No C 185/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 7. 81 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive concerning the assessment of the 
environmental effects of certain public and private projects 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the 
European Communities No C 169 of 9 July 1980, page 14. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 26 June 1980 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic 
and Social Committee in accordance with Article 100 of the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
187 th plenary session held in Brussels on 29 and 30 April 1981. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 100 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council of 
the European Communities on 26 June 1980 for an 
opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive 
concerning the assessment of the environmental 
effects of certain public and private projects, 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 
2 July 1980, instructing the Section for Protection of 
the Environment, Public Health and Consumer 
Affairs to draw up an opinion and a report on the 
matter, 
Having regard to the discussions held by the Section 
for Protection of the Environment, Public Health 
and Consumer Affairs at its 62 nd meeting on 7 April 
1981, 
Having regard to the report submitted by Mr 
Mills, 
Having regard to its discussions at its 187 th plenary 
session held on 29 and 30 April (meeting of 29 April 
1981), 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION: 
unanimously: 
1. General comments Communities on the environment and provides for 
prior assessment of the impact on the environment of 
certain public and private projects. This assessment 
and appropriate public consultation should precede 
any planning decision or authorization by the 
competent authorities. The proposed Directive also 
lays down the common principles on which the 
assessment should be based, viz. protection of human 
health, the safeguard of living conditions and 
preservation of natural resources. 
1.2. An examination of the environment in the 
Community shows that an appreciable improvement 
may take place in the coming years if preventative 
measures are taken. If such measures are not taken 
deterioration of the environment may continue in all 
the Member States. 
1.3. There are at Community level and in the 
various Member States many laws and authorization 
procedures on air and water pollution, land use and 
dangerous products. Since at present little progress 
has been made on a Community coordinated 
approach, it is extremely difficult to consider the 
effect of changes in the environment both in the long 
and short term (the interrelationships and balances 
between the various factors water, air, soil etc.). It is 
the undesirable effects, whose implications are of the 
greatest importance for living conditions, that have 
to be minimised. 
1.1. The proposal for a Directive is submitted under 
the programme of action of the European 1.4. A coordinated assessement procedure could 
provide some advantages, not only for the competent 
27. 7. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 185/9 
authorities, who would have a better understanding 
of the projects and a better instrument for decision­
making, but also for the developer as a result of the 
simplification of administrative procedures. 
1.5. Some activities are liable to have considerable 
impact on the environment, e.g.: 
a) individual projects in the public and private 
sector (industrial, residential or commercial 
complexes, infrastructure); 
b) land-use plans and programmes at national, 
regional and local level; 
c) economic plans and industrial policy promoting 
and giving direction for example, to a specific 
industrial sector; 
d) new technologies and new products which have 
an increasingly complex impact and often give 
rise to considerable debate. It should be borne in 
mind that measures have been taken at 
Community level to control the marketing of new 
chemical products (6 th amendment of the 1967 
Directive on the classification, packaging and 
labelling of dangerous substances). 
The impact of the preceding activities can be difficult 
to assess and problems could arise over whether an 
application or plan should be accepted or rejected. 
1.6. This impact assessment should be undertaken 
as early as possible in the decision-making 
process. 
1.7. Accordingly, attempts should be made to 
resolve the many difficulties by the introduction of 
various mandatory procedures within the framework 
of a long-term plan drawn up by the competent 
authorities. Account should also be taken of 
environmental aspects in physical planning and the 
repercussions on the quality of life and the natural 
habitat. 
1.8. The Committee supports the aims of making 
possible the convergence of national environmental 
impact assessment procedures, in that provision is 
made inter alia for the examination of projects and 
for appropriate public consultation. However, it also 
considers that the asssessment procedures should 
only constitute one of the instruments in the decision­
making process and should not become an end in 
themselves. 
Sphere of application 
1.9. The competent authorities have to apply the 
principle of impact assessment by clearly specifiying the sphere of application of the Directive. The 
Member States should decide the thresholds at which 
certain projects in Annex 2 are deemed to be likely to 
have a significant effect on the environment. 
Procedure 
1.10. The preparation of the documentation to be 
provided by the developer poses a whole series of 
problems, particularly as regards the confidential 
nature of information, the cost involved, the time 
needed for the determination of a planning 
permission or authorization, the definition of the 
realistic objectives and the needs the project is to 
meet, as well as alternatives to the initial project. 
1.11. Legitimate protection of industrial and 
commercial secrets as regards the data supplied by 
the devoloper should not, however, prevent a full 
assessment of the project by the competent 
authorities and a proper appreciation by other 
organizations called upon to give their views. 
1.12. The Committee notes that the proposal for a 
Directive does not deal with the apportionment of 
the costs involved in preparing the impact assessment 
study between the initiator of the project and the 
public authorities but leaves this to the discretion of 
the Member States. The Committee considers it 
would be desirable to add to the Directive provisions 
designed to prevent the Member States' decisions in 
this matter from diverging. 
1.13. The Committee also recognizes that the total 
cost of producing an environmental impact 
assessment will vary; it thinks, however, that the cost 
of preventive action, including assessment studies, 
will be less than the amount that the community and 
developers might have to spend on remedial 
action. 
1.14. The Committee considers that delays in the 
taking of decisions by the competent authorities may 
lead to additional costs for the developers, and 
therefore advocates that the provisions of the 
Directive be strictly applied in order to simplify and 
speed up the administrative procedure. 
1.15. The Committee assumes that the developer's 
obligation to submit any possible alternatives to the 
project, covers both the site and the production 
processes. Problems may arise here, since it is 
sometimes difficult for the developer to envisage 
reasonable alternative solutions taking into 
consideration that such decisions are influenced by 
No C 185/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 7. 81 
various factors e.g. costs of infrastructure, economic, 
cultural and possibly natural constraints. 
1.16. The Committee is nevertheless aware that the 
above provision is in general necessary to enable the 
parties directly affected to make a better assessment 
of the aims of the project and to arrive at a better 
understanding of the implications of the various 
options for the environment. The submission of 
realistic alternatives will provide the competent 
authorities with additional data which may facilitate 
clear and responsible decision-making. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article J 
2.1.1. The Committee considers, even when read in 
conjunction with Annex 3, that certain expressions, 
such as "significant effects" and "substantial 
changes", may give rise to difficulties of 
interpretation and result in dispute that could cause 
harmful delays in the determination of planning 
applications. 
2.1.2. The Committee understands the aim of the 
assessment process is not to prejudice administrative 
decisions systematically in favour of environmental 
considerations, to the detriment of the economic and 
social advantages which might be derived from a 
project. The proposed system should enable the 
responsible authorities to strike a proper balance 
between the various factors involved, environmental 
and others. To be able to undertake this task it is 
recognized the competent authority needs accurate 
information at their disposal of the type that could be 
provided by an assessment procedure. This would 
enable them to weigh up all the interests at stake 
when making their decision. The Committee repeats 
its warning that the assessment procedure must not 
be allowed to cause undue delays in the decision­
making process. 
2.2. Article 2 
2.2.1. The Committee proposes that Member States 
should take measures to ensure that projects which 
are likely to have a significant effect on the 
environment are required to obtain suitable authorization from a competent authority. Such 
projects should therefore be subject to an 
environmental assessment procedure. 
2.3. Article 3 
2.3.1. The Committee would point out that the 
failure to take man as the point of departure for the 
assessment of the effects of projects means that such 
an assessment may fail to cover the repercussions 
which have a direct bearing on man's presence, such 
as noise, effects of radiation, etc. 
2.3.2. The Committee agrees that it would be 
advisable to assess the extent of the effect of projects 
and therefore their overall impact, in the light of the 
need to conserve the natural resources which, in 
some cases, are currently being exploited. 
2.3.3. The Committee recommends 'long term 
productive capacities' be replaced by 'long term 
regenerative capacities'. 
2.4. Article 4 
2.4.1. The Committee notes that the draft Directive 
has two key elements, namely the division of projects 
into three categories and the definition of two levels 
of assessment ('full' assessment and 'simplified' 
assessment). 
2.4.2. Annexes 1 and 2 appear to be lists of 
industrial and non-industrial activities classified 
according to type of economic activities. In the 
Committee's view the projects should be more closely 
classified according to the extent of their impact on 
the environment. Such a presentation would be more 
in line with the aim of the Directive and would make 
the Annexes more useful. 
2.4.3. Furthermore, the Committee questions 
whether the lists of projects set out in the Annexes are 
exhaustive and whether the terms used are 
sufficiently precise (for example the definition of 
subsidiary buildings). 
2.4.4. The Committee notes that the Commission is 
only active in the authorization procedure for 
projects coming under Annex 1 where specific 
projects are to be exempted from the need for full 
assessment. 
27. 7. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 185/11 
The Committee ist concerned about some aspects of 
the requirement for competent authorities to refer 
assessment procedures to the Commission. The 
Committee requests that the Commission should re­
examine this requirement. 
2.4.5. The Committee recognizes that in a few cases 
this Community intervention may cause difficulties 
for developers since it covers only specific projects 
whose importance it is difficult to quantify in 
advance. 
2.4.6. The Committee notes that the proposal does 
not define the difference between a 'simplified' and a 
'full assessment'. 
2.5. Article 5 
2.5.1. The Committee notes that the criteria and 
thresholds adopted by the Member States are only to 
be coordinated by the Commission. However, it 
considers the regular review period should be more 
specifically defined; say every five years. 
2.6. Article 6 
2.6.1. Bearing in mind the Committee's comments 
on realistic alternative solutions, it suggests that only 
a description of the proposed project and its purpose 
be required in the first indent of Article 6 of the 
Commission's proposal. 
2.6.2. In the sixth indent of the Article the 
Committee is of the opinion that a brief outline of the 
main relevant alternative solutions will add nothing 
to the information required. 
2.6.3. The reference in indent 7 (and Annex 3) to a 
non-technical summary is understood by the 
Committee to mean a printed explanation of the 
findings of the assessment which can be easily 
understood by the layman. 
2.7. Article 7 
2.7.1. The Committee considers that 'Member 
State' should be substituted for 'competent authority' 
in line 5, in order to ensure consistent and uniform 
application by all competent authorities within each 
Member State. The Committee proposes the 
incorporation in the draft Directive of a suitable procedure for consultations and appeals. The 
information made available to the public should be 
complete and include the views of public bodies with 
special responsibility for environmental matters. It 
also proposes selectivity in the bodies consulted and 
that the information supplied to the recipient bodies 
should relate to their specific role and 
responsibilities. 
2.8. Article 9 
2.8.1. The Committee thinks that the competent 
national authorities' obligation to respect their own 
provisions with regard to industrial and commercial 
secrecy does not offer adequate guarantees for the 
protection of confidential information supplied by 
the developer, since this information may be 
published in a neighbouring country under 
Article 7. 
2.9. Article 10 
2.9.1. The Committee thinks that the assessment of 
a project's impact on natural resources poses a 
number of scientific problems and that the 
competent authority may if necessary obtain expert 
opinion so that it can study neutral advice on these 
controversial scientific issues whilst evaluating an 
application for planning permission. Delay in 
decision-making should be kept to an absolute 
minimum. 
2.10. Article 11 
2.10.1. As Article 11 is worded at present the 
Committee is concerned that planning permission 
may be jeopardized because the study on which 
planning permission will be based will have been 
carried out prior to the implementation of a project 
and forecasting techniques do not necessarily permit 
a reliable impact assessment to be made. The 
Committee is therefore aware of the need to check 
whether assumptions made in the study have proved 
correct, and — if this is not the case — to take the 
requisite action in future cases. 
2.11. Article 12 
2.11.1. The Committee thinks that the report on the 
operation and effectiveness of the Directive should 
be drawn up by the Commission every five years and 
should also be sent to the Economic and Social 
Committee. 
No C 185/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 7. 81 
2.12. Annexes 1, 2 and 3 
2.12.1. The Committee considers that the 
presentation of the Annexes will cause confusion 
when it comes to applying the Directive, it therefore 
Done at Brussels, 29 April 1981. suggests that the Annexes should be reconsidered to 
see if they are appropriate to meet the objectives of 
the Directive in an optimal way. The Committee 
draws attention to the observations made in the 
Report on the Annexes of the draft Directive. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Tomas ROSEINGRAVE