| Author (Person) | Plooij-van Gorsel, Elly, Sacconi, Guido |
|---|---|
| Series Title | European Voice |
| Series Details | Vol.10, No.12, 1.4.04 |
| Publication Date | 01/04/2004 |
| Content Type | News |
|
Date: 01/04/04 The REACH debate needs to move forward from concept into action, writes Guido Sacconi LAST October the European Commission submitted a proposal for a complete and radical review of the EU's chemical substances policy. The process of drawing up this piece of legislation is known to have been a lengthy, complex and controversial one; two years elapsed between the adoption of the European Parliament's opinion on the White Paper on chemicals and the adoption of the proposal by the Commission. Four months elapsed between the first assignment of the dossier to Parliament's environment committee and the final decision over the attribution taken by the assembly's Conference of Presidents. This decision has confirmed the responsibility of the environment committee as lead in reporting on the proposal, with the involvement of the legal affairs and industry committees. Moreover, four other committees will table their opinion: budget, economic affairs, social affairs and, last but not least, women's rights. I tabled my own draft report during these months of in-fighting between Parliament's committees and before the conflict of competence had been resolved. Since then, I must admit, I have done everything possible to get through the first reading in this legislature. I was constantly aware that it would be unacceptable to cause a delay and renounce the possibility of a first reading due to my being unprepared and not tabling my report on time. My behaviour was defined as unacceptable and some colleagues of mine made serious accusations and criticisms of my work as the rapporteur for the REACH directive. It is not my intention to go through my report here; it has been publicly available since January and translated into all official languages, so anybody can easily get a copy of it. What I would like to highlight, however, is the importance of starting a constructive discussion over REACH. The contents of the regulation and real issues have rarely been discussed, so I do believe it is time to get down to the facts and to the real problem. Facts as set out by the Commission proposal - which I consider having achieved a satisfactory balance between on one hand competitiveness and innovation and, on the other, the protection of human health and the environment. But this balance must be significantly consolidated and improved, particularly with a view to putting into practice the strategy of sustainable development. I firmly believe that the Parliament must face up to the challenge of creating a sustainable chemicals policy, which increases the protection of people's health and the state of our environment and will enable the European chemicals industry to be more innovative and competitive. Sustainable development is about linking and integrating the economic, social and environmental objectives of societies in a balanced way. For the strategy to succeed, however, we need to move beyond the abstract discussion of concepts and definitions of sustainability. We also have to move away from the sterile confrontation of 'competitiveness versus health and environmental protection' and move the REACH debate forward from concept into action. I hope the current unnecessary dispute about 'REACH and not REACH' [ie the desire of some MEPs to send the whole proposal back to the Commission] will end as soon as Parliament starts debating it seriously. Now that the impact of REACH, not on the economy but on the European elections, is going to be zero and that we are now free from this particular obsession, I would like to see Parliament calmly start a discussion on the actual content of the directive.
Implementing the REACH directive will lead to major job losses, argues Elly Plooij-van Gorsel THE Commission's proposals for the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemical substances (REACH) will certainly lead to major job losses throughout the entire EU industrial spectrum. The registration requirements in the directive's current form are too large a burden for companies to comply with and remain competitive. With REACH, the Commission aims to protect human health and the environment while maintaining competitiveness and innovation. In my view, the equilibrium in the proposal leans too much towards environmental protection to the disadvantage of competitiveness. This is not only the case within the Commission. Parliament has made a rule that chemicals legislation is to be dealt with by the environment committee. However, the REACH proposal is all about industrial policy. It has consequences for production methods, as well as choice of raw materials and intermediates. In my two terms as a deputy I have never seen a legislative proposal that affects industry more than this one. I therefore think it is sensible to deal with the legislation after the election when a new Parliament has been installed. This is too important to rush through in one reading as the chemicals industry is the key manufacturing industry in Europe. There are more than 25,000 such firms in the EU, the majority of which are small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). REACH, however, does not merely affect the chemicals industry, but also its downstream users. That means more or less the entire European industrial spectrum. Both the Competitiveness Council and Environment Council deal with REACH. This is now matched by Parliament's decision to invoke the enhanced 'Hughes-procedure' in which the committees of environment, industry and legal affairs will work together. All main political groups in the industry committee support my working document which aims to restore the equilibrium in REACH. According to the proposal, producers and importers need to register a substance when it enters the European market in a volume of one tonne per year or more. Based on this, industry will make a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether to produce or import the substance at all. For many substances and products, the costs of registering and testing will be too high and products will leave the market. SMEs in particular will be confronted with a reduced supply of substances. This could result in a withdrawal of end products SMEs specialize in, which would inevitably lead to job losses. I agree with the Commission's objective to identify chemicals that pose a risk to consumers. However, the proposed methodology is not proportionate to the objective. Registering chemicals based on volume of import or production means that some 30,000 substances will need to be registered. We know for a fact that the majority of these substances are harmless. Logic implies that we should concentrate on chemicals we either do not have sufficient knowledge of or which pose a real risk. A risk-based approach instead of a volume-based approach would be far more workable and effective. Another problem is the relocation of employment. European companies will shift their production from Europe to other parts of the world, most notably China. An unnecessary transposition of jobs out of the EU is not what European policymakers should strive for. This is why I have argued for amending the REACH proposal in such a way that industry will be able to work with it effectively.
Two MEPs give their views on the health and environmental versus economic issues of the European Commission's proposed new regulatory framework for chemicals (REACH - Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of CHemicals). |
|
| Source Link | Link to Main Source http://www.european-voice.com/ |
| Related Links |
|
| Subject Categories | Business and Industry |
