Water organisations urge EC to safeguard Extended Producer Responsibility

Senior representatives from 12 water-related organisations have jointly called on European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to maintain the integrity of the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in the new Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD).

In a letter addressed to President von der Leyen, 12 organisations urged the European Commission to resist any attempts to weaken or amend the EPR scheme as adopted in  the new UWWTD. The organisations are Aqua Publica Europea, Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR), EurEau, Eurocities, European Anglers Alliance (EAA), European Environmental Bureau, European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), European Water Association (EWA), Health Care Without Harm (HCWH) Europe, SGI Europe, Surfrider Foundation Europe and Water Europe. The organisations include drinking water and wastewater service providers, local public utilities, and water-related technology providers.

Push back against pressures to weaken EPR

The recast UWWTD introduces extensive measures to address micropollutants in wastewater, achieve energy neutrality, promote water reuse, and improve transparency and sanitation access. The new UWWTD entered into force on 1 January 2025. The letter calls on the European Commission to ‘firmly uphold the EPR scheme and push back against any pressures to revise or weaken this core provision of the recast Directive, whether through a potential future simplification package or any other instrument not included in the recast UWWTD.’ The organisations also write that reopening this debate would create serious legal and financial uncertainties. “This would postpone the rollout of quaternary treatment and delay the overall implementation of an essential service at a time when urgent and consistent action is needed to protect public health and avoid the degradation of aquatic ecosystems.”

Quaternary treatment in jeopardy

The EPR scheme, rightly the organisations assert, mandates that pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries cover at least 80% of the costs for quaternary treatment as det out in paragraph 1, Article 9 of the UWWTD. This is based on data which shows these industries contribute 92% of micropollutants in wastewater. The quaternary treatment targets micropollutant removal and is vital for mitigating environmental and public health risks. Based on the polluter-pays principle outlined in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), EPR ensures a fair cost distribution between polluting industries and urban water users, protecting public water services and aligning with Sustainable Development Goal 6. The latter advocates for safe and affordable water and sanitation services for everyone.

Level playing field in Europe not affected

The organisations argue that the EPR scheme also supports eco-innovation and sustainable product design while fostering a level playing field across the EU. By reducing pollutants entering wastewater, the scheme also facilitates resource recovery and wastewater reuse, bolstering the circular economy. Claims that the scheme could harm the competitiveness of EU-based industries are unfounded, the letter asserts. The organisations argue the EPR scheme applies equally to products from both EU and non-EU markets, ensuring fair competition across the internal market. Furthermore, the UWWTD also permits Member States to extend EPR obligations to other sectors contributing micropollutants to urban wastewater.

The EPR previously under fire from Cefic

The European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) expressed concerns over the EPR framework back in 2023. Cefic argued the EPR scheme should distribute pollution mitigation costs more fairly among all stakeholders, including producers, consumers, and recyclers, rather than placing the financial burden predominantly on producers. They also warned against the broad definition of ‘micro-pollutants’ in the proposal, which could encompass thousands of substances, potentially making the scheme unmanageable. To address these issues, Cefic recommended establishing a centralised EU Producer Responsibility Organisation (EU-PRO) to oversee EPR implementation across member states. However, public water companies from Germany, Austria, France, Poland, and Sweden supported the EPR concept, opposing any dilution of its principles. They argued that producers should bear the financial responsibility for pollution, aligning with the polluter-pays principle, to prevent the cost burden from shifting to citizens.