No C 333/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 12. 86
cation of an anti-surge clause!1). At all events the
Commission should evaluate the situation and consult
the economic and social groups concerned in good time.
9. The Committee notes with keen interest that the
Commission is adjusting the preferential margins on
the basis of the most recent statistics on actual imports
of the products concerned. These adjustments mean
that the economic recovery which the industrialized
countries are currently enjoying is allowed for in the
GSP.
10. The Committee wonders why the GSP is not
mentioned in the Commission 'Programme'; this is all
the more regrettable as it is in the Community's interest
to harness its various development cooperation instru-
ments to the same ends.
(!) Anti-surge clause: possibility of taking measures where a
market is flooded with a product.
Done at Brussels, 26 November 1986.
1. Preliminary comment
1.1. The Commission proposes a Council Directive
under which the dumping of waste in the sea or its
incineration at sea would in some cases be prohibited
and in other cases be subject to authorization, and
which in the longer term would considerably reduce or
indeed put a complete end to such dumping.
(') OJ No C 245, 26. 9. 1985, p. 23.
11. The Committee is opposed to the introduction
in the GSP of a clause enabling the Commission to
assess whether a quota should be opened in the petro-
chemicals sector. The Committee has consistently
stressed that implementation of the quota system must
be transparent and automatic; to endow the Com-
mission with discretionary powers would be contrary
to this principle.
12. The Committe would once again urge that the
Community, in all its external relations, help to improve
not only the economic but also the social situation in
the world — which cannot be regarded as political
interference in the internal affairs of other countries.
In this connection the Committee would mention the
commitment which it has always expressed in its opin-
ions on international trade (e.g. on Third Lome Con-
vention) to respect for human rights and, especially,
the application of equitable working standards as laid
down by the International Labour Organization.
The Chairman
of the Economic and Social Committee
Alfons MARGOT
1.2. The Committee welcomes the proposed rules in
principle but considers that a number of amendments
to the draft are required, the details of which are
discussed in point 3.
1.3. The Draft Directive is in keeping with the three
action programmes of the European Communities on
protection of the environment which inter alia aim to
contribute to the prevention and control of marine
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the dumping of waste at sea (*)
(86/C 33.3/05)
On 27 August 1985 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee,
under Articles 100 and 235 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
on the abovementioned proposal.
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which
was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on
1 and 2 September 1986. Mr Kolble was rapporteur until the Section meeting of 6 June 1986.
For health reasons he was replaced by Mr von der Decken at this meeting.
At its 241st plenary session (meeting of 26 November 1986) the Economic and Social
Committee adopted, by 106 votes for, none against and four abstentions, the following
opinion:
29. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 333/13
pollution, and thus to the harmonious economic devel-
opment of the Community. The proposed rules are
specifically in keeping with the following Council Direc-
tives: 75/437/EEC, 75/438/EEC, 78/176/EEC, 82/883/
EEC, 76/51/EEC, 76/464/EEC, 77/585/EEC, 80/686/
EEC, 81/420/EEC, 81/971/EEC, 83/101/EEC and 83/
513/EEC.
2. General comments
2.1. International agreements on the prevention of
marine pollution
2.1.1. The protection of the marine environment
against pollution is the subject of a number of inter-
national agreements, some worldwide and some
regional in scope. These agreements differ considerably
in detail as regards their geographical scope, their con-
tent and legal status and the number of contracting
parties.
2.1.2. The London Convention of 1972, to which
several additions have since been made, and the Marpol
Convention of 1973, which was also signed in London
and which, equally, has since been expanded, apply
worldwide. The Oslo Convention of 1972, the Barce-
lona Convention of 1976, the Helsinki Convention of
1974 and the Caribbean Convention of 1983 are
regional agreements.
2.1.3. The London Convention, the Oslo Conven-
tion and the Barcelona Convention each have 'black'
and 'grey' lists of substances, the dumping of which
at sea is respectively prohibited or subject to special
controls. The Marpol Convention, the main function
of which is to prevent marine pollution by ships, is not
concerned with dumping but nevertheless imposes the
obligation to create reception facilities for oily liquid
wastes. The Helsinki Convention prohibits all dumping
with the exception of dredgings, and the Caribbean
Convention has no specific dumping protocols as yet.
2.1.4. All the abovementioned agreements have been
signed and/or ratified by the EEC countries concerned.
The Community as such is a contracting party only to
the Barcelona and Caribbean Conventions. The Com-
mission participates in the work of the London and
Oslo Conventions as an observer.
2.2. Harmonization of the law through the draft Direc-
tive
The draft Directive proposes replacing the hotchpotch
of laws currently in force in the Community by a single
set of uniform rules. The Committee considers that
such harmonization would in general be conducive to
improved protection of the marine environment against
pollution and more efficient operation of the common
market.
2.3. Equal treatment of different sea areas
2.3.1. The Commission's objective of securing the
principle of equal treatment for different sea areas as
regards protection against pollution is ecologically and
economically justified. The individual sea areas differ
considerably from a geographical point of view. The
Mediterranean, for example, is an inland sea. The
North Sea and the Atlantic, on the other hand, are open,
strongly tidal seas. These differences are, however, no
justification for allowing more pollution in the North
Sea or the Atlantic than in the Mediterranean. The
introduction of toxic substances can after all often
cause ecologically unacceptable damage to the marine
environment as a whole, even when the damage does
not occur directly after or in the immediate vicinity of
the act of pollution, as may happen in the case of
persistent substances, as a result of accumulation, or
where particularly sensitive marine organisms or
biotopes are concerned.
2.3.2. It is conceivable that there might, exception-
ally, be specific circumstances in which the dumping of
certain toxic substances in the sea would cause no
lasting environmental damage. The Committee con-
siders, however, that in each individual case the burden
of proof should rest with those persons claiming the
existence of such circumstances and maintaining that
no damage to the marine environment would result
from the dumping of the toxic substance in question.
2.4. Dumping of waste at sea
The Committee welcomes the provision contained in
Article 4 of the draft Directive under which the 'black'
and 'grey' lists — i.e. the lists of wastes the dumping
of which at sea is respectively prohibited or subject to
authorization (see also 2.1. above) — will be sup-
plemented and brought up to date in the light of the
most recent knowledge of the damaging environmental
effects of the absorption of certain substances and their
compounds.
2.5. Incineration of waste at sea
The Committee notes that the restriction of the inciner-
ation of waste at sea, provided for in Article 5 of the
draft Directive, is in keeping with the London and Oslo
Conventions which have now been ratified by most of
the Member States, and the findings of the International
Conference on the Protection of the North Sea held in
Bremen in 1984.
No C 333/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 12. 86
2.6. Reduction of waste disposal at sea
2.6.1. The Committee welcomes the objectives pur-
sued by the draft Directive, namely progressively to cut
back marine pollution by reducing waste disposal at
sea. The Committee thus also endorses the programme
for cleaning up the sea, provided for in Article 10 of
the draft Directive, under which no new permits for
dumping or incineration may be granted as from 1988
and Member States are to reduce authorized dumping
progressively over the period 1990 to 1995 to half the
1989 level.
2.6.2. The Committee is aware of the possibility of
problems arising over the next few years in a given
Member State because of the inadequacy, or indeed
complete lack, of the necessary infrastructure for the
environmentally acceptable disposal of waste on land.
2.6.3. In particular the Committee draws attention
to the problem of the disposal of sewage sludge (see
AnnexIB(i)) .
It appears from an examination of the Commission's
proposal that each Member State has discretionary
powers regarding the authorization of the discharge of
non-toxic sewage sludge at sea, a point not clearly
brought out in the proposal, but that such authorization
is subject to an overall requirement to reduce waste
disposal at sea by 10% each year over the five-year
period 1990 to 95.
The Committee points out that such reduction may
only be practical if corresponding specific measures are
undertaken step by step to provide for adequate dis-
posal arrangements for sewage sludge on land.
Moreover, major remedial schemes cannot normally be
phased into use. It would be more practical to aim at
reducing waste.disposal at sea by an 'average' rate per
year or by a target amount at the end of a specific
period than to reduce it by '10% each year'.
2.6.4. In accordance with the programme of action of
the European Communities, the Committee nonetheless
agrees with the Commission that, in keeping with the
polluter pays principle, waste ought in general to be
disposed of where it is generated — i.e. on land,
especially where disposal on land is possible without
harmful consequences for the environment, and in par-
ticular the soil and ground water.
2.6.5. Measures should be taken to promote the
setting-up of infrastructure for the environmentally
benign disposal of waste on land. The Committee con-
siders the programme for the gradual reduction of waste
disposal at sea, provided for in the draft Directive, to
be a suitable measure for achieving this objective.
Should any individual Member State experience diffi-
culties with the proper disposal of waste on land, the
Committee feels that steps should be taken to alleviate
the problem by means of transitional arrangements and,
if need be, by waiving the new rules for a prolonged
period.
2.6.6. In view of the urgent need to provide reception
facilities, a temporary measure for consideration could
be to station oil tankers strategically located in ports or
offshore to receive oily liquid wastes. The Committee,
therefore, urges the Commission to investigate the feasi-
bility of using laid up tankers for the reception of oily
liquid wastes.
2.6.7. The Committee cannot at present assess the
extent to which technological progress may in the fore-
seeable future make possible the dumping of waste at
sea without damage to the marine environment. If this
should indeed become possible, the draft Directive may
need to be amended.
2.6.8. At this juncture the Committee would like to
point out that the objective of the draft Directive,
namely less marine pollution through reduced dumping
of waste at sea, will be achieved only if concerted and
systematic action is simultaneously taken against the
other causes of marine pollution—in particular the
discharge of inadequately treated domestic and indus-
trial waste into rivers and coastal waters—and if proper
attention is paid to marine pollution from ships, off-
shore activities and the atmosphere. The Committee
calls on the Commission to play an active role in
speeding up plans for reducing marine pollution by
submitting appropriate Directives.
2.7. Transfrontier transport
The draft Directive ought to make reference to Council
Directive 84/631/EEC of 6 December 1984 on the super-
vision and control within the European Community of
the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste. The
draft ought, in particular, to stress the responsiblities
of countries importing and exporting hazardous waste,
e.g. as regards satisfactory disposal.
3. Specific comments
3.1 Article 3
The Committee doubts whether the substance and geo-
graphical extent of the Directive's scope are adequately
29. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 333/15
defined in Article 3. The Committee would draw atten-
tion to the special case of the Channel Islands and the
Isle of Man. Although the Directive is not applicable
to them as Community Law stands at present, the
Committee feels that this is an anomaly.
3.2. Article 4 (1) in conjunction with Annex 1 A
3.2.1. Article 4 states that waste and other materials
listed in Annex I are not to be dumped at sea. One of
these (Annex I (10)) is: 'oil-based drilling muds and oil
from drill cuttings'.
3.2.2. A ban on the dumping at sea of 'oil-based
drilling muds and oil from drill cuttings' might
adversely affect oil prospecting in the North Sea, and
offshore in the Community in general and hence the
balance of payments of one or other of the Member
States and the energy supplies of the Community. The
Committee, therefore, proposes that at an appropriate
point in the Directive a waiver clause be inserted.
3.3. Annex I B, second paragraph
The German and English translations of the draft Direc-
tive at least differ from the French original in such a
way as to distort the sense. The Committee give its
approval to the French version.
3.4. The Article 4 (2) in conjunction with Annex H
3.4.1. Article 4 (2) of the draft Directive merely
states that the dumping at sea of wastes and other
materials listed in Annex II shall be permitted only with
specific prior authorization by the competent authority,
without defining in detail the criteria to be used in
deciding whether or not a permit shall be issued. The
Committee urges that a clause be added to Article 4 (2)
of the draft—similar to the existing provision in Article
5 (4) concerning the authorization of waste incineration
at sea—stating that a permit shall be granted only if
the waste in question cannot be disposed of on land
without damage to the environment.
3.4.2. In this connection the Committee suggests that
it would be worthwhile investigating whether waste
arising from the normal operation of ships, aircraft,
platforms and other structures erected at sea might not
be excluded from Annex II.
3.5. Article 9(1)
The Committee welcomes the Commission's statement
in Article 9 of its draft Directive that Member States
are to promote development of alternative land-based
methods for the disposal and the recycling of waste, to
endeavour to reduce the quantity of waste, and to
encourage the recycling of waste through the use of
appropriate techniques before its dumping or inciner-
ation at sea is considered. '
3.6. Article 9 (2)
3.6.1. The Committee also welcomes the fact that in
Article 9(2) the Member States are required to provide
the Commission by 1 January 1990 with the infor-
mation needed to fix a date for the prohibition of waste
incineration at sea and that the Council is required to
'act by 1 July 1991 on proposal from the Commission'.
The Committee would, however, prefer to see the draft
Directive lay down a date for termination of waste
incineration at sea.
3.6.2. The Committee is, however, at the present
time not in a position to assess the extent to which
technological progress might in the foreseeable future
make it possible to incinerate waste at sea without any
tangible effect on the marine environment. If this should
prove possible, appropriate amendment of the draft
Directive would need to be considered.
3.7. Article 10 (3)
3.7.1. The Committee approves in principle (see 2.6
above) the concept of progressive reduction of waste
dumping/incineration at sea which underlies Article 10
of the draft Directive. The Committee nevertheless urg-
es that consideration be given to a further reduction in
the medium term in approved waste disposal oper-
ations, over and above the 50% reduction already speci-
fied for the period up to 1995.
3.7.2. In this connection the Committee points out
that, whilst Annex I B(l) waives the general ban for
waste and other substances—such as sewage sludge,
dredging spoil and drill cuttings—which contain the
substances defined in points 1 to 7 only as trace con-
taminants, they fall within Annexes II and III. They are
thus subject to the 50% reduction required under Article
10(3) in conjunction with Annex II. Implementation of
this requirement might present problems for certain
Member States. The Committee draws attention to its
general comments in point 2.6., third paragraph.
Given that the dumping of some of the substances
listed in the appendices is subject to general or specific
No C 333/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 12. 86
authorization, the problem of proving the environmen-
tal harmlessness of dumping needs to be considered.
able to define more closely the term.force majeure used
in Article 13 of the draft Directive.
3.8 Article 11
The Committee considers the procedural rules of Article
11 to be of great practical importance, as they appear
conducive to proper implementation of the Directive.
3.9. Article 13
The Committee wonders whether it might not be advis-
3.10. Article 19
The Committee agrees with the Commission that as
regards the Member States' option (Article 19) to take
more stringent measures on the dumping or incineration
of waste at sea, the individual governments should take
into account not only domestic considerations but also
the need to preserve the efficient operation of the com-
mon market.
Done at Brussels, 26 November 1986.
The Chairman
of the Economic and Social Committee
Alfons MARGOT
Appendix
The following amendment was rejected by the Committee in the course of the discussions:
Point 3.2.2
Add the following new paragraphs:
'The Committee also points out that the inclusion in Annex I of oil from drill cuttings alongside such highly
toxic substances as mercury and cadium has very little scientific justification.
These materials undergo special washing processes which reduce their oil concentration to a point which is
environmentally acceptable.
The Committee therefore considers that these materials should be inserted in Annex II.
If it is felt that they should remain in Annex I, the Committee suggests that point B 2 of Annex I be amended
to indicate an oil concentration level which is compatible with the marine ecosystem; below this level, the
ban on the dumping of such waste materials at sea would not apply. This would ensure greater legal certainty
in the implementation of point B 2 of Annex I, and avoid unjustified burdens on the oil industry.'
Reasons
The oil industry is committed to research at a time when price trends in crude oil are causing it special
problems, and the Community is likely to remain largely dependent on oil for its energy supplies. To avoid
discouraging the investment which is needed here, Community provisions should not impose unjustified
additional burdens.
Result of the vote
For: 6. Against: majority. Abstentions: 0.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy