51994AC0996

Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment () (94/C 393/01)

On 14 June 1994 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 130s of the Treaty establishing the European 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 15 July 1994. The Rapporteur was Mr Beltrami.

At its 318th Plenary Session (meeting of 14 September 1994), the Economic and Social Committee unanimously adopted the following Opinion.

1. Introduction

1.1. The proposal is pursuant to Article 11(4) of Directive 85/337/EEC (), which requires the Commission to submit additional proposals to the Council with a view to ensuring that the Directive is applied in a sufficiently coordinated manner.

1.2. The proposal is based chiefly on the findings of the Commission report () on the implementation of Directive 85/337/EEC. The report, which was sent to the European Parliament and the Council under the terms of Article 11(3) of the Directive, found that the Directive's implementing arrangements vary greatly from one Member State to the next.

1.3. The proposal also takes account of the international commitments entered into by the Community and Member States under the Espoo Convention on environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context ().

1.4. Lastly, the proposal responds to the concern expressed in the European Parliament's resolution on agriculture and the environment () and in the Commission Communication on the same subject ().

2. Gist of the Committee Opinion

2.1. The Committee approves the proposal to amend Directive 85/337/EEC as addressing the main shortcomings highlighted in the Commission report (COM(93) 28 final of 2 April 1993) on the implementation of the Directive.

2.2. The Committee deems it necessary, as part of the consolidation of environmental provisions, that the present proposal be coordinated at Community level with environmental Directives liable to have a supplementary influence in certain specific sectors such as IPC () and major accidents ('Seveso') ().

2.3. The provisions are intended to enable the Member States to take appropriate steps to simplify and concentrate procedures, and to avoid unnecessary delays in project planning and implementation.

2.4. At national level, the maximum possible integration of information, documentation and authorization procedures would save time and money for both businesses and public authorities, as well as avoiding overlapping and conflicts of responsibility.

2.5. The Committee would also refer to the specific comments made in point 4.

3. General comments

3.1.

Legal basis

3.1.1. The earlier Directive 85/337/EEC was issued under Articles 100 and 235. In contrast, following the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union, the present proposal is based on Article 130s(1), which requires the Council to decide what action is to be taken by the Community in order to achieve the environmental objectives referred to in Article 130r. The Committee endorses this new legal basis.

3.2.

New provisions proposed by the Commission

3.2.1. The Committee is pleased that the Commission intends the new proposal to be compatible with the fifth environmental action programme () and the White Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment (). The programme acknowledges the central role of the environmental impact assessment in decision-making on individual projects and underlying development strategies.

3.2.2. The new approach will enable the relevant authorities to make a more accurate evaluation of the environmental impact of the necessary investment, especially in the sectors which are given priority by the fifth programme and the White Paper.

3.2.3. The Committee endorses the Commission's view that the existing and proposed rules should enable Member States to take appropriate steps to simplify and concentrate existing national consent procedures and to avoid unnecessary delays in the planning and implementation of projects accorded priority at Community level, particularly those pertaining to the trans-European networks.

3.2.4. To this end, the Committee calls for the present proposal to be coordinated at Community level with environmental Directives liable to have a supplementary influence in certain specific sectors such as IPC and major accidents ('Seveso').

3.2.5. At national level, the maximum possible integration of information, documentation and authorization procedures would save time and money for both businesses and public authorities, as well as avoiding overlapping and conflicts of responsibility.

3.2.6. More systematic and better coordinated application of the environmental impact assessment procedure can also help reduce the distortions of competition to which the widely differing national practices might give rise.

3.2.7. The Committee is pleased that the Commission has codified a hitherto informal interpretation in a precise and clear manner, especially as regards:

a)

the information to be supplied by the developer;

b)

the right of the developer (including those involved in the planning and implementation of the project) to access to relevant information held by the authorities.

3.2.8. The proposal also has the merit of ensuring:

a)

better control over the quality of impact assessments and the conclusions drawn from them;

b)

closer attention to attenuation measures;

c)

fewer assessments of very small projects (where they are unlikely to have any environmental impact).

3.3.

Costs and timescales

3.3.1. The Committee notes the information contained in the Commission Report COM(93) 28 final, which states that:

a)

Although an accurate estimate of costs is not possible at this stage, experience in the Member States shows that the financial cost of an impact assessment is a minute fraction of the total project cost (between 0.5% and 1%). Only in exceptional cases for small projects not requiring heavy investment will they exceed 1% of the total cost of the project.

b)

The time taken for the environmental impact assessment seems to have little effect on the total time needed to implement the project as it can be included in the consent procedure. However, the Committee again calls on the Commission to keep a close eye on Member States' transposition of the Directive. It asks the Commission to draw up a further assessment report three years after the Directive enters into force. The report should outline experience so far, with particular reference to timescales and costs.

3.4.

Subsidiarity and proportionality

3.4.1. The Committee recognizes that the main reason for harmonizing the environmental impact assessment provisions is to establish a general Community reference framework to ensure that Member States' action to protect the environment is following similar lines. This objective also holds good for the new provisions in the proposal, insofar as the proposed amendments do not alter the actual scope of the obligations which the Directive places on the Member States.

3.4.2. It is up to the Member States, acting at the administrative level specified in their national legislation but on the basis of principles laid down at Community level, to:

- define the required content and form of the information to be supplied by the developer;

- specify how the outcome of the assessment is taken into consideration;

- examine whether, in certain circumstances, the likely environmental impact of Annex II projects makes an assessment necessary.

3.4.3. The provisions are thus consistent with the subsidiarity principle.

3.5.

Transboundary impact

3.5.1. The Committee notes the new provisions for consulting and involving the authorities of another Member State in environmental assessments of projects with a transboundary impact. In particular, it notes that Article 7 has been reworded to reflect the objectives of the Espoo Convention signed in Finland on 25 February 1991, including the provisions on the monitoring of the transboundary environmental effects of the project [Article 7(2)(iv)].

3.6.

Monitoring

3.6.1. The Committee is pleased that the Commission intends to study the costs and benefits, of a possible extension of the monitoring mechanism to cover nontransboundary aspects, and the compatibility of such an extension with the subsidiarity principle, before submitting specific proposals on the subject.

4. Specific comments

4.1.

Article 1(2)

The Committee feels that a clearer definition is needed of the term 'modifications to projects'. The following should be added at the end: 'liable to have a significant impact on the environment'. In this connection the Committee would recall the suggestion in its Opinion () on the Proposal for a Council Directive on integrated pollution prevention and control.

4.2.

Articles 4 and 5

In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, the new wording of Articles 4 and 5 leaves Member States considerable discretion on the designation of special protection areas and thresholds. This could lead to distortions of competition. The Committee asks the Commission to pay special attention to this aspect, and to draw up harmonization proposals if appropriate.

4.3.

Article 8

The Committee asks the Commission to amend Article 8 as follows:

'The opinions and the information gathered pursuant to Articles 5, 6 and 7 must be taken into consideration and assessed in the development consent procedure.'

4.4.

Article 9

The Committee is pleased that the new Article 9, by ensuring public disclosure, will reinforce the obligation (Article 8) to consider the opinions gathered pursuant to Articles 5, 6 and 7.

4.5.

Annex I, Point 6

The Committee recommends that the terminology used to define 'integrated chemical installations' be checked in the different language versions, particularly the terms used for 'geographical area'; 'units for the industrial production of chemical products'; 'functionally linked'.

4.6.

Annex II, Point 11(a)

The Committee asks the Commission to insert 'lorries' after 'cars and motor cycles', and also to add 'harbours and basins used for high-speed nautical competitions'.

4.7.

Annex II, Point 11(e)

The Committee asks the Commission to add 'and other non-ferrous metals'.

4.8.

Annex IIa

The Committee asks the Commission to clarify the fifth indent by adding 'liable to have a substantial adverse impact on man and/or the surrounding environment.'

4.9.

Annex III, Point 2

One aspect which, if interpreted too restrictively, could waste reams of paper, is the requirement to describe the main alternatives which 'might' be envisaged. It would be better to say: 'a description of reasonable alternatives ...', in line with the formula used in Appendix II of the Espoo Convention on environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context.

Done at Brussels, 14 September 1994.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Susanne TIEMANN

() OJ No C 130, 12. 5. 1994, p. 8.

() OJ No L 175, 5. 7. 1985.

() COM(93) 28 final, 2. 4. 1993.

() OJ No C 313, 30. 11. 1992.

() OJ No C 68, 24. 3. 1986.

() COM(88) 338 final, 8. 6. 1988.

() OJ No C 311, 17. 11. 1993.

() OJ No C 106, 14. 4. 1994.

() COM(92) 23 final, 12. 6. 1992, p. 26-27.

() COM(93) 700 final, 5. 12. 1993.

() OJ No C 195, 18. 7. 1994.