BRUSSELS — A proposed European initiative aimed at expediting industrial and infrastructure projects is evolving into a significant political conflict between Brussels and individual national governments over regulatory authority.
Dispute over environmental regulations
At the heart of this debate lies a contentious issue regarding the regulation—or potential deregulation—of the EU’s notoriously sluggish environmental planning processes. Both industry leaders and EU officials have advocated for the European Commission to ease environmental regulations to facilitate the rapid construction of additional industrial facilities and mines. This is part of a broader effort to reduce bureaucratic hurdles for businesses.
In December, the EU executive unveiled a set of measures designed to address these concerns, responding to persistent complaints about the lengthy timelines associated with construction in Europe. Former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi raised the issue of slow permitting as a significant barrier to European competitiveness in his influential 2024 report.
However, the Commission’s proposal has sparked demands from member states for greater autonomy in managing their own permitting processes, highlighting a deeper divergence between Brussels and national capitals over the simplification of EU policies.
“Member states need enough flexibility to set their own [permitting] procedures,”
stated Marija Vučković, Croatia’s Minister for Environmental Protection and Green Transition, during a meeting of environment ministers last week. She emphasized that, “At present, permitting procedures are being accelerated across too many different EU legal acts,” which leads to “administrative burden” and “confusion for companies,” added Andres Sutt, Estonia’s Minister for Energy and the Environment. He suggested that simplification would be more effective if related requirements were consolidated into a harmonized framework.
Industry lobbying intensifies
Despite these calls for flexibility, the Commission remains steadfast in its position. A Commission official familiar with the proposal stated, “We believe that the framework we are proposing is flexible enough to align with national structures.” During the meeting of environment ministers, Jessika Roswall, the EU’s environment chief, reiterated that the Commission’s proposal “strikes the right balance.”
The demands from member states come amid a vigorous lobbying effort from industry groups, pushing for further reductions in environmental assessments that influence permitting. Aurela Shtiza, director of industrial affairs at the Industrial Minerals Association Europe, noted that environmental impact assessments currently take “at least four years” to complete, during which various ecological factors, such as bird populations and local habitats, are evaluated.
In recent months, EU countries have increasingly prioritized the streamlining of European permitting regulations. Following a significant summit, leaders, including German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, called for the relaxation of EU permitting rules to “fundamentally [accelerate] administrative procedures in all sectors.”
On a more technical level, both France and Czechia have advocated for the inclusion of additional EU rules within the recent December proposal aimed at fast-tracking permitting and environmental assessments. Supported by numerous nations, including Belgium, Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Slovakia, and Ireland, these governments argue that the existing plethora of sector-specific regulations hinders genuine simplification.
Instead, they are advocating for a single legal framework that encapsulates the EU’s new approach to permitting, integrating “cross-cutting principles” and legal provisions into a cohesive document.
Petros Varelidis, Greece’s Secretary General for the Environment, also voiced concerns, arguing that the Commission’s proposals “don’t tackle the main issue” of how environmental permitting interacts with nature protection laws like the EU’s Habitats Directive and Birds Directive. This perspective resonates with industry representatives.
Recently, an “Informal Coalition on Permitting” was formed by 18 lobbying groups, aiming to navigate what they see as problematic environmental laws for industrial development, including regulations on nature restoration, water management, waste, birds, habitats, industrial emissions, and soil quality.
Amidst this backdrop, Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall has reaffirmed her support for the Commission’s initial proposal, emphasizing the necessity for “regulatory stability.” However, environmental advocates are raising alarms regarding the potential repercussions of relaxing long-standing regulations designed to safeguard public health and the environment. ClientEarth lawyer Ioannis Agapakis cautioned against altering or weakening the EU’s Birds and Habitats directives or the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, expressing serious concerns about the implications for both the breadth and quality of environmental protections.