GERMAN OFFICIAL REACTIONS TO REACH DEMARCHE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 BERLIN 001806

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

COMMERCE FOR DON WRIGHT, CABLE CODE 4211/MAC/OEU

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/27/16
TAGS: ETRD ECON BEXP GM
SUBJECT: GERMAN OFFICIAL REACTIONS TO REACH DEMARCHE

REF: A. USDOC 2311


B. BERLIN 1401

C. 2005 BERLIN 4130

Classified By: Robert F. Cekuta for reasons 1.4(b) and (d)


1. (C) Summary: Discussions with working-level officials at
Germany's Chancellery, Ministry of Economics and Ministry of
Environment revealed continued support for the EU Council's
December 13, 2005 version of REACH, in contrast to meetings
U.S. officials had with State Minister Hildegard Mueller at
the Chancellery in May (reftel B). Both ministries and
Chancellery mentioned the German government's reluctance to
reopen debate on the Registration and Authorization sections
of REACH, citing the fragile political alliance in the
European Parliament. German officials took on board our
points on confidential business information and data sharing
and were interested in how data sharing works in the U.S.
Officials admitted that REACH will remain a "work in
progress," with an intentionally long phase-in process to
give affected parties an opportunity to adjust. End Summary

--------------
Germany Supports Council Version of REACH
--------------


2. (SBU) Dieter Kopp, Head of Division for Chemical Safety,
Water Management, and Soil Conservation at the Ministry of
Economics and Technology, said Germany continues to support
the version of REACH adopted by the European Council last
December. He noted the tenuous political agreement achieved
at that time between the camp supporting a more
environmentally-oriented REACH and advocates of a more
economically-minded regulatory system. This fragile alliance
has made the German government reluctant to reopen debate on
registration and authorization, fearing a complete unraveling
of the entire political agreement. Christian Meineke, Head
of Division for Chemical Safety at the Ministry of
Environment, said Chancellor Merkel held a recent conference
call with the German CDU/CSU faction of the EPP
Conservatives, telling them Germany would support the
adoption of the European Council's Common Position, rather
than reopening registration and authorization provisions
during the European Parliament's second reading. Meineke
thought the U.S. should concentrate its efforts on preventing
amendments, which the U.S. views as running counter to its
interests, from entering the European Parliament's version of
REACH during the second reading, e.g., mandatory
substitutions and five-year authorization time limits.


3. (C) Officials responsible for REACH at the Chancellory
confirmed these remarks about Germany's support of the
Council's political agreement. This position, however, ran
contrary to what U.S. officials heard from State Minister
Hildegard Mueller at the Chancellery in May (reftel B).
Berthold Goeke, Division Director of Environment,
Conservation and Nuclear Reactor Security, said Chancellor
Merkel had taken a particular interest in making REACH more
economically friendly when she became Chancellor (reftel C).
Officials at both ministries and the Chancellory indicated
the Council's December 2005 political agreement on REACH
included most of the changes Germany had requested.
--------------
Reach Implementation Projects (RIPs)
--------------


3. (SBU) Kopp and Meineke said participation during the
development of REACH Implementation Projects (RIPs) would be
open to interested stakeholders. Kopp noted the European
Chemical Industrial Council (CEFIC) already was heavily
involved in the RIP process. In terms of document
availability, officials at the Economics and Environmental
Ministries said all documents related to RIPs are available
at the European Chemical Bureau's website. Meineke noted the
EU would sponsor a status seminar for RIPs in the fall.

--------------
Intellectual Property
--------------


4. (SBU) Intellectual property remains a controversial issue
in REACH, Kopp and Meineke acknowledged. Kopp said German
industry had made its concerns on this point -- similar to
those of the U.S. -- known, but they took issue with the
argument that sensitive information would be available in the
public domain and believed the EU would have proper
safeguards to protect this data. He stated the German
government supported extending data protection to fifteen

BERLIN 00001806 002 OF 002


years as described in Article 25 of the European Parliament's
version of REACH. In looking at approaches to data sharing
and compensation, officials at the Economics Ministry
expressed interest in help from U.S. companies. They would
welcome U.S. information on "letters of understanding" and
how companies are compensated for data provided based on
these letters. Specifically, Kopp would like to see clearer
language on data sharing that ensures compensation for the
original company that performs the testing.

--------------
Authorization
--------------


5. (SBU) Officials supported the EU's use of a hazard-based
approach to determine which chemicals would be added to the
candidate list for eventual inclusion in Annex XIII, but
downplayed the significance of this approach. They claimed
few chemicals would be put on this list annually. Kopp said
the German government shared our concerns with the approval
process for substances that fall under the chemical-,
company-, use-specific authorization, i.e., Annex XIII.
According to Kopp, however, Germany was isolated on this
issue, and would take no further action, i.e., propose an
amendment, to address these concerns. He thought specific
authorizations would most likely be rare occurrences.
Germany also supports our position on deleting the five-year
maximum time limit on authorizations. Kopp thought the
Council's language on this aspect of authorization, which
does not contain a five-year maximum time limit, would
prevail.

--------------
Monomers
--------------


6. (SBU) Ministry of Environment officials said the REACH
language on monomers was adopted from a current Council
Directive on registering monomers in the EU (67/588/EC) and
questioned whether using this directive as the legal basis
for monomer registration in REACH would actually have a
negative effect. Ministry of Economics officials stated they
were generally satisfied with the Council's language on
monomer registration, arguing again that concerns about
registering monomers falls under the larger registration
section of REACH and would be difficult to change. (Note:
Germany, as Europe's largest producer of monomers, sees the
monomer registration requirements as putting chemical
exporters to the EU on the same footing as monomer producers
in the EU. End Note.)
TIMKEN JR