Commissioner Sinkevičius clarifies next steps on REACH to Environment Committee

by

A helpful clarification from Commissioner Sinkevičius on REACH on 7 November.

Jutta Paulus  47:51

Thank you, Chair. And thank you for being here, Commissioner and giving us a comprehensive and extensive answers, I would like to come on to a field which has not yet been touched so much. And I know that you’re the least one to to be responsible for what has happened. But I was really shocked that the one core piece of the zero pollution Action Plan, which is of course the revision of the reach, chemicals regulation, where it will now be delayed until 2023. So probably we will not be able to conclude it with it within our mandate. And I think this is really a missed opportunity. Because there we could have really made a difference. How we act on chemicals, how we act on pollution, by by grasping the problem at the root at the core, not end of pipe looking how much is in our water, how much is in our air, but saying we will only register and approve chemicals that are not detrimental to human and environmental health. So my question to you would be, what do you expect? How long will this delay perpetuate itself? Because of course, it will take quite a while until a new parliament sets up with work again. And so instead of concluded within this mandate, as was promised in the Green Deal, will we have to wait until 2028 or even 2030? What would be your educated guess on that? And the second question, do you also see the opportunity that rich could have actually brought forward also our climate ambition because if we would take up an additional feature in reach, looking not only at toxicity, environmental, adverse action and so forth, but also on energy input in production, climate effects of production? Don’t you think that given that Europe has such a large chemical industry this would have been really worthwhile doing? Thank you

Now as regards the reach. First of all, probably I will use an opportunity to clarify a couple of issues and myths around around the reach revision. So we will propose a targeted revision of the legislation, which with the aim of securing European competitive advantages and innovation by promoting sustainable chemicals, first of all, simplifying and then streamlining the regulatory process and then reducing the burden and protecting human health and the environment. And this revision is extremely important piece of legislation. That requires, of course, throughout the preparation consultation in order to ensure that it’s developed in a way that achieves higher protection for health and the environment, from hazardous chemicals but also supports you competitiveness. And it’s also the best remedy against increasing our dependence on chemicals produced in the rest of the world. We are finalising our impact assessment and we are finalising our costs consultations with the stakeholders and working on solid input from the regulatory scrutiny board. Once this file is ready, we will not hesitate to propose it and present it to the European Parliament and the Council. So the work is advancing. I think now it’s extremely important to finalise all the steps. And then when it’s ready, I hope we will have a green light to propose it. And hopefully, of course, we’ll be able to do it earlier than what’s in the Commission’s working programme because at the end of the day Commission’s working programme is also indicative document.

Worth noting

Tiemo WÖLKEN (S&D/Germany) comments

Tiemo WÖLKEN (S&D/Germany)  16:37

Thank you very much boss, and the commissioner, good to have you here. Thank you very much for taking the time. And I would start by thanking you for your hard work on this package. And I want to underline the strong support of my group for the intention. So we are fighting for zero emission. So thank you very much for your proposal. I strongly believe that without EU legislation, we would breathe many more air pollutants, we would drink toxic substances, and it’s due to the EU legislation that people are living healthier European Union, technology evolves. And we now need to work on really banning all toxic substances with impacts on humans, and therefore I want to reject cynical create claims by other political groups who try to frame good environmental legislation as a burden. The opposite is true. The status quo is a burden for the people living in the European Union, a burden on the health of EU citizens. So my group is very happy to work on this package. And we want to strengthen the ambition and some aspects. And I would like to ask you two questions. The first one regarding the ambient air quality directive, you’ve chosen not to fully line the limit, while us in the directive of the WH o recommendations for human exposure, as far as I understand your justification is that this would not be feasible in the short to middle term. But I would like to know, are these values compatible with the W H O recommendations as a whole in your eyes? And the second question is, again, I want to applaud the introduction of the polluter pays principle in the urban wastewater treatment directive. This is something my group has requested for a very long time next to significant contribution to the additional costs. This should incentivize action at the source of pollution. This is good. But why did you not cover other industries by the extended producer responsibilities such as biocides, pesticides, producers, or the textile industry. And I would also like to know where you still see need for further regulatory action to reduce pollutants at the source. Thank you very much.