Chemicals: handle with care

Two MEPs discuss chemicals policy.

Caroline Lucas

REACH - the EU’s new rules on improved regulation of chemical safety - tells us a lot about the relative powers of corporate lobbyists and legislators in the European lawmaking process.

It could have been groundbreaking - the safety of the chemicals present in everyday objects, from children’s clothes and toys to cars and computers is of paramount concern, both in terms of their impact on human health and on the environment. REACH promised to close loopholes, require the registration of thousands (literally) of unregulated but potentially harmful chemicals and ban the worst substances entirely.

Indeed as late as 2004 environmental and animal welfare groups were generally agreed that REACH would make an enormous difference.

But in fact the proposals eventually adopted last year fell well short of our expectations, after what the excellent Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) website described as "the largest ever industry lobbying campaign in Europe". CEO highlighted some particularly unpleasant lobbying trends throughout the process: "Scare-mongering, flawed impact studies and delaying tactics" among them.

Put bluntly, the big pharma industry, led by the chemical industry council Cefic and German giant BASF, realised early on that the REACH regulations would cost them money and quickly sought to avoid any of these extra costs, principally by exaggerating them, and talking up a nonexistent and fantastic threat to their very ability to operate profitably in the EU.

The corporate lobby groups were largely successful and more progressive views were sidelined. As shadow rapporteur for the Green/EFA group, I proposed a number of amendments to tighten up the regulations: some were adopted by MEPs in full plenary, but few made it into the final regulations.

We ended up with legislation that failed to satisfy anyone: a missed chance to put public health above the interests of the chemicals lobby.

REACH was by no means exceptional: though the lobbying was on a scale never seen before, the practices were typical. I know first-hand how corporate lobbyists are given better access to the European Commission than our elected MEPs. This is simply undemocratic.

So what should we do about it? Most commentators agree that the EU is suffering a crisis of legitimacy: if it is to rekindle the support and trust of its nearly half a billion citizens it must clean up its act - especially in the areas of transparency and democracy. This means redressing the power imbalance between corporate lobbyists and elected MEPs as part of a wider push to enshrine Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) into the ethos of all firms based, manufacturing or trading in the EU.

Staggeringly, there are more than 20 professional lobbyists now operating in Brussels for every elected MEP, most representing corporations or wider business interests. But they operate in a void of transparency and ethics rules - and, as we saw during the REACH negotiations, this strategy works. By spending money the business lobby does influence policy - and it isn’t just a case of business having deeper pockets than the parliamentarians: the Commission has developed a tradition of awarding privileged access to corporate interests.

We need, as Friends of the Earth Europe have called for, mandatory EU lobbying disclosure legislation, an improved code of conduct for EU officials and an end to the privileged access and undue influence granted to corporate lobbyists. These must be adopted within a wider framework of CSR which would also include a reporting duty on the social and environmental impact of all business decisions, a right to redress for citizens, and introduce criminal liability for directors of companies that breach high minimum social, environmental and human rights requirements. But, crucially, if we are to avoid missing too many opportunities such as REACH to put EU citizens first, we must find a way to lessen the influence of the corporate lobby - and end the revolving door between the Commission and business too.

• UK Green MEP Caroline Lucas is a member of the European Parliament’s international trade committee and a substitute member of the environment, public health and food safety committee.

Erika Mann

Back in the 1960s, the European Community adopted the first directive on chemicals. Ever since, European legislation on chemicals has had a great impact for consumers and the chemicals industry in Europe and elsewhere. The internationally well known REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals) regulation, which has only been implemented from 1 June 2007, is the most prominent example of such regulation.

Currently, a rather technical regulation is being discussed in the European Parliament: on the export and import of dangerous chemicals (COM (2006)0745). Its main aim is to update the so-called Rotterdam Convention on the basis of a ruling of the European Court of Justice which suspended the previous regulation EC (2003)304.

The Rotterdam Convention was adopted in 1998 and entered into force in 2004. Its objective is to promote shared responsibility and co-operative efforts among parties in banning hazardous chemicals worldwide in order to protect human health and the environment from potential harm (see Article 1 of the Convention). The Convention lists in its Annex III those chemicals which are subject to the so-called Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure. The PIC mechanism allows for obtaining and disseminating decisions taken by importing parties, as to whether they allow the import of certain chemicals and for ensuring compliance with these decisions by exporting parties. Currently there are 39 chemicals listed, including 24 pesticides, four severely hazardous pesticide formulations and 11 industrial chemicals. On top of this internationally agreed list, the European Community has its own list of chemicals that are seen as dangerous or potentially dangerous and banned both for import and export.

The current system often leads to difficulties for exporters and the national authorities involved in the export of these chemicals (so-called Designated National Authorities - DNA), because of delayed or missing responses from the importing countries. Obviously, it is hard for some exporters in third countries to understand the character of the additional European list of banned chemicals as well as the procedures involved to send prior information and confirmation to the EU. And sometimes prior information is not even given about substances that are not banned or severely restricted in the Union; these chemicals remain outside the EU as well.

The renewed implementation of the Rotterdam Convention is now being used by the Commission to find reasonable solutions for presently unreasonable methods, so as to enhance the flow of information and to streamline the regulation. According to the Commission’s proposal, if no answer to an import request is given by the importing country within two months, exporters will be allowed to proceed to exporting chemicals for the time being. The procedure is coupled with one condition, there has to be sufficient indication of consent, for example by official documents indicating that the chemical is registered, authorised or otherwise allowed for use in the importing country. My recommendation is to support the Commission’s proposals in principle but, for example, to tighten the timeframe for exporters.

This new regulation is still going significantly beyond the requirements of the Rotterdam Convention to meet specific Community regulation, but it will hopefully help to smooth the information process. It includes a wider range of chemicals than the Rotterdam Convention and follows a slightly different categorisation. Some chemicals that fall under certain categories are completely banned for export. Furthermore, the European Community rules apply to exports to all countries, not only to parties to the Convention. This approach is ethical and ensures that the EU respects its own regulatory environment in trading chemicals, both for export and import. But a regulation must be understandable for users, in this case for importers and exporters. The newly updated regulation for dangerous chemicals will, to a large degree, achieve this.

• German Socialist MEP Erika Mann is a member of the European Parliament’s international trade committee and a substitute member of the industry, research and energy committee. She is preparing a report on the proposal to regulate the export and import of dangerous chemicals.

Two MEPs discuss chemicals policy.