Member States’ ambassadors to the EU (Coreper) made progress, but failed to reach agreement, on Wednesday 8 March when they discussed a new Swedish EU Council Presidency compromise of 6 March on the proposed revision of the Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU (the so-called ‘IED’ directive), which aims to cover more large industrial installations, including large poultry and livestock farms with 150 livestock units. This future directive will also amend the Landfill Directive, retaining its Best Available Techniques (BAT) approach.
The exclusion of extensive livestock farming and the differentiated approach by type of animal, very long transition periods to allow time for the industry and farmers concerned to adapt and for the authorities to adopt conclusions on BAT (see EUROPE 13134/5) are accepted, but the level of livestock unit thresholds is the main point still to be decided. Other issues, such as penalties and compensation for damage to health, still need to be adjusted to pave the way for a hoped-for political agreement at the ‘Environment’ Council on 16 March.
The Swedish Presidency will therefore present a new compromise, which will be discussed on Thursday 9 March, a diplomatic source said on Wednesday, believing that “the chances of reaching an agreement are good”, given the constructive discussions.
Penalties/Compensation (Articles 79 and 79a). On this point, which was not addressed by the ambassadors last week, the proposed directive establishes common parameters of proportionality to facilitate compensation for health damage.
The draft compromise stipulates that penalties for breaches of national provisions should be “effective, dissuasive and proportionate” taking into account, inter alia, the duration and seriousness of the infringement, of its intentional or negligent nature, the repetitive or singular nature of the infringement and the economic benefits derived from it.
It gives Member States the flexibility to adapt the rules of the Directive to their national systems, without prejudice to the EU Directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law, which is currently under revision - something that most delegations can live with.
For some countries, however, there is still a need for more flexibility, while others are outright reluctant to even consider compensation for health damage.
Threshold levels. Most Member States support raising the 150 livestock unit threshold, which is considered to be far too low. The compromise text discussed on Wednesday envisages the application of rules covering, in a first stage, the largest intensive livestock farms, once the Commission has established, by implementing act, operational rules for individual installations on the basis of best available techniques, after an exchange of information with Member States and environmental NGOs and 4 years after the adoption of the directive. The number of livestock units would then be gradually reduced. The Directive is expected to be transposed into national law 24 months after the adoption of the text.
Under the proposed compromise, the exchange of information would cover the environmental performance levels of installations and techniques in terms of emissions, raw material consumption, water consumption, energy use and waste generation.
Despite the step-by-step approach, some Member States still have difficulties with the threshold level - for pigs, cattle or poultry - while others fear that too high thresholds will undermine the environmental objective of the future directive, which has been proposed as part of the EU’s ‘Zero-Toxic Pollution’ ambition (see EUROPE 12926/2).
The compromise clarifies the definition of extensive livestock farming so that there is no risk that intensive cultivation for animal fodder will be excluded from the scope of the directive.
Best available techniques for environmental benefits are listed in Annex IV of the Directive, which adds decarbonisation to the list of relevant criteria.
Minerals. For the extractive industry, the thresholds for minerals are generally agreed, but some Member States still have difficulties with the scope of the future rules, wanting, for example, gypsum excluded.
To see the Swedish Presidency’s compromise proposal of 6 March: https://aeur.eu/f/5pb (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)