Conference « Directive 98/34 – an instrument of co-operation » Brussels, 22 June 2005.
-
Upload
ethan-flynn -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
1
Transcript of Conference « Directive 98/34 – an instrument of co-operation » Brussels, 22 June 2005.
Conference « Directive 98/34 – an instrument of co-operation »
Brussels, 22 June 2005
Anne Rose LambersLegal Counsellor
CeficAvenue E. van Nieuwenhuyse 4B-1160 Brussels
The business experience
2
3
1. How is the chemical industry involved?
2. Three exemplary cases
3. Conclusions / Assessment of the functioning of the notification procedure
Overview
4
How is the chemical industry involved?
• Chemicals are highly regulated products
• Strengthened information requirements for notification of intention to limit the marketing or use of a chemical substance on grounds of public health or protection of consumers or environment, Art. 8 (4)
• Analysis of the Report from the Commission on the operation of the Directive (1999-2001):
• Low number of notification cases compared to other sectors (in 2001: 19)
• But high number of reactions (detailed opinion & mere comments, in 2001: 27)
= Good result. But increase can come!
• Handling of cases at Cefic
5
Example 1: SOMS (=Strategy on Management of Substances)
• Goal: develop ideas and instruments for implementation of new chemicals policy
• 2001: NL project for a joint initiative from industry, NGO’s and the Government : prioritisation procedure for listing chemicals
• Feb 2001: EU White Paper on Future Chemicals Policy
• Problem: 2 conflicting systems
• July 2002: NL notifies intention to legislate
• Sept 2002: Cefic intervenes: letter - position: wait for REACH. Attempt to extend period even further
• Oct 2002: normal standstill period elapses
• July 2003: extended standstill period elapses. NL voluntarily decides to wait for REACH
• Oct 2003: REACH proposal
= SUCCESS
6
Example 2: Danish feed phosphorus tax
aim: reduce phosphorus in agriculture, curb over-enrichment of fresh waters
measure was counterbalanced by a cut in the land tax of the farmers
15 June 2004: notification of the plan 24 June 2004: letter Cefic to Notification Unit of COM End of July: approval by Danish Parliament Autumn: meeting COM, exchange of letters Jan 2005: Tax enters into force
= Failure
Difference to SOMS example:• Fiscal matter / State aid question• Several DG’s were competent
7
Example 3: Deca-BDE
Feb 2005: Norwegian Government announces that it will propose a partial ban on Deca-BDE
15 April 2005: consultation of stakeholders in Norway
25 April 2005: notification to Efta Surveillance Authority and COM
− Problems:
1. EEA country: but Annex II to the Agreement on the EEA includes Directive 98/34
2. Parallel procedure: proposal from COM to exempt the Deca-BDE from an EU ban on hazardous substances in electronics manufacture (RoHS Directive)
8
Conclusion / Assessment
− We support:
• Completion of the Internal market – Directive brings a valuable mechanism for monitoring national activities = early warning system
• Industry has not “briefed” right to intervene – no judicial procedure but works very well in practice
− We see the following weaknesses:
• Protection of workers, Art. 1 last paragraph: trichloroethylene case
• Tax issue, but distortion of competition: Danish case
• Precautionary principle