Swedish MEP Beatrice Timgren (ECR) has raised concerns about the proportionality of the extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme under the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, questioning whether the financial burden on producers of medicinal and cosmetic products is justified. In a written parliamentary question submitted on 10 April 2026, Timgren challenges the methodology used to attribute micropollutant loads to specific sectors and warns of disproportionate costs that could harm competitiveness.
Timgren's question focuses on the directive's requirement that producers of medicinal and cosmetic products cover at least 80% of the costs for removing micropollutants from urban wastewater. She notes that the Commission itself has acknowledged significant divergences in available figures and has referred to updated studies. The MEP asks three specific questions: first, what data and methodology underpin the attribution of micropollutant loads to sectors listed in Annex III; second, how the Commission will ensure that sectors with low contributions are not subject to disproportionate financial burdens; and third, whether the Commission envisages a future evaluation or revision of Annex III if new evidence shows a mismatch between attributed and actual contributions.
The question reflects a policy cleavage between environmental protection and business competitiveness. On one side, the EPR scheme aims to internalise environmental costs and reduce micropollutants in water, benefiting public health and ecosystems. On the other, producers face significant new compliance costs, which could be passed on to consumers or reduce profitability, particularly for smaller firms. The directive's impact on the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries is a key concern, as these sectors argue that their actual contribution to micropollution may be lower than assumed.
Timgren's question does not set numerical targets or deadlines but seeks clarification on methodology and safeguards. The Commission is expected to reply within approximately six weeks, and its answer will signal whether it plans to adjust the scope or cost allocation of the EPR scheme. This could influence the implementation of delegated acts and future revisions of Annex III, with implications for producers, national authorities, and wastewater treatment operators.
← Atlas › News › Environment