Environmental Impact Assessment Directive Research Articles

Environmental Impact Assessment in the context of armed conflicts

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a legal, procedural tool that allows to identify, predict, evaluate and prevent or mitigate the impacts of a planned project on the environment. An inherent element of this process is public participation that shall be assured at all times.
 EIA is regulated by domestic environmental laws of a given county, but an imminent influence on these regulations is exerted by EU EIA Directive (Directive 2011/92/EU text codified) and international conventions, especially the ESPOO Convention.
 EU legislation and international EIA-focused treaties do not determine if armed conflicts affect the EIA procedures and, if the answer is positive, in which way, especially whether the EIA procedure remains required under these exceptional circumstances or it may be postponed until cease of conflict or even omitted.
 For this reason, it was of high importance to determine whether EIA-related obligations set by EU and international laws are suspended or remain valid and in force during armed conflicts.
 The research revealed that the above-mentioned acts do not have provisions that explicitly regulate the effect of armed conflicts on the obligations relating to the EIA procedures. Furthermore, current jurisprudence and doctrine do not provide clear answer on the scope of application of international environmental law during armed conflict. It is often explained by the fact that environmental law is not yet fully formed in that respect and it is still not commonly agreed how it relates to international humanitarian law.
 Based on findings of the research, some conclusions are proposed that aim at providing advise on the application of EIA during armed conflicts and suggestions to supplement discussed bodies of law.
 This article will discuss the main results of the study conducted on this important and very up-to-date subject.

9.A. Workshop: The contribution of Environmental Impact Assessments to better health

As society builds back from COVID-19 we must ensure that policy decisions about the built environment protect and promote human health. This roundtable is organised by 4 EUPHA sections: Health Impact Assessment; Ethics in Public Health; Law & Public Health; Environment & Health. The objective is to consider ethical, legal and methodological issues raised by the requirement for health to be considered in the EU Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive. This roundtable will cross-examine the advice that EUPHA wrote with the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) to guide health authorities through the EIA process. See https://eupha.org/section_page.php?section_page=200.We contend that human health in EIA cuts across many aspects of public health and that public health must up its game. The EIA Directive provides a high level of protection to the environment and health on land and at sea. It applies to a wide range of projects in all EU Member States, including those co-financed by the EU through its Cohesion, Agricultural and Fisheries Policies. It applies to projects funded by the financial institutions of the EU which operate globally. The directive explicitly requires human health to be considered and yet gets little input from health authorities. EIA is a forward-looking instrument. EIA provides information to a decision-maker before effects occur. This allows for environment and health to be hard-wired into the design of a project. It places public health at the heart of deliberations about the future of infrastructure and the built environment.Format: the roundtable will open with an introduction to the process of EIA and the EUPHA/IAIA reference paper. Panellists will then question the speakers. The chairperson will invite questions from all participants. The organisers will generate debate on social media.Areas of inquiry are provided belowEthics: The construction and operation of projects can have good and bad effects on communities, and these effects can go beyond the current generation. What ethical principles should guide the design of these projects? How can an ethical EIA be ensured and what is the role for public health? Are there overlapping ethical principles in protecting the environment and protecting health?Law: What legal instruments can be used to promote, as well as to protect, health? How can EIA be used to ensure that States uphold their legal obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health for all?Environment: EIA is involved in granting planning consent for large projects that require resources and which change the environment. Is the argument linking health and environment made strongly enough? What standards are being applied? What is the role of the WHO? How can the strength of the EU Green Deal be utilised?The panel will conclude by formulating crucial points for improving public health in EIA and lessons for other cross-sectoral work.Speakers/Panelists Els Maeckelberghe Wenckebach Institute for Medical Education and Training - University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands Marija Jevtic University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine, Novi Sad, Serbia Amandine Garde Law & Non-Communicable Diseases Unit, Liverpool, UK Sarah Humboldt-Dachroeden Roskilde University, Copenhagen, Denmark Filipe Silva Public Health by Design Limited, Hounslow, UK Key messages Human health in Environmental Impact Assessment is a legal requirement, it cuts across many aspects of public health and public health must up its game.Health in Environmental Impact Assessment provides a test case and a working example of health in other sectors and raises many fascinating questions for the future of public health.

Using Sustainable Development Goals to develop EIA scoping practices: The case of Denmark

ABSTRACT Environmental assessments (EAs) are in research and policy expected to be a vehicle for achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It has been argued that the scoping of EA, both on project and strategic levels, can be broadened to encompass the 17 goals and thereby strengthen the commitment towards sustainable development. However, studies exploring the integration of EA practice and SDGs remain scarce. This article contributes to the understanding of how EA practice on the project level can utilize the SDGs to further develop its scope. The case study focuses on a high-income context, which has a significant influence on the results of the study. A review of recent Danish cases of environmental impact assessment (EIA) reports shows the potential for a broader scope than the biospheric and environmental parameters that dominate an EIA context. The results show that, within a Danish EIA context, the SDGs can help to qualify and strengthen the process of scoping for mandatory parameters in especially ‘population & human health’ and hereby contribute to a more comprehensive implementation of the parameter as required by the European EIA Directive.

Environmental Protection Meets Security of Electricity Supply

AbstractThis case comment explores the relationship between two intertwined objectives – ensuring security of electricity supply and environmental protection – in the context of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL and Bond Beter Leefmilieu Vlaanderen ASBL v. Conseil des ministres. The analysis focuses on the application of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and the Habitats Directive to the facts of the case, which concerns the extension by a ten-year period of the operation of two Belgian nuclear power stations (Doel 1 and Doel 2) as part of a national energy policy strategy to ensure the security of Belgium's electricity supply. The case comment also considers the legal and practical implications that arise as a result of employing the ‘security of electricity supply’ exemption to enable derogation from the requirements of the aforementioned Directives in circumstances where a Member State considers the security of its electricity supply to be under threat.

Lessons from an International Initiative to Set and Share Good Practice on Human Health in Environmental Impact Assessment.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is applied to infrastructure and other large projects. The European Union EIA Directive (2011/92/EU as amended by 2014/52/EU) requires EIAs to consider the effects that a project might have on human health. The International Association for Impact Assessment and the European Public Health Association prepared a reference paper on public health in EIA to enable the health sector to contribute to this international requirement. We present lessons from this joint action. We review literature on policy analysis, impact assessment and Health Impact Assessment (HIA). We use findings from this review and from the consultation on the reference paper to consider how population and human health should be defined; how the health sector can participate in the EIA process; the relationship between EIA and HIA; what counts as evidence; when an effect should be considered ‘likely’ and ‘significant’; how changes in health should be reported; the risks from a business-as-usual coverage of human health in EIA; and finally competencies for conducting an assessment of human health. This article is relevant for health authorities seeking to ensure that infrastructure, and other aspects of development, are not deleterious to, but indeed improve, human health.

The European environmental regulation of marine renewable energies

The marine renewable energy (MRE) industry is growing exponentially in the European Union (EU) due to, among other factors, its potential contribution to mitigating climate change. However, there are negative environmental effects associated with the development of MRE that could compromise the protection of the marine ecosystems. In this context, the EU requires environmental protection and sustainable growth for the development of MRE. This article identifies and analyses the main features of the legal framework provided by the EU secondary law instruments regulating the protection of the environment against the impacts of MRE and explores options to strengthen such protection. It argues that the fragmented and sectoral legal framework is theoretically capable of protecting the environment against the impacts of MRE, but needs to be further developed, coordinated and specified to ensure protection in practice. The article also highlights that the consideration of MRE as projects subject to compulsory environmental impact assessment (EIA) under the EIA Directive and the consideration of key environmental obligations during the EIA process could strengthen the ability of the legal framework to provide protection.

Workshop: Making progress in Health Impact Assessment: from theory to practice

Abstract Nowadays, it is widely accepted that the causal pathway leading to an adverse health outcome does not depend on isolate risk factors but on the intricate relation of those elements with broader socioeconomic, cultural, environmental, and political conditions. This comprehensive approach was already acknowledged in the preamble of the constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO) when referring to the concept of “health”. The so-called social view of health generated under this new framework place also a great emphasis in addressing health inequalities within a population. Impact assessment (IA) is a discipline involving specific methods and technical tools for analysing the consequences of a planned intervention previously to the implementation phase. Its purpose is to support the decision-making process. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a form of IA applied to a wide range of public or private projects that are likely to pose a significant impact on the environment. The EIA Directive (2011/92/EU) was amended in 2014 (2014/52/EU), including explicitly “population, and human health” in the list of topics to be considered in an EIA. However, the amended directive does not provide a specific definition for any of the two terms, nor guidance on how to assess the potential health effects related to a project, or the necessary qualifications of professionals tasked with the assessment of these effects. To this respect, public health professionals are not likely to be routine contributors to EIA. In this sense, under a business-as-usual coverage, environmental specialists are the professionals developing standards and methods to assess all topics in EIA, including for population and human health. This runs the risk that EIA practice will lose much of its potential for improving human health. The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) together with the European Public Health Association (EUPHA), and the WHO European Centre for Environment and Health (WHO-ECEH) are working on a reference document to support public health authorities and other health stakeholders in addressing human health within EIA as required by the Directive 2014/52/EU. The aim of this workshop is to present that document and discuss with participants about the above-mentioned gaps, for ensuring a consistent coverage of population and human health within the EIA process. Elements to be discussed: -Description of major changes introduced by the amended EIA directive, and its impact on public health-Institutional/political support needed for the institutionalization of health assessment within EIA-Role of the Public Health sector, and description of what likely or significant effect on health should be considered within EIA-Competencies required for assessing population and human health in EIA.-Gaining strength from the ‘Family of health assessments’ approach” Key messages A comprehensive approach to population and human health should be incorporated in the EIA procedure. Raise awareness for involving public health sector in addressing population and human health in EIA.

Analysis of Health in Environmental Assessments-A Literature Review and Survey with a Focus on Denmark.

In the European Union, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (2014/52/EU) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive (2011/92/EU) emphasise the assessment of population and human health. The directives require health to be considered within Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). To date, health is mainly considered in connection with negative environmental factors and in terms of risk assessments. The integration of health in EIA as well as SEA has not been investigated in a Danish context, and this study aims to address the missing knowledge. There is a need for a more comprehensive health assessment within EIA and SEA to comply with the EIA and SEA directives. An integration of health into EIA and SEA will ensure a sound examination of health determinants which can improve decision making and thus comprehensively promote and protect health. To establish the status of the inclusion of the assessment of impacts on health into EIA and SEA, a literature review was performed. In addition, a survey addressed to researchers and practitioners was conducted and analysed through a comparative analysis. The survey examined the needs of practitioners and researchers, focusing on the Danish context, regarding the inclusion of health into EIA and SEA. Enhanced intersectoral cooperation of the health and environmental sectors, more specific guidance documents, and underlying this, stronger political support, were identified among needs for more comprehensive health assessments.

The amended EIA directive creates opportunities for public health

Abstract Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is conducted by the developer as part of the process of seeking consent to proceed with the project. The developer may be a public authority or a private company. The Directive for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (2011/92/EU) was amended in 2014 (2014/52/EU). The changes are now transposed into national regulations across European Union Member States. These changes have an influence beyond EU borders, for example, through the policies of the European Investment Bank and the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development. The amendments to the Directive create both opportunities and challenges for public health. The opportunities stem from the changes that have been made to the Directive. Population and human health are now on the list of core topics that must be considered in an EIA. The other core topics to be assessed are each ‘determinants of health’, for example: biodiversity; land, soil, water, air and climate; and material assets, cultural heritage and the landscape. The Directive now requires the interaction between these factors to be considered. The amended Directive includes other issues that are relevant to human health, for example, climate change and vulnerability (exposure and resilience) to major accidents and/or disasters. The developer’s assessment must be prepared by Competent Experts. The changes also pose challenges. These are technical. For example, human health needs to be assessed within the framework of EIA. The changes also pose challenges to the public health workforce. There is a need to ensure there is capacity to participate in EIA. The EIA is typically prepared by the developer and reviewed by the competent authority. There is a role for public health expertise in these complementary activities. This presentation will focus on the opportunities created by the changes to the Directive and the opportunities this creates. It will also touch on the challenges.

Implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment and the Appropriate Assessment in Marina Developments from the Viewpoint of the Newest EU Member State

This article examines how the environmental impact assessment (EIA) pursuant to the EIA Directive and appropriate assessment pursuant to the Habitats Directive are applied to marina development in the newest EU Member State, Croatia. The analysis focuses on the screening procedures to determine whether or not to carry out an EIA and the prior assessment to ascertain whether a marina development is likely to have a significant impact on the Natura 2000 ecological network. The findings of the analysis are evaluated by comparison with the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The article argues in favour of the implementation of the EIA and the appropriate assessment which can bring benefits for the marine environment in Croatia.

Back to the future: Brexit, EIA and the challenge of environmental judicial review

This article explores how legal culture influences judicial interpretation of environmental legislation, which in turn affects how effectively public authorities are legally held to account for environmental decisions. Analysis of initial case law from the UK’s transposition of the EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive shows English administrative courts interpreting the directive so restrictively as to undermine the purpose of the legislation itself. It will be suggested that the political sensitivity and legal complexity of administrative law, combined with the legally challenging nature of environmental problems, contribute to a legal culture of narrow interpretation. In contrast, the purposive and effectiveness-orientated approach of EU legal culture facilitated the House of Lord’s later reinterpretation of the Directive, allowing increased judicial engagement in the challenge of environmental law. This article therefore contends that ensuring effective environmental law after Brexit will require a reframing of the legal culture of administrative law itself.

Gibraltar, Land Reclamation, the Environment and Brexit

The implementation of EU environmental legislation in Gibraltar will be analyzed in this Paper. An study strongly affected by the historical Anglo-Spanish dispute concerning sovereignty over Gibraltar (Rock and Isthmus), which also extends to the surrounding maritime spaces, the airspace over the territory and the internal waters of the port of Gibraltar. Since environmental matters are the responsibility of the Government of Gibraltar, this latter is also responsible for transposing environmental directives, whereas the UK is answerable to the EU for compliance with them.It also will be analyzed the lack of cooperation between the States, that is evidenced by the overlapping of spaces protected surrounding Gibraltar, as Sites of Community Importance (SCI) and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), for which the adoption of conservation measures is envisaged, including regulation of fishing activity and navigation, environmental impact assessment of projects with transboundary effects that may derive from the practice of land reclamation (in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive), pollution prevention, bunkering and scientific research. For several years, these activities have been challenged at the European level by the NGO ‘Campo de Gibraltar Verdemar-Ecologists in Action Association’, and have also been the subject of complaints and protests on the part of the Spanish Government to the UK.Finally, the effect of Brexit on marine environment protection and the expansion of maritime spaces around Gibraltar will be studied, specially the Spanish-British Memorandum of Understanding of 2018 on environmental cooperation which was referenced by the Protocol on Gibraltar included in the Agreement on the Withdrawal of the UK from the EU.

HS2 railway, UK – route development to the hybrid bill: the environmental statement

The environmental statement (ES) for the first phase of the UK's High Speed Two high-speed railway (London to West Midlands) was submitted with the hybrid bill for the project in November 2013. It described the phase one scheme both during construction and operation, detailed the main alternatives considered and reported the likely significant environmental effects and proposed mitigation to avoid or reduce these. The statement also provided the justification for the land that was proposed to be compulsorily acquired for the construction and operation of the scheme. Following its deposit, additional provisions were required to seek additional powers for changes resulting from the select committee process and design development. Any resulting new or different significant effects on the environment were reported in the accompanying ES. This work required the coordination of engineering and environmental consultancies over nearly a 5-year period. The ES also had to comply with parliamentary standing orders and the European environmental impact assessment directive.

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) screening and scoping of extraterrestrial exploration and development projects

ABSTRACTNumerous space missions are planned by government agencies and private companies, with objectives including scientific research, prospecting for and mining resources, and establishing human settlements. These projects have potential to affect the extraterrestrial environment. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is an important tool for assessing the potential impact of projects on Earth’s environment. However, the legal requirements to undertake EIA for extraterrestrial projects are limited and most EIAs that have been conducted have not considered impacts beyond Earth’s atmosphere. Technical barriers to extraterrestrial EIA also need to be overcome, including a lack of guidelines and methodologies. This paper addresses the latter issue by identifying the extraterrestrial impacts that may arise from space projects and relating them to the environmental topic areas in the European EIA Directive. An example is then provided of how EIA screening and scoping can be undertaken for the extraterrestrial elements of space projects, using six scenarios. Effective EIA screening and scoping is key to deciding whether EIA is required and if so which topic areas should be included.

Enforcing the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive in Ireland: Evolution of the Standard of Judicial Review

AbstractThe specific characteristics of each national system of judicial review reflect the indigenous legal framework and well-established administrative culture. It is necessary, therefore, to contextualize judicial review against the background of the idiosyncrasies of the local legal and administrative systems and what the national system regards as ‘unlawful’ decision making. An analysis of the contemporary jurisprudence of the Irish courts – in the specific context of enforcement of environmental impact assessment law – reveals a complex web of principles, which continue to evolve and to be influenced by European Union (EU) law. The article maps the development of these principles and assesses whether the standard of review (or the intensity of scrutiny) applied by the Irish courts is compatible with the EU law principle of effective judicial protection.

The Amended European Environmental Impact Assessment Directive: UK marine experience and recommendations

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) are a key legislative requirement used to ensure sustainable development. A notable example of the enabling legislation is the European Union Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (2011/92/EU). In the 25 years since its implementation it has been revised, most recently in 2014, with amendments to accommodate policy, legal and technical changes. The 2014 amendment to the EIA Directive is reviewed here in the marine context with areas identified where the Directive and its implementation may still be deficient. This arises from the experience of the authors of reviewing EIAs, and our recommendations are mainly that standardised guidance and approaches should be applied for comparability. These recommendations have general relevance to all EIA practitioners, not just marine, and to environmental assessments within and beyond the EU.

The new EIA Directive (2014/52/EU) and UK water impact assessment practice

This paper considers how impact assessment practice relating to all aspects of the water environment will be affected by the transposition of the amended environmental impact assessment (EIA) Directive (2014/52/EU) into UK legislation. Key elements of the new Directive are identified, such as requirements relating to monitoring, climate change (including adaptation), biodiversity, human health and coordination with Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) (WFD) Assessment. The extent to which existing guidance and practice already meet these new requirements is assessed, through a review of relevant guidance and selected environmental statements (ESs). Key areas where water impact assessment (WIA) practice needs to be adapted to take account of the new requirements are identified. Substantial changes in practice are likely to be required to incorporate human health assessment into WIA and to demonstrate that competent experts are used to conduct WIA. New guidance will be needed relating to competent experts and improved guidance will be required for WFD Assessment.

Large-scale renewable energy project barriers: Environmental impact assessment streamlining efforts in Japan and the EU

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures have been identified as a major barrier to renewable energy (RE) development with regards to large-scale projects (LS-RE). However EIA laws have also been neglected by many decision-makers who have been underestimating its impact on RE development and the stifling potential they possess. As a consequence, apart from acknowledging the shortcomings of the systems currently in place, few governments momentarily have concrete plans to reform their EIA laws. By looking at recent EIA streamlining efforts in two industrialized regions that underwent major transformations in their energy sectors, this paper attempts to assess how such reform efforts can act as a means to support the balancing of environmental protection and climate change mitigation with socio-economic challenges. Thereby this paper fills this intellectual void by identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the Japanese EIA law by contrasting it with the recently revised EIA Directive of the European Union (EU). This enables the identification of the regulatory provisions that impact RE development the most and the determination of how structured EIA law reforms would affect domestic RE project development. The main focus lies on the evaluation of regulatory streamlining efforts in the Japanese and EU contexts through the application of a mixed-methods approach, consisting of in-depth literary and legal reviews, followed by a comparative analysis and a series of semi-structured interviews. Highlighting several legal inconsistencies in combination with the views of EIA professionals, academics and law- and policymakers, allowed for a more comprehensive assessment of what streamlining elements of the reformed EU EIA Directive and the proposed Japanese EIA framework modifications could either promote or stifle further RE deployment.

Vagueness and Discretion in the Scope of the EIA Directive

Article 2(1), the core obligation imposed by the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, requires that projects ‘likely to have a significant effect on the environment’ are subject to an environmental assessment. The vague term ‘significant effect’ confers a broad discretion in interpreting the scope of the Directive, which the European Commission has identified as problematic. This article examines the role of this discretion in the regulatory framework, in order to contribute to a better understanding of the nature and purpose of Environmental Impact Assessment. The analysis is conducted through the lens of Endicott’s theory on ‘vagueness’ in law, which helps to understand the nature of Article 2(1) discretion. It demonstrates that discretion is integral to the framework rather than a side effect of the formulation of Article 2(1) and that it is valuable because it creates space to consider a vast array of factors in the assessment of ‘significance’ and promotes deliberation on environmental values.

An evaluation of ecological impact assessment procedural effectiveness over time

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is an important tool to help decision-makers balance the environmental impacts of a proposed built development with its potential economic benefits. Used in most countries across the globe, EIA commonly includes an ecological component (Ecological Impact Assessment, or EcIA). However, despite considerable changes in relevant legislation, policy and guidance, there has been no recent review of UK EcIA chapter content, with the latest review having been published in 2000.This study attempts to determine the procedural effectiveness of EcIA chapters over time by comparing a new review of 112 English EcIA chapters from 2000 onwards with earlier reviews. This was achieved through the novel use of inferential statistics, an approach previously lacking in the EIA and EcIA review literature.The limitations and advantages of the use of quantitative methods are discussed. In general, there has been an improvement in the information content of EcIA chapters over time, for example in the percentage of EcIA chapters stating the size of the development and estimating the likely effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures. However, the earlier reviews highlighted such severe information deficiencies that the progress seen in the post-2000 EcIA chapter review still leaves considerable scope for improvement.Changes in the EU’s EIA Directive in force since May 2014 (and to be transposed into Member State legislation by May 2017) have the potential to encourage the use of inferential statistics in EIA and EcIA review: the requirement for Member States to provide central access to EIA information should enable representative samples to be analysed.