products is key. On batteries, this is really ridiculous. If we restrict the labeling only to the REACH candidate list, then we would ignore about 85% of the hazardous substances because we have like 20,000 of them, but less than 1,000 are already present on the candidate list.
And also the concept of substances of concern was established in REACH 20 years ago.
Now the Commission wants to redefine it somehow. That would actually not be simplification but the opposite because a substance of concern under the environmental omnibus is different from a substance of concern under REACH. So this is certainly not simplification. Let me conclude, Europe will not become more competitive by lowering environmental standards.
We need smart regulation, not deregulation. Unfortunately, the EPP is claiming simplification when they mean deregulation, applauded by the Eurosceptics and the far right. We Greens are ready to simplify things where necessary. But we will certainly not trade marginal savings for industry for the health and well-being of our citizens. Thank you.
Martin Günther
Ja, vielen Dank, Herr Vorsitzender, ich würde Deutsch sprechen. Vereinfachung darf kein Freifahrtschein für Umweltverschmutzung sein. Statt echter Vereinfachung droht uns eine Verwässerung von Sicherheitsstandards, die erst vor kurzem mühsam beschlossen wurden. Die Kommission will die Transparenz über die eingesetzten schädlichen Chemikalien einschränken und die Risikobewertung in den Industrieemissionsrichtlinie streichen.
Diese Regeln wurden erst 2024 beschlossen und noch nicht einmal umgesetzt. Wie wäre es, ihre Wirksamkeit erst mal in der Praxis zu prüfen, bevor man sie schleift? Zudem soll die Datenbank für Informationen über besorgniserregende Stoffe in Erzeugnissen wegfallen. Dabei ist genau diese Rückverfolgbarkeit ein Schlüsselinstrument für eine schadstofffreie Kreislaufwirtschaft und muss unbedingt bleiben. Der Berichtsentwurf des Berichterstatters geht in puncto Deregulierung noch weiter als der Vorschlag der Kommission.
Der Bericht schwächt die Industrieemissionsrichtlinie massiv ab, indem er sich zum Beispiel nicht mehr auf bestverfügbare Techniken bezieht, sondern mit vagen Begriffen wie wirtschaftliche Machbarkeit hantiert. Besonders besorgniserregend sind die Vorschläge zur Nutztierhaltung. Dies würde die Regulierung der größten Ammoniakquellen Europas drastisch reduzieren. Sicherheit für die Industrie entsteht durch stabile, durchsetzbare Regeln, nicht durch Ausnahmen oder den Abbau von Standards. Eine Vereinfachung darf den Umweltschutz, die Transparenz und die demokratische Kontrolle nicht verwässern.
Danke.
Thank you.
Peter Liese
Yeah, thank you chair and thank you to Susana Solís for her efforts and to Lidia for presenting the draft report here. I support the line of Susana. I think it's very important to, you know, check what we did to be honest. And I remember when Jutta Paulus called me that we need to support a specific legislation because it's so important.
And then I asked her on another legislation which is now in the omnibus, Jutta do you have any idea what we are doing in that file? And her answer was oh no that is another colleague. That was the methodology that we did. Nobody nobody had a complete overview what we did in this committee and what the consequences of this are. That's why it is good to have a second look and change things that are desperately going in the wrong direction.
So to say our legislation is perfect is speaking on another planet. So that's why support for Susana Solís. And I would in particular mention two points in the Industrial Emissions Directive where I have a specific emphasis. First of all, we did an amendment that companies that are on their way to decarbonization should not invest money, should not invest money in the old plants because it costs a lot of money.
That's the purpose of an omnibus.
It's sometimes the same engineers that do the decarbonization but at the same time need to invest in the old technology for two years for a minor, really minor benefit. So when we want to decarbonize, we need to make priority. And when we look, when we have a second look, it is not working as it should because this provision only enters into force in 2030. So and the decarbonization should start now. So that's a point where I would ask everybody to have a second look.
And then my second point to Martin Hojsík, I told him also bilaterally because unfortunately he has to leave. Not misunderstand me, in particular the AGRI colleagues shouldn't misunderstand me, but it doesn't matter what the AGRI committee did. It is important what the plenary did. Yeah, but Martin Hojsík is wrong when he said there was no commitment of the Commission and no condition for support. The plenary supported the report after a clear commitment of the Commission, Commissioner Sinkevičius, that they will present a separate proposal on agriculture.
You may ideologically think industrial farming exists. But there is no definition for industrial farming. Everybody has another idea.
And that's why the farmers are right to say we are not industry, we are agriculture. And that's why it is legitimate to say we have an industrial emission directive and then a directive that deals with emissions of farmers. I don't think they should have a blank check, everything should be possible, but specific rules for agriculture and not put them in an industry directive. That was the promise of the Commission, and I ask the Commission to deliver. How can we trust the Commission if they do not keep their promises?
Thank you.
Rasmus Nordqvist
Good, thank you. I just want to make a point of order. I think to attack colleagues in that way with so-called quotes of so-called conversations of colleagues who are not present in the room, I think is disrespectful. It might be the way you want to work, but to the coordinator for EPP, I think we should actually have a collaboration where we can have discussion and do talk.
Whatever we have perhaps heard somebody say to somebody, I think it's below the level we should have discussions on in this committee.
Pierfrancesco Maran
There is another speech on this point, the last one I would say. Which one of the two? One. Yes, but not both, I mean one.
Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to say, and for the record, I saw and heard Peter Liese ask Mr. Hojsík to stay in the room because he wanted to ask him a question.
So I think that was a courtesy from Peter and I think that was a good way of handling the situation.
Pierfrancesco Maran
I think this point, we have different opinions but clear, I'd say. So Annalisa Corrado now.
Annalisa Corrado
Sì, I will speak in Italian. Sono un po' perplessa su tante cose di metodo e di merito. Sul metodo, l'opinione in AGRI non è stata né finita di discutere né votata in AGRI. Quindi il fatto di considerare che sia già stata inserita nel lavoro di ENVI è abbastanza assurdo, non rispettoso del lavoro che stiamo facendo in AGRI.
Io sono la shadow rapporteur in AGRI, ci sono un milione di problemi, non abbiamo ancora fatto lo shadow.
E quindi aver inserito tutto in blocco nel lavoro in ENVI senza averlo concordato di là e sapendo chiaramente che ci sono delle grosse criticità nella maggioranza, tra l'altro, che viene dimenticata ma c'è, lo trovo abbastanza irrituale se non abbastanza scorretto. E ci sono dei problemi molto seri. Come diceva Thomas Bachada prima, non si parla di semplificazione ma di deregolamentazione, addirittura andando contro i trattati. Cioè qui si parla dell'impossibilità per gli Stati membri di prevedere condizioni ambientali migliorative rispetto a quelle della direttiva, cioè in contrasto netto con l'articolo 193 dei trattati, tanto per dirne una.
Addirittura si inserisce un indebolimento degli strumenti di tutela della salute pubblica e dell'ambiente e si limita l'accesso del pubblico alle informazioni ambientali e alla giustizia, in esplicito contrasto con i principi della Convenzione di Aarhus. Quindi noi in Commissione Agricoltura ovviamente daremo battaglia rispetto a questi punti, ma a maggior ragione perché siamo in Commissione Ambiente, in questa sede, questa roba qui a mio avviso non è assolutamente accettabile. Quindi darla addirittura per acquisita mi sembra abbastanza irrituale, come dicevo. Grazie.
Thank you very much, Chair and dear colleagues.
Maria Ohisalo
As a general addition weakening or postponing new requirements we should first allow the existing rules to be implemented and assess whether they deliver the intended benefits. And echoing some of the colleagues here before me we need to distinguish genuine simplification from changes that reduce environmental protection. Removing duplicate reporting or streamlining procedures is one thing. Weakening pollution prevention is quite another. Lastly for the colleagues who are worried about competitiveness businesses need regulatory certainty.
This is the message that I get a lot.
And citizens expect a high level of environmental protection that this house has agreed to. We should therefore focus on better implementation, not tearing down recently adopted legislation before it has even taken effect. Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
I don't have any further requests, so we go to the Commission. We have Aurel Ciobanu-Dordea, DG ENV, Director for Circular Economy. You have the floor.
Aurel Dordea
Thank you very much. Good morning.
I would like to thank the rapporteur and the members of the committee for the efforts and the analysis of the Commission proposed Omnibus. We have carefully read the proposed amendments you have tabled in the report and we hear your positions. It is essential for all of us to keep up with the expectations of the EU leaders and stakeholders that Omnibus proposals are adopted swiftly to yield the associated benefits for companies and administrations across the EU. The worst outcome would be a prolonged debate without agreement.
That would jeopardize this much needed relief for European businesses, authorities and citizens. I note that the draft opinions from the ENVI, AGRI and ITRE committees include a high number of amendments, some of which are very significant and consequential. They not only concern the pieces of EU laws included in the Commission proposal, but also concern several other pieces of legislation without an impact assessment. The environmental omnibus cannot be used to deregulate and lower the level of protection of human health and the environment. The proposed changes in the draft opinions would result in deregulation and a lowering of level of protection.
Such changes therefore do not fit with the goal of the environmental omnibus. Allow me to go first to the amendments that are of utmost concern. They refer to the Industrial Emissions Directive. The proposal to bring back the scope of the Industrial Emission Directive concerning livestock installations to the level of 2010, 16 years ago, would result into a substantial decrease of the farms in scope from about 39,000 to 22,000 farms.
That's around 40%. This would be a major step back with negative consequences not only for the environment or for the human health, but also for the economic level playing field among farmers across the European Union, because not all farmers invest in the same way in curbing their emissions, and therefore it's a problem of competitiveness between farmers from across the Member States. One should not use the omnibus proposal to rediscuss the scope of the revised IED for the livestock sector. That debate took place two years ago.
We should not only focus on simplification, we should now only focus on simplification, not lowering the level of protection. In response to the call for a separate legislative proposal on livestock, reflecting the specific technical, economic and structural characteristics of that sector, the Commission would like to point out that the specificities of the livestock sector are already considered in the latest revision of the IED, because a special chapter was created for this sector with different and less stringent rules than for other sectors covered by the IED.
Therefore, there is no equivalence between the industrial sector as such, industrial installations and the farms. Moreover, the uniform conditions for the operation of livestock farms upcoming implementing act has been developed in close collaboration with farmers, farming associations specifically, as well as Member State experts and other stakeholders. We believe that the result of the work on the uniform conditions strikes the right balance and it requires proportionate efforts from the farms. And this is supported by the farming associations.
They are satisfied with the outcome of the discussions about the uniform conditions.
Therefore, the proposal of the rapporteur to delay the adoption by one year is not just impossible in practice to pursue since the omnibus will not be adopted before September 2026 and the uniform conditions will be adopted already by the Commission by that time, but also goes against the very interest of the farmers who have participated massively in the formulation, in the shaping of the uniform conditions and are satisfied with the outcome. And I think they are the best judges of their own interest. Another worrying amendment is a proposed delay for the transposition of the 2024 amendments. The legal deadline for the Member States to transpose this directive was yesterday, the 1st of July 2026. It cannot be amended retroactively.
Such amendment will only create legal uncertainty.
We cannot pretend that predictability is a major political objective only to undermine it afterwards. I would like to briefly refer also to the parts referring to the Waste Framework Directive and say that the Commission appreciates that the report recognizes that the notification process for the SCIP database imposes significant burden on industry stakeholders. The proposal to repeal this obligation is an important simplification step that will significantly reduce administrative burden.
As regards the limitation of the reporting frequency on extended producer responsibility obligations, the Commission hears the calls of the honorable members of this house for a more comprehensive EPR reform. In the context of the forthcoming circular economy act, which is due to be adopted by the Commission in September this year, different options will be are currently assessed and we will come forward with a comprehensive approach that you ask us to do.
I would like to briefly refer also to the parts of the draft report concerning the batteries regulation, indicating that the Commission considers that some of the amendments proposing exemptions from certain obligations for starting, lighting and ignition and electric vehicle batteries placed on the market as spare parts for vehicle models no longer in production are reasonable. For Article 11, we do not find the proposal to postpone the date of application of the derogations in this article by three years justified. Further, if the simplification regulation is published after February 2027, which is likely, Article 11 will have already become applicable and this will create a legal uncertainty for the economic operators.
So we would be grateful and we would call for the attention of the honorable members of this house on this particular situation, similar to the one I was referring to in, when discussing the industrial emission directive amendments. With respect to the proposed amendment for a new article 13a in the batteries regulation on the digital fulfillment of information obligations, there are valuable elements. However, this omnibus is not the right place to include them.
They should be integrated in the existing Article 13 and should be made compatible with the rules in the implementing act that is ready for the adoption by the Commission. So, to conclude specifically on this, the Commission hears your call and agrees with your suggestion, but we will address it in a different manner, which is allowed by the Batteries Regulation. Thank you very much.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we go back to the rapporteur for the final evaluation.
Lídia Pereira
Thank you very much, and on behalf of the rapporteur, Susana Solís, I thank you for the contributions. I have listened to every intervention.
The political groups come to this file from different starting points, and I guess this is a normal setting, and it is exactly why we have this exchange. So I take, I have taken notes of the priorities that people, that colleagues have raised. The teams will study carefully in the coming weeks, and where there are concerns about specific articles, I am ready to sit down individually with everyone, and obviously also with the Commission to take them in detail. So my door remains open.
I want these negotiations to be genuinely enriching, a process where every group brings something useful to the table and where we build a stronger, more balanced text together, not one where positions simply stand against each other. So I want and I hope I hope that we can achieve in the end a compromise that works across the political spectrum, a text that truly simplifies the European legislation, that keeps our environmental standards intact and that delivers real benefits for both of our citizens, people and our industry. So these are not opposing goals. I hope and I believe that we can find solutions that serve both at the same time. I work forward to work with all of you in the weeks ahead.
Thank you very much.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. I remember that the deadline for amendment will be the 7 of July at 11:00 AM. We will vote in ENVI on the 4 and 5 November and the plenary the same month of November. Now the last item in agenda, it's the exchange of view with the Commission and the authors of the JRC study on the implementation of the Ecodesign Regulation with a particular focus on the sustainability of textiles.
The Commission presented its working plan in ENVI last year in April and we are expecting several new delegated acts in the coming months and year. I would like now to give the floor again to Aurel Ciobanu-Dordea. You have the floor for eight minutes.
Aurel Dordea
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Of course, we are very happy for the interest of a limited number of the honorable members of this committee, but that we appreciate the interest.
And I will make use of a PowerPoint presentation and maybe we can move already to the second slide. You have expressed interest in what is going on in general with the implementation of the Ecodesign Regulation and in particular with the textile study.
Now allow me to give you an overview first on the implementation of the ecodesign regulation which is a framework regulation, a framework legislation in the sense that it lays down general requirements about how the Commission should work in order to define sustainability criteria for the different categories of goods that fall under the scope of this regulation. And then the Commission should bring forward multi-annual work plans as a second important guiding instrument under this regulation that would indicate which are the products which correspond to the criteria laid down by the co-legislators and deserve work.
And this should be followed by the product-specific measures, sustainability criteria, other measures based on detailed preparatory studies and impact assessment. So the Commission has understood very clearly this approach which was requested by the co-legislators, of course based on proposals from the Commission, and is working faithfully in order to deliver what is necessary.
And we could move to the second slide in order to share with you the good news, maybe, yeah, the good news about the fact that already the working plan for 2025-2030 was already adopted and is publicly available. Was already adopted by the College of the Commission in April 2025. And it contains also a review clause by mid-term in 2028, I think. We will look into whether there is a case for adding more products. And we hint in the work program even in certain directions where we will look into.
Then the second good news or the second batch of good news is the fact that measures required by the regulation have already been adopted by the Commission specifically to prevent the destruction of unsold goods because the co-legislators considered that this is a priority that cannot wait for the work plan to deliver.
So we have prioritized this and in February 2026 the Commission has adopted after the consultation of the member states and of the industries and also under the supervision of the European Parliament a delegated act which outlines derogations to the ban on destruction of unsold textile apparels, accessories and footwear. This prohibition on destruction applies to large enterprises as from in about two weeks from now, 19th of July 2026.
And then at the same time, we have adopted an implementing act introducing a standardized format for businesses to disclose the amount of unsold consumer goods discarded, which applies from February next year and introduces a certain discipline and obligations of transparency in a more clear manner for the economic operators. Now, what does the implementing the work plan speak about the priorities for bringing forward specific measures? We could move to the next slide. I will give you an explanation by categories of products which are covered by the work plan. First of all, new final products that are addressed under the Ecodesign Regulation.
You have here the overview. I would like to draw your attention in particular to the immediate priorities in this category on which the Commission will bring forward sustainability criteria requirements next year. Textiles, apparel only and not footwear, and tires are a priority. Then we can move to the next slide to look into a second category: intermediate materials that are covered by the work plan.
And this is about iron, steel and aluminum. And here I would like to signal that in parallel with our work on textiles and on tires, we work also on iron in correlation with the industrial on steel, sorry, and iron in correlation with the Industrial Accelerator Act that is also a legislative proposal for the attention of this house with a view to bring forward sustainability criteria and a possible green label for steel next year.
This work will also be correlated with another important legislative proposal which was already adopted by this house and by the Council, which is the proposal for a regulation enhancing the circularity of the automotive sector, which is due to be co-signed by the presidents of the two co-legislators later this month, in a few days, and published hopefully soon in the Official Journal. We can move to the next slide to address a third category of goods covered by the work plan, which are energy-related products in ESPR.
And here I would like to draw your attention to the review of the washing machines and dishwashers conditions. We will make proposals as a matter of priority for 2027. So we are working also on this important work strand, which concerns a lot of economic operators, where Europe has retained still a significant manufacturing capacity, and we have been working with the industry to shape these measures in a realistic and feasible way.
At the same time, I would note that these are goods that reach a large number of citizens of the European Union, so it will speak volumes both to the industry and to the consumers. We can move to the next category of goods which are energy related no. No, no, it cannot be the next slide. Next slide, please, sorry.
And these are goods which are covered by an extension of the lifespan of the prior ecodesign directive, which was extended until 2028 by the proposal made by the Commission in Omnibus, simplification Omnibus 4. And I would like to draw your attention that in the list, some products in bold on the slide were already adopted in 2025 or 2026: external power supply, ventilation units, power transformers. Yeah.
And we can move to the next slide to tackle also another important priority of the work plan: horizontal measures that we apply that apply to more than one category of goods or materials and that are also expected to deliver significant improvements from the perspective of circularity, decarbonization, and resource efficiency in the European Union and not only, because these requirements will apply equally to goods manufactured in third countries and placed on the European market.
And I refer notably to the priority for 2027, reparability including scoring. This will be very important for communicated with the consumers, communicate with the consumers, but also it will steer the manufacturers of certain goods in a more positive and sound direction.
So this is to say that to to show with a few examples the wide breath of the work plan and of the efforts of the Commission to implement the ecodesign regulation. Now I would like to move to the next slide in order to address briefly the problem of textiles, which as I mentioned is a priority for next year. And we have worked with our colleagues in the Joint Research Centre, who will intervene also here to present their study, in order to deliver under the indicative timeline for textiles.
You can see here the timeline. I would like to mention that besides the study presented by the, prepared by the Joint Research Centre, which retains the responsibility for its content, we have launched work with external consultants on the preparation of an impact assessment.
This impact assessment will involve a comprehensive analysis of the environmental, economic and social impacts of the ecodesign requirements under consideration in line with the better regulation guidelines of the Commission and which is planned to be finalized in the first quarter of next year. After the impact assessment, the intended measures will be notified, so before their adoption, will be notified, will have to be notified according to the trade rules to which the European Union subscribes to the World Trade Organization, published for consultation of the public on the Have Your Say portal and shared with the Member States expert group so that a delegated act can be adopted later in 2027. I would like to say also the following. Maybe we can move to the next slide.
Aurel Dordea
Yeah, yeah. So here you have the possible requirements for textile apparel, ecodesign requirements, other elements, measures to be impact assessed based on the technical recommendations by the JRC and other measures identified by stakeholders where feasible. And we can move to the last slide. The measure on textiles apparel is supposed to... Maybe we can move to the next slide.
Is supposed to be correlated with two other interventions. First, the textile labeling regulation, which is expected to be revised for modernized labeling rules. And on the other hand, with the rules under the Waste Framework Directive for extended producer responsibility that this Parliament has adopted in the previous mandate and under which the Commission is expected also in 2027 to bring forward criteria for the eco-modulation of fees for extended producer responsibility.
So, thank you very much for your attention. Apologies for having exceeded the imparted time, but I hope that this was still interesting.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. Now we have remotely connected Caroline Lambert, Head of Unit of the Circular Economy and Sustainable Industry Unit from JRC. Can you hear us?
I do.
Caroline Lambert
Great. So, good morning, and it's a pleasure to have the opportunity to be presenting our ongoing study on textiles. And without further ado, I would like the slides to appear. Thank you. These preparatory study on textile apparel is being done by my unit, but also with another unit in JRC, JRC D3.
So it's a collective work that I will be presenting. Next slide, please.
Aurel has already explained the legislative context. We are working under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Product Regulation, and our aim in this preliminary study is to provide the scientific and the technical basis for the future development of the ecodesign requirements for textile apparel.
We have developed suggestions for requirements based on a close dialogue with stakeholders of the industry and this has accounted no less than four consultation rounds and we used our Sevilla process framework for this dialogue with industry. We started the study in March 2023 and we will finalize it in September this year. Next slide please.
The Ecodesign Regulation requires to look at 16 different impacts on the environment, which we did, and we are coming up with suggested requirements on product robustness, the availability of repair services, product recyclability, recycled and organic fibers content, the tracking of substances of concern, and reporting on product footprint. Next slide, please. Let's start with durability. In the regulation, durability is meant to ensure that a product has a long service lifetime.
The way it translates into the textile environment is not straightforward, and therefore we were lacking a framework to measure how a product, a textile product, is aging, a recognized framework. So we decided to go through the robustness angle as a proxy for durability. In looking at robustness, we looked at the major failure modes that we all experience, basically color change, fabric properties, seams resistance, and the appearance and function on the non-textile parts of textile apparel.
In checking those robustness information requirements with stakeholders, they agreed and they perceived that they would be likely to extend the lifetime of our textile products, although it's not technically quantifiable. Next slide, please. Now coming to repairability first. Repairability extends the physical service lifetime of a product and therefore it also would decrease its environmental footprint.
For textiles, we suggest an information requirement on the availability of repair services provided by the economic operator. As an option, we propose that repair instructions and a description of component characteristics be included. Now coming to the product footprint and how it's reported. Reporting the environmental footprint has to be aligned with, I would say, the environmental hotspots of a product. And for textiles, it's squarely in the raw materials manufacturing and distribution parts of the chain.
80% of the environmental impacts are there. So we propose an information requirement that would be based on an environmental/carbon footprint reporting requirement and the potential development of classes of performance from the raw materials to the point of purchase of textile apparel.
Next slide, please. Recyclability. We, the aim is to improve the recyclability, to increase the availability of secondary materials so as to produce textiles again, I mean garments, apparel. We propose a recyclability score, that would be an information requirement, and that would be based on the design of the product that enables its recyclability. And therefore, what do I mean by enabling the recyclability?
I mean enabling the sorting, the pre-treatment and the recycling of the product. Coming to recycled and organic content, we are focusing there on environmental hotspots.
60% of impacts are at the raw material stage and that's why it's an area where we propose not only information requirements but also performance requirements in the way of a percentage of recycled material used. This would apply to the type of waste from which the material originates and the information requirements would of course be compliant with fiber content information requirement under the organic regulation. Next slide, please. On substances of concern, it's a default requirement under the regulation.
Therefore disclosure is there. What we've been focusing on is increasing transparency and focusing on the presence of substances that are intentionally in those products and that persist in the product.
We also had to balance the feasibility of the information requirements with the information that can be carried through the value chain because of course the value chain of textiles is very much global. So we set or proposed thresholds to trigger information disclosures. The idea is to have a step-by-step entry into application of these information requirements for the different types of substances of concern so that operators would have time to adjust. There are no performance requirements that are suggested in this area because there's no evidence that there is a gap to fill. There is already REACH and the persistent organic pollutants legislation that addresses these issues.
Next slide please.
So what are the further steps? I said at the beginning, the study will be finished in September. And Aurel also explained that then after that, it's the impact assessment stage where our proposal, our suggestions will be analyzed further from the economic perspective notably, but from other trade perspective as well and everything that an impact assessment covers. And that will be the base of a delegated act. Next slide, please.
And I want to end with a thank you. And of course we will publish the study when it's finalized. Thank you very much.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you so much. Now we have the political group representative, two minutes each. We start with the EPP Jessica Polfjärd.
So thank you chair and thank you for the presentation. And what I can understand from the ongoing work on textiles, both the JRC and the Commission are proposing new labels for carbon and environmental footprint.
Jessica Polfjärd
And I think that more labels risk confusing consumers rather than helping them, and it will also add administrative burden for the industry and for the sector. It also remains unclear whether these labels will be voluntary or mandatory. And experts in the Commission's own ecodesign forum have flagged that the scientific basis is weak and that in the worst-case scenario, these labels could lead to greenwashing as they are not life-cycle based. I therefore have two questions for the Commission.
The first one: how do the new labels benefit consumers compared to trusted voluntary labels as already on the market, such as the EU Ecolabel and the Nordic Swan? And the second question is: how does introducing new labels fit with the simplification agenda and the Commission's own ambition to clear up the labeling jungle, as set out in the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive? Thank you, Chair.
Heléne Fritzon
Thank you, thank you so much for this important exchange. It is very clear our textile consumption is not sustainable. We need a green transition in fashion and this is why your work on ecodesign criteria for textiles is so crucial. And this is why I also have, I have a lot of questions.
I will put some of them here. My understanding is that you are focusing much of your work on information requirements rather than minimum performance requirements. And we know at the same time work is progressing on digital product passports whose purpose is to provide consumers with relevant information. So for me it's not completely clear what the added value of information and requirements are.
So my first question to you is why you are focusing on this and what the added value really is. I'm also concerned that important performance criteria being included in a voluntary label rather than minimum requirements. So and I understand there has been a lot of discussion about the environmental footprint. Could you please clarify are you proposing that this be will be a performance requirement or only an information requirement? Will it only be for the voluntary label?
I also understand that you were previously not going to include the raw materials in the environmental footprint due to methodological difficulties. This has raised the discussion about whether you have a full life cycle perspective. Did I understand you correctly that the raw materials will in fact be included as a performance requirement? This would be welcome to know.
Also very briefly, a question concerns the voluntary label. Does it not shift focus from minimum requirements for all to a voluntary measure for frontrunners, and what does this add to the labels that already exist? And then finally, of course we need to continue the discussion about EPR for textiles. The criteria will be the foundation of eco-modulation of fees. It would be very grateful if you could describe how your criteria can be used for the implementation to this EPR.
What kind of differentiation of fees will maybe be possible? Thank you.
Stine Bosse
Thank you very much on behalf of the Renew group, and thank you to the Commission for joining us in this important discussion.
In the past 20 years, the export of textile waste from the EU to the rest of the world has more than doubled. I'm therefore pleased with the ESPRS's provision to minimize destruction of unsold goods.
However, I am concerned that the focus has shifted from securing minimum sustainability standards for textiles to information requirements. When the textile industry still accounts for 10% of global emissions and considering the EU's objective to reduce administrative burdens for businesses, prioritizing new reporting and information requirements over binding product standards seems difficult to justify. Environmental performance labeling is an important tool to improve transparency and to inform customers, but in my view, this should be accompanied by ambitious product standards. I would therefore like to ask the following three questions.
How can the Commission justify that information requirements are being set before adopting the actual requirements for the products, and how does this align with the simplification agenda? What evidence does the Commission sit with that additional information requirements will deliver greater environmental benefits than mandatory product requirements? Why does the Commission consider an additional performance label when the EU already has recognized schemes in place? Thank you very much.
Sara Matthieu
Thanks for your work and for the presentation. You know that we as Greens have always been great supporters of the ecodesign legislation and it's something we put a lot of time and effort in in the previous term to make sure we have all the tools at hand to tackle the crisis that is right now upon us when it comes to textiles and fast fashion. And I think the first, well, the good news is we will very soon have the ban on the destruction of unsold textiles. I think that that's a huge step forward, but I'm still quite critical as well of the fact that there are some loopholes in the way that this has been constructed.
Yeah, thanks a lot.
So I'm talking about the exemption for garments with an expired licensing agreements, the brands with logos. I really would have hoped that we got this really good from the start, but I hope that we are wrong. But then, I mean, the main concern for me, if I listen to the work the JRC has been doing, it's all about information requirements and not so much on performance requirements. And that really worries me.
What I've heard you say is for instance, okay, we will have information on repairability, so not repairability by design, but for instance, if I, if I get it right, what are the repair shops in my neighborhood? If I listen to what you say on the recyclability score, you're talking about the existence of design features that enable recycling. I mean, that's all nice, but why don't you put it so that in the design things should actually be made to recycle? And there are very good innovative examples, one of them actually here in Brussels, where they have designed a piece of stitching that you can disassemble on, on high heat. I mean, it's interesting to have the information, but why don't you make that kind of stuff mandatory?
And I mean, for me, it's the same with the recycled content. Okay, we will have information on the percentage of recycled content, but not a mandatory requirement to, for instance, say, let's not make polyester out of PET bottles, but let's actually make a closed-loop system. So I have to say that I'm quite worried, and I'm also worried when you're talking about the substances of concern. I'm a mother. I know how many chemicals are still in clothing.
I'm worried for my son's health, basically. If you don't wash garments before you wear them, you have zero clue what kind of chemicals are on your body.
You say we have REACH, we have POPs. Yeah, that's true, but I really think right now it's insufficient to protect people's health and the environment. So what I really would like to hear you say, how are you going to make sure that what you are legally obliged to do, by the way, is to appropriate, reduce the significant risks to human health and the environment, how are you actually going to make sure you do something on those substances of concern?
Martin Günther
Thank you. For the Left, Martin Günther.
Ja, vielen Dank, Herr Vorsitzender, ich würde in Deutsch sprechen. Seit Jahrzehnten machen die größten Modemarken Milliarden, indem sie immer billigere Kleidung produzieren und die tatsächlichen Kosten auf alle anderen abwälzen. Arbeiterinnen und Arbeiter sind schädlich, sind gefährlichen Chemikalien ausgesetzt, Flüsse und Ökosysteme werden verschmutzt. Insbesondere junge Menschen kaufen bei Super-Fast-Fashion-Marken wie Shein und haben oft keine Ahnung, welche Substanzen in der Kleidung stecken, die sie tragen. Und wenn diese Kleidungsstücke weggeworfen werden, erschweren dieselben giftigen Chemikalien eine sichere Wiederverwendung und ein hochwertiges Recycling erheblich.
Europa erzeugt jedes Jahr Millionen Tonnen Textilabfall, dies ist auch eine Bürde für unsere Ziele einer Kreislaufwirtschaft. Die Europäische Kommission legt aktuell neue Regeln für den Verkauf von Kleidung auf dem europäischen Markt fest. Das Recycling schadstoffbelasteter Kleidung ist keine echte Kreislaufwirtschaft. Die da Gift so im Umlauf bleibt. Die EU muss Chemikalien schrittweise verbieten, die die menschliche Gesundheit schädigen, ein hochwertiges Recycling verhindern und eine echte Textil-Kreislaufwirtschaft untergraben.
Die Ökodesign-Verordnung für nachhaltige Produkte gibt Europa die Chance, diese Weichen neu zu stellen. Die aktuellen Entwürfe der Forschungsstelle setzen jedoch fälschlicherweise auf die bloße Rückverfolgung statt auf das Verbot gefährlicher Chemikalien. Transparenz ist wichtig, keine Frage, aber sie ist kein Ersatz für den Schutz der Gesundheit der Menschen und der Umwelt.
Deswegen zwei Fragen. Erstens an die Gemeinsame Forschungsstelle. Wenn Ihre eigenen Analysen anerkennt, dass gefährliche Chemikalien recycelte Materialien verunreinigen und eine echte Kreislaufwirtschaft untergraben, warum empfehlen Sie dann keine strengere Beschränkung für diese Stoffe? Welche weiteren Beweise sind erforderlich, bevor das Vorsorgeprinzip Vorrang vor Verzögerung erhält? Zweitens an die Kommission.
Wenn Sie die endgültigen Ökodesign-Vorschriften für Textilien vorlegen, werden Sie dann über die bloße Verpflichtung der Unternehmen zur Meldung gefährlicher Chemikalien hinausgehen und sich dazu verpflichten, diejenigen schrittweise abzuschaffen, die die menschliche Gesundheit schädigen, ein hochwertiges Recycling verhindern und eine echte textile Kreislaufwirtschaft untergraben? Danke.
Peter Liese
Yeah, thank you, Chair. Thank you to Commission and JRC. On Tuesday morning, like I do very often, I had a group of young people here in the Parliament as a visitor group. And one young lady asked me, "What is your biggest achievement here in the European Parliament?" I thought about ETS, but it's maybe too complicated to explain 16-year-old people.
That's why I said, "Ecodesign," because I think it's really a big thing.
I remember when I was in the first trilogue with Frédérique Ries from Renew and Claude Turmes from the Greens, and we really did a big thing. Ecodesign saved a lot of energy, and there has been some discussions, but finally it is really a success story. So my first point to the Commission: communicate more about the success story of ecodesign. And there is a saying in Germany: "Wenn es uns an den Ohren wieder rauskommt, dann beginnen die Leute es zu verstehen." Which means in English more or less: when we are sick and tired of it, people start to understand.
So if the Commission is not sick and tired on communicating the benefits of ecodesign, then you didn't do enough. So it's really important to communicate because there are many people that communicate in a negative way. We should communicate the success stories. On the other hand, like in some other areas, tight is right, too tight is broke. So ecodesign was a very good tool to save energy.
If we do it too complicated, if we do it, you know, in a situation where we have already a lot of regulation, there is a risk of losing public support.
And textiles are linked with a lot of emotions. So to have limitations on what kind of textile people can buy, we need to think twice. So I'm not saying it is completely impossible, but it's also, yeah, we shouldn't be too fast and we should be very careful. And that's why the JRC wording that says we should do it gradually and proportionally, maybe is a good, a good guidance.
And don't forget, whatever, whatever the Commission should do under ecodesign should be a benefit for the consumers. So if you just ban types of clothes, it's not so easy to explain how is that a benefit for the consumers. So be careful and continue to implement what is already there and communicate better. And then we will see with a careful approach, let's see how far we can go. Thank you.
Rasmus Nordqvist
Yes, thank you. I mean, I was sitting thinking it has taken a long time and that's not bad if it's done well. But I have so many questions after this presentation, after following this for quite some years.
And I just want to mention that last week there was a recycling textile expo here in Brussels. I visited a lot of the stands there. I've been around Europe visiting companies in this field. And they're waiting for proper regulation because the recyclers, the sorters, the the the all the companies in this sector don't have a business as long as virgin materials are as cheap as they are and recycled content is not regulated that it it has to be part of the solution. So so we're coming very late.
We have a strategy also saying we should have acted on this before 2030 with with fast fashion and and and I'm just questioning how we're going to do that.
I have three concrete questions mainly to the Commission. First and foremost, it is if we only have the regulation of recycled content, what about the rest of the fibers going into textiles? So will you put forward also design requirement on sustainable sourced materials as such when it comes to this, so it's not just the percentages that has to be recycled, but what about all the rest, how is it sourced?
A bit in line with my colleague, Sarah Mathieu, I mean, will you put forward also performance requirement when it comes to recyclability? It has, we know the technologies are there, they need to be scaled up now, or else businesses are going out of business here in Europe and we are losing innovation, we're losing jobs as well. So, so what are the requirements here? And then on this timeline, I mean, it's coming in '27, at the earliest in '28 we're going to begin to see something. And, and I'm sure that, that the Commission is as, as is aware as well that the recyclers are screaming because they are losing out right now.
And they're losing out to other parts of the world because recycling in, for example, Asia is going really well.
So what are we doing here now to help the companies who can bring the fashion and textile sector forward? Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Yeah, thank you. Now we give the floor back to the Commission for five minutes, can just to respect because we are running late or so, past and late or.
Aurel Dordea
Yeah, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I think it is worth to bring some clarifications because there seems to be some misunderstandings here.
First of all, about the role of the JRC and the role of the Commission. The JRC is a part of the Commission, is entrusted with a study on this important intervention because we wanted an in-house examination and we wanted a study which is independent and which cannot be conducted by a mere contractor. But the decision remains with the Commission.
The JRC works under, I would say, in close cooperation with DG Environment and DG Grow, but the responsibility for the decision-making belongs to the policy leads, DG Environment and DG Grow. The second important precision is that currently there are only voluntary requirements under the product environmental footprint. What we will bring forward in terms of information requirements and mandatory requirements and performance requirements will all be mandatory. Do not underestimate, please, the role of information requirements. They will also be mandatory.
Why information requirements?
For two reasons. First of all because we currently do not know and not only the Commission does not know, nobody does not know thoroughly what is the actual performance of the different categories of textiles because this information is not available publicly. So how can you regulate something that you don't know? We know certain things but not absolutely everything.
This is why it is worth proceeding with some caution by instating information requirements. I would like to draw your attention also that the purpose of the ecodesign regulation and notably when it comes to textiles where there are large supply chains implications not only within the European Union but also in third countries. The per our purpose is rather I mean there will be some exclusions probably but the main purpose would be to bring the entire supply chains and the industry into a convergence progressively.
Not to create an earthquake that would destroy companies, but to steer practices, technologies and patterns in the good direction. I would like to make a third point, which is very important and which is related to the fact that not only performance requirements, but also information requirements will be mandatory. Actually, the centerpiece for making this work in practice will be the criteria for the definition of the echo- for the ecomodulation of fees under the Waste Framework Directive.
That will make manufacturers pay according to whether their garments are more sustainable or less sustainable. And this will be have an impact, economic impact, behavioral impact for the economic operators and also for the consumers.
I would like also to say that here we have presented only in a nutshell elements we have under consideration. And while I have heard the concerns expressed by honorable MEPs here and the importance that they attach to different elements that go beyond energy into hazardous substances and other elements, the Commission and at this stage before the college has taken a decision, I cannot advance myself and say, look, on this we will do like that and on that it will be an information requirement. We are really looking into this. We attach value to the public consultation that will take place next year. And we will be happy when our thinking will be more stabilized to come back here and to discuss with the members of this house.
And then there will be the scrutiny during the adoption period. I would like also to note that indeed we have heard also the suggestions made by the honorable Liese MEP about the need to communicate more, and indeed communication is an important battlefront and we need to win on that front as well. So thanks a lot for your attention and for your support.
Caroline Lambert
Thank you very much. DG Environment Aurel has basically said many of what I wanted to say. I want to focus on how we really base ourselves on the available data but also try to understand what's the missing data. So the unknowns. And there are a lot of unknowns and maybe unknown unknowns as well.
So legislating using ESPR, which is setting, you know, by design some compulsory requirements for all products put on the market when the data is sparse, is something that has to be considered with caution. We, the product environmental footprint group of stakeholders, it's a voluntary system and it's a fraction of the market. And yes, we know about that fraction of the market, but it is not necessarily representative. And we have learned a lot during the consultations that we've held.
Yet, we consider that from a scientific perspective, the data is still sparse. And that our proposal, but of course it's only a proposal and impact assessment and the Commission will look at it in more detail, is to learn from information requirements first.
In terms although we are proposing to look at performance requirements as well in the recycled content area. In terms of specific requirement on the use of sustainable materials, this would require a detailed assessment of the trade-offs among objectives of the different strategies and action plans that the European Union has for products, for materials, sorry. And industrial sectors use the same resources, there could be market distortion, so it's a it's a bigger issue that are not addressed in this current report, but are very interesting areas of future work.
On substances of concern, I think that many of the comments made by honorable members of Parliament are really interesting and relevant, and it would be really good if we could address them all, but ESPR is maybe not the tool to address them. So in the way we've worked, we try to focus on what is the legal base with which we work and what can that legal base achieve. And that was the, let's say, the scope of our work, and sometimes it means that important environmental issues have to be set aside from that scope because they are legislated in other areas, and that's why you would not see them in that JRC report when we will finalize it. Thank you very much.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you everybody. We don't have any other business, so the next meeting will take place in Strasbourg the 6th of July at 7:00 PM. Thank you and have a nice day.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.