Brussels, 20 November 2006

As the trialogue negotiations are coming to an end, the Finnish Presidency's compromise proposals to the Parliament (EP) on the cornerstone of REACH legislation - the principle of substitution - have been merely cosmetic so far. The proposed amendments fail to address the EP's priorities to strengthen the Council text in order to provide incentives for innovation and requirements to substitute the most hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives, whenever possible. Unless Member States decide to finally offer workable solutions that address the EP's demand on substitution, we urge MEPs to avoid being trapped into a bad compromise and prepare instead for a 2nd reading vote on Parliamentary amendments in mid-December.

The rapporteur has already offered significant concessions in seeking an agreement with Council, but the Presidency has ignored his efforts. NGOs believe that if MEPs want Parliament's view on substitution to be taken seriously, conciliation may offer a better chance.

NGOs believe that if further concessions are made by the EP on substitution, the final REACH - taking into account the very weak safety data requirements at Registration - will NOT be an improvement on existing chemicals legislation.

BACKGROUND : The Council has offered no progress on the following key authorisation/substitution issues:

• Increase the incentives for substituting chemicals of high concern whenever safe alternatives are available. The Parliament voted that the existence of a suitable safer alternative will mean NO granting of an authorisation;
• Preventative action on hormone disrupting chemicals to safeguard their inclusion in authorisation;
• Clarification that substances with PBT, vPvB or hormone disrupting properties will be substituted whenever a safer alternative exists;
• Delete the possibility to change the definition of 'adequate control' through Comitology as otherwise it could apply to the vast majority of chemicals of very high concern (recital 64);
• A workable candidate list for substances meeting the authorisation criteria;
• An overall time limit for authorisations.

After 5 years of negotiations since the REACH White Paper in 2001, the current cosmetic changes proposed by Member States are too small to justify MEPs support for an early agreement, which would practically be the same as the Council Common Position of December 2005. We therefore call on MEPs to prepare NOW for a 2nd Reading plenary adoption of amendments to strengthen the Council text in order to secure a REACH that will deliver better health and environmental protection and more innovation in the chemical industry.

Contacts:
Mecki Naschke, EU policy officer chemical and industry policies, EEB, +32 (0) 2 298 10 94.
Javier Calvo, Junior Officer, Eurocoop, +32 (0) 2 285 00 76.
Aleksandra Kordecka, Chemicals Campaigner, Friends of the Earth Europe, +32 (0) 2 542 61 08.
Nadia Haiama, EU policy director on chemicals, Greenpeace European Unit, +32 (0) 2 274 19 13.
Lisette van Vliet, Policy Advisor, Health & Environment Alliance, +32 (0) 2 234 36 45.
Daniela Rosche, Policy coordinator, WECF, +31 6 22 95 00 27.
Ninja Reineke, Senior policy officer, WWF, +32 (0) 479 610451.