30.11.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC313/5
4.6.2.Jamsetc.Addattheend'includingenergy­
reducedproducts'.Thelatterarenotjamsunderthe
JamDirective.4.6.4.Below'confectionery'add:Englishonly
'Aeratedchews500mg/kgE151
Redliquorice'novelties'400mg/kgE124'
4.6.3.Desserts.Itshouldbeclarifiedthatthese
includefruitedandfruit-flavoured dairyproducts.4.6.5.Add:Spirits300mg/1E104.
4.6.6.Add:Pre-cookedcrustaceans100mg/1.
DoneatBrussels,23September1992.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
MichaelGEUENICH
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilDecisionconcerningtheconclusion,onbehalfofthe
Community,oftheConventiononenvironmental impactassessmentinatransboundary
contextI1)
(92/C313/02)
On22April1992theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee,
underArticle130SoftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity,onthe
abovementioned proposal.
TheSectionforProtectionoftheEnvironment ,PublicHealthandConsumerAffairs,which
wasresponsibleforpreparingtheCommittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon
7July1992.TheRapporteurwasMrKafka.
Atits299thPlenarySession(meetingof23September1992)theEconomicandSocial
CommitteeadoptedthefollowingOpinionunanimously .
TheCommitteeapprovestheproposalforaCouncil
Decision,subjecttothecommentssetoutbelow.
1.Introduction1.2.Theso-calledEspooConventionisbasedtoa
largeextentontheprovisionssetoutinCouncilDirec­
tive85/337/EECof25June1985ontheassessmentof
theeffectsofcertainpublicandprivateprojectsonthe
environment (3).However,theConventiongoesfurther
incertainaspectsthanthisdirective,andtheCom­
missionisplanningtoforwardtotheCouncilapro­
posalforamendingDirective85/337/EECbeforethe
endof1992.Thisproposedamendmentwouldbring
theCommunityprovisionsinlinewiththoseofthe
Convention asaminimum .
1.3.TheCommission considersitdesirableforthe
CommunityandtheMemberStatestodeposittheratifi­
cationinstrumentsatthesametime,and,tothisend,
adecisionrequestingallMemberStatestoinformthe
CommissionoftheirintentiontoratifytheConvention
byagivendate,hastobeadopted.1.1.AConvention,preparedundertheauspicesof
theUnitedNationsEconomicCommissionforEurope
(UN-ECE),onenvironmental impactassessmentina
transboundary contextwassignedatEspoo,Finland
from25to27February1992by27countries,including
the12MemberStatesandtheCommunityitself(2).The
Conventionwillenterintoforce90daysafterthedate
ofdepositofthe16thratification .
HOJNoC104,24.4.1992,p.5and7.
(3)OJNoL175,5.7.1985;ESCOpinioninOJNoC185,
27.7.1981.(2)AuthorizationtosignonbehalfoftheCommunitygivenby
CouncilDecisionon25February1991.

NoC313/6 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 30.11.92
1.4.AsfarastheCommunity isconcerned,the
EspooConventionshouldberegardedfromthepoint
ofviewofArticle130R.coversverificationofpastpredictionsinordertotrans­
ferexperiencetofutureactivitiesofthesametype,
whichmaybecarriedoutattherequestoftheParties
totheEnvironmental ImpactAssessment .
1.5.ThepointsonwhichtheConventiondiffers
fromDirective85/337/EECincludethefollowing:2.GeneralComments
1.5.1.Definitionof'Impact'inArticlel(vii)ofthe
Conventionrefersexplicitlytoeffectsonsocio-econ­
omicconditions,whileArticle3oftheDirectiveleaves
thismerelyimplied.2.1.RegardingtheProposalforaCouncilDecision
concerningtheconclusionofthisConventiontheCom­
mitteefindsreferencesinArticle2.2andtheAnnexto
thecompetenceoftheEuropeanEconomicCommunity
somewhatvague(especiallyregardingmatterswhich
arenotyetthesubjectofCommunitylegislation).The
Committeewouldsuggestthatthecompetencesofthe
MemberStatesandoftheCommissionshouldbemore
clearlystated.1.5.2.Article2.7oftheConventionstatesthat,to
theextentappropriate ,thePartiesshallendeavourto
applytheprinciplesofenvironmental impactassess­
ment(also)topolicies,plansandprogrammes .Inthe
Directive,theonlysimilarreferenceismadeinthefirst
'whereas',namelythatMemberStatesaffirmtheneed
totakeeffectsontheenvironment intoaccountatthe
earliestpossiblestageinallthetechnicalplanningand
decision-making processes.2.2.Recognizingthatcertaintypesofpollutioncan
haveatransboundary impactandcanextendbeyond
theboundariesoftheCommunity,theCommitteewel­
comestheEspooConvention,andwouldrequestall
MemberStates,aswellastheCommissiontoratifyit
inaccordancewiththeCouncilDecision.Indeed,the
CommitteeisproudthattheCouncilDirective85/337/
EECwasregardedinternationally ofsuchqualityasto
formthebasisofaUN-ECEConvention .1.5.3.Article7oftheDirectiverefers,incaseswhere
aMemberStateisawarethataprojectislikelyto
havesignificanteffectsontheenvironmentofanother
MemberState,etc.,tobilateralconsultations between
theMemberStatesconcerned.TheConvention,of
course,extendsbeyondMemberStatesoftheCom­
munity;Article3referstonotifyinganyParty(state)
whichislikelytosufferfromasignificantadverse
transboundary impactfromaproposedactivitylistedin
AppendixIsoastoenableconsultationsunderArticle5
totakeplacetofindwaystomitigatetheimpact,
possiblemutualassistance,etc.(AppendixI,though
similartoAnnexIoftheDirective,containsseveral
additionalitems,e.g.largediameterpipelines,large
damsandreservoirs,largegroundwaterabstraction
andpulpandpapermanufacture).2.3.TheCommitteefindthetermsoftheConvention
acceptableandhasnoproposalsatthistimeforany
changesforconsideration whentheConvention is
reviewed.Itispossible,however,thatexperiencein
applyingtheConventionmaygiverisetosuchproposals
inthefuture.
2.4.Inparticular,theCommitteenotesthatthe
applicationoftheConventiondoesnotsubstantially
increasethebureaucracyassociatedwithEnvironmen­
talImpactAssessment,becauseMemberStatesofthe
EuropeanCommunity,beingalreadyobligedtoapply
Directive85/337/EEC,merelysendthedocumentation
relevanttothatDirectivetothe'affectedParty'in
accordancewiththeConvention ,andfollowthepro­
cedureoftheDirective.1.5.4.Itmustbeunderstoodthat,whiletheDirec­
tive,Article4,makesanimpactassessmentobligatory
forprojectslistedinAnnexI,theConvention,according
toArticles2.4,2.5and3,limitssuchassessmentsfor
projectslistedinAppendixItocaseswhentheproposed
activityislikelytocauseasignificanttransboundary
impact;but—ontheotherhand—alsoactivities
notlistedinAppendixImaybeagreedtorequirean
assessment.NoristhereanyreferenceintheConven­
tiontoa'developmentconsent'asdefinedintheDirec­
tive,Article1.2.2.5.TheCommitteeacceptstheneedtoadaptDirec­
tive85/337/EECsuchthatitcomplieswithcertain
detailsoftheConvention,andsupportstheCom­
mission'splantoprepareaproposaltothiseffectbefore
theendof1992.
1.5.5.UnlikeArticle11.1oftheDirectivewhichonly
makesareferencetoexchangeofinformationonthe
experiencegainedinapplyingtheDirective,theCon­
ventionincludesa'Post-projectanalysis',whichalso2.6.TheCommittee,however,hastoawaittheissue
oftheproposedamendmenttotheDirective(which
mayincludeitemsadditionaltostrictcompliancewith
theConvention )beforeformingitsOpiniononit.

30.11.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC313/7
2.7.Finally,theCommitteewishestorequesttheenceintheapplicationoftheConvention .
Commissiontoinformitofimportantitemsofexperi­
DoneatBrussels,23September1992.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
MichaelGEUENICH
Opinionon:
—theproposalforaCouncilRegulation (EEC)onthebrakingoftwoandthree-wheel
motorvehicles(*),
—theproposalforaCouncilRegulation (EEC)onthemaximumdesignspeed,maximum
torqueandmaximumnetenginepoweroftwoorthree-wheelmotorvehicles(2),and
—theproposalforaCouncilRegulation (EEC)ontheinstallationoflightingandlight­
signallingdevicesontwoorthree-wheelmotorvehicles(3)
(92/C313/03)
On11March1992theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee,
underArticle100AoftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity,onthe
abovementioned proposals.
TheSectionforIndustry,Commerce,CraftsandServices,whichwasresponsibleforpreparing
theCommittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon8July.TheRapporteurwas
MrBagliano.
Atits299thPlenarySession(meetingof23September1992),theEconomicandSocial
CommitteeadoptedthefollowingOpinionunanimously .
1.3.Inthelightofthecurrentdebateonwhichis
themostappropriatelegalinstrument,theCommittee
considersthatinviewofthepriorityoftheserulesa
regulationisthemostappropriate .1.Generalobservations
1.1.TheCommitteeendorsesthesefirstRegulations
implementingtheframeworkregulationonthetype
approvaloftwoorthree-wheelmotorvehicles.
1.2.InparticulartheCommitteestressesthatthe
primaryaimoftheproposedrulesistoensuretraffic
safety,alongsidetheharmonization ofproceduresand
standardswhichisessentialifaneffectivesinglemarket
istobebroughtabout.Aregulationis'bindinginitsentiretyanddirectly
applicableinallMemberStates'(TreatyArticle189).
Thegreatdetailofthetechnicalprovisionsproposed
pursuanttotheframeworkRegulationjustifiesthe
decisionoftheCommissiontooptforregulationsrather
thandirectivesinordertoavoidthevariationsin(!)OJNoC93,13.4.1992,p.24.
(2)OJNoC93,13.4.1992,p.116.
(3)OJNoC93,13.4.1992,p.39.