Cosmetics Europe retaliates against EU committee’s financial “burden” of wastewater treatment on industry
21 Sep 2023 --- The personal care association Cosmetics Europe has published a statement flagging various concerns on the new rules for treating urban wastewater, which require cosmetics and pharmaceutical producers to finance removal costs.
Yesterday, European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety members voted to update the 30-year-old directive, which was introduced to further the protection of the environment and human health.
“The European cosmetic sector is overall concerned with the workability of the proposed system, which is not based on sound scientific justifications and does not ensure fairness for economic operators,” states Cosmetics Europe.
“The impact assessment accompanying the proposal does not provide clear scientific reasoning as to why the cosmetics sector has been chosen.”
Further, the Parliament will adopt a negotiating mandate in its October 1 plenary session. Once the Council adopts its position, talks with the national government on the law’s final form will commence.
“Sector-based approach is not fit”
Cosmetics Europe criticizes that the definition of micropollutants is too broad.
Cosmetics Europe is expressing its concerns about the proposed Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes with the “polluter pays” principle.
“The European cosmetics sector fully supports the overall objectives of the EPR scheme and is ready to take responsibility and duly contribute to the upgrade of urban wastewater treatment plants. Nevertheless, it is of utmost importance that any financial contribution is based on the principle of a fair distribution of the burden between all polluters,” asserts the association.
“In this respect, we welcome the recognition by the ENVI Committee of the fact that micropollutants can come from different sources. However, we believe that a sector-based approach is not fit for the directive, and a defined list of micropollutants would be a better means to identify those companies whose products contain such substances and who need to contribute to EPR schemes.”
However, the Parliament justifies that cosmetics and medicinal products have been identified as the primary source (92%) of micropollutants requiring additional treatment.
“The report foresees that EPR schemes may be complemented by up to 20% national financing for the upgrade of urban wastewater treatment plants to avoid unintended consequences on the availability, affordability and accessibility of vital products, particularly medicines,” shares the Parliament.
“Producers would be exonerated from the EPR obligation if they can demonstrate that the quantity of the product they place on the market is below 2 metric tons per year or that no micropollutants are generated at the product’s end of life.”
Despite Cosmetics Europe believing the financial plan is unfair, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) criticizes that the members of the Parliament (MEPs) watered down the European Commission’s (EC) proposal by introducing new exemptions and covering part of the fees using the public budget.
Product volume versus concentration
Cosmetics Europe states that the directive should tackle aquatic pollution without threatening the safe use of chemicals.
However, Cosmetics Europe states it regrets that the ENVI Committee did not tackle the provisions on producers’ contributions.
“According to the legislative proposal, financial contribution for each producer should be determined based on the amount of the product placed on the market,” suggests the association. “However, we believe that EPR fees should rather be based on the volume of micropollutants contained in the products placed on the market.”
“If not, this would lead to unequal treatment of producers as the amount of the product is not directly proportional to the volume of micropollutants that a product might contain. This is, for instance, the case for diluted and concentrated products.”
Personal Care Insights previously sought an industry response to EC’s plan with Beiersdorf and Natracare, stressing the importance of regulatory pressures for industry changes and promoting biodegradable and organic solutions.
Contested micropollution definition
Moreover, Cosmetics Europe states that the directive should tackle aquatic pollution without threatening the safe use of chemicals.
“We are concerned that the ENVI Committee has not significantly improved the definition of micropollutants. This definition remains based on criteria that are too broad. This would result in the inclusion within the scope of the definition of several substances, such as biodegradable substances, that do not pose a problem in the current urban wastewater treatment systems,” stresses the association.
“In this respect, Cosmetics Europe welcomes the effort by the ENVI committee to exonerate from the EPR obligations those producers who can demonstrate that products or substances in products they place on the market are biodegradable.”
They argue that the exoneration criterion is too restrictive as some substances would still be considered micropollutants despite being removed through the first three treatment stages.
However, the MEPs want member states to better monitor inlets and outlets of the urban wastewater treatment plan, focusing on pollutants, microplastics and PFAS.
On the other hand, Sara Johansson, senior policy officer at the EEB, says: “Wastewater carries a fingerprint of the pollution our society creates and is a known pressure on aquatic ecosystems. MEPs today showed they are ready to update wastewater treatment rules but do not yet seem to understand the risk of micropollutants spread via wastewater, including sewage spills.”
EEB criticizes that the MEPs watered down the EC’s proposal.
Extending the scope of the directive
The EC’s proposal, introduced in November last year, is part of enacting the Green Deal, which places stricter rules on ambient air, surface and groundwater pollutants and urban wastewater treatment.
The three main points of the new rules include increased use of reused treated wastewater, better monitoring of wastewater content and polluters must pay.
Moreover, the EEB stresses that while the MEPs have voted to extend the scope of the directive to cover smaller agglomerations, they have pushed the deadline for compliance with basic wastewater treatment to 2032 at the same time, which is two years later than what the EC had proposed.
“The Committee also approved new rules for nutrient removal that will apply for medium-sized and large wastewater treatment plants progressively until 2043, three years later than the EC’s proposed timeline,” adds the organization.
Lucille Labayle, Surfrider Foundation Europe’s water quality and health policy officer, adds: “Today’s vote generates very mixed feelings. On the one hand, we praise the ENVI Committee’s efforts to tackle biomedia pollution and strengthen the EC’s proposal in this sense.”
“On the other hand, despite upgrading the Directive’s scope and some of the rules for wastewater management, we deeply regret that the outcome of this vote does not equate to the level of ambition needed to act swiftly on chemical pollution.”
By Venya Patel
