Environmental Impact Assessment Directive Research Articles

Book Review: "Effective Judicial Protection and the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive in Ireland" Á. Ryall

Book Review: "Effective Judicial Protection and the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive in Ireland" Á. Ryall

The environmental impact assessment process for oil and gas extraction projects in the Russian Federation: possibilities for improvement

This paper considers how the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process in Russia (OVOS) could benefit from incorporating some of the process and documentary features of European strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and US Environmental Impact Statements respectively. While the strategic level is addressed in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, the USA system of Environmental Assessment) and in the European Directive on SEA implemented in 2004, SEA is not currently undertaken in the Russian system in terms of legislation or practice. The first section of the paper describes the present state of the OVOS process, through presentation of the relevant legislation in Russia, taking into account European Union (EIA and SEA Directives) and US (Policy Act EIS/EA) experiences. In the second section, the Irkutsk case study (an OVOS report for the gas exploration and extraction project in the Irkutsk Region of Russia) is compared with the EIA undertaken for the Cook Inlet oil and gas lease sales in Alaska (planned activities under the considered projects are quite similar) to show differences between the two documents. In the third section the current situation with Irkutsk case study is presented and an example of how SEA tools could be integrated in the report is provided.

Landscapes with history: Addressing shortcomings in Swedish EIAs

Sixteen EU member states have ratified the European Landscape Convention (ELC), which works parallel to the EU's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) directives. The ELC defines landscape and emphasizes the importance of public dialogue and identifying, analysing, and assessing the landscape. Researchers are dissatisfied with how landscape is treated in EIAs; to address this, the paper focuses on the retrospective historical view, landscape change, and public participation. I reviewed ten Swedish road and railroad EIAs, noting deficiencies in how they describe and analyze landscape. Furthermore, efforts to make the landscape more comprehensible to the public in EIAs or consultations could be improved. These problems arise from professional planners’ lack of appropriate tools combined with their traditional working methods. Swedish researchers have stressed the lack of appropriate tools for describing and analyzing the landscape in EIAs. This paper presents an applied tool developed to improve visual understanding of the landscape's historical dimensions and how they change, focusing on visualization to facilitate public consultation. The tool also helps planners better harmonize new infrastructure with the surrounding landscape. The tool combines the matching of historical artworks and maps with current photographs and field visits, providing comprehensive “before” versus “now” overviews of landscapes.

EIA and Public Participation: Determining the Limits of Member State Discretion: EC Environmental Impact Assessment Directive--Implementation--Public participation in certain assessment procedures upon payment of fees--Scope of national discretion

Journal Article EIA and Public Participation: Determining the Limits of Member State Discretion: EC Environmental Impact Assessment Directive—Implementation—Public participation in certain assessment procedures upon payment of fees—Scope of national discretion Get access Journal of Environmental Law, Volume 19, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 247–257, https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqm006 Published: 02 April 2007

Road Planning in Europe - a Case Study (Part II)

AbstractThe following text contains the third and last section of the general report on national road planning procedures in the EU which originally was compiled as discussion paper for the 20th colloquium of the Association of the Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions of the European Union.1 The first two sections examined the different administrative and judicial procedures applicable to road planning in the EU Member States. The following last section deals with the influence of EU environmental legislation (Fauna-Flora-Habitat, Bird Protection, Environmental Impact Assessment and Ambient Air Directives) on national planning decisions.

Comparison of China’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Law with the European Union (EU) EIA Directive

In this paper, we first review the development of China's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system in the past 30 years. Then we compare the framework and operational procedures of China's new EIA law with those of the EU EIA Directive. We also compare public participation, as well as sanctions and control in the two EIA systems. In addition, we identify where the processes in both EIA systems are similar or different from one another. By comparison, we noted that there are at least three obvious weaknesses in China's EIA system: (1) the application of new models for EIA legislation; (2) the improvement of EIA guidance and education; and (3) the enhancement of public participation in EIA process. Our study indicates that these three major shortcomings should be overcome and improved in China's EIA system, when compared with the EU EIA system.

Phasing-Out of Nuclear Power in Sweden

After the Chernobyl accident in 1986, the Swedish Parliament decided that nuclear power production should gradually be phased out. In 1997, the Acton Phasing-Out Nuclear Power was passed. This Act empowers the Swedish Government to decide to close nuclear reactors. Under Act, the owner of a reactor, which is closed, is entitled to compensation from the state. On 5 February 1998, the Government decided to close one reactor in Barsebäck. The owner of the reactor and its parents challenged the legality of the Government's decision. The applicants alleged, inter alia, that the decision violated the Instrument of Government, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, EC law and the Energy Charter Treaty. On 16 June 1999, the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the complaints. Sydkraft AB then brought complaints to the European Commission alleging, inter alia, that the Supreme Administrative Court had failed to refer to the European Court of Justice questions of interpretation of Article 86(1) and under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive. An agreement for compensation was entered into in November 1999. In 2002, the European Commission found that Sweden had not complied with its obligations under the EIA Directive. In December2004, the Government decided to close Barsebäck 2, which decision resulted in a further agreement on compensation.

Public and stakeholder participation in European water policy: a critical review of project evaluation processes

AbstractThe recent reform of the European water policy recognizes the importance of developing effective mechanisms to support public and stakeholder participation in river basin decision‐making processes. This paper critically reviews the evaluation processes of different types of water related project in five European countries (Portugal, Greece, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Spain), with respect to participatory criteria. The horizontal comparison of these cases accounted for criteria such as the political and institutional context, the design, the implementation and the evaluation of the outcomes of participation. The results indicated that, in the majority of the case studies, participation was simply adopted to conform to the requisites of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. Thus, there was truly no room for the active involvement and collaboration of the interested parties. The development of guidelines, drawing from the analysis of past experiences, is expected to support the implementation of the participatory objectives of the EU water policy. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

EIA SCREENING IN DENMARK: A NEW REGULATORY INSTRUMENT?

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is the process by which the effects that proposed projects are likely to have are assessed with respect to a number of environmental criteria. Screening is an activity carried out in advance of an EIA to determine whether, in fact, it is necessary to undertake a full assessment. In that sense screening has become not only an administrative filtering procedure but also effectively a kind of regulation.Since the implementation of the Directive in 1999, counties (county councils) in Denmark have screened around 2000 projects annually. Approximately 3 percent of the decisions arising from screening lead to a "full EIA".This article is based on a study of 98 documented screening decisions combined with interviews with developers and their consultants as well as county officials for each project. Herein, we analyse both the number of modifications to projects made due to the screening process and also how radical or significant the modifications were.EIA regulation meant that approximately 45 percent of the projects were modified. Around half of these modifications were actually made before the administrative process even started. The mere fact that screening exists functions as an eye-opener to developers and consultants. In general, the nature of changes made before and after submission of the application was similar. They covered basically minor changes.Examining the assessments made during screening more closely, we conclude that there is still far to go in order to make the assessment broader and more holistic in accordance with the ambitions set out in the EIA Directive. Among other things, this goes for the assessment of cumulative and potential impacts.On the basis of the evaluation, we also conclude that screening is effectively a regulatory instrument in its own right. Moreover, it seems to be a cost-effective instrument in the sense that, without incurring much administrative expense, it potentially results in environmental benefits.

EIA SCREENING FOR CHANGES AND EXTENSIONS TO EXISTING PROJECTS: APPLYING AN EU PERSPECTIVE

Directive 97/11/EC, amending the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (85/337/EEC), introduced a number of key changes to the procedures of EIA in the European Union (EU). One significant amendment was the introduction of a requirement for EIAs to be completed for "changes or extensions to Annex I or II projects that have already been authorised executed or are in the process of being executed and which are likely to have significant adverse effects on the environment (CEC, 1997). That requirement imposes a duty on competent authorities to screen all changes and extensions of Annex I and Annex II projects for the need for EIA. Applying legal and policy principles established in the European Union, the scope of what constitute relevant changes and extensions is very wide. Given this wide scope, it would be reasonable to assume that screening changes or extensions would have been a major growth area of EIA activity in the UK. However, evidence presented here indicates just the opposite and suggests that many local planning authorities are not fully aware of the full implications of this clause in the EIA Directive. Furthermore, for the full implications of the "changes and extensions" clause to be implemented in the UK may require further amendments to the EIA legislation.

Divergent practice in a converging system? The case of EIA in France and the UK

This paper seeks to clarify the harmonisation objective of the European Union (EU) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directives and to highlight some of the implicit tensions and differing interpretations. It first provides an overview of Member States' (MSs) practice in EIA, in the context of the harmonisation objective, before focusing on the particular cases of the UK and France. The latter include studies of the legal context and practice of EIA. There are significant variations in legal harmonisation and in the ‘spirit’ of legislation and guidance, nor does the existence of common legal requirements necessarily equate with ‘harmonised practice’. There are considerable variations in UK and French practice, reflecting a number of underlying factors—including attitude to the environment, institutional factors and the nature and perceptions of practitioners. Yet, while practice may be divergent, it may not be diverging, and recent actions such as the amended Directive are designed to encourage more convergence.

Harmonising environmental impact assessment processes for geological repositories for nuclear waste in the European Union

A recent study, carried out for Directorate General for the Environment of the European Commission, investigated the scope and application of environmental impact assessment (EIA) legislation and current EIA practice in Member States (15) and applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe (10), specifically in relation to the geological disposal of radioactive waste. Legal provisions were assessed against the requirements of the European Union EIA Directives, along with the extent to which international ‘bestpractice’ has been adopted in each country. The study also derived an approach to EIA, capable of adoption in all 25 study countries, which would lead to consistency and best practice in the context of geological repositories.

Road Developments in the UK: An Analysis of Ecological Assessment in Environmental Impact Statements Produced between 1993 and 1997

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been required for certain proposed road developmentsin the UK since EC Directive (85/337) was implemented in 1988. The extent to which the requirements of the EIA Directive are met with respect to ecological issues has been explored in earlier reviews of road statements (Treweek et al., 1993) and of UK environmental impact statements (EISs) in general (Thompson et al., 1997). This paper describes the results of a further review of 40 EISs produced between 1993 and 1997 and also examines recent changes in the political context for EIA of proposed road developments,including developments in UK transport policy and the UK biodiversity process. The results of the review suggest that the ecological assessment of proposed road developments has improved in some respects, but also highlights the persistence of many shortcomings identified in earlier reviews. The reasons for ongoing failure to address these issues are explored. Key findings include a marked improvement in the extent of reference to consultation with statutory consultees and an increase in the proportion of EISs reporting the results of new ecological surveys. However, while potential ecological impacts were discussed in all the EISs reviewed, many still failed to predict the full range of potential ecological impacts.

Environmental Impact Assessment in Spain: A Critical Review

Spanish environmental legislation and the implementation of Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/ EC on environmental impact assessment (EIA); an analysis of the main factors that influence the effectiveness of EIA in Spain, those factors being characterised as either internal (that is, inherent in legislation) or external, that is, other factors, which can vary from political to social issues. A comparison between the theory and the practice; and an assessment of the likely efficacy of the amended EIA Directive in Spain. Conclusion that certain failings are caused by failings in the text of the EIA Directive itself; although certain national legislative mechanisms in Spain have gone beyond the terms of the Directive, EIA in Spain is a politicised and arbitrary process and legislation is not usually respected, leading to a high proportion of unsatisfactory EIA and irregular implementation.

Precaution, Prevention and the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive

Argument that the Environmental Impact Directive adopts a preventative rather than a precautionary approach, despite the new legal basis for, and Recital 3 of the amending Directive. The distinction between precaution and prevention based on degrees of certainty about whether particular consequences will materialise from particular actions or processes. The preventative rather than the precautionary character of the Directive is, it is argued, supported by the requirement for assessment on the basis of the likelihood of significant effects; time constraints in supplementing the Annexes; implementation problems; and the operation of Annex II, including selectivity in updating it. Conclusion that the Directive is reactive and preventative, but not precautionary.

Greenpeace steps up its campaign against Atlantic Frontier exploration

Abstract The UK oil industry operating in the Atlantic Margin can expect an escalating campaign opposing their activities mounted by Greenpeace. In its most dramatic gesture so far Greenpeace campaigners took command of the island rock of Rockall, some 460 km northwest of Scotland, with the M/V Greenpeace supporting the occupation. The organization says that it will not leave until the UK government signals an end to oil prospecting in the Atlantic Frontier area. Onshore, Greenpeace activists appear to be adopting a policy of harrassment against oil companies intending to carry out seismic data acquisition licensing commitments in the area. The organization is along with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Marine Conservation Society and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society also filing a complaint with the European Commission over Britainís alleged failure to implement the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive for oil exploration. Media briefing notes from Greenpeace suggest that its campaign is directed at protecting the sea life of the deep water Atlantic Frontier as well as arguing the case for an alternative energy policy.

TRANSBOUNDARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IN A EUROPEAN CONTEXT

Two important trends in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), eleven years after Directive 85/337, are the earlier implementation and more effective follow-up of the EIA, and the increasing focus on transboundary impacts. The 1991 United Nations Convention on EIA in a Transboundary Context (the ‘Espoo Convention’) is expected to come into force around the end of 1996. The key elements of the Convention are reviewed together with the proposed amendments to the EIA Directive. Project types potentially subject to transboundary assessment are detailed; with virtually all of these set to become Annex I projects under the revised Directive. Some potential implications of the Convention are then discussed, including the UK Government's present ‘hands off’ position; arrangements for projects near the Northern Ireland/Eire border; and the potentially more significant concern of transboundary pollution in Central Europe (CE). The paper concludes by recommending official guidance, greater awareness and better strategic planning as being crucial to the successful implementation of the Convention. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Policy And Practice Environmental Assessmentand Planning: A Chronology of Development in England and Wales

The development of regulations to implement Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in England and Wales occurred initially as a response to European Community Directive obligations. Since then, a proliferation of regulations has resulted from the need to meet those obligations which were not covered successfully by the first tranche of legislation; the desire to extend the range of project types requiring EIA beyond those specified in the Directive; and the need to respond to changes brought about by privatization.As a result, current regulations relating to EIA are extremely complex and are in a constant state of flux. This inevitably causes problems for those responsible for their implementation. Ten years after the 1985 Environmental Impact Assessment Directive was notified to the Member States, it has undergone a review and the European Commissionhas reached a common position on the proposedamendments.The implementation date for Member States to meet the requirements of the amended Directive is 31 December 1997 (ENDS, 1996). However, the 1985 Directive has yet to be fully implemented in the UK.

The Significance of Environmental Precaution in the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive

The cornerstone of the law on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment is the prevention of pollution. This principle is expressed in three different ways. Firstly, the term "interaction" between factors as an expression of the ecosystem in Article 3 means that protection has shifted from the factors to the system. Secondly, the term "impact" includes nuisances so that the environment must be protected even when damage does not occur. Finally, low probabilities are sufficient when forecasting impacts. This kind of prevention is the standard to be incorporated into the legislation of the Member States and put into effect.

The case for “soft” harmonization

This paper seeks to clarify the harmonisation objective of the European Union (EU) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directives and to highlight some of the implicit tensions and differing interpretations. It first provides an overview of Member States' (MSs) practice in EIA, in the context of the harmonisation objective, before focusing on the particular cases of the UK and France. The latter include studies of the legal context and practice of EIA. There are significant variations in legal harmonisation and in the ‘spirit’ of legislation and guidance, nor does the existence of common legal requirements necessarily equate with ‘harmonised practice’. There are considerable variations in UK and French practice, reflecting a number of underlying factors—including attitude to the environment, institutional factors and the nature and perceptions of practitioners. Yet, while practice may be divergent, it may not be diverging, and recent actions such as the amended Directive are designed to encourage more convergence.