The latest polls suggest most Brits are neither phobe nor phile, we’re ‘Euro-pragmatists’. We’re certainly not looking forward to a united Eurostate where we can zip down to our Tuscan villas without having to delve in the sock drawer for our passports. Nor are we getting into a frenzy over Brussels banning us from buying a bushel of King Edwards for a groat. Instead, most of us think we should be able to embrace the bits of Europe we like, and hang around on the fringes or fudge on the bits we’re not sure about. It’s a case of getting what we want without putting our EU neighbours’ backs up.
Clearly a case for pushing to hang round on the fringes, or pragmatically ‘adapt’ the legislation is the proposed EU ruling to curtail CCA timber treatment. Of course, nothing with arsenic in it is going to get great press in this eco-aware era. And, indeed, it does seem that the industry sees CCA gradually ceding ground to increasingly effective alternatives. But, the sector has shown time and again that, properly employed, CCA treatments pose minimal risk in application or the finished product.
As the UK is the EU’s biggest consumer and producer of CCA, we should clearly have the loudest voice in how its use is controlled. Fortunately, the industry, led by the treatment sector organisation the BWPDA, is on the case and making strong representations to the UK and EU authorities (p8). There is also the chance for our individual Euro-pragmatist voices to be heard on the subject via an EU internet consultation site – europa.eu.int/ comm/enterprise/chemicals/markrestr/arsenic/consultation.html.
As Dr Chris Coggins of the BWPDA points out, restrictions on CCA would be more than inconvenient, they could affect timber’s market prospects – and actually be environmentally unsound:‘It is the most important contributor to the use of sustainable wood species in situations where such a useful material might otherwise be excluded.’
