No C 16/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 23.1. 75 
statement to this effect in the actual proposal for a 
Council Decision. 
2.4. The Committee recommends that it be made 
clear in the Decision that the Community's 
contribution will be conditional on Member State 
undertakings and collective research bodies paying 
two-thirds of the research costs. 
3. With the above reservations, the Committee 
approves the proposal for a Decision because: 
— it sets an example of Community industrial 
cooperation in an important sector, — savings will be achieved by pooling the resources 
of the research institutes in the various Member 
States, 
— advantages can be expected in the fields of 
consumer protection, energy conservation and the 
balance of payments. 
Done at Brussels, 28 November 1974. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Henri CANONGE 
k 
ANNEX 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following amendment, tabled in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Rules of 
Procedure, was rejected during the discussion. 
Substitute the following text for section 1.6: 
'Given the continuing absence of a coherent common industrial policy, it would be 
inappropriate to make Community funds available for specific research activities. If it is 
nevertheless decided to provide funds for this purpose, it is essential that the research aims 
should be fixed in consultation with the parties concerned (workers and employers) and 
that allowance should be made for the social repercussions in the industry, for the impact 
on the environment and consumers, and for the interests of the developing countries which 
produce textiles.' 
Result of the vote 
for: 42 
against: 53 
abstentions: 7. 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on waste disposal 
The text referred to the Committee was published in Official Journal of the European 
Communities No C 142 of 16 November 1974 pages 6 and 7. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 26 September 1974, the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the 
Economic and Social Committee under Article 100 of the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community. 
23.1.75 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 16/13 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee drew up its Opinion at its 125th plenary session, 
held in Brussels on 28 November 1974. 
The Opinion is published below: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the referral on 26 September 1974 
by the Council of the European Communities of the 
proposal for a Council Directive on waste disposal; 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 
8 October 1974, instructing the Section for Protection 
of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer 
Affairs to draw up an Opinion and a report on the 
matter; 
Having regard to Article 100 of the Treaty 
establishing the European Economic Community; 
Having regard to the Opinion adopted by the Section 
for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and 
Consumer Affairs on 12 November 1974; 
Having regard to the Opinion adopted by the 
Committee on 17 July 1974 on the proposal for a 
Council Directive on the disposal of waste oils (1); 
Having regard to the report submitted by the 
Rapporteur, Mr De Grave; 
Having regard to the discussions at its 125th plenary 
session of 28 November 1974, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
with no dissenting votes and two abstentions: 
The Economic and Social Committee regrets that, 
owing to the extrdnely tight deadline, it was able to 
discuss only the general principles raised by the 
proposal, and was not able to deal in detail with the 
various types of wastes and disposal procedures. 
The Committee approves the proposal, subject to the 
following comments: 
1. General comments 
- 1.1. The application of the'polluter-pays'principle 
1.1.1. The Committee notes with satisfaction that 
in this proposal, and particularly in the last recital, 
(1) OJ No C 125, 16. 10. 1974, p. 33. the Commission has moved towards the approach 
put forward in its Opinion on the disposal of waste 
oils. In particular, under this proposal the cost of 
disposal or treatment is to be borne by the polluter 
and no longer by the purchaser of products liable to 
end up entirely or partially as waste. The 
Commission has also taken account of the 
Committee's concern to see action pursued on two 
fronts: control of pollution and conservation of raw 
materials. 
1.1.2. In Article 11 of the proposal and in the 
comments on this Article in the explanatory 
memorandum, the final holder of the waste is 
considered to be the polluter. The Committee stated 
in its Opinion on waste oils that it could not agree to 
this being made a general principle. In connection 
with the present proposal the Committee would draw 
particular attention to the fact that nowadays 
domestic consumers often have no other choice but 
to buy products which cause pollution, particularly 
non-returnable packaging. Since certain types of food 
are no longer available in returnable or degradable 
containers, it would be unreasonable to hold 
domestic consumers solely responsible for the 
disposal of these new types of waste. 
1.1.3. For some such types of packaging the 
specific additional disposal cost could be covered by 
levying a charge on the product. Implementing 
directives would have to provide for collection of this 
charge at the production or at the importation stage 
so that the specific cost of disposal would be 
included in the price of the product. 
1.1.4. This would at one and the same time 
achieve a more precise application to the 
'polluter-pays' principle (the purchasers of products 
which give rise to less pollution or none at all would 
pay less), would steer producers and consumers to 
products which were less damaging to the 
environment, and would make producers alive to the 
problem of the disposal of the wastes for which they 
are responsible. 
1.1.5. The Committee considers that in applying 
the 'polluter-pays' principle, a sharp distinction 
should be drawn between household refuse and 
industrial wastes. The cost of disposal of refuse from 
households and many small businesses cannot be 
calculated individually, but public authorities will 
No C 16/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 23.1.75 
presumably charge householders and small businesses 
a standard rate. The Committee wonders, however, 
whether it would not be desirable for social reasons 
to temper the over-strict provisions of Article 11 and 
finance part of the costs of disposal from tax 
revenues. Nor should householders necessarily be 
made to pay the full additional cost of selective waste 
collection under schemes to conserve raw materials. 
1.1.6. Some industrial wastes present more specific 
disposal problems (volume, weight, toxicity). Only 
certain firms should be authorized to collect, 
transport and dispose of such wastes, and the 
particularly high cost of their disposal should be 
borne by the individual company producing the 
waste. These companies should therefore not be 
charged for disposal at a standard rate. 
1.2. The field of application of the proposed 
Directive 
1.2.1. In the Committee's view, the field of 
application of the proposed Directive as specified in 
Articles 1 and 2 should be defined in greater detail 
with reference to: 
(a) liquid wastes; 
(b) wastes from slaughterhouses and fish-processing 
factories. 
1.2.2. Article 2 (c) should place an obligation on 
the Commission to submit by a specified date a 
harmonization proposal concerning agricultural 
waste, and indicate that the 'other substances' 
referred to are of animal and plant origin. 
1.2.3. The exception provided for in Article 2 (b) 
is, in the Committee's view, much too broad and 
should be defined more closely and narrowed down. 
There is a need to harmonize arrangements covering, 
for example, wastes from mining, which are already 
governed by legislation in the Member States, while 
other sectors, such as the treatment of non-ferrous 
metals, the desulphurization of hydrocarbons, the 
mining of potash and other minerals should also be 
covered. The waste produced by some firms working 
in the above fields raises problems of sufficient 
acuteness as to justify the adoption of harmonization 
measures at an early date. 
1.3. Guidance of producers and consumers 
1.3.1. Whilst endorsing the Commission's view 
that Member States must take action to encourage 
the recycling and recovery of wastes, the Committee 
feels that it is at least equally important for the Member States to take preventive action by adopting 
measures to (a) promote the use of materials which 
can be re-used or recycled with the least outlay, or 
(b) to discourage, or in certain cases — after 
informing the Commission — even to restrict or 
prohibit the use of certain materials. The appropriate 
additions should therefore be made to Articles 4, 12 
and 13, and the relevant provisions should be 
harmonized at Community level as soon as possible. 
1.3.2. The Committee calls upon the Commission 
to take steps to coordinate and foster research into 
the treatment of wastes, and to associate economic 
interests and social groups with this work. 
1.3.3. The Committee would point out in this 
connection that another proposal for a Council 
Directive deals with the approximation of the laws of 
the Member States relating to materials and articles 
intended to come into contact with foodstuffs (*). 
This Directive would oblige the Member States to 
permit the use of any material which did not produce 
harmful effects when coming into contact with 
foodstuffs. It would mean that the Member States 
would no longer be able to restrict or regulate the 
use of a material on the grounds that the said 
material in the waste state was generally undesirable, 
whether undesirable in view of the facilities and 
technology available at the particular time or place in 
question, or undesirable from the point of view of the 
particularly high cost involved. The Committee 
thinks it inappropriate to authoriz'e the marketing of 
products which will end up as waste polluting the 
environment, without taking account of the 
difficulties of disposing of the resultant waste. 
1.4. Cooperation between the Member States 
1.4.1. Some Member States have found themselves 
powerless to prevent the secret dumping of toxic 
wastes on their territory by < non-residents or 
foreign-based companies. The Commission is 
therefore requested to provide for closer cooperation 
between the Member States in this field. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 3 
The final part of this Article might perhaps be better 
worded as follows: ... in the soil, in the subsoil, at 
sea or in rivers'. 
(!) OJ No C 121, 11. 10. 1974, p. 27. 
23.1. 75 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 16/15 
2.2. Article 3 
The Committee recommends the following wording 
for this Article: 
'Member States shall take the necessary measures 
to dispose of waste: 
— without endangering human health; 
— without risk to water, air, the soil or the 
subsoil; 
— while taking care to ensure that flora and 
fauna, beauty spots and the countryside are 
protected.' 
2.3. Articles11 to 13 
As was pointed out above in the general comments, 
account should be taken in certain cases of the 
responsibility incurred by producers and importers 
when they produce or import products which will 
end up as waste, and allowance made for this 
responsibility in determining the social cost of 
disposing of such wastes. Some wastes present more 
difficult disposal problems than others, either because 
they are non-biodegradable or corrode incinerators 
or because burning them pollutes the atmosphere. Given the extremely high social cost of the disposal 
of such waste, the Member States, and by the same 
token the proposed Directive or an implementing 
directive, should adopt a much more radical 
approach than that shown by Articles 12 and 13. 
2.4. Article 14 
The Committee asks that a second paragraph be 
added to this Article: 
The plan provided for in Article 10 shall be 
annexed to the said report.' 
2.5. Article 14 (a) 
The Committee proposes that the following Article 
be added: 
'Where necessary, the Commission shall submit to 
the Council appropriate proposals for 
coordinating the action of the competent 
authorities, particularly in frontier regions.' 
Done at Brussels, 28 November 1974. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Henri CANONGE 
ANNEX 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following amendment, tabled in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Rules 
of Procedure, was rejected during the discussion: 
Point 1.1.2 
Substitute the following for point 1.1.2: 
'Since some types of food are not always available in returnable or degradable containers, 
it should be examined whether in certain special cases domestic consumers can be held 
solely responsible for the disposal of the waste.' 
Point 1.1.3 
Delete point 1.1.3. 
Reason 
It emerged from the Section's discussion that the burden on private households caused by 
packaging which is harmful to the environment, particularly throwaway packaging, is not as 
heavy or as one-sided as the Opinion implies. The slight additional burden this packaging 
imposes on consumers does not justify setting up a possibly complicated administrative 
apparatus to record the — often very disparate — producers of such packaging and make them 
pay the cost of disposal. It is therefore proposed that point 1.1.3 be deleted. 
Result of the vote 
for: 15 
against: 58 
abstentions: 6.