Does US input help or hinder chemicals review?

Date: 20/03/03

By Ben Bladon

WHEN the proposals to review chemicals policy in the EU are discussed in the coming months, the transatlantic trade aspect is one of the elements that will undoubtedly come under the spotlight.

Many will be unaware of the EU-US dialogue that has been in progress for some time. The reason for the dialogue becomes clear when the trade implications of the chemicals package are considered - annual US exports of chemicals to the EU are valued at €15.6 billion.

The proposed framework will not only impact on chemical producers and downstream users of American parentage with manufacturing facilities in the EU, but also on US exporters. The main chemical industry body estimates that exporters will be liable for a share of data generation costs, that could total almost €400 million.

Importers in the EU will have to comply with the same rules, so even US companies that decide to relocate manufacturing facilities outside the Union won't avoid their responsibilities.

No wonder, then, that US regulators were keen to be involved in the process from an early stage. Behind-the-scenes meetings between the key European Commission officials and those of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been taking place since the White Paper on chemicals was released by the European Commission in 2001.

In parallel to dialogue between Commission and EPA officials, discussions have also taken place under the umbrella of the Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD).

The chemicals expert group has become one of the busiest within the TABD, with efforts focusing on convergence between US and EU regulatory frameworks. At last year's TABD high-level conference in Chicago, the review of chemicals policy was one of the hottest topics.

Environmental NGOs on both sides of the Atlantic regard US government input as an attempt to obstruct the EU's push towards better protection of human health and the environment, through removal of the most harmful chemicals.

Opinion will remain divided over whether to regard US government input as meddling in order to put the brakes on unfavourable aspects of chemical policy reform, or positive cooperation in order to get a more workable system and avoid a potentially massive EU-US trade dispute in the future.

What is clearer is that this heightened level of regulatory cooperation may well be returned to in the future as a model for key environmental proposals to come.

• Ben Bladon is an environment and trade consultant for Hill & Knowlton, Brussels.

When the proposals to review chemicals policy in the EU are discussed in the coming months, the transatlantic trade aspect is one of the elements that will undoubtedly come under the spotlight.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/index.htm http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/index.htm

---