Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on substances that deplete the ozone layer` (1999/C 40/11)

On 23 October 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 130s of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 29 October 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Colombo.

At its 359th plenary session (meeting of 2 December 1998) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 99 votes to one, with two abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. Save for the comments hereunder, the Committee endorses this proposal for extremely significant reforms:

a) Further action on hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)

- reduction of the cap on the placing on the Community market of HCFCs from 2,6 % to 2 %;

- tighter HCFC end-use controls (Article 5 of the draft Regulation);

- production freeze and production phaseout schedule for HCFCs.

b) Phaseout termination of methyl bromide production and consumption by 1 January 2001, with exemptions for 'critical use`.

c) General prohibition of marketing and use of CFCs and other fully halogenated substances.

d) Trade controls (to implement the export licensing requirements introduced into the Montreal Protocol in September 1997).

2. General comments

2.1. The Committee has followed closely the developments in Community regulation of substances that deplete the ozone layer. It has noted and encouraged progress made, and welcomed the achievements made possible by technological progress - which has kept pace with the growing awareness of the risks for the future of the planet, and with the international agreements concluded under the Montreal Protocol ().

2.2. The ESC has always emphasized that action to protect the ozone layer must be on a global scale (only by involving the maximum number of countries will tangible results be possible). The Community must strengthen its hand in negotiations within the framework of the Montreal Protocol, and point the way forward with European measures which demonstrate the feasibility of reducing substances which deplete the ozone layer, and the viability of alternative solutions, within the time-frame proposed in the Commission draft.

2.3. In its Opinion on the Fifth Action Programme () (chapter on International Environmental Policy), the Committee stressed the Community's responsibilities and obligations resulting from its high degree of industrialization and technology, its financial resources and the keen public awareness of the need to protect the environment. The ESC Opinion on the conclusion of the amendment to the Montreal Protocol as adopted in Copenhagen in 1992 (), which approved the inclusion of methyl bromide and welcomed the 'driving role` played by the Community, also applies in principle to the present draft regulation. The same is true of the Committee's comprehensive opinion of 1993 on the updated Regulation on substances that deplete the ozone layer, in the wake of the Copenhagen amendment (), which makes express reference to the Fifth Environmental Action Programme.

2.3.1. In this latter opinion the ESC welcomed European industry's success in perfecting alternative solutions, and encouraged it on this path, which was the only way to safeguard the planet and provide long-term competitiveness.

2.3.2. The above considerations also apply to the present proposal.

2.4. The Committee thus welcomes the fact that, thanks to research and investment in perfecting alternative substances, the technological achievements of some industries will enable Europe to bring forward the phaseout date stipulated in the Protocol. This shows that in international negotiations such as the Kyoto Conference, the European position manages to be the most advanced, and is backed up by feasibility studies and concrete examples.

2.5. However, the problem is that any unilateral decision to bring forward the phaseout date must take account of the approach adopted by our trading partners (direct competitors in manufacturing, such as the United States, Japan, and developing countries which import EU goods or where EU firms have relocated), and of Europe's ability to persuade more countries to follow its lead. It should be remembered that point 1.3 (16) of the Explanatory Memorandum states that at the ninth meeting of the parties held in Montreal in 1997, the European proposal to cut HCFC production met with no success. If the European Union wishes to proceed in this direction, it must step up negotiations in order to achieve concrete results.

2.5.1. It should also be remembered that a number of countries are dragging their heels over ratification of the amendments to the Montreal Protocol. For example, countries like China and India - whose development is so important to the global economy - have not ratified the Copenhagen amendment on HCFCs. The fact that the nations of the world have different phaseout schedules will weaken the impact of the most advanced measures, unless they can be applied generally, inter alia by harnessing the financial mechanisms provided for under the Montreal Protocol to help developing countries make the changeover.

2.6. We must make sure that the US and Japan do not take over the markets when European industry cuts HCFC production, and that European industry does not relocate to the developing world ('Article 5 countries`), leading to job losses at home.

2.7. Similarly, we must ensure that the ban on methyl bromide does not benefit countries with climates more suited to alternative methods, to the detriment of Mediterranean agriculture, which will also have to compete with Mediterranean developing countries which continue to use the substance until 2015. In addition to the waivers for critical use, which are left to the discretion of the Member States, development cooperation policy must promote similar practice in countries which are the beneficiaries of aid.

2.7.1. The Committee notes that the Commission has compiled a report on the costs and implications of phasing out methyl bromide (describing examples of successful replacement) and hosted a workshop in Tenerife (April 1997) on 'Alternatives to methyl bromide for Southern European Countries`. This line must be pursued through action to spread replication of pilot schemes.

2.8. It is also a fact that the problem of policing prohibited substances remains partly unsolved, owing to illegal trafficking (CFCs) in particular. The credibility of the European Union could be undermined unless it manages to enforce existing regulations outlawing CFC trafficking. There are considerable discrepancies in the way the CFC ban is implemented, making for an extremely negative impact on the environment. The ESC would refer to point 1.11 of its 1993 opinion, where it argues for tight controls to prevent end-users from circumventing the restrictions imposed by the Regulation ().

2.9. The Committee is aware of the criticism from industry and agriculture, which are afraid that they will lose market shares to competing countries. No doubt some firms which already produce both HCFC and HCFC substitutes will be able to respect the tighter deadlines. However, some types of end-user (often small business) plant and equipment are difficult to convert; and their cost still has to be paid off. The Committee thinks that the Commission proposals will result in structural changes in some sectors but that these changes can be brought about by exploiting technical progress without the market suffering any lasting upheavals. As a result it will be possible to achieve the Commission's objectives within the planned time-frame. In the Commission's view exemptions should be granted for cases of hardship with the result that in this respect, too, employment in European industry and agriculture will not suffer.

2.10. The Committee calls on the Commission to ponder more carefully an approach under which a distinction is drawn between the various types of HCFCs in terms of environmental impact, in order to speed up the phaseout of those with the greatest ozone depletion potential. Clearly, it is not always possible to replace high-ODP HCFCs with those with lower ODP levels; it depends on specific use and application. However, a blanket approach to HCFCs would not appear to be justified from an environmental point of view.

2.11. The Committee also calls on the Commission to look more closely into the safety aspect of the alternatives (HC flammability and ammonia toxicity). The selection criteria for alternatives and for phasing out existing products should take account of a number of parameters, including ODP (Ozone Depletion Potential); GWP (Global Warming Potential); VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds); toxicity, flammability; production, installation and disposal costs.

2.12. The Committee would also emphasize the links scientists are uncovering between the greenhouse effect and the hole in the ozone layer, and calls for better coordinated action in the wake of the Kyoto Agreement (by adding HFCs to the six greenhouse gases) and of the Montreal Protocol.

2.13. Finally, the Committee notes that issues such as the recovery of used controlled substances and leakages of controlled substances have a key role to play in reducing environmental impact. The establishment of appropriate disposal plant must be encouraged, and training arranged to provide staff with the appropriate skills, in order to prepare for the changeover to ozone-friendlier substances. This would provide further environmental benefits and create new employment opportunities.

3. Specific comments

3.1. Article 2 (Definitions)

3.1.1. An indent on global warming potential should be inserted, using the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) definition, to allow an assessment of the overall environmental impact of alternative substances.

3.2. Article 3(2) (Methyl bromide)

3.2.1. The Committee notes that the critical use exemptions are laid down in Annex V, and that the Commission must be notified. A regular report should be compiled to assess the situation and the measures required to encourage a reduction in methyl bromide use and to promote alternative methods by harnessing the Structural Funds.

3.2.2. The 60 day limit for emergency exemptions could be too restrictive. Provision for justified flexibility should be included.

3.3. Article 3(3) (HCFCs)

3.3.1. The Committee calls for an inquiry into the possibility of linking cuts in HCFC production to ozone depletion potential. This would cut overall ODP emissions and forestall emissions of alternative substances with significant global warming potential (GWP).

3.3.2. The ESC calls for the review planned for 2002 to pay close attention to the safe use and overall environmental impact of available alternative substances and technologies.

3.4. Article 4 (Control of the placing on the market and use of controlled substances)

3.4.1. This provision should curb the black market - in CFCs in particular. However, since it is difficult to carry out comprehensive checks on use, the Committee calls for greater use to be made of voluntary instruments, such as the eco-label and EMAS () certification. This would actively involve end-users and consumers in the phaseout.

3.5. Article 5 (Control of the use of HCFCs)

3.5.1. The Committee calls for more thorough research into the availability of environmentally-friendly alternatives for use in foam production. This would help bring forward the phaseout date for high-ODP HCFCs used in this specific area.

3.5.2. The Committee calls on the Commission to give more thought to the case for temporary authorization - for safety reasons - to use HCFCs instead of halon in fire extinguishing systems where space is limited.

3.6. Chapter III (Trade)

3.6.1. The Committee welcomes the move to make import/export controls comply with the requirements of the September 1997 Montreal Protocol. Cross-checking information should help curb illegal trafficking. International cooperation between the relevant authorities should be stepped up.

3.7. Chapter IV (Emission control)

3.7.1. The Committee feels it is extremely important to develop common, ecologically-compatible methods for the recovery and disposal of all controlled substances, together with minimum professional qualifications for maintenance staff. This is an area where measures to curb the use of ozone-depleting substances can be enhanced; it is therefore important to step up exchanges on the best available technologies between the Member States. In this field too, the EMAS () system could play a positive role.

3.8. Article 20 (Sanctions)

3.8.1. The Committee welcomes the new, more forceful wording of this Article, and wonders whether it might be useful for the Commission to provide a regular report on the outcome of Member State notifications. Greater transparency could help eliminate the black market.

Brussels, 2 December 1998.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

() Adopted in 1987 and subsequently amended in London in 1990, Copenhagen in 1992, and Montreal in 1997 (the latter enters into force on 1 January 1999).

() OJ C 287, 4.11.1992.

() OJ C 201, 26.7.1993.

() OJ C 52, 19.2.1997.

() Regulations (EEC) No 880/92 and No 1836/93.

() Regulation No 1836/93.