(IMP)³ Projects subject to EIA D 2.4 Report WP 4

Sixth Framework Programme Specific Targeted Research or Innovation Project (IMP)3 Projects subject to EIA D 2.4 Report WP 4 Sabine Mayer Maria Rita Correia | Paulo Pinho | Sara Santos Cruz | Mária Hrnčárová Zuzana Lieskovská | Katarína Palúchová IMProving the IMPlementation of Environmental IMPact Assessment funded by the Community’s Sixth Framework Pro g ramme (IMP)3 Project team ÖIR, Österreichisches Institut für Raumplanung (Austrian Institute for Regional Studies and Spatial Planning) Austria UBA, Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency) Austria WCfH, Wales Centre for Health United Kingdom Nordregio, Nordic Centre for Spatial Development Sweden CITTA, Research Centre for Territory, Transports and Environment Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto Portugal SZAP, Slovenská Agentúra Životného Prostredia (Slovak Environmental Agency) Slovakia Members of the project team (in alphabetical order) Antonia Cornaro, Erich Dallhammer, Valérie Dumont, Ulrike Fasching, Peter Schneidewind, Gregori Stanzer, Gabriele Tatzberger (ÖIR) Wolfgang Lexer, Sabine Mayer, Berhard Schwarzl (UBA) Ceri Breeze, John Kemm, Nicola Pearce, Lynnette Thomas, Salim Vohra (WCfH) Tuija Hilding-Rydevik, Åsa Pettersson, Arto Ruotsalainen (Nordregio) Maria Rita Correia, Paulo Pinho, Sara Santos Cruz (CITTA) Daniela Bugáňová, Mária Hrnčárová, Zuzana Lieskovská, Katarína Palúchová, František Parišek (SZAP) Authors Sabine Mayer, WP-Leader (UBA) Paulo Pinho, Sara Santos Cruz, Maria Rita Correia (CITTA) Mária Hrnčárová, Zuzana Lieskovská, Katarína Palúchová (SZAP) Coordinator contact details ÖIR, Österreichisches Institut für Raumplanung (Austrian Institute for Regional Studies and Spatial Planning) Franz-Josefs-Kai 27, 1010 Vienna, Austria phone: ++43-(0)1-5338747-11, fax: ++43-(0)1-5338747-66 internet: www.oir.at, e-mail: [email protected] (IMP)3 3 CONTENTS FOREWORD 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9 1 CONTEXT OF THE STUDY 13 1.1 General concept for projects subject to EIA 14 1.1.1 Objectives and Task of WP 4 14 1.1.2 Definitions 15 1.2 Methodology 16 1.2.1 The “triangle-approach” of (IMP)3 16 1.2.1.1 Literature review 17 1.2.1.2 Questionnaire 17 1.2.1.3 Interviews 23 1.2.2 Policy options and SWOT-Analysis 27 1.2.3 Communication process at EU level 28 1.2.4 Organising the work and reporting 30 1.3 Contribution to policy development 33 2 RELEVANT LEGISLATION, GUIDANCE AND EXISTING EVALUATION STUDIES 35 2.1 European and national EIA legislation with regard to WP focus 37 2.1.1 European level 37 2.1.1.1 Directives 37 2.1.1.2 International agreements 41 2.1.1.3 Case law of the European Court and Court of First Instance 45 2.1.2 National/regional level 46 2.1.2.1 Austria 53 2.1.2.2 Czech Republic 55 2.1.2.3 France 56 2.1.2.4 Germany 58 2.1.2.5 Latvia 59 2.1.2.6 Poland 61 2.1.2.7 Portugal 62 2.1.2.8 Slovakia 63 2.1.2.9 Sweden 65 2.1.2.10 United Kingdom 66 2.1.2.11 USA 68 2.1.2.12 Canada 69 2.2 Relevant guidelines 72 2.2.1 European level 72 2.2.2 National/regional level 75 2.3 Experiences from previous evaluation studies 76 2.3.1 EC evaluation of the implementation of the EIA directive in MS 76 2.3.2 Other relevant sources 77 2.4 Conclusion 77 (IMP)3 4 3 APPLICATION OF EIA IN TERMS OF PROJECTS SUBJECT TO EIA – EMPIRICAL RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF EIA PRACTICE 79 3.1 Introduction 79 3.2 Results Questionnaire 80 3.2.1 Question no 14: Satisfaction with Selection and Description of Project types 80 3.2.2 Question no 15: Additional Project types 86 3.2.2.1 Results per type of categories of additional project types 88 3.2.2.2 Results per suggested mode of application of additional project types 89 3.2.3 Question no 16: Merging the two Annexes of the EIA-Directive 94 3.2.3.1 Results per type of stakeholder 95 3.2.3.2 Results per country 96 3.3 Results Interviews 101 3.3.1 Issue: ‘Project categories’ 101 3.3.2 Issue: ‘Project type descriptions/criteria’ 105 3.3.3 Issue: ‘Annexes system’ 111 4 KEY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 127 5 POLICY OPTIONS 131 5.1 General remarks 133 5.2 Policy Option 0: “Zero option: No change/do nothing” 135 5.2.1 Description 135 5.2.2 SWOT Analyses 136 5.3 Policy Option 1: Guidance plus supportive measures 137 5.3.1 Description 137 5.3.2 SWOT Analyses 139 5.4 Policy Option 2: Minor amendment to the EIA directive plus supportive measures 140 5.4.1 Description 140 5.4.2 SWOT Analyses 142 5.5 Policy Option 3: Moderate amendment to the EIA directive plus supportive measures 143 5.5.1 Description 143 5.5.2 SWOT Analyses 145 5.6 Policy Option 4: Major amendment to the EIA directive plus supportive measures 146 5.6.1 Description 146 5.6.2 SWOT Analyses 148 5.7 Policy Option 5: Radical amendment to the EIA directive plus supportive measures 149 5.7.1 Description 149 5.7.2 SWOT Analyses 150 6 REFERENCES 151 6.1 Literature 151 6.2 Further reading 155 6.3 Links to related sites 156 ANNEX 157 (IMP)3 5 Figures Figure 1 (IMP)3 “triangle-approach” for gathering and analysing data 17 Figure 2 Types of EIA-stakeholders covered by the stakeholder list 18 Figure 3 Time response of questionnaires returned 19 Figure 4 Geographical distribution of questionnaires returned 20 Figure 5 Statistical analysis – response rates per country 20 Figure 6 Questionnaires disseminated and returned 21 Figure 7 Statistical analysis – response rates per country 21 Figure 8 Stakeholders contacted via questionnaires and stakeholders who answered 22 Figure 9 Field of expertise of the stakeholders 22 Figure 10 Role of the stakeholders in the EIA-process 23 Figure 11 Statistical analysis – Role of the stakeholders in EIA-process 23 Figure 12 Geographic distribution of the countries selected for interviews 24 Figure 13 Number of EIA stakeholders interviewed 26 Figure 14 Number of interviewees per country and stakeholder type 26 Figure 15 Deduction of policy options from the results of the analysis conducted 27 Figure 16 Template table of a SWOT-Analysis 28 Figure 17 (IMP)3 communication process with EIA-stakeholders at EU-level 29 Figure 18 Timetable (IMP)3 31 Figure 19 Structure of the reports of (IMP)3 31 Figure 20 Projects subject to Annex II EIA Directive 97/11/EC with relevant BAT documents and relevant projects from IPPC Directive 96/61/EC 38 Figure 21 Interrelation of project categories listed in Annex I of the EIA Directive and the ESPOO Convention 44 Figure 22 Interrelation of project categories listed in Annex II of the EIA Directive and the ESPOO Convention 44 Figure 23 Screening approaches applied in the EU 25 (except for Luxembourg) 48 Figure 24 Classification of MSs according to the screening method mainly applied and number of existing EIA procedures 52 Figure 25 EIA Austrian Regulation 53 Figure 26 Czech EIA Regulations 55 Figure 27 French Legislation on EIA, Source Glasson & Bellanger, 2003 56 Figure 28 German most relevant legislation concerning EIA practice 58 Figure 29 Main Latvia’s EIA legislation documents; Source: Rzeszot, 1999 and www.vidm.gov.lv 59 Figure 30 Polish main EIA legislation; Source: Rzeszot, 1999 61 Figure 31 Portuguese EIA Regulations 62 Figure 32 Slovak main EIA regulations 63 Figure 33 Swedish EIA main regulations 65 Figure 34 Main UK’s EIA Regulations 66 Figure 35 USA main EA Laws and Regulations 68 Figure 36 Canadian main EA Laws and Regulations 70 Figure 37 Screening guidelines among EU MSs, Canada and the USA 76 Figure 38 Totals obtained for Question No.14 81 Figure 39 Single analysis for category “unsatisfactory with respect to environmental protection” 81 Figure 40 Project types indicated as “missing” in the national/regional legislation 82 (IMP)3 6 Figure 41 Single analysis for category “inappropriate criteria”” 83 Figure 42 Single analysis for category “inappropriate set of thresholds”” 84 Figure 43 Totals obtained for Question No. 15 87 Figure 44 Allocation of answers regarding mode of application of the proposed project types 89 Figure 45 Summary of suggested criteria/thresholds, sorted by respond rate 92 Figure 46 Summary of further additional project categories 93 Figure 47 Totals obtained for Question No.16 94 Figure 48 Question No.16 results per type of stakeholder 95 Figure 49 Question No. 16 results per country 96 Figure 50 Summary of main ideas given to explain answer to Question No.16 100 Figure 51 Summary of main ideas given to the questions regarding ‘project categories’ 104 Figure 52 Summary of feedback regarding project type descriptions 106 Figure 53 Mentioned project categories for specifying certain descriptions 107 Figure 54 Summary of feedback regarding national thresholds/criteria 110 Figure 55 Summary of the main ideas regarding the Question‘ results 113 Figure 56 Main ideas of the answers given to the Question “Should the Commission consider to modify the Annexes system of the Directive in order to provide for a more harmonised application of the Directive across the MSs” per country and per stakeholder 117 Figure 57 Main ideas of the answers given to the follow-up Question regarding pros and cons for different approaches per country and per stakeholder 121 Figure 58 Main Ideas from the Answers to the Question “Can you think of any other recommendable approach for a more harmonised coverage of projects with likely significant environmental effects across the EU while leaving enough flexibility for appropriate implementation to suit national circumstances, such as the geographical and socio-economic conditions?” 123 Figure 59 Overview Policy Options 132 Figure 60 SWOT-Analysis for Policy Option Zero 136 Figure 61 SWOT-Analysis for Policy Option 1 139 Figure 62 SWOT-Analysis for Policy Option 2 142 Figure 63 Additional project categories suggested within IMP³ and the 5 years report 144 Figure 64 SWOT-Analysis for Policy Option 3 145 Figure 65 Allocation for suggested project categories in “mandatory” and/or “subject to a specified criteria/Threshold” 147 Figure 66 SWOT-Analysis for Policy Option 4 148 Figure 67 ‘Traffic-light’ approach to screening 149 Figure 68 SWOT-Analysis for Policy Option 5 150 (IMP)3 7 FOREWORD The project (IMP)3 – IMProving the IMPlementation of Environmental IMPact Assessment is carried out within the 6th framework programme investigating the application of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) in Europe. It ties in with the results of the report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council that revealed that there are still weaknesses as well as considerable variability in the Member States’ implementation of the EIA-Directive. (IMP)3 focuses on the improvement of the EIA-application concerning human health, risk assessment and project types subject to EIA. It was accompanied by an effective communicationprocess with DG Research and DG Environment. We would like to thank Marialuisa Tamborra, Laura Tabellini and David Aspinwall for their support. The results of (IMP)3 are based on an investigation of the actual application of EIA in the European Member States surveyed by a questionnaire spread across European EIA-stakeholders and interviews in ten European countries. We would like to thank the 183 EIA-experts who returned the questionnaire and the 53 interviewees in Europe, USA and Canada for their support. Their valuable input forms the empirical data basis of our research. (IMP)3 shall provide decision support to the policy making process on Community level and contribute to an improved knowledge basis on EIA application such as stimulate discussions within the European EIA community. (IMP)3 8 (IMP)3 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been variously described as: “… In principle, EIA should lead to the abandonment of environmentally unacceptable actions and to the mitigation of the point of acceptability of the environmental effects of proposals which are approved” [Wood, 1995]1 "... a process or set of activities designed to contribute pertinent environmental information to project or program decision-making" [Beanlands and Duinker, 1983]2 "... a basic tool for the sound assessment of development proposals ... to determine the potential environmental, social and health effects of a proposed development" [Clark, 1983]3 EIA is presented as a technique to improve the knowledge base for decision-making through a process of information generation related to the identification, prediction and assessment of the effects of project implementation. In recent years the role of EIA has been expanded to become increasingly integral to environmental planning and resource decision-making, rather than serving simply as a check upon them. EIA processes should supply decision makers with an indication of the likely consequences of their actions. EIA can also be seen as a management tool, that takes place in a political context where outcomes of decisions are often reached through a long-term process that involves trade-offs, compromises and stakeholder interactions. This applies to every decision-making level and may also contribute to the largely varying ways of transposing the EIA Directive’s requirements into the Member States’ regulations. As required by the objectives of the 6th Framework programme of the European Commission (Area 8.1. for research to support policies), the overall objective of this study was to contribute to an advanced knowledge base considering how to achieve an enhanced application of the EIA Directive’s Annexes in terms of a consistent coverage of project types with likely significant effects across the EU Member States. It should be noted that research undertaken in this study was mainly focused on impact assessment as a management tool to support policy making rather than on technical details of scientific based suggestions for changing thresholds/criteria and/or definitions. The research activity encompassed a literature review, a comparative survey of other related EU Directives such as national/regional regulations with regard to projects subject to EIA and the various screening procedures applied. Moreover, it comprised a questionnaire to MS experts for the EU 25 and more detailed interviews in 10 selected European countries and two non-EU countries. However, the questionnaire survey and interviews could not provide enough statistically significant results to arrive at assured conclusions, mainly due to the rather small sample size of responses. Thus the results only give an impression of the views of stakeholders, that are pro-actively interested in contributing to the enhancement of the EIA-application. Nevertheless, some 1 Wood C. (1995): Environment Impact Assessment – A comparative review. Longman, Scientific & Technical, Essex, 1. 2 Beanlands, G.E. and P.N. Duinker. 1983. An Ecological Framework for Environmental Impact Assessment in Canada. Halifax, NS: Institute for Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University and FEARO. 3 Clark, B.D. 1983. EIA manuals: general objectives and the PADL manual, in PADL, EIA and Planning Unit (ed.) Environmental Impact Assessment. Martinus Nijhoff: The Hague, 149-164. (IMP)3 16 ‘Screening’ means: A systematic examination or assessment in order to identify particular characteristics. ‘Cumulative impact’ means: ‘Cumulative impact’ is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what actor undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. ‘Effects’ include: (a) Direct effects, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place; and (b) Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. Effects and impacts are used synonymous in this study. ‘Tiering’ means: "Tiering" refers to the coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact statements with subsequent narrower statements or environmental analyses (such as regional or basinwide program statements or ultimately site-specific statements) incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the statement subsequently prepared. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of statements or analyses is: (a) From a program, plan, or policy environmental impact statement to an analysis of lesser scope or to a sitespecific statement or analysis. (b) From an environmental impact statement on a specific action at an early stage (such as need and site selection) to a supplement (which is preferred) or a subsequent statement or analysis at a later stage (such as environmental mitigation). Tiering in such cases is appropriate when it helps to focus on the issues which are ripe for decision and exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ripe. 1.2 Methodology 1.2.1 The “triangle-approach” of (IMP)3 Research on the improvement of the application of EIA needs a sound literature review, also including existing evaluation reports and different types of national legislation as well as a sufficient communication with EIA-stakeholders and applicants in Europe and with EIA-experts at the European level. Even if the investigation of the three core fields of research conducted in (IMP)3 (human health, risk assessment and projects subject to EIA) requires the analysis of rather different sources in (IMP)3 17 order to meet the needs of the feature of each thematic field, all three are dealing with the application of EIA in Europe. For gathering the data required from various sources, a kind of “triangle-approach” was developed. The literature review forms the basis of the “research triangle”, whereas both sides cover the communication-tools with the EIA-applicants in Europe: on one side a questionnaire has been distributed to about 970 EIA-stakeholders and on the other side interviews have been conducted with 64 selected EIA-experts. (IMP)3 Literature Review Interviews Questionnaire (IMP)3 Literature Review Interviews Questionnaire Figure 1 (IMP)3 “triangle-approach” for gathering and analysing data Consequently, (IMP)3 deals with three different types of data available:  qualitative data concerning the legal basis and the relevant discussions in the scientific world of EIA policy and application as laid down in the literature;  quantitative data about the actual application of EIA in the EU Member States deriving from the analysis of the questionnaire; and  qualitative data about the estimation of the strong and weak points of EIA-application in selected European countries gained from the analysis of the interviews conducted. In addition to the analysis of the relevant sources and data, a communication-strategy with relevant stakeholders on EU-level was set up (see chapter 1.2.4). 1.2.1.1 Literature review The literature review covers the existing relevant literature including the main documents at European level and selected national laws concerning the application of EIA. The results of the research are presented in chapter 2. 1.2.1.2 Questionnaire Types of EIA-stakeholders The questionnaire and the interviews aimed to provide an overview of the experience of the actual EIA-applicants in Europe in terms of human health, risk assessment and EIA project types. (IMP)3 18 Therefore (IMP)3 not only addressed the administrative staff at the national level who is dealing with EIAs. Moreover, it addressed the very basis of the EIA-applications including consultants and NGOs. So it was necessary to involve a broad spectrum of representatives of different types of stakeholders. The different EIA-stakeholder-groups addressed are:  representatives of national governments,  regional bodies with competence in EIA-issues,  NGO’s,  representatives of the private sector as e.g. consultants,  others as e.g. researchers. Database: stakeholder list A list of EIA-stakeholders in the European Member States served as a database for the distribution of the questionnaire and the selection of the interview-partners. The list was established by the use of the expert-network of the (IMP)3-team members with the support of members of the EIA/SEA expert group. All in all, 970 EIA-stakeholders have been selected representing the different types of stakeholders. However, in statistical terms they do not represent a random sample of all actors being involved in EIA issues throughout Europe, moreover it is a list of experts directly dealing with the application of EIAs. EIA-Stakehloder-List (distribution of 970 e-mail addresses collected) consultant 24% national government 13% NGO 14% regional body 20% other (researchers etc.) 29% funded by the Community’s Sixth Framework Programm e (IMP)3 IMProving the IMPlementation of Environmental IMPact Assessment Figure 2 Types of EIA-stakeholders covered by the stakeholder list As most of the stakeholders are practitioners, their answers mirror the method of actual application of the EU EIA Directive that is implemented in national and regional legislation throughout the EU Member States. Thus the empirical results derived from this data source are based on personal perceptions of the EIA-stakeholders and are mainly valid for the empirical sample of (IMP)3. They give indications to actual EIA practices and cannot be generalized. Nevertheless, the different approaches of the (IMP)3 19 various stakeholder groups show a picture that does not only reflect the administrative point of view, but also the views of practical experience. Development and distribution of the questionnaire As the aim of the questionnaire was to get a broad view of the situation in Europe and due to the limited time of practitioners to complete the questionnaire, it had to be kept short and simple. So it focused mainly on multiple choice answers, usually combined with one additional open question at the end. The questionnaire was developed by an interactive process between all partners of the (IMP)3-team in close collaboration with representatives of DG Environment. Based on the list of EIA-stakeholders, the questionnaire was disseminated via e-mail to 970 addresses. The questionnaire was attached to a covering letter prepared in eleven languages (English, Czech, Finnish, French, German, Hungarian, Polish, Portuguese, Slovak, Spanish and Swedish). Return rates Within the first two weeks after distributing the questionnaire, 106 completed questionnaires have been returned. After a second reminder another 77 were transmitted. So, all in all, the analysis of (IMP)3 is based on 183 completed questionnaires, bringing the return rate to 19%. NUMBER OF QUESTIONNAIRES RETURNED 1 16 22 23 26 31 36 37 45 45 45 56 58 68 72 80 81 84 102104 111 130 139139140145 153 160164 171172174175176177178180181183 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Date 30-03-2005 31-03-2005 01-04-2005 02-04-2005 04-04-2005 05-04-2005 06-04-2005 07-04-2005 08-04-2005 09-04-2005 10-04-2005 11-04-2005 12-04-2005 13-04-2005 14-04-2005 15-04-2005 16-04-2005 17-04-2005 18-04-2005 19-04-2005 20-04-2005 21-04-2005 22-04-2005 23-04-2005 24-04-2005 25-04-2005 26-04-2005 27-04-2005 28-04-2005 29-04-2005 02-05-2005 03-05-2005 04-05-2005 05-05-2005 06-05-2005 09-05-2005 12-05-2005 13-05-2005 14-05-2005 funded by the Community’s Sixth Framework Programme (IMP)3 IMProving the IMPlementation of Environmental IMPact Assessment Figure 3 Time response of questionnaires returned (IMP)3 20 Represented countries According to the response rate, the numbers of respondents from each Member State vary largely. Most questionnaires were returned from Slovakia (33 respondents), the UK (22), followed by Germany (12) Austria (11) and Sweden (11). So 30% of respondents come from just two countries (18% from Slovakia and 12% from the UK). Figure 4 Geographical distribution of questionnaires returned From some Member States just one completed questionnaire has been returned (Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania) and there was no response from Luxemburg. Therefore Slovakia and the UK are four and three times ‘over-represented’ in terms of respondents while Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Ireland, Luxembourg and Latvia are ‘under-represented’ by a similar factor. Statistical analysis – response rates per country Total no. of questionnaire respondents 183 Mean no. of respondents per country 7 Median no. of respondents per country 6 Mode 1 Range min=0 max=33 Figure 5 Statistical analysis – response rates per country (IMP)3 21 Consequently, the feedback cannot be interpreted as a representative random sample of stakeholders across the EU. Therefore, a country-by-country analysis is not possible especially for the under-represented Member States. Furthermore, no calculation of any numerical results beyond the analysis of frequencies and percentages is made, and verbal descriptions are mainly used. No further statistical processing of empirical data such as average values is done. However, the database gives an impression of the view of stakeholders, that are pro-actively interested in contributing to the development of the EIA-legislation. QUESTIONNAIRES DISSEMINATED + RETURNED 62 77 18 50 23 19 45 27 34 21 54 1 61 19 3 20 19 33 46 49 45 50 50 58 11 746 12 741 8 11121102485 86 33 22 11 9 6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT SE SI SK UK stakeholders contacted questionnaires returned 969 stakeholders received the questionnaire, 183 returned it (16 did not tick a country) (IMP)3 IMProving the IMPlementation of Environmental IMPact funded b y the Communit y ’s Sixth Framework Programme Figure 6 Questionnaires disseminated and returned Represented stakeholder groups The questionnaires returned covered answers of all different stakeholder groups. The smallest group amongst the respondents are NGO’s (12 respondents/6.6%), whereas the largest group are the consultants (68 respondents/37.2%). The administrative view on EIA-application (representatives from regional governments resp. national governments) is covered by 58 respondents (31.6%). Statistical analysis – response rates per stakeholder group Total no. of questionnaire respondents 183 Mean no. of respondents per stakeholder group 26 Median no. of respondents per stakeholder group 26 Mode 29 Range min=1 Max.=68 Figure 7 Statistical analysis – response rates per country The comparison of the frequency distribution of the stakeholders contacted with the frequency distribution of the stakeholders who answered, the business sector (consultants) is overrepresented whereas the NGO’s are under-represented. However, as the database was not a (IMP)3 22 random sample of EIA stakeholders across the EU, statistical analysis and interpretations going beyond a calculation of frequencies and percentages were avoided. stakeholders contacted via questionnaires and stakeholders who answered stakeholders contacted stakeholders answered stakeholder type number percent number percent National government 128 13.2% 29 15.8% Regional government 200 20.6% 29 15.8% NGO 144 14.8% 12 6.6% consultants 226 23.3% 68 37.2% scientists and other proponents 272 28.0% 45 24.6% Total 970 100.0% 183 100.0% Figure 8 Stakeholders contacted via questionnaires and stakeholders who answered FIELD OF EXPERTISE OF THE STAKEHOLDERS 13% 21% 15% 23% 28% 25% 37% 7% 16% 16% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% National government Regional government NGO Business / private sector Others (academic institution etc.) distribution of stakeholders contacted and stkeholders answered stakholders contacted stakholders answered total: 970 stakeholdes contacted and 183 stakeholders answered Question asked: In which field are you mainly working? (tick one of them) (IMP)3 IMProving the IMPlementation of Environmental IMPact Assessment funded by the Community’s Sixth Framework Pro g ramme Figure 9 Field of expertise of the stakeholders Role of the stakeholders in the EIA-process The stakeholders responding to the questionnaire are involved in the EIA-process from very different sides6: 75 respondents are writing or preparing environmental impact statements (EIS) for the developer and another 16 are involved in the development of projects, both groups mirroring their experience with EIAs mainly from the proponents’ side. 6 As one person can be involved in the EIA-process in different roles, more than one answer was allowed. So the sum of the options ticked (278) outweighs the number of questionnaires returned (183). (IMP)3 23 59 persons are reviewing submitted EISs and providing expert opinions/comments on EIS, additionally 37 ticked the category “dealing with EIA as regulatory authority”. Both groups represent the views from the administrative side. Nine respondents to the questionnaire were involved in EIAs representing the position of a NGO. 36 are concerned with EIA from a scientific side (e.g. researcher, scientist, academic teacher). ROLE OF THE STAKEHOLDERS IN EIA-PROCESS 20 36 26 75 16 37 9 59 0 1020304050607080 Project development Writing/preparing Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for the developer Reviewing submitted EISs and providing expert opinions/comments Dealing with EIA as regulatory authority (e.g. managing EIA procedures) Responsible for legal concerns within EIA Participating in EIA processes as NGO Concerned with EIA from a scientific side (e.g. researcher, scientist, academic teacher) Other Number of stakeholders ticked Question asked: What role do you generally play in the EIA process ? Questionnaire answered by 183 EIA-experts in the EU Member States; more than one answers were allowed funded by the Community’s Sixth Framework Pro g ramme (IMP)3 IMProving the IMPlementation of Environmental IMPact Assessment Figure 10 Role of the stakeholders in the EIA-process Statistical analysis – “Role of the stakeholders in EIA-process” Total no. of questionnaire respondents 183 Total no. of answers ticked 278 Mean no. of respondents per stakeholder group 35 Median no. of respondents per stakeholder group 31 Range min=9 Max.=75 Figure 11 Statistical analysis – Role of the stakeholders in EIA-process 1.2.1.3 Interviews In order to get a more detailed image of the application of EIA, interviews with selected EIAstakeholders were conducted. This approach leads to more profound insights into the actual dayto-day difficulties in EIA implementation and a more thorough picture of which methods are in use and the pros and cons of different methods, especially because the interviewees can provide information going beyond the information gained by the very formal structure of the questionnaire. The selection of the interviewees followed two different sets of criteria: a geographical one and a stakeholder-oriented one. (IMP)3 24 Geographical criteria for the selection of the interviewees As the results of the interviews should reflect the European situation the following criteria were taken into account:  interviewees from new European Member States and old European Member States;  interviewees from large MS and small MS;  interviewees from MS from the southern, the northern, the eastern and the western part of the EU. Regarding these criteria, interviewees from the following ten European MS were selected:  Austria (old MS, small country, Central Europe);  Czech Republic (new MS, small country, Central Europe);  France (old MS, large country, Western Europe);  Germany (old MS, large country, Central Europe);  Latvia (new MS, small country, Eastern Europe);  Poland (new MS, large country, Eastern Europe);  Portugal (old MS, small country, Southern Europe);  Slovakia (new MS, small country, Eastern Europe);  Sweden (old MS, small country, Northern Europe); and  United Kingdom (old MS, large country, North Western Europe). Countries selected for interviews: Austria Czech Republic France Germany Latvia Poland Portugal Slovakia Sweden United Kingdom Countries selected for interviews: Austria Czech Republic France Germany Latvia Poland Portugal Slovakia Sweden United Kingdom Figure 12 Geographic distribution of the countries selected for interviews (IMP)3 25 In order to compare the EIA-application in Europe with the way countries outside Europe apply EIAs, additionally to the 10 European countries selected, two non-EU foreign countries were chosen for a more detailed investigation of their EIA application. The two selected countries are USA and Canada because of their similar conditions as highly industrialised countries and their long experience with EIA. (The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 enacted by the Congress of the United States of America in 1969 was worldwide the first law coming up with the term “environmental impact assessment“ on a legal basis.) In addition, one expert interview was carried out in Ireland. Stakeholder-oriented criteria for the selection of the interviewees The EIA-experts interviewed should form a comprehensive picture of the EIA-application in each of the countries selected. Thus the views of experts at national and regional level being mainly involved in the transformation of the EU-Directive into national or regional legislation should be taken into account as well as the views of persons actually dealing with projects subject to EIAs, as e.g. consultants, NGOs or representatives from the administrative side. The following EIAstakeholder-groups have been taken into account for selection:  representatives of national governments,  regional bodies with competence in EIA-issues,  NGO’s,  representatives of the private sector as e.g. consultants,  others as e.g. researchers. Interview guide and protocols In order to prepare the interviews, an interview-guide has been developed by the (IMP)3 consortium and discussed with representatives of DG Environment. All in all, 50 interviews with 64 interviewees have been conducted (33 interviews in European countries and an additional 17 in USA and Canada). Each of the interviews was minuted in order to gain a well-structured basis for the analysis. (IMP)3 32 The final report sums up the most important results of the work-package reports. In particular it presents an overview of the SWOT-Analysis of the policy options. Share of responsibilities for Work Package 4 The split of responsibilities for contributions to the present Work Package 4 report between the partners of the IMP(3) consortium is described below. Chapter/ Section Responsible Partner/s with contributions reviewed by 1 Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency) To: Section 1.3: ÖIR, Österreichisches Institut für Raumplanung (Austrian Institute for Regional Studies and Spatial Planning) Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency) 2 Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency) To: Section 2.1.2 and 2.2: (for screening approaches) CITTA, Research Centre for Territory, Transports and Environment Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto (for additional project types) SZAP, Slovenská agentúra životného prostredia (Slovak Environmental Agency) Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency) 3 Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency) CITTA, Research Centre for Territory, Transports and Environment Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto SZAP, Slovenská agentúra životného prostredia (Slovak Environmental Agency) To: Section 3.1: Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency) To: Section 3.2.1 and 3.3.2: Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency) To: Section 3.2.2 and 3.3.1: SZAP, Slovenská agentúra životného prostredia (Slovak Environmental Agency) To: Section 3.2.3 and 3.3.3 CITTA, Research Centre for Territory, Transports and Environment Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency) 4 Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency) CITTA, Research Centre for Territory, Transports and Environment Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency) 5 Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency) CITTA, Research Centre for Territory, Transports and Environment Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto SZAP, Slovenská agentúra životného prostredia (Slovak Environmental Agency) To: Section 5.1 – 5.7: Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency) To: Section 5.4 and 5.7: CITTA, Research Centre for Territory, Transports and Environment Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto To: Section 5.5: SZAP, Slovenská agentúra životného prostredia (Slovak Environmental Agency) Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency) 6 Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency) CITTA, Research Centre for Territory, Transports and Environment Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto SZAP, Slovenská agentúra životného prostredia (Slovak Environmental Agency) Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency) Annex 1 Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency) (IMP)3 33 1.3 Contribution to policy development (IMP)3 goes in line with the European policy to establish a sustainable development, which is laid down e.g. in the Sixth Environment Action Programme of the European Community ”Environment 2010: Our future, Our choice” and the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). The main goal of (IMP)3 to contribute to the process of a more harmonized application of EIAs meets directly the scientific and technological needs of the policies of the Community related to the application of the EIA-Directive (97/11/EC). In detail (IMP)3:  provides a better understanding of ”impacts” and clarifies different interpretations of environment, health, vulnerability, risks, ... within EU 25;  provides a better understanding of EIA applications;  analyses the improvement of the coherence of EIA with different assessment tools (health impact assessment etc.); and  gives proposals for the integration of health aspects into EIA, how to come to a risk characterisation and suggestions for improving the coverage of projects types likely to have adverse effects on the environment. Setting up policy options in the three core fields of the research human health, risk assessment and project types, (IMP)3 contributes directly to the scientific and technological needs of the policies of the Community in terms of the improvement of the application of the EIA. (IMP)3 34 (IMP)3 35 2 RELEVANT LEGISLATION, GUIDANCE AND EXISTING EVALUATION STUDIES EC environmental law is found in the EC Treaty, the directives, regulations and decisions adopted by the Community’s institutions, the international agreements, which the EC has ratified, and the case law of the European Court and the Court of the First Instance. To provide a more profound basis for considering policy options, the following paragraphs will describe the institutional framework of the European Community. EC TREATY The EC Treaty lays down the institutional framework of the European Community and defined institutional powers and procedures to be followed in adopting laws. It enables the institutions to take three forms of legally binding measures – namely directives, regulations and decisions. Directives Directives are the most common form of EC legislation. They set out a result which member states are to achieve (for example, that drinking water must comply with certain standards) but leave to the member states to decide how that result will be reached. To fully comply with directives member states have to:  Pass national laws which give full effect to the directive within the timetable laid down in the directive itself (normally within two years of the directive’s adoption) and inform the Commission that they have passed the required laws; and  Make sure that these laws are complied with in practice. In passing laws to implement a directive, member stats do not need to transpose the directive word for word into their national legislation. However, they must make sure that the laws passed guarantee the full application of the directive. This means that where the directive is intended to create rights for individuals, the persons concerned must be able to see what their rights are and, if necessary, rely on them in national courts. Adopting administrative practices which can be altered easily and which may not receive adequate publicity will not be enough to implement a directive. States cannot escape the obligation to pass laws to implement directives. Even where they are in practice, already acting in accordance with the directive’s requirements, states must pass laws implementing the directive’s provisions. As stated, member states can decide for themselves what methods to use to achieve the result laid down in the directive. This means that if, for example, a directive states that nitrogen dioxide levels in air (generally due to traffic exhaust fumes) must not exceed certain concentrations, it is up to the state to decide what methods it will employ to make sure that those concentrations are not exceeded. This means that if the directive itself does not require a reduction in traffic to achieve those levels, the state is not required to reduce traffic if other methods are available to allow it to comply with the directive’s standards. The member state can decide how to achieve the required levels but it must make sure that it achieves the result required by the directive. It will not be enough for a state to say that it has done its best to achieve the result. (IMP)3 36 Regulations Regulations are directly binding on the persons to whom they are addressed including member states, individuals and legal persons. They can be made by either the Commission or the Council. Power to make decisions may be expressly given by the EC Treaty or by specific regulations or directives. They are not used often in environmental matters. Decisions Decisions are directly binding on the persons to whom they are addressed including member states, individuals and legal persons. They can be made by either the Commission or the Council. Power to make decisions may be expressly given by the EC Treaty or by specific regulations or directives. They are not used often in environmental matters. International agreements The EC has the power to enter into certain international agreements. These agreements will them become part of EC law. This has three consequences: 1. it means that the international agreement can give rise to rights and duties, which may be relied upon by individuals in national courts; 2. decisions of any organizations created by the agreement will also become part of Community law; 3. the European Court will be able to interpret and apply the agreement and decisions of the organization created by the agreement. Case law of the European Court and Court of First Instance Judgements of the European Court and the Court of First Instance are important in interpreting provisions of EC law. Only the European Court can give an authoritative interpretation of EC law or a decisive judgement on whether or not a member state has failed to comply with a provision of EC environmental law. Since judgements of the Community courts will affect the way in which EC environmental laws are applied and may lead to Community and national environmental laws being changed, it is vital to be aware of the court’s rulings. (IMP)3 37 2.1 European and national EIA legislation with regard to WP focus 2.1.1 European level 2.1.1.1 Directives EIA Directive (97/11/EEC) – Council Directive amending Dir 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ 1997 No L 73/5 The environmental impact assessment (EIA) directive is perhaps the most well known of the ECs environmental laws. It requires an assessment of the environmental impact of any project likely to have significant effects on the environment before any consent can be given. The directive lays down procedures for assessments but does not prevent a project from obtaining consent, even if the EIA shows that it will damage the environment. Projects that may require assessment are listed in two Annexes to the directive. Projects in Annex I, must always be subject to EIAs before they receive consent. Annex II projects are to be subjected to EIAs “where member states consider (the project’s) characteristics require assessments. Although states seem to have a lot of discretion in relation to Annex II projects, the discretion may sometimes be non-existent because of the particular location or effects of a proposed project. SEA Directive – Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment The purpose of the SEA-Directive is to ensure that environmental consequences of certain plans and programmes are identified and assessed during their preparation and before their adoption. The public and environmental authorities can give their opinion and all results are integrated and taken into account in the course of the planning procedure. After the adoption of the plan or programme the public is informed about the decision and the way in which it was made. In the case of likely transboundary significant effects the affected Member State and its public are informed and have the possibility to make comments which are also integrated into the national decision making process. IPPC-Directive (96/61/EC) – Directive on INTEGRATED POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL, OJ 1996 No L 257/26 The directive on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) sets out a framework of permits for certain industries. Common EC emission limits to be applied within the framework of this directive will be adopted later. The main types of industry covered are energy, production and processing of metals, the mineral industry, the chemical industry, waste management and other activities (including pulp and paper making plants; dyeing of textiles, tanning of hides; slaughterhouses; food production processes; intensive rearing of poultry and pigs; installations for disposal or recycling of animal carcasses and animal waste; installations treating substances, objects or products with organic solvents where their treatment capacity exceeds certain limits; and installations for the production of carbon electro graphite by means of incineration or graphitisation). All industries covered by the directive require a permit. Applications for permits must provide the national authorities with specified information and the permits must contain the conditions required by the directive and, in particular, emission limit values based on the best available techniques (IMP)3 38 (BATs). Permits must include all measures necessary to ensure that the installation is operated so that the following requirements are complied with:  All appropriate preventive measures are taken against pollution, in particular through the application of BAT (but the authorities cannot prescribe the use of a particular technique or technology).  No significant pollution is caused  Waste production is avoided; where waste is produced it should be recovered or, where that is technically and economically impossible, disposed of while avoiding or reducing any impact on the environment.  Energy is used efficiently.  Necessary measures are taken to prevent accidents and limit their impacts.  When activity stops or industry closes, necessary measures are taken to avoid pollution risk and the site of operation returns to a satisfactory sate. If an environmental quality standard requires stricter conditions than those, which can be achieved using BAT, permits must also include additional measures. Other specified conditions are also laid down in permits. The list of project types from Annex I and II of the EIA Directive7 shows all project types listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive (96/61/EC). The following table shall give an overview of the interrelation between Annex II project types of the EIA Directive with relevant BAT documents and reference to the IPPC Directive. Project subject to article a (2) ANNEX II EIA Directive Associated BREF document IPPC Directive ANNEX I 3 b) Installations for the manufacture of cement; 3 Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Cement and lime Manufacturing Industry 3.1 3 d) Installations for the manufacture of glass including glass fibre; 8. Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in The Glass Manufacturing Industry 3.3 3 f) Manufacture of ceramic products by burning, in particular roofing tiles, bricks, refractory bricks, tiles, stoneware or porcelain 24. Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Ceramic manufacturing Industry 3.5 8 c) Plants for the tanning of hides and skins; 9. Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for the Tanning of Hides and Skins 6.3 8 b) Plants for the pretreatment (operations such as washing, bleaching, mercerization) or dyeing of fibres or textiles; 10. Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for the Textiles Industries 6.2 7 Food industry a) Manufacture of vegetable and animal oils and fats; b) Packing and canning of animal and vegetable products; c) Manufacture of dairy products; d) Brewing and malting; e) Confectionery and syrup manufacture; g) Industrial starch manufacturing installations; h) Fish-meal and fish-oil factories; i) Sugar factories. 23. Draft Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Food, Drink and Milk Industries 6.4 (b) 6.4 (c) 6.4 (b2) 6.4 (b2) Figure 20 Projects subject to Annex II EIA Directive 97/11/EC with relevant BAT documents and relevant projects from IPPC Directive 96/61/EC 7 Directive 97/11/EC of European Council No. 97/11/EC which amends the Directive No. 85/337/EEC on Environmental impact assessment of some public and private projects (IMP)3 39 SEVESO II Directive – Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards. OJ No L 10 of 14 January 1997 On 9 December 1996, Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards (OJ No L 10 of 14 January 1997)- so-called Seveso II Directive – was adopted. Member States had up to two years to bring into force the national laws, regulations and administrative provisions to comply with the Directive. From 3 February 1999, the obligations of the Directive have become mandatory for industry as well as the public authorities of the Member States responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the Directive. The Seveso II Directive has fully replaced its predecessor, the original Seveso Directive. Important changes have been made and new concepts have been introduced into the Seveso II Directive. This includes a revision and extension of the scope, the introduction of new requirements relating to safety management systems, emergency planning and land-use planning and a reinforcement of the provisions on inspections to be carried out by Member States. The aim of the Seveso II Directive is two-fold. Firstly, the Directive aims at the prevention of majoraccident hazards involving dangerous substances. Secondly, as accidents do continue to occur, the Directive aims at the limitation of the consequences of such accidents not only for man (safety and health aspects) but also for the environment (environmental aspect). The scope of the Seveso II Directive refers solely to the presence of dangerous substances in establishments. It covers both, industrial "activities" as well as the storage of dangerous chemicals. The Directive can be viewed as inherently providing for three levels of proportionate controls in practice, where larger quantities mean more controls. A company who holds a quantity of dangerous substance less than the lower threshold levels given in the Directive is not covered by this legislation but will be proportionately controlled by general provisions on health, safety and the environment provided by other legislation which is not specific to major-accident hazards. Companies who hold a larger quantity of dangerous substance, above the lower threshold contained in the Directive, will be covered by the lower tier requirements. Companies who hold even larger quantities of dangerous substance (upper tier establishments), above the upper threshold contained in the Directive, will be covered by all the requirements contained within the Directive. Important areas excluded from the scope of the Seveso II Directive include nuclear safety, the transport of dangerous substances and intermediate temporary storage outside establishments and the transport of dangerous substances by pipelines. EMAS-Regulation (EEC No 1836/93) – ECO-MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT SCHEME The eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) promotes the use of environmental management systems and auditing as a tool for evaluating certain industrial activities’ environmental performance. It also aims to provide information on environmental performance to the public. Participation in the scheme is voluntary. Companies, which wish to participate in the scheme, commit themselves to establish, develop, implement, maintain and update an internal environmental management system, which will go beyond minimum regulatory requirements. Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) – Council Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora Under the habitats directive, member states are to establish a system of strict protection for plant and animal species listed in Annex V of the directive. This means that for animal species falling (IMP)3 40 within the Annex, member states must prohibit deliberate capture or killing in the wild, deliberate disturbance, especially during breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration periods, deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild and deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places. For plant species listed in the directive, member states must prohibit deliberate picking, collecting, cutting, uprooting or destruction of these plants in the wild. Keeping, transport, sale or exchange and offering for sale or exchange of live or dead specimens of plants or animals taken in the wild are also prohibited activities. The directive allows certain limited derogations from this absolute protection of species. For the less endangered wild plant and animals listed in the directive’s Annex V, capture or killing of animals or picking of plants will not necessarily be prohibited but member states may take measures to prevent overexploitation of these species. These measures may include, for example, regulations regarding access to certain property or establishment of a system of licenses. However, where the capture or killing of certain animal species is allowed under the directive, the use of certain means of capture or killing and of certain modes of transport to capture or kill will be prohibited. These obligations relating to protection of animal and plant species have been in force since June 1994. In addition to protecting those species already in their country, member states are to study the desirability of reintroducing certain native wild species. Consultation of the public concerned must be carried out before any reintroduction takes place. Member states must also make sure that the deliberate introduction into the wild of any species, which is not native to that state is regulated so that habitats and animal and plant species will not be harmed. If necessary, such introduction can be prohibited. The Habitats Directive aims – besides the protection of species – at designating special areas of conservation in order to create a coherent European ecological network, called Natura 2000. Areas classified as special protection areas pursuant to the Birds Directive have to be incorporated into the coherent European ecological network. The ecological conditions of the Natura 2000 sites must not be deteriorated. Therefore Article 6 of the Habitats Directive demands an appropriate assessment for any conception or project likely to have a significant effect on the conservation objectives of such an area. The EU Directives concerning EIA and the assessment due to Habitats Directive differ especially in the  Scope of the assessment;  Objectives of the assessment;  Procedural steps; and  Legally binding consequences. One of the main differences between the Habitats Directive and the EIA Directive is that there is no list of projects in the Habitats Directive stating a binding assessment procedure for certain types of projects. Accordingly the decision whether a project has to undergo an impact assessment is always a case-by-case decision taking into consideration the characteristics of the Natura 2000 site and the characteristics of the project. Also projects outside the Natura 2000 site can be subject to an impact assessment. (IMP)3 41 Water Framework Directive (WFD) – Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy In October 2000 the 'Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy' (EU Water Framework Directive or WFD) was adopted. The purpose of the Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters (rivers and lakes), transitional waters (estuaries), coastal waters and groundwater. It will ensure all aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands meet 'good status' by 2015. The Directive requires Member States to establish river basin districts and for each of these a river basin management plan. The Directive envisages a cyclical process where river basin management plans are prepared, implemented and reviewed every six years. There are four distinct elements to the river basin planning cycle: characterisation and assessment of impacts on river basin districts; environmental monitoring; the setting of environmental objectives; and the design and implementation of the programme of measures needed to achieve them. In accordance with the WFD is a need to prevent or reduce the impact of incidents in which water is accidentally polluted. Measures with the aim of doing so should be included in the programme of measures. Member States should adopt measures to eliminate pollution of surface water by the priority substances and progressively to reduce pollution by other substances which would otherwise prevent Member States from achieving the objectives for the bodies of surface water. Each Member State shall ensure the establishment for each river basin district, or for the part of an international river basin district within its territory, of a programme of measures, taking account of the results of the analyses required under Article 5, in order to achieve the objectives established under Article 4. Such programmes of measures may make reference to measures following from legislation adopted at national level and covering the whole of the territory of a Member State. Where appropriate, a Member State may adopt measures applicable to all river basin districts and/or the portions of international river basin districts falling within its territory. Each programme of measures shall include the "basic" measures which are the minimum requirements to be complied with and shall consist first of those measures required to implement Community legislation for the protection of water, including measures required under the legislation specified in Article 10 and in part A of Annex VI; the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC) is part of this legislation. 2.1.1.2 International agreements ESPOO Convention – Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo, 1991) The ESPOO (EIA) Convention sets out the obligations of Parties to assess the environmental impact of certain activities at an early stage of planning. It also lays down the general obligation of States to notify and consult each other on all major projects under consideration that are likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact across borders. The ESPOO Convention entered into force on 10 September 1997. An Amendment to the Convention was adopted in 2001. The amendment, once in force, will open the Convention to accession upon approval by UN Member States that are not members of the UNECE. A second amendment to the Convention was adopted in 2004. The amendment, once in force, will allow, as Figure 23 Screening approaches applied in the EU 25 (except for Luxembourg) EIA procedure Screening Tools Country EIA Legislation EIA Authority National/Sectoral/Regional Types Lists Thresholds cbc analysis Austria National Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology and provincial governments special provisions for (1) federal roads and high speed railroads projects and (2) water management projects EIA and Simplified EIA 3 lists-table columns 1-3 column 3 and under special provisions Belgium National for nuclear installations and storage of radioactive materials and coastal areas Federal Administration National Brussels The Administration for Urbanism or the Brussels Institue for Management of the Environment Two Ordinances (one for Urbanism procedure and one for Environmental Procedure) 1. Limited or Simplified EIA (Environmental Effects Note – LEEN) 2. Developed EIA 2 (urban projects) + 2 (env. projects) inclusive lists  In-between inclusion / exclusion thresholds / criteria or applied to descriptive lists Flanders EIA Team of the Department of Environment and Infrastructure 1 type of EIA procedure, albeit for the possibility of exempting projects from the 2nd list if minor impacts proven through the wording of a LEEN 2 lists   Walloon Regional sectoral authorities(Divisions Générales) 1 List  Cyprus Under Environmental Protection Regulations Environmental services of the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Ressources and Environment Within planning procedures Preliminary EIA (PEIA) EIS 2 lists   Czech Republic National Ministry or Provincial authorities under land use planning regulations Fact-finding procedure and Full EIA 2 lists both lists second list (projects requiring factfinding procedures) National and within (Spatial) Planning System. EIA is part of regional planning procedures 1 type of EIA procedure Mandatory List (Annex 1) (Annex 2) Denmark For SEA projects EIA regulations are to be found in other (than the Planning Act) regulations. The regional Planning Authority (County Administration) If a project is already covered by other permits/licenses/exceptions, these replace an EIA permit. 2 lists Project types listed in Annex 1, with a few exceptions, are also included in Annex II but without being associated to threshold values and criteria EIA procedure Screening Tools Country EIA Legislation EIA Authority National/Sectoral/Regional Types Lists Thresholds cbc analysis Estonia National County Environmental Departments Ministry of the Environment in the cases of being the proponent or in the case of transboundary impacts Under land-use planning procedures. A two-stages EIA Procedure: EIA Programme phase EIA Report phase 2 lists Both lists  Ministry of the Environment + Coordination Authority Finland National Ministry of Trade and Industry for nuclear energy projects Independent procedure required prior to the project’s licensing/permit 1 type of EIA Procedure 1list mandatory list individual cases France National Sectoral integrated as part of each sectoral licensing procedure. Full EIA and Notice d’Impact sur l’Environnement 3 Positive lists + 1 negative list list 2 (technical thresholds) and 3 (financial thresholds) Germany National (Federal Level) and/or for some project types regional (Länder level) Sectoral (national/regional or local authorities) Integrated as part of each licensing/permitting procedures for several project types Full EIA Partly EIA procedure without a public hearing in the consultation phase 1 list (2column table)  General screening site-related screening Greece National National, regional and local authorities (Prefectures) Independent procedure EIA (two stages process incorporating a preliminary assessment) at national and regional level Simplified EIA at prefecture level 4 lists: mandatory EIA projects (lists 1 & 2), screening cases (list 3) and simplified EIA projects (list 4) all lists screening project types Hungary National Regional environmental inspectorates and, in the case of motorways, the National environmental inspectorate National Level Independent EIA Procedure Preliminary ES and detailed EIA 2 lists (mandatory list + screening list) based on the transposition of Directive's Annex II projects For screening list Ireland National Part of the licensing procedure. Land-use planning local authority IPC or EIA, depending on the licensing sector/authority 2 lists threshold values enacted by each sectoral law (Lists 1+ 2) only for 2nd list projects Integration of EIA requirements into the landuse planning consent system and several other consent systems the licensing of projects listed in Part I of the 1st Schedule always require an EIS while those listed in part II only require an EIS for their license if they exceed certain thresholds The thresholds approach was adopted in implementing Annex II projects EIA procedure Screening Tools Country EIA Legislation EIA Authority National/Sectoral/Regional Types Lists Thresholds cbc analysis Italy Separate laws needed at national and regional level Given the historical context of land-use planning regulations at regional level, EIA was adopted mainly within regional urban planning legislation with some exceptions. Italian regions were given the authority of EIA procedure for most part of the EU EIA Directive Annex II projects Regional Level Annex I and Annex II of the EIA Directive are transposed by different Italian Regulations. 2 lists both lists  Latvia National State Environmental Bureau Regional Environmental Boards Part of the sectoral licensing but as an independent procedure EIA procedure (mandatory EIA project types) Preliminary screening procedure 2 lists Mandatory List 2nd List Lithuania National Ministry of the Environment or other empowered (by the Ministry) institution Independent procedure needed for the overall planning/licensing procedure of projects subjected to EIA 1 type 2 lists both lists 2nd List Malta National level Malta Environment and Planning Authority National level Under land-use planning procedures Environmental Impact Statement for Category I projects Environmental Planning Statement (or limited EIS) for Category II projects10 2 lists Both Lists Possible but seldom applied Netherlands National level EIA legislation enacted under Environmental Laws (Env. Management Act) National Authorities, provinces Municipalities and “WaterBoards” (Waterschappen) Independent from the licensing procedure but carried out in parallel way Different EIA procedures for mandatory (list 1) and screening (list 2) projects 2 lists Inclusion and exclusion thresholds  Poland National Level Ministry or Provincial authorities Part of licensing procedures within land-use planning policies and plans 2 types of EIA procedures for Group I and Group II projects 2 Lists List 1 projects  Portugal National Level Environment Institute Part of the licensing procedure but as an independent process 2 type of EIA 2 lists both positive lists Possible but seldom applied 10 Nevertheless, the Planning authority’s Director may decide upon an Environmental Impact Statement (full procedure) for other projects not listed in Category I (even if listed in Category II) whenever expected to cause significant environmental effects. EIA procedure Screening Tools Country EIA Legislation EIA Authority National/Sectoral/Regional Types Lists Thresholds cbc analysis Slovakia National Level Ministry of Environment EIA procedures under land-use planning procedures. 2-level procedures for Annex I part A –compulsory and Annex I part B screening Need for the full (detailed) EIA for Annex I – part B projects is determined by the initial (preliminary) EIA’s results. 1 List (2columns table) Columns A (compulsory EIA) and B (screening) Column B projects below or in-between threshold values Slovenia National Level Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning Environmental Agency of the Republic of Slovenia Under Land-use planning procedures Full EIA procedure for both types of projects (lists 1 and 2) 2 lists 2nd list Spain Basic regulation at national level, complemented (or not) by regional EIA regulations 2 competent regional authorities at National and regional level: the licensing authority and the environmental authority, to the exception of projects overrun by the latter Regional level regulated by both the licensing (sectoral) and the environmental regional authorities Specific EIA Procedures for certain project Types (e.g. urban planning developments) 2 lists mandatory and “screening” lists “screening” list (Annex II) Sweden National Level Based in the Swedish Environmental Code but also linked to spatial planning system as well as to other sectoral laws. Different EIA authorities according to the sectoral development permit Case-by-case screening decision by County Administrative Boards Part of (each) sectoral licensing procedure. The Environmental Code provides the (legal and institutional) framework for the permit procedure according to each sectoral activity. 1 list mandatory EIA above threshold values Most EIA Directive’s Annex II projects (not transposed to Swedish EIA regulations) according to Annex III of the Directive (already transposed) Local Planning Authority United Kingdom Separate (albeit very similar) regulations for England & Wales, Northern Ireland and Wales Most of the projects come under the land use planning consent systems for the UK. Where projects are not caught by planning legislation, other legislation exists covered by other consent systems. The main local planning authorities act as the competent authorites, but other bodies have this responsibility under some of the other consent systems 1 Type of EIA Procedure 2 Lists (equivalent to Annexes I and II) exclusive thresholds and/or criteria are set for Annex II projects  (IMP)3 52 LISTS LISTS + CBC ANALYSIS SCREENING METHOD 1 list ≥ 2 lists List(s) + Listed CBC List(s) + Not Listed CBC Belgium (Walloon) Slovenia Belgium (Flanders) Sweden Denmark Finland Estonia Ireland Lithuania 1 Type of EIA Procedure UK France Austria Belgium (Brussels) Malta Cyprus Portugal Czech Republic Germany Greece Hungary Italy Latvia Netherlands Poland Slovakia EIA PROCEDURE > 1 Type of EIA Procedures Spain Figure 24 Classification of MSs according to the screening method mainly applied and number of existing EIA procedures Additionally, MSs are classified as to the number of screening approaches applied, according to the relevance of expected impacts in the sense that different EIA procedures should correspond to different demanding levels of environmental protection. As it is shown in Figure 24, most EU countries apply case-by-case examinations as a screening tool. However, only Finland and Sweden apply case-by-case analysis to particular project types (not listed). In the former case, EIA may be integrated in land-use planning procedures, but always as an independent procedure. Projects not listed in the mandatory list are subject to EIA following a decision by the Minister of the Environment, if expected to have significant environmental effects on the basis of a case-by-case assessment. In the case of Sweden, there is a mandatory list describing all the project types subject to EIA in all cases. There is also the possibility for other projects, not included in the mandatory list, to be subject to an environmental impact assessment procedure by decision of the competent authority (County Administrative Boards), on the basis of a case-by-case analysis having in mind the technical characteristics of the project and the site ecological sensitiveness. The great majority of countries (see Figure 24) apply case-by-case assessments for listed project types, according to one of three possible cases: case-by-case analysis is either applied (1) to projects falling below mandatory thresholds, (2) in-between inclusion and exclusion thresholds/criteria or (3) to projects included in descriptive lists. In most of the cases, EIA is applied within land-use planning procedures, at national or local level, (Denmark, Czech Republic, Estonia, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Slovak Republic and the UK). In (IMP)3 53 some cases, EIA regulations are enacted and applied at regional level, as is the case of Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Italy and Spain. In Malta and Portugal, there is the possibility for case-by-case assessments, although this is not usually applied as a screening method. In the case of France it is not even considered in the EIA regulations, once here almost all projects are a priori subjected to EIA. All these countries apply EIA at national level. Nevertheless, for most of these countries, as well as for some of the cases with listed case-by-case screening procedures (e.g. Germany or Latvia), there is also the possibility for case-by-case assessments for not listed project types, whenever likely to give rise to significant environmental effects. Figure 24 thus provides a useful picture of the screening tools most used throughout the European Union, which must be taken into account when considering possible future amendments to the screening approaches adopted at European level. In the following the national/regional ways of implementing the Directive’s Annexes are presented for the twelve countries, where Interviews have been conducted in this survey. In addition to the country-wise descriptions of the screening approaches also project types are listed, that have been introduced to national/regional legislation beyond the requirements of the Directive. 2.1.2.1 Austria In Austria, EIA legislation was enacted at national level. The main EIA legislation is the Federal Act on Environmental Impact Assessment (Environmental Impact Assessment Act 2000). Federal Act on Environmental Impact Assessment (Environmental Impact Assessment Act 2000) – BGBl. (Federal Law Gazette) No. 697/1993 as amended by BGBl. No. 773/1996, BGBl. I No. 89/2000, BGBl. I No. 108/2001, BGBl. I No. 151/2001, BGBl. I No. 50/2002, BGBl. I No. 153/2004 and BGBl. I No. 14/2005 Figure 25 EIA Austrian Regulation Screening Austria EIA legislation combines the use of thresholds/criteria with case-by-case examinations. Annex I of the Federal Act on Environmental Impact Assessment lists project types according to a three column-table. Columns 1 and 2 list those projects subject to EIA in all cases and that shall be covered by an EIA procedure (Column 1) or a simplified procedure (Column 2). Column 3 defines threshold values to be applied in certain protected areas. The categories of protected areas referred to in Column 3 are defined in Annex 2. These consider categories A (special protection areas), B (Alpine zones), C (water protection and conservation areas), D (areas subject to air pollution) and E (settlement areas). If projects under Annex 1 that fall below the threshold values or do not fulfill the criteria defined therein are spatially related to other projects and, together with them, reach the relevant threshold value or fulfil the criterion, the authority shall examine on a case-by-case basis whether significant harmful, disturbing or adverse effects on the environment are to be expected due to a cumulation (IMP)3 54 of effects and whether, as a result, an environmental impact assessment shall be performed for the project planned. A case-by-case examination shall not be carried out if the capacity of the project submitted is less than 25% of the threshold value. The environmental impact assessment shall be performed as a simplified procedure. In case of projects for which a threshold value is defined for certain protected areas in Column 3 of Annex 1 and, if this criterion is fulfilled, the authority shall decide on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the extent and lasting effects of the environmental impact, whether significant adverse effects are to be expected for the protected habitat (Category B of Annex 2) or the protection purpose for which the protected area has been established (Categories A, C, D and E of Annex 2). In this examination, protected areas of Category A, C, D or E of Annex 2 shall only be considered if they have already been designated or included in the list of sites of Community importance (Category A of Annex 2) on the day when the procedure is initiated. If such adverse effects are to be expected, an environmental impact assessment shall be performed, the simplified procedure shall be applied. When taking the decision on a specific case, the authority shall take into consideration certain criteria, listed in Article 3 paragraph 4. In the case of modifications of projects leading to the surpassing of minimum threshold values, as well as for spatially related projects that together fulfill the limit threshold value above which EIA is mandatory, a case-by-case examination shall be performed by the competent EIA authority in order to determine whether or not there is the need for an EIA [Article 3 (1) and (2) of the EIA Act11]. A case-by-case examination shall not be carried out if the capacity of the project submitted is less than 25% of the threshold value. There are also special provisions for the cases of federal roads and high speed railroad project developments as well as for water management project types. Additional project types12 By comparing project types included in the national Austrian EIA act with the EIA Directive’s project types the following additional project types have been implemented:  Construction of particle accelerators /S  Construction of new installations for work (intended use in accordance with Article 1 (3) Verordnung biologische Arbeitsstoffe — VbA (Ordinance on Biological Agents at Work), BGBl. II No. 237/1998) with biological working substances of risk class 3 or 4 (Article 40 (4) no. 3 and 4 ArbeitnehmerInnenschutzgesetz — AschG (Health and Safety at Work Act, BGBl. No. 450/1994) that are intended for production purposes /S 11 This accumulation clause aims at preventing intentional evasion from an EIA procedure by the splitting up of a certain project by different operators or by designing the project just below the threshold values listed in BGBl. No. 14/2005’s list of projects. 12 The symbols beside the listed additional project types mean: /S: Screening procedure; /A: Mandatory assessment; and /A,S: both. (IMP)3 55  Construction of new installations for work with genetically modified micro-organisms of safety class 3 or higher (Article 5 no. 2 Gentechnikgesetz — GTG (Genetic Engineering Act), BGBl No. 510/1994) on a large scale (Article 4 no. 11 GTG, BGBl No. 510/1994). 2.1.2.2 Czech Republic Figure 26 lists the most important EIA legislation documents enacted in the Czech Republic. Czech National Council Act on Environmental Impact Assessment No. 244/1992 Decree of the Ministry of the Environment on professional qualification and regulation of some other aspects related to environmental impact assessment No. 457/2001 Act 100/2001 Coll. on Environmental Impact Assessment as amended by Act 93/2004 Coll Figure 26 Czech EIA Regulations Screening The legislative basis for screening in the Czech Republic are §§ 6 and mainly 7 and also Annex 1 (exhaustive list of projects that are always subject to assessment and projects needing a factfinding procedure) and Annex 2 of Act 100/2001 (principles for the fact-finding procedure). In compliance with the EIA Directive Annex 1 to Act 100/2001 Coll. divides the projects into the following categories:  Category I: projects, where significant effects on the environment are presumed, they are not subject to screening, the whole procedure starts with scoping;  Category II: projects, where a case-by-case screening according to the characteristics of the project and of the possibly affected environment is needed. Pursuant to § 7 para. 1 Act 100/2001 screening is carried out for:  projects listed in Annex 1 category II;  changes in any project listed in Annex 1, the capacity or extent of which is to be increased by 25% or more;  changes in any project listed in Annex 1, where the technology, operation or manner of use significantly changes;  changes in any project listed in Annex 1, by which relevant limit values are reached or the project's capacity or extent reaches the relevant limit values; and  projects, for which the prolongation of validity of the statement is required. If, after the fact finding procedure the competent EIA authority decides that a certain project is likely to have significant environmental impacts, then a full EIA is carried out. Developments on both lists are subjected to compulsory EIA, but according to different levels of administration decision type13. 13 Annex I projects are divided in two columns, A and B, according to the administration competencies in the field of EIA. (IMP)3 56 Additional project types14 By comparing project types included in the Czech Law on EIA with the EIA Directive’s project types the following additional project types have been implemented:  Crematoriums /S  Production of construction materials and products /S  Production of soaps, detergents and coatings /S  Production installations for non-alcoholic beverages /S  Yeast plants /S  Construction of underground spaces for the storage or location of technological facilities (operations) /S  Sports grounds, golf courses, motor cross, cycle cross and cycle trial grounds outside of areas protected pursuant to special legal regulations /S 2.1.2.3 France France is probably the EU country where EIA first appeared. EIA regulations date back to 1976 with the enactment of the Law on the Protection of Nature and of its decree of application15 one year later (Decree 77-1141 of the 12th October 1977) so that, when EIA Directive was first proposed, France already had an operational EIA system (Sánchez, 1993 and Glasson & Bellanger, 2003). In spite of having been introduced earlier in France, the EIA Directive was only ratified in 1993 by Decree no. 93-245 (see Figure 27) amending Decree no. 77-1141. The main piece of legislation is the Law for the Protection of Nature, although the Law relating to Classified Installations (LCI) plays also an important role as far as environmental licensing is concerned. 10 Jul. 1976 Law no. 76-629 on the Protection of Nature 19 Jul. 1976 Law no. 76-663 related to Classified Installations 21 Sept. 1977 Decree no. 77-1133 related to Classified Installations Decree no. 77-1134 related to the List of Classified Installations 12 Oct. 1977 Decree no. 77-1141 implementing art. 2 of the Law no. 76-629 on the Protection of Nature 25 Feb. 1993 Decree no. 93-245 related to EIA and the implementation of the public enquiries 9 Jun. 1994 Decree no. 94-484 amending decree no. 77-1133 related to Classified Installations 30 Dec. 1996 Law related to the Air and the Rational Uses of Energy Figure 27 French Legislation on EIA, Source Glasson & Bellanger, 2003 Complying with both the Law on the Protection of Nature and the Classified Installations Law for the Protection of the Environment (1976), the licensing of industrial activities requires that a public 14 The symbols beside the listed additional project types mean: /S: Screening procedure; /A: Mandatory assessment; and /A,S: both. 15 Laws in France are subjected to a decree of application issued by the Government (Sánchez, 1993) (IMP)3 57 inquiry is part of the EIA procedure (EIA is also needed for the procedure of Public Utility). However, EIA corresponds basically to the wording on an EIS to be delivered along with a risk assessment study and a third document relative to sectoral terms and specifications. So, in France, EIA refers more to a document than to a procedure, when compared to EIA administrative practice in other MS (Glasson & Belanger, 2003). Screening The field of application of EIA is a priori unlimited. Article 2 of law 76-629 (Law on the Protection of Nature) provided that the decree would simply fix "the restrictive list of the work which, because of the weakness of their effects on the environment, is not forwarded to the procedure of the impact study". The impact study is thus the rule and the exemption the exception, which is confirmed by the statement of Article 1 of decree 77-1141 according to which "the realization of installations or work gives place to the development of an impact study, except in the cases aimed to article 3". Article 3 of Decree 77-1141 states that A. Maintenance and extensive repair works are exempt B. The projects listed in Annexes I and II are exempt from EIS procedure, under the compliance of article 4 conditions (different for each Annex project list) and according to the threshold values indicated in each case and C. The projects with a total cost below 1,9 million Euros are exempt from the EIS procedure. Nevertheless, an EIS procedure must be performed, independently of the cost, for those projects listed in Annex III. The exemption from EIA of the project types included in Annex IV, according to paragraphs B and C of article 3, requires the preparation of a Notice on the probable environmental effects and specific conditions under which the project is expected not to have significant effects on the environment (article 4 of Decree 77-1141). As for the rule, some projects require a full EIA while others, likely to have minor environmental impacts, only require an environmental impact notification (Notice d’impact sur l’environnement). The projects that are subject to a full EIA are split into three groups: Group 1’s projects always require EIA; Group 2’s projects only require EIA when a technical threshold value is exceeded and for Group 3’ projects EIA is required only when a financial threshold value is exceeded16. Additional project types It has not been possible to compare the national list of project types with the Directive’s Annexes because of language barriers. 16 1,9 million euros, which includes both the cost of the development cost and the price of the land (Glasson & Bellanger, 2003) (IMP)3 64 The screening decision concerning column B projects is made by the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic, which takes into account the nature and extent of the project activity, its location, the significance of expected impact, among other provisions set on Annex II to the EIA Act. Criteria for screening are introduced in Annex 2a of the EIA Act. Additional project types27 By comparing project types included in Act of NC SR No. 127/1994 Col. on EIA supplemented and amended by act of NC SR No. 391/2000 Col. with the EIA Directive’s project types Slovakia adopted almost all project types from EU Directive 97/11/EEC except of these 2 project types:  Reclamation of land from the sea; Underground mining  Coastal work to combat erosion and maritime works capable of altering the coast through the construction, for example, of dykes, molos, jetties and other sea defense works, excluding the maintenance and reconstruction of such works Slovakia has added in its EIA act all project types from international agreements like 96/61/EEC, ESPOO and AARHUS and the following further additional project types:  Extraction and processing of radioactive minerals including waste banks and settling pits and their recultivation /A  Use or regeneration of chlorinated hydrocarbons /A,S  Production of poisons /S  Impregnation of wood using toxic chemicals /A,S  Production of fibre-board, chipboard /A  Production of furniture /A  Production of building materials including panel production facilities and building products /A,S  Packaging of resinous mixtures /A  Machinery or electrotechnical production with production area /A,S  Polygraphic operations /A,S  Serial mass-production of foot wear /A  Installations for revaluation of building waste /A,S  Crematories and cemeteries /S  Facilities for repair and maintenance of motor vehicles /A,S  Installations for radio and television transmitters /A,S 27 The symbols beside the listed additional project types mean: /S: Screening procedure; /A: Mandatory assessment; and /A,S: both. (IMP)3 65  Primary radiolocation installations /A  Interferences with the landscape, which may cause significant changes in the biological diversity, structure and function of ecosystems /S  Geothermal water consumption /S  Military areas and installations for training if they require area /A 2.1.2.9 Sweden Physical and land-use planning procedures are applied at local level by means of a decentralized rather than hierarchical relationship between local governments and the state. Nevertheless, environmental legislation has been produced at national level. Besides the Planning and Building Act and the Environmental Code (a framework law), EIA has been implemented through 25 different laws and sectoral regulations concerning the authorization of projects and detailed planning, as is the case of the Electricity Act or the Air Transport Act. General EIA provisions on the specific requirements to be fulfilled by each of these sectoral legislation Acts, as well as the list of projects subject to EIA are contained in the EIA Ordinance. The EIA ordinance has recently been amended. The amendments are included in the Förordningsmotiv Fm 2005:2 and follow from the implementation of the EU “SEA-directive” in the Swedish Environmental Code. EIA Ordinance (1998: 905) Swedish Environmental Code (1998: 808 ) Förordningsmotiv Fm 2005:2 (amendments to EIA Ordinance) Figure 33 Swedish EIA main regulations The aims of the Swedish EIA procedure are presented in Chapter 6 of the Environmental Code. An environmental impact assessment is to accompany an application for a permit relating to environmentally hazardous activity and health protection (chapter 9), water operations (chapter 11), quarrying operations and game enclosures (chapter 12) (MSD, 2000). Screening Annex I of the ordinance lists those projects subject to mandatory EIA according to certain threshold values. Below the threshold values indicated in Annex I a case-by-case analysis should be performed based on the screening criteria referred in Annex III of the ordinance. The EIA Directive’s Annex II has not been transposed to Swedish EIA legislation. All these project developments must be screened for EIA by decision of the County Administrative Boards. Annex I transposition resulted in a list of projects quite different from the Directive’s both in terms of the types of projects included and the threshold values assigned to most project categories: the Swedish list extends considerably Annex I (additional categories have been added) and threshold values are usually stricter (lower) than the Directive Annex I’s. (IMP)3 66 2.1.2.10 United Kingdom EIA was initially implemented as a response to the European Community legal obligations (Bond, 1997). The Government aimed initially at implementing the EIA Directive (Directive 85/337/EEC) within the long-existing planning system, which proved impossible once several project types subject to mandatory EIA according to the Annex I of EIA Directive fell outside existing planning legislation (Bond, 1997). As a result, the UK implemented Directive 85/337/EEC through a number of sets of regulations, plus a number of amending regulations and associated measures. These relate to all Annex I projects and those Annex II projects likely to give rise to significant environmental impacts. The majority of the project categories listed in Annex I, and of the project categories and sub-categories listed in Annex II, are covered by regulations under the land-use consent system, but certain project categories and sub-categories are covered by other regulations (e.g. afforestation, major roads). Figure 34 shows the main regulations under which the EIA Directive has been implemented. Town and Country Planning EIA (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No.293) Town and Country Planning EIA (England and Wales) (Amended) Regulations 2000 Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999 Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999 (SR No. 73) Figure 34 Main UK’s EIA Regulations Under these regulations, a Local Planning Authority (LPA) is not allowed to grant planning permission for EIA development unless it has first taken the environmental information arising under the EIA process into account (Bond,1997). Screening As far as screening methods are concerned, UK legislation follows closely the EIA Directive (DETR, 1999; DETR, 2000; Bond, 1997). Screening is made through a combination of positive lists with thresholds and case-by-case analysis (Barker & Wood, 1999 and Weston, 2000) . All UK’s regulations, where appropriate, have two lists of projects similar to Annexes I and II of the EIA Directive, namely schedule 1 and schedule 2. EIA is compulsory for Schedule 1 projects and schedule 2 projects which meet the relevant screening criteria or exceed a certain threshold value (unless they are located in a legally defined sensitive area) have to be screened for the need for EIA. Each Schedule 2 project has to be screened on a case-by case basis. Every project has its associated “exclusive” threshold below which EIA cannot be required by a local planning authority, although special provisions exist where projects below these thresholds can, in exceptional circumstances, require EIA. These threshold values are not prescriptive (Weston, 2000). It is up to LPA to decide whether a certain project development should be subject to an EIA procedure or not. According to Weston (2000), while threshold values can guide the selection of those schedule 2 projects that should be assessed for EIA, much of screening practice still relies upon professional judgement and experience of the LPA. (IMP)3 67 A developer may ask the local planning authority to give its opinion on which Schedule the project falls under. If in the LPA’s opinion it falls in Schedule 2 then the authority must decide whether its likely effects require environmental assessment. When doing so the authority shall take into account the selection criteria set out in Schedule 3 to the Regulations, and also official guidelines (see Figure 37 on page 76). A developer may appeal against a decision of the planning authorities by an application to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has the power to direct that an environmental statement be submitted even if no application is made to him for direction (Wood & Becker, 2005). Once it has been decided than an EIA is required, the developer may ask the local planning authority for their written opinion as to the information to be provided in the environmental statement (Scoping Opinion). Additional project types28 By comparing the project types presented in the Scoping guidelines for the Environmental Impact Assessment of projects (May 2002) published by the Environmental Agency of England and Wales with project types listed in Annex I and Annex II of the EIA Directive the following additional categories are addressed. (There is not clear whether these are project types for screening or assessment):  Demolition and decommissioning work   Redevelopment and clean-up of contaminated land   Vegetation management and conservation enhancements   Control of pest species, including disease vectors   Deliberate introduction of non-native and genetically modified species   Intensive horticulture, including greenhouses   Sea outfalls   Petro-chemical industry – offshore developments, including exploration   Restoration of mineral extraction sites   Business parks (i.e. office buildings or repairs or servicing facilities)   Angling and sport fishing, including fish stocking   Industrial estates for light manufacturing   Kennels, catteries and stables   Vehicle parks and park-and-ride schemes  28 The symbols beside the listed additional project types mean: /S: Screening procedure; /A: Mandatory assessment; and /A,S: both. (IMP)3 68 2.1.2.11 USA The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), first enacted in 1969, was the first environmental law assigning the environmental assessment (EA) of projects as an innovative tool for environmental management and protection. Laws and Executive Orders National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) NEPA Implementing Executive Order 11514 (3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 902) as amended by Executive Order 11991 (3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 123) Implementing Regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508). Regulations 24 CFR Part 50 – Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality 24 CFR Part 51 – Environmental Criteria and Standards 24 CFR Part 55 – Floodplain Management 24 CFR Part 58 – Environmental Review Procedures For Entities Assuming HUD Environmental Responsibilities 36 CFR Part 800 – Protection of Historic Properties Figure 35 USA main EA Laws and Regulations NEPA is a declaration of the environmental policy and goals of the USA. Title II of NEPA created the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) to act as an advisor to the President of the USA on environmental matters as well as to coordinate the National Environmental Policy implementation through, for instance, the preparation of guidance (Regulations implementing the Procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 1978). CEQ must also present to the President an annual Environmental Quality Report, accounting for the environmental conditions nationwide. According to section 102 (C), federal agencies shall include in any new proposal for legislation or federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement on (i) the environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) reference to any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided in any case should the proposal be approved, (iii) alternatives to the proposed action, (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources exploited should the action be implemented (reference to the NEPA and CEQ regulations). Screening Even though the NEPA process applies only to federal project developments, many private projects may be assessed by means of federal licensing authority, regulatory decision or funding (Clark & Richards, 1999; Steinmann, 2001). There are three possible types of assessment: (i) categorical exclusion, (ii) Environmental Assessment (EA) and (iii) Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) (Burris & Canter, 1997; Clark & Richards, 1999; Steinmann, 2001). (IMP)3 69 Categorical exclusion refers to a category of projects regarded as not likely to have significant adverse effects on the human environment. However, project types such as military actions may be exempt from NEPA even though being likely to cause significant adverse impacts. In this sense, regarding the NEPA process, if a given project development has previously been classified as categorical excluded, it is subjected to public review and comment by the federal agency responsible for the project or by the Lead Agency29 if “more than one federal agency (1) proposes or is involved in the same action or (2) is involved in a group of actions directly related to each other because of their functional interdependence or geographical proximity” (sec. 1501.5(a) of the CEQ Regulations). As far as the project’s exclusion is confirmed, no other documents are required by either the NEPA or the CEQ regulations. If the project is not categorically excluded, the lead agency determines whether an EA or an EIS should be carried out. Environmental Assessments (EA) are preliminary studies aiming at determining the significance of expected environmental impacts. If no significant impacts are identified, findings of no significant impacts (FONSI) are prepared, and the NEPA process is completed. Otherwise, a more detailed assessment is needed and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared (Burris & canter, 1997 and Clark & Richards, 1999). In practice, for those projects more likely to have adverse environmental effects, EIS are seldom proceeded by an EA, given the lead agency experience regarding environmental assessment (Clark & Richards, 1999). Project types subject to EIA NEPA is a federal law covering actions done under federal regulations. Additionally, several states established their own EIA-regulation, especially California, Montana, Washington BC, Massachusetts and New York have a comprehensive approach on EIA covering public and private actions that affect the environment. Concerning the federal legislation, each federal agency has to decide on a case by case examination (= environmental assessment – EA) whether an EA has to be conducted. Additionally, each federal agency has set up a list of projects that are categorically excluded from an EA. 2.1.2.12 Canada As in the USA, Environmental Assessment in Canada concerns those projects developed by Federal Agencies or under their jurisdiction or funding. It is a decentralized process led by the Federal and provincial governments and laterally by emerging new indigenous constitutional entities (Clark & Richards, 1999 and Paci et al., 2002). 29 The Lead Agency is the federal agency responsible for the NEPA process. A given federal agency is assigned as a Lead Agency in a NEPA process provided certain criteria are met, such as the agency’s dimension and expertise with regard to environmental assessment (Steinmann, 2001). (IMP)3 70 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 1992, c. 37 from the 23rd June 1992 Related Regulations: Canada Port Authority Environmental Assessment Regulations Comprehensive Study List Regulations Exclusion List Regulations Federal Authorities Regulations Inclusion List Regulations Law List Regulations Projects Outside Canada Environmental Assessment Regulations Regulations Respecting the Coordination by Federal Authorities of Environmental Assessment Procedures and Requirements Figure 36 Canadian main EA Laws and Regulations All federal Departments and agencies are subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (1992, c.37), replacing the previous Environmental Assessment Review Process (EARP) Guidelines Order, as well as to its implementing regulations. As legal instruments underlying EIA practice in Canada there are Bilateral Agreements between the federal and provincial governments to coordinate and harmonize EA practice, International Agreements containing EA provisions to which Canada is signatory, varying regulations for those projects outside Canada’s jurisdiction, federal coordination regulation intended to coordinate federal authorities’ activities regarding EA and specific regulations under the Act (see Table 12) (Clark & Richards, 1999). Screening Screening is made according to the provisions of the Act’s specific regulations, namely  The Law List;  The Exclusion List;  The Inclusion List and; and  The Comprehensive List. The Law List includes all those federal statutory and regulatory project approvals which will require an EA, including federal permits, certificates, licenses and authorizations. The Exclusion List concerns the description of all undertakings in relation to a physical work for which an EA is not required because experience suggests that they are not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects (such as minor renovations and routine maintenance). The Inclusion List specifies physical activities not in relation to physical work (e.g. ice-breaking in the Artic) which are subject to EA because of their potential to cause significant environmental effects. Finally, the Comprehensive Study List describes projects and classes of projects that are likely to have significant adverse environmental effects and therefore require a more in-depth assessment. (IMP)3 71 EIA practice is administered at federal level by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA), established by section 61 of the Act. It is up to the CEAA to provide legal, procedural and policy advice to the Minister of the Environment on the Minister’s responsibilities under the Act, to ensure public participation in the Federal EA process, and to guarantee sound environmental assessment (EA) practices (Clark & Richards, 1999 and Paci et al., 2002). According to section 5 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, an EA is required for those projects included in the Law List for which a federal authority (a) is the proponent, (b) provides the financial means for its development, (c) owns the land on which the project is to be implemented or (d) is responsible for the assignment of a permit or licence (CEAA, 2004, Clark & Richards, 1999). There are four types of assessment recognized under the Act: screening, comprehensive study, panel review and mediation30. Screenings and comprehensive studies imply the assessment of the environmental adverse effects the project is likely to have. Screening is a systematic approach to document the environmental effects and is conducted by the project’s responsible authority: if it is determined that no significant adverse effects are to be expected from the project, it may proceed as long as there is no significant public concern about the project. If significant adverse effects that could be avoided (or that cannot be justified) are found, the project is not granted. It must be changed before a new screening procedure is initiated. On the other hand, if it is determined that the project has significant adverse environmental effects, or that it is not possible to properly account for those adverse effects or even if the project has risen a lot of public concern, the process goes on to a panel or mediation for further assessment. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act also recognizes class screenings as EA tools. A class screening report is the result of the accumulated knowledge of the environmental effects of a given project type and identifies the known measures to reduce or eliminate major impacts. However, in applying a class screening report to a project, the responsible authority must still take into account site specific circumstances and cumulative impacts. Under the Act, a responsible authority can also address the CEAA in order to have a screening report (or reports) declared as a class screening report for future projects. Once approved by the Agency, the class screening report can be used in whole or partly by any responsible authority (Clark & Richards, 1999). Mediation is a voluntary process aiming at the interested parties31 agreement on the significance of environmental effects and on the measures needed to be applied in order to lessen or mitigate those adverse environmental effects. 30 According to No.2 [Definitions] of the Act, “Assessment by a Review Panel” means an environmental assessment that is conducted by a review panel established pursuant to section 33 [Appointment of Review Panel] and that includes a consideration of the factors required to be considered under subsections 16 (1) [Community Knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge] and (2) [Regional Studies]. “Comprehensive Study” means an environmental assessment that is conducted pursuant to sections 21. [Public Consultation] and 21.1 [Minister’s Decision] and that includes a consideration of the facts required to be considered pursuant to subsections 16 (1) [Community Knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge] and (2) [Regional Studies]. “Screening” means an environmental assessment that is conducted pursuant to section 18 (whenever a project is not described in the comprehensive study list or the exclusion list made under paragraph 59(c) the responsible authority shall ensure that a screening of the project is conducted and that a screening report is prepared) and that includes a consideration of the factors set out in subsection 16(1) [Community Knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge]. (IMP)3 72 Mediation may occur alongside, or instead of, a panel review. The latter primary function is to inform the public of the concerns of all parties (Cole, 199332 cited by Paci et al., 2002). It is referred to the Minister of Environment, who appoints panel members to conduct public hearings of a project. A panel or mediator submits recommendations to the Minister who referred the project. The Government issues its response to the panel recommendations after review by the Cabinet (Clark & Richards, 1999). 2.2 Relevant guidelines 2.2.1 European level EIA – Guidance on Screening – 2001 The aim of the guidance is to provide practical help to those involved in Screening and Scoping stages in the EIA process. The EIA-Guidance consist of the two parts:  Screening and Scoping Guidance; and  EIS Review Guidance The task of the Screening and Scoping Guidance is to provide support for the decision if a certain project shall be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). It also shall provide assistance with the preparation of terms of reference for the studies that are required in an EIAprocess. Thus the main objective of the Screening and Scoping Guidance is that the respective EIA process starts off on an optimal footing. The EIS Review Guidance aims to help developers and their consultants prepare better quality Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and competent authorities and other interested parties to review them more effectively, so that the best possible information is made available for decision making. The Guidance is designed principally for use by competent authorities, developers and EIA practitioners in the European Union Member States and Accession Countries. It is hoped that it will also be of interest to academics and other organisations who participate in EIA training and education and to practitioners from around the world. The Guidance has been designed to be useful across Europe. It cannot reflect all the specific requirements and practice of EIA in different countries. It also cannot substitute for Member State guidance on EIA which should always be referred to first. It should also always be read in conjunction with the Directives and with national or local EIA legislation, as detailed legal requirements vary throughout the Member States and Accession Countries. 31 “Interested party” means, according to No. 2 of the Act [Definitions], any person or body having an interest in the outcome of the Environmental Assessment (EA) for a purpose that it is neither frivolous nor vexatious. 32 Cole, D. (1993): First Nations’ environmental assessment guide, first draft. Prepared for the Assembly of First Nations, Environment Unit, Ottawa (unpublished) (IMP)3 73 The Guidance has been prepared by Environmental Resources Management (ERM) under a research contract with the Directorate General for Environment of the European Commission. Guidelines on the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact interactions – 1999 The aim of these Guidelines is to provide guidance on practical methods and approaches to assess indirect and cumulative impacts of a project as well as impact interactions. The Guidelines are mainly designed to assist EIA practitioners in developing an approach which is appropriate to a project, and to consider these impacts as an integral part of the EIA process. They give advice to a wide range of projects on  how to approach these kinds of impacts during the various stages of EIA;  how to adapt the approach to a specific project; and  suggests methods and tools for identifying and assessing indirect and cumulative impacts, as well as impact interactions. Guidance on the practical application of the ESPOO Convention – Guidelines on good practice and on bilateral and multilateral agreements This guidance document has been written for competent authorities in the Parties to the Convention. It provides hints and suggestions that can improve the practical application of the Convention and that may be used in forming biand multilateral agreements among Parties that have to deal with transboundary impacts on a regular basis. The overall approach taken in this guide is that the application of the Convention can and preferably should be part of a systematic way of managing international environmental requirements. In practice this means that all procedural stages should be documented and that clear responsibilities guide focuses on issues that have been identified to in advance for all the stages of the application of the Convention. Specific methodologies and criteria to determine the significance of adverse transboundary impact (1995 report, CEP/WG.3/R.6), UNECE The guideline aims to specify ways and means of determining the issue of the significance of an impact in the transboundary context. It emphasises the early determination of significance, which precedes the notification from the country of origin to the affected country. It contains four Annexes:  A possible structure for listing and identifying impacts is given in Annex I. It attempts to clarify whether transboundary impacts are possible or not;  Annex II provides a tool to assemble relevant factual information on the characteristics of transboundary impacts;  Annex III provides preliminary criteria for determining the "significance" of the impacts, including the situations in which the affected country should always be notified. Annex III also refers to situations in which the decision on significance depends on several characteristics of the impacts or the affected area. As more experience is gained of the actual impacts of activities listed in Appendix I to the Convention, this part of Annex III (IMP)3 80 3.2 Results Questionnaire 3.2.1 Question no 14: Satisfaction with Selection and Description of Project types Wording of the question Is the selection and description of project types adopted by your national/regional EIA legislation from your point of view … (Tick all that apply) … satisfactory and comprehensive … unsatisfactory with respect to environmental protection, because of ... too many project types if ticked, could you specify which ones and why: missing project types could you specify which ones: inappropriate project descriptions if ticked, please give the difficulties in interpretation and name the categories: inappropriate criteria if ticked, please give the main reasons and name categories: different criteria should be used same criteria, but set at a different level other reasons: For category/ies: For category/ies: For category/ies: inappropriate set of thresholds if ticked, please give the main reasons: threshold is not appropriate for the country threshold does not comply with state-of-theart no threshold should be set other reasons: For category/ies: For category/ies: For category/ies: For category/ies: I don’t know Underlying intention of the question: Question no 14 represents a combined question retrieving Stakeholders’ opinions about their satisfaction with  The list of project types covered by their national EIA law regarding a satisfactory coverage of all project types with likely significant effects on the environment;  Proper criteria to cover these project types;  The definitions of the listed project types, whether they are clearly delimitable, interpretable and comprehensive enough or eg. leaving an ample scope for interpretation. The aimed output of the question was to get an impression about the suitability of definitions/thresholds implemented in national/regional law systems such as the satisfaction with the coverage of project types with likely significant effects on the environment. Moreover the feedback should provide for an estimation regarding the general approach within the Member States in using criteria/thresholds to include all relevant categories of projects. (IMP)3 81 Results SATISFACTION WITH SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT TYPES 90 22 66 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 satisfactory and comprehensive unsatisfactory with respect to environmental protection I don’t know Number of stakeholders ticked Question asked: Is the selection and description of project types adopted by your national/regional EIA legislation from your point of view … (Tick all that apply) funded by the Community’s Sixth Framework Programme (IMP)3 IMProving the IMPlementation of Environmental IMPact Assessmen t Figure 38 Totals obtained for Question No.14 About 50% of the respondents are satisfied with their national selection and description of project types, whereas about a third of Stakeholders chose the category “unsatisfactory”. 12% ticked “I don’t know”. Setting the 22 unsure respondents aside, 58% of the opinionated respondents were satisfied, while 42% of respondents were unsatisfied. The given reasons for not being satisfied with the selection and descriptions show generally a quite equal picture, which can be seen in the table below: … unsatisfactory with respect to environmental protection, because of ... 26 16 27 23 29 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 too many project types missing project types inappropriate project descriptions inappropriate criteria inappropriate set of thresholds Number of stakeholders ticked funded by the Community’s Sixth Framework Programme (IMP)3 IMProving the IMPlementation of Environmental IMPact Assessmen t Figure 39 Single analysis for category “unsatisfactory with respect to environmental protection” (IMP)3 82 From the suggested reasons for unsatisfactory selection and description of project types „inappropriate set of thresholds“ presents the most ticked category whereas „inappropriate project descriptions“ has only been chosen 16 times. Most of the given remarks according to “too many project types” criticized the need of EIA even for small projects with insignificant impacts on the environment. One remark pointed out that EIA should not be mandatory for standard projects where the potential impact is known without detailed assessment. Another feedback claims a generic development of the project list, as “new types are developed year by year”. Under the remarks to “missing project types” some additional project types were recommended which should become subject to EIA. Figure 40 shows the categories indicated as missing by some respondents. Other remarks stayed on a more general level, such as that a closed list does not consider local conditions and/or cumulative effects. It was also mentioned that SEA could become an important instrument for eg. assessing impacts of several smaller projects together. Project type Dikes and high voltage earth cables Production of tyres Gas compressor stations Marine renewable projects, including test projects Golf courses Storage of fireworks Cable-laying of power lines Development of former port areas to residential areas Wild-life stalk along road and railroad networks Telecommunication and radio pylons Wind parks Figure 40 Project types indicated as “missing” in the national/regional legislation To the category “inappropriate project descriptions” the remarks show a wide range of different feedback. On one hand specific project categories were mentioned such as urban development, clear-cutting, waste management projects, shipping lanes, water construction, production and storage of chemicals. A more general remark states that the factor “risk” should be included in the descriptions. Another remark criticizes that descriptions are not satisfactory for projects where a social impact can be reasonably expected to be long-lasting and extensive. The category “inappropriate criteria” has been chosen 27 times. Within this category the possibility was given to specify, why criteria is seen as inappropriate. The table below shows an overview of the results: (IMP)3 83 ... inappropriate criteria 10 10 15 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 different criteria should be used same criteria, but set at a different level other reasons Number of stakeholders ticked funded by the Community’s Sixth Framework Programme (IMP)3 IMProving the IMPlementation of Environmental IMPact Assessment Figure 41 Single analysis for category “inappropriate criteria”” Remarks according to “different criteria should be used” mentioned on one hand certain project categories such as ferrous metal processing, production of plastic materials and golf courses. A more general remark mentioned that different criteria would be useful for smaller sources for “without EIA”. One respondent also stated that regulations in general are based on development types, not on receptors. For the category “same criteria, but set at a different level” the factors water, resources and noise were indicated such as the project type “windfarms”. Under “other reasons” for inappropriate criteria the respondents indicated the project type “construction of airports”, a lack of detailed guidance and no available EIA Studies specifications, the difficulty to adapt criteria from national to a regional level and that criteria should be consistent within a Member State. Furthermore one remark recommended a general case-by-case approach. Within the option “inappropriate set of thresholds”, which has been selected the most often, the responses show the following distribution: (IMP)3 84 ... inappropriate set of thresholds 8 2 14 11 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 threshold is not appropriate for the country threshold does not comply with state-of-the-art no threshold should be set other reasons Number of stakeholders ticked funded by the Community’s Sixth Framework Programme (IMP)3 IMProving the IMPlementation of Environmental IMPact Assessment Figure 42 Single analysis for category “inappropriate set of thresholds”” For “threshold is not appropriate for the country” the project categories petrol stations, more than 20 garages, all guest houses outside settlements, manufacture of lime and waste management were mentioned. Under “threshold does not comply with state-of-the-art” pig iron production and waste management have been indicated. Infrastructure projects were given as remark to the category “no threshold should be set”. Remarks according to “other reasons” comprise eg. mentioning project categories such as Hydro power plants, pig farms, streets and thresholds for sinter or cement. Furthermore a variety of different remarks arrived such as  a lack of detailed guidance on thresholds;  regional differences in sensitivity are not considered;  Threshold may apply to all situations;  Thresholds are too high;  Thresholds too low to have significant impact;  You cannot only do it like this, you have to take receptors and work backwards into consideration;  No idea, specific guidance needed – to ensure appropriate removal of hazardous "artefacts"; and  Traffic forecast. (IMP)3 85 Interpretation of key results The objective of question no. 14 was to elicit EIA-experts opinions regarding their satisfaction with the selection and description of project types adopted by their national or regional EIA legislation. As already mentioned questionnaire results were summarized for the entire EU due to sample size, thus not providing for analysis at the country level. Of the 178 responses, 90 respondents indicated to be satisfied with their national and/or regional selection and description of project categories, 66 are unsatisfied and 22 unsure. Setting the 22 unsure respondents aside, 58% of the opinionated respondents were satisfied, while 42% of respondents were unsatisfied. Owing to the general nature of the question, and the variety between the Member States in terms of EIA application, results were rather positive. Had the wording been more specific, this number would be expected to decrease. Further analysis at the country level would be needed to determine if these results were country specific. Focusing on the 42 percent of respondents who were unsatisfied, a further series of questions were provided which could be grouped into two main categories:  project types; and  inappropriate detail. Under project types, an almost equal proportion of stakeholders responded that there were too many project types as too few. This is likely a combination of the size of the projects being discussed, the regional or national specifics of the EIA process and perhaps the general governmental stance on environmental issues. Those who felt that there were too many project types mainly criticized the need for an EIA even for small projects with insignificant environmental impacts. Respondents who felt there were missing project types stated that a standard list does not allow for consideration of local conditions and/or cumulative effects. Nearly all responses regarding inappropriate descriptions, criteria and/or thresholds mention related project types, but unfortunately neither explaining the difficulties in interpreting certain descriptions nor giving reasons for seeing criteria and/or the set of thresholds as inappropriate. To the question for which categories respondents feel the project descriptions as inappropriate, the following project types were mentioned: urban development, clear-cutting, waste management projects, shipping lanes, water construction, production and storage of chemicals. A need for using different criteria was mentioned for project categories such as metal processing, plastic production and golf courses. Brief abstract of key findings In summary, results from this survey are at best able only to provide a general overview of the responses to question no 14. It is possible to state that the majority of respondents to the question are satisfied with the selection and description of project types in their national legislation. However, there seems to be a wide variety of reasons why a significant proportion of the respondents are unsatisfied with the current situation in their regions or country. Further work in (IMP)3 86 this area might include a larger, more detailed survey that captures more detail on the respondent, in particular, an in-depth analysis for those project types where difficulties in interpretation and/or the set of criteria/thresholds seem to occur frequently, such as for the sectors urban development, waste management and golf courses. 3.2.2 Question no 15: Additional Project types Wording of the Question From your experience: Which additional project types from the list below, that are not yet listed in the EU directive, should be made subject to EIA? (Tick all that apply and if possible, suggest mode of application) Project type Mode of Application Removal and disposal of asbestos Mandatory in all cases subject to a specified criteria/threshold Suggested criteria/threshold: Re-gasification projects (transforming gas into liquefied gas for transportation and then re-transforming it into gas for consumption) Mandatory in all cases subject to a specified criteria/threshold Suggested criteria/threshold: Installations working with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) or pathogenic micro-organism such as laboratories, test facilities, trial areas Mandatory in all cases subject to a specified criteria/threshold Suggested criteria/threshold: Manufacture of lime Mandatory in all cases subject to a specified criteria/threshold Suggested criteria/threshold: Mine rehabilitation Mandatory in all cases subject to a specified criteria/threshold Suggested criteria/threshold: Particle accelerators (of 50 MeV [mega-electron volts] and over) Mandatory in all cases subject to a specified criteria/threshold Suggested criteria/threshold: Masts for mobile phones and radio or telecommunication stations Mandatory in all cases subject to a specified criteria/threshold Suggested criteria/threshold: Transhipment depots Mandatory in all cases subject to a specified criteria/threshold Suggested criteria/threshold: Installations for flood and/or avalanche protection (e.g. torrent control facilities, erosion control regimes,…) Mandatory in all cases subject to a specified criteria/threshold Suggested criteria/threshold: Installations for the manufacture of particle or fibre board Mandatory in all cases subject to a specified criteria/threshold Suggested criteria/threshold: Meat processing plants Mandatory in all cases subject to a specified criteria/threshold Suggested criteria/threshold: Golf courses Mandatory in all cases subject to a specified criteria/threshold Suggested criteria/threshold: Business parks Mandatory in all cases subject to a specified criteria/threshold Suggested criteria/threshold: Shooting ranges Mandatory in all cases subject to a specified criteria/threshold Suggested criteria/threshold: (IMP)3 87 Project type Mode of Application Military practice grounds Mandatory in all cases subject to a specified criteria/threshold Suggested criteria/threshold: Redevelopment of contaminated land (e.g. brown fields, …) Mandatory in all cases subject to a specified criteria/threshold Suggested criteria/threshold: Others (please justify): Mandatory in all cases subject to a specified criteria/threshold Suggested criteria/threshold: Underlying Intention of the Question: EIA experts and stakeholders had the possibility on the basis of their expert knowledge and past experiences to suggest additional project types which are not yet listed in the EU directive and should be made subject to an EIA. Furthermore, they were asked to suggest a mode of application such as which criteria/thresholds to be used. The overall intention of the question was to get an impression of whether or not EIA experts are satisfied with the coverage of project types listed in their national/regional legislation and if they see a need to expand the list with additional project types. From the feedback it should also be possible to draw consequences about the project lists relative to the EU directive. Summary of results ADDITIONAL PROJECT TYPES 0 102030405060708090100 Others Transhipment depots Particle accelerators Re-gasification projects Installations for the manufacture of particle or fibre board Manufacture of lime Shooting ranges Installations for flood and/or avalanche protection Meat processing plants Mine rehabilitation Removal and disposal of asbestos Masts for mobile phones and radio or telecommunication stations Redevelopment of contaminated land Business parks Military practice grounds Installations working with GMOs or pathogenic micro-organism Golf courses Number of Stakeholders ticked funded by the Community’s Sixth Framework Programme (IMP)3 IMProving the IMPlementation of Environmental IMPact Assessment Figure 43 Totals obtained for Question No. 15 (IMP)3 88 Interpretation of key results 3.2.2.1 Results per type of categories of additional project types According to the results of the evaluation of the questionnaire the most frequently ticked category was Golf courses, indicated by 100 respondents from 183 returned questionnaires. More than 50 respondents indicated:  Installations working with GMOs or pathogenic micro – organisms (96),  Military practice grounds (96),  Business parks (92),  Redevelopment of contaminated land (91)  Masts for mobile phones and radio or telecommunication stations (85)  Removal and disposal of asbestos (83)  Mine rehabilitation (82)  Meat processing plants (75)  Installations for flood and/or avalanche protection (68)  Shooting ranges (68)  Manufacture of lime (59)  Installation for the manufacture of particle or fibre board (56)  Re-gasification projects (52)  Particle accelerators (of 50 MeV and over) (52) 49 respondents ticked transhipment depots and 13 indicated other categories. They suggested e.g. the following additional types of projects: airports, extremely high buildings, artificial turf grass fields and gas compressor stations, major wind farms, production of plastics or plastic products. (IMP)3 89 3.2.2.2 Results per suggested mode of application of additional project types (ticket by more than 50 respondents from 183) RESULTS PER SUGGESTED MODE OF APPLICATION 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Particle accelerators Re-gasification projects Installations for the manufacture of particle or fibre Manufacture of lime Shooting ranges Installations for flood and/or avalanche Meat processing plants Mine rehabilitation Removal and disposal of asbestos Masts for mobile phones and radio or Redevelopment of contaminated land Business parks Military practice grounds Installations working with GMOs or pathogenic Golf courses Proposed project types Allocation of responses per number of stakeholders ticked Mandatory in all cases Subject to a specified criteria/threshold Further declaration funded by the Community’s Sixth Framework Programme (IMP)3 IMProving the IMPlementation of Environmental IMPact Assessment Figure 44 Allocation of answers regarding mode of application of the proposed project types From the categories which have been chosen by more than 50 respondents the following modes of application were suggested: 50 and more of the respondents required clearly mandatory assessment for the following proposed additional project types:  installations working with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) or pathogenic microorganism such as laboratories, test facilities, trial areas; and  military practice grounds. Over 40 stakeholders indicated a requirement for mandatory assessment for:  redevelopment of contaminated land; and  golf courses. 40 and more of the respondents suggested that the following project types should be subject to a specified criteria/threshold:  business parks;  golf courses;  meat processing plants; and  masts for mobile phones and radio or telecommunication stations. The response rate demanding “further declaration” ranges between 1 and 17 for all proposed categories. (IMP)3 96 3.2.3.2 Results per country Figure 28 presents the results of Question No. 16 per country. MERGING THE TWO ANNEXES OF THE EIA DIRECTIVE 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Austria Belgium Czech Republic Cyprus Germany Denmark Estonia Spain Finland France Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Lithuania Latvia Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Sweden Slovenia Slovakia 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Austria Belgium Czech Republic Cyprus Germany Denmark Estonia Spain Finland France Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Lithuania Latvia Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Sweden Slovenia Slovakia yes no I don't know % of respones number of respones Figure 49 Question No. 16 results per country Given the low questionnaire return for this question our attention focused on countries with, at least, 5 responses. The “yes” response has higher scores than the “no” response in Austria, Malta, Poland, Portugal and Slovakia. In Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Finland and the United Kingdom “no” responses have higher scores. Interpretation of key results Arguments in favour of merging the two Annexes Respondents more receptive to this new proposal generally referred to the simplification of screening procedures, higher levels of environmental protection, more equitable conditions regarding (developer) market opportunities and the need to uniform regulations as the main advantage of merging the two Annexes of the EIA Directive. The simplification of EIA (screening) procedures should result from less discretion and political influence over the screening decision, more straightforward screening rules and fewer opportunities for questioning the screening decision by the EIA authorities. Additionally, merging the two Annexes is regarded as a guarantee that all potentially harmful project types would be subject to EIA, resulting in equal standards of environmental protection among all MSs. Making EIA mandatory for all Annex II projects would lead to a more careful (IMP)3 97 assessment of these projects’ expected impacts in all countries, while smaller projects would not have to be unnecessarily subjected to EIA. The harmonization of screening rules is not only seen as an advantage in itself but also as a key step towards the integration of EIA with other international agreements as the ESPOO Convention or the Kiev Protocol, as is also frequently referred to other community control regimes as the IPPC and the Seveso II regulations. Arguments against merging the two Annexes The differences between Annex I and Annex II projects, different (environmental) licensing administrative and legal frameworks, as well as the need for taking into account regional specificities are the most important arguments presented by those respondents against the proposed modification to the EIA screening system. The separation between Annex I and Annex II projects is regarded as important for the distinction of clearly different degrees of impacts and has been used to stress the need for different EIA procedures. Merging the two Annexes would reduce all mandatory cases to the same circumstances which, ultimately, can hardly be a simplification of EIA procedures, as pointed out by some of the respondents. On the other hand, such drastic changes to the screening rules would have a disruptive effect on the EU MS EIA systems, given the great diversity of planning and licensing procedures among different countries, if ever possible. However, the need for the consideration of regional specificities is the most presented argument. The merging of Annexes I and II of the EIA Directive into a single mandatory list with thresholds is classified by one of the respondents as a mechanical approach, as there will always be cases where the use of thresholds cannot account for all the relevant information concerning a certain project development. Besides, more important than recognizing project types should be identifying types of impacts and that is not possible without a certain degree of discretion left to the EIA authorities. Case-by-case analysis will always be a valuable and much useful screening tool. According to this position (against merging Annexes I and II), harmonization of EIA procedures is equally desirable. However, it should be pursued through the more accurate interpretation of the EIA Directive’s screening criteria, rather than by setting uniform regulations. And so, in face of these arguments, it comes to no surprise that the “no” response has higher scores for those countries with more mature EIA systems, as is the case of Belgium or Sweden, or with strongly decentralized (Denmark, United Kingdom) or sectoral (Germany) planning systems. Accordingly, such fundamental modifications as merging the two Annexes of the EIA Directive seem easier to accept by those countries with more recent EIA regulations, as may be confirmed by the higher scores for the “yes” response in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta and Slovakia (see Figure 49). As an overall evaluation of the two conflicting positions regarding the proposal of merging the two Annexes of EIA Directive into a single list, arguments presented for the “no” response tend to be more realistic and concrete, despite the relevancy and important contribution of the arguments presented by those who agree this could be an adequate approach for the further harmonization of screening rules among EU countries. And so, not only has the “no” answer have slightly higher scores, its corresponding arguments seem stronger and more consistent. (IMP)3 98 In fact, some of the opinions favourable to the merging of the Annexes may not reflect the difficulty of implementing new amendments as well as the important role played by public discussion in the EIA process, which can also explain the prevalence of the “no” response for the National Authority and Regional Authority categories. These stakeholders are more likely to be aware of the role played by contextual factors in the screening decision as well as of the obstacles and risks pertaining to the implementation of such a modification in their national screening systems. In the case of the higher scores obtained for the “yes” response in the case of NGO and Academic Institution categories, these should be interpreted in the sense of higher environmental protection, in this case relating to stricter screening rules. Figure 50 presents a summary of the main ideas supporting “yes” and “no” responses. Do you think merging the two Annexes into one single list with mandatory EIA thresholds for each project category would be a recommendable approach? Yes, because… It would minimize political influence. However, thresholds and specified (listed) criteria are not always sufficient for the assessment of some types of impacts Discretionary screening decisions by MS has led to the evasion from EIA of potential harmful project activities Assigning the need for EIA for all Annex II projects above certain specified thresholds is a means of guaranteeing that none is left behind due to misinterpretations of the EIA Directive’s screening criteria It would make screening more objective (cuts out wrangling as to whether a project has significant impacts) EIA is the only means available for the protection of environment and human health and so it would be useful to apply it to all major project developments It would be a simplification of the screening procedure It would stimulate public participation in this matters once even less environmentally harmful project types may improve considerably due to public discussion contributions in EIA . It would be a more straightforward screening procedure and would provide fair economic competition for the developer throughout Europe There are not really different EIAs procedures for Annex I and Annex II projects Making EIA mandatory for all Annex II projects would lead to a more careful assessment of these projects’ expected impacts It would lead to the simplification of EIA legislation It would be easier for the competent authorities to decide in each case, once they usually lack the necessary technical information for taking the right decision (and so leaving them more receptive to political or public pressure). However, it would be too high a risk to set thresholds for this type of situations given contextual factors’ great diversity. Screening rules should be uniformly set for all MS There is the need for predictable procedures Makes the EIA process more equal and balanced between MS Some projects having low impacts on the environment would not be subjected to mandatory EIA. The answer is “yes” only if there is the possibility for case-by-case analysis but “no” if this is to be a definite list! EIA procedure would be simpler and take less time and effort. The wide discrepancy between the number of EIAs carried out in the different MS should not exist. A deeper harmonization could also reduce the (presently existing in Malta) preferential treatment for certain developers. This could be a more protective for the environment and public health measure. To a certain extent. However, elements of discretion should remain for developments below the threshold values set in the one-list screening Annex. This would be a more harmonized and helpful approach for the integration of ESPOO Convention and Kiev protocol into EIA regulations. It would ensure consistency in the screening approach towards the promotion of an European wide basis screening tools Makes more sense having the same threshold values applied across the whole Europe Would lead to a higher level of legal certainty Would improve consistency of the environmental assessment and disencorage debate on this subject …but this is only one approach. There should be also concern about relative ecological sensitivities regardless of the type of project development. Makes easier the application of the law (IMP)3 99 Do you think merging the two Annexes into one single list with mandatory EIA thresholds for each project category would be a recommendable approach? No, because… Annex I and Annex II projects are different in terms of seriousness of impact and type of EIA procedure to be performed It is preferable to have case-by-case analysis and because (screening) rules will be the same for all Member States It would mean facing both types of projects – Annex I and Annex II’s – in the same way. Different geographical, climatic and environmental local conditions. Case-by-case decisions for Annex II projects are often appropriate, best fitting and not too complex. Contextual factors can be quite different among different countries/regions and so it should be left for the MS the possibility to decide upon whether or not an Annex II project should be subjected to EIA. Besides, pointless EIA processes tend to weaken this important tool because in most of the times EIA procedures are administratively heavy and time consuming. Harmonization of screening rules is a good idea but might as well fail given national/local circumstances New modifications to the Annexes system would give rise to new resistances Making amendments to the Directive might seem straightforward in Brussels but causes uncertainty, additional work and usually confusion in practice. Making amendments to domestic legislation takes an enormous amount of work. Unless the directive is causing major environmental problems it should not be amended. Merging the two Annexes of the EIA Directive could introduce other loopholes to the Directive’s screening system as well as stimulate new attempts to avoid EIA through salami slicing of projects It would lead to the increase of EIAs, which could disencourage people’s participation in these processes Despite the need for EIA, different project types must be assessed by different EIA procedures. Besides, it would be good to have all projects listed in one sole list if it does not disencourage the environmental assessment of smaller or not listed project types. It is hard enough applying present screening rules… Special local conditions should always be considered. It will be impossible to set acceptable and adequate threshold values for all types of projects because of lobbying from the industry will be too strong. In many cases, this would just worsen the situation in terms of environmental protection Loosing flexibility in the screening decision at European level may also be equivalent to leaving out of EIA procedures some project types that are presently mandatorily environmentally assessed. The screening system works well as it is. Merging Annexes and setting threshold values for former Annex II’s projects may lead to some confusion specially if the MS already have those projects screened through the use of thresholds of criteria. A lot of projects are critical just for certain circumstances. Thus, there should be space for national implementation of the EIA Directive. Legal and administrative differences among Member States Having only one mandatory list would lead to disharmony instead of further harmonization. A projects’ impact depends greatly on site and human factors. In this sense case-by-case analysis are preferable. Proponents often withhold data or set projects’ dimensions and technical characteristics close to threshold limits. If SEA and general environmental legislation are well applied, they should be enough This would correspond to a mechanical approach in the screening phase, some interpretation will always be required and the dialogue between relevant authorities is very important. Some project types simply cannot be fully assessed through the use of thresholds. In such approach there would be no space for site characteristics considerations for the screening decision. Annex I and Annex II categories of projects have passed the test of time Harmonization in EIA procedures will be attained not by making more transparent laws but by interpreting them in the same way. For this reason inspectors from different MS should work together in order to share experiences and information. Thresholds setting is often arbitrary and difficult to apply to all situations. These could lead to the reduction of threshold values as a precautionary measure which, ultimately, can result in applying EIA when it is not really necessary. Conditions vary a lot from project to project (even for the same type of project) and so, different types of screening approaches are advantageous. (IMP)3 100 Do you think merging the two Annexes into one single list with mandatory EIA thresholds for each project category would be a recommendable approach? No, because… Thresholds are already in place for Annex II’s projects, so such a change would be meaningless Too restrictive The great diversity of social and ecological local contexts makes the distinctions based on the size of the project and the magnitude of the environmental impact more important than distinctions in terms of project types Screening procedures for smaller impacts are needed for the case of more sensitive or vulnerable sites Figure 50 Summary of main ideas given to explain answer to Question No.16 Brief abstract of key findings The harmonization of screening procedures is regarded as a positive measure by the great majority of respondents, but seen as achievable by other means than the proposed modification in the case of those respondents against merging the two Annexes. In the case of respondents favourable to this approach, in their opinion the merging of the two Annexes would lead to a deeper harmonization of the screening practice among MSs which they feel as essential for the achievement of minimum equal standards of environmental protection. Besides, some argue that applying the same screening procedures would also contribute to less divergent interpretations of the EIA Directive throughout European Union and so, to more objective screening decisions. As for the respondents opposing to this approach, setting screening criteria on the basis of expected impacts should be more effective than listing projects by type, as far as the harmonization of the EIA procedures is concerned. Moreover, it has been stated that the proposal of merging the two Annexes lacks the necessary flexibility for the consideration of contextual factors. On the other hand, merging the two Annexes is seen by some of these respondents as difficult to achieve or even quite disruptive of EIA legal systems given the great diversity of licensing and planning administrative procedures among MSs. (IMP)3 101 3.3 Results Interviews 3.3.1 Issue: ‘Project categories’ (With respect to the project categories covered by your national/regional EIA regulations: Are there any categories of important projects that are missing which should be subject to an EIA? if yes, please state the reason. Should other categories be dropped from your national/regional list/s? if yes, please state the reason.) Verbal-descriptive summary and interpretation of key results Figure 51 presents a summary of the main issues raised regarding the questions quoted above. Main Ideas Mentioned by Stakeholders from No additional project types No change in the list of categories is suggested Austria, Czech republic, Slovak republic No additional project categories were mentioned because France is already very comprehensive (high number of EIAs in France 1000s of impact studies). Furthermore a problem remains with the diversity – there are low instructions and few information about quality of the ecosystem and it is a very complex matter. People avoid to discuss it in a broad sense and try to focus on the presence or absence of specific types of animals and plants, but this is not the ecosystem because relationships are not taken into account. So far the EIA studies do not deal intensively enough with long-term effects and indirect effects – whereby Mr. Biagi is very well aware that it is a difficult topic because not so much knowledge is existing. In France every EIA is not only made on the category but also products used e.g. waste water treatment (used a lot of wooden plate – they had many plates like that – risk of fire – authorisation was needed for storing so many plates and an EIA was necessary for that). That’s why many project applicants reduce storage just to the minimum below threshold, whereby these thresholds are low in France. France No, only one exception. France is dealing with much more than it is asked through the EU directive and in addition has very low thresholds. 5000 – 7000 EIAs are done in France every year. Maybe the only part missing so far is intensive agriculture – here he is not sure if it is covered enough : we have the regulation in the EIA regulations but no related development consent France Pursuant to the legislation in Latvia, the EIA process is divided into two types: 1. Mandatory assessment for activities in Annex I of the Law Case by case assessment for activities listed in Annex II of the Law. In addition, the Law enables to use the EIA process for any activity not listed in Annexes I and II, but if, for example because of its placement there is an assumption that the activity will negatively affect the environment. For this reason, we can state that there is no need to include other activities in the list that should be subject to EIA. Latvia Amendments of legal regulations in the field of EIA was done also on the basis of practical experiences with the work of EIA process in Poland. The aim was to cover necessary activities and to set related thresholds to them as well. We think, the list of activities is adequate today and it is not necessary to add some activities, or to change it in some way. No. Poland (IMP)3 102 Main Ideas Mentioned by Stakeholders from According to the Czech legislation, the EIA procedure is divided by enclosure No.1 of law into: – Compulsory assessment – including the projects of category I. – Finding procedure – including the projects of category II. Law has implemented the EU directive concerning EIA procedure, but the project range is much wider and in many cases threshold values for the Czech Republic are stated more strictly, as it is stated in the EIA directive. This is a reason why it is not necessary to add any other projects in the Czech Republic. Czech republic Don’t think there is a need to add further projects types. However, some planning authorities have raised issues about whether recycling facilities, coastal defences, the infilling of pits (historic pits from which gravel was taken out in the distant past) need an EIA to be done. However some other authorities, perhaps because they were concerned, were requiring EIAs for these kinds of projects so that they were using the flexibility of the Directive to ask for them. Some authorities are asking for changes in wording while others do not seem to have a problem with interpreting the current wording. Can be argued that recycling facilities are a type of waste disposal facility but could be challenged on it. UK Proposed categories of important projects Fibreboard industry Austria, Portugal Projects concerning international sport events as Olympic Games, European or World Championships should not be excluded from the national list. Austria Genetic technology Austria Electronic industry Austria Shooting grounds Austria, Slovak Republic, Portugal Installations, in which genetically modified organisms are disposed Czech republic, Portugal Military installations, Military practice grounds Czech republic, Portugal Removal and storage of asbestos Czech republic Portugal Biotechnologies in general, in particular GMOs. Germany, Slovak Republic, Portugal Golf courses Germany, Ireland, Slovak Republic, Portugal Contaminated Land Ireland Disposal/recovery of waste Ireland Surface water abstraction from water courses Ireland Mine rehabilitation Ireland, Portugal Masts for mobile phones and radio and telecommunication stations Ireland, Sweden, Portugal Production of plastic products – for example the plastic windows and doors (it is a boom now using chemicals, paints). Slovak Republic Production of tires – rubber chemistry. Slovak Republic Installations for evaluation of non hazardous waste Slovak Republic Masts for mobile communication and game stalks Sweden Mine rehabilitation Portugal Transhipment depots Portugal Business parks Portugal Redevelopment of contaminated land (e.g. brown fields, …) Portugal Manufacture of lime Portugal Particle accelerators (of 50 MeV and over) Portugal Installations for flood and/or avalanche protection Portugal (IMP)3 103 Main Ideas Mentioned by Stakeholders from Meat processing plants Portugal Wave energy plants Portugal Organic (biodegradable) wastes recovery Portugal Mussel farming (it is presently missing, once mussel is not fish) Portugal Large commercial units, mostly concerning car parks or parking lots Portugal Other ideas According to the case by case examination in Austria, the trend is to classify many projects as too small for EIAs. So there is an essential need for clear criteria, which projects are environmentally relevant and which are not relevant. Especially concerning industry plants, the existing thresholds often depend less on a project-type’s impact on the environment but more on the strength of the lobbying for high thresholds in order to avoid an EIA for as much projects as possible. (e.g. in the case of galvanization plants) Some industrial branches have a high interest not to be subject to EIAs and are quite successful not being on the list of EIA-relevant projects. So e.g. in Austria, the thresholds for industry plants are less strict than for waste management. Austria Urban development projects are not sufficiently regulated. E.g. for area ‚Hafencity’ a development plan had been drawn up before EIA obligations came into force. Now each building there only needs a normal building permit. But all of them should actually undergo an EIA. What does not really appear, but might also be quite specific to Hamburg, are all kinds of landfills, changing surfaces of water to land. Some kind of area for ‘other projects’ is missing, where experts could decide case-bycase whether the planned projects have likely negative impacts on the environment depending on local circumstances. On the other hand, experiences show that a case-bycase examination in Hamburg in all cases did not result in an EIA obligation. (Since 2002, 43 case-by-case examinations have been carried out, all with the result: no EIA). Screening criteria are too weak, area of discretion for authority is too wide. Cumulation is not handled in practice. Also project criteria (e.g. size of project) is too global. That is how salami slicing is possible – also a lack of transparency for the public and in decision making in general. Implementing the Public Participation Directive 2003/35/EC will hopefully provide for more transparency and improve quality of decisions Germany Generally speaking, I think that now SEA [“Plan-UVP”] is able to compensate for gaps in the project list of EIA. I am very satisfied with the German implementation of the SEA Directive. The SEA project list also includes plan categories that cover project types which are underrepresented in the EIA act, e. g. agricultural and forest management project/plan types (remark of the interviewer: agricultural project types covered by the mandatory EIA project list are intense livestock breeding installations, natural irrigation and drainage projects; forest management project types are deforestations and initial afforestations; in each case depending on defined thresholds). Germany No, EIA law has just been amended – list of projects is fine, problem rather with thresholds for case-by-case examination. Sees maybe difficulties that now some project types only have to undergo an EIA after case-by-case examination and that the authorities may rather decide for no EIA. Will be rather used as a vehicle to circumvent the obligation to undertake an EIA Germany France has a lot of EIA (5000 to 6000/year) so it has good and bad aspects to it. On the good aspects, a lot of projects are submitted to impact assessment but on the other hand, there is not much control for projects others than industrial projects. Industrial projects are submitted to thresholds controls during the project but not the other projects and to my opinion the problem is the sum of small projects in an area (i.e. pig farms where the only criteria to do an EIE lies on number of animals per farms so that small projects are not submitted to an EIE). One should also have a look at if the mobile antennas are put in the text. France The EU directive for EIA process was implemented by a law. However, the extent of projects in the conditions of the Slovak Republic is wider – e.g. cement mills, meat processing industry. In general, each project that affects environment should be assessed and adequate thresholds should be set. Slovak Republic (IMP)3 104 Main Ideas Mentioned by Stakeholders from Many of the listed projects in the interview guide would require an EIA. Project types are listed in an Annex to the Swedish EIA ordinance, alternatively in other Annexes e g re. ecologically harmful installations which must be scrutinized according to the Environmental Code. Sweden has low thresholds in general. It is being discussed that too many EIAs (e g for smaller installations) are being carried out and that there is a need for simplification. Sweden Planning aspects should be better taken into account. EIAs are not sufficiently emphasized in e g The Planning and Building Act. We believe that more projects in general should be the subject of an EIA. Furthermore, strategic environmental impact assessment are crucial for a foresighted planning. Sweden No definite problem areas. Some of these issues have consent regimes that look after these things adequately e.g. removal and disposal of asbestos. So need to be careful not to apply EIA to areas that already have procedures in place. Things like golf courses are missing in the Directive but are picked up in our own UK planning regulations. Some of these gaps are filled. Shooting ranges, typically, the main issue we are looking at is a noise one, it would have a noise assessment carried out on it as part of the planning regime. I think there’s a risk of using EIA to address a single issue and I’m not sure that’s what EIA should be about. Maybe we should be just looking to, thinking of the UK context, the planning system is adequate to deal with that. Directive exempts civil defence projects but our Ministry of Defence has a policy of doing EIAs on those sorts of things because it appreciates that they would probably be required in other circumstances. Masts for mobile phones again it might be another one issue thing of the landscape and visual effect of it or you get into the completely unknown issue of what are the health effects, to which there is no answer at the moment, so you’re not much further forward. As the Directive is at the moment its not far off the mark though you do come across cases where you do get anomalies but I can’t point to one saying here’s a big gap. I guess people would resist some sort of catch-all element within the Directive that gave people the power to capture projects that aren’t absolutely defined in the Directive. In some areas however, the Directive is almost too specific if it was a bit more general it would capture it e.g. pipelines. UK It is not a question of including new projects but of changing the screening method. I’m for a method similar to Canada’s, where screening is made on the basis of previously defined and regulated criteria [and not necessarily through specified and fixed thresholds for certain kinds of projects]. All major projects must undoubtly be subject to mandatory EIA while, for smaller ones, environmental assessment should be considered in the context of spatial planning or within SEA procedures. Portugal Figure 51 Summary of main ideas given to the questions regarding ‘project categories’ Most respondents stated that no changes in their national/regional list of project categories subject to EIA are required, with one exemption: urban development projects are mainly seen to be assessed through SEA rather than EIA. According to the feedback, problems with the national/regional list of project types rather lies in the setting of adequate thresholds than in the selection of categories. Some interviewees indicated that some thresholds are set too low. In the case where no thresholds are set, it has been stated that screening decisions more than likely turn out negatively (no EIA required). Referring to this, caseby-case examinations are regarded as a possible vehicle to circumvent EIA obligations, as some interviewees mentioned that evaluations have shown that most of the examinations decide against EIA. In addition, a need for more specified criteria for assessing the environmental relevance of projects in screening decisions has been noted. Besides these general remarks some additional project types have been proposed which are listed in Figure 51. (IMP)3 105 Some other remarks noted that depending on the national implementation, SEA could in some way compensate for gaps in the EIA project list. E.g. in the case of Germany’s approach of implementing the SEA directive, present legislation also includes plan categories that cover project types which are underrepresented in the EIA act, such as agricultural and forest management projects/plan types (remark of the interviewer: agricultural project types covered by the mandatory EIA project list include intense livestock breeding installations, natural irrigation and drainage projects, forest management project types including deforestation and afforestation, in each case depending on defined thresholds). It has also been mentioned that some kind of area for ‘other projects’ would be useful, where experts could decide case-by-case whether the proposed projects have likely negative impacts on the environment depending on local circumstances. 3.3.2 Issue: ‘Project type descriptions/criteria’ (From your expertise: Are you aware of any difficulties in interpretation of project type descriptions? If yes: For which categories do you possibly see a need for specifying certain descriptions and why? either EU directive or national legislation or both) Verbal-descriptive summary and interpretation of key results The quotes below shall give an idea of the key issues raised by interviewees in relation to the interpretation of project type descriptions. Main Ideas Mentioned by Stakeholders from No difficulties in interpretation of project type descriptions Generally there is no difficulty in interpreting project type descriptions. However, the more important problem is the assessment of the accumulation of projects that is handled in a very different way in the Federal States of Austria. Generally there are no difficulties. Whenever there are discussions, whether a project has to be subject to an EIA, there is a special procedure to clarify this question. No, difficulties do not arise so much because of project type descriptions or definitions of thresholds. No, there is the institution of preliminary negotiation in the Czech Republic, where it is possible to discuss possible uncertainties among participants. However, sensible developers and sensible planning authorities can and do work through and resolve these interpretational issues As there is usually a case by case study, there are no difficulties about project types or thresholds. If for an action no EA is carried out, e.g. because the agency thinks that this action is on the list of the categorically excluded ones, any person with legal interest can sue the federal agency. Austria Germany Czech Republic United Kingdom USA Interpretational problems within certain sectors In general implementation of the directive at the Federal level is too global, especially regarding the sector of urban development. In Hamburg, development plans are already covering the city and some are 30-50 years old. In these cases, it only needs a normal construction permit for buildings, which would require EIA, if a development plan would need to be drawn up. Problem with thresholds for pipelines, especially for urban areas. Germany (IMP)3 112 – suppression of thresholds (general screening process for all categories of projects without any thresholds) – merging Annexes I+II to a single Annex with thresholds) – duplication of categories in Annex I+II with different thresholds) Can you think of any other recommendable approach for a more harmonised coverage of projects with likely significant environmental effects across the EU while leaving enough flexibility for appropriate implementation to suit national circumstances, such as the geographical and socioeconomic conditions? Verbal-descriptive summary and interpretation of key results It was chosen to separately consider each component of the questions asked with regard to the issue “Annexes system”. Figure 55 presents the summary of key results regarding the Question “Should the Commission consider to modify the Annexes system of the Directive in order to provide for a more harmonised application of the Directive across the MSs”. Main Ideas Interviewee Deeper harmonization not desirable or not possible No harmonization is desirable because every country has its especial features and so it would cause more confusion than clarification Czech Republic – consultant France – national government Portugal – consultant – academic institution – national government UK – national government Two screening procedures should remain – screening and mandatory lists Czech Republic – NGO The two Annexes system works well because it profits from the advantages of both screening approaches and thus provides flexibility Austria – National government Czech Republic – NGO Portugal – national government Sweden – Other UK – consultant Not a favourite of thresholds – case-by-case approach by competent authority Germany – regional body No because it works well as it is Sweden – regional body Poland – national Government Portugal – national government The separation between Annex I and Annex II projects is a way of distinguishing different kinds of impacts in terms of magnitude and significance UK – national government For a further harmonization of EIA screening procedures Yes because screening criteria should be better defined in order to avoid too much discretional judgement by the competent authority Germany – other Sweden – national government Harmonization should be applied to the cases of projects for which there is enough scientific and technical development to provide more objectivity Czech Republic – NGO – regional body The definition of sentivive areas should be harmonized Austria – Regional Body The problem of cumulative effects is still unsolved Austria – Regional Body Licensing procedures should be harmonized Portugal – NGO Slovak Republic – NGO (IMP)3 113 Main Ideas Interviewee Other ideas The number of Annexes is not relevant Czech Republic – regional body Latvia – national government Legislative measures are not the most adequate for the harmonization of EIA practice among countries Germany – consultant Portugal – NGO Figure 55 Summary of the main ideas regarding the Question‘ results Being almost an open question, once nothing was initially said as to how the modification of the Annexes system should be made, it aimed at evaluating the interviewees’ general opinions concerning the need for a further harmonization of (screening) EIA procedures among Member States. As it can be seen in the above table, the majority of the interviewees think the present Annexes system should be kept, either because it works well as it is, or because a simplification of screening procedures is not possible due to regional/national specificities. Others feel that there is still a need for further amendments regarding screening criteria or the simplification of licensing procedures. In the former case, interviewees argue that the present two Annexes system works well because of the relative advantages of the use of mandatory lists with thresholds, on the one hand, and the possibility for case-by-case analysis by the EIA authorities, on the other. Environmental impact assessment is set as mandatory for the licensing of major hazardous project types (Annex I) or projects likely to have serious environmental impacts above certain threshold values or specified criteria (Annex II), while the possibility for case-by-case assessments remains whenever the EIA authority believes that a certain project may have a serious impact on the environment given the project’s specific characteristics or higher environmental site sensitivity. Furthermore, some interviewees argue that there is no need for harmonization of the Annexes system. The great diversity of EIA screening procedures is seen as the result of different contextual situations in terms of historical background of EIA regulations and public participation practice, and and so, not a problem in itself. Besides, even acknowledging the need for improvements regarding EIA practice, the (drastic) modification of the Annexes system could lead to more confusion rather than clarification and to the wearing out of people’s dedication and contribution to these issues. The need for clarification concerning the definition of screening criteria, as a means to reduce discretional judgement by the local EIA authorities is one of the arguments supporting the modification of the Annexes system. Mainly because there are certain project types for which the technological and scientific state of the art allows the definition of uniform threshold values above which project developments are expected to have significant environmental impacts. The definition of sensitive areas and the problem of cumulative impacts are also referred to as needing further clarification by the EIA Directive. The need for the simplification of industrial licensing procedures is another argument supporting a further harmonization of the EIA Directive’s Annexes system. Two of the interviewees (Germany – consultant; Portugal – NGO) doubted that the problems pertaining to the application of the EIA Directive among MSs may be solved or at least dealt with through legislative measures. They suggest other measures, such a strengthening the scoping (IMP)3 114 phase or having different types of EIA procedures – full or detailed EIA versus a simplified procedure – as more effective for the simplification of administrative proceedings and consequently for a more thorough analysis of the really important and relevant issues. Figure 57 presents a summary of the responses given to the follow-up question, where interviewees were asked to give their opinion regarding the advantages/disadvantages of three possible types of modifications to the present Annexes system, namely: a. suppression of thresholds b. merging Annexes I+II to a single Annex with thresholds and c. duplication of categories in Annex I+II with different thresholds Only 11 out of 53 interviewees answered to this question. To: Suppression of thresholds This was regarded quite prejudicial by some of the interviewees who answered to this follow-up question. As the main disadvantages of this approach, they mentioned the high risk of evasion from the EIA procedure and the overload of administrative proceedings owing to the undertaking of case-by-case analysis for every new project independently of its dimension. Nevertheless, there were also positive opinions regarding the suppression of thresholds approach. The Portuguese consultant devised it as a positive measure if projects lists were kept according to a traffic-light format; the Polish National Government representative saw in it a good possibility for the consideration of national specificities, while the Slovak Republic NGO’s stressed the fact that there would be no projects exempt from EIA, although recognizing it would result in the overload of administrative capacities. To: Merging Annexes I and II Merging Annexes I and II was positively regarded by one of the German stakeholders as well as by the Austrian’s regional body representative, who referred to the need to keep case-by-case assessments as an important complementary (to thresholds) tool for the evaluation of environmental impacts. While the Czech consultant and the Polish and Latvian National Government representatives regarded of little relevance having one or two Annexes, the Slovak Republic NGO’s saw in it a simplification, albeit considering that setting up threshold values could be of some difficulty. As for the British consultant, a single list would lead to a more discretionary judgement in the screening procedure. (IMP)3 115 To: Duplication of categories in Annexes I + II with different thresholds As for the duplication of categories’s approach, the Portuguese regional body and Slovak Republic National Government representatives pointed out the advantages of a more flexible and fair solution for the consideration of regional specificities as well as a simpler approach for the definition of those projects for which thresholds would be set and those supposed to be assessed through a case-by-case analysis. On the other hand, the Slovak Republic NGO representative regarded it as a “useless repetition of activities”, while one interviewee from Germany drew the attention to the fact that, similarly to what happens in the case of the present german EIA law, it would be quite difficult to distinguish general case-by-case assessments from those regarded in the context of site-sensitivity. Figure 58 presents the main suggestions given in response to the Question: “Can you think of any other recommendable approach for a more harmonised coverage of projects with likely significant environmental effects across the EU while leaving enough flexibility for appropriate implementation to suit national circumstances, such as the geographical and socio-economic conditions?”. Apart from adverse opinions to new amendments to the EIA Directive – arising either from the feeling that the present system works well and should suit the main purpose of environmental impact assessment if well applied or from regarding harmonization as not that an important objective, quite a lot of suggestions were made. These concerned mainly changes to the screening methods and to the EIA procedure as well as suggestions pertaining to general good practice. Interviewees’ opinions about the contribution to a more harmonized coverage of projects of having new modifications to the screening procedure varied between contrasting positions, reflecting their opinion on the relative importance of flexibility versus simplification In fact, while some interviewees feel that avoiding case-by-case analysis and applying the same threshold values may lead to seriously inaccurate impact assessments, others see uniform threshold values for all mandatory projects as a guarantee for the achievement of the same level of environmental protection among all Member States. This mainly because high levels of discretion in the choice of screening tools and criteria by each MS is seen as a likely cause for different interpretations of the Directive Annexes’ content. In-between there were several intermediate solutions suggested, such as keeping both Annexes, while adding new project types to Annex I, as may be the case of having more IPPC activities or resetting certain threshold values and screening criteria taking into account other control regimes such as the Habitats Directive regulations. As for changes to the EIA procedure interviewees referred to a mandatory scoping phase, the consideration of certain broader issues at strategic level and the integration of EIA into other licensing and physical land-use planning procedures. In some interviewees’ opinion, the integration of EIA into other licensing and physical land-use planning procedures would lead to a more integrated environmental assessment of projects and activities and thus to the improvement of EIA outcome as a whole. (IMP)3 116 In the case of Austria’s regional body representative, SEA is seen as an adequate tool for dealing with social issues, accounting maybe for the opinion that ruling social issues out from EIA could lead to more objectivity and thus perhaps to the harmonization of EIA regulations among MS. Another interesting idea – pointed out by Austrian and German stakeholders – was of screening decisions done (exclusively) by a central EIA authority, probably as a way of increasing objectivity in the final screening decision. Other types of recommendations concern awareness-raising measures and good practice guidance within each Member State. It has been mentioned that there should also be more studies on EIA practice as a means to identify main shortcomings that could be prevented in the future. The need for more guidance as well as more research regarding EIA practice was, in fact, one of the proposals most often referred to. Figure 56 Main ideas of the answers given to the Question “Should the Commission consider to modify the Annexes system of the Directive in order to provide for a more harmonised application of the Directive across the MSs” per country and per stakeholder Should the Commission consider modifying the Annexes system towards a more harmonized application of the Directive? Country/ Stakeholder Maybe not, because… Yes, because… AUSTRIA Consultant Austrian EIA system is considerably based on case-by-case examinations. Regional body Case-by-case examinations provide flexibility to decide whether smaller projects should also be subject to EIA. The problem of cumulative effects of (several) smaller projects (below selected thresholds) in the same area is still unsolved. Case by case examinations for all projects would require much time and financial resources. Mandatory lists of projects requiring EIA above specified thresholds is applicable and provides legal certainty. The definition of sensitive areas should be harmonized. The problem of cumulative effects of (several) smaller projects (below selected thresholds) in the same area is still unsolved. National Government The present (two Annexes) system works well because, for larger projects (mandatory list) there is no discussion on whether they should be subject to EIA or not, while case-by-case examinations for projects below specified thresholds provide flexibility to account for specific circumstances. It is difficult to change the existing system, so caution is needed when changing EU regulations. It is also necessary to consider the time gap between the lauch of new regulations and the full application of the new law. In general, harmonized regulations concerning large and small facilities are needed. Licensing procedures of technical facilities should be harmonized. Regional Body Yes but, in some cases, the use of threshold values and criteria does not allow for the best evaluation of the (environmental) impacts involved. So case-by-case assessment should always be necessary. CZECH REPUBLIC Consultant Every country has its special conditions (natural, social or other) and the list of projects must reflect those different conditions. NGO Two categories of projects should remain: mandatory assessment and screening. However, considering some major and common project types for which there is already enough technical and scientific knowledge, as may be the case of wind power plants, the actual list of project types should be regularly reviewed towards more harmonized and up-to-date threshold values. National Government We don’t find it necessary. Consultant The number of project list is merely a technical detail of little relevance. The threshold values system should be revised concerning the need for uniform market conditions throughout all MS. On the other hand, these threshold and specification values should be revised (at least once every 5 years) due to technical knowledge development. Should the Commission consider modifying the Annexes system towards a more harmonized application of the Directive? Country/ Stakeholder Maybe not, because… Yes, because… GERMANY Regional body Personally not a favourite of thresholds! It is very important to have in mind the overall context in each case. The EIA decision should thus be performed in every case by the EIA competent authority (based on a case-by-case approach). Consultant Does not believe that achieving common standards in all member states may be attained through legislative measures. My suggestion goes to strengthening the scoping phase in order to previously define the most important impacts to assess. Furthermore, there could also be the possibility for a lighter EIA procedure for projects with minor impacts on the environment. EIA procedures are usually quite overloaded with lots of unnecessary information. [see also question No. 18] Others (Berlin University) In general, criteria should be more accurately defined. The lack of objectivity in the criteria used in the screening procedure leads most of the times to the addressing of the screening decision to the competent authorities and thus subject to a great deal of discretion. FRANCE Consultant Personally I find it rather complicated: either you have an EIA or not! National Government The two Annexes system is a complex one, difficult to understand. It is worth trying to simplify the Annexes system but considers it a difficult task due to the main perspectives on this subject: there are those countries that rely mainly on case-by-case assessments and there are those that prefer the threshold values approach, seen as a safer one. IRELAND Others (EPA) Possibly, but thresholds should not be raised LATVIA National Government The number of Annexes is nor relevant. The principle of setting project types, criteria and thresholds is substantial. POLAND National Government We accept the Directive. Should the Commission consider modifying the Annexes system towards a more harmonized application of the Directive? Country/ Stakeholder Maybe not, because… Yes, because… PORTUGAL Consultant There should be no modifications because each country has its own special features. NGO It is a less relevant issue, once there will always be certain features whose modification does not depend only in the way regulations are made. More important than the screening procedure should be a better integration of EIA with other control regimes, such as IPPC for the case of industrial licensing. Regional body It is a common Directive, after all! Researcher Each country has its own conditions and legal system. That is why the transposition of the Directive 85/337/EEC and of its amendment – Directive 97/11/EU – resulted in so many different EIA systems and proceedings throughout the Member States that already adopted it. More important than having harmonized EIA procedures and regulations is knowing whether the environmental impact assessment practised in each and every country aims in fact at a more effective environmental protection and a better public participation in the final decision, whatever the means that are used. National Government It works well as it is. Besides, each country has its own specific conditions. SLOVAK REPUBLIC Consultant Not in that sense. However, the harmonization of the EIA and IPPC procedures should be considered in order to ensure that all projects covered by the IPPC regulations are also subject to EIA. Threshold values considered in both these Directives should be expressed in the same units, what is presently not the case. National Government Yes NGO The principle of thresholds should be preserved. However, threshold values should be regularly revaluated Should the Commission consider modifying the Annexes system towards a more harmonized application of the Directive? Country/ Stakeholder Maybe not, because… Yes, because… SWEDEN Consultant Useful for drawing up of conclusions. There is no international experience on harmonization of criteria, except for the case of Natura 2000 network. Regional Body We should stick to the current system: it is being assimilated by the different Member States at a regular rate now and it is good enough. Useful, especially when It comes to transnational projects. National Government The number of EIAs varies greatly among the different Member States, perhaps due to different interpretations of Annex I. NGO The 2 Annexes system is advantageous because it provides flexibility. Some Annex II project types should pass to Annex I. UNITED KINGDOM Scottish Government The separation between Annex I and Annex II is a means of distinguishing different kinds of impacts in terms of magnitude and significance. In spite of the advantages of having consistent EIA regulations throughout European Union Member States, the cascading effect of national, regional and local changes derived from EU Directives amendments tends to create greater confusion rather than clarification. Unless these changes would really solve the problems arising from national and regional different transposition of the EIA Directive, it could be more effective to have some clarification on the current set of criteria and regulations – focus on guidance – instead of reamending the EIA Directive. Consultant The 2-Annexes system works well in terms of clarity. Figure 57 Main ideas of the answers given to the follow-up Question regarding pros and cons for different approaches per country and per stakeholder Pros and Cons of the Following approches Country/ Stakeholder Suppression of Thresholds Merging Annexes I and II to a single Annex with thresholds Duplication of categories in Annexes I + II with different thresholds AUSTRIA Regional Body In general, merging of Annexes I and II is appreciated. However, in some cases, exceeding a specified threshold is not the most adequate means to describe the impact properly, so that case-by-case examinations are important as well. CZECH REPUBLIC Consultant The number of project list is merely a technical detail of little relevance. GERMANY Berlin University The risk of circumventing EIA through case-by-case examinations would be too high. These regulations should not ever be soft; that would be a step backwards relative to all the work done so far. I support this approach. If, for instance, a certain project type is not relevant for a specified MS, it does not matter. Counter question: what happens below the specified threshold values? No EIA or screening procedure? This approach is similar to the German amended EIA law. However, as in the former, distinction between “A” (general screening) and “S” (site-related screening) cases is difficult. Consultant I could not disagree more because it would considerably overstrain administrative proceedings and EIA procedures are already complicated enough, given the need for the assessment of cumulative and interaction effects besides regular proceedings. LATVIA National Government The number of Annexes is nor relevant. The principle of setting project types, criteria and thresholds is substantial. POLAND National Government Agrees because each country needs different thresholds according to individual conditions. Does not agree. The question of having one or two Annexes is a technical one of little relevance. No. (IMP)3 128  Demand for adequate reference to the actual impacts on the environment in setting thresholds values rather than focusing on values responding to the project details;  Providing more specific guidance;  Knowledge sharing and greater diffusion of good practice;  The strengthening of provision for EIA training; and  Introducing SEA is expected to become a helpful tool to tackle some of the above mentioned issues. In general, the harmonization of screening procedures is regarded as advantageous by most of the respondents given the present disparities in screening procedures among MSs. Converging levels of environmental protection as well as more straightforward screening methods are the main reasons supporting the increasing harmonization of EIA practice among MSs. Several approaches to the modification of the present Annexes system have been proposed as to the way this progressive harmonization of the screening procedures might be accomplished. Respondents have been asked about their opinion concerning the advantages and disadvantages of (1) merging the two Annexes into one list of mandatory list with thresholds similar to Annex I of the EIA Directive, (2) duplicating the project lists or even (3) suppressing thresholds. In spite of the relative advantages of each of these modifications, it has been argued that the simplification of the Annexes system would raise several legal administrative and technical problems, besides the political cost of introducing new amendments to the Directive. EIA procedures are applied to a greater or lesser extent within development control and physical land-use planning systems, which remain national prerogatives (Glasson & Belanger, 2003). Given the considerable differences among EU planning systems and administrative practice concerning licensing procedures, it is still very difficult to foresee what a uniform European EIA system might look like. In addition, a number of countries (e.g. Belgium, Spain and Italy) have EIA regulations enacted at regional level, which makes the simplification of EIA (screening) procedures an even more difficult task. On the other hand, discretionary judgement by the local EIA authorities will hardly cease to exist, given different environmental and social specificities, particularly in the cases of impact accumulation and sensitive areas. Case-by-case assessments, taking into account specified screening criteria (Annex II of the EIA Directive plus guidance produced at national level) was referred to by the great majority of the respondents as the only means to account for local conditions and thus properly forecast the environmental effects of a certain development project. In fact, as Weston (2000) suggests regarding the British case, “while indicative thresholds can help the process, much of screening still relies upon professional judgement”36 (page 197). But most important of all is to realise that impact significance assessment involves the use of both predetermined criteria (previously established) and judgemental criteria (Weston 2000), even when setting up threshold values, as Wood and Becker (2005) point out. Deciding e.g. upon the number 36 Weston, J. (2000): EIA, Decision-making Theory and Screening and Scoping in UK Practice – Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(2), 185–203 (IMP)3 129 of sows a pig farm must have in order to be subject to an EIA procedure will always be a political decision, based on social, economic and cultural values besides scientific knowledge (Wood & Becker, 2005). Besides, impact significance chiefly depends on the perception of the risks a certain project development poses to the environment. Public concern and pressure can thus lead to subjecting certain projects to EIA despite their exemption according to more traditional screening criteria evaluation (Gonçalves, 2002, Wood & Becker, 2005). Most countries (e.g. Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden) have introduced additional project types to their screening lists or set stricter threshold values above which EIA is mandatory in all cases. The increasing experience with EIA practice has led to an increasing demand for environmental protection as well as to a better understanding of environmental processes and its relations towards several development projects. Considerations of amendments to the EIA Directive should incorporate some of the above mentioned suggestions towards a more harmonized EIA practice among MSs but it may hardly and questionably lead to the complete simplification of (screening) procedures. In other words, present screening arrangements have an important room for improvement, albeit keeping the existing rationale, i.e., maintaining a controlled flexibility through the two Annexes system. Despite the obvious scope for improvement in the above mentioned issues of concern, it is noteworthy that any change to the Directive or any other regulation should be considered carefully. This study can only offer some advice in this field. Further investigations particularly focusing on technical details would be needed to underpin the need for taking action in terms of how the identified concerns could be efficiently solved. In the short term, some weak points of the European practice in the use of EIA could be tackled with non-legislative actions, such as greater diffusion of good practice, better provision and use of EIA guidance, better focused EIA research and the strengthening of provision for EIA training. In due course, a well justified amendment of the EIA Directive could be necessary to further support the successful application of EIA in Europe. (IMP)3 130 (IMP)3 131 5 POLICY OPTIONS This chapter presents a range of policy options on how a more consistent coverage of project types that should be subject to EIA can be achieved. Drawing on the findings of this study it has been possible to identify six policy options which encompass the range of actions that the European Commission could take to improve the implementation of EIA with regard to project types subjected to EIA. The development of a series of policy options, as opposed to a simple list of recommendations, is a more robust approach as it recognizes that different levels of action are possible and that each has advantages and disadvantages. By doing so, our aim is to provide a solid basis for informed discussion and decision-making on the various ways forward. The six policy options are: 1. Policy Option 0: Zero option: No change/do nothing 2. Policy Option 1: Guidance plus supportive measures 3. Policy Option 2: Minor amendment to the EIA directive plus supportive measures 4. Policy Option 3: Moderate amendment to the EIA directive plus supportive measures 5. Policy Option 4: Major amendment to the EIA directive plus supportive measures 6. Policy Option 5: Radical amendment to the EIA directive plus supportive measures Figure 59 provides a summary of the regulatory and supporting measures that form the basis of each of the six options. The following sections describe each of the six main policy options in greater detail and list their advantages and disadvantages in the form of a SWOT-Analysis. Guidance Supportive measures Regulatory measures Amendment to EIA Directive Policy option [European policy level] Upgrade New guidance dissemination activities Awarenessraising training knowledgesharing research coordination of procedures implementation support Changes to Annex III Changes to Annex II Changes to Annex I+II New Annex 0 No change/Do nothing 1 Guidance plus supportive measures X X X X X X 2 Minor amendment to the EIA directive plus supportive measures X X X X X X X 3 Moderate amendment to the EIA directive plus supportive measures X X X X X X X X X X 4 Major amendment to the EIA directive plus supportive measures X X X X X X X X X X 5 Radical amendment to the EIA directive plus supportive measures X X X X X X X X X X Figure 59 Overview Policy Options (IMP)3 133 5.1 General remarks Harmonisation across the EU in the application of environmental Directives while ensuring sufficient implementation regarding the purpose of the Directives is a challenging task. Legislation introduced to meet imposed policy objectives depends largely on existing institutional frameworks within countries, as well as past practice. For example, the land use planning systems vary greatly across the EU, with some countries requiring both planning and environmental permits, others having a single authorisation procedure. There are also other licensing procedures in place deriving either from national requirements such as from other EU directives, which potentially cause overlaps and show differences in their national implementation. But not only do the institutional frameworks vary largely, but also the state of the environment such as social and economic circumstances differ from state to state. Significant impacts on the environment mainly result from a combination of the nature of a project and the site sensitivity, which may also vary largely between the MSs. Clearly this diversity necessarily leads to differences in implementation. Therefore, it is crucial while considering a system to cover all project types with likely significant effects on the environment through the EIA directive to leave enough flexibility for the Member States to meet their national/regional circumstances, while at the same time safeguard a robust mechanism for a consistent coverage of those project types. The Commission's Five Year Report “On the Application and Effectiveness of the EIA Directive (Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC): How successful are the Member States in implementing the EIA Directive?” emphasises that Member States have to step up implementation of the Directive. It was revealed that there were still some Member States who have not implemented the EIA directive, some four years after the deadline had passed. About 30% of open infringement cases concerned gaps identified by the Commission in national laws intended to transpose the directive. But about 65% of the infringement cases concern bad application of the directive in relation to individual projects. Therefore EIA is one of the sectors of Community environmental law where Member States have the worst implementation record. Nevertheless, there are several reasons why amendments to the EIA Directive are not on the short term agenda. One is the recently adopted amendment that introduces additional obligations with regard to public participation and access to justice (in line with the Aarhus Convention; (Directive 2003/35/EC)) and which has to be transposed by the Member States. Another reason is the adoption of the SEA Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment should have been transposed by Member States by 21 July 2004 and is still an ongoing process. In some Member States the strong link with the EIA Directive could strengthen the administrative capacities of the respective authorities in their assessment procedures and will complement in many cases the application and better implementation of the EIA Directive. Implementation of the SEA Directive may also reveal additional difficulties in environmental assessment practices that need to be taken into account in a future amendment of the EIA Directive. In the long term, a well-founded amendment of the EIA Directive may be necessary to further support the successful application of EIA. Meanwhile the Commission can improve implementation of the directive and tackle implementation gaps by continuously monitoring the directive's enforcement and by preparing guidance in consultation with member states, the new member states and stakeholders like NGOs, local and regional authorities and industry. Also targeted research activity and encouraging capacity building programmes will contribute to an enhanced application of the EIA directive. (IMP)3 134 Building on the IMP (3) research results, the formulation of the policy options follows a line from “zero action/do nothing” option to a “radical change” option. Each policy option contains a combination of supportive and regulative measures, which should be seen as potential examples of actions that could be taken by the Commission to enhance the Directive’s application in terms of proper assessment of projects likely to cause adverse impacts. This line of increasing potential actions described in the policy options should be seen as interrelated to a time factor starting with short term activity and moving to long term changes. Each option contains a combination of supportive and regulative measures as potential examples of actions, but various combinations are possible and more than likely useful. Engaging in areas of supporting, coordination or complementary action can be traced from shortto medium-term, whereas more regulative mechanisms could be tackled long-term by building on growing experience and knowledge. It should be emphasized that, before taking up any suggested action, the actual need for complementary measures and/or changes to the Directive should be considered carefully. The following potential options to tackle identified concerns can only offer some advice in this field. Further inquiries would be necessary to underpin the need for taking certain actions combined with an outcome analysis of parallel ongoing studies in terms of how the identified issues of concern could be efficiently solved. An enhancement of the Directive’s application can only be obtained through taking measures that are underpinned by a well-founded knowledge base. (IMP)3 135 5.2 Policy Option 0: “Zero option: No change/do nothing” 5.2.1 Description The “zero” option assumes that:  Screening will continue to be based on the present Annexes system: Annex I for mandatory projects, and Annex II which include projects subjected to certain thresholds defined by MSs. The EU Directive also contemplates the possibility of a case-by-case analysis. This type of approach is part of the screening method in several countries;  Types of projects listed in Annex I+II to the Directive will remain untouched; and  Present criteria/thresholds and definitions used in the Directive persist. A SWOT-Analysis for Policy Option 0 is provided on the next page. (IMP)3 136 5.2.2 SWOT Analyses SWOT-Analysis Policy Option 0 Strengths Weaknesses  No cost  No additional work required  No political bargaining  No change to legislative, guidance and institutional frameworks  Comfortable to most MSs as existing systems can be kept  No progress or slow progress  Diverging approach across Europe  No adjustment to technical developments regarding adapting certain thresholds and/or introducing new project types  Missing links to the requirements deriving from other Directives such as remaining overlaps  Missing co-ordination with requirements of the SEA Directive  Uncertainty remains in interpreting certain definitions  Legal uncertainty for screening decisions remains  Heterogeneous implementation among Member States will continue to cause problems in the transboundary context Opportunities Threats  The present situation allows for a certain degree of freedom of MSs in defining their national screening system such as keeping the screening system according to national/regional EIA procedure  The determination of different screening systems enables the consideration of national specificities  Coverage of project types subject to EIA results from taking national/regional specificities into account  MSs have to account for potentially adjusting the setting of criteria and/or thresholds due to national/regional frameworks  Further experience with present application can be gained  By keeping the present regulatory system resources can be used for improving EIA practice  ECJ such as national court rulings are often needed – timeand costintensive  Lack of more specified screening criteria gives rise to situations of infringements among MSs  Lack of harmonization between screening systems among MSs originates problems in the case of projects causing transnational impacts;  Level of dissatisfaction with application increases for certain issues  Application does not fulfill the purpose of the Directive anymore throughout all MSs  Double assessments through obligations from other Directives and/or regulations  New project types with likely significant effects will not be covered Concluding remarks Deciding to not take action will depend mainly on political appreciation of values, whether the identified strengths and opportunities of this Option give strong enough arguments to accept the inherent threats. Keeping the present situation allows for gaining more experience with the existing system, which could provide a more profound basis for future amendments. Having in mind though that changing the legal regulations will require a long period of time, it could be argued that recognizing the identified weaknesses and threats it would be recommendable to take action soon, either in areas of supporting and complementary action and/or regulative measures. Figure 60 SWOT-Analysis for Policy Option Zero (IMP)3 137 5.3 Policy Option 1: Guidance plus supportive measures 5.3.1 Description Key issues: enhancement of existing guidance and/or elaborating new guidance plus supportive measures This Policy Option concentrates on “soft” measures to enhance the application of the Directive with regard to the WP focus without changing it as such. This would e.g. include a revision of the existing EIA – Guidance on Screening (EC, 2001) such as the screening checklist and the preparation of new guidance for clarifying certain definitions (also with respect to co-ordination with other relevant EU Directives) and/or the application of project types (Annex I & II). In addition, new guidance would also refer to the selection criteria applied to Annex II projects (Annex III). New guidance for accumulation assessment with particular regard to linkages to the SEA directive could also be considered. Policy Option 1 will also cover further potential supportive measures, which the Commission could consider to engage in, such as offering training for implementation and support mechanisms for knowledge sharing etc. Enhancement of existing guiding material should focus on:  Improving and extending the existing EU EIA Guidance on Screening – update of the screening checklist  Improving and extending the existing EU EIA Guidance on Scoping  Review of the guidelines on the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as impact interactions  Review of the EU EIA review checklist with particular regard to linkages to SEA  Improved definition for “sensitive areas” – link to Habitats Directive Developing new guidance should in general address the following issues:  Co-ordination with other Directives through clear interpretations or additions to varying definitions to avoid overlaps and support a mutual complement (potentially over IMPEL Network)  Harmonization of the EIA Directive with the relevant international conventions and agreements regarding lists of project types and descriptions  Licensing procedures (e.g. different procedural approaches for small/large facilities)  Improved application of screening criteria  Cumulative effects assessment  EIA Follow-up and Monitoring  Biodiversity and EIA One application of EIA guidance materials in general is to urge proponents to incorporate environmental issues and considerations into the design stages of a project. To further increase the (IMP)3 144 The following addition of new categories could be contemplated, based on the responses to the questionnaire sent to prepare the Commissions 5 years’ report40 combined with the Questionnaire and Interview analysis from IMP (3): Project category Suggested by the majority41 of Stakeholders addressed within IMP³ Suggested by MSs mentioned in the 5 years report Golf courses Installations working with certain Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) or pathogenic micro-organism such as laboratories, test facilities, trial areas Military practice grounds Masts for mobile phones and radio or telecommunication stations Business parks Redevelopment of contaminated land Transshipment depots Installations for the manufacture of particle and fibreboard Figure 63 Additional project categories suggested within IMP³ and the 5 years report 40 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive (Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC). How successful are the Member States in implementing the EIA Directive. 41 „Majority“ refers to: Ticked in the Response to the Questionnaire by more than 40 % of the Stakeholders and mentioned by at least two Interviewees. Project categories mentioned either only in the Responses to the Questionnaire or by Interviewees are not listed here. (IMP)3 145 5.5.2 SWOT Analyses SWOT-Analysis Policy Option 3 Strengths Weaknesses  Substantial demonstration of the Commission’s commitment to improving environmental protection  Member States obliged to take action  Supports Member States’ progress  Likely provides for a more consistent approach across Member States.  More effort and financial and personnel resources needed than Options 1 and 2  Will take longer to implement than Options 1 or 2  Politically more sensitive than Options 1 and 2  Reconcilement of national interests could be difficult Opportunities Threats  Deeper and more sustained progress in EIA process.  Will drive change and hence be even more effective than Options 1 and 2 at effecting change in EIA practice  Supports better co-ordination between Member States, in particular regarding the transboundary sector.  Some Member States and EIA stakeholders are likely to be very resistant to amending the Directive  Changes to the Directive may still lead to little improvement in EIA practice within Member States Concluding remarks Due to the changes which have been realized in the revision of Annex II, combined with the measures outlined in Policy Option 2, significant improvement to the application of EIA is expected. However, it will not provide for the obligatory assessment of certain additional types of projects, which, based on their significant impact on the environment would warrant an EIA process. It is therefore necessary to consider very carefully the required effort and expected outcome in terms of a more consistent and comprehensive capture of project types with likely significant adverse effects. Figure 64 SWOT-Analysis for Policy Option 3 (IMP)3 146 5.6 Policy Option 4: Major amendment to the EIA directive plus supportive measures 5.6.1 Description Key issues: Changes to lists of project types in Annex I & II including a revision of all project type descriptions, thresholds, and the selection criteria to be applied (Annex III) combined with supportive measures Policy Option 4 proposes a revision of the lists of project types included, at present, in Annex I and Annex II, with possible reallocations of project types between these two Annexes and/or introduction of additional project types. This reflects the implications of the emergence of new types of projects and/or the possible reclassification of project types with minor relevance regarding their significant impacts, if applicable. Furthermore, a revision would in particular address linkages to the SEA Directive. This option would also be combined with a revision of Annex III, taking all relevant actions of Policy Options 1 and 2 into account and implement further supportive measures. A revision would in particular address:  Review of project categories listed in Annex I+II considering: – Linkages to other Directives and in particular the SEA directive; – emergence of new project types to be added; – reclassification of project types with minor relevance regarding their significant impacts. At present, the SEAand EIA-Directives are only directly linked in one way (article 3(2) of Directive 2001/42/EC requires SEA for those plans and programs, which set the framework for future development consent of EIA projects). Having the concept of tiering in mind, a linkage of SEAand EIA-Directives regarding the assessment of activities with likely adverse effects on the environment could e.g. consider the following issues: – Raising the assessment of cumulative impacts, indirect effects and large-scale effects to the strategic level and unburden EIA procedures – removal of categories, where such impacts are likely inherent (e.g. urban development, major windfarms); – Special provisions for the transport sector. As for an improved co-ordination with the SEA Directive, the results of the recently published study on ‘The Relationship between the EIA and SEA Directives’ (2005)42 in particular should be taken into account. A consideration of adding new categories to the Directives Annexes could follow the suggested project types listed under Policy Option 3. Within these categories Figure 65 shows suggestions made by IMP³ Stakeholders for which project types an assessment should be mandatory and/or should be subject to a specified criteria/threshold. 42 Imperial College London Consultants (2005): The Relationship between the EIA and SEA Directives. London. (IMP)3 147 Project category Mandatory assessment Subject to a specified criteria/threshold Suggested by the majority of Stakeholders addressed within IMP³ and MSs in the 5 years report Golf courses Installations working with certain Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) or pathogenic micro-organism such as laboratories, test facilities, trial areas Military practice grounds Masts for mobile phones and radio or telecommunication stations Business parks Redevelopment of contaminated land Transshipment depots Suggested by MSs mentioned in the 5 years report Installations for the manufacture of particle and fibreboard Figure 65 Allocation for suggested project categories in “mandatory” and/or “subject to a specified criteria/Threshold”  Review of the present project type definitions and thresholds: The need for a review arises from concerns that, in the past, incomplete or unclear project descriptions have led to legal uncertainties in the screening decisions such as the Annex I threshold set does not provide the right trigger in some cases. Effective project descriptions bring greater efficiency and predictability. Well-defined project descriptions will also contribute to connect the various planning levels. [Annex I shows a table which could provide a basis for considerations regarding a revision of Annex I project definitions. It contains relevant project definitions from other directives, guidance materials such as from other sources and identifies open questions for further elaboration.]  Revision of Annex III as suggested in Policy Option 2 A Revision of Annex III should include the actions proposed in Policy Option 2 with additional criteria linking the strategic (SEA) with the operational (EIA) level, such as e.g. – Proposed development activity shall be (originally) included in the relevant plans and programs. This would strengthen SEA while at the same time unburden EIA. (IMP)3 148 5.6.2 SWOT Analyses SWOT-Analysis Policy Option 4 Strengths Weaknesses  Member States obliged to take action  More consistent decision-making across Member States  Respond to MSs concerns about certain vagueness in project type descriptions  Alignment of the EIA Directive’s Annexes to other Directives  Adjustment to technical developments regarding adapting certain thresholds and/or introducing new project types  High effort and resources needed  Political bargaining will be necessary  Long time span has to be calculated until changes become effective  Difficult to establish and agree upon robust thresholds/criteria for new project categories Opportunities Threats  Allows for greater harmonization regarding coverage of project types with likely adverse significant effects on the environment  Better co-ordination with other Directives will consolidate licensing procedures and therefore reduce duplication and overlap with other approval systems  Particularly a closer linkage of SEA and EIA through an efficient tiering concept will avoid duplication in the production of knowledge  Effective project type descriptions will allow for higher legal certainty in the screening decision and thus contribute to saving of time and cost for the competent authorities  Contributes to an improved application of EIA in the transboundary context  Some Member States and EIA stakeholders are likely to be very resistant to amending the Directive  Transposition of the amendments and necessary alignments to national framework could likely again produce inhomogeneous application Concluding remarks If changes to the Directive are considered it is important to start as soon as practicable as a long time span has to be calculated until changes become effective. A stakeholder conference (“Think-tank”) could be a starting point to gather expert knowledge and experience. This could reduce the inherent weakness of this option regarding resource and cost intensity through building on existing expert skills. The most difficult threat to overcome is more than likely getting political support and endorsement from the Member States, which is vital for negotiating changes and introducing them into national frameworks. Figure 66 SWOT-Analysis for Policy Option 4 (IMP)3 149 5.7 Policy Option 5: Radical amendment to the EIA directive plus supportive measures 5.7.1 Description Key issues: Abolishing Annex II entirely with consequential changes to Annex I leading to a simplified list of projects with indicative or guidance thresholds and criteria, where EIA must be considered. Additionally, inclusion or mandatory thresholds and criteria, where EIA is required combined with necessary supportive measures. Policy Option 5 proposes an introduction of a new screening procedure based on a single list of project types (an enlarged version of present Annex I), with indicative or guidance thresholds and criteria where EIA must be considered, and inclusion or mandatory thresholds and criteria, where EIA is required following the so-called “traffic light approach”43. EIA is required Inclusion or Mandatory Threshold/Criteria Indicative or Guidance Threshold/Criteria EIA must be considered – case-by-case examination Exclusion Thresholds/Criteria Increasing impact No EIA is required (optional to introduce) Figure 67 ‘Traffic-light’ approach to screening For each listed project category mandatory criteria/thresholds would be set, where projects above these thresholds will require mandatory assessment. Projects below the mandatory thresholds need a case-by-case examination undertaken by the competent national authority, which must formally decide whether or not a project would or would not be likely to have significant effects on the environment. It could be left optional for Member States to additionally introduce exclusion thresholds/criteria, where projects below these thresholds will not require EIA. Exclusion thresholds will need to take into account not just the scale of any development but also the sensitivity of its location and other criteria (e.g. cumulative effects) in Annex III. All Criteria/thresholds must be precisely defined for each project category and with the intention to be applied by all Member 43 ‘traffic light’ approach to screening: combination of inclusion thresholds (EIA always required – Red), exclusion thresholds (EIA never required – Green) and indicative or guidance thresholds (EIA may be required – Amber). (see also: Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive (Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC). How successful are the Member States in implementing the EIA Directive, p.3). (IMP)3 150 States. National legislation and regulations could in any case, add other categories to this European list, defining for these categories, similar or different EIA procedures according to national and regional circumstances and EIA practices. A single list of projects would reflect an analogous approach such as that used in other related EU Directives and a closer linkage of the screening procedure with the actual impacts on the environment. Indicative thresholds and criteria would also leave the flexibility to adjust Member States legislation and regulations to national and regional circumstances and EIA practices. This radical change of the present Annexes system would by all means need supportive measures such as new guidance and training. 5.7.2 SWOT Analyses SWOT-Analysis Policy Option 5 Strengths Weaknesses  Leads to a deeper harmonization of screening procedures among MSs  Allows for EC’s broader control over the EIA system of MSs  Provides economic agents with similar competition conditions throughout the European market  Reflects an analogous approach used in other related Directives  Reduces overlaps with other related approval systems  Constitutes a robust and transparent system  Is bound to further increase the selectivity of the EIA process (a single Annex is likely to have fewer project types than the present Annex I + Annex II)  Shows less flexibility inherent to the application of different criteria and thresholds  Difficult to implement by MSs  Reduces the scope to address cumulative impacts generated by close-by developments Opportunities Threats  Reduces misunderstandings in transboundary conflicts  Leads to a higher environmental protection  The need to assess on a case-by-case basis whether or not a project needs EIA in case it falls below the thresholds defined in the single list will result in a more responsible and proactive role of environmental administration  It is likely to attract significant opposition of MSs  May lead to an overload of administrative work in the case of those MSs with centralized EIA administrative procedures with little experience in case-by-case assessments  May reduce the discretionary powers of MSs environmental authorities in an environmental policy tool that is expected to promote public participation in decision-making Concluding remarks Abolishing Annex II corresponds to a loss of flexibility concerning the way different projects types are regarded and dealt with by each MS. The increase of the number of projects subjected to mandatory EIA, as well as the possibility for case-by-case analysis in those countries where this is a seldom applied screening method may result in a more demanding Directive and, consequently in higher levels of environmental protection. It might also lead to a more active role played by EIA authorities in case-by-case analysis. However, given the risk of serious disruptive effects over national legal systems, Policy Option 5 constitutes a demanding amendment to the present Directive and is –at present sight – more than likely unrealistic in terms of acceptance across the EU 25. Figure 68 SWOT-Analysis for Policy Option 5 (IMP)3 151 6 REFERENCES 6.1 Literature Allelt, E.J. (1986): EIA and Decision Analysis – Journal of the Operational Research Society 37: 901-10. Ames, G. (1978): An Approach to the Determination of Significance in the Preparation of Environmental Assessments – Environmental Assessment: Approaching Maturity, edited by Bendix and Graham, 25-33. Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Arts J., Tomlinson P. & Voogd H. (2004): EIA and SEA tiering: the missing link? – Position Paper IAIA SEA Conference, Prague’05. Bacow, L.S. (1980): The Technical and Judgemental Dimensions of Impact Assessment – Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1(2): 109-24. Bakus, G., W. Stillwell, S. Latter and M. Wallerstein (1982): Decision Making: With Applications for Environmental Management. 6(6): 493-504. Barker, A. & Wood, C. (1999): An Evaluation of EIA System Performance in Eight EU Countries – Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 19, 387–404. Barker, A. & Wood, C. (2001): Environmental Assessment in the European Union: Perspectives, Past, Present and Strategic – European Planning Studies, 9 (2), 243-254. Beanlands, G.E. and P.N. Duinker. (1983): An Ecological Framework for Environmental Impact Assessment in Canada. Halifax, NS: Institute for Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University and FEARO. Bond, A. J. & Wathern, P. (1999): Environmental Impact assessment in the European Union, in Petts, J. (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment Volume 2 Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice: Impact and Limitations, Blackwell Science Ltd, 223-248 Oxford. Bond, A. J. (1997): Policy and Practice Environmental Assessment and Planning: A Chronology of Development in England and Wales – Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 40(2), 261-271. Burris, R. & Canter, L. (1997): Cumulative Impacts Are Not Properly Addressed in Environmental Statements, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 17, 5 – 18. Caldwell, L.K. (1987): The Contextual Basis for Environmental Decision-making: Assumptions are Predeterminants of Choice – The Environmental Professional 9: 302-08. Canter, L. W. & Canty, G. A. (1993): Impact significance determination – Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 13(5), 275-297. Canter, L. W. (1996): Environmental Impact Assessment – Mc Graw-Hill, Second Edition. Cashmore M., Gwilliam R., Morgan R., Cobb D., Bond A. (2004): The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory – Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22(4), 295310(16). (IMP)3 152 CEAA (1994): Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA): Reference Guide: Determining Whether A Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects, Ottawa, Canada. CEAA (2004):Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA), in http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-15.2/text.html Cherp, A. (2001): EA Legislation and Practice in Central and Eastern Europe and the former USSR: A Comparative analysis – Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21, 335-361. Christensen, P., Kørnøv, L. & Holm Nielsen, E. (2003): The outcome of EIA in Denmark. Ministry of Environment, Aalborg University (http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/eia-support.htm). Clark, B.D. (1983): EIA manuals: general objectives and the PADL manual – PADL, EIA and Planning Unit (ed.) Environmental Impact Assessment. Martinus Nijhoff: The Hague, 149-164. Clark, R. & Richards, D. (1999): Environmental Impact assessment in North America, in Petts, J. (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment Volume 2 Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice: Impact and Limitations, Blackwell Science Ltd, 123-142 Oxford. Davy, B. (1995), The Austrian Environmental Impact Assessment Act – Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15, 361-375 DEFRA (2002), Environmental impact assessment for use of uncultivated land or semi-natural areas for intensive agricultural purposes, Guidelines, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), DEFRA Publications, London. DETR (1999): Circular 02/99, Environmental Impact Assessment (http://www.databases.detr.gov.uk/planning/npp/PubDetail.asp?thisPub=02/99) DETR (2000): Environmental Impact Assessment: a guide to procedures, Office of Deputy Prime Minister, (http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/page/odpm_plan_026667.hcs p) DOE (1999): Environmental Impact Assessment, Development Control Advice Note 10 (revised), Department of Environment (DOE), The Planning Service. Duinker, P.N., and G.E. Beanlands. (1986): The Significance of Environmental Impacts: An Exploration of the Concept – Environmental Management 10(1): 1-10. EC (1989): Criteria for Determining the Environmental Significance of Projects. Meetings of Experts on Environmental Impact Assessment, The Hague, Netherlands, November 27-28. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Netherlands. EC (1996): EIA in transitional economies, EIA Centre Leaflet Series, in http://www.art.man.ac.uk/EIA/publications/leafletseries/leaflet16/index.htm. EC (2001): Guidance on EIA: Screening – Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. EIARWG (1997): Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in the Wadden Sea Region – Annex 2 (Final Version) – Information Exchange and Consultation Harmonization of the EIA directive and Level of Environmental Information, Inter-regional Dutch – German – Danish Working Group (EIARWG). (IMP)3 153 Geraghty, P. J. (1996): Environmental Impact Assessment Practice in Ireland following the Adoption of the European Directive, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16, 189-21. Glasson, J. and Bellanger, C. (2003): Divergent practice in a converging system? The case of EIA in France and the UK – Environmental Impact assessment Review, 23, 605 – 624 Glasson, J., Therivel, R. & Chadwick, A. (1994): Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment – Principles and procedures, process, practice and prospects, UCL Press, Norwich. Glasson, J.; Neves, N. & Salvador, B. (2000): EIA in Brazil: a procedures–practice gap. A comparative study with reference to the European Union, and especially the UK – Environmental Impact assessment Review, 20, 191-225. Gonçalves, M. (2002): Implementation of EIA Directives in Portugal. How changes in civic culture are challenging political and administrative practice – Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22, 249-269. Hadjipanayiotou, C. A. (1998): The adequacy of the Cyprus existing EIA procedure. Project submitted for the Postgraduate Diploma in Environmental Impact assessment, EIA Unit, Institute of Biological Science, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, (http://users.aber.ac.uk/zwk/distlearn/virtlib/projects/hadji/hadjip.html) Haug, P.T., R.W. Burwell, A. Stein, and B.L. Bandurski (1984): Determining the Significance of Environmental Issues Under NEPA – Journal of Environmental Management 18, 15-24. Hollick, M. (1981): The Role of Qualitative Decision Making Methods in EIA – Journal of Environmental Management 12(1), 65-78. IAU (2003): Review of International Legal Instruments, Policies and Management in respect of the Wadden Sea Region, Final Report for the Wadden sea Forum – Impacts Assessment Unit (IAU), Oxford Brookes University, Oxford. Imperial College London Consultants Ltd. (2005): The Relationship between the EIA and SEA Directives – Final Report to the European Commission, London. Kjellerup, U. (1999): Significance Determination: a Rational Reconstruction of Decisions – Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 19, 3-19. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (2000): The Texts of the Regulations on environmental impact assessment in the Netherlands, The Netherlands. Ministry of the Environment (2002): The Planning Act in Denmark – Consolidated Act No. 763of 11 September 2002, Denmark. Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Lithuania (2001): Manual for Environmental Impact in Lithuania, Finnish Environment Institute Morgan, R. (2001): Environmental Impact Assessment: a Methodological Perspective, Kluwer Academic Publishers, London. Morrison-Saunders, A., Annandale, D., Cappeluti, J. (2001): Practitioner perspectives on what influences environmental impact assessment quality. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 19(4), 321-325. MSD (2000): The Swedish Environmental Code, Ministry of Sustainable Development, Ministry Publication Séries, Sweden.