10. 9. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 225/35 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 1696/71 
on the common organization of the market in hops 
(90/C 225/13) 
On 18 June 1990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 
198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the abovementioned 
proposal. 
The Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Mr Proumens as rapporteur-general with 
the task of preparing its work on the subject. 
At its 278th plenary session (meeting of 4 July 1990) the Economic and Social Committee adopted 
the following opinion by a unanimous vote. 
1. The Committee approves the Commission proposal 
which, by way of derogation from Regulation (EEC) No 
1696/71, is to grant hop producers aid for areas planted 
with experimental varieties. 
2. It notes that this aid is to be granted for a limited 
period, for a restricted area per Member State and for 
experimental varieties which are in an advanced stage of 
breeding development and are cultivated under the 
supervision of a research institute. 
3. The Committee thinks that the Commission proposal 
should help to improve Community hop production; this 
1. Preliminary comments 
1.1. Dangerous substances — limits on discharges into 
the aquatic environment 
The first framework Directive (76/464/EEC) on pollution 
caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the 
(!) OJ No C 55, 7. 3. 1990, p. 7. will affect farmers and industrial users in several Com­
munity countries. 
Done at Brussels, 4 July 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
aquatic environment of the Community was adopted in 
May 1976. It contained a black list of extremely toxic 
substances whose discharge was to be banned and a grey 
list of less toxic substances whose discharge was to be 
reduced. It was followed in December 1979 by a Directive 
(80/68/EEC) on the protection of ground water from 
dangerous substances. With regard to the black list (List 1), 
the Commission's task is to fix limit values and quality 
objectives; with regard to the grey list (List 2), it is to 
harmonize national action programmes drawn up in 
compliance with framework Directive 76/464/EEC. Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution 
caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the 
Community (*) 
(90/C 225/14) 
On 26 February 1990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 130s 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 5 June 1990. 
The rapporteur was Mr Mantovani. 
At its 278th plenary session (meeting of 5 July 1990), the Economic and Social Committee adopted 
the following opinion by a majority, with five abstentions. 
No C 225/36 Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 9. 90 
1.2. Aim of the proposal for a Directive 
The principal objective of the present proposal is to 
facilitate application of Article 6 of Council Directive 76/ 
464/EEC of 4 May 1976, i.e. imposition of the limit values 
which the emission standards must not exceed for the 
dangerous substances included in List 1 of the above 
Directive. 
The Commission considers that the main reason why 
Directive 76/464/EEC needs to be amended is because of 
the slowness in implementing Article 6. 
The Commission, under pressure from the European 
Parliament and the Frankfurt Ministerial Seminar on future 
Community water policy, has decided to submit the present 
proposal for a Directive in order to accelerate this 
procedure. The present proposal also contains an amend­
ment to Article 12 of Directive 76/464/EEC. 
The amendment to Article 12 of Directive 76/464/EEC is 
intended to ensure that the Council follows the second 
paragraph of Article 130s of the Treaty, i.e. will take a 
decision by a qualified majority on the Commission's 
proposed amendment to Article 6 of Directive 76/464/ 
EEC. 
Last but not least, Article 2 of the present proposal lists 
substances to be considered on a priority basis for the 
purpose of fixing limit values and quality objectives. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Committee wholeheartedly endorses the 
proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 76/ 
464/EEC. It agrees that it is important to use the proposed 
new procedure to prescribe limit values and quality 
objectives for agricultural herbicide and pesticide chemi­
cals which are listed in Article 2 of the new proposal 
amending Directive 76/464/EEC. 
2.2. The Committee appreciates the Commission's and 
Council's intention of speeding up the procedure for 
implementing the Directives (particularly Directive 76/ 
464/EEC) on the control of pollution caused by certain 
dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environ­
ment. 
The Committee believes that the Commission must commit 
itself more wholeheartedly to the task of persuading the 
Council and the Member States to ensure that the relevant 
Directives are fully and swiftly implemented in all the 
countries of the Community. 
2.3. Looking at the list of products appearing in the 
proposed Directive and used in agriculture as herbicides 
and pesticides, the Committee finds that there are many 
other even more dangerous products discharged into the 
aquatic environment, and currently used in a variety of 
sectors, which are conspicuous by their absence. 
2.3.1. We would also do well to remember, even if this 
point is not directly relevant to the subject of the present opinion, that natural substances can be found in certain 
regions of the Community which pose a very serious threat 
to the quality of the aquatic environment when in contact 
with surface or ground water. 
2.4. With regard to the applications of the products 
actually listed in the Directive, the Committee has analysed 
their future effects not only on agriculture but also on the 
individual firms and cooperatives involved in their 
distribution. 
2.5. In view of market forces and production require­
ments, the control of pests and weeds forms a vital part of 
the production process. The results in terms of yields have 
been excellent, but the use of chemicals to protect crops 
poses a problem in that residues may possibly find their 
way into the aquatic environment. Given their possible 
impact on the environment, chemicals must therefore be 
used cautiously, wisely and with foresight. Firms produc­
ing pesticides and herbicides should also make sure that 
users receive adequate instructions regarding the correct 
use of the products in question. 
2.6. The list of products appearing in the proposed 
Directive undoubtedly includes substances which require 
controls to avoid pollution as a result of their discharge into 
the aquatic environment. 
Of prime importance here would be the introduction of a 
monitoring system since such a method is better than 
selection for providing adequate and more accurate 
information on the actual risks involving substances 
discharged into the aquatic environment. Monitoring can 
also provide useful information for the purposes of 
channelling research towards the discovery of less toxic 
products. In general, the technical instruments for 
measuring and monitoring pollution in the aquatic 
environment, as laid down under Community legislation, 
should not operate to the serious disadvantage of any one 
Member State. The Committee also believes that proper 
attention should be paid to research and that both basic and 
applied research should be promoted vigorously. 
2.7. The use of plant-protection products remains vital 
if we wish to ensure that levels of production are 
quantitatively and qualitatively able to cover current 
consumer requirement and wishes. It is therefore obvious 
that the substances listed in Article 2 will have to be 
replaced by other substances which (a) are less widely used 
and are perhaps even unknown at present, (b) are known to 
have a smaller or zero impact on the aquatic environment, 
and (c) are not among the products subject to limit values 
and quality objectives under the proposed Directive. 
Although the resultant vacuum might offer the chemical 
industry new oppotunities, there would be no guarantees as 
to the impact on the environment and there might be a 
heavy economic price to pay as a result of the higher prices 
which agricultural producers would have to bear. The 
products mentioned in the Directive are in fact in 
10. 9. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 225/37 
widespread use (and not only in agriculture), have been on 
the market for a long time and are generally sold at 
reasonable prices. 
2.8. A situation is therefore developing which calls for 
action on two fronts. A first objective would be to fix limit 
values for a very wide range of substances in order to avoid 
discrimination and forestall the extensive use of certain 
products. Efforts should focus on more effective products 
in common use. A second line of action would be to develop 
a permanent strategy for promoting the widespread use of 
techniques and practices aimed at significantly reducing the 
quantities of substances liable to be discharged into the 
aquatic environment. 
2.8.1. If crop-protection chemicals are to be used 
correctly and in moderation, it is extremely important to 
choose equipment and employ techniques which will 
ensure that the desired targets are hit whilst avoiding the 
dispersal of chemicals into the environment. It is common 
knowledge that unsuitable or incorrectly used equipment 
may release extremely large quantities of chemicals into the 
environment without in any way serving phytotherapeutic 
ends. 
The equipment used with pesticides and herbicides should 
therefore be carefully tested (under a generally accepted 
certification procedure) to make sure it is in good working 
order so that the unit doses of the active chemical 
constituents can be reduced. The initial certification 
procedure would have to be followed up by regular tests of 
calibration and performance. 
2.8.2. Another approach to limiting the use of crop-
protection products concerns agricultural sciences proper, 
i.e. action needs to be taken to (a) promote widescale 
agricultural practices designed to ensure that the soil 
retains a high level of organic substances, in order to 
optimize its absorbtive capacity and thereby reduce the 
tendency of chemicals to seep through or run off; (b) 
improve soil structure; (c) encourage crop rotation and 
weed control by mechanical means, etc. 
It is important in this respect to take into account different 
soils as well as the existence of drainage systems 
appropriate to the soils in question. 2.8.3. The release of chemicals to the environment can 
also be reduced by enacting legislation on the disposal of 
containers; this disposal operation must be carried out 
under stringent and appropriate conditions to avoid the 
release of residues into the environment. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. The Committee welcomes the new procedure laid 
down in Article 1; it nevertheless considers it to be 
halfhearted. The need to act rapidly, and under certain 
circumstances declare emergencies, should persuade the 
Community to use Regulations rather than Directives 
when it comes to environmental matters. 
3.2. The substances enumerated in Article 2 should be 
completed by additions from the current list of 132 
dangerous substances, necessarily brought up to date and 
harmonized and including substances with greater toxicity. 
A system for monitoring the active components is also 
essential for this purpose. 
3.3. The funds needed to update and complete this list of 
substances (originally drawn up in 1982 and now partly 
obsolete) must be made available to DG XI. Financial 
resources are also needed to allow this department to carry 
out all its activities in this important area of environmental 
policy. 
3.4. The Scientific Advisory Committee set up to 
evaluate dangerous substances must include, alongside 
toxicologists, economic agents in contact with producers 
and public opinion through their work and who are likely 
to be informed about the problems associated with the use 
of such products. 
Done at Brussels, 5 July 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE