Brussels, 05/10/2005 (Agence Europe) - The MEP Guido Sacconi (PES, Italy), the Parliament's principal rapporteur on the future policy of the registration, evaluation and limited authorisation of chemicals in the EU (REACH) was in seventh heaven, in Brussels on Tuesday evening. The vote of the Parliamentary committee on the environment and consumer protection on some 1,500 first-reading amendments to the proposed REACH legislation clearly gave the upper hand to the protection of human health and the environment. But the MEPs also simplified the task of businesses, which will, in future, be obliged to communicate all required information to the future chemicals agency on the properties of chemical substances or products which they produce or import in quantities of over 1 tonne a year, to assess their risks. After the vote of the committees on the Internal Market and Consumers (IMCO) and Industry/Research (ITRE) which, on 13 September, worked mainly towards the simplification of the registration procedure for the substances, and thus for decreasing the burden of obligations on industry, in order to safeguard competitiveness (EUROPE 9027), efforts made by Guido Sacconi to reach a compromise without diverting REACH from its initial objectives paid off. By default of having been able to rally the Conservatives to a compromise on the registration procedure, the members of his committee voted, by a large majority (40 votes in favour, 19 against and two abstentions) to stress the health and environmental requirements, whilst including a number of amendments by the nine Parliamentary committees involved in this dossier.
The main ingredients of the REACH draft, which was put through the mill by the committee on the environment (President: Karl-Heinz-Florenz, EPP/ED, Germany), which is competent on the substance, are as follows: - duty of diligence on the part of businesses, which are obliged not to market products which present a danger to public health or the environment; - the principle of one substance one registration (OSOR) and obligatory pooling of data by companies together in a consortium; - reduced obligatory information to communicate to the chemicals agency for substances produce or imported at a rate between one and 10 tonnes per annum (which equates to 2000 substances out of the 30,000 subject to obligatory registration). This increased flexibility will, however, be balanced out by checks carried out by the chemicals agency for at least 10% of the registration dossiers (with the possibility of withdrawing registrations if they are not in line with the rules), by three additional tests which the substances will be subject to, and by the obligatory presentation of a safety report on these substances, which are produced or imported in small quantities; - responsibility to prove that products are harmless is incumbent upon the producers or importers, and not the European chemicals agency (the principle of reversing the burden of proof contained within the Commission's initial proposal would thus be kept) - obligation to notify the agency of substances contained in articles when their concentration exceeds 1% and when risks to the environment or to health cannot be ruled out; - limitation of tests on animals; - the right of consumers and employees to be informed about chemical substances present in products via free access to the data automatically communicated by the producers/importers to the downstream users; - authorisation is limited in time: they will be granted for only five years; - setting up a chemicals agency to evaluate dossiers on substances, with the support of the expertise of the Member State; - excluding metals which have not been treated chemically, particularly non-ferrous metals, from the scope of the REACH legislation (the Commission is invited to present a proposal to improve the scope, if necessary, in the 18 months following the entry into force of the regulation).
It was the registration procedure and the authorisation details for the substances- the two most controversial and divisive points- which prevented the EPP/ED from joining the Greens/EFA/Social Democrats/Socialist-Liberals alliance. The EPP-ED will represent certain amendments voted on by the ITRE and IMCO committees unchanged (the reinforced co-operation procedure allows this, if the presidents of the largest committees agree to it). It will come as no surprise that nothing is certain. Guido Sacconi is aware of this. Therefore, negotiations between the groups will resume in earnest within the next six weeks. "This result is promising for the mid-November vote in plenary, but I am not going to proclaim it as a victory just yet. I have been relieved of considerable pressure, but I'm under no illusions (...). We will have to work hard to reach a clear majority in the plenary. But I have been reassured as to the balance of power, I do not believe that I will lose much ground", Mr Sacconi told the press.
Asked to explain his ideas to the Environment Committee before the vote, Hartmut Nassauer (EPP-ED, Germany), rapporteur for the Internal Market and Consumer Affairs Committee, reiterated his colleagues' preference that information should be provided in line with the potential risk of chemicals according to use and exposure. He said the greater the majority in first reading, the more important would be the European Parliament's vote since this was the only way to influence the European Commission/Council consultation process. Guido Sacconi said he basically agreed with Nassauer, but that he, Sacconi, wanted registration first and authorisation afterwards, rather than the other way round, like Nassauer. Sacconi said if authorisation was not strengthened, there was the danger that the Council would take a more environmentalist line than the European Parliament, and he wouldn't want that to happen through a report with his name on it! The Environment Committee agreed with him and tightened up the authorisation procedure to take account of more hazardous chemicals and firm up procedures for renewing authorisations and the duty to replace the most hazardous chemicals with less dangerous alternatives.
Pleased with the progress made in the Committee he chairs, Karl-Heinz Florenz welcomed the inclusion in REACH of chemicals added to cigarettes, but made no attempt to hide his disappointment from reporters about the registration procedure that would, he said, make things more difficult for industry by introducing three more tests for 1 to 10 tonnes of chemicals, and safety reports for chemicals produced in volumes of 1 tonne or more. It was the time limit of authorisations that concerned him the most since authorisations for only five years would sound the death knell for SMEs, he said. He himself had suggested unlimited authorisation for non-hazardous chemicals along with the option, for the European Chemicals Agency, of revising the situation at any time. Whatever happens, Florenz said he was confident the plenary would find a reasonable and well-constructed solution based on the three options put forward by the leading EP Committees, which in his view formed a good compromise platform. Ria Oomen-Ruijten (EPP, Netherlands), shadow rapporteur, slammed the vote in no uncertain terms, saying she was extremely disappointed. Supported by the Liberals, the proposal on the table would endanger the jobs of 1.3 million people in the chemical industry, she said, which would relocate to Asia, Japan and the United States.
At the other extreme, the Greens/EFA and environmental NGOs were delighted with the vote, seeing it as a very encouraging signal to the plenary. Finnish Green coordinator, Satu Hassi, said the Environment Committee had clearly understood the health priorities and the connection between exposure to chemicals and breast cancer and other cancer. She said she was very surprised the Conservative Group at the way European Parliament had expressed the views of the chemical industry.
The European Trade Union Confederation broadly supported Guido Sacconi's recommendations. On 17 October, it will submit to the European Parliament a report by its research institute that the economic benefits of REACH for workers' health could total EUR 3.5 billion over ten years (healthcare savings over-shooting the costs of implementing REACH).