1 / 13

Campaigning and collaborating on REACH in Europe

Campaigning and collaborating on REACH in Europe. Michael Warhurst EU Chemicals Policy WWF European Policy Office, Brussels. Introduction. This talk gives a brief introduction to: What is the EU, What is Reach and how EU decision making works

misu
Download Presentation

Campaigning and collaborating on REACH in Europe

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Campaigning and collaborating on REACH in Europe Michael Warhurst EU Chemicals Policy WWF European Policy Office, Brussels

  2. Introduction • This talk gives a brief introduction to: • What is the EU, What is Reach and how EU decision making works • Environmental NGO views on REACH, and how these relate to the history of chemicals regulation in Europe • How environmental and other NGOs are collaborating on this issue • Some tactics that have been used at EU level, or within Member States.

  3. What is the EU? • The European Union was created by intergovernmental treaties between the Member States • These treaties defined a number of institutions, and defined their competence. • The EU is much more than a free trade area - it also has considerable competence in general environmental and other policies. • There are three key pillars of EU Governance: • The European Commission • Like a Civil Service, but more powerful. Divided into departments or “Directorate Generals” e.g. DG Environment and DG Enterprise • Drafts legislation, often after a request from Council. Most implementation and enforcement is done at Member State level • Council • The EU Member State governments - subdivided into specialities, e.g. Environment Council is made up of Environment Ministers • One of the two “chambers” of EU policy making • European Parliament • Elected by the people of Europe every 5 years • The second chamber of EU policy making. • Final agreement on most legislation is by votes in both Council and Parliament, or if disagreements remain, then by a 6-week forced compromise procedure “conciliation”

  4. Why is the EU important for chemicals? • A major producer • The EU produces 29% of the world’s chemicals - the largest chemical industry in the world • A major market • Currently 15 countries, 375 million people • (the US population is 275 million) • In 2004, 25 countries, around 450 million people • The EU is becoming the global leader on environmental policy • The EU is willing to legislate for environmental improvement • Control of the production and use of chemicals is controlled at EU level • not within individual Member States

  5. What is REACH? • A new regulatory system that will control the production, marketing and use of chemicals in Europe • Five key elements are: • Registration of safety data for all chemicals on market >1 tpa (ignorance is not evidence) • Includes promotion of in vitro testing, grouping, data sharing etc. • Identification of chemicals of very high concern - CMRs, vPvB, PBT, EDC • An authorisation procedure to deal with the use of these chemicals of very high concern • Though currently allows continued use of chemicals of high concern even when safer alternatives are available. • Greater information flow up and down the supply chain, and - to some extent - to consumers • Needs improving • Greater control of the use of chemicals in articles (e.g. furniture and TVs • Needs improving for imported products.

  6. The history so far…. • Building pressure for reform • Failure of current system • Lack of safety data • Lack of action on worst chemicals • Resource intensive for authorities • Imbalance between new and existing • Industry wanted small changes, NGOs a full re-write • Creation of new approach • Stakeholder meetings (e.g. Feb 1999) • The White paper - REACH (Feb 2001) • Council and parliament support (2001) • A mobilisation of industry • inaccurate and misleading information on costs and jobs (2002, 2003) • Scaremongering of downstream users - and other countries (2002, 2003) • Finalisation of Commission proposal • Internet consultation (2003) • Inter service text (2003) • Impact assessment (2003) • Publication - October 29th 2003?

  7. REACH timetable and process - guess

  8. Environmental NGO view of REACH • The current system is ineffective and has failed • Industry has not provided safety data • Chemicals of high concern continue to be used • REACH provides a good framework for a new system • Based on information, not ignorance • Acting on the worst chemicals, not just eternally debating controls • Promoting an innovative industry - both chemical and downstream - developing safer products for consumers • REACH needs to be improved, for example: • An obligation to phase out chemicals of very high concern when safer substitutes are available. • An increase in openness and transparency • Improved control of chemicals in imported articles • A restoration of recently removed safety tests for 1-10t chemicals, and independent auditing of registration dossiers

  9. Cross-NGO working • EU-level NGOs have been collaborating closely on REACH • The big 3 Environmental NGOs (Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF) • In addition, the European Environment Bureau (EEB) - an EU-level NGO coalition - is a key partner. • This collaboration includes: • Short policy statements: • Copenhagen charter, Declaration for the internet consultation in June 2003 • Long policy documents: • Various policy documents, including a detailed joint response to the Commission’s internet consultation • Press work • Meetings with decision makers • Detailed discussions on policy and tactics (often in 6-monthly EEB chemicals expert meetings) • Team work has allowed us to use our limited resources effectively. • We have also carried out joint work with Consumer, Animal Welfare, Health and Women’s NGOs

  10. The Copenhagen Charter • Drafted in 1999, agreed between NGOs through EEB process, still relevant to REACH debate. • We demand from the EU review of chemicals policy: • 1) A full right to know, including what chemicals are present in products. • 2) A deadline by which all chemicals on the market must have had their safety independently assessed. All uses of a chemical should be approved and should be demonstrated to be safe beyond reasonable doubt. • 3) A phase out of persistent or bioaccumulative chemicals. • 4) A requirement to substitute less safe chemicals with safer alternatives. • 5) A commitment to stop all releases to the environment of hazardous substances by 2020.

  11. Some NGO approaches • Reports • Highlighting the problems • Promoting the benefits of REACH, including benefits to Business and to innovation • Monitoring and analysis • Exposing the contamination of our bodies and lives by industrial chemicals • Email actions • Bringing the public closer to the key decision makers • Retailer campaigning • Encouraging retailers and downstream users of chemicals to examine their use of chemicals, and ranking their performance. • Getting key downstream users engaged in the debate

  12. Conclusion • Environmental NGOs in Europe support REACH • The framework is good • We want changes, but they can be put into this framework • We are concerned about the increasing chemical industry lobbying success • But more downstream users should become allies now REACH is more concrete. • Cross NGO agreement on key priorities has: • Given us a clear message • Enabled joint policy statements • Enabled us to work as a team, making up for shortage of resources. • A range of tactics have worked - sometimes generating unplanned positive impacts • E.g. Retailer campaigning • We have 2-3 years of campaigning and lobbying ahead, when we must raise the profile of chemicals • US support is an important part of the debate • REACH can also help the chemicals debate in the US

  13. Key URLs for reference • WWF European Policy Office Toxics: • http://www.panda.org/epo/toxics • FoE safer chemicals campaign • http://www.foe.co.uk/saferchemicals • WWF UK Chemicals and Health Campaign • http://www.WWF.org.uk/chemicals • Greenpeace: • http://www.greenpeace.org/ • European Environment Bureau: • http://www.EEB.org/activities/chemicals/main.htm

More Related