CONFERENCE ON NEXT STEPS FOR REACH LEGISLATION

UNCLAS VIENNA 001105 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: SENV EIND ECON PGOV AU SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON NEXT STEPS FOR REACH LEGISLATION ¶1. On March 30 and 31, the Austrian Presidency hosted an experts workshop, entitled "REACH At the Edge of the Second Reading," to discuss next steps. Officials from all 25 Member States, the EU Commission, the EU Parliament (EP), industry and NGOs participated. ¶2. Thomas Jakl from the Austrian Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, Gian Marco Currado from HMG, and Patrick Hennessy from DG Enterprise, agreed that Council and EP positions are not far apart, and therefore they should move forward as quickly as possible. Yvon Slingenberg, from DG Environment gave a lengthy report on regional implementation projects, concluding that REACH was workable. Slingenberg noted that industry seminars, such as the one the downstream user group PRODUCE organized, have come to similar conclusions. In the ensuing discussion, some Member States (particularly the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Hungary) expressed concerns about the costs associated with setting up the necessary timely procedures, as well as establishing the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki. ¶3. Several MEPs (Guido Sacconi, Environmental Committee; Edit Herzog, Industry Committee; and Hartmut Nassauer, Internal Market Committee) emphasized that they want to avoid a drawn-out negotiation process with the Council. However, they also would not like the Council to put the EP under any time pressure. Industry representatives pointed to some weaknesses in the Council proposal. In their view, the Council proposal is better on Authorization, but lags behind on Registration and Evaluation, where it puts heavy burdens on SMEs. Nassauer demanded changes on scope, data sharing, recognition of old data, and property protection in order to reach a deal. Nassauer claimed that the documentation requirements outlined in Article 6 of the REACH proposal on "Substances in Articles" is burdensome for EU SMEs, particularly compared to requirements for exporters to the EU. In a discussion on the margins, Nassauer stressed that he does not want to erect new requirements for importers, recognizing this would not be WTO compliant. Rather, he supports relief for SMEs. ¶4. Representatives from industry (Alain Perroy, Cefic; and Jean-Paul Mingasson, Unice) voiced major concerns, particularly on confidentiality of data (concerns about competitiveness and rewards for R&D research); substitution of substances; and failure to authorize on the basis of risk, instead of volume. Overall, they consider the Council proposal "less damaging" than the EP proposal, but not in all aspects. ¶5. Ninja Reineke from the environmentalist NGO WWF raised concerns from the other end of the spectrum, calling for a paradigm shift. In her view, industry must replace hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives whenever they exist. Moreover, authorities need to inform the public and the "Duty of Care" requirement should clearly reside with industry. KILNER#