EU DECISION-MAKING

How do the different national approaches affect EU decision-making ... 

It is these variables that the research project investigates, and the subsequent implications that these national variables ultimately have on EU decision-making. 

If France, Germany, Sweden and the UK adopt different regulatory approaches, this research seeks to uncover which role these Member States have in the adoption of different types of EU legislation. It follows that this research must first establish if the regulatory approach of a Member State is consistent with its approach to EU decision-making. With the advent of REACH, the question now arises as to what effect these national approaches may have on REACH implementation, and what effect REACH will have on national approaches. 

In Chapter 2, the literature review exposed aspects of risk management under REACH that will depend on national policy, rules and practices. Therefore, in addition to tracking developments with the REACH legislative text, the methodology had to contend with changes to policy and practice at national and EU levels. A framework for EU decision-making that does not account for such variables would be rejected by Member States or the European Commission. 

A pilot study conducted between January and March 2004 confirmed that interviews could generate sufficient data to characterise the national approaches and relevant EU decision-making processes. 

The soft-systems analytical framework facilitated the comparing and contrasting of national approaches, as well as interviewee perspectives of EU decision-making and REACH. In total, the results of these processes formed the basis for proposing a framework for decision-making under REACH. 

Actor roles and responsibilities for national and EU risk management Relevance and implications of actors for EU decision-making Identification of methods for supporting actor responsibilities Necessity for national versus EU action... 

Due to time constraints, only four interviews could be conducted in France but, given the amount of data collected on EU decisionmaking during interviews in Germany, Sweden and the UK and made available by [238], this would probably not compromise the ability to develop a framework for EU decision-making. 

The Ministry for Labour and Social Affairs and the Ministry of the Economy merged in 2003 to form the Ministry of Economics and Labour. Before this move, both ministries were involved in EU decision-making. 

From a top-down perspective, implementing REACH does not appear to require major changes to administrative structures for Sweden or Germany. Sweden is the most efficient of the three countries for inputting information to EU decision-making, albeit limited to Keml. 

The next Chapter exposes how without careful attention to particular issues during implementation the REACH legislative text is unlikely to deliver the recommendations identified in Table 4.6. Several examples are presented in Chapter 5 that illustrate how the strengths and weakness of the national approaches tend to hinder rather than facilitate EU decision-making. The proposed systems framework for decision-making under REACH then seeks to rectify these potential shortcomings of the legislation. 

Figure 5.2 Existing structure of EU decision-making for chemical regulation (adapted from [564])...

How should EU decision-making be structured to facilitate Member State authorities reaching agreement on regulatory processes or outcomes ... 

In terms of regulatory risk management, the SOMS does not detail rules for EU action corresponding to each hazard and use categorisation. Similarly, while the RCEP presents a wide and detailed set of recommendations to make increased use of a wide range of risk management and policy instruments, it does not present these as a formalised structure for EU decision-making. 

The proposed systems framework for EU decision-making under REACH seeks to counterbalance the weaknesses and to draw on the strengths of the national approaches while addressing the points shown in Table 7.1. Specifically, the framework would fuse hazard, technical and risk-benefit approaches to risk management (Table 7.2). Compared with the current process of chemical legislation and the recent REACH proposal, the systems framework would avoid a linear substance-by-substance approach by applying a set of decision-making rules based on hazard and use to all chemicals (Section 5.3.1). 

Harmonised EU decision-making does not imply setting uniform chemical regulation across Member States but refers to countries reaching an accord on when action should be taken at the EU level and how national actions can be co-ordinated. The systems framework therefore proposes a structured process for stakeholder... 

A key conclusion of the research project is that Germany may play an even larger part in EU decision-making and consequently exert a strong influence on the future of the EU chemical industry. This is the result of a complex mix of the following factors ... 

---