On Wednesday 5 February, the Polish Presidency of the Council of the European Union sent Member States an update on the state of negotiations with the European Parliament on the revision of the Waste Framework Directive.
In the document, obtained by Agence Europe, the Presidency addresses a number of sensitive unresolved points with a view to determining the Member States’ room for manoeuvre at the next meeting of the Committee of Permanent Representatives of the Member States to the EU (Coreper) on Wednesday 12 February. Poland hopes to reach an agreement with Parliament at the second trilogue on 18 February.
The aim of revising the framework directive on food and textile waste is to speed up the fight against food waste in the EU and to involve textile manufacturers in the fight against waste.
Food waste. Provisional agreements have already been reached on a non-exhaustive list of measures to reduce waste and on taking account of Member States’ pre-existing waste prevention programmes.
Parliament wants to make food donations compulsory for economic operators, but the Presidency has been unable to accept this, and is now sounding out the Member States. The European Parliament would also like to add a revision in 2027 of the 2035 targets of 30% and 50% for food processing and manufacturing, and for retail and other forms of distribution, which the EU Council has so far opposed.
Textile waste. The main disagreements between the institutions concern the extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme, its implementation deadline and its scope.
The European Parliament does not wish to allow more than eighteen months for the implementation of EPR, the EU Council is for 30.
In the EU Council’s view, micro-enterprises and those involved in re-use should also be subject to EPR. The European Parliament is against. For micro-enterprises, the Presidency is giving Member States two options: to postpone their inclusion until 24 months after the establishment of extended producer responsibility schemes, or to exclude them from the scope of the directive. For those involved in reuse, who would be subject to a “reduced fee”, governments are being asked whether they would prefer to insert a review clause or delay the provision.
A source of concern for co-legislators, ‘fast fashion’ could be given a reprieve if there is no agreement on how to regulate its “environmental impact”. It would take the form of an implementing act submitted by the Commission.
See the document: https://aeur.eu/f/fee (Original version in French by Florent Servia)