WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3067/97 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Environmental assessment
Date: 1997-10-02
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: EU environmental policy, environmental impact, environmental protection, industrial pollution, pollution control measures, project evaluation

30. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134/69

(98/C 134/87)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3067/97

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(2 October 1997)

Subject: Environmental assessment

The Commission has submitted a proposal for a Council directive on the assessment of the effects of certain
plans and programmes on the environment (COM(96) 511 final › 96/0304 SYN).

Various other highly important directives on environmental controls, procedures and authorizations have been
adopted in recent years or are currently being adopted. The present proposal therefore forms part of an already
complex picture. Will the Commission take this opportunity to define more accurately the hierarchy governing
the  various  directives  and  their  specific  fields  of  application,  so  as  to  avoid  overlapping,  duplication  and
excessive red tape?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 1997)

The  Commission  agrees  that  there  should  not  be  an  overlap  or  duplication  between  different  environmental
instruments. It bore this in mind when introducing the proposal for a directive on the assessment of the effects of
certain  plans  and  programmes  on  the  environment (1).  This  proposal  extends  the  existing  project  level
environmental impact assessment (EIA) system to the planning level of decision making, which comes before the
project level. It is the second step in the introduction of a comprehensive environmental assessment system. The
idea of having an environmental impact assessment system covering all levels of decision making is more than
20  years  old  and  the  Commission  underlined  its  importance  in  all  five  environmental  action  programmes.
Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment (2) at project level and the proposed directive1 for the planning
level complement each other and do not create a duplication of the system. Concerning other instruments in the
environment  field,  such  as  Integrated  pollution  prevention  and  control  (IPPC)  Directive  96/61/EC (3)  or  the
Seveso Directive 82/501/EEC on the major accident hazards of certain industrial activities (4) or the Community
eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) it has to be mentioned that all these instruments fulfil their own
purpose and also complement each other to the degree necessary. As far as similarities exist (e.g. that information
gathered  could  also  be  used  to  the  extent  appropriate  to  comply  with  requirements  of  other  instruments)
coherence clauses within the instruments assure that there is no overlap.

(1)  OJ C 129, 25.4.1997.
(2)  OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3)  OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.
(4)  OJ L 230, 5.8.1982.

(98/C 134/88)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3068/97

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(2 October 1997)

Subject: Protection of minors in audiovisual services

The Commission has published a Green Paper on the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and
information services (COM(96) 483 final).

Of all the devices made available to service users by the new media, classification and labelling systems (or
classification/coding) seem to offer the most effective way of monitoring content, since they indicate whether a
site contains illegal and/or harmful material and of what type.