Campaigning and collaborating on REACH in Europe

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