4. 7. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities NoC 176/1 
II 
(Preparatory Acts) 
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation on action by the Community relating 
to the environment (ACE) 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 30 of 4 February 1983, page 8. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 25 January 1983 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Econo­
mic and Social Committee in accordance with Article 235 of the Treaty establishing 
the European Economic Community. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
207th plenary session held in Brussels on 27 and 28 April 1983. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro­
pean Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 235 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council 
of the European Communities on 25 January 1983 
for an opinion on the proposal for a Council Regu­
lation on action by the Community relating to the 
environment (ACE), 
Having regard to the decision taken by the Com­
mittee Bureau on 25 January 1983, instructing the 
Section for Protection of the Environment, Public 
Health and Consumer Affairs to draw up an 
opinion on the matter, 
Having regard to the discussions of this Section at 
its 74th meeting held on 20 April 1983, 
Having regard to the discussions at its meeting on 
27 April 1983 (207th plenary session of 27 and 
28 April 1983), 
Having regard to the oral report of the rapporteur, 
Mr Kolble, HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
unanimously: . 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee upholds the Commission's 
proposal that the Community should grant financial 
support, within the meaning of the objectives of the 
European Community's Action Programme for the 
Protection of the Environment, for projects of the 
type referred to in Article 2 of the proposal. 
1.2. The Committee thinks that the Community's 
Financial instruments for the environment sector 
should be pooled together more in future and that 
the funds should be disbursed according to the 
priorities fixed on the basis of the objectives of the 
European Community's Action Programme for the 
Protection of the Environment. 
1.3. The Committee would recall, in connection 
with the 'clean' technologies referred to in Article 3, 
that the 'polluter pays' principle must also apply to 
NoC 176/2 Official Journal of the European Communities 4. 7. 83 
the use of the Community's financial instruments. 
Demonstration or pilot projects should not therefore 
qualify for any financial support unless they are 
likely to prompt a reduction in the environmental 
pollution caused by industrial activity. 
2. 'Clean' technologies (comments on Articles 3 to 7) 
2.1. Article 3 (1) of the Commission proposal 
defines 'clean' technologies as technologies which 
'cause little or no pollution and are more eco­
nomical of natural resources, in particular raw 
materials'. The Committee considers that this defini­
tion is not clear enough. 
2.2. In practical terms, as there are no technologies 
which cause 'no pollution', it can only be a question 
of developing 'cleaner' technologies; the phrase 
'which cause little or no pollution' should therefore 
be replaced by the phrase 'which cause as little pol­
lution as possible'. 
2.3. In the Committee's view it should be made 
clear in the Commission proposal that the only 
'clean' or rather 'cleaner' technologies are those 
which, true to the saying that 'prevention is better 
than a cure', help to prevent environmental pollu­
tion at source, i.e. during the production process, and 
do not clean waste gases or waste water or treat or 
recycle production waste at the end of the process. 
2.4. The Committee agrees with the Commission 
that new technologies which fulfil both of the 
requirements laid down in Article 3 (1) are particu­
larly deserving of support. It would however suggest 
that the Commission proposal be worded in such a 
way as not to exclude new technologies which fulfil 
only one of the two requirements, i.e. which are 
either cleaner or more economical, provided that 
their use is likely to lead to a reduction in environ­
mental pollution. 
2.5. The Committee would draw attention to the 
fact that the systematic development of new 
'cleaner' technologies is already being promoted 
under the EEC research programme for the environ­
ment. It therefore considers that every care should 
be taken to ensure that the ACE programme does 
not cover the same ground as the research pro­
gramme in promoting such technologies. 2.6. Vigilance is also required to prevent overlap­
ping with other Community programmes which deal 
in part with the same subject (e.g. programmes on 
energy-saving, the development of alternative 
sources of energy, raw materials and the recycling of 
urban and industrial waste products). 
2.7. In this respect, the Committee thinks it is right 
that 'projects to make rational use of energy which 
come under other Community projects' should be 
specifically excluded, as they are in Article 3 (2). It 
is not enough, however, to declare these projects 
alone ineligible. Projects relating to the saving of 
raw materials and recycling of waste products 
should also be specifically excluded. 
2.8. The only projects which should not be 
excluded are recycling projects which are an integral 
part of a production process, e.g. technologies which 
permit the more frequent recycling of an environ­
mentally harmful substance that is necessary for the 
production process and which, true to the saying 
that 'prevention is better than a cure', help to reduce 
production waste or the release of harmful products 
into the atmosphere or into water. The same applies 
to projects which use waste heat as a means of 
reducing the amount of harmful substances required 
for the production process. 
2.9. The Committee thinks that the relatively 
limited funds available should be used primarily to 
support projects in those sectors of the economy 
where there is proof of a particularly strong need to 
prompt the development of 'clean' technologies and 
which are of such a size that it would seem that pro­
jects can also be supported with relatively limited 
funds. This is particularly true in the following sec­
tors according to the Committee: 
— surface treatment in the metalworking industry, 
— tanning industry, 
— dyeing and finishing of textiles, 
— food industry, 
— agriculture (agro-industrial sector). 
2.10. Small firms have a considerable capacity for 
innovation, but are often hampered by lack of 
finance or equipment; the Commission should 
therefore endeavour with its supportive measures to 
4. 7. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities NoC 176/3 
tap this innovative and creative potential in the field 
of 'cleaner' technologies. In view of the limited 
funds available, it would be better to support small 
firms' demonstration and pilot projects rather than 
one or other full-scale project. 
2.11. The Committee considers that support 
should be given to interest groups so that the special 
knowledge and experience they have acquired in 
their own interest can be channelled into the 
development of 'cleaner' technologies which en­
hance environmental protection at a local level. 
3. Techniques for monitoring the quality of the 
environment 
3.1. The Committee thinks that the 'development 
of more effective techniques for monitoring the 
quality of the natural environment', referred to in 
the second half of Article 3(1), requires much less 
prompting than the development of 'cleaner' tech­
nologies in the production sphere. Sectors of indus­
try have a considerable interest of their own in 
developing equipment for measuring or monitoring 
the quality of the natural environment. Consider­
able progress has also been made in this field in 
recent times, as is evident from the equipment avail­
able on the market. If support for the development 
of new, more effective techniques for monitoring the 
quality of the natural environment is not dropped 
completely, then it should at least be given a much 
lower priority when it comes to the disbursement of 
funds than support for 'cleaner' technologies in the 
production sphere. 
3.2. Despite having noted that there are sufficient 
effective techniques available for monitoring the 
quality of the natural environment, it cannot be 
denied that in practice the monitoring of the quality 
of the environment in the Member States is still 
often behind the times, because of the lack of an 
adequate monitoring network using modern tech­
niques. 
3.3. Article 3 (3) states that financial support 'shall 
not exceed ... 70 % of the cost of. .. descriptive ana­
lyses'. To avoid misinterpretation, the Committee 
would recommend that it be made clear that this 
clause refers not to methods of analysis designed as 
part of monitoring techniques (Article 3 (1), last part), but to preliminary studies on the specific 
aspects of development projects. 
4. Sensitive areas of Community interest (Articles 
8 to 11) 
4.1. The reference in Article 8 of the Commission 
proposal to Directive 79/409/EEC, the Berne Con­
vention, the Bonn Convention and the Protocol to 
the Barcelona Convention insufficiently pinpoints 
the projects to benefit from Community support. 
4.2. Article 8 (2) stipulates that 'expenditure 
intended to compensate for restricting economic 
activities in areas such as those defined in para­
graph 1 in order to safeguard habitats shall also be 
eligible'. 
4.2.1. The Committee fears that the wording of this 
clause may allow misuse of Community aid, and 
would therefore request that, if it is not possible to 
do away with such compensation altogether, the 
Commission should at least re-word the text to pre­
vent, to the best of its ability, all such forms of mis­
use. At the very least, claims for compensation in 
respect of future economic activity should be 
excluded. 
4.3. The procedure laid down in Article 9 for sub­
mitting reasoned applications to the Commission 
must be expanded: 
— an opinion to the effect that the applicant's pro­
ject deserves to be given support must be 
enclosed with the application. This opinion 
should be obtained from a locally or region­
ally-based State-recognized body which is pri­
marily involved in environmental matters and 
on which local socio-economic interests are 
represented, 
— a copy of the application submitted straight to 
the Commission should be sent to the compe­
tent national body, which shall have the right to 
appeal through its representative on the advi­
sory committee. The purpose of this is to ensure 
that approval is not given to applications for 
which there is no national justification. 
4.4. For the procedure for refunding the cost of the 
descriptive analysis mentioned in Article 10, see the 
comments made under point 3.3. 
NoC 176/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 4. 7. 83 
5. General and final provisions 
5.1. It should be made clear in Article 15, which 
deals with the establishment of an advisory com­
mittee, that the members appointed to sit on this 
committee should be experts on environmental mat­
ters. Article 15 should therefore be re-worded as fol­
lows: 
'An Advisory Committee consisting of one envi­
ronment expert per Member State and represen­tatives of European organizations which are 
recognized as consultative partners at Com­
munity level and chaired by a Commission 
representative is hereby set up.' 
5.2. The Committee would request that it be sent 
a copy of the annual Commission report mentioned 
in Article 16, for the purposes of study. 
Done at Brussels, 27 April 1983. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francis CEYRAC 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the supervision and control of 
trans-frontier shipment of hazardous wastes within the European Community 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 53 of 25 February 1983, page 3. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 25 January 1983 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Econo­
mic and Social Committee in accordance with Article 100 of the Treaty establishing 
the European Economic Community. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
207th plenary session held in Brussels on 27 and 28 April 1983. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro­
pean Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 100 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council 
of the European Communities on 25 January 1983 
for an opinion on the proposal for a Council Direc­
tive on the supervision and control of trans-frontier 
shipment of hazardous wastes within the European 
Community, Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau 
on 25 January 1983, instructing the Section for Pro­
tection of the Environment, Public Health and Con­
sumer Affairs to draw up an opinion on the matter, 
Having regard to the Section's discussions at its 74th 
meeting held on 20 April 1983, 
Having regard to the oral report made by the rap­
porteur, Mr Kolble, 
Having regard to the discussions on 27 April 1983 
during the 207th plenary session held on 27 and 
28 April 1983,