The perfumery and cosmetics sector, together with the pharmaceutical industry, faces a scenario of strong "regulatory, technical, and economic uncertainty" due to the implementation of Directive (EU) 2024/3019 on the treatment of urban wastewater. This was stated in a joint communiqué by the seven main employers' associations of both sectors in Spain, including Stanpa, after the closing of the prior public consultation of the Preliminary Draft Law with which the Ministry for Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge will transpose the European standard into national legislation.
The controversial Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) model
Although the signatory sectors reiterate their firm commitment to sustainability and public health, shared objectives with the European standard to combat water micropollution, they categorically reject the current design of the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) system. Under the current criteria, the bulk of the financial burden of advanced purification is transferred exclusively to the cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries.
The employers' associations denounce that the methodologies used are biased and lack a solidly accredited causal link. They argue that the current framework suffers from deep technical limitations, uses incomplete data and, unjustifiably, has excluded other substances and productive sectors from the focus of EPR that generate an equivalent or superior environmental impact on urban waters.
A millionaire and unpredictable range
One of the points that generates the most bewilderment in the financial departments of the beauty sector is the enormous disparity in economic forecasts, which prevents any type of medium-term strategic planning. "The lack of definition of risk areas and methodological differences between impact studies make it difficult to identify both the scope and the real cost," warn the associations.
The gap in estimates is alarming: while official impact studies by the European Union estimated the global cost of implementing quaternary treatment systems at around 1,160 million euros, other independent and sectoral analyses raise the actual bill to 6,920 million euros. This volatility and lack of technical specificity places companies in a scenario of total financial vulnerability.
A legal battle already being fought in Europe
The offensive by the Spanish cosmetic and pharmaceutical industry coincides with a moment of maximum legal instability in the community territory. The validity of the RAP regime is being legally questioned on several fronts: Poland has already filed a formal appeal before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), while the High Court of Ireland has raised a preliminary question to review the legality of this tax.
Given this situation, Stanpa and the rest of the signatories (Aelmhu, AESEG, Anefp, AseBio, BioSim and Farmaindustria) demand that the Spanish Government ensure that the transposition of the directive does not act blindly. They call for the creation of a flexible, reviewable and dynamic national system, capable of adapting and modulating as CJEU court rulings progress, new methodological guidelines issued by Brussels, and data provided by practical experience itself.
The industrial fabric of cosmetics demands certainty and proportionality. Otherwise, they warn, an opaque regulatory framework with exorbitant costs will end up weakening innovation and the international leadership of the personal care sector in Spain.