Dr. Malte M. Zimmer, ZVO Head of Environmental & Chemicals Policy and President of the European Surface Association CETS; Interview: Robert Piterek
Dr. Zimmer, at a meeting in Brussels, the industry demanded: "Give us regulations that we can follow". What exactly has happened?
The reason for this demand is that since the von der Leyen era, there has been a veritable tsunami of regulation. The regulations interfere with each other, sometimes contradict each other and have a short half-life. If problems arise during implementation, adjustments are quickly made. The regulations impair planning security for companies when making investments, because on the one hand they are too broad, e.g. the PFAS restriction proposal, and on the other hand they intervene deeply in the details of applications, such as the authorization of chromium trioxide. This leads to downright micromanagement. In addition, if not banned immediately, transitional periods are used that are set completely arbitrarily. Last but not least, there is the all-too-familiar weakness of the system: bureaucracy. Countless reporting obligations, countless queries, online meetings, public consultations, unclear responsibilities, endless networks of committees. The sheer size of the bureaucratic apparatus overwhelms the capacities of companies, especially SMEs.
"EU substitution dogma is unique in the world in its absoluteness"
What is going wrong in detail?
ParacelsusItstarts with the fact that a completely wrong approach has been established in chemicals regulation - the hazard-based approach. Substances with hazardous properties must be banned and replaced. This is a European substitution dogma that is unique in the world. Although unique should be seen in a negative light. Paracelsus already knew that it is not the mere existence but the dose that determines the effect. In addition, regulations such as European workplace legislation, the authorization and planned restriction of chromium trioxide and the parallel BREF process to determine the best available technologies are running side by side. All use different approaches, an enormous bureaucracy and end in different specifications - including limit values - for the same uses. And then the "essential use" approach is to be chosen - i.e. someone decides what is necessary for society and therefore for each individual. This could become a very arbitrary, undemocratic affair. The latter seems all the more threatening when you know that many EU officials know little or nothing about the technology in question and the market conditions. The main language used in the EU must also be mentioned. English seems to be a good choice as a global language. However, only around 5 million out of 450 million EU citizens are native speakers, which means that mistakes and misunderstandings are inevitable. A final note: the EU is interested in completing its data on regulatory approaches and their possible consequences, advantages and disadvantages via various "calls for evidence" and "public consultations". Small businesses and ordinary workers have fewer opportunities than large companies, public authorities, environmental NGOs and activists. So bias and inappropriate decisions are inevitable.
What can we expect in 2024?
Only the EU itself knows. The main issues for the industry will be BREF and the preparation of the restriction of chromium trioxide. The authorization procedure will continue to run in parallel. This means that many contributions are likely to be requested again. The European elections will possibly change many things - once again. However, there is a tendency that can be heard from the industry in many meetings. Going to court is increasingly seen as a last resort against EU decisions. The example of titanium dioxide makes this just as clear as the acrylamide ruling and the annulment of the positive authorization decision for the CTAC consortium by the EU General Court. In the latter case, the Parliament had brought an action. In all cases, the court criticized the flawed scientific quality and inadequate interpretation of the legal situation.
INFO
Dr. Malte Zimmer (see photo) at the Surface Days 2023 in Berlin, where he chaired the session "Regulatory developments in European and national environmental and chemicals policy". In the course of the conversation with Galvanotechnik, Dr Zimmer revealed that instead of the hazard-based regulatory approach mentioned in the interview, he favours a risk-based approach that prioritizes risks rather than preventively regulating hazards - which would, for example, significantly reduce the bureaucratic burden. Risk thresholds would then replace the focus on individual cases, as is the case with occupational health and safety thresholds. For a meaningful impact analysis, Dr. Zimmer relies on decision-makers having more information that leads to a better understanding of the interrelationships. According to him, however, the current official processes do not promote such a build-up of experience.
