No C 332/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) 
on substances that deplete the ozone layer (^ 
(90/C 332/03) 
On 10 April 1990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article DOS 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 4 September 1990. The Rapporteur was Mr de Normann. The Co-Rapporteurs were 
Mr Boisseree and Mr Colombo. 
At its 279th plenary session (meeting of 19 September 1990) the Economic and Social 
Committee unanimously adopted the following Opinion. 
1. General 
1.1. The Committee welcomes the international 
approach adopted in the proposed Council Regulation 
which will apply to the import, export, production and 
thus consumption of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), other 
fully halogenated CFC, halons, carbon tetrachloride 
and methyl chloroform. 
1.2. The Committee supports this proposed Regu­
lation and understands that industry and science have 
advised the Commission that the severity of restriction 
involved is necessary and practicable. The Commission 
believes that this is the optimum balance of choice 
between the necessity to eliminate the emission to 
atmosphere of harmful products and the repercussions 
of the effects and the time scale of that elimination on 
the industries that produce and use these products, the 
economic and social effects on the workers that produce 
and add value to them and the consumers which rely 
on them to secure health, hygiene and an overall quality 
of life. 
1.3. These are not the most severe restrictions pro­
posed among the Member States. The Committee 
understands that in the German Federal Republic more 
severe regimes for elimination are under consideration. 
1.4. The Montreal Protocol was revised at a United 
Nations meeting in London on 29 June 1990. The 
changes come into force on or before 1 January 1993. 
Some changes affect the timetable for controls on the 
CFC and halons already in the Protocol: these are 
mandatory for all parties. Other changes bring in new 
substances, or make changes to provisions such as those 
on trade or the developing countries; these will come 
into force only for those parties ratifying the revised 
(») OJ No C 86, 4. 4. 1990, p. 4. Protocol. At the meeting, the parties also passed resol­
utions regarding some further substances. 
1.5. The Committee understands that the Com­
mission will support the entire revision. In some 
respects, however, this proposed Regulation continues 
to be somewhat more severe on CFC. Requirements for 
methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride are about 
the same, comparing the revision with the Commission 
proposal. 
1.6. The Committee supports the current Com­
mission proposal subject to detailed comment and 
suggestions for practicable improvement given below. 
1.7. Should the Montreal revision lead to modifi­
cations of the Commission proposal, the Committee 
reserves the right to give a supplementary Opinion on 
the revised proposal. 
2. Background 
2.1. Depletion of the ozone layer is accepted as a 
global problem requiring global measures to tackle it. 
2.2. The Montreal Protocol to the Vienna Conven­
tion on substances that deplete the ozone layer came 
into force on 1 January 1989. Some 55 countries and 
the Community have ratified it. 
2.3. It was necessary for action to be taken at Com­
munity level to carry out the Community's obligations 
under the Convention and the Protocol and in particular 
to control production and consumption within the 
Community of those chlorofluorocarbons (CFC and 
halons), listed as «controlled substances* in Annex A 
of the Montreal Protocol. Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 3322/88 was therefore adopted on 14 October 1988. 
31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/15 
2.4. The Opinion of the Economic and Social Com­
mittee (*) endorsed the Regulation but felt that the 
measures envisaged were inadequate to tackle the seri­
ous problem of ozone depletion. It envisaged of the 
Montreal Protocol, in answer to new scientific evidence 
of the need for a faster reduction in CFC production. 
Provision for such revision is incorporated in Article 6 
of the Protocol itself and is taking place on an acceler­
ated timescale culminating in the second meeting of the 
parties in London in June 1990. 
2.5. The Opinion stressed that the necessary indus­
trial restructuring involved in cutting back the pro­
duction and use of CFC and halons must be carried out 
in a socially acceptable way. It urged industry and 
Member States to taken action in timely fashion so as 
to allow for an orderly transition. 
2.6. The Committee endorses this earlier Opinion in 
the belief that: 
— There are no scientific shortcuts to safe substitutes. 
— However enthusiastically the chemical industry 
accepts this challenge, the problem will only be 
solved by cooperation at international level between 
governments and industry as a whole. 
— Whatever the outcome of any decision to extend 
the Montreal Protocol, it will not be adequately 
implemented unless there are international commit­
ments by government and industry alike. 
— It is of much greater environmental benefit to agree 
and implement a practicable phase-out than to 
attempt dramatically earlier reductions with the risk 
of unsafe, unworkable solutions. 
2.7. Recent scientific evidence has suggested that the 
control measures provided in the Protocol are no longer 
adequate. In support of discussions at the London Con­
ference on 'Saving the Ozone Layer', the Commission 
has proposed a revised Council Regulation which 
demands more stringent controls leading to the phasing 
out of CFC by 31 December 1997 and halons by 
31 December 1999, together with controls on carbon 
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform and other fully halo-
genated CFC. 2.8. Decisions to strenghten the Protocol were taken 
at the second meeting of the Parties to the Montreal 
Protocol in London in June 1990 in which the Com­
mission was an active participant, and emphasized the 
need to extend acceptance of the Protocol on a world 
scale. As the environmental goal of returning atmos­
pheric chlorine levels to pre-Antarctic 'hole' levels can­
not be met by unilateral action, however stringent, the 
Committee endorses this. 
2.9. The Committee understands that European pro­
ducer and user industry endorses the goal of global 
compliance with an appropriately strengthened Proto­
col along the general lines of the Europan Commission's 
proposals to the United Nations Environment Pro­
gramme (UNEP) in the negotiations leading up to the 
June 1990 meeting in London. 
3. Levels at which action is to be taken 
3.1. The Committee distinguishes between the three 
levels of action available. 
3.2. The most effective and sure level of advance is 
global through the use of the Montreal Protocol which 
will ensure the widest possible honouring of the Proto­
col requirements. 
3.3. At the level of the European Community, it is 
right to consider action in advance of the Protocol as 
an example to the world and as an acknowledgement 
of the position of part of the developed countries. The 
Commission is taking the lead not only with regard to 
this current proposal, but also by espousing the prin­
ciple of additionally by making available specific 
additional funding as an incentive to persuade less 
developed countries (LDC) to join the Protocol. 
3.4. The Committee supports the use of Articles 113 
and 130S on which to base this Regulation. It is aware 
that Regulations are not the usual instruments for 
environmental matters but the existing situation is 
urgent and merits this efficient, fast approach, which 
also provides consistency as between the treatment of 
the small number of European companies (in various 
Member States) directly subject to the Regulation. 
4. Products covered by the proposed Regulation 
(') OJ No C 208, 8. 8. 1988. 4.1. The Committee approves the increase in the 
scope of the proposed Regulation (and expectedly also 
No C 332/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
of the Montreal Protocol) to include carbon tetra­
chloride and the addition of other fully halogenated 
chlorofluorocarbons to the Article 2 controls. These 
substitutes have an atmospheric lifetime and ozone 
depletion potential similar to those CFC currently con­
trolled under Article 2. The Committee further 
approves the inclusion of methyl chloroform in the 
proposed Regulation with a timetable that recognizes 
that this substance has on the one hand a very much 
lower ozone depletion potential (ODP) than the other 
substances, and that it is used by a large number of 
small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) who will 
need time to make the necessary difficult adjustments. 
5. Reduction schemes for production and consump­
tion 
5.1. The Committee approves the control of pro­
duction and consumption rather than of usage. This is 
administratively efficient as it addresses the problem at 
source and allows the Regulation to be fully implement­
ed and monitored while addressing it only to a small 
number of companies within the Community rather 
than creating an administrative burden for the tens of 
thousands of user companies (many of which are SME) 
and individual consumers using CFC and the other 
controlled substances. 
5.2. In the context of this Regulation, the Committee 
understands that consumption is sales by producers 
plus sales by importers equivalent to production plus 
imports minus exports, as defined in Article 3 of the 
Montreal Protocol (taking into account the definition 
of production as defined in Article 1 of the revised 
Protocol). 
5.3. The proposed Regulation puts forward new 
limits of production and consumption based on percent­
ages of 1986 production leading to an earlier total 
elimination of dispersive uses by January 1998, of the 
five CFC in Annexe I, certain other fully halogenated 
CFC and carbon tetrachloride (except as feedstocks 
where the substances are transformed and thus cannot 
enter the environment). 
5.4. The Regulation further provides for a freeze 
on the amount of halons and of methyl chloroform 
produced in 1992 followed by a phase-down of halons 
to elimination by 31 December 1999 and of methyl 
chloroform to 40 % in the year 2000. 5.5. The Committee supports these revised and 
additional proposals while noting that certain industry 
sectors, particulary user industries and SME, will be 
severely impacted during the 1990 and they strive to 
make the necessary adjustments. This will be the case 
particularly during the final stages of the phase out, 
when the incremental environmental benefits will be 
the least and the incremental social and economic costs 
the greatest. 
5.6. The Committee notes that the 'calculated level' 
of production and consumption is defined as the actual 
level multiplied by the ODP given in Annexe I. The 
ODP has remained unchanged since the 1988 Regu­
lation but should be amended in the light of further 
scientific knowledge now available. 
5.7. The Committee notes that the Commission has 
chosen a strategy for phase-out which, although con­
sidered practicable by industry, will prove extremely 
difficult to achieve in practice. 
5.8. The Committee considers that it will be the 
elimination of the final small percentage which will 
cause the greatest economic and social impact. There 
may be a need for flexibility in the derogations during 
this final stage to avoid unnecessary social problems 
without concomitant environmental benefit. 
5.9. The Committee understands that industry could 
meet this acceleration in the major part of the pro­
gramme providing that a timely and acceptable pro­
posal for the organisation of the final phase could be 
produced by the Commission. 
5.10. The Committee has no sympathy for any 
unnecessary prolongation of the phase-out period. It 
realises, however, that research into alternatives, 
involving not only the processes of individual producers 
and industrial consumers but also the environmental 
acceptance and the assurance of human health and 
safety, now on-going is not expensive but cannot be 
accelerated by virtue of the very nature of the necessary 
tests. 
5.11. The Regulation will involve costs which are 
estimated to involve around US $ 1,5 billion for the 
main producers in the EC with a further US $ 15 billion 
for the user industries. 
5.12. The numbers could be exceeded unless the opti­
mum approach to the elimination of the last few percent 
is taken, in which case they might be improved. 
31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/17 
5.13. Manufacturers of CFC who are prepared to 
devote significant resources to finding alternative prod­
ucts will require a commercial return on their invest­
ments and a positive signal to invest in the first place. 
5.14. Steps must be taken to defend the industries 
which carry out research and development (R & D) to 
produce alternative products. The Committee rec­
ommends the Council to ask the Commission to treat 
this as a positive requirement demanding attention. 
6. The position of industry 
6.1. World production of CFC was about a million 
tons a year in 1986 mostly in the EC, the USA and 
Japan, but a minority in Central and South America, 
Eastern Europe, the Far East and Australia. 
6.2. The EC accounts for about 40 % of world manu­
facture and a third of world consumption. 
6.3. The nine EC producers of CFC and halons in 
six Members States are members of the European Fluo-
rocarbon Technical Committee (EFCTC), a sector gro­
up of the 'Conseil Europeen des Federations de Plndu-
strie Chimique' (CEFIC). 
The four EC producers of methyl chloroform and the 
several EC producers of carbon tetrachloride are mem­
bers of the European Chlorinated Solvents Association 
(ECSA), also a sector group of CEFIC. 
6.4. The Committee believes that, in the interests of 
the social partners and of the consumers, it is essential 
to secure an orderly transition from old technology 
involving suspect products to new technology in which 
safe substitute products or processes or technologies 
will be available in sufficient amounts to meet the needs 
of society. 
6.5. Although the proposed Regulation does not 
involve control by usage, trade federations involving 
both EC Members States and States of the European 
Free Trade Association (EFTA) have offered voluntary 
agreements with the Commission. This will lead to a 
90% reduction in the use of CFC for aerosols by the 
end of 1990 and phase out by 1997. An agreement on 
use in foam plastics and another on use in refrigeration 
including training for servicing big installations were 
proposed. The Committee encourages the Commission to ratify 
these agreements. Ratified voluntary agreements will 
strengthen the Commission's international negotiating 
position by demonstrating the commitment of the Com­
munity, its industry and social partners, and consumers 
to the timely achievement of the environmental goals. 
6.6. The producer industry must be allowed to 
accomplish full rationalization throughout the Com­
munity in order to avoid premature loss of supplies tot 
critical user industries before alternative options are 
available, and to avoid unnecessary cost burdens for 
user industries and consumers. Unless this goal of 
rationalization is achieved the Community will be com­
petitively disadvantaged relative to its major trading 
partners. 
6.7. The 85% reduction on production and con­
sumption after 31 December 1995 will leave very few, 
perhaps only one CFC plant in operation in the EC. 
6.8. Industry has proposed a rationalisation pro­
gramme. If it is accepted, they can operate economi­
cally. If not, they may have to choose lower capacity 
at an earlier date. 
6.9. One or two plants will continue to produce the 
'controlled' products. This will place user industries at 
high risk several years before the phase-out date, should 
the remaining producer plants succumb to political 
pressure. 
6.10. The EC Regulation proposes phasing down 
imports with the same schedule as production and 
consumption. The US Regulation allows import to sub-
stitue, partially or totally, production so long as the 
sum of production + import satisfies the allowed Pro­
tocol level. 
6.11. This penalises the EC users and consumers 
if a premature shut down of EC plants cannot be 
compensated by imports, as the US industry is allowed 
to do to safeguard supplies to users. 
6.12. This phased reduction will also bring with it 
the problems of accelerated depreciation of existing 
plants and added costs and reduced availability for the 
co-produced chemicals (e.g. chloroform, hydrochloric 
acid, caustic soda) and downstream industries. 
No C 332/18 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
7. Feedstocks to producer plants 
7.1. The Montreal Protocol and the existing and 
proposed Regulations do not deal with feedstock prod­
ucts since these are not emitted to atmosphere. They 
are not covered in this proposal. 
7.2. In the special case of carbon tetrachloride the 
closure of the plants will remove an important safe 
'sink' for chlorinated residues which have until now 
been safely destroyed by conversion to carbon tetra­
chloride. This, together with the involuntary pro­
duction of by-product carbon tetrachloride in other 
processes, will create a need for additional incinerator 
capacity throughout the Community. A reasonable 
transition period will be required to allow for the 
careful planning, permitting and building of this new 
capacity. 
7.3. 95% of the carbon tetrachloride produced is 
currently used as a feed stock for CFC which will be 
phased out. The proposed Regulation addresses only 
the few remaining dispersive uses for carbon tetra­
chloride. 
7.4. These are non the less important. The Commit­
tee understands that user industry accepts that these 
must be phased out but would appreciate an extension 
of 100% elimination from 31 December 1997 to not 
later than 31 December 1999. 
7.5. A specific example is the use of carbon tetra­
chloride in products for corrosive protection of ships 
and bridges and in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals 
for the treatment of rheumatic conditions and of Aids. 
7.6. Alternately after 31 December 1997, specific uses 
could be subject to time-restricted derogation within 
the responsibility of the 'Article 10 Committee'. 
7.7. The Committee asks the Council to cause the 
Commission to consider this alternative. 
8. Short term measures to reinforce phase out 
8.1. The Committee asks the Commission to take 
positive steps to encourage the use of most environmen­
tally acceptable products, application by application, 
now. 
For example in 1988, 30 % of the CFC produced on the 
EC were used in aerosol propellant applications. This 
will have been reduced by the end of 1990 to 3 %. 8.2. The Committee encourages the Commission to 
continue with the policy of concluding voluntary agree­
ments with trade associations representing each appli­
cation and to publish these in the Official Journal. 
This would give them the full force of publicity and 
encourage monitoring. 
8.3. In the case of products for which alternative 
environmentally acceptable products have not yet been 
developed, the Committee understands that 30% of 
current demands could be met by conservation measur­
es to make better and more efficient use of the currently-
used CFC including the elimination of wasteful and 
unnecessary uses, prevention of leaks, better handling 
and recycling. 
8.4. Techniques to recover and recycle CFC have 
been introduced by industry and should be promoted. 
8.5. This is economically as well as environmentally 
important since as the volume of production drops 
costs will inevitably rise. Furthermore similar facilities 
will inevitably need to be in place to encourage the 
most efficient usage of the more expensive substitute 
products. 
8.6. The Committee considers that these are two 
areas in which the Commission could assist industry. 
8.6.1. The Commission should play a part in edu­
cation of the need for recycle and recovery. Industry is 
operating but current response is poor. 
8.6.2. An anomaly in the current proposal inhibits 
recovery and recycling, viz.: 
8.6.2.1. As the producers have to use their import 
quotas to bring material into the Community for recyc­
ling through their plants they are unable to assist non-
producer LDC by taking back used products (which 
would also reduce demand for virgin production in the 
Community). This current anomaly arises from the 
separate treatment afforded imports and domestic pro­
duction in the existing and proposed regulations 
although other parties have implemented the Montreal 
Protocol without introducing this inhibiting distinction. 
8.6.2.2. This means that to meet the ten-year period 
of grace for LDC provided in Article 5 of the Montreal 
Protocol, EC producers need to include this in their 
production schedule. 
31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/19 
8.6.2.3. In the USA allowance is made for inter­
change between the import and production regimes so 
that imports can be used when a plant is closed down. 
8.6.2.4. The Committee urges the Council to ask the 
Commission to propose action in the above respects 
now as an urgency. 
9. Rationalisation of production 
9.1. The Committee understands that after 1995 no 
more than one production plant in the EC will be 
economically viable. Industrial producers in conse­
quence will shut down their plants. This will cause 
considerable problems for those industrial users who by 
then will not yet have solved the problem of substitute 
products. 
9.2. The Committee considers that the Commission 
should propose an alternative mechanism by which the 
Article 10 Committee is given the responsibility of 
advising derogation to a time limit for uses for which 
no substitute is yet available. 
9.3. The Committee further considers that it is alre­
ady time for the Commission to be preparing an 
approach to rationalisation which will extend beyond 
Member States and EC frontiers. 
10. User industry 
10.1. CFC often do not pass directly from producer 
to end user and hence to atmosphere. They are often 
processed by a number of segments of industrial pro­
cessors, notably refrigeration, air conditioning, solvent 
degreasing, insulating foam production and essential 
aerosols. 
10.2. These industries need to be kept alive during 
the transition in terms of supply, employment, market 
share and financial viability. 
10.3. Some of them will not have the technical, 
industrial and financial resources of the producers. 
Some will be small and medium-sized enterprises. 
10.4. They will need assistance. The Committee 
believes that the Commission should be studying the 
ways and means of achieving this. 
10.5. Especially lack of planning could be ultimately 
destructive for SME such as metal working companies 
with 10 to 100 employees which have little margin for 
survival. 10.6. The social and economic cost such assistance 
could be significantly reduced if the proposed regulation 
showed restraint in accelerating the timing of the phase 
out of the final small fraction of each substance—or 
made adequate provision for the granting of temporary 
derogations to meet the special needs of particular user 
industry sectors for a limited period beyond the phase 
out dates proposed. 
10.7. The Committee notes that certain essential uses 
will need to be exempted—notably halons for essential 
fire protection devices and CFC aerosols for asthma 
sufferers, until substitutes are available. It may be 
necessary for the Commission, in consultation with 
Member States, to decide on essential uses in 1996 when 
production is cut by 85 % and perhaps only one plant 
is in operation in the EC. 
10.8. It will be necessary to attempt to minimize the 
premature obsolescence of large end user equipment 
(refrigeration, cold store, air conditioning). 
11. Ultimate consumers 
11.1. The Committee emphasises the importance of 
planning to take account of the needs of the ultimate 
consumers. The citizens at large rely on adequate 
refrigeration of food in cold stores and supermarkets 
as well as in their domestic refrigerators. Any break­
down in the system for supply and maintenance of 
equipment could constitute a health hazard. 
11.2. Similar considerations apply to protection from 
fire hazards especially in aircraft. Breakdown in the 
availability if halons could pose a threat to air transport. 
12. Import regime 
12.1. Imports account for about 0.5% of total bulk 
consumption in the EC. 
12.2. The import regime refers to imports from third 
countries which are party to the Protocol and are sub­
ject to the quantitative limits given in Annex III. These 
are subject to modification by the Commission using 
the advisory committee procedure. 
12.3. Imports from third countries not subject to the 
Protocol are forbidden subject to derogation conditions 
which are unchanged. 
No C 332/20 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
12.4. The Committee supports this import regime 
on the understanding that the Commission will examine 
the requirements of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade (GATT) in the light of potential accusations 
of trade sanctions. 
13. The substitution plan 
13.1. The industrial plan involves the substitution of 
CFC by new products which are more environmentally 
acceptable, non-toxic and safe but which have appli­
cation properties as near as possible to the products 
they will displace. 
13.2. The more this can be achieved, the less will be 
the upset to the user industries. 
13.3. Some 40 % of CFC uses will require new prod­
ucts to be devised, tested and brought into commercial 
production. The remaining 60 % of demand should be 
dealt with by conservation measures (recovery, recyc­
ling and emissions reduction) reducing demand, and by 
non-fluorocarbon products and processes. 
13.4. In all cases the user industries will need to make 
changes in their designs, machinery and investment and 
probably in their marketing. 
13.5. Based on the existing state of environmental 
science, technical and toxicological knowledge, the 
hydrofluoroalkanes (HFA) seem to be the most widely 
suitable family of alternative products likely to be avail­
able in the next decades. 
13.6. The Commission has recognised the vital role 
of the HFA in assuring the CFC phase out both in the 
UNEP working group meetings and in the proposed 
Regulation by refraining from controls which would 
inhibit their development as a means to accelerate CFC 
phase out and reduce atmospheric chlorine. 
13.7. The Committee is convinced that if the pro­
gramme of phase out of CFC and their substitution is 
to be complete by the year 2000, the choice of the new 
class of products to be developed must be made now 
and cannot be delayed or changed. 
13.8. The Committee is convinced that any threat to 
HFA as a class of products would signal the producers 
not to risk further funds and the phase out programme 
would be in jeopardy. 
13.9. The Committee would like to see adequate 
reference to this requirement in the proposed Regu­
lation. 13.10. The Committee warns against excessive opti­
mism however. The Commission proposal time sched­
ules for phase out are based on an assumption that all 
the .current proposed substitute products will prove 
acceptable. 
13.11. There are currently six leading substitute 
products which have cost hundreds of millions of US $ 
to develop to the present stage and over 50 millions 
US $ has been spent on toxicity testing and environmen­
tal science and acceptability alone. They alone are 
insufficient for the total replacement in the proposal. 
14. Harmonization of regulatory requirements and test 
methods 
14.1. The Committee reiterates the necessity for the 
Commission to prepare the regulatory ground for these 
new products in advance by preparatory harmonisation 
of regulatory requirements and test methods (l), e.g. for 
health and safety testing. In this way time will be saved 
in introducing them to the EC market. 
15. Social and economic implications 
15.1. The Committee stresses that the proposed 
regulation when adopted in its final form will result in 
inevitable social and economic consequences, ranging 
from job loss, effects on worker conditions through to 
worker and consumer safety. 
15.2. These consequences need to be assessed by the 
Commission by means of an adequate programme of 
consultation involving both social partners and ultimate 
consumers. 
15.3. The Committee urges the Council to demand 
that the Commission starts now to construct a planned 
programme to deal with these aspects, which must be 
made in parallel with the industrial plan and with 
similar time scale objectives. 
15.4. This will not be accomplished effectively unless 
provision is made at the outset for full consultation 
between employers and workers involving adequate 
mechanisms based on mutual trust and accompanied 
by the timely provision of information and reports on 
progress. 
15.5. The Committee draws particular attention to 
the need to assess the effect of proposed actions on 
(J) Refer to ESC Opinion on framework programme for R&D; 
OJ No C 56, 7. 3. 1990. 
31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/21 
employment over the whole main and supporting infra­
structure. Proposals for remedial action will need to 
follow. 
15.6. This work must be planned concurrently with 
this proposal and not relagated to a later date as a 
marginal consideration. 
16. Less developed countries (LDC) 
16.1. The EC recognizes that LDC which rely on an 
import of CFC for their basic domestic needs and for 
which EEC industry is a traditional supplier, require 
special consideration. They will need time and technical 
assistance if they are to convert their operations to use 
the substitute chemicals in safety while maintening their 
markets and their financial viability. 
16.2. They will not be in a position to receive techno­
logical assistance from producer countries until those 
countries have themselves consolidated their activities 
and until the LDC have developed the necessary infra­
structure for the safe and economic operation of the 
new technologies with their attendant hazards. 
16.3. The Commission recognizes this by proposing 
a continued supply for CFC to LDC for ten years 
beyond the phase out date as is defined in Articles 2 
and 5 of the Montreal Protocol. 
16.4. The Committee urges the Commission to use 
its best efforts to ensure that the revision of the Montre­
al Protocol will continue to support this. 
16.5. The Committee is concerned with the appli­
cation of the Regulation to countries which decline to 
sign the Protocol. It feels that some provision should 
be made which would be an incentive to a country to 
become a party to the Protocol. 
16.6. The Montreal Protocol requires technology to 
be passed to the LDC. However the parties to the 
Protocol do not own the technology. It is owned by 
industry. 
16.7. Thus while industry has a duty to transfer it, 
Member States governments have a duty to facilitate 
the transfer by the creation of suitable mechanisms. 
16.8. Industry can only transfer technology on an 
industrial basis. The Member States will need to facili­
tate the ability of LDC to pay for it. 16.9. The Committee believes that the choice of the 
actual mechanism of finance should be the responsi­
bility of the government of the Member State. Some as 
in Denmark could choose special taxation; other may 
prefer alternate mechanisms including the use of their 
general budget. 
17. Industrial competition 
17.1. The industrial plan involves a cooperative 
effort by producer and user industries in the Com­
munity. The exact nature of the production processes 
for the substitute products developed by each producer 
will be confidential. 
17.2. As the producers move towards such industrial 
rationalisation as permitted under the revised Montreal 
Protocol, the Council is urged to ask the Commission 
to study the issue of possible concerns as to anti­
competitive situations that could arise, and to make the 
ground-rules clear. 
18. Article 10—Committee 
18.1 The proposed Regulation provides for a 
type II A (*) Committee chaired by a representative of 
the Commission and consisting of an unspecified num­
ber of representatives of Member States. The Opinion 
of this committee will be based on weighted voting as 
defined in the Council Resolution. 
18.2. The Commission will submit proposed changes 
in the Regulation to the Committee. If the Committee 
does not support the Commission, the Council has one 
month to consider the Committee position. 
18.3. The ESC considers that the numbers attending 
from each Member State should be defined. A way 
should be found to ensure that views of the social 
partners in each Member State will be directly expressed 
at this Committee. 
18.4. The ESC considers further that the matters on 
which the Commission must consult the Committee 
should be stated clearly in an Article. 
19. Article 11—Data reporting 
19.1. The Committee notes that the proposals on 
data reporting are required by the Montreal Protocol, 
(') Council Decision of 13 July 1987 on comitology procedure II 
Variant (a)—OJ No L 197, 18. 7. 1987. 
No C 332/22 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
and notes further the economic importance of maintain­
ing confidentiality of this data (per Article 11.4). 
20. Annex I 
20.1. The Committee urges the Commission to 
review and restructure Annex I, substances covered by 
the Regulation, to clarify, to correct errors and to 
write the chemicals nomenclature with the conventional 
subscripts. 
21. Promotion of Community awareness 
21.1. The Committee sees the Commission in the 
position of umpire charged with the responsibility for 
monitoring the environment, assessing the data in the 
Done at Brussels, 19 September 1990. light of the state-of-the-art knowledge, and then pro­
posing action to the Council. 
21.2. These proposals are likely to be a compromise 
between competing requirements for preventative and 
remedial action; between avoiding change and adapting 
to it. 
21.3. The Commission proposals need to be bal­
anced, acceptable to all interests, and understandable. 
21.4. The Commission has a further duty to take the 
lead to stimulate Member States to inform, educate and 
train their citizen (especially the young) to accept and 
participate in the measures of protection which have to 
be adopted. 
Such a programme must be based on simple clear 
messages. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE