News – full story

BASF CEO Kurt Bock says the EU’s REACH chemicals regulation has been burdensome and it is too early to tell whether or not it has driven competition.

Bock’s comments came as he formally took over as president of European chemicals trade group Cefic at its annual assembly of industry leaders in London on 28 September.

Cefic says that data collated from national chemicals trade groups indicates that industry has paid €2bn (US$2.5bn) in compliance costs since REACH was implemented in 2007 – compared to the €2.3bn regulators estimated it would cost across the lifespan of the scheme to 2018 – and is on course to cost industry around €11bn.

“Let’s not fool ourselves, it is a real burden,” Bock said.

Last month in an interview with EurActiv, the BASF vice president for chemicals regulation and trade control said that the German chemical giant has, to date, employed some 500 people and spent €500m to comply with the regulations.

REACH was implemented to catalogue the risks of chemicals used in the EU and substitute those deemed too risky, driving innovation and competition in the European chemicals industry.

Asked about the positive benefits to come from REACH, Bock said: “It is too early to make the big statement that REACH drives competitiveness in the chemicals industry.”

REACH will enter the second of its three phases next year, expanding to include smaller manufacturers. Hubert Mandery, director general of Cefic, said at the same meeting that the high costs of complying will be “very difficult” for SMEs.

With Cefic projecting that European chemicals output will contract by 1.5% this year, and grow just 1% in 2013, Bock said there are opportunities in biotechnology and nanotechnology for the European industry to innovate and improve its competitiveness.

He said that the “precautionary principle [enshrined in EU law] should not be used disproportionately” and the likes of shale gas should be looked at as an opportunity and developed responsibly.

The principle includes taking action such as halting an activity or the production of a product in the face of uncertainty about the risks it poses to the environment, for example. The burden of proof shifts to those who create the risks, such as nanotechnology manufacturers, or shale gas developers, who may as a result shelve commercial development.

“Everything can be treated as a threat or an opportunity,” he said, adding that if we were too risk averse in the past we wouldn’t have any cars in the streets.