Industry, Commission in push for REACH 'adjustments' 

A report  analysing how REACH would work in practice concluded on 39 recommendations and suggestions to modify the current draft in order to ease implementation once the legislation is adopted. 

Published on 5 July 2005, the recommendations came at the conclusion of a 'real life' exercise launched in October last year which brought together representatives from the Commission, member states and industry, including downstream users and SMEs. 

The recommendations focus on:

• adjustments or clarifications to the legislative text, including the annexes;
• adapting organisational structures of companies and of member states' authorities;
• practical guidance tools for companies, including helpdesks and an IT system.

Answering to questions from journalists on 5 July, the head of the REACH unit at the Commission's Enterprise and Industry department, Mr Geert Dancet, said one should not forget about the Commission's ability to amend the REACH proposal after the Parliament's first reading.

But Dancet strongly denied allegations made by Greenpeace that Enterprise Commissioner Gunter Verheugen is seeking to water down REACH by raising to 100 tonnes per year the volume threshold above which registering and testing chemicals becomes mandatory.

Asked by EurActiv, Dancet said the Commission had "no intention whatsoever to change the starting point of REACH" which set registration and testing requirements at volumes imported or produced above 1 tonne. He said the issue currently examined by the Commission is whether the objectives of REACH can be achieved with less information required from companies. "Dossiers are voluminous," Dancet explained.

Speaking at the same press conference on 5 July, Lena Perenius from industry group CEFIC, said the tests showed REACH will not work if improvements are not made. "SPORT shows good guidance is not enough" to implement REACH effectively Perenius said, insisting that the text needed simplification and clarification to deliver on its objectives. 

CEFIC argues that the proposal is too demanding on companies in terms of resources and expertise and says clarification is needed on the roles and responsibilities of all actors involved up and down the chemicals supply chain. The organisation maintains its earlier plea to base registration priority based on the level of danger posed by chemicals rather than on volume, saying this would clearly contribute to a successful implementation.

The European SME association UEAPME said the report confirmed that smaller companies will be hardest hit by REACH. It echoed CEFIC's call by underlining the need to amend the legislative text of the draft. "From the outset it has been clear that the REACH proposal would have a disproportionately damaging effect on small businesses, not only manufacturers and importers, but also the large number of downstream users," said Guido Lena, UEAPME Director of Environmental Policy. UEAPME underlines the need to support data sharing among firms and involve downstream users more actively.

Philippe Chemin from the French Environment Ministry said his conclusion of the test exercise is that "things are possible" and that "REACH is working". However, he added that the French would like to see the agency strengthened. "REACH does not need much change as far as the Germans are concerned," a colleague from the German Federal institute for Occupational Safety (BAUA) agreed.

For the WWF, the results of the test are unequivocal: except for the extra guidance needed, "REACH works!" the global conservation organisation said in a statement. The WWF, who participated in the SPORT process as an observer, notes that six out of eight companies managed to compile a complete registration dossier. Of the two that failed, one did not want to follow REACH and hence did it on purpose, WWF said.