Author: Tom Walters

In our monthly series, Window on Europe, we consider the best policy ideas coming from the continent, and draw out lessons for the United Kingdom. In this piece, Ed Worsdell and Tom Walters look at the EU’s extended producer responsibility scheme for micropollutant pollution in wastewater. You can keep up to date with these articles and IEEP UK’s other work by subscribing to our monthly newsletter.

Micropollutants are potentially hazardous substances found in water at low concentrations, often less than one microgram per litre. Originating from everyday products such as pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and industrial chemicals, they are typically difficult to control, given the fact they encompass a wide variety of substances which makes them hard to identify, monitor and remove. What’s more, they can break down into compounds more mobile or toxic than the original sources.

A number of studies have demonstrated the harmful effects of compounds such as oxybenzone and ibuprofen on aquatic organisms – these micropollutants can affect the functioning, behaviour, and reproductive abilities of aquatic plants and animals. Antibiotics entering waterways through human wastewater and agricultural activities contribute to concerns about the spread of antimicrobial resistance.

Micropollutants: sources and cleanup

Micropollutant pollution is a growing issue in the EU, where studies have shown that these contaminants are present in all EU waters. It is also a pressing issue in the UK, with reports identifying considerable amounts of these pollutants in the River Thames and the River Dee, among others.

According to EU data, a large proportion – as much as 73% – of micropollutant pollution entering wastewater treatment plants comes from pharmaceuticals such as antibiotics and cosmetics. Micropollutants from these products enter waterways through human excretion, bathing and washing. This wastewater then passes through treatment plants, where the micropollutants are not always fully removed.

Wastewater treatment plants are a major pathway through which micropollutants enter European water bodies. Traditional treatment processes are designed to remove larger-scale pollutants and are often ineffective at eliminating these contaminants. For example, removal rates for many micropollutants in Dutch wastewater treatment plants are below 40%.

Successful removal of these pollutants requires quaternary treatment – an additional wastewater treatment process designed to remove micropollutants that conventional primary, secondary and tertiary treatments cannot fully eliminate. Common technologies include ozonation, powdered activated carbon and granular activated carbon. Implementing these advanced treatments involves significant costs.

The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive and the EPR

Article 8 of the revised 2024 EU Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD) requires wastewater treatment plants serving at least 150,000 population equivalents, as well as smaller plants serving at least 10,000 population equivalents in designated at-risk areas, to progressively introduce quaternary treatment by 2045, achieving at least 80% removal of specified micropollutants.

Due to the significant costs of quaternary treatment, Article 9 of the UWWTD introduces an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme based on the ‘polluter pays’ principle. Under the scheme, pharmaceutical and cosmetics producers must finance at least 80% of the relevant costs of advanced wastewater treatment to remove micropollutants, shifting the financial burden for cleanup from taxpayers and water utilities to the producers ultimately responsible for the pollution.

By 31 December 2028, Member States must ensure these obligations are in place, with producers contributing through collective Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs), based on the quantity and hazardousness of the substances they place on the market. Exemptions apply to producers placing less than one tonne of relevant substances on the EU market annually or demonstrating that their substances are rapidly biodegradable or do not generate micropollutants in wastewater at the end of their life. By increasing costs for businesses producing higher quantities of more hazardous substances, the scheme thereby creates a financial incentive for the development of less environmentally harmful products.

Resistance from industry

Since the passing of the UWWTD, the EPR scheme has been subject to pushback from industry, including legal challenges. This resistance is based on the perceived unfairness of the scheme both regarding its proportionality and also its identification of the producer, rather than the consumer, as the true polluter. The pharmaceutical industry, as well as some academics, believe that the EPR scheme could lead to pharmaceutical companies becoming more risk-averse and consequently to decisions not to sell certain important medicines and pharmaceutical products in specific regions.

Industrial bodies have also argued that the increased costs for the sector could affect competitiveness and disrupt the supply chain. NGOs have challenged this claim, arguing that financial impact on these sectors would be limited and is unlikely to affect competitiveness. In February 2026, the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations and Cosmetics Europe brought a claim to the General Court of the European Court of Justice, challenging the EPR scheme which was ultimately rejected, though on procedural grounds.

The EU’s EPR scheme has also faced opposition from some Member States, particularly Poland, which has taken its case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). It argues that the polluter pays principle has been misapplied by placing the financial burden exclusively on pharmaceutical and cosmetics producers while excluding other industries that meaningfully contribute to micropollution. In September 2026, an Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a non-binding opinion recommending the annulment of key EPR provisions. Advocate Generals act as independent legal advisers to the Court, examining cases and recommending how judges should rule. Their opinions are not legally binding, and the Court has yet to issue its final judgment.

The Advocate General’s opinion was based on a perceived lack of scientific rigour within the methodology used to calculate sectoral responsibility for micropollutant load within the Commission’s feasibility study and impact assessment, which was subsequently used to justify the assignment of 80% of treatment costs to the pharmaceutical and cosmetics sectors.

Switzerland: an alternative approach

Switzerland is an international leader within quaternary treatment, having launched a national micropollutant removal programme in 2016. This programme aims to upgrade approximately 140 of its 700 wastewater treatment plants by installing advanced treatment equipment. By 2040, it aims to cover 70% of the Swiss population, and to achieve an 80% removal rate across specified micropollutant indicators. By December 2025, it had implemented these upgrades in 38 plants. It has prioritised large wastewater treatment plants and those discharging into environmentally sensitive lakes and rivers.

By contrast to the EU’s EPR scheme, Switzerland funds its quaternary treatment through an annual wastewater charge of up to CHF 9 (GBP 8) per connected resident. This charge is collected through wastewater operators and is generally passed onto consumers. The revenue received by the government is ringfenced for use on quaternary upgrades.

Lessons for the UK

Water governance in England and Wales is entering a period of substantial reform driven by the UK Government’s A New Vision for Water white paper, as well as the forthcoming Clean Water Bill. The 2025 Cunliffe Report, which preceded the white paper, found that wastewater treatment plants in England and Wales are not currently designed to remove micropollutants. It also acknowledged the introduction of the EU EPR scheme, noted the widespread support for a similar UK scheme from various UK NGOs, and recommended that the government should consider and report on the feasibility of an EPR scheme to tackle not only micropollutants, but also other emerging pollutants such as PFAS and microplastics.

Scotland also does not have any wastewater treatment facilities which offer quaternary treatment. However, under its policy of ‘keeping pace’ with updated EU environmental standards, the Scottish government has been examining the potential implementation of such a scheme. Scottish Water is already anticipating these regulatory changes and commissioning research into sustainable quaternary treatment.

Under the terms of the Windsor Framework, the EU’s EPR does not apply to Northern Ireland, and there has been no discussion around any implementation of a similar scheme to date.

The four nations of the UK can all learn lessons from the both the EU and Swiss experience of funding quaternary upgrades. While still in its infancy, the EU’s approach has shown the importance of scientific rigour in settling questions of proportionality when considering which industries should be covered by such a scheme. By contrast, Switzerland’s more developed programme has shown the feasibility of an alternative funding model, and the importance of targeted rollout for short-term environmental impact. However, as the Burnham government seeks to keep utility costs down for consumers, the introduction of an EPR scheme where industry pays, backed by a rigorous impact assessment appears to be a more favourable approach to tackling micropollutant pollution.

Photo by Giant Asparagus on Pexels