In the context of the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) provided for in Article 9, 10 and Annex III of the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD), TEGEWA represents industrial companies that manufacture cosmetic raw materials and which – even if these substance manufacturers are not themselves subject to EPR – may be affected by the classification of substances as potential micropollutants in cosmetic products: This is because, once EPR is implemented into national law, the continued use of substances classified as micropollutants in cosmetic products to be placed on the market will trigger an EPR payment obligation on the part of the relevant product manufacturers or importers of cosmetic (end) products.
We fear that the UWWTD’s EPR and its direct and indirect effects will have immense economic impacts on the cosmetics raw materials industry, which, in addition to significant market shifts within the EU and enormous distortions of competition, could also lead to these industrial companies ‘relocating’ to countries outside Europe.
In our TEGEWA position paper, we have set out policy demands of the cosmetic raw materials industry (KosRo = Kosmetische Rohstoffe), which are directed in particular at politicians, ministries and European institutions, and include, amongst other things, the following:
- Given that we consider the UWWTD’s EPR system to be not-well-elaborated, we advocate for an unbureaucratic, feasible and workable system such as the so-called ‘Swiss model’ – which has already been successfully introduced in the federal state of Baden-Württemberg in Germany.
- With reference to Poland’s action against the UWWTD’s EPR before the Court of Justice of the European Union (Case C-193/25), TEGEWA rejects any substance-based approach to an EPR model that may be under discussion.
- Furthermore, in order to avoid significant economic impacts on the cosmetics raw materials industry and enormous distortions of competition within the EU, we call for
- an EU-wide harmonised classification of specific substances as micropollutants (see Article 2 (17) of the UWWTD),
- an EU-wide harmonised application of exemptions for substances classified as micropollutants or exemptions from EPR obligations for certain substances (see Article 9 (2), (5) of the UWWTD),
- as well as general EU-wide exclusions for certain substances from the EPR obligation (e.g. when these substances never reach the quaternary treatment; in case of inorganic substances (see Recital 18 of the UWWTD), etc.) should be provided.
The relevant stakeholders from the cosmetics raw materials industry – as TEGEWA – must be involved by the EU at an early stage in the process set out in Article 9 (5) and (2)(b) of the UWWTD, so that they have the opportunity to contribute their expertise – for example, on the criterion of ‘rapid biodegradability’ – as early as possible.
- We call on the European Commission, in collaboration with the authorities of the individual EU Member States – including the German authorities – to introduce an EU-wide enforcement system (e.g. customs) to ensure that non-European importers wishing to import products subject to EPR into the EU also pay their EPR fee. There is concern that the EPR fee to finance the quaternary treatment – for example, as the number of parties liable for EPR payments decreases – could rise, thereby contributing to substances and cosmetic raw materials no longer being used for cost reasons and, as a result, no longer being available on the European market: If products containing potential micropollutants are withdrawn from the market for cost reasons, this would also affect substances and cosmetic raw materials that are not classified as micropollutants at all, which could lead to these substances also no longer being available on the market, or only being available in reduced quantities (as the relevant product is ultimately no longer manufactured).
Further information is available in the TEGEWA position paper, which can be accessed here.
Contact: Ass. jur. Sakina Wagner LL.M. Eur.