No C 332/116 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on action by the Community for 
the protection of the environment in the Mediterranean region (MEDSPA) (1) 
(90/C 332/32) 
On 2 April 1990 the Council decided, in accordance with Article 130S of the Treaty 
establishing the European Economic Community, to ask the Economic and Social Committee 
for an Opinion on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which 
was responsible for the Committee's preparatory work, adopted its Opinion on 10 July 1990. 
The Rapporteur was Mr Gomez Martinez. 
At its 279th plenary session (meeting of 19 September 1990) the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion with no votes against and one abstention. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The Mediterranean region is faced with very 
serious ecological problems: 
— population densities are high and are growing very 
rapidly. The present population of the countries 
bordering the Mediterranean is 133 million and will 
reach 230 million by the year 2025, 
— there is an enormous seasonal increase in the popu­
lation because of tourism. The region receives some 
100 million visitors each year, 
— ecosystems are very vulnerable, 
— agriculture is being rapidly switched to intensive 
methods through the use of machinery, fertilizers, 
pesticides, etc., 
— industrialization and economic growth are acceler­
ating, 
— waste waters are untreated, 
— water resources are limited in quantity and declining 
in quality and fresh water reserves are being 
exhausted, 
— local species are threatened with extinction, 
— the sea is being more and more polluted by indis­
criminate discharges of pollutants. As well as vari­
ous other dangerous substances, some 650 000 met­
ric tons of oil are discharged each year, of which 
350 000 come from unauthorized dumping from 
ships. 
As a result the Mediterranean region is faced with 
serious deterioration, of which there are alarming 
examples in cases such as the Adriatic. 
1.2. The Commission's proposal follows on from its 
previous reflections as presented in: 
a) action programmes of the European Communities 
on the environment (1982-1986 and 1987-1992); 
(J) OJ No C 80, 30. 3. 1990, p. 9. b) the communication on the protection of the environ­
ment in the Mediterranean basin (April 1984); and 
c) the communication on protection of the environ­
ment in the Mediterranean region (November 1988), 
and provides funds for carrying out the actions 
proposed. 
1.3. The priority actions proposed for preserving 
the Mediterranean environment form a system which 
complements other existing Community financial 
instruments, especially the regional environmental pro­
grammes (ENVIREG). 
1.4. The proposal envisages a ten-year programme 
divided into two phases of five years. The proposal lays 
down that during the first five-year phase the priority 
measures will be: 
a) in Community countries: 
— purification and treatment of urban sewage and 
management of solid waste in coastal towns 
with less than 100 000 inhabitants, 
— management of toxic and hazardous waste and 
of waste connected with transport and other 
maritime activities, 
— integrated management of biotopes of Com­
munity interest in coastal areas; 
b) in non-EEC Mediterranean countries: 
— establishment of environmental administrative 
structures, 
— technical assistance with environmental policies 
and programmes. 
1.5. For the first three years of the first phase the 
proposal earmarks 37 million ECU of credits. 
31.12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/117 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Economic and Social Committee welcomes 
the Commission's proposal and agrees with its aims. 
However, it would like to see the following comments 
reflected in the final texts. 
2.2. As early as 1985 (*) the Economic and Social 
Committee proposed the following criteria concerning 
the protection of the environment in the Mediterranean 
basin: 
a) need for a strategy and an overall plan of action 
that is more than merely a juxtaposition of projects; 
b) the specific problems of each region could not be 
resolved solely at national or Community level; on 
the contrary, action had to be coordinated at the 
level of the whole Mediterranean region, 
c) there should be cooperation with international 
organizations grouping together states on both shor­
es of the Mediterranean; 
d) agreements between the Community and non-EEC 
Mediterranean countries should contain a chapter 
on cooperation and the environment; 
e) need for measures not only to protect but also to 
improve the environment. 
2.3. The role of MEDSPA is to coordinate and chan­
nel all environmental measures towards the Mediter­
ranean region. 
The measures contemplated in the MEDSPA pro­
gramme must therefore be a fully integrated part of an 
overall policy for the Community environment. In this 
way intervention under the Mediterranean environmen­
tal policy will be consistent and not contradictory, and 
be based on an up-to-date knowledge of the environ­
ment in the different areas of the region. 
2.4. It should be emphasized that the problem of 
the Mediterranean directly affects citizens of all the 
Member States, as many millions of them go there as 
tourists. So, it is logical that environmental protection 
measures should involve a financing effort by the twelve 
Member States, and without, of course, abandoning a 
strict application of the 'polluter pays' principle. 
2.5. We do not think that Community action under 
MEDSPA should be basically curative; the accent 
should instead be put on preventive programmes which, 
should be the guiding thread for Community environ­
mental policy. 2.6. The Commission's idea to divide action on the 
environment of the Mediterranean region into two 
groups of measures, covered by the structural funds 
(ENVIREG) and the MEDSPA initiative, with similar 
instruments and fields for priority action, makes one 
think there should be some internal consultation, with 
constant attention being paid to see that there is no 
overlapping of efforts. 
2.7. It would have been a good thing if the proposal 
had been accompanied by some sort of breakdown of 
the financial requirements of the MEDSPA measures in 
relation to the request by the same areas for ENVIREG 
measures, as MEDSPA can carry out the aforemen­
tioned coordination and channelling role. 
2.8. The main difference between the two pro­
grammes is that MEDSPA is designed to provide 
encouragement and minimize risks in order to channel 
the future environmental investment of ENVIREG. 
This difference should be clearly set out in the text of 
the proposed regulation. 
2.9. As the Commission itself says: 'resources 
earmarked for environmental projects under the Com­
munity support programmes (CSP) are mainly intended 
to meet regional or national priorities ... they are not 
enough to make any significant impact on the problems 
of coastal pollution and hazardous waste'. 
2.10. The budget allocation of 500 million ECU to 
the ENVIREG programme for the period 1990-1993 
will receive only an extra 37 million ECU for MEDSPA, 
with similar priorities for all the regions in the Com­
munity and in non-EEC countries in the Mediterranean 
basin. 
Obviously, this imbalance in resource distribution will 
make cooperation with these non-EEC countries enor­
mously difficult and endanger the treatment of the 
problem as a whole. 
It may also hamper the carrying-out of MEDSPA's role 
as a means of coordinating, channelling, assuming risks 
in the initial stages and nurturing ideas. 
For these reasons we cannot agree with this completely 
niggardly assignment of resources to MEDSPA; these 
resources should be increased substantially along with 
the money for the structural funds. 
One should remember the ESC's earlier Opinion on 
environmental policy, a fundamental aspect of econ­
omic and social development (2) where it was pointed 
(!) OJ No C 160,1. 7. 1985. (2) OJ No C 56, 7. 3.1990. 
No C 332/118 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
out that the regulations on Structural Funds allow the 
financing of measures to help the environment if they 
are linked to structural-policy aims. 
2.11. One positive aspect which is obvious is that 
MEDSPA contemplates cooperation with non-EEC 
Mediterranean countries, given that the Mediterranean 
is an enclosed sea and environmental problems which 
originate in some of its areas end up affecting the whole 
of the adjacent region. 
This focus is also important from the point of view 
of showing solidarity with less developed non-EEC 
countries, and thus embarking upon an essential and 
highly promising area of cooperation. 
We cannot but welcome the stepping-up of inter­
national cooperation, the next manifestation of which 
will be the conference in Palma, Majorca, in the 
autumn. 
We also support the aims set out at the ministerial 
conference in Nicosia of 26-28 April 1990, whereby the 
Mediterranean is to be cleaned up by the year 2025. 
Such declarations as 'no development can be imagined 
unless the environment is respected, especially in tourist 
and fishing areas' or '20 years ago it seemed a fringe 
issue, but today it has become a priority' can only fill 
us with hope and make us more demanding in our 
views. 
2.12. We regret that the criteria of environmental 
protection, which were defended by the Economic and 
Social Committee at the time, will not be incorporated 
into the financial protocols of the bilateral agreements 
between the EEC and non-EEC Mediterranean 
countries which were renewed recently. We insist on 
their incorporation into the new programmes currently 
being negotiated by the Commission, and note with 
interest the moves in this direction set out by the 
Commission in its communication on Mediterranean 
policy proposals for the period 1992-96 (*), where the 
environmental question is the subject of a specific point. 
(*) SEQ90) 812 final. 
Done at Brussels, 19 September 1990. 3. Specific comments 
3.1. More details should be given as to which areas 
are covered by the expression 'the whole of the Com­
munity and non-Community Mediterranean region'. 
3.2. Although MEDSPA is planned primarily as a 
programme of stimulation in areas concerning water 
pollution, waste and biotopes, it must be made clear 
that this does not rule out the possibility of support 
being provided for other environmental aspects. 
3.3. It would be better to merge the Annex for pri­
ority measures with Article 5, which allows the same 
support to be granted for other environmental meas­
ures. 
Among these measures should be included those which 
help to improve the programme of overall and specific 
needs, provide the national management of appeals, 
land-use planning, reduce the level of pollution of the 
Mediterranean region, soil conservation, etc. 
3.4. To provide effective protection for the Mediter­
ranean basin, the measures for intervention in the non-
EEC Mediterranean countries should be expansed so 
that they are the same as those available for EEC 
countries. It is essential that more funds should be 
provided for this purpose. 
3.5. In line with the ENVIREG Opinion, we repeat 
that the support granted for the collection, treatment, 
storage, recycling and elimination of toxic and hazard­
ous waste should be carried out 'paying due attention 
to the demands of the local inhabitants and taking 
care that certain geographical areas do not become 
specialists in this activity'(2). 
3.6. The approval of projects should be linked to the 
recipient country's undertaking to respect the relevant 
environmental legislation. 
3.7. In order to guarantee maximum effectiveness 
for this programme it is essential that it be published 
and that the results be checked periodically. The Euro­
pean Environmental Agency should play a key role 
here. In addition, the advisory committee provided for 
in the proposed regulation is inadequate; local authori­
ties and the relevant economic and social organizations 
and bodies should be actively involved to ensure the 
success of the measures planned. 
(2) OJ No C 112, 7. 5. 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE