Today, the Brussels plenum will vote on the Due Diligence Act. It will be exciting. As reported on Tuesday, the group of MEPs from CDU/CSU wants to vote against the report of Lara Wolters (S&D). In doing so, they also opposed their party colleague Axel Voss, who as shadow rapporteur, has tried to negotiate an acceptable compromise. “It is a very political issue for the EPP,” Voss said during yesterday’s debate.
After Wednesday’s meeting of the parliamentary group, however, it became clear that the CDU and CSU have less support for their position than initially assumed. The voting list shows that the Christian Democrats do not even want to support all the amendments that CSU politician Angelika Niebler submitted together with some colleagues.
Only one amendment has the Group behind Niebler: Motion 423 calls on the Commission to convert the directive into a regulation no later than six years after its entry into force to ensure fair competition in the internal market. If the motion does not receive a majority, MEPs are urged to vote against the Wolters report. However, around half of the Christian Democrats intend to support the report even if this amendment does not receive a majority.
Liberals, on the other hand, will probably vote almost unanimously in favor of the report and against all new amendments. Only the FDP and the Czech ANO party do not want to support the report. Accordingly, Lara Wolters will probably be able to mobilize a majority for her report today with the support of the Greens, S&D, Renew and parts of the EPP as well as the left.
On Friday, at the Table.Live briefing on the EU supply chain law, I will discuss what hurdles await the MEPs in the trilogues. Joining me will be Axel Voss, Dr. Carsten Stender from the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, entrepreneur Stefan Munsch and Nele Meyer from the European Coalition for Corporate Justice. You can register here.
Sometimes the meeting place already says everything. 47 heads of state and government from Europe have been invited today to the second summit of the European Political Community (EPC) in Chişinău, Moldova’s capital. The microstates of Andorra, Monaco and San Marino are new participants. Only Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has just been confirmed in office, canceled at the last moment. “You have to look at it from the perspective of geopolitics,” an EU diplomat said in the run-up: “If you sit in Moscow and see 47 countries in your immediate or close neighborhood meeting together, that’s an important message.”
So, the meeting in Chişinău is also an anti-Putin summit. And a show of support for the pro-European leadership of Maia Sandu, President of a country under massive pressure from Moscow and partially controlled by Russian forces for 30 years. Alongside Sandu, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced a support package last night, which has been recently increased. Among other things, roaming charges are to be reduced from the beginning of next year, an investment package is to be increased to €1.6 billion, and interconnectors for high-voltage lines to Romania are to be financed. This week, Moldova is the “political heart” of Europe, Ursula von der Leyen said.
The European Political Community stems from an advance by Emmanuel Macron. The format is an opportunity to build “strategic intimacy” in Europe, France’s president said at the first meeting in Prague six months ago. This time, four roundtables are planned again, two each on security and cybersecurity, respectively, and on interconnectivity and energy.
Concerns among the Balkan states that the new community could become a waiting room for accession candidates have since been dispelled. The new format is also not intended to compete with the Council of Europe, even though there are said to be concerns about this in Strasbourg. The Council of Europe is more about values, the European Political Community about geopolitics, according to an EU diplomat. The EPC is the only forum in which all European heads of state and government can exchange views informally and at eye level without having to agree on a final declaration at the end.
A family photo is supposed to send a strong signal of unity. The afternoon is reserved for bilateral meetings. They could emerge as a possibly more important part. The European Political Community is a platform for exchanges in pairs or in small circles, diplomats say. For example, Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev are expected to continue their talks in Chişinău to find a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Emmanuel Macron as moderators. It was still unclear whether the presidents of Serbia and Kosovo would be ready for a direct exchange following the unrest of recent days.
The CDU/CSU parliamentary group is committed to close cooperation between the EU and all other countries in Europe that are bound to the foundation of democratic values, said Deputy Chairwoman Patricia Lips. The European Political Community, she said, was a valuable addition as a platform. There are many issues of common interest, she said. The partnership connection was in the strategic interest of Germany and the EU given the global system competition. The Moldova summit must also send a strong signal of undiminished unity in Europe regarding the ongoing Russian war of aggression against Ukraine.
The European Political Community summits will be organized alternately by an EU member state and a third country. Spain will host the summit in Granada in the fall, where it will also hold the EU Council presidency and focus on the issue of migration. In the first half of 2024, it will then be the United Kingdom’s turn. There will be no fixed structures, such as a secretariat, and the EPC is not intended to be an EU event. However, Moldova was supported in the organization of the major event from Brussels and by the Swedish EU Council Presidency.
Whether the European Political Community can establish itself as a forum has not yet been decided. Today, the EPC is also a response to Vladimir Putin’s imperial ambitions. In the long run, this may not be enough of an impetus and raison d’être. A new role may present itself after the end of the Putin era, for example, in efforts to reintegrate Russia into a European peace order.
The European citizens’ initiative “Save Cruelty Free Cosmetics – Commit to a Europe Without Animal Testing” made it with 1.2 million signatures: the Commission and Parliament must deal with it. But while the demand for a tightening of the ban on animal testing for cosmetics or chemicals is hardly controversial, the demand for a gradual general abolition of animal testing is causing a stir in the scientific community, which fears that the Commission will change its position.
At the hearing on the citizens’ initiative in the Parliament’s Environment Committee last Thursday, the representatives of the citizens’ initiative focused primarily on the issue of animal testing in cosmetics production – and backed up their presentations with videos, some of which were drastic. Tilly Metz, a Green MEP from Luxembourg, also called for a critical review of animal testing. Where can they already be replaced today and how can procedures for this be accelerated? Where are they indispensable? And how can alternative methods be better promoted? She pointed out that in the Horizon Europe program, for example, only 0.1 percent of the budget was available for research into alternatives. The current federal budget also provides only €5.4 million for the development of alternative methods.
Christian Ehler (CDU), on the other hand, criticized, “Unnecessary animal testing should be phased out, but this initiative goes too far.” He went on to say, “Where possible, science will move to alternatives, but EU legislation is unnecessary and risks killing important scientific work on human and animal health.”
Criticism also comes from the scientific community. In its statement, the Alliance of Science Organizations took a critical stance toward the goal of the citizens’ initiative. In the view of the alliance, “such a far-reaching and sweeping demand is not scientifically justified. It also fails to recognize central basic principles of how research generates new knowledge and innovative developments.” It goes on to say that “animal experiments are still necessary to understand the functioning of complex biological systems and as a basis for the ethically justifiable conduct of clinical human studies.”
Stefan Treue, Director of the German Primate Center in Göttingen and Chairman of the initiative “Understanding Animal Testing,” fears that the initiative’s narrative, which focused predominantly on cosmetics, could also catch on with many members of Parliament. It is claimed that alternative methods, similar to those used for cosmetics, could quickly replace animal testing in biomedical research as well. He said it was necessary to talk further with MEPs and the Commission. Especially since only representatives of the citizens’ initiative were heard at the hearing. “But our possibilities to address the Commission are limited,” Treue said on request by Table.Media.
In response to a resolution of the EU Parliament in 2021, which also called for a step-by-step plan to abolish animal testing, the Commission declared its commitment to the 3Rs – i.e. “reduction, refinement and replacement” of animal testing. At present, alternative methods must first be validated. Only then can animal testing be replaced, which is proving to be a high hurdle. The question now is whether this course will be called into question in the EU.
The Commission is required to formulate a response by the end of July. This may include legislative changes or, for example, initiating a dialogue process. At least Carmen Laplaza, who heads the health innovation unit in the Directorate General for Research, said last week: Then as now, a complete ban would be “ambitious.” And Laplaza stressed, “We are convinced that this goal can be achieved, but only after science has made sufficient progress.” Investing in non-animal alternatives (NAMs) is crucial, she said. She expects further calls for the development of NAMs to be announced in Horizon Europe’s 2025-27 strategic plan.
For Tiemo Wölken, the stakes are high when the European Parliament votes on its position on the Due Diligence Act today. The SPD politician worked on the dossier as his group’s shadow rapporteur in the Environment Committee. He is fighting for companies to pay attention to the environmental impact of their supply chains and, above all, to make them climate-neutral by 2050. However, the conservative forces in Parliament, including large parts of the EPP, reject this – the vote is thus likely to be close.
Wölken has little understanding of this, he speaks of a “hopelessly backward-looking policy.” Above all, the group of CDU/CSU parliamentarians would have to decide “whether to seek reactionary majorities with right-wing extremists, including the AfD or to stand up for a values-based Europe with social democrats, greens and liberals.”
The EU supply chain law is one of several dossiers to which the 37-year-old has devoted himself as shadow rapporteur. In 2016, he moved up to the Strasbourg Parliament, and since last year he has been acting as spokesman for the Social Democrats in the ENVI Committee. In his early years on the Legal Affairs Committee, he focused on digital policy; it is now climate and health policy.
He worked intensively on the Renewable Energies Directive – in Wölken’s view the central instrument for getting member states to switch from fossil fuels to renewables. He also played a moderating role in the renegotiation of the combustion engine phase-out, says Wölken, after “the FDP took a liking to synthetic fuels.” However, he says, fueling passenger cars with electricity instead of converting hydrogen into synthetic fuels is much more efficient.
“Hydrogen can be and is the solution to the problem and thus the answer for decarbonizing German industry,” he says. However, hydrogen only has this potential if it is green and available in sufficient quantities. “Hydrogen is the key to succeeding in the transformation to fossil emission-free industry, but only if we have it in sufficient quantities, and we must indeed prioritize in which areas we use hydrogen first.”
For Wölken, regional and European politics are always closely linked. “They play together quite often and in quite a lot of places, and usually where you wouldn’t suspect it.” In the case of the Industrial Emissions Directive legislation, for example, which is about methane emissions and the extent to which cow barns and the cow population are covered by this directive. He says this is of central importance for family-run farms in Lower Saxony.
Or in the case of crab fishing, where there was an outcry about a master plan from the EU Commission that would ban bottom trawling. “There are quite often points of contact between all levels,” states Wölken. Here comes the Commission’s proposal into play, which is then implemented by the Landtag and the Bundestag. At the same time, he says, it is his job to tell the Commission this is causing a lot of unrest on the ground. “This is very important input I gather for my parliamentary work in Brussels.”
Tiemo Wölken was infected with the Europe virus during an internship in Brussels, he says. In the European Parliament, there is a third level where everyone meets: Visitors, journalists, lobbyists – “everyone talks and scurries around, and that totally fascinated me even as a young student.
After graduating from high school, he did his community service at Lebenshilfe in Buxtehude and initially toyed with the idea of studying to become a teacher. But then he studied law in Osnabrück and focused on European law. In 2016, he was elected to the European Parliament for the Weser-Ems district. His studies helped him understand how important Europe is for national legislation. As a substitute candidate, he did not assume at the time he would be able to move up. “I can now turn my hobby into politics, so to speak, which makes me very, very happy.” Livia Hofmann
At the beginning of the week an article in the BILD newspaper gave the impression that it was a hopeless case for German breweries: The destruction of “BILLIONS of beer bottles” was threatening, and even the beer crates would have to be shredded. With quotations of worried federation heads the BILD confirmed alarmed beer sommeliers and CSU party bigwigs: The German beer bottle is threatened with nothing less than a miserable death in the smelter – and every last one of them. As if that were not enough, the classic German beer crate is also facing extinction.
The culprit in this disaster is, surprise, surprise: Brussels. With its planned packaging regulation, the EU wants to prescribe new rules for reusable systems. German breweries and beverage retailers sense danger for the praised German deposit system and wrote an urgent letter to the EU Parliament last week. “The EU now wants to impose a uniform, centralized administrative bureaucracy on all reusable systems in Europe and impose a multitude of questionable regulations,” they raged. They were not only able to convince BILD; other media also reported on it.
Is the EU actually planning to destroy German beer packaging? On the one hand, the associations have difficulties with the planned declaration obligation, which provides for permanently affixed labeling of reusable packaging. After all, washable labels have always been affixed to German beer bottles. On the other hand, they express concern that the planned restriction on the proportion of empty space (i.e. the air in transport packaging) would also affect beer crates – and “make the transport and storage of returnable bottles impossible in the future.”
The Commission stepped in promplty: “No, the EU Commission is not calling for beer deposit bottles to be melted down in Germany,” was the fact check from its representation in Germany on Twitter. “The EU wants to reduce packaging waste – but not destroy the really well-functioning German deposit system,” explained Birgit Schmeitzner, the representation’s spokeswoman. “Quite the opposite: We encourage other member states and economic sectors to introduce something comparable.”
So it is all just hot air? So hot, in fact, that the agency spontaneously invited an official from the responsible Directorate General to a press conference. The latter was able to cool it down again, at least in the background: Even removable paper labels could be considered “permanently attached” as long as they were reattached after the washing process. And the rules on the proportion of empty space in transport packaging were aimed primarily at online trade – beer crates as transport packaging in an existing returnable system could thus be exempted.
The urgent letter, meanwhile, is not the only attempt to influence EU plans for more sustainable packaging: The packaging industry is running a massive lobbying campaign. The bar for future dystopias and dramatic images is probably now very high thanks to the shredded beer crate and melted beer bottle. But who knows what is to come. Leonie Düngefeld
Today, the Brussels plenum will vote on the Due Diligence Act. It will be exciting. As reported on Tuesday, the group of MEPs from CDU/CSU wants to vote against the report of Lara Wolters (S&D). In doing so, they also opposed their party colleague Axel Voss, who as shadow rapporteur, has tried to negotiate an acceptable compromise. “It is a very political issue for the EPP,” Voss said during yesterday’s debate.
After Wednesday’s meeting of the parliamentary group, however, it became clear that the CDU and CSU have less support for their position than initially assumed. The voting list shows that the Christian Democrats do not even want to support all the amendments that CSU politician Angelika Niebler submitted together with some colleagues.
Only one amendment has the Group behind Niebler: Motion 423 calls on the Commission to convert the directive into a regulation no later than six years after its entry into force to ensure fair competition in the internal market. If the motion does not receive a majority, MEPs are urged to vote against the Wolters report. However, around half of the Christian Democrats intend to support the report even if this amendment does not receive a majority.
Liberals, on the other hand, will probably vote almost unanimously in favor of the report and against all new amendments. Only the FDP and the Czech ANO party do not want to support the report. Accordingly, Lara Wolters will probably be able to mobilize a majority for her report today with the support of the Greens, S&D, Renew and parts of the EPP as well as the left.
On Friday, at the Table.Live briefing on the EU supply chain law, I will discuss what hurdles await the MEPs in the trilogues. Joining me will be Axel Voss, Dr. Carsten Stender from the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, entrepreneur Stefan Munsch and Nele Meyer from the European Coalition for Corporate Justice. You can register here.
Sometimes the meeting place already says everything. 47 heads of state and government from Europe have been invited today to the second summit of the European Political Community (EPC) in Chişinău, Moldova’s capital. The microstates of Andorra, Monaco and San Marino are new participants. Only Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has just been confirmed in office, canceled at the last moment. “You have to look at it from the perspective of geopolitics,” an EU diplomat said in the run-up: “If you sit in Moscow and see 47 countries in your immediate or close neighborhood meeting together, that’s an important message.”
So, the meeting in Chişinău is also an anti-Putin summit. And a show of support for the pro-European leadership of Maia Sandu, President of a country under massive pressure from Moscow and partially controlled by Russian forces for 30 years. Alongside Sandu, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced a support package last night, which has been recently increased. Among other things, roaming charges are to be reduced from the beginning of next year, an investment package is to be increased to €1.6 billion, and interconnectors for high-voltage lines to Romania are to be financed. This week, Moldova is the “political heart” of Europe, Ursula von der Leyen said.
The European Political Community stems from an advance by Emmanuel Macron. The format is an opportunity to build “strategic intimacy” in Europe, France’s president said at the first meeting in Prague six months ago. This time, four roundtables are planned again, two each on security and cybersecurity, respectively, and on interconnectivity and energy.
Concerns among the Balkan states that the new community could become a waiting room for accession candidates have since been dispelled. The new format is also not intended to compete with the Council of Europe, even though there are said to be concerns about this in Strasbourg. The Council of Europe is more about values, the European Political Community about geopolitics, according to an EU diplomat. The EPC is the only forum in which all European heads of state and government can exchange views informally and at eye level without having to agree on a final declaration at the end.
A family photo is supposed to send a strong signal of unity. The afternoon is reserved for bilateral meetings. They could emerge as a possibly more important part. The European Political Community is a platform for exchanges in pairs or in small circles, diplomats say. For example, Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev are expected to continue their talks in Chişinău to find a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Emmanuel Macron as moderators. It was still unclear whether the presidents of Serbia and Kosovo would be ready for a direct exchange following the unrest of recent days.
The CDU/CSU parliamentary group is committed to close cooperation between the EU and all other countries in Europe that are bound to the foundation of democratic values, said Deputy Chairwoman Patricia Lips. The European Political Community, she said, was a valuable addition as a platform. There are many issues of common interest, she said. The partnership connection was in the strategic interest of Germany and the EU given the global system competition. The Moldova summit must also send a strong signal of undiminished unity in Europe regarding the ongoing Russian war of aggression against Ukraine.
The European Political Community summits will be organized alternately by an EU member state and a third country. Spain will host the summit in Granada in the fall, where it will also hold the EU Council presidency and focus on the issue of migration. In the first half of 2024, it will then be the United Kingdom’s turn. There will be no fixed structures, such as a secretariat, and the EPC is not intended to be an EU event. However, Moldova was supported in the organization of the major event from Brussels and by the Swedish EU Council Presidency.
Whether the European Political Community can establish itself as a forum has not yet been decided. Today, the EPC is also a response to Vladimir Putin’s imperial ambitions. In the long run, this may not be enough of an impetus and raison d’être. A new role may present itself after the end of the Putin era, for example, in efforts to reintegrate Russia into a European peace order.
The European citizens’ initiative “Save Cruelty Free Cosmetics – Commit to a Europe Without Animal Testing” made it with 1.2 million signatures: the Commission and Parliament must deal with it. But while the demand for a tightening of the ban on animal testing for cosmetics or chemicals is hardly controversial, the demand for a gradual general abolition of animal testing is causing a stir in the scientific community, which fears that the Commission will change its position.
At the hearing on the citizens’ initiative in the Parliament’s Environment Committee last Thursday, the representatives of the citizens’ initiative focused primarily on the issue of animal testing in cosmetics production – and backed up their presentations with videos, some of which were drastic. Tilly Metz, a Green MEP from Luxembourg, also called for a critical review of animal testing. Where can they already be replaced today and how can procedures for this be accelerated? Where are they indispensable? And how can alternative methods be better promoted? She pointed out that in the Horizon Europe program, for example, only 0.1 percent of the budget was available for research into alternatives. The current federal budget also provides only €5.4 million for the development of alternative methods.
Christian Ehler (CDU), on the other hand, criticized, “Unnecessary animal testing should be phased out, but this initiative goes too far.” He went on to say, “Where possible, science will move to alternatives, but EU legislation is unnecessary and risks killing important scientific work on human and animal health.”
Criticism also comes from the scientific community. In its statement, the Alliance of Science Organizations took a critical stance toward the goal of the citizens’ initiative. In the view of the alliance, “such a far-reaching and sweeping demand is not scientifically justified. It also fails to recognize central basic principles of how research generates new knowledge and innovative developments.” It goes on to say that “animal experiments are still necessary to understand the functioning of complex biological systems and as a basis for the ethically justifiable conduct of clinical human studies.”
Stefan Treue, Director of the German Primate Center in Göttingen and Chairman of the initiative “Understanding Animal Testing,” fears that the initiative’s narrative, which focused predominantly on cosmetics, could also catch on with many members of Parliament. It is claimed that alternative methods, similar to those used for cosmetics, could quickly replace animal testing in biomedical research as well. He said it was necessary to talk further with MEPs and the Commission. Especially since only representatives of the citizens’ initiative were heard at the hearing. “But our possibilities to address the Commission are limited,” Treue said on request by Table.Media.
In response to a resolution of the EU Parliament in 2021, which also called for a step-by-step plan to abolish animal testing, the Commission declared its commitment to the 3Rs – i.e. “reduction, refinement and replacement” of animal testing. At present, alternative methods must first be validated. Only then can animal testing be replaced, which is proving to be a high hurdle. The question now is whether this course will be called into question in the EU.
The Commission is required to formulate a response by the end of July. This may include legislative changes or, for example, initiating a dialogue process. At least Carmen Laplaza, who heads the health innovation unit in the Directorate General for Research, said last week: Then as now, a complete ban would be “ambitious.” And Laplaza stressed, “We are convinced that this goal can be achieved, but only after science has made sufficient progress.” Investing in non-animal alternatives (NAMs) is crucial, she said. She expects further calls for the development of NAMs to be announced in Horizon Europe’s 2025-27 strategic plan.
For Tiemo Wölken, the stakes are high when the European Parliament votes on its position on the Due Diligence Act today. The SPD politician worked on the dossier as his group’s shadow rapporteur in the Environment Committee. He is fighting for companies to pay attention to the environmental impact of their supply chains and, above all, to make them climate-neutral by 2050. However, the conservative forces in Parliament, including large parts of the EPP, reject this – the vote is thus likely to be close.
Wölken has little understanding of this, he speaks of a “hopelessly backward-looking policy.” Above all, the group of CDU/CSU parliamentarians would have to decide “whether to seek reactionary majorities with right-wing extremists, including the AfD or to stand up for a values-based Europe with social democrats, greens and liberals.”
The EU supply chain law is one of several dossiers to which the 37-year-old has devoted himself as shadow rapporteur. In 2016, he moved up to the Strasbourg Parliament, and since last year he has been acting as spokesman for the Social Democrats in the ENVI Committee. In his early years on the Legal Affairs Committee, he focused on digital policy; it is now climate and health policy.
He worked intensively on the Renewable Energies Directive – in Wölken’s view the central instrument for getting member states to switch from fossil fuels to renewables. He also played a moderating role in the renegotiation of the combustion engine phase-out, says Wölken, after “the FDP took a liking to synthetic fuels.” However, he says, fueling passenger cars with electricity instead of converting hydrogen into synthetic fuels is much more efficient.
“Hydrogen can be and is the solution to the problem and thus the answer for decarbonizing German industry,” he says. However, hydrogen only has this potential if it is green and available in sufficient quantities. “Hydrogen is the key to succeeding in the transformation to fossil emission-free industry, but only if we have it in sufficient quantities, and we must indeed prioritize in which areas we use hydrogen first.”
For Wölken, regional and European politics are always closely linked. “They play together quite often and in quite a lot of places, and usually where you wouldn’t suspect it.” In the case of the Industrial Emissions Directive legislation, for example, which is about methane emissions and the extent to which cow barns and the cow population are covered by this directive. He says this is of central importance for family-run farms in Lower Saxony.
Or in the case of crab fishing, where there was an outcry about a master plan from the EU Commission that would ban bottom trawling. “There are quite often points of contact between all levels,” states Wölken. Here comes the Commission’s proposal into play, which is then implemented by the Landtag and the Bundestag. At the same time, he says, it is his job to tell the Commission this is causing a lot of unrest on the ground. “This is very important input I gather for my parliamentary work in Brussels.”
Tiemo Wölken was infected with the Europe virus during an internship in Brussels, he says. In the European Parliament, there is a third level where everyone meets: Visitors, journalists, lobbyists – “everyone talks and scurries around, and that totally fascinated me even as a young student.
After graduating from high school, he did his community service at Lebenshilfe in Buxtehude and initially toyed with the idea of studying to become a teacher. But then he studied law in Osnabrück and focused on European law. In 2016, he was elected to the European Parliament for the Weser-Ems district. His studies helped him understand how important Europe is for national legislation. As a substitute candidate, he did not assume at the time he would be able to move up. “I can now turn my hobby into politics, so to speak, which makes me very, very happy.” Livia Hofmann
At the beginning of the week an article in the BILD newspaper gave the impression that it was a hopeless case for German breweries: The destruction of “BILLIONS of beer bottles” was threatening, and even the beer crates would have to be shredded. With quotations of worried federation heads the BILD confirmed alarmed beer sommeliers and CSU party bigwigs: The German beer bottle is threatened with nothing less than a miserable death in the smelter – and every last one of them. As if that were not enough, the classic German beer crate is also facing extinction.
The culprit in this disaster is, surprise, surprise: Brussels. With its planned packaging regulation, the EU wants to prescribe new rules for reusable systems. German breweries and beverage retailers sense danger for the praised German deposit system and wrote an urgent letter to the EU Parliament last week. “The EU now wants to impose a uniform, centralized administrative bureaucracy on all reusable systems in Europe and impose a multitude of questionable regulations,” they raged. They were not only able to convince BILD; other media also reported on it.
Is the EU actually planning to destroy German beer packaging? On the one hand, the associations have difficulties with the planned declaration obligation, which provides for permanently affixed labeling of reusable packaging. After all, washable labels have always been affixed to German beer bottles. On the other hand, they express concern that the planned restriction on the proportion of empty space (i.e. the air in transport packaging) would also affect beer crates – and “make the transport and storage of returnable bottles impossible in the future.”
The Commission stepped in promplty: “No, the EU Commission is not calling for beer deposit bottles to be melted down in Germany,” was the fact check from its representation in Germany on Twitter. “The EU wants to reduce packaging waste – but not destroy the really well-functioning German deposit system,” explained Birgit Schmeitzner, the representation’s spokeswoman. “Quite the opposite: We encourage other member states and economic sectors to introduce something comparable.”
So it is all just hot air? So hot, in fact, that the agency spontaneously invited an official from the responsible Directorate General to a press conference. The latter was able to cool it down again, at least in the background: Even removable paper labels could be considered “permanently attached” as long as they were reattached after the washing process. And the rules on the proportion of empty space in transport packaging were aimed primarily at online trade – beer crates as transport packaging in an existing returnable system could thus be exempted.
The urgent letter, meanwhile, is not the only attempt to influence EU plans for more sustainable packaging: The packaging industry is running a massive lobbying campaign. The bar for future dystopias and dramatic images is probably now very high thanks to the shredded beer crate and melted beer bottle. But who knows what is to come. Leonie Düngefeld
