Strasbourg, 12/12/2006 (Agence Europe) - REACH has been on the European institutions' table since October 2003. The draft regulation on registration, evaluation, authorisation and limitation of chemical products in the EU is about to cross the last step of the very long obstacle course, without any difficulty.
On the eve of the vote in second reading at the Parliament, planned for 13 December in Strasbourg, this complex legislation was practically in the bag. It has been a controversial issue for so long and passed through the institutional compromise mill on 30 December (EUROPE 9320) but will get through this last leg without any difficulty, before adoption of the text, thanks to the support declared by the three biggest political groups (PES, EPP-ED and the ADLE).
The debate in plenary session in preparation of the vote confirmed the majority assurance for a positive outcome. The big parties were convinced that they had succeeded in working for better health and environmental protection but by avoiding the imposition of too many obstacles on the competitiveness of European industry. They were satisfied that the EU would soon have legislation for the first time that would make good the information deficit on the dangers covering around 30,000 chemical substances that were already on the market and oblige producers to programme, more or less in the long term, the gradual replacement of the most damaging substances with less harmful substances when they are available. This is the aim of the substitution plan.
This opinion is diametrically opposed to that of the Greens/EFA and GUE. The latter are authors of an “alternative compromise” (EUROPE 9323), together with some MEPs dissenting from their party lines. They have expressed their indignation at the approaching obliteration of their efforts made in the first reading of the Parliament to guarantee the obligatory substitution principle for all dangerous substances when less harmful substances exist. Their hopes for a communication of information to consumers about substances contained in products were also dashed.
Guido Sacconi (PES, Italy) rapporteur on the dossier declared, “After three and a half years of negotiations, there is only a few days before the EP/Council/Commission agreement. We've climbed an enormous mountain, similar to the Himalayas. We got to the top. Now we have to prepare to go down”. According to him it is the entry into force and effective implementation of this novel legislation that is so extremely complex. Pleased with the broad agreement on the registration of substances, the role of the Chemicals Agency based in Helsinki, the communication of information along the whole chain of supply, the significant reduction in animal experiments, as well as the committee procedures, Mr Sacconi acknowledged that they had had to water it down somewhat on demands for examination applicable to low tonnage imports of produced substances “and on other points”. However, he said that what counted was that there is “regulation of the most worrying substances and that these substances are subject to an authorisation procedure”. Continuing with his mountain climbing metaphor, Sacconi added, “Don't forget that we've come from very far down the valley, given that in the initial proposal of the Commission, we could have used all substances on the basis of adequate control. We have reduced the number of substances that can be authorised on the basis of adequate control and for all other substances; we have planned on a process of obligatory substitution when safer alternatives exist. And if they are not, R&D demands are requested from producers. Authorisations will be granted on a case by case basis and their length of authorisation decided on a case by case basis, together with the obligation on the Commission to provide justification when alternative solutions exist. The Commission will make its decisions together with the Chemical Products Agency”.
Sacconi stated that what was essential was the publication of the regulation by the end of the year and its application before 1 June 2007. The rapporteur declared that, “it is urgent to relaunch REACH and apply it. Then we can improve it. We have already worked for the improvement of the environment, human health and, in particular, the health of workers”. Alluding to the alternative compromise submitted by the Greens/EFA and GUE, Sacconi explained that this involved “good amendments that I had proposed to the Council and Commission to get to where we are today…” Dismissing the main hypothesis of an “improbable conciliation” that the Greens and GUE were banking on, Mr Sacconi gave a warning, “Let's be clear, either we accept the compromise of the three institutions or we return to the Council's common position. I am sure that the Parliament will make the right choice on Wednesday”.
Speaking on behalf of the Council, Mauri Pekkarinen, the Finnish minister mentioned prospects for an agreement on REACH as a “big step forward compared to the current control system of
forty year old chemical substances”. The colossal work on this regulation, which will make Europe a pioneer, has involved no fewer than 7 Presidencies, he pointed out. It was the “balanced joint position which laid the foundations for an agreement under our Presidency,” he added, expressing the hope that the Parliament would support the compromise agreed to by the Member States. This compromise, he said, would improve protection of human health and the environment, knowledge on the properties of substances, will put in place an authorisation procedure for the most dangerous of them, highlighting the responsibility of companies for the safety of the substances, and would increase transparency through a modern information system that was unique in the world. Industry Commissioner Günter Verheugen said the compromise on REACH, which will be put to the vote in plenary session, had found a fine balance between health, environmental and animal welfare concerns and the imperative of the industry's competitiveness. “I hope that this major project will be a benchmark on the world scene,” he said, expressing particular satisfaction that the interests of hundreds of thousands of SMEs, whose survival could have been put in danger had caution not been shown, had been taken into account. Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas felt this was one of the most important, the most inspired proposals the EU had ever drawn up, one which made the industry responsible if we were to avoid the detrimental impact of chemical substances on health and the environment. On behalf of the EPP-ED, Rita Oomen-Ruijten (Netherlands) stressed that REACH would map out, verify the information and regulate the use of 30,000 chemical substances EU produced or imported in qualities of over one tonne per year, by replacing a whole series of opaque laws which ran counter to the good functioning of the internal market. Chris Davies (ALDE, UK) felt that REACH was a step in the right direction, although he would have liked greater emphasis on substitution. His hope was that the text would encourage innovation and a reduction in animal experiments, and would see chemical substances replaced with safe alternatives.
Carl Schlyter (Greens /EFA, Sweden), in similar fashion to Jens Holm (GUE/NGL, Sweden) said, “REACH was supposed to be the world's fullest legislation on chemical substances, one of the most crucial decisions ever taken by the European Parliament. Unfortunately, the compromise between the three large groups has completely drained these intentions”. It was their great disappointment to state that the European Parliament was preparing to vote on the EP/Council compromise although no report on the chemical safety will be required for smaller tonnages, which make up almost two thirds of the substances covered by REACH, very few substances giving cause for concern will be replaced when safe alternatives exist, there will be no communication on the chemical substances listed as dangerous, no deadline will be set for the gradual elimination of dangerous chemical substances, and Member States will not be able to have stricter national provisions. “REACH is both a fine illustration of what Europe could be and the unfortunate confirmation of what it is today,” said Francis Wurtz (GUE, France).
Among the dissenting voices to the coalition of the major parties was that of Frédérique Ries (ALDE, Belgium): “On 20 September 2003, before we began our work, Messrs Chirac, Schroeder and Blair wrote to the European Commission to ask it 'not to damage the competitiveness of the European chemical industry'. The intervention and pressure at this level were unprecedented in the history of co-decision. The sermon was: REACH will be far from the ambitions set out in the White Paper”. She welcomed the considerable advances despite being attentive to the concerns of the chemical industry not to handicap the chemical sector, but she added, “I would have liked to welcome our not having capitulated on the substitution principle! What remains is not a dilution, I would speak rather of deception. Substitution à la carte, case by case, gradual, including for carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic substances 'if control is sufficient'. And I'm quoting the text!”
The final word will belong to the plenary session, when it votes on 13 December. (an)