The latest from Brussels

It was 2016, and the new legislation on refugees was introduced to deal with the situation the EU was currently facing. Instead, it caused divisions between the Member States and enhanced the power of some populists in Eastern Europe. Today, it seems to be a mere memory. 

By Stanislav Hodina and Camila Soumastre Molina

A wave of solidarity and changes in lots of governments have changed the stubborn position of some states. There is a greater willingness to compromise and the Member States have their preferences, but they seem to be more willing to give up some things, says a source close to the commission who has been present since the negotiations began: “They are not as divided as they used to be”.

The European Commission realises the lack of a plan and the urgency of finding one: “The current system no longer works. And for the past five years, the EU has not been able to fix it. The EU must overcome the current stalemate and rise up to the task”.

The new proposal mainly aims to reform two pillars of existing legislation. The first change relates to the single permit that allows migrants to work and obtain residence. The process for getting it will be shortened and unified.

The second reform is for the long-term residence directive. The new proposal would allow non-EU citizens to get residence periods in different member states to meet the 5-year residence criteria needed to stay long term and enhance the right to family reunification.

Although EU sources acknowledge that we are close to approval, none of them dares to guess when it will happen. During its presidency, France has made the discussions around the Asylum Package one of its main objectives. 

The following countries in the presidential trio are Czechia and Sweden, countries with different backgrounds, but the rather negative perception of the 2015/2016 refugee crisis remains. 

As Elisabeth Arnsdorf Haslund from UNHCR notes, Europe has a complicated past: “(In the past) UNHCR have been extremely concerned about increasing xenophobia, increasing negative narrative toward asylum seekers, refugees and migrants in Europe. We have seen countries and governments adopting very restrictive measures and legislation that is reducing the rights of refugees and making it difficult. And we have seen what we call pushbacks, which are illegal”.

Will the Member States manage to overcome their foul taste and finally find a common solution to this long-discussed issue?

By Jessica Johnson and Teresa Schachtl

The advanced Eco-design directive for sustainable products, published by the European Commission on 30^th March 2022, aims to create a more durable and energy-efficient EU market, by improving the sustainable domain of products. 

The European Commission has recently outlined a proposal for an ecological framework and set of requirements that all products must encompass before they enter the market, regarding the durability, recyclability and reparability of goods. This initiative applies to all product groups and to be adopted by all member states, thus helping to accelerate the overall Green Deal goal to reach zero emissions and zero pollution by 2030.  

As stated in the Commission’s directive, the fundamental aim of the proposal is to ‘reduce the negative life cycle environmental impacts of products’ whilst improving the ‘functioning of the internal market’. Therefore, the Commission created this as a broadened revision of the previous Eco-Design directive, which now features a product-specific approach and covers products that were previously omitted.  

An EU source states that the proposal is based on both the internal market and environmental side, with the purpose of this provision being to enlarge the scope of the directive to almost all products on the market. Additionally, this proposal is aiming to add an extra 30 products to the 50 products covered already by the existing Ecodesign, says the source.  

The commission will prioritise to deal with the products with the highest amount or impact potential first in order to have immediate effects and the proposal reads that the focus is now placed on ‘three key value chain groups’. These include electronics, batteries, textiles, furniture, construction and buildings and the packaging of all goods. Requirements made for specific products are not clear yet, due to it being a recent publication.  

However, a main element to be implemented is a Digital Product Passport for every product, which informs consumers about each phase of the products lifecycle. The Digital Product Passport has been confirmed to include data about the products composition and lifecycle, and the proposal states it will ‘facilitate the verification of product compliance by competent national authorities’ and ‘improve traceability of products along the value chain.’ 

The potential data that will be disclosed in the digital product passport includes information on the products materials, different components, how to repair the product, how to remanufacture or handle it at the end of life, says the EU source.  

The European Consumer Organisation, BEUC, is a non-profit organisation that has worked closely with the European Commission to improve the old legislation. They are happy to see the “enlargement” of the products included in the proposal, as they have “always asked the commission to push these benefits of Ecodesign to more products, including textiles”, as fast fashion and the destruction of unsold goods has detrimental environmental consequences. 

Silvia Barlassina, the Ecodesign Project Coordinator for the BEUC, described the Product Passport as being “quite a pillar for this proposal” and as it ensures no data about the goods supply chain will be lost or fabricated, meaning it will be a catalyst to tackle greenwashing.  

Furthermore, Barlassina believes the consumer and producer relationships will be improved with an “increased transparency”, as producers must be explicit about the materials used. This will ultimately “reduce the amount of dangerous substances used, that are not only dangerous for the environment, but also for people”, allowing consumers to feel more confident in choosing sustainable products, with easy access to product information.  

A source for the Greens party states they are “in favour of also having a product passport” but are still “not yet super clear in which way this information will be presented” as it has been “vague and unclear”. They placed an emphasis on the need for it to be “easy to read, visible and adapts to the product” in order to achieve the preferred goals of the proposal.  

A point being criticised by BEUC is the option of voluntary agreements that were also included in the previous proposal. This allows member states and companies to set up their own concepts and agreements to, stated by the EU commission, achieve individual sustainability goals faster. It could be seen as an opt-out of the mandatory regulations and a step towards self-regulation of the companies. Namely, in the case of requirements for game consoles, TV screens and printers. 

While the voluntary agreement for TV simply never met the requirements and was therefore delayed a long time, due to assessment and reassessment of the proposals of the companies, the agreement with the printer industry does not cover crucial points. Although the energy consumption of printers is taken into account in the agreement, there are no requirements when it comes to the production process or the sustainable use of paper and cartridges. 

However, the EU source justifies the voluntary agreements as being a process for companies to make their own productions, in a way that still adheres to the policies of the proposal. Subsequently, they have their own sustainable choices, insofar they meet the two main requirements of minimum product performance and information necessities.  

Barlassina expressed that this alternative  “has not been the right approach” as it has caused “many delays”. She further stated that there must be “more resources to market surveillance authorities” to ensure the requirements are being “correctly implemented and correctly enforced”.  

Similarly, the sustainability values may differ between different member states, for example, what is seen as sustainable might not qualify in another Member State. This issue has been addressed, as it shows a lack of comprehensive internal market rules in the previous proposal. However, this is what the new approach tackles, as it is fundamentally a harmonised set of rules placed to achieve a balanced and well-functioning internal market. 

This was further emphasised by the EU Greens source, who states “there are indeed follow up questions of how to implement a level playing field” to prevent “some kind of pseudo self-regulation” within industries, as this would result in an imbalance of sustainable productions. They believe it is in the “advantage of businesses” to follow the same conditions and not adhere to voluntary agreements, to implement a circular economy.  

Despite the challenges presented, the BEUC is confident that the proposal is in favour for consumers, in monetary terms. They say, “if consumers buy products that are the more efficient ones on the market, it could save quite some money if their products lasted just five years, longer, for example”. This opinion comes from their 2016 analysis of the annual savings for consumers in an average European household, as a result of Ecodesign and Energy Labelling. The study found that, on average, consumers save €330 yearly, as the improved repairability, durability and upgradability standards of products are safer, less faulty and more energy efficient.  

Barlassina believes the cost-effective statistics will rise following the new proposal and a profit will come from a prolonged use of many product groups. It also serves a moral satisfaction, as consumers will be well informed about the sustainable product chain and know the effects of the products they are buying, if the energy labelling continues to prevail.  

This proposal has been named “very ambitious” by both the BEUC and Greens source, and depending how the promises are fulfilled, it has the opportunity to create greatly positive environmental changes. Many details are yet to be filled in, so there are potentials for further proposals to emerge to benefit the circular economy plan, as the EU source states, in the future, they are focusing on more repairability and recycled content. 

Teresa Schachtl 2022. Infographic shows potential impacts of the Eco-design.