EU environmental policy under pressure: Chemicals policy change between antagonistic goals?

Abstract

Until now, chemicals policy was unable to find a method to establish a sound balance between the benefits and risks of chemical substances. Policy learning within the European Union (EU) resulted in the formulation of an alternative approach to future chemicals policy in some quarters. The Commission's proposal for new chemicals legislation – presented as ‘paradigmatic’ policy change – led to a highly controversial lobbying debate. This paper deals in particular with the influence of structures, policy networks, multi-level governance and the influence of new modes of governance on chemicals policy-making. It argues that future policy will not represent the paradigmatic change announced by the Commission but only one incremental, cost-effective step towards such a reform. The final proposal is criticised as a neo-liberal interpretation of the Lisbon strategy which includes a dangerous shift in environmental policy making.

Notes

1. Governing chemicals has been an extremely technical policy focusing on prioritised hazardous substances, with measures resulting mainly from interactions and negotiations between industry and competent authorities, while other actors have little influence. The established procedures guarantee that measures are based on standardised scientific proof, that costs for business are as low as possible and that producers are protected from inappropriate measures. Recommendations from the involved policy community are the basis for Commission proposals on bans and restrictions. The overall result are long assessment and decision cycles for particular substances, which Hey (2000) described as an ‘institutionalized blockade’. For industry, it takes too long to assess chemicals. For green critics, ‘this supposedly ‘science-based’ risk assessment methodology has proven to be more effective in protecting vested interests rather than protecting health and the environment’ (Quijano, 2003: 21).

2. See http://ecb.jrc.it/

3. For details see: http://www.cefic.be and http://www.chemicalspolicyreview.org

4. See: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/chemicals/reach.htm

5. http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/reach/whitepaper/index.htm

6. See: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/chemicals/pdf/ipm_stakeholder_reactions.pdf

7. See: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/reach/docs/consultation/public/public_335_oecd2.pdf

8. A Member of the EP said REACH can only be understood by chemical engineers, quoted in Umwelt für Europäer, No. 18, December 2004: 8.

9. For example, Arthur D. Little (2002) for Germany; Mercer Management Consulting and Nera Economic Consulting for France (2003); and for the United Kingdom: http://www.cbi.org.uk/ndbs/press.nsf/0363c1f07c6ca12a8025671c00381cc7/4be57c2fbf8ccb9a80256d720034c158?OpenDocument

10. Personal communication with a representative of DG Enterprise.

11. See: http://www.bundesregierung.de/Anlage609401/Gemeinsamer+Brief+von+Chirac,+Schr%F6der+und+Blair+-+englische+Versioin.pdf

12. See: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/reach/docs/reach/memo_of_underst_on_ia-2004_03_03.pdf

13. Costs for SMEs will be reduced by the British-Hungarian proposal ‘One Substance – One Registration’ (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/chemicals/pdf/osor-proposal.pdf), which is generally supported by most actors.