The European Parliament votes to enact comprehensive legislation, but Reach fails to please industry lobbyists and green organisations alike
By Wojciech Kosc
Among the European Union's vast corpus of environmental regulations, Reach, a comprehensive tool developed to curb chemical usage across the bloc, has certainly been one of the most controversial. Fiercely opposed by industry lobbyists and championed by green organisations, a compromise deal became reality last December. Green complaints of a somewhat watered-down Reach (the result of compromise) would seem to suggest that industry welcomes the deal. Instead, industry reaction has been less than enthusiastic.
The green lobby has argued that Reach in its present form differs substantially from the document originally envisioned by the European Commission (EC). The current regulation pertains to some 30,000 chemical substances produced in or imported to the EU in amounts of at least one tonne, and companies must register these chemicals according to three different deadlines.
According to current Reach regulations, firms manufacturing any chemical in volumes above 1,000 tonnes, or other compounds containing carcinogenic, mutagenic or repro-toxic substances in volumes above one tonne, have three years to register. Other key registration deadlines include: six years for production of substances in volumes between 100 to 1,000 tonnes; and 11 years for chemicals produced in volumes between one and 100 tonnes.
There is also an obligation to submit a Chemical Safety Report (CSR) to document the safety of some 1,500 additional hazardous substances. Most hazardous toxic and bio-accumulative substances could be phased out gradually with the introduction of safer alternatives. Green organizations like Greenpeace or WWF allege, however, that these solutions stand little chance of warding off the harmful influences of chemicals on human health and the environment.
Who'll pay?
The main criticism is that Reach in its current form does not require companies to carry out safety checks on substances produced or imported in amounts not exceeding 10 tonnes annually.
According to Greenpeace Poland, companies producing several harmful substances are required only to submit statements agreeing to comply with voluntary self-regulation. Greenpeace cited the Czech and Polish governments as being most aggressive in seeking a diluted Reach document.
Poland, the CEE's biggest economy, could still take something of a hit after Reach enters into force in June 2007 (the entire package will take effect only 11 years later). The Polish government and the chemical industry have been eyeing Reach with concern, especially with regard to costs of implementation, which are estimated at EUR 340-416 million in Poland alone.
The costs could well be digested by the biggest players in the sector, but could also prove lethal to hundreds of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that will be unable to bear the financial burden of substance registration. More costs will be incurred to purchase results of CSRs from more-advanced Western laboratories, particularly German and Dutch facilities. CSRs will become free of charge eventually, but only after 12 years — too late by far for many SMEs.
Caution and scepticism
According to Polish estimates, Reach regulations might encourage big chemical companies to downsize employment by as much as 3 percent, but SMEs might be forced to face cuts as large as 30 percent. The EC, on the other hand, has claimed that an estimated EUR 50 billion (as a result of Reach implementation) in healthcare savings will far outweigh the losses suffered by the chemical industry sector. For their part, green organisations share neither the industry's concerns nor the EC's optimism.
"We lost a chance for the first-ever European legislation that would have made the industry responsible for its products. Both consumers and the environment will suffer," said WWF Poland's Dariusz Sredzinski.
The chemical industry, however, is both cautious and sceptical about the Reach document, even in a form weaker than originally envisaged. The industry's European body, Cefic, claimed that the obligation for safer substitution of most dangerous substances is both a "costly and bureaucratic requirement" and an "illusion," as finding replacements for substances in question cannot be "operated by a regulation."
Other industry groups, such as employers' association Unice, metals association Eurometaux and manufacturing trade association Orgalime, are echoing Cefic's reservations.
"Substitution does not automatically represent the best option in terms of safety, functionality or overall environment performance of a product [...], and we have yet to be convinced that the provisions on substances in articles will be enforceable and workable in practice," said Orgalime's Adrian Harris, according to ENDS Europe Daily.
