Environmental Impact Assessment Directive Research Articles

Progressing quality control in environmental impact assessment beyond legislative compliance: An evaluation of the IEMA EIA Quality Mark certification scheme

The effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) systems is contingent on a number of control mechanisms: procedural; judicial; evaluative; public and government agency; professional; and development aid agency. If we assume that procedural and judicial controls are guaranteed in developed EIA systems, then progressing effectiveness towards an acceptable level depends on improving the performance of other control mechanisms over time. These other control mechanisms are either absent, or are typically centrally controlled, requiring public finances; this we argue is an unpopular model in times of greater Government austerity. Here we evaluate a market-based mechanism for improving the performance of evaluative and professional control mechanisms, the UK Institute of Environmental Management and Assessments' EIA Quality Mark. We do this by defining dimensions of effectiveness for the purposes of our evaluation, and by identifying international examples of the approaches taken to delivering the other control measures to validate the approach taken in the EIA Quality Mark. We then evaluate the EIA Quality Mark, when used in combination with legal procedures and an active judiciary, against the effectiveness dimensions and use time-series analysis of registrant data to examine its ability to progress practice. We conclude that the EIA Quality Mark has merit as a model for a market-based mechanism, and may prove a more financially palatable approach for delivering effective EIA in mature systems in countries that lack centralised agency oversight. It may, therefore, be of particular interest to some Member States of the European Union for ensuring forthcoming certification requirements stemming from recent amendments to the EIA Directive.

A Typology of Stakeholders and Guidelines for Engagement in Transdisciplinary, Participatory Processes

This paper presents a typology of stakeholders for effective participatory processes and co-design of solutions to complex social-environmental issues and a roadmap stepwise methodology for balanced and productive stakeholder engagement. Definitions are given of terminology that is frequently used interchangeably such as “stakeholders”, “social actors” and “interested parties”. Eleven research questions about participative processes are addressed, based on more than 30 years of experience in water, estuarine, coastal and marine management. A stepwise roadmap, supported by illustrative tables based on case-studies, shows how a balanced stakeholder selection and real engagement maybe achieved. The paper brings these together in the context of several up-to-date concepts such as complex, nested governance, the 10 tenets for integrated, successful and sustainable marine management, the System Approach Framework and the evolution of DPSIR into DAPSI(W)R(M) framework. Examples given are based on the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the Water Framework Directive, the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, the Framework for Marine Spatial Planning Directive, as well as for Regional Sea Conventions. The paper also shows how tools that have been developed in recent projects can be put to use to implement policy and maximize the effectiveness of stakeholder participation.

Incorporating climate change mitigation and adaptation into environmental impact assessment: a review of current practice within transport projects in England

Climate change mitigation and adaptation can be perceived as neglected in environmental impact assessment (EIA). In the light of amendments to the European Union EIA Directive (2014), we developed a novel criteria-based review package to assess climate change mitigation and adaptation as documented in environmental statements, and applied this to a sample of 10 transport developments from England. Justifications relating to climate policy, climate science, the effect of climate change on the development and its vulnerability to climate risks were well explained in most projects. Many projects lacked detail of climate change mitigation and adaptation measures and their benefits, whilst evidence of commitment to mitigation and adaptation or to post-decision monitoring was poor or non-existent; reportedly due to costs, time constraints and absence of mandatory requirements. It is recommended that to improve the effectiveness of the consideration of climate change mitigation and adaptation in EIA, the production of guidelines, change of behaviour of EIA practitioners, more holistic consideration of climate change issues, rigorous post-decision monitoring and use of climate change terminology are more widely adopted.

The qualification process of mining projects in environmental impact assessment: Criteria and thresholds

The aim of the article is to compare the qualification process of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) applied for mining projects in the Visegrad Group countries (V4). Poland is a major producer of copper and silver, the Czech Republic produces kaolin and uranium, Slovakia – magnesite and Hungary – bauxite. Despite significant differences in mineral reserves in the mentioned countries, mineral deposits are treated as important natural resources that are the basis for development of power industry, construction industry and other various industrial branches. The paper determines importance of the qualification in the EIA procedure. In the next part, criteria and thresholds of the qualification of the EIA procedure resulting from division of projects depending on the possibility of significant environmental impact have been described. It has been shown that there are large differences in thresholds which qualify mining projects in the discussed countries to the EIA procedure. In comparison with the European Union EIA Directive, the V4 countries have more detailed (expanded) division of qualification criteria. Slovakia is the best example when concerning division of projects into particular types, while Polish solutions present the most detailed set of qualification criteria. In the Czech Republic, any new mining project is the subject to the mandatory EIA procedure, and in Hungary they are always the subject to the screening stage. Exploration works are the subject to the qualification process only in Poland and Hungary. They are based on such parameters as the depth of a given borehole and occurrence of other protected resources (groundwater, animated nature, etc.). The criteria and thresholds for the selection of projects that may potentially have significant impact on the environment also considerably differ in the degree of details and even units. The authors raise the question whether it is intentional or accidental, emphasising that the lack of precision in this area makes exploitation of mineral resources more complicated. It should be also emphasised that the EIA procedure is one of the most important instruments of environmental management allowing to achieve sustainable economic development.

Raumordnerische Risikovorsorge am Beispiel der Planungsregion Köln


 With the demonstration project “Preventive Risk Management and Regional Planning” the exemplary development, implementation and documentation of an integrated concept for risk prevention embedded within regional planning was elaborated. The project was based on the concept of risk governance. It was implemented in the case study region of the District of Cologne, which was represented by its departments for regional development, immission control and water management. Within a broader scope of analysis, special attention was paid to critical infrastructures.
 For regional planning those risks and hazards are most important that require a cross-sectoral, regional response (see Art. 1 § 1 and Art. 8 § 6 Federal Regional Planning Act), as their impacts or related response strategies are of regional character. Therefore, the following four hazards were selected: river flooding, earthquakes, major accident hazards and heat.
 For these four potential dangers hazard and susceptibility classes were defined in accordance with a concept of risk analysis developed by the Federal Office for Civil Protection and Crisis Prevention. Hazard and susceptibility were merged into an integrated risk index. The categorization into hazard classes was the result of a consensus-building process among the project team and the participating experts of the District of Cologne. Furthermore, the team collaboratively defined specific susceptibilities for each land-use function (e. g. residential areas, transport infrastructure etc.) regarding each of the four selected types of hazards.
 On this conceptual basis, a GIS-based analysis of the risks that are caused by the selected hazards was conducted. Main results are hazard, susceptibility and risk maps for river floods, earthquakes and major accident hazards—both for the entire region and (with a finer resolution) for selected hot spots. Moreover, the project developed recommendations for regulations on risk management as a basis for the necessary weighting up of risk prevention against other planning concerns. Finally, a roadmap for spatial risk management as an integrated part of a comprehensive regional plan was derived.
 The District of Cologne will use the project’s results as an evidence basis for the forthcoming update of the regional plan. This is of particular importance in view of the recent amendment of the EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (2014/52/EU) that widened the scope of this assessment to climate change and catastrophic risks.

Environmental Impact Assessment: Gathering experiences from wave energy test centres in Europe

The wave energy industry is an emerging sector and a new user of maritime space that has potential to contribute significantly to the EU renewable energy goals. International and national regulatory frameworks necessitate Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) that provide important data to inform development consent decisions. Here we have evaluated experience related to the assessment programmes at EU wave energy test centres combined with knowledge gained from EIA produced for other similar renewable energy developments. From this we have identified key receptors of concern, as well as the type and magnitude of impacts which may be expected. The key environmental receptors of concern for wave energy EIA include the physical environment (e.g. morphology, waves and current) and flora and fauna1The term ‘flora and fauna’ is used in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (2011/92/EU consolidated version) – Article 3. The newly amended EIA Directive (2014/52/EU) entered into force on 15 May 2014 and uses the term ‘biodiversity’ as opposed to flora and fauna.1 as represented by marine mammals, seabirds, benthos, fish and shellfish.From a review of the EIAs performed at wave energy test centres, we identified several lessons regarding the wave energy EIA process. There is clear evidence that the receptors of primary interest are dependent on factors such as the local environmental characteristics, the presence/absence of protected species and the regulatory authority under which the EIA is performed. Furthermore, it is recommended that concerns relating to cumulative impacts, from an expanding level of wave energy development taking place in a background of growing utilisation of the marine environment, which are largely unknown at this early stage of the industry may be comprehensively addressed at the national level as part of a Strategic Environmental Assessment (EIA) and/or in Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) and that it should be regularly reassessed.

Environmental Impact Assessment in the Visegrad Group countries

The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (EIA Directive) has created a reference framework for the implementation of the system of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) into the legal systems of the Member States of the European Union, including the countries belonging to the Visegrad Group (V4): Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary. The Directive was the basis for the introduction of compulsory stages of the EIA process in the V4. The stages were then adapted to national requirements, including thresholds of the qualifying criteria of projects at the screening and scoping stages. The EIA system in the analysed countries has been growing, changing and being modified together with the political and economic changes of the last 30years. Although all Visegrad Group countries are members of the EU and should harmonize the provisions of the EIA Directive and its amendments, there still exist singularities in each country's national EIA legislation, in terms of complementarities among the V4 countries, access to information resources, protection of natural resources, mitigation of socio-environmental impacts, or transboundary impact assessment. The article compares and evaluates the EIA systems in the four countries, specifies similarities and differences in the implementation of administrative proceedings and points out opportunities to strengthen the system. It presents selected results of a study conducted in 2013 within the framework of the international project “Assessment of the quality of the environment in the V4 Countries” (AQE V4). This paper indicates examples of good practice in the EIA systems and the obtained results are compared regarding the amendments to the current European Union EIA Directive.

Urban Heat: Towards Adapted German Cities?

Is heat becoming a major threat to cities? Following the heat wave in Europe in 2003, which is estimated to have caused the deaths of 70,000 people, municipal authorities began to develop adaptation and mitigation plans and programs. Legal obligations to consider climate change within various development projects have been defined, e.g. by the latest amendment of the EU EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) Directive (2014/52/EU) and the Federal Building Code (BauGB §1a (5)). However, urban heat hazards have not yet received as much attention as, for example, carbon dioxide emissions as drivers of global warming. Dense urban structures, high buildings, dark surfaces, and high population densities trigger urban heat effects. With about 3/4 of Europeans living in cities, measures to reduce heat-related impacts are needed. This paper evaluates how German cities have implemented measures towards climate change adaptation. The results show that 24 out of 30 cities have developed mitigation and/or adaptation plans, with a majority focusing on mitigating CO 2, indicating less awareness of urban heat hazards. Moreover, we found elaborate and comprehensive examples which might serve as blue-prints for adaptation strategies. Based on the inhomogeneous scope of the different plans and programs, there remains a need for guidance and more knowledge exchange among the cities on mitigation/adaptation options and preferably information on their effectiveness, to further assist cities in tackling heat stress.

Analysis of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive and the EIA decision in Turkey

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive first entered into force in the United States in 1969, and began to be implemented in many other countries by 1990. The first Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive in Turkey was published on February 7, 1993, under the Environmental Law No. 2872. The EIA Directive was revised seven times on June 23, 1997, June 6, 2002, December 16, 2003, July 17, 2008, October 3, 2013, and November 25, 2014. Several amendments were made during this process. The first EIA Directive dated 1993 was narrow in scope and its procedure was long, while the amendments in 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2014 widened the scope of the EIA, and shortened the EIA assessment procedures. In this study, the amendments to the Turkish EIA Directive were analysed, and their effect on the number of EIA decisions made was addressed. It was concluded that the uncertainties in EIA procedures were removed, procedures were shortened, and as a result, the number of EIA decisions increased thanks to the revisions made in line with harmonisation with European Union (EU) acquis.

Is EIA part of the wind power planning problem?

This research evaluates the importance and effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) within wind farm planning debates, drawing on insights from case studies in Scotland. Despite general public support for renewable energy on the grounds that it is needed to tackle climate change and implement sustainable development, many proposed wind farms encounter significant resistance. The importance of planning issues and (EIA) processes has arguably been overlooked within recent wind farm social acceptability discourse. Through semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders and textual analysis of EIA documents, the characteristics of EIA are assessed in terms of its perceived purpose and performance. The data show that whilst respondents perceive EIA to be important, they express concerns about bias and about the inability of EIA to address climate change and wind farm decommissioning issues adequately. Furthermore, the research identifies key issues which impede the effectiveness of EIA, and reveals differences between theoretical and practical framings of EIA. The paper questions the assumption that EIA is a universally applicable tool, and argues that its effectiveness should be analysed in the context of specific development sectors. The article concludes by reviewing whether the recently amended EIA Directive (2014/52/EU) could resolve identified problems within national EIA practice.

Environmental ELNI EIA Conference in Wrocław

This article reviews the conference of the Environmental Law Network International (ELNI) dedicated to “EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive - challenges and perspectives in the light of the past experiences and the recent proposal for amendment”, which took place at the University of Wrocław in Poland on 23 and 24 May 2013. The conference was addressed to both experts from the practice and academics dealing with different aspects of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and brought together almost 250 participants from 24 countries worldwide. The aim of the conference was to review and discuss the recent proposal of the European Commission to amend the EIA Directive and bring it face to face with practical experiences with EIA at international and national level, in particular in the light of the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU and national courts.

Evaluating Ireland's IBIA as an approach to improving the quality and effectiveness of biodiversity impact assessment

The assessment of potential impacts of plans, programmes and projects on biodiversity is required under various legislative remits (including the European Union's Habitats, Strategic Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment Directives). The objective of such assessments is to ensure that potential negative impacts on both protected nature conservation sites and species and wider biodiversity are efficiently identified in a timely manner, quantified and subsequently avoided or mitigated, while enhancing positive effects. The procedural requirements of these legal obligations vary and, as a result, differing methodological steps, data gathering and analysis methods, and impact assessment techniques are commonly applied under each individual process, often leading to uncoordinated assessment efforts and results (in terms, for example, of scope, scale and assessment detail).In order to address these issues and improve current practice, an Integrated Biodiversity Impact Assessment (IBIA) methodology has been developed in Ireland with the overall aim of providing a holistic and systematic approach to biodiversity impact assessment. The IBIA framework seeks to ensure that relevant procedures are effectively integrated, time and resource efficiencies are optimised, and unnecessary duplication avoided. Particular emphasis is given to compliance with legal requirements, integration and communication of scientific knowledge, spatial assessment and biodiversity data considerations, and integration of biodiversity aspects with a variety of other concerns during the plan-making process. This paper presents the IBIA methodology and critically examines current key issues in biodiversity impact assessment that can be potentially addressed through IBIA, as well as remaining challenges. In addition, and in order to support the examination of the anticipated benefits of using this new methodological framework (such as biodiversity-inclusive planning through improved communication and coordinated assessment), two contrasting case studies are used, one pre-dating the development of IBIA and a second where elements of IBIA have been implemented.

Einräumung von Verwaltungsermessen durch unionsrechtliche Richtlinien. Zur Interpretation der Umsetzungsvorgaben in Richtlinien am Beispiel von Art. 24 Abs. 1 2008/50/EG (Luftqualitätsrichtlinie)

<bold>Discretionary Powers for National Authorities within EU Directives</bold> <italic>The Interpretation of Implementation Standards in Directives using the Example of Art. 24 Para. 1 2008/50/EC (Air Quality Directive)</italic> Harmonisation by means of directives can happen in many ways. In administrative law a considerable number of directives uses provisions which strongly resemble national provisions on discretionary powers. Examples are Art. 24 para. 1 of the Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC (“Member States may, where appropriate, draw up such short-term action plans”), Art. 8 para. 1 of the Environmental Noise Directive (2002/49/EC) or Art. 4 para. 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (2011/92/EU). This article asks in what way such provisions must be interpreted by the national legislators and what the consequences of a transposition by a provision on discretionary powers are. As the EU is not competent to confer discretionary powers directly upon the national authorities (this would require an EU regulation), the national legislator has to interpret the European standard as to whether it is a minimum harmonisation clause or whether it gives the Member States leeway when transposing the directive. In the latter case, the provision can on the one hand require the legislator to introduce a provision on administrative discretionary powers into the national law and therefore leave the actual decision to the national administration. This is the case when the idea is that the goal of the directive can be best reached by a case-to-case evaluation of the most expert authority. On the other hand, the provision can be interpreted to leave wide discretion to the transposing legislator. Consequently, the legislator can concretize the provisions in the directive by legislative means and can therefore reduce the margin of discretion for the national authorities. If the directive is transposed by a provision on discretionary powers, the application of those provisions is subject to the pertinent national law (i.e. national rules on judicial review, remedies and unlawful use of discretionary powers). However, EU law, especially goals and guidelines within the directive, applies as overriding guiding principles for the national authorities when executing their discretionary powers. This means that the individual must be enabled to take legal action when the national authority disregards in its discretionary decision individual rights conferred upon him by the directive.

Environmental impacts and best management of urban stormwater runoff: measures and legislative framework

&lt;p&gt;Urban stormwater runoff constitutes a non-point source pollution, which contributes in degradation of water bodies&amp;rsquo; quality (USEPA, 2002). European Union&amp;rsquo;s environmental policy includes water environment protection and preservation by adopting a series of directives, 2000/60/EC (Water Framework Directive - WFD), 97/11/EEC (Environmental Impact Assessment Directive - EIA), 2001/42/EC (Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive - SEAD) and many others. However, such legislative framework is not strongly related to the issue of urban stormwater runoff management, due to its general content. Pollution control of urban stormwater runoff entails a management strategy based on scientific research and reliable available data. Consequently, the subject of prevention and control of urban stormwater runoff remains still open and it is a motivation for further research and discussion; it also underlines the need to propose detailed specifications both for environmental impact assessment, as well as for the proper formation of a data-base. Thus, within the content of the present paper, the following are included: a) the investigation and presentation of the receiving waters pollution issues from the urban stormwater runoff, b) the examination of the respective pollutant generation and characteristics, c) the presentation of their impacts d) the examination of the measures (structural and non-structural BMPs) f) the presentation of the existing legislation in the EU and Greece. Finally, specific measures, which authorities must take into account in the framework of the programs for runoff river basin management, according to the 2000/60 EC Directive and the Greek Law 3199/2003, are proposed.&lt;/p&gt;&#x0D;

Leth: Court Rules Out Francovich Claim on the Basis of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive

Leth: Court Rules Out Francovich Claim on the Basis of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EIA AS AN INSTRUMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE: REFLECTING ON 25 YEARS OF EIA PRACTICE IN THE NETHERLANDS AND THE UK

The European Union (EU) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive which was introduced some 25 years ago has had a major impact on decision-making practices in EU member states. In the professional literature, this impact has mostly been discussed under the heading of "effectiveness", with an emphasis being given in particular to procedural elements. The extent to which EIA has contributed to objectives, such as raising environmental awareness and leading to an incorporation of environmental values in decision-making has only been rarely investigated. This paper reflects on these latter two aspects of EIA effectiveness in two EU member states; the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Empirical evidence was compiled mainly on the basis of a comprehensive literature review and online surveys with EIA professionals in both countries. Our results indicate that overall the instrument is about equally effective in both countries with regards to the incorporation of environmental concerns in decision-making. As both countries have different governance mechanisms, further research is needed on why perceived effectiveness does not differ more.

A SNAPSHOT OF GERMANY'S EIA APPROACH IN LIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES ARCHETYPE

November 2010 marked the 25th anniversary of the EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and the 20th anniversary of its implementation in Germany via the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (EIAA) in 1990. Reflecting back to the original role model for these pieces of legisiation, the 1969 US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) can bring some interesting differences to light. Four decades of experience from the more mature US EIA system may hold some important lessons for Germany's younger EIAA. While an outright comparison is impossible at this present time, this article aims to contribute a comparative perspective to show the current status of the original US model, NEPA, and the differences in development and practice to Germany's younger EIAA.

Purposes, paradigms and pressure groups: Accountability and sustainability in EU environmental assessment, 1985–2010

Twenty five years since the introduction of the European Union (EU) environmental impact assessment (EIA) Directive in 1985 this paper reflects on the extent to which environmental assessment (EA) processes, over the course of their evolution over the last 25 years in the EU, have provided a platform for enhancing accountability and sustainability. Surprisingly—in the context of legal mandates for EA—there is little reference in the EA literature explicitly to the literature on accountability and the role EA may play in this increasingly important aspect of governance. The paper explores EA implementation principally from an environmentalist perspective and particularly the way in which NGOs and other advocates for the environment in the UK and EU have used the EA legislation as a lever for increasing democratic, corporate and professional accountability of proponents and decision-makers alike. From an a historical analysis, including two historical EIA case studies and two contemporary SEA case studies, it becomes clear that EA has had an important role to play—at the legislative level in providing the requirements for accountability, and at the implementation level as the lever that can be used to hold individuals, organisations and authorities to account for their actions. The relationship with the shift to sustainability is a close one, since sustainable development demands greater public involvement in decision-making and greater accountability of executive decisions to the public. The lessons from this analysis allow the development of a nascent policy-oriented theory regarding EA's role in accountability, which provides a framework for a distinctive new area of EA research and policy analysis. Moreover, an accountability perspective on EA could help re-frame EA for policy makers from being purely an informational and procedural instrument to one which promotes better accountability and sustainability simultaneously.

Mitigation and Screening for Environmental Assessment

This article considers how, as a matter of law and policy, mitigation measures should be taken into account in determining whether a project will have significant environmental effects and therefore be subject to assessment under the EU Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive. This is not straightforward: it is problematic to distinguish clearly between an activity and the measures proposed to minimise or mitigate for the adverse consequences of the activity. The issue is a salient one in impact assessment law, but under-explored in the literature and handled with some difficulty by the courts. I argue that there is an unnecessarily and undesirably narrow approach currently taken under the EIA Directive, which could be improved upon by taking a more adaptive approach; alternatively a heightened standard of review of ‘significance’, and within this of the scope for mitigation measures to bring projects beneath the significance threshold, may also be desirable.

On the Dispensation of Justice by Public Authorities

The Austrian Umweltsenat is a court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 234 EC. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive is to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State has to subject a transboundary project to environmental impact assessment (EIA) even if the size of the project on its own territory does not reach the threshold for an assessment as defined in Annex I of the EIA Directive but the threshold is exceeded when parts of the project that are located in another State are taken into account (author’s headnote).