All the environment ministers of the European Union Member States welcomed, on Monday 24 October, the potential benefits for the environment, climate neutrality, the circular economy and for the ‘Zero Pollution’ ambition of the revision of the directive on industrial emissions. However, a majority of them had expressed strong concerns for small livestock farms during the first policy debate they had on the review presented in April.
The proposed revision of Directive 2010/75/EU (the so-called ‘IED’) strengthens its scope by covering more large industrial installations and intensive agricultural livestock operations, according to the Commission (see EUROPE 12926/2).
The Czech Presidency of the EU Council wanted to know the assessment of the level of ambition of the directive concerning the extension of the scope to poultry and livestock holdings with 150 livestock units.
Scope. For most delegations, this threshold of 150 units was considered inadequate and worrying, as it creates a disproportionate administrative burden and costs in a sector already under pressure from soaring prices and the energy crisis. They claim that this threshold will be fatal for small family farms and risks placing small European farmers “at a disadvantage vis-à-vis competitors from third countries”, as Hungary in particular has pointed out.
Estonia suggested that this threshold be raised to 400 livestock units and that the requirements be made more flexible.
Latvia argued that a distinction should be made between the different types of farming and that organic farming should be excluded.
An overly restrictive threshold for livestock farming does not reflect the specificities and varieties of farms, which may discourage small farms, Malta stressed, arguing that other methods to reduce methane and ammonia emissions should be explored, for example in the CAP strategic plans.
A simplified regime is foreseen, but it can only be implemented two years after the entry into force of the directive; therefore, there will be negative consequences, the Portuguese minister noted. Austria expressed understanding for the concerns of other delegations.
What about REACH? The Netherlands, Spain, Austria, Germany, Belgium and Sweden, regretting that the European Commission has postponed the revision of the REACH regulation on the registration, evaluation and restriction of chemical products until the third quarter of 2023, have called for its rapid revision.
Penalties. With regard to the introduction of common proportionality parameters in the directive to set penalties and facilitate compensation for health damage, the overwhelming majority of delegations considered that it was best left to Member States to establish penalties within their judicial systems and that the EU Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law, currently under revision, should serve as appropriate horizontal legislation.
Several ministers have expressed concern about the reversal of the burden of proof, which would require operators to prove that they have not caused health damage.
The Czech Minister of the Environment, Anna Hubáčková, noted these concerns for further work.
The EU Commissioner for the Environment, Virginijus Sinkevičius, thanked the “general support for the revision of the directive”, if not for its modalities. Stating that he had heard the ministers’ concerns, he said that the proposed directive “does not cover small farms”, but will provide a health benefit, compared to the current directive covering only farms with 250 head of livestock and that “few family farms (SMEs) will be affected”.
He also assured that account would be taken of the specificities and size of the farms and of the welfare of the animals (whether they leave the farm or not). As for sanctions, he said that the directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law does not overlap with the future Industrial Emissions Directive, which will only target effects on human health. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)