No C 333/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 12. 86 
cation of an anti-surge clause!1). At all events the 
Commission should evaluate the situation and consult 
the economic and social groups concerned in good time. 
9. The Committee notes with keen interest that the 
Commission is adjusting the preferential margins on 
the basis of the most recent statistics on actual imports 
of the products concerned. These adjustments mean 
that the economic recovery which the industrialized 
countries are currently enjoying is allowed for in the 
GSP. 
10. The Committee wonders why the GSP is not 
mentioned in the Commission 'Programme'; this is all 
the more regrettable as it is in the Community's interest 
to harness its various development cooperation instru­
ments to the same ends. 
(!) Anti-surge clause: possibility of taking measures where a 
market is flooded with a product. 
Done at Brussels, 26 November 1986. 
1. Preliminary comment 
1.1. The Commission proposes a Council Directive 
under which the dumping of waste in the sea or its 
incineration at sea would in some cases be prohibited 
and in other cases be subject to authorization, and 
which in the longer term would considerably reduce or 
indeed put a complete end to such dumping. 
(') OJ No C 245, 26. 9. 1985, p. 23. 11. The Committee is opposed to the introduction 
in the GSP of a clause enabling the Commission to 
assess whether a quota should be opened in the petro­
chemicals sector. The Committee has consistently 
stressed that implementation of the quota system must 
be transparent and automatic; to endow the Com­
mission with discretionary powers would be contrary 
to this principle. 
12. The Committe would once again urge that the 
Community, in all its external relations, help to improve 
not only the economic but also the social situation in 
the world — which cannot be regarded as political 
interference in the internal affairs of other countries. 
In this connection the Committee would mention the 
commitment which it has always expressed in its opin­
ions on international trade (e.g. on Third Lome Con­
vention) to respect for human rights and, especially, 
the application of equitable working standards as laid 
down by the International Labour Organization. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
1.2. The Committee welcomes the proposed rules in 
principle but considers that a number of amendments 
to the draft are required, the details of which are 
discussed in point 3. 
1.3. The Draft Directive is in keeping with the three 
action programmes of the European Communities on 
protection of the environment which inter alia aim to 
contribute to the prevention and control of marine Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the dumping of waste at sea (*) 
(86/C 33.3/05) 
On 27 August 1985 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Articles 100 and 235 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, 
on the abovementioned 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 
1 and 2 September 1986. Mr Kolble was rapporteur until the Section meeting of 6 June 1986. 
For health reasons he was replaced by Mr von der Decken at this meeting. 
At its 241st plenary session (meeting of 26 November 1986) the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted, by 106 votes for, none against and four abstentions, the following 
opinion: 
29. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 333/13 
pollution, and thus to the harmonious economic devel­
opment of the Community. The proposed rules are 
specifically in keeping with the following Council Direc­
tives: 75/437/EEC, 75/438/EEC, 78/176/EEC, 82/883/ 
EEC, 76/51/EEC, 76/464/EEC, 77/585/EEC, 80/686/ 
EEC, 81/420/EEC, 81/971/EEC, 83/101/EEC and 83/ 
513/EEC. 
2. General comments 
2.1. International agreements on the prevention of 
marine pollution 
2.1.1. The protection of the marine environment 
against pollution is the subject of a number of inter­
national agreements, some worldwide and some 
regional in scope. These agreements differ considerably 
in detail as regards their geographical scope, their con­
tent and legal status and the number of contracting 
parties. 
2.1.2. The London Convention of 1972, to which 
several additions have since been made, and the Marpol 
Convention of 1973, which was also signed in London 
and which, equally, has since been expanded, apply 
worldwide. The Oslo Convention of 1972, the Barce­
lona Convention of 1976, the Helsinki Convention of 
1974 and the Caribbean Convention of 1983 are 
regional agreements. 
2.1.3. The London Convention, the Oslo Conven­
tion and the Barcelona Convention each have 'black' 
and 'grey' lists of substances, the dumping of which 
at sea is respectively prohibited or subject to special 
controls. The Marpol Convention, the main function 
of which is to prevent marine pollution by ships, is not 
concerned with dumping but nevertheless imposes the 
obligation to create reception facilities for oily liquid 
wastes. The Helsinki Convention prohibits all dumping 
with the exception of dredgings, and the Caribbean 
Convention has no specific dumping protocols as yet. 
2.1.4. All the abovementioned agreements have been 
signed and/or ratified by the EEC countries concerned. 
The Community as such is a contracting party only to 
the Barcelona and Caribbean Conventions. The Com­
mission participates in the work of the London and 
Oslo Conventions as an observer. 
2.2. Harmonization of the law through the draft Direc­
tive 
The draft Directive proposes replacing the hotchpotch 
of laws currently in force in the Community by a single 
set of uniform rules. The Committee considers that 
such harmonization would in general be conducive to improved protection of the marine environment against 
pollution and more efficient operation of the common 
market. 
2.3. Equal treatment of different sea areas 
2.3.1. The Commission's objective of securing the 
principle of equal treatment for different sea areas as 
regards protection against pollution is ecologically and 
economically justified. The individual sea areas differ 
considerably from a geographical point of view. The 
Mediterranean, for example, is an inland sea. The 
North Sea and the Atlantic, on the other hand, are open, 
strongly tidal seas. These differences are, however, no 
justification for allowing more pollution in the North 
Sea or the Atlantic than in the Mediterranean. The 
introduction of toxic substances can after all often 
cause ecologically unacceptable damage to the marine 
environment as a whole, even when the damage does 
not occur directly after or in the immediate vicinity of 
the act of pollution, as may happen in the case of 
persistent substances, as a result of accumulation, or 
where particularly sensitive marine organisms or 
biotopes are concerned. 
2.3.2. It is conceivable that there might, exception­
ally, be specific circumstances in which the dumping of 
certain toxic substances in the sea would cause no 
lasting environmental damage. The Committee con­
siders, however, that in each individual case the burden 
of proof should rest with those persons claiming the 
existence of such circumstances and maintaining that 
no damage to the marine environment would result 
from the dumping of the toxic substance in question. 
2.4. Dumping of waste at sea 
The Committee welcomes the provision contained in 
Article 4 of the draft Directive under which the 'black' 
and 'grey' lists — i.e. the lists of wastes the dumping 
of which at sea is respectively prohibited or subject to 
authorization (see also 2.1. above) — will be sup­
plemented and brought up to date in the light of the 
most recent knowledge of the damaging environmental 
effects of the absorption of certain substances and their 
compounds. 
2.5. Incineration of waste at sea 
The Committee notes that the restriction of the inciner­
ation of waste at sea, provided for in Article 5 of the 
draft Directive, is in keeping with the London and Oslo 
Conventions which have now been ratified by most of 
the Member States, and the findings of the International 
Conference on the Protection of the North Sea held in 
Bremen in 1984. 
No C 333/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 12. 86 
2.6. Reduction of waste disposal at sea 
2.6.1. The Committee welcomes the objectives pur­
sued by the draft Directive, namely progressively to cut 
back marine pollution by reducing waste disposal at 
sea. The Committee thus also endorses the programme 
for cleaning up the sea, provided for in Article 10 of 
the draft Directive, under which no new permits for 
dumping or incineration may be granted as from 1988 
and Member States are to reduce authorized dumping 
progressively over the period 1990 to 1995 to half the 
1989 level. 
2.6.2. The Committee is aware of the possibility of 
problems arising over the next few years in a given 
Member State because of the inadequacy, or indeed 
complete lack, of the necessary infrastructure for the 
environmentally acceptable disposal of waste on land. 
2.6.3. In particular the Committee draws attention 
to the problem of the disposal of sewage sludge (see 
AnnexIB(i)). 
It appears from an examination of the Commission's 
proposal that each Member State has discretionary 
powers regarding the authorization of the discharge of 
non-toxic sewage sludge at sea, a point not clearly 
brought out in the proposal, but that such authorization 
is subject to an overall requirement to reduce waste 
disposal at sea by 10% each year over the five-year 
period 1990 to 95. 
The Committee points out that such reduction may 
only be practical if corresponding specific measures are 
undertaken step by step to provide for adequate dis­
posal arrangements for sewage sludge on land. 
Moreover, major remedial schemes cannot normally be 
phased into use. It would be more practical to aim at 
reducing waste.disposal at sea by an 'average' rate per 
year or by a target amount at the end of a specific 
period than to reduce it by '10% each year'. 
2.6.4. In accordance with the programme of action of 
the European Communities, the Committee nonetheless 
agrees with the Commission that, in keeping with the 
polluter pays principle, waste ought in general to be 
disposed of where it is generated — i.e. on land, 
especially where disposal on land is possible without 
harmful consequences for the environment, and in par­
ticular the soil and ground water. 
2.6.5. Measures should be taken to promote the 
setting-up of infrastructure for the environmentally 
benign disposal of waste on land. The Committee con­siders the programme for the gradual reduction of waste 
disposal at sea, provided for in the draft Directive, to 
be a suitable measure for achieving this objective. 
Should any individual Member State experience diffi­
culties with the proper disposal of waste on land, the 
Committee feels that steps should be taken to alleviate 
the problem by means of transitional arrangements and, 
if need be, by waiving the new rules for a prolonged 
period. 
2.6.6. In view of the urgent need to provide reception 
facilities, a temporary measure for consideration could 
be to station oil tankers strategically located in ports or 
offshore to receive oily liquid wastes. The Committee, 
therefore, urges the Commission to investigate the feasi­
bility of using laid up tankers for the reception of oily 
liquid wastes. 
2.6.7. The Committee cannot at present assess the 
extent to which technological progress may in the fore­
seeable future make possible the dumping of waste at 
sea without damage to the marine environment. If this 
should indeed become possible, the draft Directive may 
need to be amended. 
2.6.8. At this juncture the Committee would like to 
point out that the objective of the draft Directive, 
namely less marine pollution through reduced dumping 
of waste at sea, will be achieved only if concerted and 
systematic action is simultaneously taken against the 
other causes of marine pollution—in particular the 
discharge of inadequately treated domestic and indus­
trial waste into rivers and coastal waters—and if proper 
attention is paid to marine pollution from ships, off­
shore activities and the atmosphere. The Committee 
calls on the Commission to play an active role in 
speeding up plans for reducing marine pollution by 
submitting appropriate Directives. 
2.7. Transfrontier transport 
The draft Directive ought to make reference to Council 
Directive 84/631/EEC of 6 December 1984 on the super­
vision and control within the European Community of 
the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste. The 
draft ought, in particular, to stress the responsiblities 
of countries importing and exporting hazardous waste, 
e.g. as regards satisfactory disposal. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1 Article 3 
The Committee doubts whether the substance and geo­
graphical extent of the Directive's scope are adequately 
29. 12. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 333/15 
defined in Article 3. The Committee would draw atten­
tion to the special case of the Channel Islands and the 
Isle of Man. Although the Directive is not applicable 
to them as Community Law stands at present, the 
Committee feels that this is an anomaly. 
3.2. Article 4 (1) in conjunction with Annex 1 A 
3.2.1. Article 4 states that waste and other materials 
listed in Annex I are not to be dumped at sea. One of 
these (Annex I (10)) is: 'oil-based drilling muds and oil 
from drill cuttings'. 
3.2.2. A ban on the dumping at sea of 'oil-based 
drilling muds and oil from drill cuttings' might 
adversely affect oil prospecting in the North Sea, and 
offshore in the Community in general and hence the 
balance of payments of one or other of the Member 
States and the energy supplies of the Community. The 
Committee, therefore, proposes that at an appropriate 
point in the Directive a waiver clause be inserted. 
3.3. Annex I B, second paragraph 
The German and English translations of the draft Direc­
tive at least differ from the French original in such a 
way as to distort the sense. The Committee give its 
approval to the French version. 
3.4. The Article 4 (2) in conjunction with Annex H 
3.4.1. Article 4 (2) of the draft Directive merely 
states that the dumping at sea of wastes and other 
materials listed in Annex II shall be permitted only with 
specific prior authorization by the competent authority, 
without defining in detail the criteria to be used in 
deciding whether or not a permit shall be issued. The 
Committee urges that a clause be added to Article 4 (2) 
of the draft—similar to the existing provision in Article 
5 (4) concerning the authorization of waste incineration 
at sea—stating that a permit shall be granted only if 
the waste in question cannot be disposed of on land 
without damage to the environment. 
3.4.2. In this connection the Committee suggests that 
it would be worthwhile investigating whether waste 
arising from the normal operation of ships, aircraft, 
platforms and other structures erected at sea might not 
be excluded from Annex II. 
3.5. Article 9(1) 
The Committee welcomes the Commission's statement 
in Article 9 of its draft Directive that Member States are to promote development of alternative land-based 
methods for the disposal and the recycling of waste, to 
endeavour to reduce the quantity of waste, and to 
encourage the recycling of waste through the use of 
appropriate techniques before its dumping or inciner­
ation at sea is considered. ' 
3.6. Article 9 (2) 
3.6.1. The Committee also welcomes the fact that in 
Article 9(2) the Member States are required to provide 
the Commission by 1 January 1990 with the infor­
mation needed to fix a date for the prohibition of waste 
incineration at sea and that the Council is required to 
'act by 1 July 1991 on proposal from the Commission'. 
The Committee would, however, prefer to see the draft 
Directive lay down a date for termination of waste 
incineration at sea. 
3.6.2. The Committee is, however, at the present 
time not in a position to assess the extent to which 
technological progress might in the foreseeable future 
make it possible to incinerate waste at sea without any 
tangible effect on the marine environment. If this should 
prove possible, appropriate amendment of the draft 
Directive would need to be considered. 
3.7. Article 10 (3) 
3.7.1. The Committee approves in principle (see 2.6 
above) the concept of progressive reduction of waste 
dumping/incineration at sea which underlies Article 10 
of the draft Directive. The Committee nevertheless urg­
es that consideration be given to a further reduction in 
the medium term in approved waste disposal oper­
ations, over and above the 50% reduction already speci­
fied for the period up to 1995. 
3.7.2. In this connection the Committee points out 
that, whilst Annex I B(l) waives the general ban for 
waste and other substances—such as sewage sludge, 
dredging spoil and drill cuttings—which contain the 
substances defined in points 1 to 7 only as trace con­
taminants, they fall within Annexes II and III. They are 
thus subject to the 50% reduction required under Article 
10(3) in conjunction with Annex II. Implementation of 
this requirement might present problems for certain 
Member States. The Committee draws attention to its 
general comments in point 2.6., third paragraph. 
Given that the dumping of some of the substances 
listed in the appendices is subject to general or specific 
No C 333/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 12. 86 
authorization, the problem of proving the environmen­
tal harmlessness of dumping needs to be considered. able to define more closely the term.force majeure used 
in Article 13 of the draft Directive. 
3.8 Article 11 
The Committee considers the procedural rules of Article 
11 to be of great practical importance, as they appear 
conducive to proper implementation of the Directive. 
3.9. Article 13 
The Committee wonders whether it might not be advis-3.10. Article 19 
The Committee agrees with the Commission that as 
regards the Member States' option (Article 19) to take 
more stringent measures on the dumping or incineration 
of waste at sea, the individual governments should take 
into account not only domestic considerations but also 
the need to preserve the efficient operation of the com­
mon market. 
Done at Brussels, 26 November 1986. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
Appendix 
The following amendment was rejected by the Committee in the course of the discussions: 
Point 3.2.2 
Add the following new paragraphs: 
'The Committee also points out that the inclusion in Annex I of oil from drill cuttings alongside such highly 
toxic substances as mercury and cadium has very little scientific justification. 
These materials undergo special washing processes which reduce their oil concentration to a point which is 
environmentally acceptable. 
The Committee therefore considers that these materials should be inserted in Annex II. 
If it is felt that they should remain in Annex I, the Committee suggests that point B 2 of Annex I be amended 
to indicate an oil concentration level which is compatible with the marine ecosystem; below this level, the 
ban on the dumping of such waste materials at sea would not apply. This would ensure greater legal certainty 
in the implementation of point B 2 of Annex I, and avoid unjustified burdens on the oil industry.' 
Reasons 
The oil industry is committed to research at a time when price trends in crude oil are causing it special 
problems, and the Community is likely to remain largely dependent on oil for its energy supplies. To avoid 
discouraging the investment which is needed here, Community provisions should not impose unjustified 
additional burdens. 
Result of the vote 
For: 6. Against: majority. Abstentions: 0.