Environmental Impact Assessment

of public and private projects

EIA Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by 97/11/EC

and 2003/35/EC

Thisvi EkmektzoglouDG ENV D.3

Basic Principles Key instrument for: - integration of the environment into decision- making

- preventive approach

Assessment of impacts and their alternatives, identify mitigation measures

Public consultations and consultations with other environmental authorities

EIA Process

Scoping: determination of

the content of the study/statement/report

(non obligatory)Consultations with CA & CA responsible for

the environment

Notification to CA (not obligatory)

Annex I projects submitted to EIA (art 4.1)

Annex II projects - identification of projects

& determination of whether an EIA is required(art 4.2, 4.3)

Public is informed of the decision

(art 4.4)

Preparation of the Project

Information on the environ/t +results of the consultations taken on board by the CA:

Decision (art 8) Final Decision is available to the public

(art 9)(art 5 et Annex IV)Information on the evaluation of the

significant impacts on the environment

caused by the project - Study/Statement/Report

Consultation with CA responsible for environ/t

et the public concerned on: project & information (art6) - transboundary

Competent authorities= CA

5-Year Review developed on the basis:of a questionnaire sent to Member States in 2002

of analysis of the replies with the assistance of a consultant. (Oxford Brookes University)

Adopted in 23 June – COM (2003) 334 final

EIA Directive 97/11/ECEIA Directive 97/11/EC Application and effectivenessApplication and effectiveness

Trends and experience from 15 MSsTrends and experience from 15 MSsArticle 11 para 3Article 11 para 3

Commission is to send to the European Parliament and Council a report on the application and effectiveness

based on exchange of information on experience in MSs

Sample of questionsasked to Member States

Annex II/Screening Increase of EIAs numbersScopingTransboundary consultationsInformation provided by the developer and completeness of information Assessment of effects on human health Cumulation of projectsRisk assessmentPublic participationApplication of Art. 1 para 5 and exemptions

Main concerns as regards the EIA Dir. application in 15 MSs(I)

Based on the 5 Years Report- 2003:

No systematic screening of Annex II projects Different thresholds (inclusion or mandatory

thresholds or criteria, indicative or guidance thresholds and exclusion criteria)

Implementation of screening in MSs

In general in MSs there is a great variety of setting thresholdsExamples of varying thresholds used for wind farms: Capacity or number of turbines or financial terms (cost of project)

Ways MS transpose and apply thresholds1. Complete coverage of the categories of Annex I and

II2. Thresholds: Fixed ones3. Case by case evaluation4. Combinations of above approaches (2) + (3)

Implementation of thresholds

Above 200 MW -Inclusive thresholdIn this case an EIA is mandatory

Between 199 MW to 151 MWCase by case evaluation needs to be carried out

Below 150 MW - Exclusive thresholdIn this case no EIA has to be carried out However, a case by case evaluation might needed if the project is located nearby a natural protected area

Example of combination of Thresholds and Case by Case examination in the case of wind farms

Screening

Jurisprudence Case C-392/96 Commission versus Ireland: MSs are not allowed to

exempt whole classes of projects from the requirement for EIA, nor to avoid taking into account when establishing thresholds only of the size of projects but also their nature and location (Annex II 1.b projects for the use of uncultivated land or semi-natural areas for intensive agricultural purposes)

Case C- 435/97 ITA/WWF (Bolzano/Italy): No general exemptions for entire classes of Annex II projects permitted. Member States are not allowed to set thresholds/criteria that practically exclude classes of project from EIA. (mixed airport: military and commercial)

Main concerns as regards the EIA Dir. application in 15 MSs(II)

Based on the 5 Years Report- 2003:

Cumulative effects of projects with those stemming from other projects

Salami slicing practices Quality of environmental statements

Cumulation with other projects, Salami - Slicing

Growing awareness is found among MSs and measures are in place in many MSs to address these two interrelated issues.

For Salami-Slicing some MSs have established measures to reveal or prevent such practice, including setting low thresholds or calling for assessment of the “whole programme”

Poor quality of environmental statements

Directive 97/11/EC introduced minimum requirements regarding the information to be supplied by the developer which could serve as a tool for reviewing the environmental statements

In the majority of MSs failure to provide adequate information constitutes grounds for refusal of development consent.

Development Consent

All projects covered by the Dir. must be subject to a development consent.

In case where the consent procedure comprises several stages, that assessment must, in principle, be carried out as soon as it is possible to identify and assess all the effects which the project may have on the environment (Delena Wells judgment, UK-Mining, of 7.1.2004/ Case 201/02)

Number of EIAs carried out in the Member States (estimated numbers)

Country Pre 1999 Per Year Post 1999 Per Year Austria 4 10-20 Belgium-Brussels 20 20 Belgium-Flanders No data 20% increase Belgium-Walloon No Data Estimated increase Denmark 28 100 Finland 22 25 France 6-7000 6-7000+ Germany Estimated more than 1000 Estimated increase Ireland 140 178 Italy 37 No data Luxembourg 20 20 Netherlands 70 70

Portugal 87 92 Spain 120 290 Sweden 1000 1000

UK 300 500

New amendment of the EIA-Directive 2003/35/EC

Revised in order to align to the provisions of public participation of the UNECE Aarhus Convention

Introducing new provisions on public participation (introduction of definitions of public and public concerned where NGOs are quoted)

A new article 10(a) dealing with the access to information requirements

Deadline for transposition 25 June 2005

EIA Open Cases (25/09/2002)

Complaints (852) Own Initiatives 125 Infringements 61

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Complaints (P) Own initiative (B) Infringments (A)

What’s wrong?State of play of complaints

• Visible problems:

complaints

petitions

parliamentary questions

EU co funded projects

• Between 1997 and 2001

only 36 reasoned opinions

977 complaints (incl. ‘own initiative cases’)

What’s wrong?Content of complaints

• Absence of EIA (Article 4 (2)) problems with screening in itself problems with the application of thresholds

• Poor quality of EIA reports (Article 8) incomplete EIA reports faulty taking into account of environmental effects

into the decision-making

Procedural shortcomings (Article 6) too short public consultation period

What’s wrong?Findings of complaints (ECJ Cases)

• EIA Directive should be interpreted as having a wide scope and very broad purpose (Dutch Dykes case)

• Thresholds for screening Annex II projects, cannot be fixed at such a level as to exclude whole project types from assessment (Dutch Dykes & Grosskrotzenburg case)

• Thresholds cannot be limited to the consideration of the size of projects; nature and location of the project also need to be taken into consideration (Commission v Ireland case)

• Changes and extensions to projects shall be subject to EIA should their size/ scale/ other factors meet the EIA requirements for a new project of this type (Dutch Dykes & Grosskrotzenburg case)

What are the conditions to make EIA successful?

• Start thinking about environmental effects as soon as you start thinking about the project

• Participation of environmental authorities and the public concerned as early as possible

• Availability of relevant data • Availability of good guidance and training• Good professional skills of the consultant in charge of

the EIA• Close co-operation between competent authority,

developer and consultant in charge of the EIA• Cost-efficiency of EIA

Conclusions! EIA Directive enhances democratic procedures Good implementation strengthens the promotion

of sustainable development

Some tips:Be careful when applying the EIA Dir:

The results of the application of EIA Dir. in the 15MSs show that incorrect application gives rise to a high number of complaints.

Risk for EU co-funding.

Thank you for your attention!

More information on EIA/SEA can be found in DG ENV web page:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/home.htm