Brussels, 19/12/2005 (Agence Europe) - The political agreement struck at the Competitiveness Council on the REACH regulation on the Regulation, Assessment and Authorisation of Chemicals in the EU has been welcomed in a very diverse manner, unsurprisingly because the regulation straddles a controversial dividing line (see EUROPE 9088). Welcomed by industry, happy that the substation of hazardous chemicals by less dangerous alternatives is recommended but not made binding, the agreement has deeply disappointed health and environment NGOs, which describe it as yet another attempt to water down the burden on industry for chemicals produced or imported in volumes of less than 10 tonnes a year (20,000 of the 30,000 chemicals covered by the regulation). Various MEPs are also bitterly disappointed because in first reading a slight majority had managed to tip the balance in favour of much tighter authorisation, restricting initial authorisations to five years and making manufacturers and importers replace the most hazardous chemicals when less dangerous alternatives become available.
Industry says common sense won out
European employers organisation UNICE says the Council's common position on REACH 'goes halfway towards the fully-risk based approach advocated by UNICE. For registration, the Council - like the Parliament - has applied a risk-based approach only for information requirements for low-volume substances… This will make REACH more cost-efficient (stet) for SMEs. For authorisation of the use of the most dangerous substances, UNICE is of the view that appropriate control of this use should be a sufficient condition for unlimited authorisation,' rather than limited in time as foreseen by the Council (with the Commission deciding on each chemical on a case-by-base basis). European employers add: 'The system adopted by the Council foresees systematic analysis of alternatives and review clauses even in these cases. This could be detrimental to industrial processes without any added-value for health protection.' Ernest-Antoine Seilliere, President of UNICE, said: 'Taking into account the margin for improvement in the second reading, today's Council decision can be considered a step towards a reasonable agreement.'
Eurochambres welcomes the compromise and the Council's common sense, particularly pleased with the attention to SMEs, which Eurochambres describes as being the backbone of the EU economy. It is particularly happy with the risk-based registration procedure to avoid excess costs and the watered down information requirements for low-volume chemicals which Eurochambres describes as being of insignificant risk to health and the environment. It also welcomes the time of authorisations being decided on a case-by-case basis, and the greater role attributed to the future European Chemicals Agency in assessing chemicals.
UEAPME, the voice of SMEs in Europe, is also pleased that the Council recognised the need to reconcile a high level of environment protection with the survival of hundreds of small companies in the chemical industry and related industries. It is counting on the European Parliament to meet its demand for greater sharing of information. Guido Lena, UEAPME's political director, said compulsory sharing of all test information would be the most effective way of avoiding duplication and averting disproportionately high costs for SMEs.
The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) welcomed the agreement. 'This text confirms the principle of reversing the burden of proof and placing it on the producers of the 30,000 substances covered by the measure. For workers, this means a decisive step forward, because from no on companies will have to demonstrate that these substances can be used in complete safety before they put them on the market,' said Joel Decaillon, ETUC Confederal Secretary responsible for the REACH dossier. 'The ETUC, however, regrets the new concessions granted to the chemicals industry. In the agreement adopted by the Competitiveness Council, the principle of obligatory substitution - which had survived the first reading in the European Parliament - is lost. For the ETUC, this represents a significant retreat compared to REACH's initial ambitions in terms of workers' health protection. Without a strong element of compulsion, the number of companies undertaking to abandon the production of dangerous substances in favour of safer alternatives runs the risk of being very limited.'
At the European Parliament, German MEPs Hartmut Nassauer (EPP-ED) and Bernhard Rapkay (PES) agree that the Council managed to protect the health and environment objectives of the European Commission's initial draft while making them much more practical for industry, but it could have done more to protect industry competitiveness. Nassauer welcomed the authorisation system agreed by the Council but regretted what he described as excessive test requirements for chemicals manufactured or imported in volumes of between 10 and 100 tonnes and the obligation to publish test information, which he described as damaging industrial confidentiality.
Chris Davies MEP (ALDE, UK) said the British Presidency had missed the last hurdle in the race to strike a balance between industry concerns and the need to protect human health. Davies said the Council had rejected the demands of MEPs that the most dangerous chemicals should be replaced by safer alternatives whenever possible and in this way the ministers had torpedoes the European Parliament's plan to protect consumers.
The Greens/EFA said the agreement was 'merry Xmas for the chemical industry' because the Council had 'accepted most of the bad proposals from the Parliament, while it largely ignored the positive elements in the Parliament's position. Data requirements were reduced across the board, most drastically for substances between 1 and 10 tonnes. Authorisation was strengthened only for a few substances, consumer information remains deficient and a proper Duty of Care requirement was completely disregarded.' Marie-Anne Isler-Beguin, French Green, said the Council had damaged the effectiveness of REACH before it had even been born, adding that it was a massive lost opportunity. REACH aimed to protect people's health and the environment from dangerous chemicals but thousands of toxic chemicals can remain on the market, with virtually no information provided about their properties and their impact on health and the environment. She added that the most dangerous chemicals could be authorised even when safer alternatives exist and are available.
A collection of health, consumer, women's and environmental action groups (European Environment Bureau, EEN, Friends of the Earth Europe, Eurocoop, WECF, Greenpeace and WWF) joined forces to express disappointment that 'EU ministers had failed to seize a unique opportunity to protect people and the environment from the threat of toxic chemicals. The Council rejected a crucial principle adopted last month by the European Parliament - the requirement to substitute hazardous chemicals with safety alternatives whenever possible. Although chemical producers would be required to 'assess' substitutes for a hazardous chemical, decision-markers will still have to grant authorisation under an 'adequate control' procedure, even if safer alternatives are available. This loophole represents little change from the current, flawed system, which has failed to control the most dangerous chemicals and hinders safe, innovative products from entering the market.'
The European Consumers' Organisation BEUC said it was 'extremely disappointed'. BEUC Director Jim Murray said: 'The Council succeeded in making things even worse than the European Parliament by weakening the registration of chemicals, the substitution principle and foreseeing even less information available for consumers. EU consumers need a strong REACH. We will relentlessly continue to raise politicians' awareness as they must now take their responsibility to protect the health of future generations.'
Whether delighted or disappointed, all sides now want the European Parliament in second reading to move in the direction they favour.