Examination of Witnesses (Questions 107
- 119)
MONDAY 2 FEBRUARY 2004
DR JOS
DELBEKE
Q107 Chairman: Thank you, Dr Delbeke
for coming to help us with our inquiry on EU Chemicals Policy,
and thank you to Ms Hendrix as well. I do not know if you know
the select committee structure we have in our parliament, but
it is our job to scrutinise government policy, particularly on
issues like this, and to report back to the House of Commons.
A minister usually replies, and quite often there is a debate
on our report, so it is very opportune that you are here to help
us with the inquiry. You probably know that we have had informal
discussions this morning with WWF and others and we have been
doing the same in the United Kingdom with groups like Marks and
Spencer and so on. Would you like to say a few words to begin
with?
Dr Delbeke: Thank you very much,
Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here. It is also really encouraging
to see that a debate on this proposal is getting shape in the
different Member States. What we could contribute to the debate
is up to you to confirm.
Q108 Chairman: We will ask you some
questions.
Dr Delbeke: Exactly. What is very
important for all of us in the Commission, I think, is that we
started with the recognition that the existing regulation, which
is quite comprehensive, which comprises more than 40 Directives,
is in our view not satisfactory in its outcome. The start of this
debate was indeed about concerns we have about regulating better
and in a simpler manner—although the word "simple",
I know, has to be used in a very cautious manner: this is a complex
Regulation. Knowing that we have thousands of pages on the table
already now and more than 40 Directives that we would like to
have repealed when REACH would come in to place, I think is a
very important element that I would like to bring to your attention
as well. The other element I would like to bring to your attention
is of course that we sometimes feel a bit sorry that the debate
is focusing too much about the costs and possible problems than
about the benefits. We have had a long discussion, starting with
a communication, with a White Paper, with contacts with lots of
stakeholders, and, while the cost debate is a very important debate—we
do not want to diminish the importance of that debate—it
is of course not to be forgotten that we are doing this to improve
human health and the environment. Although it is very difficult
to come forward with quantitative estimates about precise benefits,
that is the driver for this entire change in legislation. These
are a few words of introduction. My Commissioner is of course
very eager to see that human health and the environment are better
protected compared to what we have today.
Q109 Chairman: Everything that is
said here today is recorded and will be in the minutes and in
our report. Under that aegis, maybe you will be more careful than
you might be in an informal session. Nevertheless, let me start
off by asking you about chemicals and the potential risks and
potential problems for the environment. You say we may underestimate
them; on the other hand, we may overestimate them as well. How
do you come to a balanced decision on that, the overestimation
and underestimation of the hazards associated with any chemical?
Dr Delbeke: There is perhaps one
basic element on which we are working very hard in the DG Environment.
Mrs Wallström was very keen to bring new life into the debate
on health and the environment. We see that out of the research
that medical doctors are doing; that these modern diseases which
increasingly manifest themselves in Europe, in many cases can
be traced back to exposure to chemicals a long time ago. That
is the whole problem that we face. We have very strong indications
that there is a causal relationship between exposure to chemicals
in the past and the modern diseases, if I can name them so, of
today, but to have the causal relationship strictly spelt out
is of course a very, very difficult thing to do. Because exposure
happens years ago, the time variable is an important one. Second,
there is a cumulative variable: there is a lot of background pollution
and it is the marginal increase in pollution or in the release
of the chemical that just triggers a reaction above the threshold
where normally the environment of the human body would have resistance.
While it is without dispute that there is something happening,
it is more difficult to put quantitative estimates and precise
causal relationships between what has been happening in the past
and what is happening now. The second thing is that we have quite
tight regulations today in force, since '81—that is the
new chemicals regulation, and we cover there a couple of thousand
substances—but for the bulk of the chemical substances which
are being used today—and we are talking about tens of thousands
if not more than a hundred thousand substances, the so-called
"existing substances"—we have hardly a regulation
on that which really gives the scrutiny that we should have. So
we see also in our current regulation an imbalance, between an
overly cautious and demanding regulation on the new substances
and almost a lack of legislation on the old substances which is
the bulk of the chemicals we use today. So bringing more balance
in this regulation, and making sure that what has been used and
been brought into the economy before '81 is as important as what
we do for the substances after '81. So these things combine. There
is an order of magnitude which is quite imbalanced between old
and new. This leads into the question on the impact on health
and the environment. The bulk of the chemicals, these large amounts,
are basically not addressed. Should we not address them? That
is a basic driver behind this change in the regulation.
Q110 Chairman: Do you think the legislation
is workable, because it seems to be scaring the pants off industry?
Dr Delbeke: We do think, indeed,
it is workable, although we do recognise that it is a change compared
to what we did in the past. The biggest change, presumably, is
the registration phase, because on authorisation[1],
on all kinds of restrictions in the past when we had strong indications
that we were having to deal here with a nasty chemical (CMRs,
PCBs, et cetera), then we acted upon that. But out of the
vast amount of chemicals, we do not know very much, and on the
registration it is in fact a comprehensive information-gathering
exercise where we ask companies, the primary stakeholders in all
this, to inform the public, to inform the public authorities about
the likely impacts in cases of normal use of that substance, about
the likely impact that it has on human health and the environment.
Basically, it is a huge registration exercise and, because it
is intended to be comprehensive, it is of course comprehensive.
It has a wide scale, it goes without saying. On this registration
we never were in a position, as a public authority having the
duty to protect human health and the environment, to dispose of
all this information[2].
Now I know that industry is scared by the bureaucracy and the
administrative efforts that may be involved into all this. I think
that between the versions we have been working on and the last
one that was publicly known, which was the one that was put on
the internet in May of last year, and the proposal we made, I
think there we made major changes, following investigations, detailed
investigations, to reduce the number of administrative efforts
that would be required by industry and, indeed, to build on tools
like the safety data sheet that is already widely in use in industry.
So, instead of creating new mechanisms[3],
we paid a lot of attention to upgrade the mechanisms already in
place so as to minimise the administrative burden.
Q111 Chairman: I am interested when
you say that we do not know much scientifically about some of
these compounds, these chemicals. How will we know when we know
enough about them? Because they might have some toxic side effect
and we have not done the right tests and it slips through the
net and people get damaged.
Dr Delbeke: The name itself, REACH,
is registration, evaluation and authorisation. Registration is
bringing the evidence on the table. Then it is submitted to experts,
and the Agency is going to have a quite significant open look
on that. When there is indication that more is to be done, additional
tests may be asked by industry or there may be a question: "Have
you looked into this or to that?" and this could lead to
additional tests. Again, information gathering. If those tests
show that there is more at hand, then we go into the next phase:
authorisation. If the tests indicate that normal use, et cetera,
minimises the risks that may be involved in that chemical, then
the issue stops and then there is a kind of signal being given
to the key users, whether they are in industry or outside, that
this or that aspect may have to be paid attention to.
Q112 Dr Harris: Obviously we are
where we are and you are dealing with what you are dealing with,
but, given everything you have said about potential impacts on
human health, do you understand people who raise concerns that
there is a disjunction in terms of doing all this work with the
threat, as it is seen by the chemical industry and at the same
time pumping millions of euros into subsidies for tobacco growing
in the Union, with the devastating effects that has on human health
that we know about?
Dr Delbeke: We know that we should
stop giving subsidies to all kinds of economic activities that
are having a distorting effect on the environment. The latest
document I think is not older than a couple of days where we re-state,
indeed, on the environmental technologies that we should be very
wary of not giving disincentives to technology, innovation, et
cetera, by giving subsidies which are possibly distorting the
environmental and economic behaviour—and we have here environment
and health together. We do not dispute your assertion that we
have to address those subsidies. I think we are addressing them,
but we do not go today as fast as we would like to go for some
of us, basically because of social reasons. So I would put these
subsidies more into the social context than into the health, environment
or economic context. And for tobacco growers it is a minor part
of agricultural subsidies today, but it is still a part that is
being subsidised, so we agree to that. There are other subsidies
we would like to address as well. There are coal subsidies in
Europe still—less in your country compared to other countries—and
we address that. Again, not as fast as we would like it to happen,
because social considerations are the predominant ones. In eastern
parts of Germany, for example, there is a strong social more than
environmental consideration there. Having said that, the balances
that are brought in in this house[4]
between environmental, social and economic variables under the
state aid provisions are, you know, what they are. Basically,
we agree with you.
Q113 Dr Harris: It just seems that
people think that having a go at the chemicals industry, so to
speak, is low-hanging fruit: it is easy, it is do-able, they are
there. You are not going to deal with all the pollution in the
east and the effects are growing. But I accept you have answered
my point.
Q114 Bob Spink: You accept, I suspect,
that there is also social dimension to this legislation, in that
it may well displace jobs outside the EU, et cetera.
Dr Delbeke: I would take a step
backward before answering this question and have a look at the
costs that this proposal may generate. I think that the extended
impact assessment that was done with a relatively wide number
of consultants has shown that the administrative costs that this
proposal would create is in the order of magnitude of
200 million a year over an 11-year period, so the
shock that is giving or has created to the system is definitely
a cost problem but it is spread out over a number of years. Time
is, indeed, very important. We have been discussing now this proposal
for a number of years, some five years. We will have in our institutions
discussion for another two/three years, and then the phase-in
period for the proposal is gradual over 11 years. So, while there
are costs admittedly, I think the fact that we take a long period
of time should allow economic operators to minimise the costs
over time. Another comment: When it comes to the treatment of
substances within Europe and those coming from outside Europe,
the proposal is paying a lot of attention to have an equal treatment
of substances being imported compared to the substances being
produced within the European Union, also because of the obvious
WTO rules, et cetera. So the last thing we would like to provoke
through this legislation are social problems. But we do not deny
that when we create a constraint, an additional requirement that
was not there in the past, this has a number of costs which in
our view are largely going to be transitional. A final comment:
Many of these things may lead the chemical industry today into
a new set of substances, will encourage innovation into products
and will bring a better image to the sector, and will bring in
a new breed of products that are going to be the products that
we need in the future. I think that kind of orientation towards
new markets and market niches is a very important one to be considered
as well. Again, that is very difficult to quantify, so this is
a qualitative statement. But we do see—like we have seen,
for example, in the field of CFCs, where we have a substitution
towards the HCFCs, where the same industries producing these two
sets of products were largely winners in the debate—that
there are important chemical producers in your country, like in
the Netherlands, Germany and France, who did make a relatively
good business out of such an environmental regulation. So there
is evidence in the past that new products may emerge from that,
the products that we exactly need in the future more than compared
to what we produce today.
Q115 Dr Iddon: We certainly cannot
fault you on your consultations: the internet consultant last
year produced 6,000 responses. But, with all the consultations
in which you have been involved, why are there still so many unresolved
issues?
Dr Delbeke: I think that we may
have two elements in this reply. The fact is that a bit of the
sobering experience that you have as an official of this house[5],
is that you are constantly in a consultation exercise but it takes
a lot of time before you get all the players on board and sometimes
the ones who are out there are only taking it seriously when there
is a proposal on the table. I think that while it is true that
we have to continue our consultation—and I think we are
showing that we are determined to do that, in particular on spotting
the specific economic problems—this is a very vast and very
diversified economic sector, and when, for example, we take the
example of the downstream users, with whom we are now having a
very constructive debate, it took a while before many of those
downstream users thought that something would happen that would
affect their sector, so they were not taking the time or the effort
to look precisely into the impact for their company, their competitive
position, competition in general, et cetera. Having now the proposal
of the Commission on the table, of course, is a fairly important
marker. I saw also that at the internet consultation. At that
point in time that already served as a marker: "The Commission
is going to come forward, so, please, look at this," and
the fact that we had 6,000 replies and an enormous surge in interest
proves that it takes time before you get through to all the different
layers of this very diverse sector which we name chemicals.
Q116 Dr Iddon: If I could just focus
in on one element of the consultation. You of course describe
your consultation process in your extended impact assessment.
We have been taking evidence from the chemicals industry, which
goes along the lines—and I will paraphrase—that they
are not happy with that impact assessment because it did not take
into account the whole of the supply chain. Is the chemicals industry
justified, do you think, in asking for a further impact assessment?
Have you taken their criticism seriously, in other words?
Dr Delbeke: We are taking their
criticism seriously. Perhaps I will describe what we are doing
today. In fact, we are about to establish a kind of roundtable,
where Commission officials, representatives of major branches
of the chemicals industry, including downstream users, unions,
NGOs, consumers, will sit around a table with of the order of
magnitude of some 15 to 20 people, taking people all bearing responsibility
in the respective parts of this debate. The idea will be that
they bring specific evidence to the table related to the interest
they are standing for. What we had a little bit in the past, if
I can give my personal opinion, was that economists—and
I am an economist—too easily took the chemical sector as
one relatively homogeneous sector and were then making all kinds
of technical coefficients in a macroeconomic model, models which
were more suitable to estimations related to energy use, for example,
or other homogeneous products, like petroleum or coal or gas or
what-have-you, but not exactly the realities of the chemicals
sector, which, for structure, the industrial structure, the production
structure, is perhaps the most diverse sector we have. We have
now reached an understanding with the chemicals industry as well
that perhaps we do a good service to ourselves to move away a
bit from this all too technical macroeconomic modelling towards
addressing factually the issues in specific sectors and sub-sectors,
and dig them out and see really where the crunch elements have
to be brought on the table. We made it clear that we could build
and we hope to learn from that, in order to have a better negotiation
process in the institutions. With this, I have not said that the
Commission has taken a commitment to make a new proposal on REACH.
While we are open for the results of that comprehensive analysis
and continued analysis, it would be, I think, not good for the
negotiation process if the Commission were to create uncertainty
about what would happen to its proposal. The proposal is an important
marker. But the Commission, along with the Member States and the
Members of the European Parliament is a very important player
in the negotiations, because all the time in these negotiations
the Commission is asked whether it agrees or disagrees with the
proposed amendment or whether the evidence is in line with what
is being done and found out by the Commission. So the Commission
has an open mind to clarify specific issues and, if they are clear
enough, then we are confident that good compromises and good amendments
are going to land on the table. So we try to be very proactive.
I am rather confident, as industry has given us signs that they
were rather satisfied with this evolution, that we will have a
good and solid process which is complementary to this more model
type of exercises that were done by the Commission, by some German
institutes, by some French institutes and, I understand, also
in the UK and elsewhere.
Q117 Dr Iddon: What effect do you
think the letter had that was written jointly to Mr Prodi by the
three premiers of three important European countries had on this
legislation?
Dr Delbeke: I think this letter,
as it should be, had quite an important impact. Now it was a sign
that the three prime ministers/heads of state were attaching a
lot of importance to this. But we knew that. I mean, this importance
was raised beforehand, so of course, having it put on paper, having
it sent to my president was an important signal. At the same time,
I think that we were about to finalise our work, and we took already
for a while this impact assessment seriously, so it reinforced
the work we were doing.
Q118 Dr Iddon: The green organisations
would say that you have caved into the chemicals industry and
the chemicals industry would probably say that the green organisations
are getting away with too much. Where does the truth lie?
Dr Delbeke: I think, between the
internet consultation and the finalisation of the proposal, based
on the costs studies that were at that moment on our table, we
really guided the internal negotiations within the Commission
following the results of the cost analysis. And we are confident
that the direct costs were brought down with some 80% between
the internet consultation and the final proposal. Because we deliberately
thought, in all services of the Commission, that this cost signal
that was brought to us was a very important one and we took it
very seriously. Have we given into the green concerns? I think
that we have a fair trade-off between the different interests.
I have the feeling—and of course it is far too early to
say this—that we may see in the institutions that the trade-offs
that are made between the economic, the environment and the health
considerations which are now in the proposal that, ultimately,
at the end of our negotiation process, that we are not going to
be too far off from what is brought there. But now of course all
key players have their look at this, have to learn it. Deliberately
it is a quite complicated set of legislation: 120 pages of raw
text, lots of annexes, but that is a learning curve they are going
through.
Q119 Bob Spink: The proposed prioritisation
system is based on tonnage. Some people might think this is quite
crude and it does not achieve really the benefit that society
should expect from this legislation, in that it would see us dragging
in concrete within three years but leaving endocrine disruptors
until 11 years before we have a look at them. That clearly would
not be a sensible thing to do and yet that is what your legislation
is going to do.
Dr Delbeke: If I can qualify a
little bit. I think that we prioritise. We recognise of course
we cannot do everything at once. That would be not realistic.
We have clear prioritisation when it comes to evaluation and registration.
The heart of your question comes to the registration, so the gathering
of the information. We take two lines there. First, we register
better for those substances where we have a feeling or some evidence
that it is bad[6],
or/and the substances that we use in huge quantities, beyond 1,000
tonnes. That is the first phase of the registration. Then we move
on with the second phase.
1 Note by the Witness: The current EU chemicals
law as such does not contain an authorisation system, the reference
here is made to the authorisation system under the REACH proposal. Back
2
Note by the Witness: Industry does not dispose of all
this information either. Back
3
Note by the Witness: This refers to information communication
mechanisms; registration under REACH is new. Back
4
Note by the Witness: This is a reference to the Commission,
not to the House of Commons. Back
5
Note by the Witness: See previous footnote. Back
6
Note by the Witness: This is a reference to the CMR substances. Back
|
