15.3.75 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 62/3 
II 
(Preparatory  Acts) 
ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
Opinion  on the communication  of the Commission  to the Council:  Energy  for Europe: 
Research  and  Development 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has not been  published  in the Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 18 October  1974,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  communication  to the 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  under  Article  198  of the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  drew  up its Opinion  at its 127th  plenary  session, 
held in Brussels  on 29 and  30 January  1975. 
The Opinion  is published  below: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the referral  on 18 October  1974,  by 
the Council  of the  European  Communities  of the 
communication  of the  Commission  to the  Council: 
Energy  for Europe:  Research  and  Development; 
Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community,  and  in particular 
Article  198  thereof; 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
29 October  1974,  instructing  the Section  for Energy 
and Nuclear  Questions  to draw  up an Opinion  and  a 
report  on the matter; Having  regard  to the Opinion  adopted  by the Section 
for Energy  and  Nuclear  Questions  at its meeting  on 
10 January  1975; 
Having  regard  to the  Report  submitted  by  the 
Rapporteur,  Mr Schlitt; 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 127th  plenary 
session  held  on 29 and  30 January  1975  (meeting  of 
30 January  1975); 
Whereas  there  is a need  to develop  new  sources  and 
forms  of energy  within  the framework  of a common 
energy  policy; 
Whereas  a Community  research  and  development 
programme  must  play  a fundamental  role  here, 
No C 62/4 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 15. 3. 75 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
by a majority,  with  6 dissenting  votes  and  10 
abstentions: 
1. General  comments 
1.1. The  Committee  welcomes  the  Commission's 
initiative  aimed  at achieving  a common  energy 
research  policy  and,  more  specifically,  arriving  at 
common,  or at least  coordinated  research  and 
development  activities  in the  energy  sphere,  in 
conjunction  with  a new  energy  policy  strategy  for the 
Community. 
1.2. The  Committee  agrees  with  the  Commission 
that a harmonized  joint  effort  in this  area  is at 
present  one  of the  most  important  tasks  of the 
Community.  Research  and  development  can  make  a 
two-fold  contribution  towards  solving  the  future 
energy  supply  problems  of  the  European 
Communities.  Firstly,  the supply  of primary  energy 
can be stepped  up by developing  new  energy  sources 
or evolving  better  techniques  for the  extraction  of 
fossil  fuels.  Secondly,  selective  research  can  help  to 
cut down  energy  requirements. 
1.3. The  Committee  is, however,  aware  that  more 
rational  use of available  energy  and  the development 
of additional  energy  sources  can only  reduce,  but not 
eliminate,  dependence  on imported  oil and  natural 
gas. This  is particularly  true  as regards  the immediate 
future.  A reduction  in the  dependence  on oil can, 
however,  enhance  the  Community's  political 
flexibility,  especially  if one  proceeds  on  the 
assumption  that  a complete  interruption  of the 
Community's  oil imports  is unlikely.  At all events  the 
Committee  considers  that  maintenance  of  the 
Community's  independence  justifies  maximum  efforts 
in energy  research  and  development.  Cheap  oil will 
not be available  to the Community  in the foreseeable 
future,  so that  the price  aspect  too would  appear  to 
warrant  the development  of additional  energy  sources 
in the interests  of security. 
1.4. Where  the  private  sector  engages  in 
investment  and  research  with  the  object  of 
developing  new  energy  sources,  public  backing  will 
be needed  to cover  the  risks  involved.  Such  public 
backing  should  of  course  be  coupled  with 
appropriate  arrangements  for  State  control  of the 
funds  provided,  and  steps  should  be taken  to ensure 
that State  influence  on the  relevant  investment 
projects  and  research  efforts  is commensurate  with 
the extent  of the  backing.  With  the  Community's 
research  and  development  potential  it should  be quite 
possible  to develop  new  energy  sources  provided  all scientific,  technological  and  entrepreneurial 
capabilities  in the  Community  are  focused  on 
promising  R&D  objectives.  Despite  these  basically 
favourable  conditions  for  carrying  through  such  a 
wide-ranging  energy  research  and  development 
programme,  the  Committee  feels  that  there  will 
probably  be difficulties  in financing  the operation.  It 
is aware  that  quite  considerable  funds  will  be 
required  if such  a programme  is to be successfully 
executed.  The  Committee  would  point  to the  US 
programme  with  a similar  object  and  content,  which 
it is estimated  will  cost  10 000 million  dollars,  over  a 
five-year  period.  The  Committee  therefore  considers 
that,  in view  of the extremely  high  financial  outlay 
involved  in such  a comprehensive  energy  research 
programme,  it is vital  that  the  Community  fix 
stringent  priorities  for individual  areas  of research,  if 
definite  successes  are to be achieved. 
1.5. With  regard  to the  implementation  of a 
Community  research  and  development  programme 
the Committee  considers  that  it must  be managed  in 
a way  which  realizes  the  full  potential  of the 
considerable  intellectual  resources  based  in the 
Member  States. 
1.6. The  eight  areas  of activity: 
— energy  conservation, 
— fossil  fuels, 
— nuclear  energy, 
— hydrogen  economy, 
— solar  energy, 
— geothermal  energy, 
— fusion, 
— systems  modelling, 
set out in the Commission  document  are each  to be 
rated  quite  differently  as regards  prospects  of success. 
By far the bulk  of funds  should,  in the Committee's 
view,  be deployed  in those  areas  which  promise  a 
maximum  reduction  of the dependence  on oil within 
a short  period.  This  yardstick  should  be applied  with 
the utmost  firmness  in view  of the  Community's 
financial  situation  and  the fact  that  the energy  supply 
position  could  deteriorate  again  at any  time. 
Assistance  for  sources  of energy  whose  utilization 
will not be technically  and  economically  feasible  until 
the next  century,  if at all,  should  be  clearly 
graduated.  The  Committee  considers  that  from  the 
15.3.  75 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 62/5 
energy  policy  angle  it would  not  make  sense  to 
pursue  every  conceivable  or scientifically  attractive 
energy  research  project,  if the  projects  cannot  be 
carried  out within  a time  scale  of five  to 10 years  and 
make  a genuine  contribution  to Community  energy 
supplies  or energy  conservation.  In this  connection 
the Committee  wonders  whether,  with  a view  to 
improving  the  efficiency  of its  already  difficult 
coordination  and  integration  activities  under  the 
Energy  for  Europe  Programme,  the  Commission 
should  not  concentrate  on those  R&D  activities 
which  can  be carried  out  within  the abovementioned 
time  scale  and  are of importance  for energy  supplies. 
This  would  preclude  the Commission's  also  playing  a 
coordinating  and  integrating  role  in respect  of more 
long-term  energy  R&D  activities.  But  such  activities 
should  be incorporated  in the  other  multiannual 
research  programmes  and  provided  with  financial 
backing  in keeping  with  the  funds  available  under 
those  programmes. 2. Specific  comments 
2.1. Indigenous  energy  sources  include  coal  and 
the oil and  gas  fields  discovered  in recent  years,  the 
North  Sea  deposits  being  of particular  importance. 
Given  the  high  oil  prices  charged  by the  OPEC 
countries,  exploitation  of these  deposits  should 
certainly  be an economic  proposition,  despite  the 
high development  and  production  costs.  In the 
current  supply  situation  in the  Community,  the 
present  recovery  factor  of often  less  than  50 % is, in 
the Committee's  view,  unsatisfactory.  Efforts  should 
be made  at Community  level  to achieve  a much 
higher  recovery  factor  under  economic  conditions. 
Priority  should  also  be given  to research  projects 
aimed  at permitting  the  exploitation  of offshore 
hydrocarbons  in depths  beyond  the limits  imposed  by 
existing  technology. 
1.7. Another  reason  why  the Committee  feels  that 
action  should  be concentrated  on R & D activities 
that can be completed  in the foreseeable  future  is that 
the objectives  listed  by the Commission  can  only  be 
attained  by dint  of the concentration  of resources  and 
effort,  and  principally  with  energy  sources  that  can 
be developed  in the  short-  and  medium-term,  and 
through  improvements  in  the  field  of  energy 
technology. 
1.8. For  these  reasons  the  Committee  considers 
that,  without  neglecting  the longer  term  projects,  the 
requisite  development  effort  should  be  devoted 
primarily  to energy  conservation  — by more  efficient 
use of energy  and  insulation  — to makirfg  better  use 
of indigenous  energy  sources,  and  to nuclear  energy 
and coal  gasification  and  liquefaction.  This  question 
should  be examined  in greater  depth  in a subsequent 
opinion.  It is not clear  whether  early  successes  will  be 
possible  in energy  transportation  and  energy  storage. 
1.9. The  precondition  for  all Community  R&D 
activities  — and  here  the Committee  concurs  with  the 
Commission  — is alignment  with  strategic  political 
decisions  in the  field  of energy  policy.  A further 
requirement  concerning  all  energy  R&D  is the 
building  up of a comprehensive  picture  of needs  and 
available  resources  for  energy  R&D.  As  has  been 
mentioned  above,  this  must  result  in the clear  fixing 
of priorities. 2.2. It  is extremely  important  that  the Community 
coal industry  be maintained  and  developed  at a level 
at which  it can  contribute  to  meeting  the 
Community's  most  urgent  needs.  Given  the structure 
of Community  coal  deposits,  it is -mnlikely  that 
significantly  more  rational  extraction  techniques  can 
be developed.  In many  pits  extraction  techniques  are 
already  highly  automated  — as far,  that  is, as local 
mining  conditions  permit.  Nevertheless  R&D  efforts 
in this  area  — which  the Committee  agrees  should  be 
given  priority  — can  be expected  to yield  some 
results.  Even  if extraction  techniques  are  further 
improved,  the European  coal  industry  will  still  have  a 
high wage  bill,  so that  coal  will  remain  an expensive 
Community  energy  source. 
2.3. Special  attention  should  be  given  to 
automating  coal  preparation  plants  as well  as to the 
fullest  possible  mechanization  and  automation  of 
high-performance  working  methods. 
2.4. The  Commission  proposal  also  refers  to the 
conversion  of  coal  into  hydrocarbons.  In  the 
Committee's  view,  R&D  in  the  field  of the 
gasification  of hard  coal  and  lignite  should  be given 
high priority,  since  currently  available  technology 
indicates  that  gas  derived  from  hard  coal  and  lignite 
could  become  a real  adjunct  to natural  gas.  Processes 
are also  available  for the liquefaction  of hard  coal, 
but they  are extremely  costly.  The  Committee  would 
not, however,  like  to rule  out  the  possibility  of 
financial  support  for  research  projects  which  might 
lead to cheaper  processes.  It should,  however,  be 
carefully  examined  whether  there  is any  prospect  of 
such  work  being  successful  in the foreseeable  future. 
No C 62/6 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 15. 3. 75 
2.5. If  there  is little  prospect  of success  here  in the 
foreseeable  future,  it would  be better  to devote  the 
relevant  funds  to R&D  activities  which  promise 
quicker  benefits,  such  as  more  rational  coal 
production.  The  Committee  is assuming  here  that  in 
a real  emergency  it will  be possible  to fall  back  on 
the known  coal  liquefaction  processes.  The 
Committee  is also  assuming  that  even  if cheaper  coal 
liquefaction  techniques  were  discovered,  there  would 
not be enough  Community  and  foreign  coal  available 
to permit  liquefaction  on a larger  scale.  It stresses 
that a major  effort  must  be made  not  only  to 
improve  working  conditions  but also  to prevent  and 
cure silicosis,  so as to guarantee  coal  miners  the 
highest  possible  degree  of safety  at work. 
2.6. A  large  proportion  of R & D expenditure  in 
the Community  should,  in the Committee's  view,  be 
devoted  to developing  nuclear  energy.  In its recent 
Opinion  on  the  revision  of  the  Community's 
multiannual  research  programme,  the  Committee 
pointed  out  that  in the  present  situation  nuclear 
energy  constitutes  a real  alternative  to oil. 
2.7. In  view  of the high  level  of availability  which 
nuclear  power  plants  have  achieved  in a relatively 
short  time  and  their  extremely  good  safety  record  so 
far, despite  the fact  that  certain  problems  have  yet to 
be solved,  the Committee  sees  every  reason  to press 
vigorously  ahead  with  all further  R&D  projects  in 
this field.  Research  in reactor  development  should 
concentrate  on high-temperature  and  breeder  reactors 
and on  special  aspects  of reactor  safety.  The 
introduction  of breeder  reactors,  which  is already  a 
long  way  behind  schedule,  must  not  be delayed  any 
further.  Not  until  breeder  reactors  are brought  into 
service  on a commercial  scale  will  the  Community 
achieve  an  appreciably  greater  degree  of 
independence  in nuclear  fuel  supplies.  Of  equal 
importance  is the  high-temperature  reactor,  whose 
high  temperatures  could  be  used  in large-scale 
hydrogen  production.  To  offset  the  high  cost  of 
breeder  reactor  development,  there  should  be much 
more  intensive  cooperation  between  the three  major 
groups  in the  Community.  Although  the  various 
European  energy  supply  companies  (EDF,  ENEL  and 
RWE)  have  agreed  to cooperate  on the construction 
and operation  of big  power  plants  based  on breeder 
reactors,  the  United  Kingdom,  France  and 
Germany/Belgium/Netherlands  are  each  still  largely 
going  their  separate  ways  in development  work. 
2.8. Important  R&D  work  also  remains  to be 
done  on the  nuclear  fuel  cycle.  The  Commission should  urge  the  Member  States  concerned  to put 
every  effort  into  their  work  to develop  reliable, 
high-performance  enrichment  plants.  There  is still  no 
production  facility  in the Community  apart  from  the 
existing  military  installations  and  the  test  plants 
which  are  partly  in  operation.  Moreover,  the 
commercial  enrichment  plants  planned  by EURODIF 
and URENCO  will  be far from  sufficient  to meet  the 
Community's  future  requirements. 
2.9. The  same  problem  arises  in connection  with 
the state  of progress  in reprocessing  technology.  All 
European  electricity  producers  are  worried  that  the 
existing  and  projected  reprocessing  plant  will  be 
inadequate  to process  the  volume  of irradiated 
nuclear  fuel  which  is going  to be produced  over  the 
next 10 years.  The  Committee  feels  that  the Member 
States  concerned  will  have  to considerably  step  up 
their  efforts  if  a  proven,  high-performance 
reprocessing  technology,  particularly  for  highly 
depleted  fuel  elements  from  light-water  reactors,  is 
going  to be available  when  it is needed.  Efficient 
reprocessing  is also  essential  for recovering  unspent 
uranium  and  for making  plutonium  available  on time 
for breeder  reactors.  The  Committee  would  lay 
particular  emphasis  on  reprocessing  because 
difficulties  there  could  bring  operational  nuclear 
power  plant  to a standstill. 
2.10.  The  Committee  believes  that  the formulation 
of a clear  concept  for the treatment  and  final  storage 
of radioactive  waste  is an equally  urgent  matter  since 
this is one  of the problems  affecting  the safety  of the 
general  public  and  future  generations.  It has  already 
drawn  attention  to these  problems  in its Opinion  on 
the revision  of the Community's  multiannual  research 
programme  and  in its Opinion  on the promotion  of 
the use of nuclear  energy. 
2.11.  In  that  connection,  the Committee  expressed 
the fear  that  the Communities'  uranium  supplies  do 
not appear  quite  as secure  as has  frequently  been 
suggested  in past  years.  In its view,  the  energy 
research  programme  should  also  include  a study  of 
the further  development  of methods  of prospecting 
for uranium  ore.  The  results  of this  development 
work  should  also  be  made  available  to those 
countries  which  are prepared  to implement  them  on 
their  territory  together  with  the  Community  or its 
Member  States  to the benefit  of both  parties. 
2.12.  The  Committee  considers  thermonuclear 
fusion  to be one  of the  long-term  development 
I.S.3.75 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 62/7 
objectives  of  the  Community.  To  date  the 
Community's  role  has  been  largely  one  of 
coordination  but  has  been  nonetheless  significant. 
While  it must  be recognized  that  important  progress 
has been  made  in recent  years,  the  Committee 
nevertheless  feels  that  it will  not be possible  to utilize 
fusion  as a source  of energy  until  early  in the next 
century,  if at all. Work  in this  field  should  definitely 
continue  on a scale  which  at least  guarantees  a 
reasonable  possibility  of success,  but there  should  be 
no illusion  that  this  work  will  make  a contribution  to 
the Community's  energy  supplies  in the  foreseeable 
future.  Without  jeopardizing  these  activities,  priority 
should  be given  to the  most  promising  short-  and 
medium-term  projects  in the  Energy  for  Europe 
Programme.  Industry  should,  however,  be associated 
to the greatest  possible  extent  with  work  on materials 
and on  the  design  and  engineering  of industrial 
systems. harnessing  of  new  forms  of energy  must  be 
compatible  with  protection  of the  environment.  As 
the use of practically  every  form  of energy  apart  from 
solar  energy  affects  the environment  to a greater  or 
lesser  degree,  it will  have  to be examined  on a 
case-by-case  basis  how  the  essential  security  of 
energy  supply  is to be reconciled  with  environmental 
protection. 
2.16.  The  Committee  agrees  with  the Commission 
on the  need  for  further  research  with  the  aid  of 
systems  models  into  optimum  strategies  in which  the 
development  of the  different  energy  sources  and 
techniques  is viewed  in the context  of their  dynamic 
inter-relationships.  In particular,  attention  must  be 
paid to the energy  costs  and  yields  of investments  in 
the various  energy  systems. 
2.13.  The  same  considerations  apply  in  the 
Committee's  view  to solar  energy  and  geothermal 
energy.  In the  short  term,  it will  be possible  to 
harness  solar  energy  for supplementary  heating  and 
hot water  supplies  in residential  and  other  buildings 
at a relatively  low  cost,  so that  it would  be useful  to 
step up R & D work  in this  field.  Given  the climatic 
conditions  in the  Member  States,  solar  energy  will, 
however,  have  only  a narrow  field  of application. 
Furthermore,  while  technological  breakthroughs  have 
been  made  recently  in the  use  of organic  semi-
conductors  for the conversion  of solar  energy,  com-
mercial  electricity  generation  on a large  scale  by 
photoelectric  conversion  is probably  out  of the 
question  for the time  being.  The  chances  of economi-
cally  harnessing  geothermal  energy  in the short  term 
would  seem  to be poor,  apart  from  some  exceptions 
in particularly  favourable  locations.  To  guarantee 
long-term  security  of supply,  it is, however,  essential 
that ways  and  means  be found  as quickly  as possible 
of developing  new  energy  forms  other  than  nuclear 
energy. 
2.14.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  prospects  of 
hydrogen  becoming  an economic  proposition  as a 
new form  of energy  in the  course  of the  next  20 
years.  The  Committee  welcomes  the  inclusion  of 
development  activities  in this  area  in the  energy 
research  programme.  Such  activities  must,  however, 
take account  of the work  being  done  by industry,  and 
a heavy  concentration  of research  must  not adversely 
affect  work  on other  more  easily  accessible  energy 
sources. 2.17.  The  Committee  considers  that  in the case  of 
all the R&D  projects  which  are deserving  of priority 
aid, an investigation  should  be made  to see whether  it 
would  be expedient  and  useful  to cooperate  with 
other  states,  in particular  with  European  countries 
but also  with  the USA,  which  is planning  to carry  out 
a large-scale  energy  research  programme  (Project 
Independence).  The  Committee  also  dealt  in detail 
with  the  organization  and  costs  of such  an energy 
research  programme. 
2.18.  The  Committee  welcomes  and  supports  the 
call for  effective  and  obligatory  coordination  of 
research  in the Member  States  in defined  areas,  but it 
points  out  that  such  powers  over  rational  research 
work  and  research  facilities  must  be coupled  with 
acceptance  of responsibility,  particularly  since  the 
Commission  is laying  down  claim  to a role  of 
coordinator  in energy  R&D.  The  Committee  is 
aware  that  this  means  that  radical  limitations  will  be 
imposed  on the  authority  of the  Member  States.  It 
believes,  however,  that  in view  of the  Community's 
energy  position,  these  extensive  powers  for  the 
coordination  of energy  R&D  will  have  to be granted 
in the very  near  future.  In the Committee's  view,  such 
powers  should  also  include  the right  to obtain  from 
participants  full  information  about  present  and 
planned  R&D.  However,  care  must  be taken  to 
ensure  that  the  legitimate  interests  of the  parties 
obliged  to provide  information  are safeguarded. 
2.15.  With  regard  to all R & D activities,  the 
Committee  agrees  with  the  Commission  that  the 2.19.  As  regards  the  annual  funding  of 1500 
million  units  of account  which  the  Community 
considers  necessary,  the  Committee  fears  that  this 
No C 62/8 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 15. 3. 75 
sum will  not  be enough  to achieve  all the  short-  and 
medium-term  objectives.  One  reason  why  the 
Committee  believes  these  funds  to be insufficient  is 
that the  figure  of  approximately  6 % for  the 
proportion  of public  authorities'  total  investment  in 
the energy  sector  to be allocated  to R & D falls  short 
of the  average  ratio  of  10  % quoted  by  the 
Commission  for  a 'sound  technological  system'. 
Indeed,  there  is even  greater  reason  to question  the 
6 % figure  when  one  considers  that  the  energy 
sector's  reliance  on  future  complex  technology 
should  place  its R 8c D requirements  substantially 
above  the  average  for  other  sectors.  Although  the energy  sector  has  to date  been  able  to manage  on an 
R 8c D appropriation  equal  to 6 % of its total  capital 
investment,  this  can  be no yardstick  in tackling  the 
difficult  technological  problems  involved  in 
developing  new  energy  sources. 
Done  at Brussels,  30 January  1975. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
ANNEX 
to the Opinion  of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
The following  proposed  amendments  were  rejected  during  the discussion: 
Amend  item  2.6 to read  as follows: 
'The  Section  considers  that  a large  proportion  of Community  research  and  development 
expenditure  should  be devoted  to the  development  of nuclear  energy.  As the  Committee 
pointed  out  in its Opinion  on the Commission  memorandum  on the promotion  of the use of 
nuclear  energy,  many  problems  are  involved  in the  use  of nuclear  energy.  In view  of the 
major  uncertainties  and  risks  still  attaching  to nuclear  energy,  the  Section  urges  that  all 
possible  consequences  be carefully  examined  before  concrete  steps  towards  large-scale 
application  of nuclear  energy  are taken.  Adequate  solutions  must  be found  in particular  for 
the safety  and  environmental  problems.  Research  in these  two  areas  is, therefore,  a matter 
of priority.' 
Amend  item  2.7 to read  as follows: 
'In addition,  research  in reactor  development  should  concentrate  on high-temperature  and 
breeder  reactors.  Not  until  breeder  reactors  are brought  into  service  on a commercial  scale 
will the Community  achieve  an appreciably  greater  degree  of independence  in nuclear  fuel 
supplies  of equal  importance,  etc.' 
Reasons 
In the  Opinion  of 26 June  1974  {*) which  was  adopted  unanimously  the  following  points 
among  others  were  made: 
'The  Committee  welcomes  the fact  that  it is intended  to investigate  the potential  radiological 
implications  of the  nuclear  programmes  over  a long  period.  Up till now  there  has  been  far 
too little  reliable  information  available  in this  field  which  would  show  the  effects  of the 
planned  use of nuclear  energy  on a wide  scale. 
(») OJ  No  C 116,  30.  9. 1974,  p. 26. 
15.3.75 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 62/9 
In view  of this  state  of affairs  and  the  major  risks  which  the  use  of nuclear  energy  involves  for 
the general  public  (including  future  generations),  adequate  solutions  must  first  and  foremost  be 
found  for  the  safety  and  environmental  problems.  Research  in these  areas  is therefore  of the 
greatest  importance. 
Result  of the  vote 
for: 35 
against:  47 
abstentions:  7. 
Opinion  on the Mediterranean  policy  of the Community 
The Opinion  of the Committee  does  not relate  to any  particular  text. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
At its 126th  plenary  session  held  on 19 December  1974  the  Committee,  acting  on a 
proposal  from  its Bureau,  decided  to deliver  an Opinion  on the abovementioned  subject 
on its own  initiative. 
B. OPINION  OF THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  drew  up its Opinion  at its 127th  plenary  session, 
held in Brussels  on 29 and  30 January  1975. 
The Opinion  is published  below: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the fourth  paragraph  of Article  20 
of its Rules  of Procedure; 
Having  regard  to its decision  on 19 December  1974 
— following  a proposal  from  the  Bureau  — to 
deliver  an Opinion  on the  Mediterranean  policy  of 
the Community; 
Having  regard  to the  study  on  the  agricultural 
aspects  of  the  Mediterranean  policy  of  the 
Community; 
Having  regard  to the Opinion  adopted  by the Section 
for External  Relations  at its meeting  on 14 January 
1975; 
Having  regard  to the  report  submitted  by  the 
Rapporteur,  Mrs  Baduel  Glorioso; Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 127th  plenary 
session  of 29 and  30 January  1975,  meeting  of 30 
January  1975; 
Whereas  there  have  been  bilateral  agreements 
between  the EEC  and  countries  of the Mediterranean 
basin  since  1961; 
Having  regard  to the discussions  and  proposals  of the 
European  Parliament; 
Whereas  in 1972  the Commission  submitted  proposals 
on an overall  EEC  policy  in the Mediterranean  basin; 
Whereas  decisions  taken  by the October  1972  Paris 
Summit  conference  and  the Council  of the European 
Communities  confirm  the need  for such  a policy; 
Having  regard  to the  communication  from  the 
Commission  to the  Council,  of 23 January  1974,