17 International control of persistent
organic pollutants
| (25928)
12095/04
COM(04) 537
| Draft Council Decision concerning proposals, on behalf of the European Community and the Member States, for amendments to Annexes I-III of the 1998 Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent Organic Pollutants and to Annexes A to C of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
|
| Legal base | Articles 175(1) and 300(2) EC; consultation; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 17 July 2005
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 42-xxxii (2003-04), para 7 (13 October 2004)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
17.1 Two main measures apply internationally to persistent organic
pollutants —
the 1998 Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long Range Transboundary
Air Pollution,[40] and
the Stockholm Convention.[41]
Any party may put forward amendments to the relevant annexes of
either the Protocol or the Convention by submitting written proposals,
and the Commission put forward in August 2004 this draft Council
Decision proposing the addition of a number of persistent organic
pollutants to one or other of these instruments. More particularly,
it suggested that the 1998 Protocol should in future be extended
to include hexachlorobutadiene, octabromodiphenyl ether, pentachlorobenzene,
polychlorinated napthalenes, and short-chained chlorinated paraffins;
and that the Stockholm Convention should, in addition to these
products, be extended to include pentabromodiphenyl ether, chlordecone,
hexabromobiphenyl and hexachlorocyclo hexane.
17.2 In their Report of 13 October 2004, our predecessors
noted that the Government supported this initiative, but that
it was not convinced that it was appropriate for the Commission
to seek to achieve this through a proposal using Article 300(2).
It was therefore investigating with other Member States alternative
ways in which the Community could achieve its substantive objective.
Also, because of these reservations, the Government had not completed
a Regulatory Impact Assessment, but would carry out such an Assessment
if proposals to add the new chemicals to the annexes of the Protocol
and Convention were to be made. In view of this, our predecessors
decided that it would be sensible to hold the document under scrutiny
pending further information on the discussions between the UK
and other Member States about the legal base. They also asked
for confirmation that the Government's support for the substance
of the proposal meant that, notwithstanding the absence of a Regulatory
Impact Assessment, the benefits of including these further chemicals
within the relevant annexes would outweigh the costs.
Minister's letter of 17 July 2005
17.3 We have now received a letter of 17 July 2005
from Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Sustainable Farming
and Food) at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Lord Bach). This reports that:
· During
the first Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention,
the Community agreed that the Commission and the Presidency would
jointly nominate chlordecone and hexabromobiphenyl for addition
to the Convention without resorting to a Council Decision, but
that this did not set a precedent, it also being agreed that the
need for a Council Decision for future nominations should be examined:
it has since also been agreed within the Community that it would
be premature to consider further nominations to the Convention
at this stage, in advance of the next Conference of the Parties
in May 2006;
· The
Executive Body of the 1998 Protocol will meet in December 2005,
and a meeting of officials of Member States has recently agreed
that the various substances set out in the Commission's original
proposal should be nominated for the appropriate Annex[42]:
it was also agreed that a nomination to add perfluotooctanesulphonate
to the Protocol should be made once the Commission has submitted
a proposal on its marketing and use within the Community, and
that further consideration is needed of the possible nomination
of dicofol, endosulfan and pentachlorophenol, for which dossiers
are currently being developed by the Netherlands, Germany and
Poland respectively.
17.4 On the proposed legal base, the Minister says
that, on the strength of the advice of the Council Legal Service,
it was agreed to use Article 175(1) in conjunction with Article
300(1), rather than Article 300(2). The Minister adds that Article
300(1) is appropriate as the adoption of the amendments to the
Annexes of the Protocol "would not constitute a decision
having legal effects".
17.5 Finally, on the costs and benefits of including
the listed chemicals within the relevant Annexes of the 1998 Protocol,
the Minister points out that there are significant benefits in
action being taken internationally, given the possibility of their
long-range transport, and that, with the exception of perfluotooctanesulphonate,
the substances are already banned or severely restricted within
the Community. He therefore considers that there is no evidence
to suggests that the proposal will have cost implications.
Conclusion
17.6 We are grateful to the Minister for this
further information, particularly as regards the proposed legal
base, and we now clear the proposal.
40 This aims to control, reduce or eliminate discharges,
emissions and losses of those persistent organic pollutants which
cause significant adverse effects to human health or the environment
as a result of their long-range transfer through the atmosphere. Back
41
This provides a framework, based on the precautionary principle,
for eliminating the production, use, import and export of an initial
twelve such priority pollutants, for their safe handling and disposal,
and for the elimination or reduction of releases of certain unintentional
persistent organic pollutants. Back
42
These cover production and use, restrictions, and control measures. Back
|
