Simplification of European Environmental Law
EU Environmental Omnibus: A first step – further action needed
February 10, 2026
Cargo bike instead of omnibus – improvements needed
In view of the tense economic situation in Germany and Europe, German industry strongly supports the EU Commission's goal of strengthening competitiveness in Europe through simplification and debureaucratization.
However, German industry is convinced that simplifying and reducing the bureaucracy of procedures and laws does not mean abandoning high environmental and health protection standards. Rather, it is a matter of better reconciling competitiveness with a high level of environmental protection. This requires a careful balance between environmental protection and competitiveness.
The Commission's proposals send an initial signal for reducing bureaucracy: the deletions in the Industrial Emissions Directive can provide noticeable relief for German industry. Another positive aspect is that environmental impact assessments are to be carried out more quickly in future and the SCIP database is to be abolished. However, there is potential for more. For example, the changes to the IED's environmental management system must go further. In addition, the standard setting of limit values at the lower end of the BAT ranges should be abolished and exemptions from limit values should be extended and facilitated. Other measures worth mentioning include the abolition of the baseline report for soil and groundwater and a "stop-the-clock" rule for the implementation of the IED into national law
The announced review and revision of the Water Framework Directive is an important signal. It is long overdue, if only because the directive has remained essentially unchanged since it came into force in 2000. However, swift action is needed. The directive stipulates that good water status must be achieved by 2027, and it is foreseeable that this target will not be met in any Member State. This creates considerable legal uncertainty for authorities and companies, which must be eliminated quickly. For this reason, a series of measures should be taken in advance in a further omnibus procedure.
The same applies in principle to the revision of the nature protection directives. These too have remained virtually unchanged since they came into force. It is not enough to simply carry out a fitness check here.
The Federation of German Industries evaluates the proposals presented by the Commission insofar as they are relevant to German industry. This concerns the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), the regulation on the establishment of an industry portal, the proposal for a regulation to accelerate environmental assessments, the SCIP database, and the proposal to appoint authorized representatives for extended producer responsibility. In addition, laws that are not part of the Environmental Omnibus but which German industry considers to be in urgent need of action are also addressed. These are the Water Framework Directive, the Municipal Waste Water Directive, the NEC Directive, the Air Quality Directive, nature conservation directives, and the methane and REACH regulations
Implementing uniform procedural law
Overall, the BDI finds that the EU Environmental Omnibus lacks a proposal that harmonizes the different requirements for administrative procedures, including public participation and authority involvement, and makes them more efficient overall. Industrial facilities and related projects may fall under various directives, such as the EIA Directive, the IED, or the Seveso III Directive. However, the procedural requirements are not consistent between these directives. A uniform procedure should therefore be agreed or specified to determine which requirements are to be applied (and then exclusively). In addition, the same accelerated decision-making deadlines should be regulated in all directives, without reference to "strategic" sectors that are yet to be defined.
Making proposals for the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) more effective
The new IED will result in considerable additional financial expenditure and bureaucracy for industrial plant operators. However, investments must not be hampered and the necessary transformation of the economy towards climate neutrality must not be delayed. In this respect, we welcome the fact that the Commission has presented proposals for revising the directive (COM (2025) 986 final). However, these proposals fall short of effectively reducing bureaucracy for businesses. In addition, it is necessary to present a separate "stop-the-clock" provision for Directive 2024/1785.
The proposals in detail:
1. Changes to the environmental management system (EMS) are insufficient
The Commission argues that the proposed amendments to Article 14a of the IED will significantly reduce the burden on industry. However, this has only been partially successful.
COMPLETE ABOLITION OF REGULATIONS ON THE HANDLING OF CHEMICALS
Article 14a par.1 sentence 2 of the new proposal should be deleted. Without this deletion, there will be no effective relief for industry.
The proposed deletion of Article 14a par.2 (d) of Directive 2024/1785 is insufficient and does not in itself provide definitive relief. Contrary to the statements in the explanatory memorandum to the directive (see also recital 9), the proposal does not abolish the regulations on the handling of chemicals in Article 14a.
A definitive reduction in the burden on industry from the regulations on the handling of chemicals can only be achieved by additionally deleting Article 14a par.1 sentence 2. This stipulates that the EMS
"shall comply with relevant BAT conclusions that determine aspects to be covered in the EMS" . In addition, the penultimate paragraph of Article 14a states that "The operator shall prepare and implement the EMS in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of this article" and thus also with the BAT conclusions.
The reference to the BAT conclusions in Article 14a opens the door to a wealth of bureaucratic requirements for the design of an EMS and must therefore be deleted as a matter of urgency. Otherwise, the proposals for simplifying the EMS will come to nothing. More recent BATs contain a wealth of very detailed provisions for the design of an (industry-specific) EMS, including those governing the handling of chemicals. In terms of content, these are at least identical to the provision deleted in the draft in Article 14a par.2 (d).
ABOLITION OF REFERENCES TO "BENCHMARKS" IN BAT CONCLUSIONS
The reference to "benchmarks" regulated in installation-specific BAT conclusions should be deleted. The aim of the simplifications in the Commission's proposal is to abandon the strict installation-specific nature of the previous provision and to enable a genuine site-specific or group-specific EMS, as also provided for in ISO 14001 (see also the new version of Article 14a par.1, first sentence, and recital 7). However, this is meaningless if the EMS has to be aligned with benchmarks contained in plant-related BREFs.
Article 14a par.2 (b) should therefore be worded as follows: "(b) objectives and performance indicators in relation to significant environmental aspects "
NO PUBLICATION ON THE INTERNET
Article 14a No. 4 should be deleted without replacement. Publishing the contents of the EMS on the internet burdens companies with additional bureaucracy and has no measurable effects in terms of environmental protection.
DO NOT REGULATE EMS AS PART OF AN PLANT PERMIT
Art. 14 subparagraph 2 ba) of Directive 2024/1785 should be deleted. This provision obliges the authorities of the Member States to regulate "appropriate requirements for establishing the characteristics of an environmental management system in accordance with Article 14a" in plant permits.
This is an additional and unnecessary bureaucratic requirement that places a considerable burden on the authorities and also on plant operators.
It is superfluous because Article 11(f)(b) of Directive 2024/1785 already requires Member States to oblige operators to implement an EMS in accordance with the requirements of Article 14a. Compliance with this requirement can be monitored through environmental inspections pursuant to Article 23 of the IED.
INCLUDE PRESUMPTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH IED OBLIGATIONS WHEN IMPLEMENTING AN EMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ISO 14001 OR EMAS
A provision should be included in Article 14a in which it is legally binding to presume that a company that has implemented an environmental management system in accordance with ISO 14001 or a European EMAS system automatically fulfills all the requirements of Article 14a The existing international and European certification systems should be sufficient to confirm the required environmental management system without additional requirements.
ANNEX V – NOX EMISSION VALUES
We welcome the clarification in Annex V that the emission values for NOx are not applicable to fuel gases containing more than 20 percent hydrogen. This is an important signal for the enforcement of hydrogen use in industrial plants.
However, the second sentence of footnote 5, which sets an upper limit for NOx emissions, should be deleted. This requires new documentation obligations for operators and testing obligations for monitoring authorities. This requirement would trigger stricter regulation of individual plants, which currently only have to comply with emission limits under normal operating conditions (excluding, for example, start-up and shutdown processes). As a result, this requirement is likely to increase rather than reduce bureaucracy. Furthermore, it must be clarified that installations which, when operating with fuel gases containing more than 20 percent hydrogen, still comply with the current NOx limit value for natural gas, will not be subject to any disadvantages or additional requirements.
In addition to the IED, the clarifications and amendments mentioned here should also be taken into account in the Directive on medium-sized combustion plants.
2. Further relief for industrial companies in the IED urgently needed
The EU Commission has proposed very few substantial changes to the IED, so the relief effect for industry will be very small.
It is therefore urgently necessary to make further changes to the IED:
ABOLITION OF THE STANDARD SETTING OF LIMIT VALUES AT THE LOWER LIMIT OF THE BAT RANGES
The 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 at the same time. This requirement is often technically/scientifically impossible, is likely to overwhelm many plant operators, and will accelerate the relocation of production to countries outside Europe.
EXTEND AND SIMPLIFY EXEMPTIONS FROM LIMIT VALUES
The 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 Article 15(V) IED, for example, effectively prevents exemptions from being granted and is an example of bureaucracy and complexity
NO SETTING OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE LIMITS
Environmental performance limits, for example on consumption values, resource efficiency, water and energy consumption, and waste quantities, should be deleted again (Article 15 No. 3a new). The regulation of environmental performance values in the IED means double regulation.
SPECIAL REGULATION FOR INSTALLATIONS WITH A STATUTORY DECOMMISSIONING DATE
We propose adding the following provision to Article 21 IED :
"For installations for which a decommissioning date has already been set by law, the obligation to update the permit in accordance with Article 21 par.3 shall not apply."
Reason:
For all installations that must definitely be decommissioned within a reasonable period of time by law such as, for example, installations in Germany under the Coal-Fired Power Generation Termination Act (KVBG) permit updates and thus retrofits would generally be disproportionate, as these could only have limited environmental benefits due to their limited operating life. In such cases, authorities and companies can dispense with a time-consuming exemption assessment or assessment under Article 27e IED by applying the above-proposed regulation.
ABOLITION OF THE BASELINE REPORT FOR SOIL AND GROUNDWATER
The baseline report for soil and groundwater and the regular and unprompted investigations introduced by the IED 2010 (Article 22 of Directive 2010/75/EU) entail considerable costs and bureaucracy for operators without bringing any significant benefits for environmental protection The baseline report should be abolished.
DELETE THE PUBLICATION OF CONSOLIDATED ANCILLARY PROVISIONS
Article 24 par.2 (a) provides for the publication of plant permits, "including consolidated permit conditions, where applicable."
This provision should be deleted. The wording is unclear, leads to considerable bureaucracy for the permitting authorities and plant operators, and is irrelevant for environmental protection. It should be left to the permitting authorities of the Member States to decide for themselves when to consolidate permit conditions.
WITHDRAWAL OF THE SCOPE OF THE IED FOR STEEL AND IRON PROCESSING INSTALLATIONS AND PARTS OF THE MININGINDUSTRY
The revision of the IED 2024 significantly expanded the scope of application in Annex 2.3, so that cold rolling and forging plants with forging presses also fell under the strict regulations of the IED.
This significant expansion should be reversed. These plants, which are mainly operated by small and medium-sized enterprises, are not so environmentally relevant that they need to be regulated by the IED.
In contrast, the IED regulations lead to considerable bureaucracy and cost burdens for a sector dominated by small and medium-sized enterprises that is already suffering from significant competitive pressure (high energy prices, customs duties, cheap imports from non-EU countries).
For the first time, the new IED also covers the extraction (and on-site processing) of certain ores on an industrial scale (lithium, copper, cobalt, tin, zinc, nickel, palladium, bauxite, lead, chromium, iron, gold, manganese, platinum, tungsten). In these mining sectors, the new IED will lead to considerable additional financial and administrative costs, which will weaken the competitiveness of the European (metal) mining sector.
In particular, the ongoing preparation of the BREF document "Metal Mining" is proving to be very difficult and complex. This is because mines within the metal mining sector – as in other mining sectors –differ considerably from one another, as they are naturally dependent on the geology and deposits determined by geogenic factors and the resulting mining methods. Once again, it is clear that the mining sector, due to its diversity and dependence on individual geological conditions, is not suitable for deriving overarching BATs (best available techniques) and emission ranges.
In view of the above, the inclusion of metal mining in the scope of the IED should be reversed, as the administrative burden is too high and each mine is unique depending on local geology, deposit, and mining method, and the IED does not lead to any additional environmental benefits in the mining sector that would be proportionate to the enormous additional bureaucratic burden.
3. "Stop-the-clock" rule required
The deadline for national implementation of the new provisions on the IED (Directive 2024/1785) expires in July 2026. It is unlikely that the Commission's new proposals for the amendment of the IED will be adopted by the Council and Parliament by this date
It is therefore necessary for the Commission to postpone the implementation deadline for the IED by two years by means of a priority legislative act (preferably in the form of a "regulation") in order to allow for comprehensive discussion of the environmental omnibus.
Further changes to the Industrial Emissions Portal necessary
The new regulation on reporting of environmental data, establishing an industrial emissions portal1 and repealing Regulation No. 166/2006 has great potential to reduce reporting obligations for companies. This is in line with one of the main objectives of the EU Commission's debureaucratization initiative.
Unfortunately, in its environmental omnibus package, the Commission has only proposed changes to this regulation in relation to livestock and aquaculture facilities. Further amendments to the regulation are necessary in the further legislative process.
The proposals in detail:
1. Member States should be given the power to combine several installations at one location for reasons of protecting trade and business secrets. This would make it possible to significantly improve protection against competitors, especially those from other EU countries.
2. Art. 6 par. 1 (c): Deletion of the obligation to report data on the use of water, energy, and relevant raw materials, including the possibility for the Commission to adopt an implementing act in this regard. The proposed obligations place a very considerable burden on companies in terms of data collection, because these data are often not available at the installation level and measuring points must first be set up. These reports result in very expensive data graveyards with little direct environmental benefit. The approved IED installation often does not correspond to the building equipped with measuring points (meters) in which the IED installation or installations are located. Conversely, an IED installation can also extend to several buildings.
3. Art. 6 par.1 (d): This provision should also be deleted without replacement. Here, the regulation requires the reporting of information that enables the contextualization of the data reported under letters (a) to (d), including production volume and number of operating hours. This data collection is also very costly for the companies concerned, and the environmental benefits are extremely doubtful. In addition, the data requested here are essentially trade and business secrets of the companies, which means that data security and data use by the reporting authorities must also be ensured throughout Europe, which in turn entails considerable administrative effort.
4. With regard to amendments to Annex II of the Regulation by means of a delegated act (Art. 15 par. 2 of the Regulation), the EU Commission should impose a moratorium on itself and refrain from making any further changes to the list of substances. This will prevent future bureaucratic reporting requirements.
Amendments to the Medium Combustion Plant Directive required
Adapt regulations on alleviations for NOx emissions in hydrogen operation
As already stated above for the IED, in Annex II to Directive 2015/2193, the second sentence of the footnote concerning the alleviations for hydrogen operation should be deleted. This concerns Annex II, Section 1, Tables 1, 2, and 3, and Section 2, Tables 1 and 2.
Streamlining regulations for emergency power generators
The proposed amendments to Annex III of Directive 2015/2193 concerning the proposed simplification of periodic measurement obligations for (emergency power) systems with a low number of operating hours are generally welcome.
This could lead to real simplifications.
However, further changes are needed:
• the planned simplifications should not be limited to generators with < 20 MWth.
• The new reference to EU Stage V legislation ((EU) 2016/1628) should be deleted.
Directive 2015/2193 regulates stationary installations, while Directive (EU) 2016/1628 regulates engines for mobile machinery. Particularly in combination with the previous restriction to plants > 20 MWth, but also independently of this, the reference in the proposed amendment to Annex III of Directive 2015/2193 is misleading and should be rejected.
In the field of mobile machinery, and in line with Directive (EU) 2016/1628, there are practically no engines with such high performance data. For engine manufacturers, this link results in no, or at best only a very limited, simplification.
Making the regulation on speeding-up environmental assessments practicable
The proposed regulation2 covers all projects for which environmental assessments must be carried out in accordance with the aforementioned environmental directives, such as the Strategic Environmental Assessment, Water Framework Directive, Habitats Directive, or EIA Directive.
In principle, the simplification proposals are to be welcomed However, it is questionable whether the proposed regulations will actually help to speed up procedures in practice In some cases, comparable regulations already exist in current (German) law, while in others it is unclear how the regulations should be implemented in practice.
Chapter 2 of the regulation proposes various provisions to simplify environmental assessments. We have the following comments on this:
2 COM (2025) 984
Article 3 – Environmental single point of contact
This "central point of contact" for approval procedures, which now exists in several European regulations, has virtually no accelerating effect if its tasks remain limited to a coordinating role, as described in recital 15. A central point of contact that serves purely as a means of communication does not speed up decision-making processes. This would only be conceivable if the central point of contact also had central decision-making authority and concentrated procedures (a single point of contact for all environmental assessments covered by the regulation).
Article 4 – Streamlining of environmental assessment procedures
Regarding Article 4 par. 4:
Member States must introduce coordinated or joint procedures for projects requiring several environmental assessments at the same time under different EU directives, with regard to public participation and the involvement of the authorities concerned, in order to avoid duplication of work.
This proposal is welcome in principle. However, it is not clear how this should be implemented in practice and what additional acceleration it would achieve. The current environmental impact assessment legislation already provides for this coordination obligation.
A more far-reaching obligation is likely to be difficult to implement in practice as long as different European procedural requirements are not harmonized. Installations subject to EIA are often IED installations and may also be subject to the Seveso III Directive. Nevertheless, all three directives regulate different (permitting) procedures with participation rules and decision-making deadlines in detail. Acceleration is not to be expected as long as uniform, unbureaucratic requirements are not implemented in all three directives.
Article 5 – Changes to projects
Article 5 stipulates that changes or extensions to projects should only require an environmental assessment if their potential effects are equivalent to or exceed those of the initial project. This provision is generally to be welcomed.
However, the regulation is very abstract. It does enable a much-needed materiality threshold for the required preliminary assessment, particularly with regard to changes in projects subject to an environmental impact assessment. However, the provisions could be clearer and more unambiguous. It is unclear whether this gives national legislators significantly greater leeway to define materiality thresholds and their prerequisites. In particular, there are interpretation problems regarding the question of how likely significant environmental effects are ("likely to have significant effects on the environment").
The condition defined in Article 5 par.1, second sentence, for when an environmental impact assessment is not required is also difficult to implement in practice and could lead to considerable legal uncertainty.
Article 6 – Substantial Preclusion
The provision is to be welcomed. However, the question arises as to why the provision is limited to environmental assessments In connection with court proceedings relating to environmental assessments within the meaning of this Regulation, Member States may argue that arguments may not be raised in court if they have not already been raised in the administrative procedure and do not apply to
all procedures. Here, too, consistency with the IED must be ensured by including it in Article 25 par. 1 sentence 2 IED.
Article 7 – Duration of screening and environmental assessments
The provisions on the time limits for the various stages of the procedure are to be welcomed. As outlined above, however, it must be ensured that these time limits are also consistent with the IED and the Seveso III Directive (i.e., that they apply there as well). In addition, it remains unclear what the legal consequences should be if the time limits are not met.
Article 8 – Protected Species
Article 8 provides for a provision on the interpretation of the term "deliberate killing" in the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive. Thus, the death or disturbance of protected species shall not be considered intentional within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2009/147/EC and Article 12 par. 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC if the implementation of plans or the construction, operation, or decommissioning of projects "only" occasionally leads to the death or disturbance of birds.
We also consider it fundamentally positive in terms of effective species protection that the prohibition on killing and disturbing species under species protection law is to be relaxed with regard to the individual-based approach and instead based on the population level of the species concerned.
However, the provision in Article 8 specifies further conditions: "provided that the plan or project has adopted appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures and considering the best available technologies to avoid such killing and to prevent disturbance."
It should be noted that at EU level, "best available techniques" are only defined for projects subject to the IED. Therefore, this reference should either be deleted or limited to "technically recognized measures." Otherwise, this provision could, for example, largely not be used in the field of transport infrastructure, as there are no BAT reference documents in this area, but species protection is nevertheless often affected by maintenance and modernization projects.
What is missing in the Commission's proposal is a "genuine" population reference for the prohibitions and the inclusion of the very important third species protection prohibition, namely the prohibition of the deliberate destruction of breeding sites and resting places, which has also been understood to date as referring to individuals
Article 10 – Online accessibility of information and digitalization of environmental assessments
Article 10 par.3 and 4 lay down far-reaching obligations for Member States to make expert opinions and data, decisions and environmental monitoring results generated by or on the basis of environmental impact assessments permanently available online via a portal This obligation is limited only by the protection of "trade and business secrets" or national or EU-wide data protection regulations (Article 10 par.3, first sentence).
We have considerable reservations about this excessive publication obligation, even though we share the basic idea that potentially time-consuming data collection should not be duplicated.
For various reasons, this regulation needs to be fundamentally revised.
▪ The protection of trade and business secrets as a restriction on publication is not sufficient. Rather, in today's political situation, a much broader regulation is needed that exempts information on defense-related projects (infrastructure projects, but also energy and industrial facilities) and for critical infrastructure objects covered by the CER Directive from the publication requirement
▪ Since EIA reports are usually prepared by external experts and contain considerable know-how, these reports are subject to copyright protection and can therefore usually only be used by the client and in a specific permitting procedure. The regulations governing the general availability/usability of such reports, including in other projects by other project developers, therefore entail considerable legal uncertainty and also raise questions of liability. It is therefore highly doubtful whether these regulations can be applied in practice and will lead to acceleration.
Article 13 – Applicability of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Conventions
From the perspective of German industry, it is incomprehensible why this provision is explicitly included in a separate article: "Members of the public shall be afforded the right of access to environmental information in decision and access to justice concerning plans, programmes, or projects referred to Article 1 (1)..." This is already established law. It must be ensured that this provision does not go beyond the law currently in force.
Article 14 – Toolbox for strategic sectors or categories
Article 14 provides for special facilitations for sectors/projects that are defined as strategic in "sectorspecific EU legislation" – provided that these projects contribute to resilience and decarbonization or resource efficiency.
From the industry's point of view, this must be viewed with extreme caution. Facilitation measures must apply to the entire industry. Otherwise, there is a risk that only a few selected projects will receive special status, while the majority of the industry will continue to suffer from uncompetitive conditions. When defining "strategic" sectors, it is often overlooked that their projects are closely integrated into European industrial value chains, meaning that they could not be realized without the necessary supply industry.
The Critical Raw Materials Act makes it particularly clear that limiting the scope to a few critical/strategic sectors/projects is not enough. As sector-specific legislation, the CRMA covers only a few "critical/strategic" raw materials.
The majority of raw materials extracted in Europe are therefore not covered, even though the extraction of these essential raw materials contributes significantly to the resilience of the EU , for example, with regard to potash and salt for supplying the chemical industry with high-purity salts, as well as construction raw materials for supplying the construction industry and ensuring infrastructure measures, housing construction, and the expansion of renewable energies
The aim must be to ensure that the extraction of these raw materials does not become critical and migrate to countries outside Europe. The restriction to a few strategic projects should also be viewed critically, as classification as a strategic project is already associated with a bureaucratic application process.
Furthermore, the conditions set out in Article 14 should not be cumulative but alternative:
"The provisions set out in the Annex shall apply where existing sectorial Union legislation defines strategic sectors or categories of strategic projects and aims to speed up permitting, provided that those projects contribute to resilience or decarbonization or resource efficiency."
Significant further simplifications required in the EIA Directive
REDUCTION OF PROJECTS SUBJECT TO EIA
The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (EIA Directive) should be streamlined. Projects subject to EIA and the circumstances requiring preliminary assessment should be significantly reduced and thresholds raised. Plant modifications should only be subject to EIA if they exceed certain materiality thresholds.
ADJUST THE DEPTH OF THE EIA REVIEW (ARTICLE 5 AND ANNEX IV)
The Environmental Omnibus does not contain any acceleration of the required environmental assessment for the EIA Directive. However, the assessment of all possible/conceivable impact pathways in relation to all protected assets is the most time-consuming process in the preparation of the EIA report when preparing environmental reports for a permit application. This should be urgently accelerated and reduced to an appropriate and affordable level of assessment.
NO EIA REQUIREMENT FOR PROJECTS COVERED BY THE INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS DIRECTIVE
Furthermore, it should be stipulated that an environmental impact assessment is not required for permits under the EU Industrial Emissions Directive (IED).
This would significantly simplify and accelerate the procedures concerned. Permits under the IED are cross-media permits, in which the effects on the protected assets of the EIA Directive are often already considered extensively.
NO EIA REQUIREMENT FOR SMALL AND MEDIUM -SIZED TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
In the area of transport infrastructure, the EIA requirement should only apply to large-scale projects. For combined transport, the construction of new terminals should therefore no longer be subject to an EIA requirement. In rail infrastructure, only new lines longer than 20 kilometers should be subject to an EIA requirement. Upgraded lines should not be subject to an EIA requirement.
DEFINITION OF THE TERM "PROJECT" IN THE EIA DIRECTIVE
In particular, the term "project" as defined in the EIA Directive needs to be clarified in the case of projects that are subject to multiple national permitting procedures (e.g., the construction or operation of a power plant or industrial facility) or projects that are not originally subject to an EIA but whose individual impacts (e.g., construction-related forest conversion for battery storage facilities) may be subject to an EIA. The aim should be to ensure that the definition of a project – as shown in Annex 1 of the EIA Directive, among other places – does not become excessive and remains determinable and legally applicable.
ELIMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS IN PHASED APPROVAL PROCEDURES
The possibility of waiving environmental impact assessments at the approval level should be included if these have already been assessed at the planning level (e.g., through an SEA, SEA, and FFH assessments). Criteria regarding timeliness of data and the project relevance of the assessment must be included for this purpose. Attention must be paid to the practicability of the regulation. Duplicate assessments should be avoided.
Protection of European critical infrastructure and defense-related projects
As part of the EU Environmental Omnibus Directive amending, among other things, the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) and the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (EIA), the obligations to publish or disclose information on critical infrastructure facilities (KRITIS) should be restricted. The Environmental Information Directive should also explicitly limit the accessibility of such data.
In addition, these restrictions should also cover defense-related projects (these could include, for example, facilities for the construction of naval vessels and military air and land vehicles and drones, chemical plants, ammunition factories, metal production and processing, etc.).
Under current EU law, publication requirements (including on the internet) are currently very extensive, as, for example, under the EIA Directive, not only the EIA report but also all "reports and recommendations relevant to the decision" must be published. This is generally understood very broadly, so that expert reports such as fire protection and explosion protection concepts are (must be) disclosed.
In addition, Article 10 of the "Regulation on speeding up environmental assessments" (COM (2025) 984) now provides for an even more extensive obligation to publish environmental data on the internet. This proposal is diametrically opposed to the intentions and objectives of the CER Directive.
From the industry's point of view, there is an urgent need for adjustment: at least for KRITIS facilities, disclosure requirements must be effectively and clearly restricted so that the security interests and resilience requirements of the CER Directive are not undermined – and operators can actually fulfill their protection obligations effectively. Where possible, data that has already been published should also be deleted.
The CER Directive (Critical Entities Resilience Directive) has the central objective of significantly strengthening the resilience and protection of critical infrastructures in the EU in the face of growing threats from natural disasters, terrorism, cyberattacks, and other disruptions. Critical infrastructures –KRITIS for short – are facilities and systems whose failure or impairment could have a significant impact on public safety, supply, health, and social and economic life. These include energy suppliers, waterworks, transport and communication networks, and other sectors that are essential to the functioning of the community.
Operators of KRITIS facilities in the EU are, for example, obliged to strictly protect security-related information and only disclose it to authorized authorities and agencies.
Conflict with European law due to publication and disclosure requirements
In the interests of transparency and public participation, the IED and EIA Directives stipulate that numerous application, environmental, and expert opinion documents (e.g., on location, design, operational organization, and safety measures) must be made public as part of the approval process.
However, particularly in view of the more extensive physical and organizational protection obligations under the CER Directive, this gives rise to a conflict of objectives under European law: Public and easily accessible detailed information about KRITIS facilities not only facilitates public understanding, but can also enable attackers to identify vulnerabilities and points of attack with precision through modern technological applications such as AI-based data analysis.
This is not just a matter of individual trade or business secrets: Nowadays, attackers are able to use AI-supported evaluations to generate sufficient information about KRITIS facilities even from publicly accessible, more general environmental reports and approval documents (for example, georeferenced, GPS-enabled data of important buildings with access points, etc. can be generated from overview plans alone).
This is diametrically opposed to the objective of the CER Directive, which is to provide maximum protection for critical infrastructure against malicious access, sabotage, or terrorism.
After all, even the best protection mechanism is ineffective if potential attackers can easily access all sensitive details through publicly available documents such as application documents or environmental reports.
The right decision to phase out the SCIP database
The high level of bureaucracy associated with the SCIP database3 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). However, care must also be taken here to ensure that the DPP does not result in double regulation of the information requirements under Article 33.1 of the REACH Regulation. Lessons must be learned from the experience with the SCIP database. In particular, the question of what data is actually needed in what format for the purposes of the circular economy must be clarified.
Introduce a clear definition of "substances of very high concern" (SVHC) in the Battery Regulation
The current labeling requirement for "hazardous substances" is unworkable for manufacturers due to its unclear definition, which could encompass tens of thousands of substances, and creates legal uncertainty. Therefore, a practical definition for "substances of very high concern" (SVHC) is urgently needed. We therefore welcome the EU Commission's intention to introduce a definition but support an amendment to the proposal that is compatible with the REACH Regulation. Otherwise, tens of thousands of substances would still have to be labeled and there would be no improvement in terms of administrative burden:
3 COM (2025) 986
Article 3(1) is amended as follows:
(b) the following point (69) is added: ‘substance of very high concern’ means any substance which fulfills the criteria laid down in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 and is identified in accordance with Article 59(1) of that Regulation, or any substance which fulfills the criteria laid down in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 and listed in Annex VI of Regulation (EC) 1272/2008.’
Further requirements beyond the Environmental Omnibus
Water omnibus required
The Commission has refrained from including the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in its proposals for simplifying environmental law. Instead, it has announced a review and revision of the directive for 2026 This initiative by the Commission is to be welcomed in principle For over 20 years, the directive has formed the central regulatory framework for European water protection. Its basic intention, the protection and sustainable use of European water resources, remains as important as ever. Nevertheless, the practical application of the WFD has shown that key elements of the legal framework are increasingly leading to significant investment barriers, planning uncertainties, and excessive approval procedures and bureaucratic burdens for companies.
The complexity of the requirements, lengthy procedures, lack of certainty of interpretation, and unrealistic targets are almost impossible to manage in the current economic and geopolitical environment. The WFD thus not only hinders innovation but also jeopardizes the modernization of important infrastructure and industrial projects in the European single market.
There is considerable uncertainty regarding the achievement of good ecological and chemical status for all waters by 2027, particularly in view of the deviating management objectives and exceptions provided for in the WFD. There is therefore an urgent need for action, which cannot be met by the general revision of the WFD announced by the Commission in the course of 2026. 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 derogations and exemptions within the framework of the existing provisions of the Water Framework Directive would contribute significantly to a reduction in reporting obligations. This must be done in the short term
In order to quickly establish legal certainty, above all to avoid seriously jeopardizing the eligibility for granting permits and thus relieve some of the pressure on companies, the following measures should be taken in the short term in a further omnibus procedure before the announced revision of the WFD In addition, the legislative process currently underway on the Commission's proposal for "integrated water management" should be suspended. This is because the subject matter of this procedure is precisely the fundamental issues of water law mentioned above; in particular, it is intended to adopt the strict definition of deterioration developed by the ECJ. The adoption of the trilogue text negotiated by the Council and the European Parliament would create a "fait accompli" and undermine the measures announced by the Commission (guidance and revision of the WFD)
Realistic achievement of objectives: extension of deadlines beyond 2027
The WFD requires Member States to achieve "good ecological and chemical status" for all water bodies by 2015, with the option of extending the deadline to 2027 at the latest. A further extension is not permitted under current law.
This requirement has proven to be unrealistic:
• In Germany, despite all efforts, almost 100 percent of watercourses are still in poor condition.
• Achieving this target by 2027 is neither technically nor legally realistic.
• Other member states are also reporting structural failures to meet targets.
• Only with realistic and flexible deadlines can projects be approved in a predictable manner while ensuring long-term quality improvements.
The BDI therefore calls for an amendment to Article 4 par. 4 (c) of the WFD to allow for deadline extensions of up to three additional management cycles.
Clarification of the prohibition of deterioration: creating legal certainty
The lack of a definition of the term "deterioration" in the WFD creates particular legal uncertainty. Current practice treats even the slightest changes in individual measurements as potentially impermissible deterioration on the basis of ECJ case law – even if the overall environmental balance of a project remains positive.
The BDI clarifies:
• A minimal or isolated impact on individual quality components must not automatically be considered "prohibited deterioration."
• An integrated assessment of the functional effects on the water body must be decisive.
The BDI calls for a practical definition of the term "deterioration" in the WFD that requires measurable ecological relevance, takes into account the overall impact on water functions, and creates a clear distinction between tolerable and intolerable changes.
Adjustment of the exceptions in Article 4
The current legal framework only allows exemptions in narrowly defined cases.
In practice, this often leads to de facto permit bans for industry, infrastructure, and energy supply.
The BDI calls for an amendment to Article 4 par. 7 of the WFD to allow exemptions for all water-related activities, for both ecological and chemical quality components, as well as for unavoidable emissions and in cases where projects are of overriding public interest.
In addition, the conditions for the use of different management objectives in accordance with Article 4 par. 5 of the WFD must be reformed. The current link to the strict prohibition of deterioration is contradictory and prevents the use of this instrument. This condition should be deleted.
Relieving the burden on companies by reducing bureaucracy
Companies are confronted with a massive amount of documentation in the implementation of the WFD, due to extensive preliminary studies, lengthy external expert review processes, inconsistent requirements from authorities, and a lack of interpretation aids for EQS, bioavailability, and background values.
Therefore, reporting and documentation requirements must be reduced, approval procedures standardized and accelerated, unclear standards interpreted in a binding manner, and digitization and data harmonization strengthened
Technical clarifications for the announced guidance document on the WFD
In its communication on the Environmental Omnibus (COM (2025) 980), the European Commission announced the short-term development of guidelines to clarify certain aspects of the WFD, particularly with regard to approval procedures. Although guidelines cannot replace legislative changes, they can contribute to legal clarity in the short term. The BDI therefore calls for the following content:
▪ Derivation and application of environmental quality standards (EQS)
– Priority for scientific evidence instead of precautionary measures
– Possibility of site or river basin specific EQS adjustments
– Greater consideration of bioavailability, particularly for metals
– Avoidance of cumulative "worst case estimates"
▪ Compliance with EQS at the level of the entire water body
– No assessment at isolated individual measuring points
– Classification as "deteriorated" only in the case of functional impacts
▪ Natural background concentrations
– Definition as "ambient background" instead of "pre-industrial."
– No deterioration classification for minor natural fluctuations.
– Recognition of regionally highly variable natural concentrations.
Adapt the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD)
The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive must be adapted so that the costs of investing in the fourth treatment stage are not transferred unilaterally to the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries
The revised Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD; EU 2024/3019) came into force on January 1, 2025, and must be transposed into national law by June 30, 2027. The reform introduces two far-reaching innovations:
▪ A fourth treatment stage ("quaternary treatment") for the removal of micropollutants.
▪ Extended producer responsibility (EPR), which currently applies exclusively to the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries, with 80 percent of the costs to be borne by these two sectors
According to the European Commission's current presentation, almost 90 percent of micropollutants in wastewater are caused by pharmaceutical active ingredients that are excreted after being ingested by patients or by certain ingredients in cosmetic products. These figures are refuted by both industry sectors. Cosmetic and pharmaceutical products are not the sole cause of micropollutants in wastewater. Various independent analyses of the study underlying the amendment to the directive show that the impact of cosmetic ingredients accounts for only about 1.5 percent of the total ecotoxic load, not 26 percent, as the EU Commission continues to mistakenly assume. Nevertheless,
manufacturers of pharmaceuticals and cosmetics will in future be required to bear almost the entire financial burden of the new purification stages in municipal wastewater treatment plants. This arrangement leads to considerable misguided incentives, disproportionate burdens on systemically important industries, and risks to the supply of essential medicines and health-related cosmetics. In an updated study on the necessary costs from December 2025, the EU concludes that the additional costs for each EU citizen would amount to a maximum of EUR 3.20 per year and that the industry should pass these costs on to patients. Instead of collecting this amount through normal wastewater charges, an excessive bureaucratic monster is now to be created to collect and distribute the funds, for which patients will have to pay extra. Furthermore, the current text of the directive does not clearly define which substances are specifically affected. This means that it is not possible to determine unequivocally what share of the EPR costs manufacturers would have to contribute. An EU-wide harmonized list of micropollutants could provide greater legal certainty in this regard. This would enable the financial burden to be distributed fairly among all polluters, regardless of economic sector.
Economic impact: Threat to the supply of medicines and cosmetics to consumers and to competitiveness
The consequences of the new requirements are considerable:
▪ The European Commission estimates the annual costs of the fourth treatment stage at EU level to be between €1.48 and €1.8 billion – a figure that massively underestimates the costs compared to other sources
▪ Estimates by the German Federal Environment Agency (UBA) and the European water industry assume €5 to €11 billion per year.
▪ In addition, investment costs of €100 to €160 billion are expected for plant conversion by 2045
▪ Small and medium-sized enterprises in the pharmaceutical and cosmetics sectors would be particularly affected, as they would be heavily burdened by the expected bureaucratic effort.
The combination of high EPR fees, additional documentation requirements, and rising production costs jeopardizes the economic viability of numerous critical and supply-sensitive medicines and also, as a preventive measure, health-promoting cosmetic products. This directly affects European resilience and security of supply, especially in times of extreme geopolitical tension.
Key demands of the BDI to ensure competitiveness and supply security
INITIATE A STOP-THE-CLOCK PROCEDURE FOR THE UWWTD
The BDI calls on the European Commission to initiate a stop-the-clock procedure to review the EPR regulations of the UWWTD and develop realistic implementation models. A similar approach has already been taken with CSRD and CSDDD to avoid disproportionate burdens.
Even though the EPR obligations will not take effect until 2028, implementation into national law is already underway in all European member states. In addition, the economy is already facing serious consequences such as strategic realignments, reallocations of R&D budgets, new price calculations, and portfolio adjustments. A temporary suspension is therefore imperative to prevent harmful undesirable developments.
FINANCING AS A SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE TASK RATHER THAN MANUFACTURER RESPONSIBILITY
The fourth stage of purification is a societal infrastructure measure, comparable to network expansion, the healthcare system, or public services. It serves the environment, water quality, and general health protection. Therefore, the costs cannot be borne solely by the pharmaceutical or cosmetics industry.
FAIR, CROSS-SECTORAL BURDEN SHARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EU POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE
The current EPR approach narrows the term “polluter” to a few industries and does not take into account the role of consumers as users of the products in question. This contradicts the EU polluter pays principle, according to which all polluters bear responsibility in proportion to their share of emissions. The BDI expressly recommends a substance-based EPR financing model that does not incur disproportionate costs and ensures the supply of relevant products (medicines and cosmetics) to the population. This will achieve a fairer distribution of costs, take into account all relevant sources of pollution, and avoid sectoral competitive disadvantages. If, according to a "fair polluter pays principle," the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries pay their estimated share (approx. 1.5 percent for cosmetics) –which is significantly lower than in the EU Commission's impact assessment – there would be a serious shortfall in funding for upgrading the relevant sewage treatment plants.
NEC Directive is dispensable – environmental goals are secured elsewhere
The BDI believes that the NEC Directive (EU/2016/2284) is no longer necessary with regard to the contribution of industrial sources (including energy production) to the emission of air pollutants. 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 commitment to simplify EU law and reduce bureaucracy. The EU Environmental Omnibus should be supplemented by this proposal.
Harmonize air quality target achievement
The new and significantly lower limit values in the Air Quality Directive (EU/2024/2881) 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 pollution levels 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 limit values 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.
Making the methane regulation more practical
As part of an omnibus package on environmental law, the EU Methane Regulation (EU/2024/1787) should also be made more practical in view of the extensive measurement and reporting requirements. Among other things, the regulation requires operators of lignite 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 an appropriate and proportionate solution, we therefore propose refraining from determining methane emission factors on a quarterly basis and instead determining 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.
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.
With regard to abandoned and decommissioned underground coal mining, we also propose the following additions:
"Closed and abandoned underground coal mines
Article 26(1) of the Methane Regulation requires member states to implement emission reduction plans for closed and abandoned underground coal mines based on the emission inventory referred to in Article 25. Recital (62) lists examples of "best mitigation practices": development of geothermal and heat storage projects in flooded coal mines, hydropower applications in non-flooded coal mines, capturing methane emissions by degassing (as practiced, for example, in Belgium, France, and Germany), use of safety-relevant degassing devices, use of mine gas for energy production or impoundment of mine water, and other possible uses.
In our view, the Methane Regulation should clarify that emission sources where the methods listed in Recital (62) are already in use should not be included in any inventory.
The Methane Regulation requires a public inventory of potential emission sources, of which there are tens of thousands across the EU, onerous monitoring obligations and, depending on the results, including sources in methane reduction plans. Only sources that have become apparent in the course of ongoing monitoring efforts should be included in any inventory, given that many potential release points have been monitored for safety reasons and checked by the authorities with no gas emissions recorded at many locations. Pragmatically, the regulation should focus on sources where there is still potential for reducing methane emissions.
Annex 8 of the Methane Regulation describes the measurement requirements, yet the technology required to measure such volume flows at atmospheric pressure does not (yet) exist. Current measurements determine gas concentration, not flow, so there is no quantification of releases. We therefore propose focusing on the further development of measurement concepts to assess methane emissions with an open mind on the technology used.
Reduce reporting requirements in nature conservation directives
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 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 strengthen 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 par. 3 of the Habitats Directive and Article 2 of the Birds Directive. The current consideration at the downstream level of the exemption test is subject to excessive requirements (Article 6 par. 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, recognized, and included as an instrument in the Habitats Directive. It could enable an appropriate balance between nature and species protection and industry, for example by allowing industrial brownfield sites to serve both species protection and later industrial use. The "temporary nature" instrument should also be applied to the settlement of species during the development and construction phase of projects.
Simplify the REACH Regulation
In the upcoming revision of the REACH Regulation, the focus must clearly be on simplifying the rules and reducing the burden on companies. The existing regulations should be adapted and simplified in a targeted manner in order to make them more effective, predictable, transparent, and (resource) efficient, and to reduce unnecessary burdens on companies, 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 the 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.
Designing packaging regulations in a practical manner and with reasonable effort
In its proposal for the Environmental Omnibus, the Commission has rightly recognized that further efforts are needed to ensure that the correct political objective of a European packaging cycle is actually implemented in a practical manner and with reasonable administrative effort. This applies, among other things, to the new obligations under the declaration of conformity for "producers," but also to the ecologically, economically, and administratively ineffective requirements of Article 29 PPWR on reuse, including targets of 100 percent and 40 percent without a valid impact assessment. There is still a risk that this will have a significant negative impact on European supply chains.
Making the Ecodesign Regulation for Sustainable Products (ESPR) practical
Preventing the specification of a uniform label layout
A rigid requirement for a "common label layout" should be rejected. It conflicts with sector-specific requirements and established labeling regimes, hinders digital labeling approaches (especially product- and channel-specific solutions), and creates considerable conversion costs without any demonstrable environmental or informational benefits. What is needed are flexible, digitally compatible labeling options that ensure information content and findability, avoid possible double labeling for digital product passports, and thus do not impair competitiveness. The industry rejects a uniform layout and calls for decisions on the necessity, content, and design of the label to be made exclusively on a product group-specific basis in delegated acts.
Harmonization of reporting deadlines for the disposal of unsold products
Non-harmonized deadlines for the entry into force of reporting obligations for the disposal of unsold products and the format requirements from the associated implementing act increase bureaucracy, error susceptibility, and costs. Harmonizing the deadlines makes it possible to ensure data consistency, avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, and guarantee enforceability. Only clear and consistent requirements can ensure the comparability of the disclosed data.
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
Editor
Uta Maria Pfeiffer
Co-Head of Energy, Mobility, and Environment
T: +49 30 2028 1436 u.pfeiffer@bdi.eu
Dr. Alexander Kessler
Senior Representative Energy, Mobility and Environment
T: +32 2 792 1007 a.kessler@bdi.eu
BDI document number: D 2230