No C 90/2 Official Journal of the European Communities 5.4.83 
Having regard to the oral report made by the 
rapporteur, Mr Binnenbruck (Article 29 of the Rules of 
Procedure), 
Having regard to the discussions at its 205th plenary 
session held on 23 and 24 February 1983 (meeting on 
23 February), 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by a unanimous vote: 
1. The draft Directive is designed to introduce a 
standard Community authorization for removals 
between Member States. The new authorization is to 
take the place of the existing bilateral authorizations, 
thereby reducing administrative formalities, since in 
some cases, depending on the nature of the removal, 
several authorizations have to be issued by national 
authorities. 
Furthermore, it may be assumed that a multilateral 
authorization will in the long term enable removals to 
be carried out more cheaply and will increase the 
productivity of carriers. 2. The Committee therefore basically approves the 
proposal. It does, however, have certain reservations as 
to whether the Commission objective, which it 
supports, should be attained by amending Directive 
65/26 9/EEC. This Directive, as is well known, covers a 
series of other transport operations which, taken 
together, play a considerable role in competition 
between carriers. Amending this Directive for the 
purpose of introducing multilateral provisions initially 
covering only removals is bound to have an adverse 
effect on the introduction of multilateral provisions for 
other transport operations covered by the Directive. The 
possible effects on the common transport policy have 
not yet been identified and are unforeseeable. It is thus 
impossible to make allowances for any detrimental 
consequences on the further development of goods 
transport in the Community. 
3. The Committee therefore considers that multilateral 
authorization for removals should be introduced under 
a separate Directive rather than by amending Directive 
65/269/EEC. Removals would then have to be deleted 
from the list in Annex II to Directive 65/269/EEC. 
Done at Brussels, 23 February 1983. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation on loans for projects covered by 
exploration programmes for non-energy mineral raw materials within the territories of the 
Member States 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the European 
Communities No C 203 of 6 August 1982, page 2. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 30 July 1982 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic and 
Social Committee in accordance with Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community. 
5.4.83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 90/3 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
205th plenary session held in Brussels on 23 and 24 February 1983. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community, and in particular Article 198 
thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council of 
the European Communities on 30 July for an opinion 
on the proposal for a Council Regulation on loans for 
projects covered by exploration programmes for non-
energy mineral raw materials within the territories of 
the Member States, 
Having regard to the decision adopted by its chairman 
on 10 September 1982 instructing the Section for 
Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services to draw up an 
opinion and a report on the subject, 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the Section for 
Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services at its meeting 
on 2 February 1983, 
Having regard to the report submitted by the 
rapporteur, Mr Arena, 
Having regard to the discussions on 23 February 1983 
during the 205th plenary session held on 23 and 
24 February 1983, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
with one vote against and two abstentions: 
The Committee endorses the Commission proposal, 
subject to the following comments: 
1. General remarks 
1.1. The EEC is the world's largest economic unit. It 
imports 75 % of its raw materials (excluding Greece) — 
in contrast to the United States, for instance, which only 
imports 15 %. This inevitably increases the costs of the 
Community's processing industry and puts it at a 
disadvantage in relation to its competitors. 
1.2. Quite apart from the risks inherent in obtaining 
supplies from third countries, the EEC's dependence upon imports poses a threat to the independence of its 
industries and to job security, with economic 
repercussions at national and Community levels. 
1.3. The Committee accordingly welcomes the 
Commission proposal which is designed to reduce the 
European Community's dependence upon third 
countries. This is quite distinct from the aim of 
promoting 'research and development', which had 
hitherto been the sole objective pursued by the EEC. 
The Committee views this as a useful first step and 
urges the Commission to submit proposals for a 
comprehensive supplies policy which would serve as a 
framework for both the internal strategy and external 
relations of the Community. 
1.4. The Committee appreciates the considerations 
which have prompted the draft Regulation, but feels 
that the proposed appropriation is inadequate. 
1.5. Furthermore, as some Member States have 
national schemes for the promotion of prospecting, the 
Commission proposals will have to be tailored in such a 
way that they can be implemented in parallel with 
existing national systems, or in addition to them. 
2. Specific remarks 
2.1. Article 1, second paragraph 
Funds from traditional sources are more readily 
available for feasibility studies and the proposed 
appropriation is very limited. The Committee therefore 
proposes that Commission financial aid should be 
confined to programmes covering the stages prior to the 
feasibility study. This course would also appear to be 
justified by the fact that it is in these stages that the 
element of risk is greatest. 
2.2. Article 3 (1) 
The Committee recommends that a deadline be set each 
year for the filing of applications, so that a comparative 
analysis could be made of the various programmes 
submitted by mining concerns. 
No C 90/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 5. 4. 83 
The Commission proposal should also include a 
procedure for notifying the Member States directly 
affected by programmes. 
2.3. Article 4 
The Committee feels that it would be more logical to 
establish a ceiling percentage for public aid than to 
grant aid at two different rates, according to the 
exploration stage covered by the programme. The 
Article should also contain some reference to 
compatibility with national schemes, as mentioned in 
the general remarks. 
2.4. Article 5 
As the primary aim of the proposal is to lessen the 
Community's dependence on imported supplies, enough 
members of the Committee responsible for assessing 
applications should possess the qualifications and 
expertise needed to appraise not only the technical 
implications but also the cost and supply aspects. 
2.5. Article 6 (4) 
2.5.1. The Committee recommends that a further 
indent be added to the effect that the dissemination of the results of programmes receiving Community aid 
should comply with legal requirements in the Member 
States concerned. 
2.5.2. The Committee also feels that the text of the 
fifth indent should be amended in such a way as to 
permit the recipient(s) of Community aid, with the 
agreement of the Commission, to hand over to third 
parties the results of financially-assisted programmes in 
the four years following their termination, provided that 
the said third parties agree to assume in full the 
obligations which were initially accepted. 
2.5.3. As the Commission proposal is designed to 
safeguard supplies, the Committee recommends that an 
indent be added under Article 6 (4), stipulating that, in 
the event of the results not being used within the 
four-year period, they shall be the property of the 
Commission, which in liaison with Member States will 
attempt to make use of them. 
2.6. Article 7 
As it is difficult to establish a priori criteria for 
non-reimbursement in the event of a Community-aided 
programme proving unsuccessful, the Committee urges 
that Article 7 be amended to state explicitly that 
reimbursement will only be made two years after the 
mine comes into production. 
Done at Brussels, 23 February 1983. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting an experimental Community 
action to stimulate the efficacy of the European Economic Community's scientific and 
technical potential 
The text referred to the Committee has been pubished in Official Journal of the European 
Communities No C 337 of 23 December 1982, page 6. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 13 December 1982 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic 
and Social Committee in accordance with Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community.