REACH policy ‘could save billions of euro’ across EU

Date:17/07/03

By Karen Carstens

THE EU could save up to €260 billion in health care costs by 2020 thanks to the new REACH chemicals policy review, according to a report commissioned by World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).

Its authors, UK-based environmental economists David Pearce and Phoebe Koundouri, also found that the UK could save more than €74.9 billion in health costs over the next 17 years if REACH - a new system to register, evaluate and authorize thousands of chemicals - is implemented in its current form.

The first estimate was made after taking into account potential implementation costs to businesses, the latter was made in isolation, without considering any other factors.

WWF, in a statement on Monday (14 July), said the report "makes a mockery" of industry claims that the costs of putting REACH into action could dwarf benefits to health and the environment.

"Even without taking into account environmental benefits, the report suggests that the true benefits for Europe in terms of better health and increased productivity could outweigh costs by more than ten times," the WWF claimed.

At the same time, trade lobby CEFIC (European Chemical Industry Council) said the policy should be led by a proposed new central chemicals agency.

CEFIC President Eggert Voscherau called for a stronger EU chemicals agency that would negotiate with the industry on how best to "fill in the gaps" in the current regulatory regime.

"I don't understand why we have to make a political agenda out of a science-based process," he recently said at a presentation of the group in Brussels.

The group also repeated demands for certain categories of chemicals known as intermediates and polymers to be exempted from the new policy, with toned-down data disclosure requirements.

CEFIC has argued that REACH could hamper innovation and mire firms in needless bureaucracy that could drive thousands of small- and medium-sized enterprises out of business.

In its own estimates, the European Commission has said that some 8%-12% of all chemicals currently in circulation could be taken off the market Yet Pearce, who is widely considered to be the UK's top environmental economist, said the study he conducted with Koundouri clearly shows that the benefits should outweigh the costs of REACH.

"Even by using conservative estimates of the effects of chemicals on people, the report suggests that the primary benefits from REACH are to human health and the environment," he said.

"Since the models used in the report exclude all environmental effects, we argue that the benefits are understatements," he added. "Overall, we are confident that REACH will generate net benefits."

Both WWF and CEFIC have submitted detailed reports on REACH to the Commission. An eight-week, online consultation of the proposed system came to a close on 10 July, with 7,000 responses.

Among the "pro-REACH" reactions were a petition signed by some 22,000 European citizens and a separate declaration signed by more than 60 US organizations and 10,000 US citizens urging the Commission to stick to its guns in defending the new system against critics - including the US government.

WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the European Environmental Bureau said the plan was "severely deficient", especially on a central authorization procedure for dangerous substances. This would enable industry to get permission to carry on using so-called chemicals of very high concern, even if safer alternatives are readily available, they said.

Meanwhile, CEFIC said the proposals would cause "chaos and confusion" and must be "reconsidered and fundamentally reviewed". A final proposal is due to be put forward sometime this autumn.

A report by the World Wildlife Fund for Nature has suggested that the EU's chemicals policy review could save up to €260 billion in health costs by 2020.