Les entreprises craignent des coûts supplémentaires liés à l'accord sur REACH[en][de] 

After marathon talks, the EU's three lawmaking bodies - Parliament, Council and Commission - came to a compromise on the REACH draft regulation on 30 November 2006.

The deal came under fire from environmental organisations, which accused the institutions of "caving in" to business interests, but was defended by MEPs as the best possible deal. Business organisations had remained silent, saying they needed to study the details before commenting (EurActiv 4/12/06).

Tighter safety controls under a compromise on the draft REACH chemicals regulation will increase bureaucracy and stifle innovation in Europe, industry leaders warned on Wednesday (6 December).

Central to business demands was that toxic substances should still be given a green light if companies can demonstrate that the risks they pose to human health or the environment can be "adequately controlled".

"Adequate control should have been a sufficient criteria," said European employers' organisation UNICE Secretary-General Philippe de Buck.

Instead, the compromise states that some chemicals - those that are persistent and bioaccumulative - should be replaced whenever safer alternatives are available at an economic cost. And only substances with carcinogenic and mutagenic properties will go down the adequate control route, if they are accompanied by a plan to replace them at a later stage.

"There is no doubt that such a procedure will be very bureaucratic and expensive," de Buck said, although he admitted that additional costs for industry could not be measured with precision at present.

"It will clearly add to costs," said Alain Perroy, director-general of the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), who denounced the "illusion" that substitution could be governed by a "command and control approach".

This, he added, will introduce new obstacles for businesses as they seek approval of chemical substances, leading to legal uncertainty. "It sends the wrong signal to business communities in terms of investment and innovation," Perroy said, calling into question Europe's attractiveness as a business hub.

Guy Thiran of Eurometaux warned that key raw materials used in the metal industry would likely become costlier under REACH. He pointed out that naturally derived substances such as ores and concentrates do not fit in the categories defined under the draft. "Metals are elements, not conventional man-made substances," Thiran pointed out. "Alloys do not behave in practice as simple preparations."

For European engineering association Orgalime, REACH will force changes to the whole supply chain of companies which frequently use many chemicals in consumer goods such as mobile phones. 

"It is not always easy to find an equally performing and reliable new supplier," said Orgalime Secretary-General Adrian Harris.

Not all of the comments were negative, however, with UNICE, CEFIC, Eurometaux and Orgalime adding that some aspects of REACH had "moved in the right direction".

"Companies will not have to elaborate a Chemical Safety Report for substances [produced or imported] below ten tonnes a year. This is good news, particularly for SMEs," they said.

"Another example relates to 'data protection' where companies may now request confidentiality for the name of their substance in order to protect their information from unfair competitors."