Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on:the Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants,Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the 1998 Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent Organic Pollutants, andProposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directives 79/117/EEC and 96/59/EC(COM(2003) 331, 332, 333 final — 2003/0118-0117-0119 (CNS))
Date: 2003-10-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, air quality, environmental policy, environmental protection, international convention, organic pollution

5.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/45

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on:

— the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European

Community, of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants’,

— the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European
Community, of the 1998 Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long Range Transboundary
Air Pollution on Persistent Organic Pollutants’, and

— the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on persistent

organic pollutants and amending Directives 79/117/EEC and 96/59/EC’

(COM(2003) 331, 332, 333 final — 2003/0118-0117-0119 (CNS))

(2004/C 32/08)

On 10 and 11 July 2003, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Articles 95 and 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

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 14 October 2003. The rapporteur
was Ms Cassina.

At its 403rd plenary session (meeting of 29 October 2003), the European Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 122 votes to 1, with 5 abstentions.

1. Background and content of the proposal

Persistent organic pollutants, generally referred to as
1.1.
POPs, are chemical substances that resist degradation under
natural conditions and that when released into the environ-
ment are transported by the elements (wind, rain, water, etc.)
or animals far from their point of emission. Such pollutants
bio-accumulate through the food web and present a definite
risk to human health and to the environment. Their adverse
effects, whether near or far from the point of emission, are
now well-demonstrated and universally recognised.

1.2.
Arctic ecosystems are particularly vulnerable owing to
the phenomenon of biodiffusion, but the risk is present across
the planet and the international community embarked some
time ago on the task of eliminating such pollutants, by banning
their production, marketing and use by given deadlines.

Two instruments established by the international com-

1.3.
munity now represent the reference point in this campaign:

— The UNECE Protocol, to which any party to the UN
Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution
(CLRTAP) (1) that wishes to participate may accede, was

the CLRTAP
adopted during the special session of
Executive Body held in Aarhus (Denmark) in June 1998.
This protocol was signed by the Community and all its
Member States on 24 June 1998. It concerns 16 substan-
ces comprising eleven pesticides, two industrial chemicals
and three unintentional by-products, and has entered into
force on 23 October 2003.

— The Stockholm Convention was adopted in May 2001
with active involvement of the European Community and
was signed by the EC and all its Member States on 22 May
2001; this convention governs a global programme for
12 substances recognised as POPs, with specific reference
to application of the precautionary principle, and fixes
rules for gradual extension of the convention to other
substances that exhibit the characteristics of persistent
organic pollutants and on which global action is needed.
Around ten more parties must ratify the Convention
before it can come into force.

In tandem with its proposal

1.4.
for a Regulation on
POPs (2), the Commission has proposed that the EU ratify the
two above-mentioned agreements, by adopting the following:

(1) UN Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution,

signed in 1979 in Geneva.

(2) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directives
79/117/EEC and 96/59/EC – COM(2003) 333 final.

C 32/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.2.2004

— the proposal

for a Council Decision concerning the
conclusion, on behalf of
the European Community,
of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants (1);

— the proposal

for a Council Decision concerning the
conclusion, on behalf of the European Community (2), of
the 1998 Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long
Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent Organic
Pollutants.

Thus an evaluation of

the Community legislation
2.4.
currently in effect shows that despite the albeit important
commitment that the various legislative instruments represent
in the environmental sphere, these are not adequate to fully
implement the provisions of the Protocol and the Convention,
and so to guarantee the objective of protecting human and
animal health and the environment from the effects of products
with POP characteristics.

1.5.
The present opinion concerns above all the proposed
Regulation, with the two proposals for decisions mentioned
only in point 6.

3. Summary of the main proposals contained in the

draft Regulation

2. Limits of the current Community legislation in force

Among other legislation, the following restrictions
2.1.
apply in the EU to substances defined as persistent organic
pollutants (POPs):

— the restrictions set out in Directive 79/117/EEC (3), which
prohibits the placing on the market and use of plant
protection products containing certain active substances;

— the provisions concerning the use of PCBs (polychlorinat-
ed biphenyls) set out in Directive 76/769/EEC (4) on the
restriction of such substances and dangerous prep-
arations.

2.2.
The specific exemptions granted in these directives are
much broader than those contained in the two conventions:
ratification of the conventions by the Community therefore
requires a re-alignment of Community legislation in this
sphere.

The other more obvious shortcomings of the present

2.3.
system include:

— the lack of a ban on the production of chemicals with
recognised POP characteristics;
in effect, most of the
provisions concerning such substances only impose a
ban (in some cases only partial) on marketing and use;

— the lack of a regime prohibiting the production of new
substances recognised as POPs that might in future be
added to the lists either of the UNECE Protocol or of the
Stockholm Convention.

3.1.
The proposal for a regulation on persistent organic
pollutants and amending Directives 79/117/EEC and 96/59/
EEC is intended to implement certain provisions contained in
the UNECE Protocol and the Stockholm Convention, while
bringing previous Community legislation into line with the
Protocol and the Convention by amending Directives 79/
117 (3) and 96/59 (5). This proposal would ban the production,
use and placing on the market of substances listed in the two
international agreements.

3.2.
In addition, the proposal contains some key features
that represent an improvement on the international agree-
ments in question, namely:

— the removal of exemptions for ‘limited use’ granted for
certain substances in the international agreements;

— more binding rules and/or provisions for the disposal of

stockpiles and waste;

— establishment of a procedure involving a regulatory
committee, which will allow the Commission to add
other chemicals exhibiting POP characteristics to the list
of restricted or prohibited substances, within one year at
the most of their being entered on the list of controlled
or banned substances under the Convention or the
Protocol;

— replacing the provisions of Directive 79/117/EEC with
respect to restrictions imposed on eight pesticides and
amending Directive 96/59/EEC with respect to the dis-
posal of PCBs.

(1) COM(2003) 331 final.
(2) COM(2003) 332 final.
(3) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979.
(4) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.

(5) OJ L 243, 24.9.1996.

5.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/47

4. General comments

The EESC welcomes the Commission’s initiative to
4.1.
adjust Community legislation with a view to ratification by the
Community of international instruments designed to combat
persistent organic pollutants. It appreciates the further tighten-
ing-up of legislation to reflect the precautionary principle.
This is in line with the decisions taken in relation to the
VIth Environmental Action Programme and is also consistent
with the political declaration made at the World Summit on
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.

4.1.1.
The EESC therefore hopes that the proposed regu-
lation and decisions will be adopted as soon as possible, so that
the Community can accede to the international agreements in
question, perhaps even before they enter into force (1) and
certainly in time for the Community to take part in the first
conference of the parties that will be held within one year of
the Convention taking effect.

The penalties imposed for infringements of the rules
4.5.
governing POPs (depending as they do on the investigative
and judicial instruments of the Member States, albeit notifiable
to the Commission) should also within a relatively short time
be subject if not to standardisation then at least to substantial
and voluntary convergence.

The EESC is concerned about the situation in some of
4.6.
the new Member States that still hold very large stocks of
products or articles with POP characteristics awaiting disposal.
Funding for eliminating stocks has been guaranteed during the
pre-accession phase under various programmes,
including
ISPA. In the future, the resources and technical assistance
needed to assist the disposal of such stockpiles in this part of
Europe should be provided through the standard instruments,
notably the Structural Funds. This will require constant
surveillance by Community institutions, but above all con-
scientious cooperation by the authorities of the new Member
States and an ability on their part to involve social interest
groups, NGOs and the general public.

4.2.
Two aspects of the proposal for a regulation are of
particular importance: the possibility of adding substances that
can be identified as exhibiting POP characteristics and the strict
limits imposed on the possibility of exemptions.

4.6.1.
Serious problems are also caused by the use and, in
some cases, misuse of substances with POP characteristics in
non-member Mediterranean countries. The EESC trusts that
Euro-Mediterranean and ‘good neighbour’ strategies will give
priority to the replacement and disposal of these products.

The EESC appreciates the use of national plans and a
4.3.
Community plan which will
lead the Member States to
constantly address the issue and take timely action to combat
these dangerous substances and their effects. The coordination
and synergies promoted by the Regulation between the efforts
of the Member States and the Commission are also to be
welcomed, and the Committee is pleased to note that this is
not just a possibility or a hope, since positive cooperative
efforts are already under way, also in a regional and trans-
boundary framework, based on Community programmes (2).
Bringing measures to promote sustainable development within
the Community framework, even when they are carried out in
a specific region, ensures synergies between the Member States
and thus both protection of the environment as a whole and
of the single market from distortions.

It is still very difficult to ascertain infringements by
4.4.
individuals and companies, however, and it would therefore
be useful
to provide for specific networking of national
verification and monitoring instruments, and to promote
special training of staff employed to carry out checks, on the
basis of trans-national and Community initiatives.

4.7.
The EESC also calls for monitoring of the presence of
products with POP characteristics to be stepped up and asks
that maximum use be made of existing opportunities to
earmark resources under the VIth Research and Development
Framework Programme to enhance monitoring instruments
and techniques for identifying the presence and movements of
POPs.

4.8.
Finally, the EESC notes that the present proposal for a
regulation also became necessary because, despite the broad
debate that has developed on the White Paper on Chemicals,
it has not yet been possible to act on its recommendations.
Regardless of the particular tenor of this opinion, the EESC
would like to take the opportunity to ask the Commission to
produce implementing proposals soon.

5. Specific comments

(1) The Protocol has entered into force in October 2003.
(2) E.g. the Monarpop project (Monitoring Network in the Alpine
Region for POPs), an Interreg cooperative project between the
Alpine countries.

5.1.
The EESC considers that Article 175 of the Treaty
(environmental protection) should be cited first in conjunction
with Article 95 (internal market) as the legal basis of the
proposal, as has rightly been done in the first recital.

C 32/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.2.2004

Still with reference to the recitals (number eight), the
5.2.
view that it is ‘appropriate’ to keep using HCH (lindane) in
certain Member States is incomprehensible, considering the
importance of the precautionary principle in this matter and
considering that Decision 2000/801/EC (1) bans its use as a
plant protection agent. The EESC asks the Commission to
consider very carefully how, where and for what purpose
lindane will continue to be used, and thinks that in any case
lindane should never be used where an alternative (product or
process) exists.

5.3. With regard to Article 5 (stockpiles), the EESC notes
that the obligation to notify the authorities only applies to
stockpiles over 100 kg. The EESC would prefer this threshold
to be reduced (e.g. to 50 kg), but is aware that doing so would
produce considerable administrative work for countries and
businesses. It therefore calls instead for: a) information cam-
paigns to be mounted to make all holders of such products
aware of the risks associated with them; and b) if necessary,
provision of technical assistance and advice on safe disposal of
waste, even in small quantities.

Regarding the technical assistance provided by the
5.4.
Commission and the Member States to developing countries
(Article 11), the EESC believes that provision should be made
to support and involve not just NGOs but also — and explicitly
— the social partners.

5.5.
Article 13 (penalties) stipulates that penalties should
be ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’, and gives responsi-
bility to the Member States for administering and deciding the
amount of penalties. The EESC believes that penalties should
be as uniform as possible within the EU, but above all that

they should be defined according to the same criteria; the
concepts mentioned as a general criterion — efficiency,
proportionality and dissuasiveness — may be interpreted
differently by different countries, making responsibilities and
even market forces uneven. To avoid this situation, close
cooperation between those responsible for policing and those
responsible for imposing penalties is crucially important, and
this should be explicitly called for in the proposal.

6. Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the con-
clusion, on behalf of the European Community, of
the 1998 Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long
Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent
Organic Pollutants (2) — Proposal
for a Council
Decision concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the
European Community, of the Stockholm Convention
on Persistent Organic Pollutants (3)

6.1.
The above-mentioned proposals are intended to allow
approval of the two international instruments in question by
the European Community and to determine the procedures
for proposing new substances for inclusion in the agreements.

6.2.
On the basis of these decisions, the Council will
appoint the person or persons empowered to deposit the
instrument of approval of the protocol and the convention
with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. It will then
fall to the EU institutions alone to propose amendments on
behalf of the Community.

The EESC fully supports these two decisions and hopes

6.3.
that they will be approved without delay.

(1) OJ L 324, 21.12.2000.

(2) COM(2003) 332 final.
(3) COM(2003) 331 final.

Brussels, 29 October 2003.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH