On the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims (Green Claims Directive)
AGRI-PA-753776
Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development · Rapporteur: Petri Sarvamaa
Written by a language model from the full text only; every figure comes from the text. The paragraph links open the paragraph a statement rests on — check the text itself before relying on it.
The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development gives its draft opinion on the proposed directive on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims (Green Claims Directive). It welcomes the aim of tackling false environmental claims and giving buyers reliable, comparable and verifiable information.¶ It warns that the rules will add administrative burden and costs for agricultural producers and traders, with a higher impact on small enterprises, and calls for adequate financial and administrative support, especially for small and medium-sized companies.¶ Its amendments require a clear connection between the assessment and the claim, allow secondary information where primary information is not available, and treat existing environmental labelling schemes as sufficient proof of compliance.¶¶¶ It also lets national authorities decide on supervision and resources, and deletes the confiscation of revenues from the penalties.¶¶
Committee position. The rapporteur welcomes the Commission's initiative and supports tackling false environmental claims, but calls for adequate financial and administrative support for companies, especially SMEs. The committee proposes amendments to allow secondary information where primary data is unavailable, to recognise existing environmental labelling schemes as sufficient, and to delete the confiscation of revenues.¶¶¶
Key points
- The rapporteur welcomes the Commission's initiative to update Union consumer law so consumers can contribute to the green transition and to tackle false environmental claims.¶
- The rapporteur says information requirements must be relevant to substantiation and that existing environmental labelling schemes should count as sufficient information under the directive.¶
- The rapporteur finds the rules will impose extra administrative burden and costs on agricultural producers and traders, with a higher impact on small enterprises, and calls for adequate financial and administrative support, especially for small and medium-sized companies.¶
- Amendment 1 would allow accurate secondary information, even for processes that contribute significantly to environmental performance, where the trader does not run the process and primary information is not available, to avoid disadvantaging SMEs.¶
- Amendment 2 would require the assessment to substantiate explicit environmental claims to have a clear connection with the substantiation of the claim.¶
- Amendment 3 would require claims on environmental performance to take into account all environmental aspects or impacts significant to assessing that performance, including from the point of view of life-cycle assessment.¶
- Amendments 4 and 5 would delete the requirements to include primary information available to the trader and relevant secondary information representative of the value chain.¶¶
- Amendment 6 would allow a trader to take account of available information and update the assessment once widely recognised scientific evidence or methods are available.¶
- Amendment 7 would treat a trader whose product or service holds a certification from an environmental labelling programme as compliant with the assessment requirement.¶
- Amendment 8 would require information on the product or trader and on the substantiation to be made available with the claim in physical form or by weblink, QR code or equivalent, and would treat existing environmental labelling schemes as sufficient information.¶
- Amendment 9 would entitle persons or organisations with a legitimate interest to submit substantiated complaints to competent authorities of a Member State.¶
- Amendment 10 would let national authorities decide on the allocation of supervision and resources and implement the directive without affecting national administrative and civil processes; Amendment 11 would delete the confiscation of revenues gained from a transaction with the relevant products.¶¶
Who is affected
- Agricultural producers and traders wishing to make explicit environmental claims, who face additional administrative burden and costs.¶
- Small and medium-sized enterprises, which are expected to be more affected and for which support is requested.¶
- Traders whose products or services hold certification from an environmental labelling programme, who would be considered compliant with the assessment requirement.¶
- National authorities, which would retain the ability to decide on supervision and resources.¶