22. 7. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 191/21 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning the approval of the Convention 
on the International Commission for the protection of the Elbe (l) 
(91/C 191/09) 
On 15 April 1991 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, in 
pursuance of Article 130S of the Treaty establishing the European Economic 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 
17 May 1991. The Rapporteur was Mr Giesecke; Mr Boisseree and Mr Schmitz served as 
Co-Rapporteurs. 
At its 287th plenary session (meeting of 29 May 1991), the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously adopted the following Opinion. 
1. Introduction 3. Specific comments 
1.1. The Commission proposes that the European 
Community ratify a Convention signed in Magdeburg 
on 8 October 1990 between the Federal Republic of 
Germany, the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic 
(CSFR) and the European Economic Community. 
1.2. This Convention, which excludes fisheries and 
shipping questions, is essentially aimed at preventing 
pollution of the Elbe and its drainage area. 
1.3. In particular it provides for the setting-up of 
an international Commission, which will, inter alia, 
prepare surveys of water pollution and propose both 
limit values for the discharge of effluent and specific 
action for the reduction of discharges of harmful sub­
stances. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Commission's proposal that the Elbe Con­
vention be ratified by the European Economic Com­
munity is part of the Commission's ongoing efforts to 
protect the environment and, in particular, to prevent 
water pollution. 
2.2. In accordance with the fourth action programme 
on the environment, and further to its accession to the 
international conventions on the Rhine and the Danube, 
the European Community proposes to accede to a furth­
er international convention to which a non-EC country, 
namely the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (CSFR), 
is a party. 3.1. The Economic and Social Committee welcomes 
the draft Decision and, in particular, the fact that the 
EC is to be a full independent party to the Convention 
which was not the case under the Danube Convention. 
This form of accession to the Elbe Convention will 
enable substantive EC proposals and Directives in the 
field of environmental protection and water manage­
ment to be most readily taken up by a further non-EC 
country, the CSFR. 
3.2. The possibility of securing far-ranging cooper­
ation in the various working parties set up under the 
Convention is particularly important as, for the first 
time, one of the parties to the Convention is a former 
member of the Eastern Bloc and the Council for Mutual 
Economic Assistance (CMEA). For the CSFR, as for 
the former German Democratic Republic (GDR), the 
formulation and implementation of an effective 
environmental protection policy is a new experience. 
33. In this connection the Committee welcomes the 
fact that, under the Phare programme to support econ­
omic and social reforms in Central and Eastern Euro­
pe (2), the Commission is to give priority to providing 
funds for environmental protection programmes, and 
more specifically for the prevention of water pollution 
in the former GDR and the CSFR. 
3.4. When funds are being allocated to the CSFR in 
future, particular consideration must be given to setting 
up the necessary institutions and providing the necess­
ary apparatus to permit implementation of the pro­
gramme to measure and investigate water-borne pol-
(!) OJ No C 93, 11. 4. 1991, p. 10. (2) See Regulations (EEC) No 3906/89 and 2698/90. 
No C 191/22 Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 7. 91 
lution and its level of concentration. This would assist 
the CSFR in the difficult taks of implementing the initial 
measures under the Convention. 
Done at Brussels, 29 May 1991. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The proposal for a Council Decision concerning 
the development of a European high-speed train net­
work is based essentially, but not solely, on another 
draft Decision on the establishing of a European high­
speed train network [Doc. COM(89) 564 final—OJ No 
C 34, 14. 2. 1990]. 
1.2. The ESC adopted an Opinion on the latter by 
a substantial majority at its plenary session of 4 July 
1990 (2). While endorsing the Commission proposal in 
principle, the ESC Opinion nonetheless pointed out 
some key priorities in the rail sector as a whole: 
— the need to prepare European rail infrastructure for 
the needs of the next century, without, however, 3.5. The experience gained in this field should, in 
the Committee's view, also prove beneficial in connec­
tion with the planned establishment of the European 
Environment Agency. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
neglecting gradual modernization and extension of 
conventional infrastructure, 
— the environmental advantages inherent in railways 
should not be underestimated when high-speed lines 
are being built, 
— the need to reduce noise nuisance and impact on 
the environment to a minimum, 
— the need to take account of the total time required 
for journeys and connecting services, 
— compatibility of infrastructure technology, equip­
ment and the transmission of data during journeys. Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning the establishing of a network of 
high-speed trains (*) 
(91/C 191/10) 
On 22 February 1991 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 75 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opnion on 8 May 1991. The Rapporteur was 
Mr Bleser. 
At its 287th plenary session (meeting of 29 May 1991), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
(J) OJ No C 51, 27. 2. 1991, p. 6. 
(2) OJ No C 225, 10. 9. 1990. 1.3. The Council of Transport Ministers, at its meet­
ing of 17 and 18 December 1990, adopted a resolution