VZCZCXRO5920
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ
DE RUEHVI #1105 1080626
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 180626Z APR 06
FM AMEMBASSY VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3119
INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 1318

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#