30. 11. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 319/7 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision amending Decision 86/85/EEC establishing 
a Community information system for the control and reduction of pollution caused by the 
spillage of hydrocarbons and other harmful substances at sea(!) 
(87/C 319/03) 
On 13 April 1987 the Council decided, in accordance with Article 198 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 preparatory work, adopted its Opinion on 1 September 1987. The 
rapporteur was Mr Proumens. 
On 24 September 1987, at its 248th plenary session, the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously adopted the following Opinion: 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee considers that the proposal for 
a Council Decision (doc. COM(87) 120 final) of 1 April 
answers the concerns expressed after the recent accident 
in Basle. 
This proposal in fact extends the Council Decision 
of 6 March 1986, which applied to the spillage of 
hydrocarbons and other harmful substances at sea, to 
cover inland waterways. 
1.2. Moreover, it should be noted that the Council 
Decision of 6 March 1986 had itself extended the 
Decision of 3 December 1981, which only applied to 
the spillage of hydrocarbons, to include other harmful 
substances. 1.6. Although the proposal merely seeks to introduce 
an information system enabling the data necessary for 
the monitoring and reduction of pollution to be avail­
able, the Committee has expressed a number of mis­
givings. 
We think we should mention these, not so as to get the 
present proposal amended, but so that the Commission 
should be made aware of them where necessary. 
1.7. The main grounds for concern are: 
a) Who is liable financially for damage caused by 
pollution as referred to in the present proposal for 
a decision and previous proposals for decisions on 
the same matter? 
1.3. The Committee has noted with satisfaction that 
the Commission has extended the scope of the Council 
Resolution of 24 November 1986. 
This Resolution was intended to protect the Rhine and 
other major waterways, whereas the present proposal 
is to cover all inland waterways. 
1.4. This extension avoids any ambiguity and all 
waters, be they seas or inland waterways, will therefore 
be covered. 
1.5. The Resolution of 24 November 1986 was also 
limited to accidental spills. 
The present proposal covers all spills; there is no need 
to find out whether they are accidental or not. 
(!) OJ No C 108, 23. 4. 1987, p. 7. b) What happens if spills come from deep-sea or inland 
waterway vessels sailing under a flag of con-
c) What legal measures can be used against pollution 
if it is caused by non-EEC countries or their ships? 
d) Should the inventories provided for by the present 
proposal be available at least to local authorities, if 
not the general public? 
e) Should the Commission not urge the Member States 
to inform the public about the resources being used, 
as listed in the inventories, if only to reassure public 
opinion? 
f) Should there not be a responsible authority with the 
means to act, especially when several national or 
international authorities are involved? 
At national level in particular, should not a coordi­
nating authority be appointed, so that the different 
departments involved cannot pass each other the 
buck over whose responsibility it is to act? This is 
particularly important where a doubt arises as to 
No C 319/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 11. 87 
whether an accident has occurred above or below 
the legal 'high water' mark. 
g) In order to reduce the risks of accidents due to bad 
weather, is it not possible to ban ships by law from 
leaving the ports (or areas of refuge) where they 
happen to be sheltering in the event of gales? 
1.8. The Commission has informed us of the work 
of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development (OECD) and the Council of Europe which 
itself is interested in, and which has a bearing on some 
of the questions raised in point 1.7. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. The Committee did worry about the effective­
ness of the instruments currently in operation, for it 
seems that at the time of the Basle incident of 
1 November 1986 the warning and alarm systems set 
up by the International Commission for the Protection 
of the Rhine against pollution (ICPR) did not function 
with all the requisite speed and efficiency. 
2.2. In fact, the Commission does want to work out 
new procedures to boost efficiency by improving the 
coordination of resources and methods. 
2.3. The inventory of these resources provided for 
by the Community information system, which covers 
spills of other substances at sea, is not yet complete. 
It should be noted here that the resources to be used to 
reduce pollution from hydrocarbons are more precise, 
and therefore simpler, than those to be used for other 
harmful substances. These require specific measures 
depending on their nature and the reactions which each 
of them may cause in any given circumstances. 
2.4. The various resources listed in the inventory 
should be available round the clock, and the Member 
States undertake to help each other out under certain 
circumstances. It should be noted that the inventory lists what actually 
exists, and not what should exist. 
The inventory should identify restrictions (if any) on 
the availability of specialist staff, both technical and 
legal. 
2.5. As regards inland waters, especially running 
water, which are not covered by the preventive meas­
ures, the scope of the measures to reduce pollution must 
be considered differently. 
Hydrocarbons and other harmful substances are carried 
along by running water, and so pollution cannot be 
contained as it can be at sea. 
Measures should be envisaged to protect and reconsti­
tute marine flora and fauna which have been damaged 
or destroyed by spills. 
2.6. Article 1 
All in all this Article merely amplifies the provisions 
initially planned for spills at sea in Decisions 81/420/ 
EEC and 86/85/EEC by adding the words 'or in inland 
waterways'. 
The new proposal has been amplified by an Annex IV 
listing the resources available for intervention when 
hydrocarbons or other harmful substances are spilt in 
inland waterways. 
2.7. The Committee urges the Commission to 
emphasize, in some way or other, that the spills in 
question may not only come from vessels, whether on 
the high seas or on a navigable waterway, but may also 
be due to firms located near inland waterways covered 
by the present proposal. 
The Committee has noted with interest that the Com­
mission intends to amend the Seveso Directive and 
extend it to cover even isolated cases of storage. 
The same applies to spills that might be caused by 
accidents due to transport by road or by rail which 
might also lead to pollution of inland waterways. 
30. 11. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 319/9 
3. Special remark 
Under conditions laid down by the relevant authorities, 
some firms are authorized to dump specific limited 
quantities of a certain number of harmful substances 
in inland waterways. Such acts are operational, and 
are not accidental or criminal. They are therefore not 
covered by the present provisions. But despite this, the Commission must make an effort 
to see that authorised dumpings are reduced and, a"s far 
as possible, avoided, in the interests of protecting the 
aquatic environment. EC Directives on the dumping of 
harmful substances should therefore be adjusted to 
technical progress. 
Done at Brussels, 24 September 1987. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT