Changes from report parliamentary committee draft to plenary report

The Industrial Emissions Directive – is the main EU instrument regulating pollutant emissions from industry. The large agro-industrial installations undertaking the industrial activities under the scope of the IED can only operate if in possession of a permit, granted by national authorities. The IED has a double function: While aiming to reducing and preventing, as far as possible emissions into air, water and soil, it contributes to industrial transformation by setting best available techniques as a standard to achieve for installations.

At the core of IED lies the so-called “Sevilla Process” – a forum for exchange of information, bringing together various stakeholders. The exchange supports the Commission when drawing up, reviewing and, where necessary, updating Best available techniques reference documents (BAT reference documents) by means of an implementing decision (the ‘BAT conclusions’), constituting a foundation of the national permit procedures. Therefore, the Sevilla Process is amongst the most bottom-up effective policy tools in the EU.

The proposed revision of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) comes as a natural evolution of the existing legislation, to achieve the objectives of the Green Deal. This revision of aims to promote the twin transition - to a more sustainable and digitally autonomous economy, by fostering innovative and technology-based industrial processes. Therefore, a significant part of the Commission proposal from April 2022 is both anticipated and welcomed by the civil society and largely accepted by industries concerned. On the other hand, parts of the Commission proposal raise either sector-specific objections or horizontal concerns among businesses and Member States representatives. At the same time some stakeholders assess the Commission proposal as adequate in principle, but untimely, due to the extraordinary pressure on EU industries in times of crisis and transformation, as a consequence of the high ambition of the Fit-For-55 legislative package, the problems in global supply chains, the energy crisis and the Russian war on Ukraine. These voices need to be at least partially credited, since there is sometimes inherent conflict between decarbonization and de-pollution measures, and in addition both - decarbonization and de-pollution measures - often require higher energy consumption, while new legislations such as EED and RePowerEU and especially the aggressive war of Putin in Ukraine and the subsequent energy crisis, mandate industries to invest in energy efficiency as a matter of priority.

A number of the concerns are also shared by the European Social and Economic Committee and the Committee of the Regions in their opinions.

In the present report, my principle ambition as a Rapporteur is to keep and even enhance the logic and ambition of the Commission proposal, while addressing the reasonable concerns raised. Whereas most stakeholders involved object to certain articles or principles of the Commission proposal and would like to see them rejected by the co-legislators, my universal approach is to propose a compromise on the disputed parts of the legislative proposal and look for solution of legitimate concerns, while keeping increased ambition in place. This is, in my opinion, the very idea of IED and Sevilla Process – legislation, based on careful compromising between various stakeholders, new techniques and investor security while gradually evolving towards the zero-pollution target.

Among the main concerns, expressed by stakeholders, in this report I have addressed the following:

1. Sector specific:

- Extension of the scope regarding agricultural activities

In spite of the very strong position and arguments against the extension of the scope, expressed by the industry representatives, EESC and AGRI opinions, in the report I take into account the relevant data on pollution, caused by animal-rearing activities. Therefore, in a search for compromise, I propose the exclusion of only extensive, organic and family farming under certain scope, defined by national authorities, based on specific national and regional circumstances, and increasing the general threshold from 150 to 300 LSU, where no exemption is applicable.

- Extension of the scope regarding extraction activities

Whereas pollution, related on certain mining activities is undisputable and extremely dangerous to human health and environment, in the report I take into account the objections of various mining sectors, whose activities are either not producing hazardous emissions or already fully covered by existing legislation. Therefore, I propose the scope of the Directive to be extended to extraction activities involving chemical processing based on an exhaustive list of processes prepared by the Commission via delegated act. I also take into account the solid arguments of the Commission, regarding transparency and public awareness as ultimate preconditions for the much-needed increase of the extraction and processing of critical raw materials in the EU.

- Extension of the scope to large-scale battery production

While battery production and recycling involves a number of hazardous processes, installations, engaged only in assembling components do not, and should, thus, not be covered under the scope.

2. Horizontal:

- Delegation of powers to the European Commission regarding essential legislative elements beyond technical aspects

In my report, I do not accept a weakening of the Parliament’s role as co-legislator.. Therefore, I propose rejecting the empowerment of the commission for some questions, that go beyond mere technical fine-tuning while encourage the latter to present additional exhaustive list encompassing minerals that have high environmental impact and include these extractive activities in the scope of the Directive.

- Requirement for the competent national authorities to set emission limit values in permits at the most stringent (i.e. lowest) end of the relevant BAT-AEL range

The implementation has shown that in most of the cases the competent authority authorities set the emission limit values at the least ambitious end. It is thus, reasonable and timely to incentivize a more thorough refection of which emission limit values are possible. In light of planning security and the general principle of law of no-retroactivity, it needs to be made clear that this provision applies to new installations or where permits are updated in line with revised BAT-Conclusion after the transposition of this Directive. The Sevilla process is best equipped to deal with issues related to cross-media effects and heterogeneous emissions. Given the heterogeneity of installations, the final decision remains with the competent authority.

- Inclusion in the Permits of mandatory environmental performance limit values based on BAT-associated environmental performance levels.

In line with the Emission limit values, I propose to include the environmental performance levels for new installations and amended BAT Conclusions after the transposition of this Directive, while maintaining the general concept due to its necessity for transformation. The risk of cross-media effects in regards to environmental performance levels are considerably higher and installation-specific, the possibility of setting ranges should thus be kept.

- Introduction in the permits of a mandatory environmental management system (EMS), in case it doesn’t make already part of a BREF document

In the report, I take into account the fact that EMSs already exist as a binding part of a number of BREFs and propose keeping this link between BREF and EMS. However, respecting the reasons behind the Commission proposal, I suggest a minimum content requirement for EMSs in article 14a where BREFs do not require an EMS. In case where one permit covers several installations, only one EMS should be required.

- Mandatory transformation plans on installation level

Now more than ever, it is critically important to make every effort to support our industry in its efforts to become more resilient, efficient and competitive. The logic behind this attempt should be to encourage rather than put an excessive burden on business. It should be thus necessary for each permit to be accompanied by a transformation plan after 2030.

I propose the plans to remain indicative, the opportunity for having one plan under one permit and a new option for the development of consolidated transformation plan on company level, since ambitious transformation, leading to decarbonization of industrial processes is only possible through general investment plans, only possible on company level.

- Possible overlaps in regards to reporting obligations under other EU legislative acts

In art 27d, I also propose, that EMS and Transformation plans shall not include information and data already required under other EU legislation, except in the form of a reference.

In my amendments, I have strived to preserve to the largest extent the equilibrium and the organizational logic of the Sevilla process, as by the accounts of all stakeholders concerned this is a working formula in the effort to not antagonize pollution reduction with economic efficiency and performance.

3. Fast-track permitting

I also propose a new Article 27e on fast-tracking installations that are key for achieving the Union’s strategic goals by 2050 and are of transformative character. The permitting for these installations should go faster.

In light of the energy and health crises we are going through in Europe, we need to have a permitting, which is crisis ready. The report aims to reflect this.