EU environment ministers adopted, on Thursday 16 March, the EU Council’s position (a general approach) on the proposal to modernise and strengthen the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU, the so-called ‘IED’ Directive) to facilitate the transition to the circular economy by 2030 and the ‘zero pollution’ ambition for EU water, air and soil by 2050.
After several hours of final negotiations between experts, the last reservations of certain Member States regarding a compromise that was stable for the most part and that the Swedish Presidency considered fair, balanced and equitable were overcome (see EUROPE 13142/21).
The Swedish Minister for Climate and Environment, Romina Pourmokhtari, who chaired the session, welcomed this breakthrough on “a key directive for the European Green Deal and the green transition “, which “should support the EU’s climate agenda, zero pollution ambition and circular economy as well as energy policy by contributing to the transformation of all our industries”.
It is the main instrument for regulating emissions from large industrial installations and for permitting installations with emission limit values to be met on the basis of best available techniques. Its revision to extend its scope to include large agricultural installations was proposed in April 2022 (see EUROPE 12926/2).
The latest developments are of two kinds.
They concern, on the one hand, the exclusion of perlite from the scope of the future directive, which also covers mining (gypsum is also excluded), and the inclusion of apatite.
On the other hand, the energy efficiency requirements of the IED Directive would be optional for large installations covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS).
The political agreement, which paves the way for negotiations with the European Parliament, was adopted by qualified majority (Bulgaria abstained and Italy could not support the text).
During the debate, Italy announced that it would vote against the text, which was too ambitious, particularly for cattle farming (an extension of the scope based on “an unconvincing impact assessment”) and because the compromise suggested that health could take precedence over the environment.
Apart from the final adjustments, the text of the compromise detailed in our columns remains identical (https://aeur.eu/f/5t3 ).
Thus, intensive livestock farming is excluded from the scope of the directive and the livestock unit thresholds (LSU) above which it would apply, with very long transition periods, would be 350 LSU for cattle and pigs, 280 for poultry and 350 for mixed farms instead of the 150 proposed by the Commission.
During the debate, several delegations stressed that they had reservations but were ready to support the text, counting on the interinstitutional negotiations, either to raise the thresholds for the most concerned or to lower them for the most ambitious.
Malta and Poland said that hydrogen produced by electrolysis should be excluded or at least the 50 tonne water threshold should be raised.
Spain has indicated that it will do its utmost to ensure that the text can be adopted during the six months of the Spanish Presidency, which begins on 1 July.
The Commissioner for the Environment, Virginijus Sinkevičius, had urged Member States to show flexibility, warning that “hardening of positions” could occur if agreement on a “very delicate balance” was delayed.
Forced to reserve the Commission’s position pending the European Parliament’s decision, he nevertheless stressed that, while the threshold for large livestock units remained low, it would allow national authorities to meet the EU’s legal obligations and their international commitments to reduce ammonia and methane emissions by 2030.
He had noted the “understandable” new crisis derogations to take account of the energy crisis, but specified that they would have to be limited in scope and time – and duly justified. He recalled that in the event of an objection from the Commission, Member States would have to adapt their national derogations, as is the case in the regulation on the security of gas supply. He also welcomed an addition on compensation for damage to health, but regretted that the EU Council had weakened the provisions on sanctions by removing the right of citizens to collective representation in the event of damage.
The vote in the Parliament’s Environment Committee (ENVI) is scheduled for April (rapporteur: Radan Kanev, EPP, Bulgarian). The following committees are involved: Agriculture (rapporteur for opinion: Benoît Lutgen, EPP, Belgian) and Industry (rapporteur for opinion: Tomas Tobé, EPP, Swedish).
See the Council general approach : https://aeur.eu/f/5v3 (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)