1. REACH ETUC Presentation. 11 March 2005 Jos Delbeke Director Air & Chemicals DG ENV C

2. Reminder: why do we need REACH? Current chemicals management system is inefficient • Difficult to identify risks – difficult to address risks: • Lack of information about most substances on the market • Burden of proof on public authorities • No efficient instrument to deal with problematic substances • Lack of incentives for innovation • Lack of confidence in chemicals

3. Progress in co-decision: Timing Nov 2003: Proposal submitted to Parliament and Council Decision making in EP and Council: 2004-2006 • Parliament 1st reading: Autumn 2005? • Political agreement btw MS: end 2005? REACH in force: 2007?

4. Progress in co-decision • Ad-hoc Working Party on Chemicals established (November 2003, 12 meetings) • Parliament: Environment Committee lead • Suspected timetable • Opinions: Spring 2005 • Voting in ENVI: Summer 2005 • First reading vote in plenary: Autumn 2005 • Economic and Social Committee • Additional Opinion on REACH

5. Key elements • Prioritisation • Right balance (hazard/risk) • Short/long term impacts • 1-10 tonnes : testing requirements • OSOR • Mandatory sharing • Workability • Agency • Stronger?

6. Economic Benefits • Simplification • Level playing-field for new and existing substances • Improved innovation (encourage substitution, not forced) • higher demand for safer substances • higher registration thresholds • more R&D flexibility

7. Health benefits • Commission, (REACH Impact Assessment 2003) respiratory and bladder cancers, skin and respiratory disorders • Health benefits of € 50 billion (order of magnitude) • UK Regulatory Impact Assessment • Between 18 and 37 cancer death reduced per year will be enough to generate a positive cost-benefit ratio of the regulation; • OSHA (European Agency for Safety and Health at work) • Occupational skin diseases are estimated to cost the EU € 600 million each year, resulting in around 3 million lost wd.

8. Environmental Benefits Orders of magnitude: • EC JRC: pollution prevention • costs of dredging and clean-up contaminated soil/sewage sludge of at least €11 billion in the next decade for the EU15 alone (€11-110 billion) • Nordic Council • Costs associated to PCB pollution between €15 up to 75 billion (up to 2018) • Finnish Ministry of Environment • Remediation of contaminated soil future clean-up costs for Finland up to €1.2 billion in the next two decades. Conclusion: Benefits are difficult to estimate but significant and undisputed* * NL workshop on REACH IA

9. Costs • Impact Assessment: • Direct costs: €2 billion • Total costs (inc to downstream users): €2.8 - 5.2 billion • Substance loss: 1-2% (to be further investigated) • 60 % of direct costs from testing • An indication of the amount of information industry has about its chemicals?

10. Further work on benefits • Objective: • Complementary work to Commission IA • Methodology: • Case study approach on potential harmful substances • Avoid the legacy from the past (pollution) • Assess the effectiveness of REACH in reducing the remaining chemical hazards • Timetable: • To be finalised in September 2005

11. Commission’s Interim Strategy • Commission’s practical preparations • Before REACH coming into force: Jan 2004 – early 2006 • In co-operation with industry and MS • Refocus Current Activities • REACH Implementation Projects (RIPs): • RIP 1: Process descriptions (available on ENV website) • RIP 2: Development of IT systems (REACH-IT) • RIP 3/4: Guidance Documents (industry/authorities) • RIP 5/6: Preparation for start-up of Agency • RIP 7: Commission preparations • Strategic partnerships

12. Guidance – Industry/Authorities • Guidance prepared by consultants; commented on/steered by stakeholders. • Projects started: • Chemical Safety Report (synergies with worker protection law) • Information Requirements • Substance Identity • Started Feb 05 • Downstream-User Requirements • Carrying out a Socio-Economic Analysis • Preparation of Annex XIV Dossiers (Authorities) [Restrictions; Harmonised C&L; Serious and irreversible effects] • To start mid 05: • Fulfilling the Requirements for articles • Others to come during 2005/2006

13. Strategic partnerships (SP) • Objective: • Prepare REACH compatible dossiers (mainly with MS) for current work (e.g. substance evaluation) • Developing guidance in partnership; • Testing specific aspects/impacts of the operation of REACH • Strategic Partnership On REACH Testing (SPORT): • a partnership between industry, the European Commission and Member States initiated by CEFIC. Also involving NGOs, Trade Unions, animal welfare org., etc. • to simulate the implementation of REACH by all main actors • an opportunity to test and establish the workability of REACH, and identify solutions if problems are found,

14. Conclusion • REACH should be in-force by 2007 • Impact Assessment work • Balance between cost and benefit • Commission is preparing for REACH implementation • REACH-IT; guidance; strategic partnerships