Ladies and Gentlemen,
Dear Participants!
I would like to welcome you warmly to today's and tomorrow's workshop at the Federal Press Office in Berlin. This venue is located near the political centre of Germany, close to the Reichstag building and the Federal Chancellery. This workshop is not the first EU event to be organised here under the German Presidency. Only recently, a meeting on REACH helpdesks jointly organized by the EU Commission and the German Presidency of the Council took place here. Today's workshop continues our series on specific aspects of the new chemicals policy.
Before looking at the contents of the workshop in more detail, allow me to say a few words about REACH: REACH will come into force on the 1 of June – in around 10 weeks. It took all of us – the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council – a long time to achieve this. The search for a compromise which satisfies everybody was difficult and was accompanied by several heated arguments. We were waiting impatiently for REACH to be adopted, as the failures of the old chemicals regime were all too evident.
REACH brings about a fundamental change in the system. Let me mention two elements of this change:
1. The first is a reversal of the burden of proof, so that now, in contrast to the past, manufacturers or importers of chemical substances have to demonstrate that the use of such substances is safe;
2. The second is a new situation in substance law. Up to now, substance law has benefited those companies which did not collect data on the chemicals they used. The absence of data meant that the chemicals were not considered dangerous and could be marketed without any problems. The motto was:
"No data – no worries".
REACH has changed this situation, and the new motto is:
"No data – no market".
Part of the fundamental change is that the use of substances of concern now requires an authorisation procedure. Members of my staff with a legal background describe this as a "ban failing authorisation". In addition to the authorisation procedure, we still have a proven tool at hand as well: restriction measures for the production and the use of substances of concern.
The issue of a restriction measure or the denial of an authorisation interferes seriously with the economy. This could lead to considerable consequences for the manufacturer directly concerned and the continued viability of the business, as well as for users further down the supply chain. Therefore, the issue of a restriction measure or the denial of an authorisation requires a thorough impact assessment:
Is the risk presented by the use of a substance proportionate to the economic and social consequences of a potential ban?
This question is dealt with by socio-economic analysis. Socio-economic analysis is at first a catchword – often with negative connotations in the eyes of environmental and consumer activists. Up to now, the public has not perceived socio-economic analysis as a tool for balancing environmental protection measures, but rather for preventing them in the first place. This perception is not wholly unfounded, as the example of lamp oil shows:
As early as 2004, we sent a communication to the Commission asking for a ban on colourless and fragrance-free lamp oil, which causes severe health damage if ingested even in very small amounts. In the last 5 years alone, 58 accidents involving colourless and fragrance-free lamp oil have been registered in Germany. In 27 cases the victims were taken to hospital with severe pneumonia. Two children died. By sucking on the wick of an oil lamp, they had ingested minimal amounts of lamp oil.
However, these dangerous lamp oils continue to be marketed. The producers of lamp oils intervened against a Europe-wide ban. Their primary argument was the loss of jobs that a ban on lamp oils would entail. They carried out a socio-economic analysis in such a way that the results suited their own interests.
But we have to ask ourselves three questions: Shouldn't hospital costs enter the equation with the same importance as jobs? How can the suffering of the victims be calculated in euros? How can the death of children be quantified?
As we can see, the impact assessment has been largely narrowed down to an analysis of the direct economic consequences for the industrial sector concerned. Impulses that could come from potential restriction measures and could strengthen industry's innovation capacity have been neglected. Up to now, savings for the national economy as a result of reductions in healthcare costs or the avoidance of "repair measures" in the environmental sector, have not been taken into consideration, either.
It is therefore time to establish socio-economic analysis as a tool which takes into account how society as a whole functions. It must, in a balanced way, deal with the interests of industry as well as with the environment and health which are equally important assets. This workshop on "Socio-economic analysis under REACH" is intended to contribute towards this goal.
During the workshop, we will be discussing how socio-economic analysis can be used in a reasonable way. In this context the question of the limits of the system is particularly interesting: Which elements are still to be considered in the analysis, which are not?
The speakers will also discuss the relationship between socio-economic analysis and the substitution principle: Does a socio-economic analysis hinder or favour the substitution of dangerous chemicals?
The goal is to have, at the end of the workshop, greater clarity on the conception and on the rules of the game of the socio-economic analysis and its application. Above all, it should be possible to agree on a common approach with uniform steps, uniform criteria and uniform system limits.
For certain tools, a harmonised approach is desirable. But for socio-economic analysis, a harmonised approach is absolutely necessary. Socio-economic analysis is part of the authorisation procedure which in turn is an important tool for the implementation of REACH. In the future, it will be applied to chemicals of all kinds and will be carried out by actors of all kinds. We must, therefore, make sure that the results are obtained in a comparable way using the same methods. This is important because the result of the socio-economic analysis is part of the authorisation decision. With such sensitive decisions, it is extremely important to avoid giving the impression of being arbitrary.
As with all REACH instruments, the socio-economic analysis should contribute to improving health and environmental protection, to carrying out a risk management compatible with economic requirements, to improving the chances of new environmentally friendly solutions and thus to promoting innovation.
I hope that this is the conclusion the workshop will come to. Let me, also on behalf of Federal Environment Minister SIGMAR GABRIEL, wish you all fruitful discussions and every success.
