Brussels, 10/11/2006 (Agence Europe) - Things are becoming clearer as political wrangling intensifies on the proposal for a REACH regulation on the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemical products manufactured in or imported into the EU. We recall that the future legislation aims to make up for the shortfalls in current legislation by carrying out an in-depth scientific assessment of around 30,000 substances already on the market but for which, for the most part, the dangers for public health and the environment are unknown.
In the last leg before the second reading of the European Parliament, the time has come for informal interinstitutional dialogue to seek to bring the positions of the Council, Commission and Parliament closer regarding the authorisation of the most worrying substances - the thorniest chapter of the most complex and hefty regulation ever put to their scrutiny.
Three “informal trilogues” have already been held since the vote in second reading by the environment committee which, by distancing itself from the EU Council's common position, had restored the compulsory nature of the principle of finding alternative solutions to carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic substances, which are harmful for reproductive health, in so far as less harmful alternative solutions exist (EUROPE 9283). The last two trilogues are foreseen for 20 and 27 November, and the second may, at the very best, take place during the plenary session mid-December (12 and 13 December) in Strasbourg, as long as a comprehensive compromise that would foster an agreement in second reading is found by then. In any case, the deadline of end December must be respected, in line with what was agreed between the three institutions. Guido Sacconi (PES, Italy), the main rapporteur on this dossier, pointed this out on 8 November when presenting the last report on the talks to the press, a report that allows for some optimism.
“We have covered all existing problems. There is now convergence on quite a few matters such as the alternative methods to animal testing, the future European Agnecy on Chemical Products, producers' duty of care, and the information to be provided throughout the supply chain, from producer to consumer. The key point on which real differences were expressed was the fate to be reserved for the most worrying hazardous substances and the arrangements for authorisation. Things have moved forward”, Mr Sacconi said. The compromise that he suggested would, it appears, break the deadlock but must be examined by the Council between now and 20 November.
Rather than affirming the need to cease using the most hazardous chemicals as a matter of course (as the Environment Committee argued and the Greens/EFA are still calling for), the compromise deal would set an upper limit below which, failing any safer alternative and following an assessment of the balance between the socio-economic benefits of the product in question and environmental concerns, very hazardous substances may be authorised, subject to adequate control. The authorisation would not be restricted to a five-year period (the way the Environment Committee wanted, unlike the Council's common position), but life-long authorisation would not be granted either, explained Guido Sacconi. Any request lodged by a chemical company at the European Chemicals Agency for the authorisation of a hazardous chemical should be accompanied by a substitution plan taking account of technological changes. The length of time the authorisation would be granted for would be decided on a case-by-case basis but each time it is reviewed, alternative solutions would have to be assessed and taken into account.
Shadow rapporteur Ria Oomen-Ruijten (EPP-ED, Finland), who has expressed great irritation in the past with the 'impractical' nature of REACH in the form it was agreed by the Environment Committee on 10 October, welcomed the excellent atmosphere in the current negotiations, saying that she could agree with Guido Sacconi and the Commission-Council package. The informal three-way meeting was only the first step, she said, but it was a step in the right direction. She said she detected new realism in the rapporteur and the Finnish Presidency but everything would depend on the final package. The important thing as far as the EPP-ED is concerned is for its desire for a non-bureaucratic REACH to be taken into account, she added. Oomen-Ruijten makes no bones about the fact she would have preferred the Council's common position, but the EPP-ED feels it can live with the compromise now emerging over the authorisation procedure because it doesn't want to run the risk of useful chemicals for which no less hazardous alternatives exist not being authorised in the EU but being made elsewhere and used in imported products. The Greens/EFA group says the Council has not budged one iota. The Green MEPs say one should not play with fire when it comes to protecting citizens' health and the environment and everything should be governed by a single principle - very hazardous chemicals should quite simply not be authorised when there are no less hazardous replacements. The Greens argue that the idea of 'adequate controls' is a non-starter because it wrongly suggests that scientists have a clear idea about the amount of the chemical human beings are exposed to. (an)