Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) establishing common rules and procedures to apply to shipments to certain non-OECD countries of certain types of waste'
C 214/74 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 7. 98 be prior consultation of the various socio-economic partners and interests involved. It is noted that none of the newly classified c/m/r 3. 4. substances are sold to the general public. Brussels, 29 April 1998. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) establishing common rules and procedures to apply to shipments to certain non-OECD countries of certain types of waste’ (98/C 214/21) On 31 March 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, in accordance with Article 130s of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal. At its 354th plenary session (meeting of 29 April 1998), the Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr Gafo Ferna´ndez as rapporteur-general and adopted the following opinion by 74 votes, with one abstention. 1. Introduction 1. 1. This proposal dates back to 1994 and the referral to the ESC stems from the broadening of the legal basis initially proposed by the European Commission to include both Article 130s and Article 113 (the original legal basis for the regulation). The time which has elapsed since the draft 1. 2. regulation was originally submitted bears witness to difficulties in adopting the proposal, but it also means that the circumstances justifying the submission of the proposal have changed substantially. 1. 3. The Economic and Social Committee has already issued an opinion (1) on another draft regulation, Regu- lation No 259/93, which sought to prepare a common position on amending the Basel Convention in relation to the blanket ban on exports of ‘amber’ and ‘red’ list waste to non-OECD (2) countries. The comments made by the ESC at the time, particularly in relation to the need to distinguish between non-dangerous and dangerous waste and the need to authorize the restricted export of ‘green’ list waste for recycling, are still valid. 1. 4. Consequently, the ESC will simply comment on those aspects of the current regulation not covered by Council Regulation 259/93. 2. General comments regulations in the future, 2. 1. Leaving aside the legal nature of the discussion on the appropriate legal basis for the regulation and the Committee similar acknowledges that Article 113 is the main legal basis, although it takes the view that Article 130s should also be included This would highlight the environmental dimension, the main reason for the proposal, which is designed to counterbalance the strictly commercial aspects of waste shipment. Using Article 113 would also enable other Community institutions such as the European Parliament and the ESC itself to contribute to the discussion, improvement and final adoption of the proposal. (1) OJ C 18, 22. 1. 1996. (2) Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop- ment. 2. 2. The Committee considers that it is up to countries asked to receive shipments of ‘green’ list waste for recycling and upgrading to decide whether or not they 10. 7. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 214/75 will explicitly accept or refuse such shipments. Failure to respond to a request cannot and should not under any circumstances be interpreted as tacit agreement to receive shipments. 2. 3. Consequently, the Committee considers it neces- sary that the customs authorities of a Member State should, before authorizing the export of ‘green’ list waste, check that the customs and environmental au- thorities of the receiving country have given formal consent to the shipment. They should also be satisfied that the applicant Community exporting country has properly checked and proven that the receiving plant in the country of destination has the facilities to process, recycle and upgrade the exported waste. This should possibly be endorsed by the authorities of the country of destination before final authorization is given. 2. 4. Lastly, the Committee wishes to echo a request made by the European Parliament that certain types of waste, textile waste in particular, which have been appropriately processed and packaged, should no longer be considered as waste and should be transferred to the general regime governing the free movement of goods. Brussels, 29 April 1998. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Tacis — Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States and Mongolia’ (98/C 214/22) At its plenary session on 10 July 1997 the Economic and Social Committee decided to draw up an opinion on ‘Tacis — Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States and Mongolia’. At its plenary session on 29-30 October 1997 the Committee, acting under Rule 23(3) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion instead of an information report. The Section for External Relations, Trade and Development Policy, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 April 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Hamro-Drotz. At its 354th plenary session (meeting of 29 April 1998), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 90 votes to one, with one abstention. 1. Introduction ‘Tacis’ stands for ‘Technical Assistance to the Common- wealth of Independent States’ and it is the EU’s pro- gramme for technical assistance to the New Independent States (NIS) of eastern and south-eastern Europe and Mongolia. The twelve NIS are the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. Mongolia has been included in the pro- gramme since 1993. The three Baltic States were included in 1991 but since 1992 they have been covered by the Phare programme. European integration occupies a central position in the work of the ESC and the Committee has previously issued opinions and reports on the EU’s relations with Russia and the other NIS. These have been taken into account in the present opinion without referring directly to them. Key facts and figures on the Tacis programme and the current situation are presented in Appendix A. 2. Conclusions In the course of drawing up this opinion, the Economic and Social Committee wrote to interested parties in the