Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment` () (97/C 287/21)

On 6 May 1997 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 130s of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned 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 May 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Pellarini.

At its 346th plenary session (meeting of 29 May 1997) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 49 votes in favour with four abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. The proposal complements environmental assessment of projects under the EIA Directive (85/337/EEC), which was recently revised by the Council with a view to making a number of procedural adjustments on the basis of acquired experience, as well as of international commitments entered into under the Espoo Convention ().

1.2. Assessment would be brought forward to the pre-adoption phase of plans and programmes which set the general framework for individual projects.

1.3. Scope is restricted to land use plans and programmes adopted by competent bodies by means of a formal procedure (see Article 2), including plans for sectors such as transport, waste management, water resource management, industry, telecommunications, tourism and energy.

2. General comments

2.1. The Committee welcomes the proposal, since it fits in with the concept of 'sustainable development`, as defined in the international agreements resulting from the Rio Convention and as expressed in the Fifth Action Programme, aiming at better integration of environmental considerations from the land use planning stage onwards.

2.2. Environmental assessment at plan and programme level means that environmental objectives must be defined at a very early stage of the planning process, and must be assessed in an interactive and comprehensive manner, at the appropriate decision-making level. This would encourage a preventive approach and would allow fuller assessment of alternatives, as well as the cumulative and combined effects of small-scale but numerous projects. This type of strategic assessment is also in keeping with the precautionary approach to environmental issues.

2.3. The result of bringing forward environmental assessment and giving it a strategic character should be to improve the assessment of individual projects, insofar as it provides a reliable initial reference framework. Reliable references will also be helpful for producers, offering a coherent framework in which to place their projects.

2.4. The proposal is based on the experience acquired over the ten years of EIA implementation, which shows that the potential of the procedure can be more fully harnessed by comparing project alternatives: the best way to bring this about is to introduce environmental considerations at the preliminary planning state.

2.5. The proposal is also consistent with the approach of the Fifth Action Programme on the Environment, under which environmental priorities no longer form a separate policy, but are an intrinsic factor spanning the various development policies and influencing all policies at an early stage.

2.6. The proposal provides a procedural reference framework to be put into practice by the Member States, who are to combine it as efficiently as possible with existing legislation on environmental impact assessment for individual projects. If a strategic environmental impact assessment is introduced, the requirements for project-related environmental impact assessment should be correspondingly relaxed. The proposal should be amended accordingly.

2.7. Other highly important directives on environmental controls, procedures and authorizations have been adopted in recent years or are currently being adopted, such as the Directive concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (96/61/EC). The present proposal therefore adds to an already complex picture: the opportunity should be grasped to provide a clearer definition of existing hierarchies and the specific scope of the various directives, so as to prevent overlap, duplication and excessive red tape.

2.8. While the Committee acknowledges the differing aims of the various directives (Seveso, EMAS, EIA, etc.), it feels that an overall hierarchy should be recognized in which the present proposal is seen as a strategic reference framework, followed in turn by the EIA directive on individual projects, the Seveso and IPPC directives and, lastly, voluntary agreements, but with a constant view to simplification in those cases where procedures may be duplicated.

2.9. This demand was first voiced in point 2.2 of the Committee's opinion on amending the EIA Directive (), which called for greater coordination with Community legislation liable to have a combined influence with the directive, such as IPPC and Seveso, and recommended concentration of procedures. The same concern is voiced in the Committee's Opinion on implementing Community environmental law (), point 2.4 of which calls for the rules to be simplified and compiled thematically.

2.10. Point 1.18 of the Explanatory Memorandum is probably over-optimistic on the question of methodologies. They are less well-consolidated than suggested; such at least is the general view of both technical specialists and those affected by decisions. Mechanisms for ad-hoc comparison should be provided to make the technical requirements of environmental assessment clearer. The Commission could, in agreement with the Member States, issue non-binding indicative guidelines to assist Member States in taking better coordinated action; it should also encourage exchanges of information and experiences, specifically on methodology, under the terms of Article 11(1).

2.11. Harmonization of the minimum requirements for integrating the environmental dimension into the plan and programme adoption procedure is essential, both to avoid cross-border problems and to prevent distortions of competition between Member States and regions.

2.12. It is however clear that the proposal is of a purely procedural nature (see point 4.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum) - assessment and consultation during the preparatory procedure and consideration of results are not deemed to have any binding effect on the final decision-making process: power of assessment as well as the final decision remain the exclusive competence of the responsible authority, in keeping with subsidiarity.

2.13. Lastly, implementation of the directive should be adapted to the national, regional or local decision-making level appropriate to each case and to the Member State in which the plans or programmes are being adopted. The ESC therefore voices strong reservations concerning the reference in the body of the directive to Member States in connection with derogations (Article 4(3) and (4); such derogations should be decided in conjunction with the competent regional or local authority.

2.14. The Committee would make a number of suggestions to extend the directive's scope (Article 2), and is also concerned at the exclusion from its scope of plans submitted to the Commission under the Structural Fund's regulations. Environmental impact control of the individual projects under the Community funds' programmes is governed by the EIA directive; but the current arrangements for monitoring the wider action taken under fund plans and programmes have given little ground for confidence, precisely because they are not clearly defined. The inclusion of strategic environmental impact assessment in this field could do much to ensure that greater attention focuses on integrating environmental considerations into sectoral policies, as envisaged by the Fifth Action Programme. Strategic assessment, including public consultations, should be a prerequisite for accepting programmes. The Committee hopes that this will be taken into consideration in the forthcoming review of the Structural Funds.

2.15. Article 6 leaves the practical arrangements for public consultation to the Member States: the Committee calls for greater precision in defining procedures and means of access, in order to ensure that all interested parties are properly consulted and are given time to prepare their comments.

2.16. Unlike impact assessment for projects, where a dialogue is established between the private entities involved and the competent authorities, strategic assessment entails decision-making between the public authorities themselves: there might therefore be a case for appointing an authority to 'guarantee` that proper information procedures are adhered to, at national level, or adding a second annex stipulating the minimum publication measures to be met by the competent authority.

2.17. Lastly, it is important to define - at the assessment stage - which monitoring instruments and methods are to be used to check the efficacy of measures for reducing environmental impact.

3. Specific comments

In the light of the above comments, the ESC proposes the following amendments to the individual articles:

3.1. Article 2(a)(ii), last paragraph

Add the following after '... industry (including extraction of mineral resources)`:

'general agricultural land-use plans, where they involve the siting of works which together generate a significant environmental effect and/or significant consumption of environmental resources`.

Add the following after 'tourism`:

'and any other land-use plan deemed liable to have a significant environmental impact`.

3.2. Article 6(4)

Amend as follows:

'The competent authority shall promote the consultation of all those directly or indirectly concerned by the environmental impact of the implementation of the plan or programme, ensuring that sufficient time and appropriate means of access are provided at sustainable cost, taking into account ...`.

3.3. Article 6(5)

Add:

'The Member States shall appoint an authority to guarantee that proper information and consultation procedures are adhered to.`

3.4. Article 8

It should be made clear that the environmental statement must be an integral part of the decision by the competent authority.

3.5. Article 9a

Add a new article:

'The Member States shall be responsible for supervising the implementation of plans and programmes and shall establish appropriate monitoring systems to ensure the efficacy of measures for reducing the environmental impact, together with the periodicity of checks and arrangements for publishing the results. On the basis of this experience, they shall assess suitability of methodologies with a view to making the appropriate revisions`.

3.6. Article 10(1)

Add the following:

'The Commission shall assess the possibility of establishing simplified procedures for projects under Annex II of Directive 85/337/EEC which are contained in plans assessed at the strategic level, in order to avoid duplication`.

3.7. Article 11(1)

In exchanging information, particular attention should be paid to the methodologies. The frequency of information exchanges should also be established, with annual coordination meetings for specific issues.

3.8. Article 11(2)

The report should also be sent to the Economic and Social Committee

3.9. Annex

Add the following to paragraph (e), after '... effects ...`:

'whether direct or indirect, secondary, cumulative or synergetic, short-, medium- or long-term, permanent or temporary, positive or negative`.

Add a new paragraph (i) as follows:

'the monitoring systems adopted in order to ensure the efficacy of measures for reducing the environmental impact, together with the periodicity of checks and arrangements for publishing the results`.

3.10. As an alternative to point 3.3 above, addition of a new Annex II on the minimum information and consultation measures referred to in Article 6, to be drawn up in accordance with existing Community provisions on environmental information requirements.

Brussels, 29 May 1997.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() OJ C 129, 25. 4. 1997, p. 14.

() OJ C 393, 31. 12. 1994. Council Decision of 3 March 1997.

() OJ C 393, 31. 12. 1994.

() OJ C 206, 7. 7. 1997, p. 7.