Brussels, 01/12/2006 (Agence Europe) - After three years of preparatory work and difficult negotiation (see EUROPE 9316 and 9318), the delegations of the European Parliament (EP) and of the Council were able, on Thursday evening, to reach a comprehensive agreement on the REACH project for the regulation of chemical products, after a sixth informal trilogue. The compromise will be put to the vote of the Parliament as a whole during the December plenary session in Strasbourg, before being referred back to Council which - if the EP's vote is positive - will settle the legislative process by the end of the year. EP Rapporteur Guido Sacconi (PES, Italy) called on all political groups to support the compromise during the vote in Strasbourg on 13 December.
Speaking to the press, Mr Sacconi presented the new elements of the agreement. Karl-Heinz Florenz (EPP-ED, Germany), Chairman of the Committee on the Environment, and shadow rapporteurs Ria Oomen-Ruijten (EPP-ED, NL) and Chris Davies (ALDE, UK) were also there. The new elements are:
- The agency's management board including two MEPs will be established in Helsinki to administer the programme, and the chief executive is to be heard by the EP before his/her appointment.
- In order to obtain authorisation for the production of dangerous substances, an alternative plan must be submitted to replace these substances with less harmful alternatives. If there are no alternative products available, producers should then present a research and development plan.
- Substances that act as endocrine disruptors benefit from a temporary derogation to the obligation of cost analysis and analysis of socio-economic advantages. Nonetheless, they will be subject to a review clause six years after the regulation takes effect so that they might be integrated into the general system and submitted to these analyses on the basis of the latest scientific data available.
- Provisions on intellectual property rights have been reinforced with data protection extended from 3 to 6 years.
- The principle of duty of care is now anchored in the regulations via a “whereas” recalling that the production, import and marketing of the substances, in reasonably foreseeable circumstances, must not be damaging to health or the environment.
- Changes have been agreed to minimise the inevitable rise in experiments on animals.
In spite of the agreement, neither the chemical industry nor the NGOs are satisfied. The latter believe exemptions excessive, particularly the one on substances where annual production is less than one tonne. They consider, too, that substances which disrupt the endocrine system should always be subject to the new regime. In a joint press release, several environmental and social associations, including Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Health & Environment Alliance and WWF, criticised the “loopholes that will allow chemical companies to continue using very hazardous substances even where safer alternatives are available”. The industry's official reaction is more conciliatory. For the last two months, the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) has been preparing its members to implement REACH. Ms Oomen-Ruijten confirmed that she had herself heard that some industrialists believed that the project threatened their competitiveness. In short, however, “if both sides can complain, we must have found the right balance,” she said.
Talking to press, Chris Davies questioned the role played by the Commission as the mediator between Parliament and Council. Political differences between DG Environment and DG Enterprise and Industry could have prevented the Commission representatives from presenting a united front. It has also been confirmed that the latter hindered the progress of talks, by, among other things, trying to have closed chapters reopened. In reply to these accusations, the spokeswoman for the DGs concerned, Barbara Helfferich simply pointed out that the final agreement bore witness to the general success of the exercise. Overall those present praised the work of the representatives of the Finnish Presidency of the Council, who maintained their course through all the storms that beset them to, in the main, guide the process to safe haven.
Assuming that the Coreper confirms the agreement, the only remaining obstacle in the long and tortuous journey made by this piece of legislation will, then, be the Parliamentary vote. But, even if the EP second reading vote is in favour, some doubt the real impact of the compromise on industry practices. Questioned about this, Mr Davies was more pragmatic that optimistic: “Let's suck it and see”. (cd)