The task is getting tougher. I wrote yesterday that 2007 is getting off to a better start than previous years and I now want to prove this with regard to three aspects - the encouraging successes of the 'Europe of outcomes' at the end of 2006; moves in the direction of defining new EU policies in areas as fundamental as energy and immigration; and the prospects of re-launching the constitution, or at least the institutions, in the next few months (and years).
The true question. I will start with the most spectacular legislative success story - adoption of the new REACH regulation (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) making the EU the only part of the world to have such discipline for its chemical industry. There has been much talk of the matter in the media, particularly the final compromises which made the deal possible and the strong, often contradictory, reactions to it. I think it would be useful to return to this and try and make an overall assessment because, after all, this is a success from the point of view of democracy, the institutions, the environment, social affairs and industry to boot, whose impact will reverberate down the years and whose repercussions will be felt around the world. The final deal upset quite a lot of people and came in for very fierce criticism at times, but it was criticised from opposing directions. Some people said REACH's requirements would jeopardise the competitiveness of the EU's chemical industry, while others said the rules didn't go far enough. Looking into both arguments in detail, we can plump for one or the other, but we should be aware that without compromises, no rules would be possible at all. So the true question is whether the new EU chemicals regulation improves on the current situation, whether it really provides greater and better protection for citizens' health and the quality of the environment.
The answer to this is a resounding 'Yes'. As far as I'm aware, only one, potential, backward move was criticised during the heated debate at the European Parliament. According to Jens-Peter Bonde, REACH could mean a step backwards in Denmark regarding health protection and animal experiments. But great progress would also be made in Demark and everywhere else where there were only basic rules, if any at all! The final vote at the European Parliament (529 to 98) demonstrated the extent to which the political groups backed the deal. Virtually unanimous voting on the Council showed that all Member States backed the final compromise, and the support of the European Commission (despite some predictable disagreements between the Environment and Industry DGs) ensured that the general European interest was in principle safeguarded. For the details of the talks, I refer readers to Aminata Niang's analysis in this newsletter (issue 9327, for example, following the vote at the EP).
A real revolution. The vote against the Greens at the EP did not come as a surprise. They fought their corner to the bitter end on one issue - making substitution by less hazardous chemicals compulsory where less dangerous products exist. Where no safer alternatives for human health and the environment exist, the chemical industry can be granted a five year authorisation, during which time they are expected to seek alternatives. REACH is less binding in this regard. It is normal for the Greens to argue their case and they are planning to continue to fight for a more ambitious REACH. We should not forget the extent that the Greens' objectives, thought of as utopian or plain daft at the outset, have now been accepted and are shared by all political leanings and by public opinion. At the European Parliament, the Greens/EFA is one of the most active and effective political groups, and women play a leading role. The Greens/EFA group's position has to be respected.
But at the same time, one cannot ignore the real revolution introduced by REACH - reversing the burden of proof. At the moment, it is public authorities which have to prove that chemicals are dangerous if they want to ban them - in the future, it will gradually be the chemical industry which will be made responsible for proving in advance that products are not dangerous, and giving details of safe usage of the chemical in question. This is new in the history of the chemical industry.
It is true that there is still uncertainty about things like transparency. The provision that companies will be forced to publish information they have at their disposal about the potential toxicity of a product was dropped, despite pressure from the United Left group (GUE/NGL). The majority decided that the above-mentioned inversion of the burden of proof was enough to guarantee public health and protection of the environment and it was not necessary to jeopardise company secrets. In plenary, Francis Würtz quoted the carcinogenic nature of asbestos but this does not wholly stand up, in my view. While it is true that the industry had information about asbestos causing cancer, which it kept secret in order to in effect delay banning the use of asbestos, with the tragic deaths that were caused as a result, the new burden to provide proof that a chemical is not hazardous should surely prevent such cases happening again.
The question of cost. At any rate, nothing has been finally decided and many areas will be revised or fleshed out. A glance at the costs of the REACH regulation reveals the lack of certainty. One study says REACH will cost the French chemical industry alone between EUR 28 billion and EUR 70 billion - testing the 30,000 chemicals covered by REACH, relocating various sites, and halting production of some chemicals. On top of this, the study said some 360,000 jobs would be lost in the chemical industry and related industries. But according to research by the European Commission, applying REACH would cost less than EUR 5 billion from now until 2018 for the EU as a whole, and healthcare savings are expected to total between EUR 20 billion and EUR 60 billion over thirty years (not to mention the savings in human misery at individual and family level which cannot be put into figures). One can rightly wonder whether both studies are talking about the same legislation. What this parade of incomparable figures shows is that no reliable calculations can yet be made.
The rapporteur's epic. Cost assessments are just one part of the epic lived through in the EU with REACH. It is not for nothing that I chose the word 'epic' because rapporteur Guido Sacconi, an Italian from the Socialist group, said he was going to write a novel to explain the ins and outs of REACH - several years of negotiations (the first European Commission proposal was unveiled in October 2003); frenetic lobbying by the chemical industry and other pressure groups at national and EU level; unreconcilable clashes at the beginning between Member States; and attempted torpedoing and other unlikely episodes the rapporteur would like to bring to light. The sheer passion and total commitment Guido Sacconi brought to the job can be seen by the fact that he paid for adverts in the media from his own pocket to alert people to the significance of REACH and its impact on human health, making an effort to demonstrate that the EU is not just some abstract bureaucracy but a living reality that cares for the life and health of real people, along with jobs and the future of Europe's industry. We worked for future generations, he explained.
A success for democracy. In my view, it is important (despite the unprecedented pressure the legislative process came under) that the final decision is taken by the European Parliament in a public meeting and is therefore fully transparent. Lobbies have been able to express themselves but the final decision remains in the hands of representative democracy. 'Participatory' democracy (the democracy of 'civil society') has expanded and developed, which is a good thing, but it must not be allowed to have decision-making powers because it is the most powerful, the richest and best organised who have greater potential to have their voices heard. Moreover, UNICE (representing industry) has praised itself for wanting to act transparently and is also pleased about the way it was able to improve the legislation for SMEs.
Overall, I believe that European democracy worked well, with its two co-legislators (the European Parliament and the Council) and the European Commission to guarantee European interests. It is also good that REACH is a directly applicable regulation rather than a directive (which would have had to have been transposed into Member States' national law, with all the delays, short-comings and legal uncertainty that would have brought in its wake).
Setting an example for the world. The ferocity of the battle is explained by the sheer size of the EU's chemical industry. It employs 1.3 million people in 27,000 companies making an annual turnover of EUR 440 billion. The chemical industry has its enlightened side - new products that make life easier and safer, countless openings for ground-breaking technology, increasing farm productivity and improving healthcare. But it also has its dark side - pollution, cancer, and unknown and ignored side effects. This dark side is what REACH should correct and gradually eliminate. To date, around 400 substances used by the chemical industry have been assessed in detail. But the chemical industry uses a total of around 30,000 substances. They will all be analysed and their repercussions assessed (except chemicals produced in very small quantities). The aim is to arrive at an environmentally friendly chemicals industry, gradually eliminating hazardous substances. This will come at a cost. But other countries will have to follow suit and global standards are planned. In the meantime, a few third countries may have a short-lived competitive advantage but the EU's chemical industry will prepare to take the lead again, by developing clean products ahead of other countries.
REACH's role must be as the fundamental legislation governing the EU's chemical industry. This means that once more, Europe will be showing the rest of the world the way.
(F.R.)