Brussels, 28/11/2006 (Agence Europe) - Guido Sacconi (Italian Socialist) said that “if you ask my how the last round of the negotiations on REACH went, I am really flummoxed. I don't know where we are going”. It was with these terms that the main rapporteur for the draft regulation on registering, assessing and authorising chemical products in the EU, provided the press with the results of the most recent political dealings between the Parliament, Commission and Council on this complex legislation, now entering the last hurdle of the legislative process.
The second reading by the Parliament is set for Wednesday 13 December in Strasbourg, the date limit for respecting the commitment made by the three institutions to reach a final agreement on REACH before the end of the year. If this is not forthcoming, all options become possible, including conciliation procedure between Parliament and the Council on a dossier that has been subject to negotiations for the last three years and for which considerable efforts have been deployed to reach a better and more acceptable balance between the need to protect public health and the environment and the necessity to avoid hindering the competitiveness of European industry.
The fifth informal trialogue on 27 November in Brussels aimed to create the conditions for obtaining an agreement in the second reading in mid-December but failed. The deadline for submitting compromise amendments is 6 December.
The rapporteur said that, “We have resolved quite a few problems. Some of the more difficult points were not resolved at 20H30 on Wednesday. To prevent the dossier getting even more complicated and after a pause, Karl-Heinz Florenz (EPP-ED), who chairs the parliamentary environment committee, decided to suspend everything. When we get near to an agreement, things get more confusing. We are speaking an improbable jargon…We just need a little glimmer of political will”, explained Mr Sacconi to journalists who evoked the “Penelope syndrome”, which consists of some people unthreading what has just been threaded. The rapporteur added that, “It isn't me putting a spanner in the works, nor is the Finnish presidency which knows exactly what is indispensable, necessary and sufficient for us at Parliament to obtain an agreement in the second reading”. The ball is obviously in the Council's court. Sacconi is awaiting proposals from the presidency “in a few hours or in a few days' time…satisfactory proposals”. But if they are not forthcoming, the main rapporteur and all shadow rapporteurs on the dossier, Ms Oomen Ruijten (EPP-ED, Netherlands), Chris Davies (ALDE, United Kingdom), Carl Schlyter (Greens/EFA, Sweden) , Jens Holms (GUE, Sweden) and Johannes Blokland (IN/DEM Netherlands) have prepared a possible “plan B” consisting of an internal compromise package at the parliament, “everything ready for submission on 6 December” in the plenary session, with good preparations for conciliation. Guido Sacconi said that he hoped that they would attain their objective. Asked about the avoiding conciliation, the rapporteur said that there was a 50/50 chance of avoiding it.
The points of agreement already reached between the Parliament, Commission and Council concern animal welfare, communication of the information to be provided along the supply chain, and committee procedure rules. Pending matters are on the future Chemical Products Agency and the principle of substitution of the most dangerous substances, subject top the authorisation procedure.
The decisive point on the Agency for Guido Sacconi, was that the Council would only agree to two members of the governing board being appointed by MEPs, as with all new European Agencies. For substitution, the Council must accept two things at least: 1) that for the substances over which there is greatest concern, authorised with appropriate control even though alternative less harmful alternatives exist, the substitution plan to be submitted by producers must be compulsory from the first request for authorisation; and 2) that there has to be greater clarification of the concept of appropriate control of substances which are bioaccumulable, persistent and disruptive of the endocrine system (or very bioaccumulable, very persistent and very disruptive of the endocrine system).
As little steps in the right direction made by the Council, Mr Sacconi welcomed two advances. The Council agreed that justification would have to be made to the Commission of the reasons why some of the substances over which there was most concern could still be authorised with appropriate control, even though there existed a less harmful alternative. The Council also accepted that for those substances for which there was no real alternative, producers would be required to submit a research and development plan, so that all substances authorised on not on the basis of appropriate control be listed in a substitution plan which, within a certain amount of time would allow the substances causing most concern to be replaced with substances which were less worrying.
Greenpeace saw a delaying tactic in the suspension of negotiations, called for by Karl-Heinz Florenz, so that the decision on this issue would be taken under German Presidency of the EU Council and would be more favourable to the chemical industry. This hypothesis was dismissed out of hand by Mr Sacconi. (an)