Brussels, 06/12/2006 (Agence Europe) - The Greens/EFA in the European Parliament, environmental NGOs and Consumer organisations may accuse the Parliament and Council of giving in to the chemical industry's lobbying in removing from the REACH draft regulation the principle of compulsory substitution of all dangerous substances as soon as a less harmful alternative solution becomes available (see EUROPE 9321), but the European chemical industry, chemical product using industry and European employers say that the compromise reached between the two institutions on 1st December is a lesser evil, but certainly not a panacea.
They say that the reform introduced by the new European legislation will have a substantial impact on the whole production and raw materials supply chain. They are sure, too, that the requirement on producers to submit a substitution plan or a research and development (R&D) plan when asking for authorisation of the most dangerous substances, will bring financially severe consequences for the industry, with no benefit for consumer health or the environment. Appropriate risk control of these substances - also required by REACH as a prerequisite for authorisation - would, they say, be enough to meet the objective of a high level of public health and environmental protection. A few days before the European Parliament second reading vote on REACH, scheduled for 13 December, UNICE (the confederation of European businesses), Cefic (the European Chemical Industry Council), and Orgalime (the European Engineering Industries Association, representing some 130,000 mechanical, metallurgical, electric and electronic industry companies in 23 European countries) gave press their joint critical analysis of the compromise to be put to the plenary session, stressing the enormity of the challenge that the implementation of an excessively complex and bureaucratic regulation would mean for them.
Their message is clear: the industry as a whole recognises that the approach adopted by the European institutions is balanced, open and takes account of the interests of the various protagonists, but the industry continues to believe that the REACH objectives could have been achieved through an approach that was more risk-based and simpler to put into practice.
“We have been accused of lobbying. We have been transparent in all that we have said because our duty was to emphasise our point of view and the expertise of our companies. We are not ashamed of what we have done. The outcome is not perfect, but the Parliament and the Council have managed to take steps in the right direction,” said UNICE Secretary General Philippe de Buck. He mentioned in particular in the improvement in the registration procedure “despite the retention of costly tests”, the strengthening of trade secrets “very important for the protection of intellectual property and innovation”, and the reinforcement of the role of the European Chemical Products Agency. Unfortunately, he said, the compromise text has added “new difficulties” for the industry by introducing the compulsory substitution and R&D plans. “We will have to see how it will work but the system will be very costly and bureaucratic. … The danger for the industry can only be measured later, when the system has been implemented,” he warned.
Alain Perroy, CEFIC CEO, was of the view that it is absolutely essential REACH should be “practicable”. He recalled that the initial aim of REACH was to make up for the lack of knowledge on chemical products and to counter the risks that they entail by guaranteeing a high level of health and environmental protection. He felt that strict risk-control would allow this aim to be achieved, rather than an arbitrary ban on substances whose risks are well-managed and controlled.
Using gastronomic terms, Mr Perroy went on to add that “substitution seems a very simple process. The world of chemicals, however, is not a universal menu in which we can pick and choose what seems to us to be the best alternative”. One should reason, he says, in terms of the manufacturing process, the supply chain, capacity and return on investment. The fact that clearance is granted at the same time as a substitution plan is required amounts, in his eyes, to granting conditional authorisation that would raise doubts among companies, and hence legal uncertainty for investment. This, he added, is a bad sign to industry in terms of investment opportunities and financing.
Guy Thiran, Secretary General of Eurométaux, is concerned about the threats that REACH makes on the supply of primary raw materials, and hence on the competitiveness of a sector that will also be “affected” by the legislation which does not take sufficient account of the specific nature of certain branches of an industry that is “united but not homogenous”. Adrian Harris, Orgalime's Secretary General, is said to be hoping that one will calculate the “enormous challenge” substitution represents for downstream users - a process that needs time in order to be correctly prepared in a complex supply chain, but which is not necessarily the best option in terms of security, functionality and overall environmental performance of a product. The day before a crucial vote in Parliament on the most voluminous legislation in European history, all the arguments for and against systematic substitution of the most worrying substances can be used. (an)