EU Environmental Omnibus to simplify environmental law
Improving implementation, speeding up procedures, reducing the burden on businesses
20 November 2025
Europe must now take the express bus – making environmental law leaner, simpler and more efficient
Trust-based regulation for greater personal responsibility on the part of project operators
The Federation of German Industries (BDI) represents more than 100,000 large, medium-sized and small companies from all sectors of the manufacturing industry, which together employ more than eight million people.
Companies are having to spend more and more time fulfilling reporting and documentation requirements, complying with regulatory requirements and adapting to new regulations. This culture of mistrust towards the economy must urgently give way to trust-based regulation. This provides a framework in which companies can act independently, thereby strengthening them and creating opportunities for growth.
European companies are calling for the EU legal framework, in particular European environmental law, to be adapted to the realities of global competition. This means that European legislation may need to be aligned with the standards of our competitors, while ensuring that compromises remain possible. Simplified and streamlined regulations will make it easier for companies to comply with regulations and achieve Europe's ambitious economic and environmental goals without unnecessary bureaucracy.
The European Commission has announced its intention to make Europe more sustainable, innovative, competitive, resilient and independent. Existing and new regulations are to be simplified and bureaucratic hurdles removed. These simplification measures are to be implemented in a series of omnibus proposals. These announcements point in the right direction: streamlining regulations, reducing unnecessary costs and burdens, and making EU regulations more efficient are essential first steps in promoting innovation and strengthening Europe's industrial base while maintaining our high principles and standards. The BDI expressly welcomes the Commission's legislative proposal on "simplifying administrative burdens in environmental law" (environmental omnibus). , it is important to take swift initial steps to ease the burden on businesses and administrations, which will have a noticeable positive impact. However, a number of European environmental laws require more POSITION|
fundamental revision. Further measures are therefore needed to follow up on the Environmental Omnibus.
This paper identifies the laws that are a priority for German industry and need to be revised. In particular, revising the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) and the Water Framework Directive could reduce bureaucracy and simplify and speed up approval procedures. The Habitats Directive, which has never been fundamentally reviewed and revised since it came into force in 1992, could also help to reduce administrative burdens through adjustments
In addition to the laws that the BDI believes should be subject to an omnibus procedure, this paper also addresses those that should be considered separately. These laws also offer potential for simplification and relief for businesses. This includes the Commission's announced revision of the REACH Regulation, which must focus on simplifying regulations and reducing the burden on businesses Finally, the implementation of the Ecodesign Regulation must be effectively designed with the participation of the companies concerned
Legislation that should be part of an omnibus procedure
1. Industrial Emissions Directive (IED)
The new IED will result in considerable additional financial expenditure and bureaucracy for operators of industrial plants. However, investments must not be made more difficult and the necessary transformation of the economy towards climate neutrality must not be delayed. In this respect, the provisions of the Industrial Emissions Directive should be revised once again.
▪ The additional IED environmental management system, including the chemical inventory and transformation plan, should be deleted again. This creates considerable additional bureaucracy and duplicate regulations without any discernible benefit to the environment (Art. 14a IED new).
▪ A standard setting of limit values at the lower end of the BAT ranges is rejected (Article 15 No. 3 new). Not all processes can comply with the lower value for every parameter. This requirement is likely to overwhelm many plant operators and accelerate the relocation of production to countries outside Europe.
▪ Exemptions from limit values must be expanded. Existing exemptions must be reviewed to ensure that the barriers to their application are not too high. Annex II of the IED on the application of Art. 15 V IED, for example, effectively prevents exemptions from being granted.
▪ Environmental performance limits, for example on consumption values, resource efficiency, water and energy consumption and waste quantities, should be deleted again (Article 15(3a) new). The regulation of environmental performance values in the IED means double regulation.
▪ The baseline report for soil and groundwater entails considerable costs and bureaucracy for operators. This should be deleted.
2. Water Framework Directive (WFD)
The implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) now requires very lengthy preparations and studies by project developers. There is considerable uncertainty regarding the achievement of the 2027 targets, particularly with regard to the deviating management objectives and exceptions provided for in the WFD. The introduction of at least three further management cycles, a practical definition of the prohibition of deterioration and an appropriate extension of the possibilities for deviation or exemption within the framework of the existing requirements of the Water Framework Directive would contribute significantly to a reduction in reporting obligations.
▪ Extension of deadlines (Article 4(4)(c) WFD)
Under the current WFD, good ecological and chemical (and, in the case of groundwater, quantitative) status must be achieved for all water bodies by 2015. According to Article 4(4)(c) WFD, this deadline can only be extended by two management plan cycles – i.e. until 2021 or 2027. However, numerous water bodies are still in poor condition today (in Germany, for example, 100% of surface waters) and are unlikely to achieve good status by 2027. The target achievement requirement cannot be met if existing industrial and infrastructural activities ( ) that have an impact on water bodies are to be
continued beyond this date with legal certainty. However, it must be possible to continue these activities. Article 4(4)(c) of the WFD should therefore be amended to allow Member States to extend the deadline for achieving the objectives by three further WFD cycles (i.e. until 2033, 2039 or 2045) where necessary.
▪ Prohibition of deterioration (Article 4(1)(a)(i) and (b)(i) of the WFD)
Not every minimal impact on a single quality component or environmental quality standard may constitute a fundamentally prohibited deterioration without regard to the overall environmental balance, as assumed by the ECJ (Weser deepening judgment) and the Federal Administrative Court (Staudinger judgment, Elbe deepening judgment). It is therefore necessary to include in the definitions in Article 2 of the WFD a practical, proportionate definition of the term "deterioration" that complies with the principle of equal treatment and allows for an integrated assessment of the environmental balance. To date, the WFD does not contain any definition of deterioration, even though this is a central legal concept of the WFD.
‘Deterioration of the status of a body of water’ means only the lowering of the status of at least one of the quality elements, within the meaning of Annex V to this Directive, by one class, if that lowering results in a fall in the classification of the body of water as a whole.
▪ Derogating management objectives (Article 4(5) WFD)
The instrument of setting different objectives must be able to play its intended role in exercising planning discretion, taking into account socio-economic aspects, local hydrogeological and anthropogenic conditions and water protection concerns in line with the principle of sustainability. To date, this instrument has been used very little and only under considerable legal uncertainty. This is due in particular to the fact that Article 4(5)(c) of the WFD requires, among other things, that further deterioration be avoided. However, it is contradictory that the WFD makes a deviation from the strict objective of the prohibition of deterioration dependent on the avoidance of further deterioration. This contradictory requirement (avoiding further deterioration) for setting different management objectives, currently regulated in Article 4(5)(c) of the WFD, should therefore be deleted.
▪ Exceptions to the management objectives (Article 4(7) WFD)
All industrial, infrastructural and other human activities that have an impact on water bodies are subject to the strict objectives of the prohibition of deterioration and the requirement for improvement. This creates a number of largely investment-hostile and inappropriate uncertainties about the possibilities for continuing these activities beyond 2027 (see above), even if these projects are to be continued on a reduced scale (see Federal Administrative Court ruling on the Staudinger power plant of 2 November 2017). In many cases, this makes it all the more important to rely on exemptions to ensure the continuation of projects relating to surface or groundwater. However, Article 4(7) of the WFD limits these to a few specific circumstances. It is therefore urgently necessary to amend the wording of the WFD exemption in Article 4(7) WFD so that its scope of application is open to all activities relating to water that are subject to the strict objectives of the WFD. In particular, this means that an exemption must in principle also be permissible if
- good chemical status is not achieved or - there is deterioration and failure to meet objectives due to pollutant inputs that cannot be regarded as a new change in the physical characteristics of the water body or the groundwater level.
No water-related activity subject to the strict objectives of the Water Framework Directive may be excluded from the scope of the exemption from the outset.
Link to the BDI paper "Integrated Water Management"
3. Nature conservation directives (Habitats Directive, Birds Directive)
The Natura 2000 directives need to be revised and adapted to today's requirements. There is no need to relax nature conservation standards. Nevertheless, significant improvements are possible and necessary in order to reduce the reporting obligations for industrial companies.
▪ For example, differentiating between common species and rare species and strengthening population protection would lead to more effective species protection.
▪ The creation of larger and contiguous, but not spatially contiguous, compensation areas strengthens nature conservation.
▪ In addition, standards/conventions must be developed with all stakeholders to prevent excessive expert reports.
Economic concerns must be effectively taken into account in the Natura 2000 protection system and in species protection in accordance with the basic principle of Article 2(3) of the Habitats Directive and Article 2 of the Birds Directive. The current consideration at the downstream level of the exemption assessment is subject to excessive requirements (Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive). This applies in particular to the selection of protected areas, which has so far been based exclusively on technical criteria.
"Temporary nature" should be defined, recognised and included as an instrument in the Habitats Directive. It could enable an appropriate balance between nature and species conservation and industry, for example by allowing industrial brownfield sites to serve both species conservation and later industrial use.
4. SCIP database
The high level of bureaucracy associated with the SCIP database is disproportionate to its actual usefulness. Given the current situation, companies need real relief. The ECHA's SCIP database should therefore be discontinued. The intention to establish a valid data cycle in addition to a material cycle in order to create circular value creation in the EU remains fundamentally correct. This discussion is currently continuing in connection with the introduction of digital product passports (DPP).
▪ The ECHA's SCIP database should be discontinued.
Link to the BDI position on the "SCIP database"
5. EU Air Quality Directive
The new and significantly lower limit values in the EU Air Quality Directive should only apply after an appropriate transition period, at the earliest from 2040, as compliance with the values by 2030 is unrealistic due to the actual level of pollution in Europe. This would also be more in line with other EU regulatory projects, particularly in the areas of climate protection and transport. The significant impact of the proposed limits on industry – especially on numerous small and medium-sized enterprises – as well as on commerce, mobility and housing can only be managed by European society with long and sufficient transition periods.
▪ The new, significantly reduced limit values should be postponed from 2030 to 2040 at the earliest
6. Directive on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants (NEC Directive)
The Federation of German Industries believes that the NEC Directive (EU/2016/2284) is no longer necessary in view of the contribution of industrial sources (including energy production) to air pollutant emissions. It should therefore be abolished or not renewed. The recently amended directives on industrial emissions and air quality set very ambitious targets for the EU and are sufficient to ensure a high level of protection for people and the environment. In addition, the NEC Directive is no longer necessary. This proposal is also in line with the EU Commission President's aim to simplify EU law and reduce bureaucracy.
▪ The NEC Directive should be abolished.
7. Directive on environmental impact assessment (EIA Directive)
The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (EIA Directive) should be streamlined:
▪ The EIA obligations for projects and the circumstances requiring preliminary assessment should be significantly reduced and the thresholds raised.
▪ Changes to installations should only be subject to an EIA if they exceed certain materiality thresholds.
▪ The scope and depth of the assessment must be reduced (Art. 5 and Annex IV).
▪ Furthermore, it should be stipulated, for example, that an environmental impact assessment is not required for permits under the EU Industrial Emissions Directive (IED). This would significantly simplify and speed up the procedures concerned. Permits under the IED are crossmedia permits, in which the effects on the protected assets of the EIA Directive are often already considered extensively.
▪ In addition, duplication with other directives should be avoided. For example, the same projects should not have to be assessed under both the SEA and EIA Directives.
8. Methane Regulation
As part of an omnibus package on environmental law, the EU Methane Regulation should also be made more practical in view of the extensive measurement and reporting requirements. Among other things, the regulation requires operators of lignite opencast mines to determine methane emission factors for their mines on a quarterly basis, even though lignite seams contain hardly any methane due to geological conditions.
▪ In the interests of finding an appropriate and proportionate solution, we therefore propose refraining from determining methane emission factors on a quarterly basis and instead calculating them annually.
For underground coal mining and the oil and gas sector, the EU Methane Regulation also contains complex measurement, quantification and reporting requirements that should be simplified. For example, simplifications could be made in Article 14, as the requirements for leak detection and repair (LDAR) are one of the most costly areas of the Regulation. Article 15(6) could also be deleted or revised to allow economic considerations to be taken into account when assessing the reasonableness of alternatives to flaring or venting methane.
▪ Simplify Article 14.
▪ Delete or revise Article 15(6) to take economic considerations into account when assessing the reasonableness of alternatives.
In addition, the partly extraterritorial requirements of the regulation pose major problems for the importers concerned. In addition to bureaucracy, there are compliance risks if actors outside the EU cannot trace the products back to their source (crude oil usually changes hands several times between the production site and the refinery) or do not want to disclose the relevant data. An omnibus procedure should therefore create greater legal certainty, dispense with molecule-specific traceability (e.g. by using specific emission values for each country of supply) and extend implementation deadlines.
9. Remove time limits and extend the emergency regulation
The EU emergency regulation adopted in 2022 and now extended until 2025 allows EU Member States to grant exemptions in the area of species protection and environmental impact assessments (EIA), which significantly speeds up projects. The EU should not only remove the time limit on the emergency regulation, but also extend its scope to include all projects that contribute to achieving climate protection goals and reduce reporting requirements.
Legislation outside of an omnibus procedure
10. REACH Regulation
In the upcoming revision of the REACH Regulation, the focus must clearly be on simplifying the rules and reducing the burden on businesses. The existing regulations should be targetedly adapted and simplified to make them more effective, predictable, transparent and (resource) efficient, and to reduce unnecessary burdens on businesses – especially SMEs. Additional measures must not lead to the creation of further bureaucratic hurdles. Adjustments and new initiatives in the field of chemicals regulation must therefore be carefully considered and implemented with a great deal of prudence:
▪ Quality must take precedence over speed. All procedures must be implemented with the full involvement of the industry concerned and assessed in advance with comprehensive impact assessments.
▪ Necessary adjustments and simplifications can and should also be achieved within the existing legal framework.
▪ Future initiatives should not aim at new regulations. Rather, the focus should be on the efficient implementation and enforcement of existing rules.
From the industry's point of view, generic approaches and blanket bans on entire groups of substances do not represent simplification and are not effective. The regulation of chemicals must therefore continue to be based on the proven concept of scientific risk assessment. Purely risk-based approaches are counterproductive and lead to an unjustified restriction of the availability of chemicals, with negative effects on innovation and the possibility of technological developments (see above). It must remain possible in future to manufacture and use hazardous chemicals if there is no unacceptable risk to humans or the environment. This is a crucial prerequisite for the continued production of sustainable products and value creation in Europe.
Link to the BDI position paper "Chemicals Policy Guidelines 2025"
11. Ecodesign Regulation
With a few exceptions, the new Ecodesign Regulation is intended to cover almost all products in order to make them more environmentally and climate-friendly. To implement this, the Commission will issue product-specific delegated acts in the coming years. This will involve considerable effort and a comprehensive intervention in internal company processes.
▪ Involve all key stakeholders
In order to implement the Ecodesign Regulation through delegated acts, the European Commission should also adopt and apply horizontal, transparent methodological guidelines. Member States, standardisation bodies and, above all, companies must be sufficiently involved in the development of product-specific delegated acts. This is particularly important in order to effectively support the path of industrial transformation by 2050 and not to hinder the establishment of low-emission technologies of the future through misguided regulations. In the interests of a level playing field, mechanisms should be found that enable SMEs in particular to implement the requirements of the Ecodesign Regulation in a simple and unbureaucratic manner.
Digital product passports (DPPs) must be both practical and applicable for small and medium-sized enterprises
Digital product passports are important enablers of a circular economy. They must be created and handled in a practical manner. Where information is passed on in the value chain, this should continue to be the case in the future. Digital product passports must be designed in such a way that SMEs can also use them without much effort ( ). It is essential to avoid a costly coexistence of different databases for companies
Imprint
Federation of German Industries (BDI)
Breite Straße 29, 10178 Berlin www.bdi.eu
T: +49 30 2028-0
Lobby register number: R000534
EU Transparency Register: 1771817758-48
Editorial Team
Dr Alexander Kessler
Environment, Technology and Sustainability
T: +32 2 792-1007
A.Kessler@bdi.eu
Annette Giersch
Deputy Head of Department Environment, Technology and Sustainability
T: +49 30 2028-1608
a.giersch@bdi.eu
Uta Maria Pfeiffer
Head of Environment, Technology and Sustainability
T: +49 30 2028-1436
u.pfeiffer@bdi.eu
Document number: D2201