| Author (Person) | Glass, Jerome |
|---|---|
| Series Title | European Voice |
| Series Details | Vol.11, No.14, 14.4.05 |
| Publication Date | 14/04/2005 |
| Content Type | News |
|
By Jerome Glass Date: 14/04/05 MEPs have given a cautious welcome to news that an industry-sponsored impact assessment on the proposed REACH legislation to regulate chemicals estimates that the costs to industry will be lower than had previously been predicted. As disclosed in European Voice last week, the report, carried out by consultancy KPMG and commissioned by the European chemical federation, Cefic, and the European business association, UNICE, undermines the argument put forward by industry that the cost of registering low-volume chemicals would be prohibitive. The report has yet to be released but will be presented to a high-level group including Günter Verheugen, commissioner for enterprise and industry, on 27 April. Liberal MEP Lena Ek, the shadow rapporteur for Parliament's industry, research and energy committee, said it seemed that the debate was becoming more realistic, saying that "some of the first reports were exaggerated as the political climate was overheated". "The more recent studies have a more normally anticipated level of costs," she said. According to Ek, the removal of stumbling blocks over the cost of the proposals could only help move forward discussions on making REACH more "workable", and a "more practical discussion would be good for everyone". Rebecca Harms , REACH co-ordinator for the Greens in the European Parliament, said that the report "puts the debate in another light and enables us to debate more on the facts and less on the fears". The removal of industry-stoked fears, she argued, would "take a huge burden away from the discussion" and "opens the door for a new debate on REACH". But Karl-Heinz Florenz, chairman of the environment, public health, and environment committee, cautioned against getting carried away, arguing that "cost is only one side of the argument and I think that there are a lot of points that we still need to discuss". Hartmut Nassauer, rapporteur on REACH for the internal market committee, refused to comment on the KPMG study until he had a chance to study it. He has defended a position that the costs of REACH are too high, but said that "there are a lot of other studies and this one will have to be put in a line with the others". This was a view shared by others outside the Parliament who were anxious to play down the importance of the report. A spokesman for Cefic said that although the report had been undertaken at their request, it was "a micro study involving a small number of companies and based on very specific cases". He cautioned against drawing sweeping conclusions from it. The organisation will, however, wait until the study is presented to the high-level group before issuing an official statement. A spokesman for Verheugen took a similar stance, saying that the Commissioner would look at all the reports and assessments before making a judgment and would not base his opinion on a single report. But he said that the Commissioner would "certainly take [this report] into account" and that if it proved correct that the costs to industry were lower than previously thought, this could only help to facilitate the discussion. "It is important to distinguish between the opinion of the Commissioner and the opinion of industry," he said. But Verheugen, who has consistently argued that the costs to industry of the REACH legislation are too high, repeated those claims to a Parliamentary committee in Strasbourg this week. Verheugen once again warned the members of the industry, research and energy committee to pay special attention to the costs to small- and medium-sized enterprises of regulating low-volume substances. A study to be presented on 27 April 2005, carried out by consultancy KPMG and commissioned by the European chemical federation Cefic and the European business association UNICE, concluded that the proposed EU regulatory framework for chemicals (REACH) would not have the dire economic consequences forecast by the manufacturing industry. It contradicted the chemical industry's claim that the cost of registering some low-volume chemicals could lead to them being withdrawn from the market. Article features comments from MEPs and the chemical industry. |
|
| Source Link | Link to Main Source http://www.european-voice.com/ |
| Related Links |
|
| Subject Categories | Business and Industry, Environment |
| Countries / Regions | Europe |
