Brussels, 27/06/2005 (Agence Europe) - The policy debate held by the EU environment ministers on 24 June in Luxembourg on the future legislation for REACH (registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemical products) allowed the last Environment Council under Luxembourg EU Presidency to reach consensus on the timeliness of strengthening authorisation for the most dangerous chemical substances in order to better protect the environment and promote innovation. Pending the Parliament's opinion at first reading foreseen for the autumn, the work may therefore move forward in the search for solutions to make REACH more effective and easier to implement. Guidelines reached by majority consensus at the debate are:
1. The scope of the authorisation that covers the most worrying substances with serious and irreversible effects equivalent to carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic substances in reproductive health (CMR), as well as persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances (PBT) or very persistent and bioaccumulative substances (vPvB), is adequate. It must therefore be maintained as it is despite the fact that some delegations would have liked to extend it to other substances (Germany and Austria would like to include substances that can cause allergies, and the United Kingdom would like to focus on substances that upset the hormonal system).
As authorisation is a gradual process, all 1,500 substances concerned will not be banned from one day to the next. Ministers therefore consider they are able to ponder the case of each, with the possibility of reviewing the situation as it progresses.
2. It would be useful for the future European Agency on chemical products to draw up the list of 1,500 substances subject to authorisation on the basis of criteria defined in the regulation. Some delegations naturally stressed the risk that this list could transform into a “black list” but most delegations believed it would be advantageous for the chemicals industry to have such a list to know where it stands in the longer term.
3. The existence of alternative technical solutions that are economically appropriate (alternative substances or technologies that can be substituted for the substances giving rise to concern) should always be borne in mind in the authorisation procedure (although some delegations felt this should not be compulsory). This guideline goes further than the Commission's proposal, which provided only for examination of the risk before taking a decision and then, only later, the possible existence of alternative products.
4. Authorisation should be restricted in time and be subject to review to stimulate innovation, but the duration of the authorisation should be decided on a case by case basis by the future Agency on chemical products (the Commission only provides for review in specific circumstances).
Commenting on the debate before the press, Lucien Lux, who chaired the work, said: “I am pleased with the result. (…) Consensus on the establishment of a list of substances subject to authorisation will give industry more certainty. We have given preference to options that stimulate innovation. These political guidelines will allow the British Presidency to move forward on the issue after the European Parliament has given its opinion, with a view to a political agreement under Austrian Presidency.” Why an agreement so late? “That is my realistic, if not optimistic, vision of the procedure and discussions still to be carried out. I hope there will be a political agreement under British Presidency but it is likely that it will be under Austrian Presidency”,, Mr Lux replied.