WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3067/97 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Environmental assessment
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