Dr Jostmann, in your functions with Evonik, in VCI, with Cefic and in BDI you have closely followed and actively flanked developments in deliberations on a new EU chemicals policy since they started around the turn of the century. Inasmuch, you can look back on almost 13 years of hands-on experience of living with REACH. In February 2013, the European Commission has come out with its long-awaited communication on the REACH review after the regulation has been in force for more than five years. Can you endorse the Commission’s interim evaluation from the angle of industry?

Five years’ existence of the REACH regulation is certainly a good opportunity for an interim evaluation and indeed we have all worked through a tremendous programme since 2007. My feeling is that the Commission’s communication broadly hits the mark, and I am clearly particularly pleased by the high value attributed to the considerable efforts made by industry. In reality, all stakeholders can look back with pride on what has been achieved. We now have a stable system whose implementation needs to be fine-tuned here and there but that is just about all. Overall, I expressly support the conclusion that we do not need any major renovation work on the core of REACH. Our full attention can and must focus on the upcoming practical tasks, the second registration period at the end of May and also other processes which are becoming more important such as authorisation, candidate lists, restrictions as well as updating registration dossiers from the first stage and much more.

ECHA describes many registration dossiers as deficient. The Commission therefore calls on industry to improve their quality by eliminating inconsistencies and rapidly updating dossiers where necessary. Does this constitute a serious problem?

Industry has accepted the whole range of challenges under REACH and has performed a Herculean act even before the first registration stage and since to meet the requirements. Business organisations have established a large number of Internet service offers and events to provide support for companies, incidentally often in good cooperation with state bodies. Inasmuch I am pleased to underline that industry has comprehensively assumed its responsibility and has clearly done more than required by law.

Alongside registration and evaluation, the REACH instrument also comprises restrictions, the candidate list and the authorisation procedure. The legislator associated this toolbox from the outset with the expectation that substances of very high concern (SVHC) will progressively disappear completely from supply chains. How is this working in practice?

Although the panacea of substitution is strongly propounded, above all in the media, it is overburdened with unrealistic expectations. It is important to understand first of all that the periodic table is finite and that every chemical substance exhibits highly specific chemical, physical, technical and economic characteristics. The combination of these characteristics decides the suitability of a substance for each individual application. In particular, today’s high-performance products are based on an unprecedented diversity of substances used to make them. And not least, it should be remembered that we also have ambitious policy objectives which need physical support: for the energy transition we need highly efficient photovoltaic, but unfortunately we can still not achieve the necessary levels of efficiency without gallium arsenide. I could list many other examples. But I would regard it as especially tragic and even a personal disappointment if highly efficient substances securely managed in purely industrial applications are squeezed out of the market, meaning that we go back to less efficient processes and products as well as losing or even giving away past innovation achievements.

The Commission in cooperation with the Member States and ECHA will intensify its efforts to identify relevant SVHC on the basis of risk management options (RMO). Is that a sensible correction to the direction of travel?

I am very sympathetic to the current renaissance in risk management. After all, many problematic side effects of REACH are rooted in the fact that only substance properties are taken into account but not the real risks of working with a substance. This has generated an irrationality which must be corrected. The Commission’s current draft SVHC roadmap inspires confidence in this respect. To that end, I would like to see support from all Member States and an early involvement of industry in the processes.

Criticisms have recently been heard about ECHA’s coordination with industry representatives. What is behind this?

REACH is a multidimensional learning process with extreme requirements on all participants. Inasmuch, it was unquestionably a good idea and sometimes also a short-term emergency requirement for ECHA and companies to solve problems together, e.g. in the Directors Contact Group, which could otherwise have endangered central processes under REACH. This highly pragmatic approach does not seem to me to deserve criticism in any way, very much to the contrary it is extremely effective. In the end, this was the only way to get REACH moving. The European Commission has also confirmed that it had to set priorities and move practical obstacles out of the way with the main stakeholders. Indeed, it explicitly called for stronger cooperation with all stakeholders. We should therefore maintain this tried and tested instrument.

The Commission has analysed interactions between REACH and more than one hundred other EU legislative provisions in order to identify and evaluate overlaps. The Commission broadly concludes that the scope of REACH is well delineated, no major overlaps were found.

With a view to streamlined and efficient regulation of any substance-related legislative intention, I call for an examination at the planning stage as to whether separate rules are necessary or whether a reference to REACH is possible. Here, too, there are inconsistencies in the corpus of regulation. The multiple interactions between the REACH regime and legislation in the fields of environmental protection and health and safety at work on their own will require us to continue to make a considerable coordination effort in day-to-day business practice. Accordingly, I am somewhat sceptical about whether the Commission’s findings hit the mark. An encouraging sign here is that the Commission as well as ECHA have come out in favour of a separate legislative act on nano-materials and want to accommodate this consistently in the REACH regulation via a number of adjustments in the annexes.

In light of the assessment but also of the need for a stable legislative environment, Commission and ECHA come to the conclusion that no changes to the main body of the REACH regulation are needed for the time being. Does this bring the necessary calm to processes?

Absolutely, ECHA and Commission have my complete agreement with the assessment that we do not need any changes to the REACH regulation at the present time. We should first of all gather further experience with the existing regime, which continues to be a challenge for years into the future. What we must now do is pool forces for the second registration period, followed by evaluation of the dossiers and substances as well as the safety data sheets. We must also establish processes for authorisation. And that is just the start. For the foreseeable future we must not waste strength on thinking about revisions but must concentrate fully on the upcoming practical tasks.