WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO DEMOCRACY CORPORATE INFLUENCE ON EU POLICIES A seminar on lobbying in Europe 1 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO DEMOCRACY CORPORATE INFLUENCE ON EU POLICIES A seminar on lobbying in Europe 1 PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 139abc-MTkyM



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO DEMOCRACY CORPORATE INFLUENCE ON EU POLICIES A seminar on lobbying in Europe 1

Description:

WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO DEMOCRACY? CORPORATE INFLUENCE ON EU POLICIES ... No public 'black list' of lobbyists who have broken the rules ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:59
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 79
Provided by: sha185
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO DEMOCRACY CORPORATE INFLUENCE ON EU POLICIES A seminar on lobbying in Europe 1


1
WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO DEMOCRACY?CORPORATE
INFLUENCE ON EU POLICIES A seminar on
lobbying in Europe 15th April at 9.30-13, ASP
1G2, European parliament
2
9.30-9.40 Opening, MEP Satu HassiCorporate
influence on European politicsChair David
Hammerstein, MEP9.40-10.00 Sascha Adamek,
Author of "Der Gekaufte Staat" One vote per one
Euro?10.00-10.20 Miguel Jara, Journalist and
author of "Conspiraciones Tóxicas" How the
chemicals industry influenced the Commission, the
Council and the European Parliament10.20-10.35
Mary Craig, Researcher Two cases of lobbying
REACH and fluorinated gases 10.35-10.45 Comment
by Carl Schlyter, MEP10.45-10.55 Comment by
Hiltrud Breyer, MEP Industry lobbying insights
from an MEP10.55-11.30 Discussion
3
How to promote transparency when it comes to
corporate influence on politics?Chair Caroline
Lucas, MEP11.40-11.55 Jo Leinen, Chair for AFCO
committee Parliament's views on lobbying in the
Stubb report11.55-12.15 Professor Ludwig
Krämer Lobbying seen from inside the
commission12.15-12.30 Paul de Clerck, Friends
of the Earth Europe Corporate Influence on EU
decision making The example of Expert
Groups12.30-12.50 Craig Holman, Public Citizen,
United States Lobbying rules in USA - an example
for EU?12.50-13 Monica Frassoni, MEP Green
views on lobbying rulesDiscussion
4
OPENING
  • SATU HASSI,
  • MEP, VICE CHAIR OF ENVI COMMITTEE

5
PARLIAMENT HAS GAINED MORE POWER, LOBBYING HAS
BECOME MORE INTENSE
  • Parliaments role as a legislative body has grown
    and will grow - this has lead to increased
    interest among lobbyists
  • The rules for lobbying in the parliament are
    written in the time when EP only gave opinions.
  • It is estimated that over half of the legislation
    adopted by the national parliaments is based on
    EU laws
  • Of the national environmental legislation more
    than 70 is based on EU law

6
LOBBYING IN BRUSSELS
  • According to different estimates there is 13
    000-20 000 lobbyists in Brussels (the Commission
    plus the Parliament employ 30 000)
  • Brussels is the second biggest concentration of
    lobbyists after Washington
  • EP has accredited 5000 lobbyists, which means 7
    lobbyists per one MEP
  • 1100 come from Germany, UK, France, Italy and
    Spain, only 60 from the new member countries
  • 70 of the lobbyists represent business
  • Commission officials and MEPS are the main
    targets of lobbying

7
LOBBYISTS AT THE EP
  • Citizens
  • Businesses
  • Non-governmental organisations
  • Professional lobbying organisations
  • And think tanks, law firms, intergroups

8
WHAT I HAVE HEARD FROM LOBBYISTS?
  • Eating sugar has no link with obesity of children
  • Advertisement does not influence the food choices
    of consumers
  • Exceedance of daily limit values of air pollution
    is harmless to health
  • EUs targets for renewable energy will force us
    to clear cut all forests in Europe

9
WHAT I HAVE HEARD FROM LOBBYISTS?
  • REACH would cut the GDP of the EU countries by
    several percentages.
  • REACH, as proposed by the Commission, would force
    the industry to analyse every molecyle in the
    paper produced in Europe.
  • The Commissions demands on limiting CO2
    emissions from cars are against laws of physics.

10
WHAT I HAVE HEARD FROM LOBBYISTS?
  • We will table amendments

11
BRUSSELS VS. WASHINGTON
  • Rules and legislation weak, surveillance thin,
    practically based on voluntariness
  • Communication 2002
  • Voluntary Code of Conduct
  • Lobbying Disclosure Act obliges to publish
    clients and issues on which the organization is
    lobbying

12
CORPORATE EUROPE OBSERVATORYS LETTER TO BARROSO
  • NGO which is observing activities of businesses
  • EUs rules are absurdly weak
  • EU should take example from US
  • Code of Conduct is extremely narrow and totally
    voluntary

13
KEY QUESTIONS OF THE REGISTER
  • Mandatory or voluntary register?
  • What kind of information should be notified?
  • Name, customers, turnover?
  • Issues lobbied?
  • Exact information on the basis of billing of
    customers?

14
ALEX STUBB COMMENTS ON LOBBYING
  • In a column Meppikynä published 7th Sept 2007
  • I have never encountered morally suspicious
    lobbying, I have not heard that anyone has
    been told lies or mispresented information from
    lobbyists,
  • Any MEP is able to be suspicious if Marlboro
    would tell that tobacco is good for blood
    circulation,
  • My point of departure is that we do not need
    tighter rules.

15
THE RESULT OF AFCO 1st APRIL 2008
  • Obligatory register
  • Full financial disclosure
  • Think tanks and law firms are included
  • - New rules would not be effective from 2009
  • No public black list of lobbyists who have
    broken the rules
  • Full financial disclosure has to include
    appropriate funding bandwidth settings
  • Next vote in plenary 8th May

16
Lobbying at the European Parliament -
Legislative caseREACH
  • 15.4.2008
  • Based on the report by Mary Graig

17
Number of AMs lodged in ENVI Committee using
identical wording to that of a lobby group
18
Number of AMs tabled in ENVI Committee using
similar intent to that of a lobby group
19
Number of AMs tabled in ITRE Committee using
identical wording to that of a lobby group
20
Number of AMs tabled in ITRE Committee using
similar intent to that of a lobby group
21
Number of AMs tabled in IMCO Committee using
identical wording of that of a lobby group
22
Number of AMs tabled in IMCO Committee using
similar intent to that of a lobby group
23
Example of REACH amendments advocated by Chemical
Industry
24
  • Amendment 202, ENVI Scope, excemptions
  • Amendment by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (EPP), Thomas
    Ulmer (EPP), Miroslav Mikolaik (EPP),
    Eija-Riitta Korhola (EPP), Peter Olajos (EPP),
    Anja Weisgerber (EPP), Antonios Trakatellis
    (EPP), Renate Sommer (EPP), Erna
    Hennicot-Schoepges (EPP) Marcello Vernola
    (EPP), Amalia Sartori (EPP), Guido Podesta (EPP),
    Giuseppe Castiglione (EPP), Renato Brunetta
    (EPP), Lorenzo Cesa (EPP), Gianni De Michelis
    (PES), Miroslav Mikolaik (EPP), and Anne
    Laperrouze (ALDE)
  • Title I, Chapter 1, Article 2, paragraph 1 a
    (new)
  • (1a) This Regulation shall not apply to the
    extent that a substance is used
  • - in medicinal products for human or veterinary
    use within the scope of Council
  • Regulation (EEC) No 2309/931, Regulation (EC) No
    726/2004 of the European
  • Parliament and of the Council, Directive
    2001/82/EC of the European Parliament
  • and of the Council2 and Directive 2001/83/EC of
    the European Parliament
  • and of the Council3
  • - in foodstuffs within the scope of Regulation
    178/2002/EC and Council
  • Directive 88/388/EEC of 22 June 1988 on the
    approximation of the laws of the
  • Member States relating to flavourings for use in
    foodstuffs and to source materials for their
    production, including food additives within the
    scope of Council
  • Directive 89/107/EEC and flavourings within the
    scope of as defined in Commission Decision
    1999/217/EC.
  • - in feedingstuffs within the scope of Council
    Regulation 1831/2003, including
  • additives within the scope of Council Directive
    70/524/EEC
  • - in animal nutrition within the scope of Council
    Directive 82/471/EEC4
  • - in medical devices
  • - in food-contact materials within the scope of
    Council Directive 89/109/EEC
  • - in plant protection products within the scope
    of Council Directive 91/414/EEC

25
Amendment 203, ENVI - Scope, excemptions Amendment
by Martin Callanan (EPP) Title I, Chapter 1,
Article 2, paragraph 1 a, 1 b, 1 c (new) 1a. The
provisions in Titles II, III, V and VI shall not
apply to the extent that a substance is
manufactured or imported for use in the following
end products or to the extent that a substance is
used in them (a) medicinal products for human or
veterinary use within the scope of Regulation
(EC) No 726/2004, Directive 2001/82/EC and
Directive 2001/83/EC (b) food as defined in
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 including (i) food
additives in foodstuffs within the scope of
Directive 89/107/EEC (ii) flavouring in
foodstuffs within the scope of Commission
Decision 1999/217/EC (c) animal feed
including (i) additives in feeding stuffs within
thescope of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 on
additives for use in animal nutrition and (ii)
animal nutrition within the scope of Directive
82/471/EEC (d) food contact materials within the
scope of Regulation (EC) No 2004/1935 (e)
cosmetic products within the scope of Directive
76/768/EEC (f) medical devices within the scope
of Directives 90/358/EEC, 93/42/EEC or
98/79/EC (g) plant protection products within
the scope of Directive 91/414/EEC (h) biocidal
products within the scope of Directive
98/8/EC 1b. The provisions in Title VII shall
not apply to the uses of substances set out in
paragraph 2a (new) and, in addition, to the
following uses (a) uses as on-site isolated
intermediates or transported isolated
intermediates (b) use as motor fuels covered by
Directive 98/70/EC (c) use as fuel in mobile or
fixed combustion plants of mineral oil products
and use as fuel in closed systems. 1c. The
provisions in Title IV and X shall not apply to
preparations listed in points (a) to (f) of
paragraph 2a or to substances in those
preparations. Justification A number of
substances which are already regulated under
other Community legislation are given exemptions
from various requirements of REACH. For example,
cosmetic products, food contact materials,
biocidal and plant protection products, and
medical devices are already regulated in specific
Community legislation and therefore should be
exempted from the obligation to register.
26
Amendment 204, ENVI - Scope, excemptions Amendment
by Dagmar Roth-Behrendt (PES) Title 1, Chapter
1, Article 2, paragraph 1 a, 1 b (new) 1a. The
provisions of the Titles of this Regulation on
Registration, Evaluation, Data sharing,
Information in the supply chain, Downstream users
and Authorisation shall not apply to the extent
that a substance is used in or as (a) medicinal
products for human or veterinary use within the
scope of Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93, Directive
2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council and Directive 2001/83/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council (b) food within
the scope of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002,
including in - food additives in foodstuffs
within the scope of Council Directive 89/107/EEC,
and in - flavourings in foodstuffs within the
scope of Commission Decision 1999/217/EC (c)
feed, including - additives in feeding stuffs
within the scopeof Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003
on additives for use in animal nutrition and -
animal nutrition within the scope of Directive
82/471/EC (d) plant protection products within
the scope of Directive 91/414/EEC (e) biocidal
products within the scope of Directive
98/8/EC (f) medical devices within the scope of
Directives 90/385/EEC, 93/42/EEC or 98/79/EC (g)
food contact materials within the scope of
Regulation 2004/1935/EC. 1b. This Regulation
shall apply without prejudice to Community
workplace legislation. Justification All
exemptions from the scope of the Regulation
should be collected in Article 2 so
that enterprises which will not have to apply
REACH do not have to study the whole proposal but
will quickly be able to decide whether they have
any obligations. In order to avoid duplication of
work for enterprises and authorities, all those
substances used in products governed by specific
Community legislation (such as pesticides,
medical devices and food contact materials)
should be exempt from the scope of the titles on
Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation,
Information in the supply chain and Downstream
user obligations . Instead of reference to some
of the individual relevant directives on
workplace legislation, it is appropriate to
ensure with a general reference that all existing
legislation in this field prevails.
27
Amendment 153, ITRE - Scope, excemptions Amendment
by Werner Langen (EPP) Article 2, paragraph 1,
letters (c) b to (c) i (new) This Regulation
shall not apply to substances to the extent that
they are used (cb) in medicinal products for
human or veterinary use within the scope of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93, Directive
2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council and Directive 2001/83/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council (cc) in foodstuffs
within the scope of Regulation 178/2002/EC,
including food additives within the scope of
Council Directive 89/107/EEC and flavourings as
defined in Commission Decision 1999/217/EC (cd)
in feedingstuffs within the scope of Council
Regulation 1831/2003, including additives to them
within the scope of Council Directive
70/524/EEC (ce) in animal nutrition within the
scope of Council Directive 82/471/EEC (cf) in
medicinal products within the scope of Directive
93/42/EEC (cg) in materials which come into
contact with foodstuffs within the scope of
Council Directive 89/109/EEC (ch) in plant
protection products within the scope of Council
Directive 91/414/EEC (ci) in biocidal products
within the scope of Council Directive
98/8/EC Justification Substances or groups of
substances already regulated, or their use in
certain products, should be excluded from REACH.
Otherwise there is a danger of duplication of
regulations, and contradictions could arise.
Parliament's request to the Commission in its
resolution on the white paper has not yet been
complied with (Resolution 84/2002).
28
  • Amendment 156, ITRE - Scope, excemptions
  • Amendment by Nicole Fontaine (EPP)
  • Article 2, paragraph 1 a (new)
  • (1a) This Regulation shall not apply to the
    extent that a substance is used
  • - in medicinal products for human or veterinary
    use within the scope of Council
  • Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93, Directive 2001/82/EC
    of the European Parliament
  • and of the Council and Directive 2001/83/EC of
    the European Parliament and of the Council
  • - in foodstuffs within the scope of Regulation
    178/2002/EC, including food additives within the
    scope of Council Directive 89/107/EEC and
    flavourings
  • within the scope defined in Commission Decision
    1999/217/EC
  • - in feedingstuffs within the scope of Council
    Regulation 1831/2003, including additives within
    the scope of Council Directive 70/524/EEC
  • - in animal nutrition within the scope of Council
    Directive 82/471/EEC
  • - in medical devices
  • - in food-contact materials within the scope of
    Council Directive 89/109/EEC
  • - in plant protection products within the scope
    of Council Directive 91/414/EEC
  • in biocidal products within the scope of Council
    Directive 98/8/EC.
  • Justification
  • For reasons of simplification and consolidation,
    a single provision should list all the
  • exemptions from the scope. These exemptions are
    mostly scattered throughout the text (see
    Articles 4, 8 and 53) and partly linked to
    exempted provisions.

29
  • Amendment 157, ITRE - Scope, excemptions
  • Amendment by Marcello Vernola (EPP), Amalia
    Sartori (EPP), Guido Podesta (EPP), Giuseppe
    Castiglione (EPP), Renato Brunetta (EPP), Lorenzo
    Cesa (EPP) and Gianni De Michelis (PES)
  • Article 2, paragraph 1 a (new)
  • 1a. This Regulation shall not apply to the
  • extent that a substance is used
  • - in medicinal products for human or veterinary
    use within the scope of Council
  • Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93, Directive 2001/82/EC
    of the European Parliament
  • and of the Council and Directive 2001/83/EC of
    the European Parliament and of the Council
  • - in foodstuffs within the scope of Regulation
    178/2002/EC, including food
  • additives within the scope of Council Directive
    89/107/EEC and flavourings as
  • defined in Commission Decision 1999/217/EC
  • - in feedingstuffs within the scope of Council
    Regulation 1831/2003, including additives within
    the scope of Council Directive 70/524/EEC
  • - in animal nutrition within the scope of Council
    Directive 82/471/EEC
  • - in medical devices
  • - in food-contact materials within the scope of
    Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004
  • - in plant protection products within the scope
    of Council Directive 91/414/EEC
  • in biocidal products within the scope of Council
    Directive 98/8/EC.
  • Justification
  • Substances already regulated by the respective,
    and duly integrated, vertical regulations

30
  • Amendment 158, ITRE - Scope, excemptions
  • Amendment by Umberto Pirilli (UEN) and Sebastiano
    (Nello) Musumeci (UEN)
  • Article 2, paragraph 1 a (new)
  • 1a. This Regulation shall not apply to the
  • extent that a substance is used
  • - in medicinal products for human or veterinary
    use within the scope of Council
  • Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93, Directive 2001/82/EC
    of the European Parliament
  • and of the Council and Directive 2001/83/EC of
    the European Parliament and of the Council
  • - in foodstuffs within the scope of Regulation
    178/2002/EC, including food
  • additives within the scope of Council Directive
    89/107/EEC and flavourings as
  • defined in Commission Decision 1999/217/EC
  • - in feedingstuffs within the scope of Council
    Regulation 1831/2003, including additives within
    the scope of Council
  • Directive 70/524/EEC
  • - in animal nutrition within the scope of Council
    Directive 82/471/EEC
  • - in medical devices
  • - in food-contact materials within the scope of
    Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004
  • - in plant protection products within the scope
    of Council Directive 91/414/EEC
  • in biocidal products within the scope of Council
    Directive 98/8/EC.

31
Amendment 160, ITRE - Scope, excemptions Amendment
by Jan Brezina (EPP) Article 2, paragraphs 2 and
2a (new)
Justification For reasons of simplification and
consolidation, one provision should contain all
the exemptions from the scope of the regulation.
These exemptions are mostly spread in the text
(see Articles 4, 8 and 53) and partly closely
linked to exempted provisions (for example, a
foodstuff is a product made of food ingredients
and food additives. Food additives are exempted
from registration, but not for instance food
ingredients. There is no reason to apply
different rules to them.).
32
Amendment 161, ITRE - Scope, excemptions Amendment
by Erika Mann (PES), Edit Herczog (PES) Article
2, paragraphs 2 and 2a (new)
Justification All exemptions from the scope of
the Regulation should be collected in Article 2
so that enterprises who will not have to apply
REACH do not have to study the whole proposal. In
order to avoid duplication of work for
enterprises and authorities, all those substances
used in products governed by specific Community
legislation should be exempt from the scope of
the titles on Registration, Evaluation,
Authorisation, Information in the supply chain
and Downstream user obligations. A general
reference should ensure that that all existing
legislation on workplace prevails.
33
Amendment 162, ITRE - Scope, excemptions Amendment
by Lena Ek (ALDE) Article 2, paragraphs 2 a, 2 b
and 2 c (new) 2a The provisions in Titles II,
III, V and VI shall not apply to the extent that
a substance is manufactured or imported for use
in the following end products or to the extent a
substance is used in them (a) medicinal products
for human or veterinary use within the scope
of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, Directive
2001/82/EC and Directive 2001/83/EC (b) food as
defined in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002
including (i) food additives in foodstuffs
within the scope of Directive 89/107/EEC (ii)
flavouring in foodstuffs within the scope of
Commission Decision 1999/217/EC (c) animal feed
including (i) additives in feedingstuffs within
the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 on
additives for use in animal nutrition and (ii)
animal nutrition within the scope of Directive
82/471/EEC (d) food contact materials within the
scope of Regulation(EC) No 2004/1935 (e) medical
devices within the scope of Directives
90/385/EEC, 93/42/EEC or 98/79/EC C (f) plant
protection products within the scope of Directive
91/414/EE (g) biocidal products within the scope
of Directive 98/8/EC 2b. The provisions in Title
VII shall not apply to the uses of substances set
out in paragraph 2a (new) and in addition to the
following uses (a) uses as on- site isolated
intermediates or transported isolated
intermediates (b) use as motor fuels covered by
Directive 98/70/EC (c) uses as fuel in mobile or
fixed combustion plants of mineral oil
products and use as fuels in closed systems. 2c.
The provisions in Title IV and X shall not apply
to preparations listed in points (a) to (f) of
paragraph 2a or to substances in those
preparations. Justification This amendment
corresponds to the original Amendment 4 of the
Draft opinion, but includes cosmetic products
into the scope of REACH.
34
  • Amendment 163, ITRE - Scope, excemptions
  • Amendment by Anne Laperrouze (ALDE)
  • Article 2, paragraph 2 a (new)
  • 1a. The provisions in Titles II, III, V and VI
    shall not apply to the extent that a
  • substance is manufactured or imported foruse in
    the manufacture of, in or as
  • (a) medicinal products for human or veterinary
    use within the scope of Regulation (EC) No
    726/2004, Directive 2001/82/EC and Directive
    2001/83/EC
  • (b) food as defined in Regulation (EC) No
    178/2002 including
  • - food additives in foodstuffs within the scope
    of Directive 89/107/EEC
  • flavourings in foodstuffs within the scope of
    Commission Decision 1999/217/EC
  • (c) animal feed including
  • - additives in feeding stuffs within the scope of
    Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 on
  • additives for use in animal nutrition and
  • - animal nutrition within the scope of Directive
    82/471/EEC
  • (d) food contact materials within the scope of
    Regulation (EC) No 2004/1935
  • (e) cosmetic products within the scope of
    Directive 76/768/EEC
  • (f) medical devices within the scope of
    Directives 90/358/EEC, 93/42/EEC or
  • 98/79/EC
  • (g) plant protection products within the scope of
    Directive 91/414/EEC
  • (h) biocidal products within the scope of
    Directive 98/8/EC

35
Amendment 307, IMCO - Scope, excemptions Amendment
by Hartmut Nassauer (EPP) Article 2, Paragraph 1
a (new) 1a. This Regulation shall not apply to
the extent that substances are used (a) in
medicinal products for human or veterinary use
within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No
726/2004, Directive 2001/82/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council and
Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council (b) in food within the
meaning of Regulation(EC) No. 178/2002,
including food additives within the meaning of
Council Directive 89/107/EEC and flavourings/flavo
uring substances within the meaning of Council
Directive 88/388/EEC and Commission Decision
1999/217/EC (c) in animal feed within the
meaning of Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002,
including feed additives within the scope of
Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 on additives for use
in animal nutrition, and animal feed within the
scope of Council Directive 84/471/EEC (d) in
medical devices within the scope of Council
Directives 90/385/EEC, 93/42/EEC and
98/79/EC (e) in materials which come into
contact with foodstuffs within the meaning
of Regulation (EC) No. 1935/2004 (f) in plant
protection products within the meaning of Council
Directive 91/414/EEC (g) in biocidal products
within the meaning of Council Directive
98/8/EC (h) in cosmetic products within the
scope of Council Directive 76/768/EEC1 (i) in
active implantable medical devices within the
meaning of Council Directive 90/385/EEC and
Council Directive 93/68/EEC j) in
in-vitro-diagnostic medical devices within the
meaning of Directive 98/79/EC. Justification Form
al corrections and additions of specific
legislation.
36
  • Amendment 308, IMCO - Scope, excemptions
  • Amendment by Marcello Vernola (EPP), Amalia
    Sartori (EPP), Guido Podesta (EPP), Giuseppe
    Castiglione (EPP), Renato Brunetta (EPP), Lorenzo
    Cesa (EPP) and Gianni De Michelis (PES)
  • Article 2, paragraph 1 a (new)
  • 1a. This Regulation shall not apply to the extent
    that a substance is used
  • - in medicinal products for human or veterinary
    use within the scope of Council
  • Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93, Directive 2001/82/EC
    of the European Parliament
  • and of the Council and Directive 2001/83/EC of
    the European Parliament and of the Council
  • - in foodstuffs within the scope of Regulation
    178/2002/EC, including food
  • additives within the scope of Council Directive
    89/107/EEC and flavourings as
  • defined in Commission Decision 1999/217/EC
  • - in feedingstuffs within the scope of Council
    Regulation 1831/2003, including
  • additives within the scope of Council Directive
    70/524/EEC
  • - in animal nutrition within the scope of Council
    Directive 82/471/EEC
  • - in medical devices
  • - in food-contact materials within the scope of
    Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004
  • - in plant protection products within the scope
    of Council Directive 91/414/EEC
  • in biocidal products within the scope of Council
    Directive 98/8/EC.
  • Justification

37
Amendment 310 - Scope, excemptions Amendment by
Erika Mann (PES) and Edit Herczog (PES) Article
2, Paragraph 2
38
Example of REACH amendments advocated by
Environmental NGOs
39
Amendment 181, ENVI Duty of Care Amendment by
Ria Oomen-Ruijten, Guido Sacconi, Chris Davies,
Carl Schlyter, Maria Sornosa Martinez and Maria
Isabel Salinas Garcia (EPP, PSE, ALDE,
Greens/EFA) Title I, Chapter 1, Article 1,
paragraph 3 a and 3 b (new) 3a. Any manufacturer,
importer or downstream user performing or
intending to perform operations involving a
substance, a preparation or an article containing
such a substance or preparation, including the
manufacturing, importation and application
thereof, who knows or could reasonably have
foreseen that these operations could adversely
affect human health or the environment, shall
make all efforts that may reasonably be required
of him to prevent, limit or remedy such
effects. 3b. Any manufacturer, importer or
downstream user that provides, in the pursuit of
his profession or business, a substance or
preparation or an article containing such a
substance or preparation to a manufacturer,
importer or downstream user should, to the extent
this may reasonably be required, ensure adequate
communication and information exchange, including
where appropriate technical assistance,
reasonably necessary to prevent, limit or remedy
adverse effects on human health or the
environment. Justification Introduces the
principle of duty of care.
40
Amendment 128, ITRE Duty of Care Amendment by
Patrizia Toia (ALDE) Article 1 a - Duty of care
(new) Article 1 a - Duty of care 1. Any
manufacturer, importer or downstream user
performing or intending to perform operations
involving a substance, a preparation or an
article containing such a substance or
preparation, including the manufacturing,
importation and application thereof, who knows or
could reasonably have foreseen that these
operations could adversely affect human health or
the environment, shall take all measures that may
reasonably be required of him to prevent, limit
or remedy such effect. 2. Any manufacturer,
importer or downstream user that provides a
substance or preparation or an article containing
such a substance or preparation to
a manufacturer, importer or downstream user
shall, to the extent this may reasonably be
required, ensure adequate communication and
information exchange, including where appropriate
technical assistance, reasonably necessary to
prevent, limit or remedy adverse effects on
human health or the environment. Justification A
general principle of Duty of care defining the
responsibility of industry is needed for the safe
handling and use of all chemicals. It is intended
to be applicable to all substances (irrespective
of production volume) , implying that industry is
expected not just to meet the specific
obligations under REACH, but also to fulfil the
basic social, economic and environmental
responsibilities of entrepreneurship.
41
Example of REACH amendments advocated by Paper
Industry
42
Amendment 193, ENVI Scope, excemptions Amendment
by EPP, UEN, PSE (Boguslaw Sonik, Eija-Riitta
Korhola, Christofer Fjellner, Anders Wijkman,
Karl-Heinz Florenz, Thomas Ulmer, Anja
Weisgerber, Elisabeth Jeggle, Miroslav Ouzky
Horst Schnellhardt Alessandro Foglietta,
Adriana Poli Bortone, Cristiana Muscardini,
Sergio Berlato Marcello Vernola, Amalia
Sartori, Guido Podesta, Giuseppe Castiglione,
Renato Brunetta, Lorenzo Cesa, Gianni De Michelis
and Miroslav Mikolaik) Title I, Chapter 1,
Article 2, paragraph 1, point (c a) (new) (ca)
Substances, preparations or articles which are
waste as defined in Council Directive 91/156/EEC
of 18 March 19911 amending Directive 75/442/EEC
on waste, or which are secondary raw materials
extracted from waste for recovery operations or
as a source of energy, as per article 3 1 (b) in
Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991.
1OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32 Justification Includin
g waste or secondary raw materials in the scope
of REACH would put disproportionate requirements
on recycling or recovery without bringing any
additional benefit to human health or the
environment. In addition, waste and materials
used for secondary raw materials should be
excluded from REACH because they are adequately
regulated by, and would be contrary to the
environmental objectives of, EC waste
legislation. (Sonik and others) Waste and
materials used as secondary raw materials or as a
source of energy in recovery operations as
defined in the Waste Framework Directive or
according to European Standards should be
excluded from the scope of REACH because they are
adequately covered by the community legislation
on waste (). (Vernola and others)
43
Amendment 132, ITRE Scope, excemptions Amendment
by EPP, PSE (Marcello Vernola, Amalia Sartori,
Guido Podesta, Giuseppe Castiglione, Renato
Brunetta, Lorenzo Cesa and Gianni De
Michelis) Article 2, paragraph 2, point (ca)
(new) (ca) substances, preparations or articles
classified as waste coming within the scope of
Council Directive 91/156/EEC amending Directive
75/442/EEC or which are secondary raw materials
extracted from waste for recovery operations or
as a source of energy, as per Article 3(1)(b) of
Council Directive 91/156/EEC Justification To
avoid having two sets of legislation covering the
same area and discouraging recycling and
recovery. The sectoral legislation on waste is in
keeping with the provisions of REACH. Moreover,
waste is exempted from authorisation and
restrictions, but not from registration. The
registration of waste serves no purpose, and
waste should be exclude from the scope of REACH.
Similarly, secondary raw materials are already
regulated by Directive 91/156/EEC.
44
Amendment 133, ITRE Scope, excemptions Amendment
by EPP (Pilar del Castillo Vera et Alejo
Vidal-Quadras Roca) Article 2, paragraph 1, point
(c a)(new) (ca) substances, preparations or
articles which are wastes as defined in
Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991
amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, or which
are secondary raw materials extracted from waste
for recovery operations or as a source of energy,
as per article 3 1 (b) in Council
Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March
1991 Justification Waste should be excluded from
the scope of REACH as it is already covered by
Community legislation on waste. This does not,
however, remove the requirement for a
manufacturer or importer of a substance to
consider the waste stage in the chemical safety
assessment. Including waste or secondary raw
materials in the scope of REACH would impose
disproportionate requirements on recycling or
recovery without bringing any additional benefit
to human health or the environment and thus
constitute an unnecessary burden for companies.
45
Amendment 134, ITRE Scope, excemptions Amendment
by Marie-Noelle Lienemann (PSE) Article 2,
paragraph 1, point (c a) (new) (ca) substances,
preparations or articles which are wastes as
defined in Council Directive 91/156/EEC on waste
amending Directive 75/442/EEC, or which
are secondary raw materials used instead of
primary raw materials or extracted from waste for
recovery operations or as a source of
energy. Justification (i) The very large flow of
waste could lead to a massive number of
registrations and a risk of the system becoming
overloaded. (ii) Waste and materials used as
secondary raw materials or as sources of energy
in recovery operations as defined in the
framework directive on waste are already subject
to inspections and regulated by other European
and international waste legislation. Bringing
them within the scope of REACH would therefore
result in a duplication of legislation.
46
Amendment 135, ITRE Scope, excemptions Amendment
by Francoise Grossetete (EPP) Article 2,
paragraph 1, point (c b) (new) (cb) substances,
preparations or articles which are wastes as
defined in Council Directive 91/156/EEC on waste
amending Directive 75/442/EEC, or which
are secondary raw materials, extracted from waste
for recovery, used instead of primary raw
materials or as a source of energy. Justification
Making waste for recovery subject to burdensome
testing and registration procedures is likely to
be a serious threat to the recycling sector and
have a highly dissuasive effect on the import and
use of electronic waste for example. Secondly,
failure to exclude these processes, which are
already subject to other European legislation,
would discourage the strong growth of waste
recycling and recovery in the European Union.
47
Amendment 300, IMCO Scope, excemptions Amendment
by EPP, PSE (Marcello Vernola, Amalia Sartori,
Guido Podesta, Giuseppe Castiglione, Renato
Brunetta, Lorenzo Cesa and Gianni De
Michelis) Article 2, paragraph 1, point c a
(new) (ca) substances, preparations or articles
classified as waste coming within the scope of
Council Directive 91/156/EEC amending Directive
75/442/EEC or which are secondary raw materials
extracted from waste for recovery operations or
as a source of energy, as per Article 3(1)(b) of
Council Directive 91/156/EEC Justification To
avoid having two sets of legislation covering the
same area and discouraging recycling and
recovery. The sectoral legislation on waste is in
keeping with the provisions of REACH as regards
human health and environmental protection.
Moreover, waste is exempted from authorisation
and restrictions, but not from registration. The
registration of waste serves no purpose, and
waste should be exclude from the scope of REACH.
Similarly, secondary raw materials are already
regulated by Directive 91/156/EEC. This amendment
should be read in conjunction with the other
amendments to articles under Title I General
Issues.
48
Amendment 301, IMCO Scope, excemptions Amendment
by Bill Newton Dunn (ALDE) Article 2, Paragraph
1, Point (c a) (new) (ca) substances,
preparations or articles which are wastes as
defined in Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18
March 19911 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on
waste, or which are secondary raw materials
extracted from waste for recovery operations or
as a source of energy, as per article 3 1 (b) in
Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March
1991. Justification Including wastes or
secondary raw materials in the scope of REACH
would put disproportionate requirements on
recycling or recovery without bringing any
additional benefit to human health or the
environment. In addition, wastes and materials
used for secondary raw materials should be
excluded from REACH because they are adequately
regulated by, and would be contrary to the
environmental objectives of, EC waste legislation.
49
Example of REACH amendments advocated by SMEs
50
Amendment 564, ENVI Cost sharing among members
of consortia registering a substance Article
17, paragraph 2 Amendment by UEN, EPP (Alessandro
Foglietta, Adriana Poli Bortone, Cristiana
Muscardini, Sergio Berlato Marcello Vernola,
Amalia Sartori, Guido Podesta, Giuseppe
Castiglione, Renato Brunetta, Lorenzo Cesa,
Gianni De Michelis and Miroslav Mikolaik)
Justification To make matters easier for SMEs,
when setting the registration fee, the Agency
should take account of registrants' size and the
quantities produced/imported. This amendment is
linked to the other amendments tabled to the
articles in Title II Registration of substances.
51
Amendment 403, ITRE Cost sharing among members
of consortia registering a substance Amendment
by EPP, PSE Marcello Vernola, Amalia Sartori,
Guido Podesta, Giuseppe Castiglione, Renato
Brunetta, Lorenzo Cesa and Gianni De
Michelis Article 17, paragraph 2
Justification To make matters easier for SMEs,
when setting the registration fee the Agency
should take account of registrants' size and the
quantities produced/imported. This amendment is
linked to the other amendments tabled to the
articles in Title II Registration of substances.
52
Amendment 432, IMCO Cost sharing among members
of consortia registering a substance Amendment
by EPP, PSE (Marcello Vernola, Amalia Sartori,
Guido Podesta, Giuseppe Castiglione, Renata
Brunetta, Lorenzo Cesa and Gianni De
Michelis) Article 17, paragraph 2
Justification To make matters easier for SMEs,
when setting the registration fee, the Agency
should take account of registrants size and the
quantities produced/imported. This amendment is
linked to the other amendments tabled to the
articles in Title II Registration of substances.
53
Example of REACH amendments advocated by Trade
Unions (also SMEs and environmental NGOs)
54
Amendment 594, ENVI Mandatory substitution of
chemicals of very high concern Amendment by Guido
Sacconi (PSE), Chris Davies (ALDE) Article 52
Justification Revised formulation of amendment 50
in the draft report.
55
Amendment 597, ENVI Mandatory substitution of
chemicals of very high concern Amendment by
Greens/EFA (Carl Schlyter, Caroline Lucas,
Hiltrud Breyer) Article 52
Justification Prevention is better than cure.
Substitution should take precedence over
"adequate control" in line with existing
legislation on workers' safety, biocides and
certain hazardous substances in electrical and
electronic equipment. To give "adequate control
precedence would mean that substances of very
high concern could continue to be used and
released, even if the socio-economic benefits of
them were low or safer alternatives available. It
should be substitution first, then controls where
substitution is not possible and the substance
has significant socio-economic benefits.
56
Amendment 832, ITRE Mandatory substitution of
chemicals of very high concern Amendment by Satu
Hassi (Greens/EFA) Article 52
Justification Prevention is better than cure.
Substitution should take precedence over
"adequate control" in line with existing
legislation on workers' safety, biocides and
certain hazardous substances in electrical and
electronic equipment. To give "adequate control
precedence would mean that substances of very
high concern could continue to be used and
released, even if the socio-economic benefits of
them were low or safer alternatives available. It
should be substitution first, then controls where
substitution is not possible and the substance
has significant socio-economic benefits.
57
Amendment 649, IMCO Mandatory substitution of
chemicals of very high concern Amendment by
Gisela Kallenbach and Pierre Jonckheer
(Greens/EFA) Article 52
Justification Prevention is better than cure.
Substitution should take precedence over
adequate control in line with existing
legislation on workers safety, biocides and
certain hazardous substances in electrical and
electronic equipment. To give adequate control
precedence would mean that substances of very
high concern could continue to be used and
released, even if the socioeconomic benefits of
them were low or safer alternatives available. It
should be substitution first, then controls where
substitution is not possible and the substance
has significant socio-economic benefits.
58
Example of REACH amendments advocated by Chemical
Industry and Waste industry
59
Amendment by Philippe Busquin Ria
Oomen-Ruijten, Thomas Ulmer, Miroslav Mikolaik,
Peter Olajos, Antonios Trakatellis, Renate Sommer
and Erna Hennicot-Schoepges (EPP) Amendment 192,
Title I, Chapter 1, Article 2, paragraph 1, point
(c a) (new) ENVI - SCOPE (EXEMPTIONS) (ca) waste
for recycling, as defined in Directive
91/156/EEC, Annex IIB Justification Waste is
already controlled and managed under other EU and
international waste legislation. The inclusion in
costly testing and registration processes of
waste intended for recycling could represent a
serious threat to the recycling sector and act as
a deterrent to the import and use of, for
example, steel scrap. It is hence in conflict
with the Commission's commitment to sustainable
development and best use of resources.
60
Examples of REACH amendments advocated by Paper
Industry
61
Amendment by Boguslaw Sonik, Eija-Riitta Korhola,
Christofer Fjellner, Anders Wijkman and Miroslav
Ouzky (EPP) Amendment 194 Title I, Chapter 1,
Article 2, paragraph 1, point (c a) (new) ENVI -
SCOPE (EXEMPTIONS) (ca) Substances that remain in
preparations and articles manufactured with
recycled preparations or articles. Justification I
mposing the REACH requirements on recycled paper
would jeopardise the ECs efforts to increase
paper recycling. In addition, substances
remaining in recycled paper (after being
recycled) originate from virgin paper production
and conversion. Hence these substances have
already been subject to the REACH requirements
during the first production/converting operation
and have been assessed for use in paper
production and conversion. It would create an
unnecessary workload to analyse, register, assess
and notify these substances again for a virtually
similar use.
62
Amendment by Boguslaw Sonik, Eija-Riitta Korhola,
Christofer Fjellner, Anders Wijkman and Miroslav
Ouzky (EPP) Amendment 213 Title I, Chapter 2,
Article 3, paragraph 1 ENVI - SCOPE (EXEMPTIONS)
Justification The proposal uses a definition of
substance that is based on legislation that
mainly aims at regulating man-made chemicals.
Thus, the proposals definition of substance
exempts from its requirements impurities
'deriving from the process used'. It should be
made clear that this exemption extends to
impurities occurring in nature. As a practical
matter, it will be extremely difficult for paper
and tissue paper manufactures to comply with the
requirements of the proposed REACH Regulation for
each and every of the natural impurities that are
co-extracted with the cellulose from wood.
63
Amendment by Boguslaw Sonik, Eija-Riitta Korhola,
Christofer Fjellner, Anders Wijkman and Miroslav
Ouzky (EPP) Amendment 226 Title I, Chapter 2,
Article 3, paragraph 14 a (new) ENVI - SCOPE
(EXEMPTIONS) 14a. Chemically unmodified substance
means a substance whose chemical structure
remains unchanged, even if it has undergone a
chemical process for example, where a substance
has been chemically treated for the purpose
of removing impurities Justification The
proposal exempts from registration substances
'occurring in nature if they are not chemically
modified during their manufacturing.' The basic
raw material used for paper and board production
is cellulose pulp, which is of natural origin.
Some of the cellulose pulp may be extracted by
dissolving or softening the resinous material
between the fibres and thus facilitating their
separation. REACH should make clear that this
chemical process does not chemically modify the
cellulose pulp.
64
Amendment by Boguslaw Sonik, Eija-Riitta Korhola,
Christofer Fjellner, Anders Wijkman, Miroslav
Ouzký (EPP) Amendment 1071 ANNEX II, new
entry ENVI - SCOPE (EXEMPTIONS)
Justification Annex II already contains many
naturally occurring substances including multi
component ones. Cellulose and starch are made up
from the same monomeric saccharide, glucose.
Glucose and starch are already included in Annex
II. Therefore, cellulose pulp should also be
added to the list of Annex II. Natural
polysaccharide cellulose is the main component of
higher plant cell walls and is the most abundant
organic compounds on earth. Approximately 50 of
all biomass materials is cellulose. Cellulose is
not classified as hazardous to human health or to
the environment.
65
Example of REACH amendments advocated by Chemical
Industry
66
Amendment by Ria Oomen-Ruijten, Thomas Ulmer,
Miroslav Mikoláik, Eija-Riitta Korhola, Péter
Olajos, Anja Weisgerber, Renate Sommer, Erna
Hennicot-Schoepges Amendment 573 (EPP) Article 20
a (new) ENVI, ON REGISTRATION (so called
risk-based registration, reversing the burden
of proof) Article 20a Provisions for registration
of phase-in substances between 1 and 1000
tonnes1a. The registrants will prepare a
prioritisation Information Set (defined in Annex
VI for all substances manufactured or produced in
quantities above 10 tons per year. The
Information Set will be used as the basis for
prioritisation. The priority will depend on
whether a substance poses a potential high risk.
b. Appropriate available information for
prioritisation will be produced for low volume
substances between 1-10 tons instead of a full
prioritisation Information Set. Companies
producing substances in the lower volume bands
can either share information within consortia or
can prove to provide no risk based on
negligible exposure possibilities. The
prioritisation Information Set and the
appropriate available information with the result
of the prioritisation shall be submitted to the
Agency.2. Within 5 years after entry into force
of this Regulation, registrants shall submit to
the Agency the information requirements of Annex
VI (Information Set) for substances manufactured
or imported between 10 and 1000 tonnes. 3.
Within 5 years after entry into force of this
Regulation, registrants shall prioritise
substances manufactured or imported between 1 and
100 tonnes in accordance with Annex
IVa.Registrants shall submit to the Agency the
prioritisation results and any available
information which is deemed by the registrant to
be pertinent to the prioritisation.4.
Registrants who do not submit the information
required under paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not be
able to rely on Article 21.5. The Agency within
one month shall update the public list, in
accordance with article 26.2 (b), indicating the
earliest required registration times for the
remaining substances. Justification Risk, not
the annual volume alone, is the suitable
criterion for identifying substances of potential
concern. Therefore, the registration process
should include a system for prioritisation of
substances based on risk. It is essential to
identify the substances of potential high risk
and to allocate resources properly to address
those potential risks. Applying risk-based
prioritisation would ensure that the substances
of potential high risk are assessed first. It
also ensures the generation of data/information
on all substances within 5 years and early
registration of these substances of potential
higher risk. The Information Set (defined in
Annex VI) will include properties and exposure
data defining the risk
67
Example of REACH amendments advocated by
Environmental NGOs and Trade Unions
68
Amendment by Karin Scheele, Carl Schlyter,
Caroline Lucas and Hiltrud Breyer (PSE,
Greens/EFA, GUE/NGL) Amendment 535 Article 13,
paragraph 1, first paragraph ENVI, ON
REGISTRATION, (chemical safety report as of 1
tonne)
Justification As far as workers, consumers and
the environment are concerned, the chemical
safety assessment and the chemical safety report
based on that assessment are fundamental to the
safe use of chemicals. the resulting
risk-management measures (see Annex I) can make
an invaluable contribution to safety at the
workplace. The amendment therefore suggests that
a chemical safety assessment and a chemical
safety report should be mandatory for all
substances subject to registration pursuant to
Chapter 2 (Scheele). It is unacceptable to limit
safety assessments to substances above 10 tonnes.
This would mean, firstly, that for two-thirds of
the substances that fall under REACH, the data
provided under registration would not be assessed
with regard to its impacts on human health and
the environment. And even when they are
hazardous, there would be no requirement to
provide exposure data. Without exposure
information, it would be near impossible to
identify the appropriate risk management measures
to protect workers or consumers against hazardous
substances (Schlyter and others).
69
Amendment by Mary Honeyball Jonas Sjöstedt
Dan Jørgensen, Åsa Westlund, Riitta Myller
Richard Seeber (PSE, GREENS/EFA,
GUE/NGL) Amendment 536 Article 13, paragraph 1,
subparagraph 1 ENVI, ON REGISTRATION, (chemical
safety report as of 1 tonne)
Justification The information required for
chemicals produced at 1-10 tpa is inadequate. It
will not identify chemicals meeting the criteria
of very high concern or posing a risk to human
health. After the internet consultation REACH has
been significantly weakened, with 3 tests removed
and the obligation to produce a Chemical Safety
Report deleted. This lack of information leads to
REACH not requiring many 1-10 tpa substances to
have safety data sheet. Without such basic
information, it will be difficult for downstream
users to implement appropriate risk management
measures protecting workers (Honeyball, Jørgensen
and others). This amendment ensures that basic
information in the form of a Chemical Safety
Report will be made available by manufacturers of
chemicals for all chemicals above 1 tonne. This
is necessary in order for risk management
measures to be undertaken to protect
professionals or consumers who are in direct
contact with these chemicals, for example cloth
dyes or household cleaning products.
70
Example of REACH amendments advocated by SMEs
71
Amendment by Guido Sacconi, Chris Davies, Carl
Schlyter, Jonas Sjöstedt Amendment 498 Article
10 ENVI, ON REGISTRATION (One Substance One
Registration)
Justification This "package" of amendments
introduces the idea of "One Substance One
Registration" (OSOR) and is linked to the
amendments tabled by the same authors on Title
II. The objective is to ensure a coherent
information package for each substance - at least
for the hazard data - to be developed by industry
on a solid and reliable basis. This will ensure
the development of improved risk management
measures for registrants and users based on one
coherent hazard data set. Potentially
confidential information (e.g. on uses) can be
submitted directly to the Agency. This does not
equate to mandatory consortia as registrants have
the flexibility to decide how to work together.
In addition, disagreements on the selection of
data and/or classification and labelling can be
identified and justified.
72
Example of REACH amendments advocated by Chemical
Industry
73
Amendment by Holger Krahmer Horst Schnellhardt
Alessandro Foglietta, Adriana Poli Bortone,
Cristiana Muscardini, Sergio Berlato Marcello
Vernola, Amalia Sartori, Guido Podestà, Giuseppe
Castiglione, Renato Brunetta, Lorenzo Cesa,
Gianni De Michelis, Miroslav Mikoláik Liam
Aylward Anne Laperrouze (EPP) Amendment
634 Article 54, point (a) ENVI, ON AUTHORISATION
(limiting scope to substances classified as CMR
et al.)
Justification So as to increase planning
certainty, substances should be included in the
authorisation that have undergone classification
or have at least undergone sound scientific
assessment (Holger Krahmer). Before a substance
is authorised, a legally binding decision must be
taken on its classification (on the basis of a
harmonised classification ruling placing it in
CMR categories 1 or 2). Otherwise, the decisions
of the Member State Committee(s) responsible for
classifying substances in CMR categories 1 and 2
would be invalidated. There must be legal
certainty, particularly as regards world trade.
This amendment is linked to the other amendments
to the Articles under Title VII Authorisation.
(Alessandro Foglietta and others Marcello
Vernola and others).
74
Amendment by Holger Krahmer Horst Schnellhardt
Alessandro Foglietta, Adriana Poli Bortone,
Cristiana Muscardini, Sergio Berlato Marcello
Vernola, Amalia Sartori, Guido Podestà, Giuseppe
Castiglione, Renato Brunetta, Lorenzo Cesa,
Gianni De Michelis, Miroslav Mikoláik Liam
Aylward Anne Laperrouze (EPP) Amendment 635
Article 54, point (b) ENVI, ON AUTHORISATION
(limiting scope to substances classified as CMR
et al.)
Justification as for 634
75
Amendment by Holger Krahmer Horst Schnellhardt
Alessandro Foglietta, Adriana Poli Bortone,
Cristiana Muscardini, Sergio Berlato Marcello
Vernola, Amalia Sartori, Guido Podestà, Giuseppe
Castiglione, Renato Brunetta, Lorenzo Cesa,
Gianni De Michelis, Miroslav Mikoláik Liam
Aylward Anne Laperrouze (EPP) Amendment
636 Article 54, point (c) ENVI, ON AUTHORISATION
(limiting scope to substances classified as CMR
et al.)
Justification as for 634
76
Example of REACH amendments advocated by
Environmental NGOs
77
Amendment by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) Amendment
595 Article 52 ENVI, ON AUTHORISATION (mandatory
substitution of chemicals of very high concern)
Justification The emphasis on the internal market
needs to be deleted. REACH already contains a
free movement cause (art. 125) and is based on
the Treatys legal base for the inner market.
This specific title is about allowing chemicals
that are known to be harmful to be used anyway.
The precautionary principle is mentioned in the
general provisions of REACH but it is especially
important to include this principle in the
provisions on authorisation.
78
Amendment by Dan Jørgensen, Åsa Westlund, Riitta
Myller Amendment 596 Article 52 ENVI, ON
AUTHORISATION (mandatory substitution of
chemicals of very high concern)
Justification The aim of authorisation is to
ensure protection of health and the environment
rather than the functioning of the internal
market, which is an aim underpinning all EU
legislation but not relating to any specific
provision of REACH. Authorisation will provide a
high level of protection only if it aims at
replacing substances of very high concern with
suitable alternatives. Maintaining the notion of
adequate control will support continued use and
release of dangerous substances irrespective of
their socio-economic necessity and of the
availability of safer alternatives.
About PowerShow.com