VZCZCXRO3445
RR RUEHAG
DE RUEHRL #1806/01 1791536
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 281536Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3952
INFO RUCNMEU/EU INTEREST
RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE
RUCNFRG/FRG COLLECTIVE
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 BERLIN 001806 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
COMMERCE FOR DON WRIGHT, CABLE CODE 4211/MAC/OEU 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/27/16 
TAGS: ETRD ECON BEXP GM
SUBJECT: GERMAN OFFICIAL REACTIONS TO REACH DEMARCHE 
 
REF: A. USDOC 2311 
 
     ¶B. BERLIN 1401 
     ¶C. 2005 BERLIN 4130 
 
Classified By: Robert F. Cekuta for reasons 1.4(b) and (d) 
 
¶1. (C) Summary: Discussions with working-level officials at 
Germany's Chancellery, Ministry of Economics and Ministry of 
Environment revealed continued support for the EU Council's 
December 13, 2005 version of REACH, in contrast to meetings 
U.S. officials had with State Minister Hildegard Mueller at 
the Chancellery in May (reftel B).  Both ministries and 
Chancellery mentioned the German government's reluctance to 
reopen debate on the Registration and Authorization sections 
of REACH, citing the fragile political alliance in the 
European Parliament. German officials took on board our 
points on confidential business information and data sharing 
and were interested in how data sharing works in the U.S. 
Officials admitted that REACH will remain a "work in 
progress," with an intentionally long phase-in process to 
give affected parties an opportunity to adjust.  End Summary 
 
----------------------------------------- 
Germany Supports Council Version of REACH 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) Dieter Kopp, Head of Division for Chemical Safety, 
Water Management, and Soil Conservation at the Ministry of 
Economics and Technology, said Germany continues to support 
the version of REACH adopted by the European Council last 
December.  He noted the tenuous political agreement achieved 
at that time between the camp supporting a more 
environmentally-oriented REACH and advocates of a more 
economically-minded regulatory system.  This fragile alliance 
has made the German government reluctant to reopen debate on 
registration and authorization, fearing a complete unraveling 
of the entire political agreement.  Christian Meineke, Head 
of Division for Chemical Safety at the Ministry of 
Environment, said Chancellor Merkel held a recent conference 
call with the German CDU/CSU faction of the EPP 
Conservatives, telling them Germany would support the 
adoption of the European Council's Common Position, rather 
than reopening registration and authorization provisions 
during the European Parliament's second reading.  Meineke 
thought the U.S. should concentrate its efforts on preventing 
amendments, which the U.S. views as running counter to its 
interests, from entering the European Parliament's version of 
REACH during the second reading, e.g., mandatory 
substitutions and five-year authorization time limits. 
 
¶3. (C) Officials responsible for REACH at the Chancellory 
confirmed these remarks about Germany's support of the 
Council's political agreement.  This position, however, ran 
contrary to what U.S. officials heard from State Minister 
Hildegard Mueller at the Chancellery in May (reftel B). 
Berthold Goeke, Division Director of Environment, 
Conservation and Nuclear Reactor Security, said Chancellor 
Merkel had taken a particular interest in making REACH more 
economically friendly when she became Chancellor (reftel C). 
Officials at both ministries and the Chancellory indicated 
the Council's December 2005 political agreement on REACH 
included most of the changes Germany had requested. 
------------------------------------ 
Reach Implementation Projects (RIPs) 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶3. (SBU) Kopp and Meineke said participation during the 
development of REACH Implementation Projects (RIPs) would be 
open to interested stakeholders.  Kopp noted the European 
Chemical Industrial Council (CEFIC) already was heavily 
involved in the RIP process.  In terms of document 
availability, officials at the Economics and Environmental 
Ministries said all documents related to RIPs are available 
at the European Chemical Bureau's website.  Meineke noted the 
EU would sponsor a status seminar for RIPs in the fall. 
 
--------------------- 
Intellectual Property 
--------------------- 
 
¶4. (SBU) Intellectual property remains a controversial issue 
in REACH, Kopp and Meineke acknowledged.  Kopp said German 
industry had made its concerns on this point -- similar to 
those of the U.S. -- known, but they took issue with the 
argument that sensitive information would be available in the 
public domain and believed the EU would have proper 
safeguards to protect this data.  He stated the German 
government supported extending data protection to fifteen 
 
BERLIN 00001806  002 OF 002 
 
 
years as described in Article 25 of the European Parliament's 
version of REACH.  In looking at approaches to data sharing 
and compensation, officials at the Economics Ministry 
expressed interest in help from U.S. companies.  They would 
welcome U.S. information on "letters of understanding" and 
how companies are compensated for data provided based on 
these letters.  Specifically, Kopp would like to see clearer 
language on data sharing that ensures compensation for the 
original company that performs the testing. 
 
------------- 
Authorization 
------------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) Officials supported the EU's use of a hazard-based 
approach to determine which chemicals would be added to the 
candidate list for eventual inclusion in Annex XIII, but 
downplayed the significance of this approach.  They claimed 
few chemicals would be put on this list annually.  Kopp said 
the German government shared our concerns with the approval 
process for substances that fall under the chemical-, 
company-, use-specific authorization, i.e., Annex XIII. 
According to Kopp, however, Germany was isolated on this 
issue, and would take no further action, i.e., propose an 
amendment, to address these concerns.  He thought specific 
authorizations would most likely be rare occurrences. 
Germany also supports our position on deleting the five-year 
maximum time limit on authorizations.  Kopp thought the 
Council's language on this aspect of authorization, which 
does not contain a five-year maximum time limit, would 
prevail. 
 
-------- 
Monomers 
-------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) Ministry of Environment officials said the REACH 
language on monomers was adopted from a current Council 
Directive on registering monomers in the EU (67/588/EC) and 
questioned whether using this directive as the legal basis 
for monomer registration in REACH would actually have a 
negative effect.  Ministry of Economics officials stated they 
were generally satisfied with the Council's language on 
monomer registration, arguing again that concerns about 
registering monomers falls under the larger registration 
section of REACH and would be difficult to change.  (Note: 
Germany, as Europe's largest producer of monomers, sees the 
monomer registration requirements as putting chemical 
exporters to the EU on the same footing as monomer producers 
in the EU.  End Note.) 
TIMKEN JR