Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on substances that deplete the ozone layer'
Date: 1998-12-02
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, dangerous substance, ozone, pollution control measures, stratospheric pollutant, stratospheric pollution

C 40/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.2.1999

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 exemp-
tions 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 develop-
ments 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 (1).

The ESC has always emphasized that action to
2.2.
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 feasi-
bility of reducing substances which deplete the ozone
layer, and the viability of alternative solutions, within
the time-frame proposed in the Commission draft.

In its Opinion on the Fifth Action Programme (2)
2.3.
(chapter on International Environmental Policy), the
Committee stressed the Community’s responsibilities
and obligations resulting from its high degree of indus-
trialization 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 (3), 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 (4),
which makes express reference to the Fifth Environmen-
tal Action Programme.

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

2.3.2.
present proposal.

The above considerations also apply to the

(1) 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).

(2) OJ C 287, 4.11.1992.
(3) OJ C 201, 26.7.1993.
(4) OJ C 52, 19.2.1997.

15.2.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40/35

2.4.
The Committee thus welcomes the fact that,
thanks to research and investment in perfecting alterna-
tive 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
to help developing
the Montreal Protocol
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.

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.

The Committee notes that the Commission has
2.7.1.
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 Regu-
lation (1).

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 Com-
mission’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

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

(1) OJ C 52, 19.2.1997.

C 40/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.2.1999

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.

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

The Committee also calls on the Commission
2.11.
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);
flammability; pro-
duction, installation and disposal costs.

toxicity,

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)

The Committee notes that the critical use
3.2.1.
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.

3.3. 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).

The ESC calls for the review planned for 2002
3.3.2.
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 (1) 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. Inter-
national cooperation between the relevant authorities
should be stepped up.

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

15.2.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40/37

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

Brussels, 2 December 1998.

States. In this field too, the EMAS (1) system could play
a positive role.

3.8. Article 20 (Sanctions)
3.8.1.
The Committee welcomes the new, more force-
ful 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.

(1) Regulation No 1836/93.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Employment policy and the role of
socio-economic organizations in the third phase of economic and monetary union’

(1999/C 40/12)

On 29 January 1998 the Economic and Social Committee decided, under Rule 23(3) of its
Rules of Procedure, to draw up an opinion on ‘Employment policy and the role of
socio-economic organizations in the third phase of economic and monetary union’.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which
was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on
20 October 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Thierry Dock.

At its 359th plenary session on 2 and 3 December 1998 (meeting of 2 December), the Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 94 votes to three, with two abstentions.

1. The new conditions established by monetary union

1.3.
The third stage in economic and monetary union
will also signal the birth and coming of age of new
players.

1.1.
The advent of the single currency marks a vital
step forward for the European venture. It establishes
new conditions that are likely to alter the behaviour of
various players including the socio-economic organ-
izations. This behavioural change is in many respects
essential, as the success of European monetary union
will depend on it.

1.3.1. T h e E u r o p e a n C e n t r a l B a n k

1.3.1.1.
The objectives of the European system of
central banks are set out under Article 105 of the Treaty
establishing the European Community:

1.2. One of the major changes brought about by the
abolition of national currencies is the Member States’
loss of the exchange rate tool.

‘The primary objective of the ESCB shall be to
maintain price stability. Without prejudice to the
objective of price stability, the ESCB shall support
the general economic policies of the Community
with a view to contributing to the achievement of
the objectives of the Community as laid down in
Article 2.’