This news item shows extracts from the MEPs debate on updated rules on the collection, treatment and discharge of urban wastewater to better protect the environment and human health and extracts from the vote on Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive as well. MEPs want chemical pollutants (including “forever chemicals”), microplastics, pathogens and antimicrobial resistance to be monitored more. They also agree that a system of extended producer responsibility (EPR) should be set up for pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, which require additional treatment for micro-pollutants. Nils TORVALDS, Rapporteur, gives a statement on the directive and the next steps with the Council.

Strasbourg

debate

plenary session

vote

TORVALDS, Nils (Renew, FI)

water policy (T)

Delivery EE2024 (T)

Urban wastewater treatment: extracts from the debate; extracts from the vote; and statement by Nils TORVALDS (Renew, FI), Rapporteur

External shot of the European Parliament in Strasbourg

SOUNDBITE (English), Dubravka &Scaron;UICA, Vice-President of the European Commission in charge of Democracy and Demography, This directive is more than 30 years old. It has served Europe very well. It has clearly helped improve the quality of our rivers, lakes and seas. The opportunity to revise it comes once in a generation. It is vital that we get it right. On extended producer responsibility: I remain convinced that the industry should cover the full cost of the additional treatment needed to treat the residues of their products.

SOUNDBITE (English), Dubravka &#352;UICA, Vice-President of the European Commission in charge of Democracy and Demography, The studies supporting our impact assessments are clear. Applying this system will not make pharmaceuticals and cosmetics less accessible or more expensive. Over time, it would give producers a greater incentive to deliver greener, toxic free products while also improving the governance of the sector.

SOUNDBITE (English), Nils TORVALDS (Renew, FI), Rapporteur, The pharmaceutical industry is fulfilling a societal task, and that has to be taken into account when we divide the responsibility. This was what I tried to do, and I would very much like to see this issue being taken care of.

SOUNDBITE (English), Deirdre CLUNE (EPP, IE), This proposal will also see the wastewater treatment plants across Europe becoming energy neutral by 2040, contributing to our Green Deal ambitions. So it's a crucial new piece of legislation reducing pollution and improving water quality in European lakes, rivers and coastal areas and will significantly benefit our environment and while improving the wellbeing and the health of our citizens.

SOUNDBITE (French), Max ORVILLE (Renew, FR), These new urban wastewater treatment plans need to be in line with the commitment to reuse waste water, to recycle water for agriculture, industry or the production of hydrogen. It is also vital to monitor wastewater for viruses that will allow us to anticipate possible crises and take the necessary measures.

SOUNDBITE (Danish), Margrete AUKEN (Greens/EFA, DK), But some things are not better, and we think it's so sad from the Green that you dilute the principle of "Polluter pays" in Article nine. The Commission's proposal was to let the extended producer responsibility mean that producers would pay for them. I mean, we're not talking about sectors that are actually poor. We're talking about pharmaceutical industry.

SOUNDBITE (Slovenian), Milan BRGLEZ (S&amp;D, SI), We are facing new emerging pollutants and we want to actually achieve more circular agriculture. These pressures also mean a lot of financial burden for our citizens and member states. This is why the legislation should also consistently take into consideration the polluter pays principle and not overburden our citizens.

Cutaways of the final vote on Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (9 shots)

Results of the final vote (420 for, 62 against, 84 abstentions)

SOUNDBITE (English), Nils TORVALDS (Renew, FI), Rapporteur, We know that the polluters have to pay, but at the same time, we want it to level the costs to find a solution which could then be acceptable in the different member states and for the industry as such. We know that some of the member states don't like having to finance part of the purification installations. On the other hand, if you have a lot of viruses out there, you're going to pay in other ways. It's more a question of leveling and finding a level playing field for the different approaches.

SOUNDBITE (English), Nils TORVALDS (Renew, FI), Rapporteur, Then we have water scarcity, and that is a question which is standing very differently in different member states. In Finland, I think, we have an abundance of water. In Spain we don't have it. So again, we have to find a solution which is taking into account the differences in the member States. The member state issues are on the table and I think we are more able to see a larger picture. The Council is probably looking at it from a very narrow point of view on some of the different member states.

SOUNDBITE (English), Nils TORVALDS (Renew, FI), Rapporteur, The member state issues are on the table and I think we are more able to see a larger picture. The Council is probably looking at it from a very narrow point of view on some of the different member states.

SOUNDBITE (English), Nils TORVALDS (Renew, FI), Rapporteur, When we speak about cosmetics, then you have a choice. Do you use cosmetics? Can you find cosmetics which is less sort of polluting? I don't think we should push the industry in that direction. 