The European Union is currently going through a particularly worrying period for environmental protection.
Under the pretext of wanting to boost the economy and strengthen the competitiveness of European companies, European institutions are rolling back environmental laws, giving in to industrial lobbies and their short-term vision.
The situation is all the more frustrating given that many of these European regulations and directives required a colossal amount of work and mobilisation on the part of civil society and European citizens, which could be reduced to nothing in a matter of days or weeks.
In the face of this organised erosion of European environmental law, we felt it was essential to take stock of the rollbacks, derogations and adjustments already made to the legislative texts for which we have campaigned and which you have supported.
Restrictions on microplastics in cosmetics: exceptions that render the text meaningless
A brief reminder
In April 2023, after many months of delays, the European Union finally adopted a ban on microplastics intentionally added to cosmetic products. This measure provided for a six-year transition period for rinse-off products and a 12-year transition period for make-up – deadlines that we already considered too long.
However, the stakes are high: currently, 40,000 tonnes of cosmetic microplastics end up in the European environment every year, with these particles present in 90% of everyday products. Several committed brands are proving that it is possible to offer effective natural alternatives.
Read also: Ban on microplastics in cosmetics postponed again
The weakening of restrictions on microplastics intentionally added to cosmetic products perfectly illustrates this worrying trend. The current regulatory framework has glaring loopholes: only products containing glitter sold separately are effectively banned, while the same glitter remains authorised in self-tanning products, make-up and shower gels, on the pretext that no major effort has been made by the industry to reformulate products containing glitter.
In response to this restriction, a Christmas decoration company challenged the ban in court, prompting the Commission to exempt most uses of glitter from the ban. This was a capitulation to industry pressure.
Even more worrying is that the Commission is currently developing guidelines that could potentially reduce the scope of the restriction.
This process is taking place behind closed doors, without any consultation with NGOs, calling into question the democratic transparency of these decisions.
Regulations on packaging and packaging waste: capitulation to fast food lobbying
A brief reminder
The European Commission’s initial ambition was to reduce the amount of packaging placed on the market in the European Union by improving its design to enable reuse, combating over-packaging and reducing packaging at source.
Eurostat data shows that packaging waste in Europe continues to increase, with more than 188 kg of waste per capita per year in 2021, 10.8 kg more than in 2020.
The European regulation on packaging and packaging waste is a prime example of the effectiveness of industrial lobbying strategies.
After fifteen months of intense negotiations, this text has been progressively and systematically watered down, particularly with regard to the regulation of paper and cardboard packaging in the catering sector.
The influence exerted by fast food chains, plastics manufacturers and the paper and cardboard industry has significantly weakened the initial ambition of the regulation. These economic players have deployed particularly sophisticated lobbying strategies in Brussels, including the production of biased studies designed to contradict the European Commission’s impact assessments.
This influence is all the more problematic as it contradicts established scientific data on the environmental superiority of reuse over single-use solutions.
Despite this scientific evidence, the European institutions have acceded to the demands of multinational fast food and paper companies, preserving the use of single-use packaging in the catering industry. This major concession significantly reduces the environmental effectiveness of the regulation.
Regulations concerning industrial plastic pellets: exemptions that compromise the effectiveness of the system
A brief reminder
After many months of working with other NGOs, the issue of industrial plastic pellets has finally been taken up in Brussels.
The new regulation includes binding minimum requirements for all carriers and operators, with its scope extended to maritime shipping, following a comprehensive approach to the supply chain covering every stage – production, processing, transport, storage, cleaning and reprocessing.
European regulations on industrial plastic pellets are yet another example of this organised regulatory weakening, characterised by the introduction of exemptions for small and medium-sized enterprises. This decision exempts small and medium-sized enterprises from most of the truly binding obligations, despite their very significant share of the plastics value chain.
The final agreement exempts the majority of SMEs from any independent monitoring, even though they represent the bulk of the plastic supply chain: 98% of players in processing and 97% in transport and storage. Instead of adopting a risk- or volume-based approach, the regulation excludes operators handling less than 1,500 tonnes per year per facility – a high threshold equivalent to 75 billion pellets handled annually by a single site.
Even more concerning, even small businesses exceeding this threshold will benefit from reduced obligations, including a one-time certification to be completed five years after the regulation comes into force. This approach excludes a large number of important industrial players from regular monitoring, paving the way for incomplete and unverified compliance. Without continuous monitoring, this relaxation compromises the very objective of the regulation: comprehensive prevention across the entire supply chain.
Urban Waste Water Directive: when the polluter-pays principle becomes optional
A brief reminder
The revision of the European Urban Waste Water Directive, dating from 1991, was adopted after more than two years of negotiations.
This text introduced important measures such as quaternary treatment to eliminate micropollutants in large wastewater treatment plants (more than 150,000 inhabitants) and recognised pollution from biomedia for the first time.
The stakes are enormous: 108.85 million m³ of wastewater are produced daily in the EU.
Read also: Wastewater Directive: a crucial update to protect the ocean and our health
The revision of the European Directive on Urban Waste Water Treatment (DERU) is another significant example of this regulatory setback, particularly with regard to the application of the polluter pays principle to the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries.
The extended producer responsibility (EPR) mechanism, initially introduced in April 2024 to charge manufacturers for the costs of advanced treatment of micropollutants, was significantly weakened during negotiations: the final version now only provides for 80% of the costs to be borne by manufacturers, with the remaining 20% being transferred to the public authorities.
In response to this measure, companies in the pharmaceutical sector exerted particularly strong pressure, citing the considerable cost incurred by the Extended Producer Responsibility principle, which they would then be ‘forced’ to pass on to medicines. The cosmetics sector, for its part, contested its share of responsibility for pollution and denounced the unfair distribution of financial contributions.
Both industries have now taken legal action to obtain an even more favourable revision of this EPR, suggesting that the polluter-pays principle is likely to be abandoned in this area.
Bathing Water Directive: a discreet but revealing abandonment
Another setback, more discreet but no less significant, was the abandonment of the revision of the Bathing Water Directive. Although nothing had been formally ‘promised’, this revision had been long awaited and demanded in view of the glaring shortcomings of the current text.
This text, which is nearly 20 years old, is no longer adapted to current challenges: micropollutants, chemical pollution, new forms of contamination, etc.
A revision was therefore widely desired and requested by several environmental NGOs.
An evaluation report commissioned by the Commission itself highlighted the shortcomings of the current text, echoing Surfrider’s recommendations. In particular, the report stressed the need to incorporate new monitoring parameters (cyanobacteria, chemical pollution, microplastics), extend controls to the whole year for water sports enthusiasts, and adopt a ‘One Health’ approach linking human and environmental health.
The paradox is striking: while 85% of European waters are considered to be of excellent quality according to current criteria, these criteria no longer reflect the complexity of contemporary pollution and exclude the millions of users who engage in water sports outside official bathing areas.
Green Claims Directive: abandoning an essential tool in the fight against greenwashing
The announced withdrawal of the Green Claims Directive is the latest example of this regulatory regression. Under pressure from conservative political groups and industry lobbies, the European Commission is moving towards abandoning this anti-greenwashing legislative proposal altogether.
Yet this directive was an essential regulatory tool for regulating companies’ environmental claims. In particular, the directive provided for the requirement of prior certification by an independent third party of any environmental claim before marketing. This measure would have prohibited companies from using claims such as ‘eco-friendly’, ‘carbon neutral’ or ‘preserving biodiversity’ without rigorous scientific validation of these claims.
The text was abandoned at the trilogue stage, an advanced phase of the European legislative process, reflecting its legal and technical maturity. The directive aimed to systematically regulate corporate communications containing environmental claims, a crucial issue in a context where greenwashing practices are becoming increasingly widespread.
The environmental omnibus bill: towards a major dismantling of achievements
The environmental omnibus bill, expected at the end of the year, is undoubtedly the most accomplished expression of this logic of regulatory regression. This legislative proposal, which follows the controversial consultation on the alleged obstacles that environmental regulations pose to the competitiveness of European companies, promises to be a major dismantling of environmental and social gains.
Under the guise of ‘administrative simplification’ for businesses, this directive proposes to weaken or even remove many obligations relating to sustainability and the protection of human rights. This approach is part of a massive deregulation process that ignores long-term climate and environmental issues.
This overview reveals a deeply worrying trend: the European Union seems to have chosen to sacrifice its environmental ambitions on the altar of short-term economic competitiveness. In the face of these organised setbacks, it is more necessary than ever to maintain public pressure and remind European decision-makers that protecting the environment and the ocean cannot be negotiable. The future of our ecosystems and our health depends on it.