Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive relating to a reduction of the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels and amending Directive 93/12/EEC` () (97/C 355/01)

On 10 June 1997 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 130s of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned 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 15 July 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Gafo-Fernandez.

At its 348th plenary session (meeting of 1 October 1997), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by a majority vote in favour, with two abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. This directive has the objective of helping to improve the environment in the Community by reducing SO2 emissions, which lead to acid rain and affect air quality in many parts of the European Union.

1.2. The legal basis finally chosen for this directive is Article 130s, although the recital also refers to Articles 130t (maintenance of more stringent protective measures in some Member States) and 129a (health protection).

1.3. Prior to the present proposal, the EU had already adopted a number of measures in this area (Directive 93/12/EEC () on the sulphur content of gasoil, Directive 88/609/EEC () on emissions from large combustion plants), and had signed the second UN-ECE protocol on long-range transboundary air pollution (CLRTAP), on further reductions in sulphur emissions. Such measures have involved long-term commitments on the part of the Member States and their industry, which this draft directive aims to draw together and amplify.

1.4. In order to meet these objectives, the draft directive proposes to substantially reduce the sulphur content of fuels and sets a transitional period for putting the directive into effect, ending on 1 January 1999 for gas oil and 1 January 2000 for fuel oil. According to studies carried out in preparation for the directive, this reduction in sulphur content will not be the same for all Member States. It may be more of a burden for some, particularly those in the southern part of the Union.

1.5. According to available statistical data, total SO2 emissions from the EU 15 were 15,35 million tonnes per year in 1993. Of these, 34,7 % were from oil, 63 % from coal, and 2,5 % from other fuel sources.

1.6. Figures included in the DOBRIS Report () show that urban SO2 levels (linked to the sulphur content in gasoil used for vehicles and heating) are highest in Spain and Portugal, while exceedances of 'critical load` levels (associated with acid rain caused mainly by emissions from industrial and electricity-generating plants using coal or heavy fuel oil) are found in Germany, Austria, Belgium and the United Kingdom.

1.7. According to the data supplied by the Commission, the cost of moving from the reference scenario to the 50 % reduction scenario - used as a basis for drawing up the proposal - is ECU 759 million for heavy fuel oil. This would enable SO2 emissions to be reduced from 2,12 million tonnes to 0,998 million tonnes (a reduction of 53,4 %). For all energy sources, including oil, the estimated cost is ECU 2 940 million, which in turn would enable SO2 emissions to be reduced from 5,6 million tonnes to 2,7 million tonnes, i.e. a reduction of 51,8 %.

1.8. Lastly, consideration is needed of the capacity of European refineries to produce the current range of fuel types, on the basis of technical specifications (covering sulphur content, viscosity, density and freezing point) which differ from country to country, assessing whether these differences have been serious obstacles to the single market in these products in the past.

1.9. Past experience suggests that European refineries have the flexibility required to adapt to varying national specifications, as shown by the high volume of intra-Community trade in these products. These specifications are therefore not a potential obstacle to the single market.

2. General comments

2.1. The Committee endorses the choice of Article 130s as the legal basis since it enables the aim of environmental protection to be squared with the air quality situation of the various EU regions and the monitoring of cross-border SO2 pollution, within the limits established in the directive. Furthermore, the Committee takes the view that the directive is a good starting point from which to move on to fixing higher levels of protection in the future, particularly given the possibilities opened up by Article 130t.

2.2. The Committee would draw attention to the directive's possible implications as regards Member States' freedom to choose their own energy source plans. If this freedom were affected, the last indent of Article 130s(2) would require the directive to be adopted unanimously. The Committee does not agree with this point of view and considers that it would be a good idea to state explicitly in the recitals that the directive does not place any significant restrictions on Member States' choice of energy plan. The directive would not therefore need to be adopted unanimously.

2.3. The Committee also specifically backs (a) the derogations allowing Austria and Finland to maintain their stricter standards for the marketing of these fuels, in accordance with Article 130t of the Treaty, and (b) the derogations granted for gas oil for marine use in both Greece and the Canary Islands. As regards the latter, the Committee would point out to the Commission the expediency of according a similar derogation to other outermost regions and overseas departments and territories, if requested.

2.4. As part of its strategy for combating acidification, the Commission envisages a range of action which includes early revision of Directive 88/609/EEC on large combustion plants. Given the inclusive nature of this strategy, the Committee does not agree with the order in which the documents are being presented by the Commission, which has put forward the present directive before revising Directive 88/609/EEC.

2.5. The basis for this assertion is that the individual emission limits decided for petroleum products will - indirectly - alter the criteria for reducing SO2 emissions from 'existing` large plants as defined in Article 2(10) of Directive 88/609/EEC (plants which came into service before 1987). The directive's reduction criteria for these 'existing` plants were based on a national percentage decrease for each Member State, rather than on individual limits for each combustion plant. It would consequently be more logical for such 'existing` plants to be explicitly excluded from the scope of the present proposal, since they are regulated by Directive 88/609/EEC which is soon to be revised, as mentioned in point 2.4.

2.6. Given the high percentage of SO2 emissions coming from solid fuels, there is also an urgent need, in environmental protection terms, to regulate their use, whether in large combustion plants or in small installations, for domestic heating or other applications. The Committee would thus call on the Commission to present a directive on this.

2.7. The Committee therefore thinks that the present proposal should be put before the Council and adopted and implemented simultaneously with the revision of Directive 88/609/EEC on large combustion plants and any directive on the use of solid fuels in plants not covered by Directive 88/609/EEC.

2.8. The use by refineries of the various intermediate sidestreams for heat generation which would otherwise have no market outlet should be made more flexible. Provided that combustion of the resulting blend produces an SO2 emission level that complies with (a) Directive 96/61/EC on integrated pollution prevention and control (), (b) Directive 88/609/EEC, above, or (c) emission limits set for them by the competent authorities, it would thus be a good idea for refineries to be able to use all by-products - without restrictions - regardless of their individual sulphur content.

2.9. The Committee supports the proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion by the European Community of the Protocol to the 1979 Convention on long-range transboundary air pollution on further reductions of sulphur emissions.

3. Specific comments

3.1. The following new recital should be added:

'Whereas this proposal will not significantly alter Member States' choice of energy source plans;`

3.2. Article 1

For the reasons set out in point 2.8, a new indent (d) should be inserted in Article 1(2):

'intended for use in the refining industry for heat generation`.

3.3. Article 3(3)

The first paragraph of Article 3(3) should be amended to read as follows:

'Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to heavy fuel oils used in combustion plants with a rated thermal input of greater than or equal to 50 MW and defined as "existing" under the terms of Article 2(10) of Directive 88/609/EEC.`

3.4. Article 7(1)

In the Spanish version, the phrase 'comercializados en su territorio` should be replaced by 'utilizados en su territorio`.

Brussels, 1 October 1997.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() OJ C 190, 21. 6. 1997, p. 9.

() OJ L 74, 27. 3. 1993 - ESC Opinion in OJ C 14, 20. 1. 1992.

() OJ L 336, 7. 12. 1988 - ESC Opinion in OJ C 25, 28. 1. 1985.

() The European Environment Agency's report on the state of the environment in Europe in 1994.

() OJ L 257, 10. 10. 1996 - ESC Opinion OJ C 195, 18. 7. 1994.