No C 112/28 Official Journal of the European Communities 7. 5. 90 
Opinion on the draft Commission Decision on a programme of regional actions designed to 
contribute to the protection of the environment and to promote socio-economic development 
(90/C 112/10) 
On 8 December 1988 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
Commission programme of regional actions designed to contribute to the protection of the 
environment and to promote socio-economic development (ENVIREG). 
The Section for Regional Development and Town and Country Planning, which was respon­
sible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, drew up its Opinion on 20 February 
1990 on the basis of the introductory report by the rapporteur Mr Delia Croce. 
At its 274th plenary session of 28 February and 1 March 1990 (meeting of 1 March) the 
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion nem. con. with 1 abstention. 
1. The Commission proposal 
1.1. The Commission takes as its starting-point the 
need to achieve economic and social cohesion within 
the Community, for which a reduction in the disparities 
between the various regions and in the development lag 
of the least-favoured regions is seen as a sine qua non. 
1.2. However, this is matched by the need to protect 
the environment, which means that there must not, and 
cannot, be any conflict between the two objectives. 
1.3. The Commission is proposing an investment 
programme to be part-financed by the Community in 
line with the concept of subsidiarity, whereby action 
taken by the Member States is to be supplemented by 
the Structual Funds. The investment programme covers: 
a) drainage and treatment of urban sewage; 
b) solid waste management; 
c) management of bilge water connected with mari­
time transport; 
d) coastal area planning and protection of coastal 
biotqpes; 
e) management of toxic and hazardous industrial 
waste. 
1.4. The three Structural Funds are to contribute a 
total of 500 million ECU to the proposed ENVIREG 
initiatives over the period 1990-1993. The programme 
may subsequently be extended, depending on the first 
few years' experience. 
1.5. The European Regional Development Fund 
(ERDF) will part-finance projects in coastal areas 
covered by objective 1 regions whose development is 
lagging behind and in Mediterranean coastal areas 
covered by objective 2 and objective 5(b) (regions 
seriously affected by industrial decline and rural areas). The ERDF may also part-finance investments relating 
to the collection and treatment of hazardous or toxic 
industrial wastes and sewage sludge in all objective 1 
regions. 
The European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee 
Fund (EAGGF) (Guidance Section) will intervene in 
other coastal areas. 
European Social Fund (ESF) resources will be used for 
all remaining areas covered by the programme. 
The three Funds will part-finance only certain types of 
schemes, as specified in Article 3 of the draft Decision. 
1.6. According to the Commission, the ENVIREG 
programme should operate in conjunction with the 
Community-based actions of MEDSPA programme, 
which operates in non-EC Mediterranean countries and 
in areas of the Community which are not eligible for 
support from the Structural Funds. 
1.7. In addition to reinforcing action at Member 
State level, the ENVIREG programme is to complement 
present and future ERDF activities in this area under 
the Community support frameworks, which are to con­
tribute 1200 million ECU to expenditure on the 
environment. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Committee feels that the Commission pro­
posal should basically be approved, subject to the fol­
lowing comments, as it aims to promote economic and 
social development in the least-favoured regions in a 
way which combines growth with respect for the 
environment. It should be pointed out here that environ­
mental protection in no way conflicts with the require­
ments of economic development—in fact it is a vital 
component of this development. 
2.2. Consideration must also be given to the fact that 
environmental degradation is a serious problem in a 
great many underdeveloped regions, particularly in 
7. 5. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 112/29 
coastal areas. Environmental degradation is the result, 
inter alia, of poor urban planning in both residential 
and tourist centres, and a solution must be found. 
2.3. In many cases building infrastructure policy is 
inadequate, housing does not comply with building 
and health regulations, urban planning regulations are 
either weak or non-existent, the sewage system is inad­
equate and liquid and solid wastes are not properly 
treated. This has caused serious maritime pollution, 
with fishstocks becoming smaller and smaller while 
seaweed, and algae are proliferating abnormally. It 
should not be forgotten that equipment and ports used 
mainly for the purposes of tourism are also a source of 
pollution. 
2.4. Another cause for concern is the lack of environ­
mental education in less-developed areas as a result 
of backward economic conditions and changes in the 
traditional pattern of life. Prompt action is needed to 
resolve the problem of this cultural lag. 
2.5. In future, tourism should be developed in a 
way that will not undermine efforts to protect the 
environment in these areas, and a sense of collective 
responsibility should be inculcated in tourists. The cost 
of environmental protection cannot always be borne by 
the local community alone: visitors to the area should 
therefore be expected to meet some of the cost. 
2.6. The above remarks point to a need for appropri­
ately targeted measures within a general framework of 
integrated actions. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. The ENVIREG actions must be an integral part 
of a comprehensive policy, so that the Commission's 
programme is carried out in the context of a general 
policy on environment and on the regions. 
3.2. Initially, priority should be given to treating 
and cleaning up the aquatic environment and funding 
should be concentrated on schemes capable of serving 
as models, to prevent financial resources from being 
spread too thinly. 
3.3. Total compliance with the Community's 
environment directives should be a pre-condition for 
eligibility for assistance under the ENVIREG pro­
gramme. An absolute prerequisite is coordination with 
the actions carried out under the other programmes, particularly the MEDSPA programme which we hope 
will be swiftly approved. 
3.4. In the working document accompanying its pro­
posal, the Commission emphasizes that many sewage 
works no longer function, or function badly. The recon­
struction of disused works should also be part-financed. 
Community assistance must also be subject to strict 
monitoring procedures, and an undertaking from the 
competent local authorities to provide the resources 
and skilled staff needed to run plants properly. 
3.5. Thus, besides meeting the requirements set by 
Community directives, infrastructure, equipment and 
plant must use appropriate technologies and have been 
satisfactorily tested in order to qualify for Community 
support. Special attention should be paid to construc­
tion specifications, to the awarding of contracts and to 
testing methods. The tasks and responsibilities of the 
urban planning authorities should also be clearly laid 
down. 
3.6. Prominence should be given to training staff 
responsible for operating and maintaining treatment 
works. In addition to courses, practical training should 
be organized in works which are operating smoothly. 
3.7. Under Article 3(1)(a) of the proposal, financial 
support may be provided for land-use plans and 
schemes to protect coastal biotopes in the interests of 
tourism. 
Not enough details are given on these actions and plans. 
Extreme clarity is needed here, including where tourism 
programmes and initiatives are concerned. 
3.8. Every possible precaution should be taken, with 
respect to Community-financed plants for treating haz­
ardous and toxic industrial wastes; in any event, plants 
must be constructed and operated with all due care and 
attention, in strict compliance with Community norms 
for installations of this kind. 
It is also necessary to consider the needs of the local 
population and to prevent some areas from becoming 
'specialized' in these activities. 
3.9. A substantial, if not outstanding, amount, total­
ling 500 million ECU, has been set aside for the 
ENVIREG programme. However, the fact that the 
exact amount to be allocated to each of the three Funds 
has not been specified could give rise to uncertainty 
and complications. 
Whether the sum allocated proves to be enough or not 
will depend on the programme's capacity to comp-
No C 112/30 Official Journal of the European Communities 7. 5. 90 
lement other interventions in a comprehensive general 
framework, on the concentration of schemes and on 
the choice of areas. 
3.10. The procedure for submitting operational pro­grammes, as laid down in Article 5, is too vague. 
3.11. Member States are to be responsible for draw­
ing up operational programmes. Provision should also 
be made for broad participation by regional and local 
authorities and by economic and social interest groups. 
Done at Brussels, 1 March 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning safeguard measures in the 
veterinary field in the framework of the Internal Market (l) 
(90/C 112/11) 
On 14 November 1989, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Commit­
tee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 21 February 1990. The rapporteur was 
Mr Storie-Pugh. 
At its 274th plenary session on 28 February and 1 March 1990 (meeting of 28 February) the 
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee welcomes the measures outlined 
in the proposal and in particular supports the view: 
1.1.1. That restrictions must be imposed by Member 
States in which an outbreak or suspected outbreak of 
serious disease occurs; 
1.1.2. That in order to give Member States the 
appropriate guarantees it is necessary to provide for 
stricter control by the Commission. 
1.2. The Committee is pleased to note that some of 
the reservations it expressed in an earlier Opinion dated 
14 December 1988 (2) are now met. 
1.3. Nevertheless the Committee is of the view that 
a more constructive and meaningful opinion could have 
(J) OJ No C 327, 30. 12. 1989, p. 37. 
(2) OJ No C 56, 6. 3. 1989, p. 20. been given if the overall strategy of animal health 
control, as opposed to compliance with the aim of 
liberalizing the free movement of animals, were more 
widdely known and understood; and thus all legislation 
could be interpreted and viewed in the context of such 
a strategy. 
1.4. Two rather self-evident points arise: 
— First, it is a truism that these measures will only 
work in practise if the general level of the efficiency 
of animal health control measures is increased 
throughout the Community, demanding an 
informed, dedicated and honest approach through 
all levels including members of the veterinary pro­
fession, producers, transporters; and that appropri­
ate penal measures are invoked for non-compliance. 
— Secondly, an overall and real 'sense of urgency' 
must be induced in the reaction of both the Com­
mission and the veterinary services of the Member