(IMP)³ Policy Options. D 5.2 Final Report

Sixth Framework Programme Specific Targeted Research or Innovation Project (IMP)3 (IMP)3 Policy Options D 5.2 Final Report IMProving the IMPlementation of Environmental IMPact Assessment funded by the Community’s Sixth Framework Pro g ramme (IMP)3 Project team ÖIR, Österreichisches Institut für Raumplanung (Austrian Institute for Regional Studies and Spatial Planning) Austria UBA, Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency) Austria WCfH, Wales Centre for Health United Kingdom Nordregio, Nordic Centre for Spatial Development Sweden CITTA, Research Centre for Territory, Transports and Environment Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto Portugal SAŽP, Slovenská Agentúra Životného Prostredia (Slovak Environmental Agency) Slovakia Members of the project team (in alphabetical order) Antonia Cornaro, Erich Dallhammer, Valérie Dumont, Ulrike Fasching, Peter Schneidewind, Gregori Stanzer, Gabriele Tatzberger (ÖIR) Wolfgang Lexer, Sabine Mayer, Bernhard Schwarzl (UBA) Ceri Breeze, John Kemm, Nicola Pearce, Lynnette Thomas, Salim Vohra (WCfH) Tuija Hilding-Rydevik, Åsa Pettersson, Arto Ruotsalainen (Nordregio) Maria Rita Correia, Paulo Pinho, Sara Santos Cruz (CITTA) Daniela Bugáňová, Mária Hrnčárová, Zuzana Lieskovská, Katarína Palúchová, František Parišek (SZAP) Authors Antonia Cornaro (ÖIR), Maria Rita Correia (CITTA), Erich Dallhammer (ÖIR), Tuija Hilding-Rydevik (Nordregio), Wolfgang Lexer (UBA), Sabine Mayer (UBA), Paulo Pinho (CITTA), Sara Santos Cruz (CITTA) Coordinator contact details ÖIR, Österreichisches Institut für Raumplanung (Austrian Institute for Regional Studies and Spatial Planning) Franz-Josefs-Kai 27, 1010 Vienna, Austria phone: ++43-(0)1-5338747-11, fax: ++43-(0)1-5338747-66 internet: www.oir.at, e-mail: [email protected] funded by bm:bwk Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur (Federal Ministry for Education, Science and Culture) (IMP)3 CONTENTS FOREWORD 5 1 CONTEXT OF THE STUDY 7 1.1 Structure of the study 8 1.2 Methodology 9 1.2.1 The “triangle-approach” of (IMP)3 9 1.2.2 Literature review 10 1.2.3 Questionnaire 10 1.2.4 Policy options and SWOT-Analysis 18 1.2.5 Communication process at EU level 19 1.3 Contribution to policy developments 21 2 HEALTH ASPECTS IN EIA 23 2.1 Theoretical and Legal Background 23 2.1.1 Basic Concepts 24 2.1.2 Health in the context of Environmental Impact Assessment 25 2.1.3 EIA Guidance 26 2.1.4 Results from previous evaluation studies 28 2.1.5 EIA and health literature 28 2.2 Empirical Evidence and Key Findings 30 2.2.1 General Findings 30 2.2.2 Discussion 31 2.2.3 Best practice and guidelines 35 2.2.4 Monitoring progress 38 2.3 Policy Options 39 2.3.1 Introduction 39 2.3.2 Option 0: Do nothing 40 2.3.3 Option 1: Preparation of a new health in EIA guidance package 41 2.3.4 Option 2: Supporting measures plus new health in EIA guidance package 43 2.3.5 Option 3: Minor amendment to EIA Directive plus supporting measures plus new guidance package 45 2.3.6 Option 4: Major amendment to EIA Directive plus supporting measures plus new guidance package 47 2.3.7 Option 5: New HIA Directive Guidance plus supporting measures plus new guidance package 48 3 RISK ASSESSMENT 51 3.1 Theoretical and legal background 51 3.1.1 Risk in the context of the EIA Directive 52 3.1.2 EC’s guidance on EIA 55 3.1.3 National EIA systems 55 3.2 Empirical evidence and key findings 56 3.2.1 Coverage of extraordinary hazards, risks and risk assessment in EIA practice 56 3.2.2 Procedural and methodical aspects of risk assessment approaches in EIA 57 3.2.3 Influence of risk assessment in EIA on project modifications 58 3.2.4 Barriers towards a better integration of risk assessment into EIA 59 3 (IMP)3 3.2.5 Need for more coverage or deeper integration of risk assessment in EIA 60 3.2.6 Major social risks: coverage and effectiveness 60 3.2.7 Coordination with risk assessment under other licensing regimes 60 3.2.8 Empirical results and desk research: Context 61 3.2.9 Integration of risk assessment into EIA 62 3.3 Policy Options 63 3.3.1 Introduction 63 3.3.2 Policy Option 0: Zero option: 'Do nothing' 64 3.3.3 Policy Option 1: Guidance ‘light’ – Enhancement of existing EC guidance 66 3.3.4 Policy Option 2: Preparation of a new guidance package plus pro-active dissemination strategy 68 3.3.5 Policy Option 3: Set of supporting measures 71 3.3.6 Policy Option 4: Launching a risk assessment initiative with a broader perspective 74 3.3.7 Policy Option 5: Moderate amendment to EIA directive plus new technical guidance package plus support for implementation 76 3.3.8 Policy Option 6: Major amendment to EIA directive plus new technical guidance package plus support for implementation 79 4 PROJECTS SUBJECT TO EIA 83 4.1 Theorectical and legal background 83 4.1.1 General Concepts 83 4.1.2 Screening Approaches in the European Context 84 4.2 Empirical evidence and key findings 86 4.2.1 General Findings 86 4.2.2 Discussion 89 4.3 Policy Options 93 4.3.1 Introduction 93 4.3.2 Policy Option 0: Zero option: No change/do nothing 94 4.3.3 Policy Option 1: Guidance plus supportive measures 96 4.3.4 Policy Option 2: Minor amendment to the EIA directive plus supportive measures 99 4.3.5 Policy Option 3: Moderate amendment to the EIA directive plus supportive measures 102 4.3.6 Policy Option 4: Major amendment to the EIA directive plus supportive measures 105 4.3.7 Policy Option 5: Radical amendment to the EIA directive plus supportive measures 108 5 CONCLUSIONS 111 6 LITERATURE 119 6.1 Literature Chapter 2 “Human health” 119 6.2 Literature Chapter 3 “Risk” 123 6.3 Literature Chapter 4 “Projects subject to EIA” 129 6.4 National documents 133 6.4.1 Legislation 133 6.4.2 National guidance on EIA 139 6.5 Links to related sites 143 6.6 Country abbreviations 144 4 (IMP)3 FOREWORD The project (IMP)3 – IMProving the IMPlementation of Environmental IMPact Assessment is carried out within the 6th framework programme and investigates the application of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in Europe. It ties in with the results of the report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council that revealed that there are still weaknesses as well as considerable variability in the Member States’ implementation of the EIA Directive 85/337/EEC. (IMP)3 focuses on the analysis and the improvement of the application of EIA concerning human health, risk assessment and project types subject to EIA. It was accompanied by an effective communication-process with DG Research and DG Environment. We would like to thank Marialuisa Tamborra, Laura Tabellini and David Aspinwall for their support. The final report “(IMP)3 Policy Options” at hand summarizes main results of the desk research and empirical research on the implementation of the EIA Directive and the actual application of EIA on the ground across Europe and presents possible policy options in order to improve EIA application in the three different fields (human health, risk assessment and project types subject to EIA). It sums up the following three subject-specific reports of (IMP)3 that provide more detailed research results on each subject:  The report “Human health and EIA” was elaborated by Tuija Hilding-Rydevik (work package leader), Åsa Pettersson and Arto Ruotsalainen (Nordregio); Nicola Pearce, Lynnette Thomas and Salim Vohra (WCfH); and Mária Hrnčárová, Zuzana Lieskovská and Katarína Palúchová (SAŽP).  The report “Risk Assessment” was elaborated by Wolfgang Lexer (work package leader) and Bernhard Schwarzl (UBA); and Katarina Paluchova (SZAP).  The report “Projects subject to EIA” was elaborated by Sabine Mayer (work package leader, UBA); Paulo Pinho, Sara Santos Cruz and Maria Rita Correia (CITTA); Mária Hrnčárová, Zuzana Lieskovská and František Parišek (SAŽP). The team elaborating the final report included Erich Dallhammer and Antonia Cornaro (ÖIR); and Paulo Pinho, Sara Santos Cruz and Maria Rita Correia (CITTA) and the work package leaders of the thematic reports Tuija Hilding-Rydevik, Wolfgang Lexer and Sabine Mayer. The research is based on empirical investigations of the application of EIA in the European Member States surveyed by a questionnaire spread across European EIA-stakeholders and interviews in ten European countries. Empirical research was supported by desk studies on the regulatory framework and the theoretical background of each subject. We would like to thank the 183 EIA experts who returned the questionnaire and the 53 interviewees in Europe, USA and Canada for their support. Their input formed the empirical data basis of our research. The results of (IMP)3 shall provide decision support to the policy making process on Community level, contribute to an improved knowledge basis on EIA application and stimulate discussions within the European EIA community. 5 (IMP)3 6 (IMP)3 1 CONTEXT OF THE STUDY The development of projects1, as e.g. the construction of main roads and railway-lines, the development of industrial plants, shopping centres and theme parks, etc. can cause adverse effects to the environment. Therefore the European Union has enacted the EIA-Directive (Directive 85/337/EEC) to perform an assessment of the environmental effects of those projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment (environmental impact assessment – EIA). The EIA Directive has been in place for almost 20 years. A report of the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council evaluated its application and effectiveness and revealed that there are still weaknesses as well as considerable variability in the Member States’ implementation.2 As a result the Commission aimed for a deeper evaluation of problematic aspects of the EIA Directive and launched a project within the 6th framework programme. The project IMProving the IMPlementation of Environmental IMPact Assessment – (IMP)3 is based on the results of the report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive. Concentrating on some of the weak points the report outlined, (IMP)3 focuses on three main objectives:  Objective A: a better incorporation of human health aspects into EIA;  Objective B: a better integration and more consistency of risk assessments, regarding various sources of risks (natural hazards, accidents, sabotage); and  Objective C: a survey of project types subject to EIA particularly focusing on various screening methods, different sets of project types and threshold values/criteria applied. The study of (IMP)3 was carried out by an international and interdisciplinary team, consisting of members from the following institutions:  ÖIR – Österreichisches Institut für Raumplanung (Austrian Institute for Regional Studies and Spatial Planning); Austria  UBA – Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency); Austria  WCH – Wales Centre for Health; United Kingdom  Nordregio – Nordic Centre for Spatial Development; Sweden  CITTA – Research Centre for Territory, Transports and Environment at the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Oporto, Portugal  SAŽP – Slovenská Agentúra Životného Prostredia (Slovak Environmental Agency) 1 For the purposes of the EIA Directive “project” means: the execution of construction works or of other installations or schemes; and, other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape including those involving the extraction of mineral resources. 2 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive (Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC). How successful are the Member States in implementing the EIA Directive. 7 (IMP)3 (IMP)3 shall provide an important input to the process of improving the application of EIA, also considering potential amendments to the EIA Directive and aims to stimulate discussions within the European EIA community. The suggestions for potential steps to be taken are primarily addressed to the European Commission. 1.1 Structure of the study The final report at hand “(IMP)3 Policy Options” summarises the results of the research conducted in order to improve the EIA-application in Europe. It provides general conclusions, a discussion about the linkages between the thematic issues, and it includes an outlook about further research needed. The detailed research in the fields of human health, risk assessment and project types subject to EIA are laid down within the following three additional, sectoral reports:  “Human Health and EIA”;  “Risk Assessment”  “Projects Subject to EIA” These sectoral reports comprise all relevant information about the results within each main theme of (IMP)3. So each of them can be read and understood without reading the other reports. Final Report Report Projects subject to EIA (WP4) Report Risk Assessment (WP3) Report Human Health (WP2) 3 WP-Reports 1 Final Report 4 Reports in 1 Box Final Report Report Projects subject to EIA (WP4) Report Risk Assessment (WP3) Report Human Health (WP2) Final ReportFinal Report Report Projects subject to EIA (WP4) Report Risk Assessment (WP3) Report Human Health (WP2) Report Projects subject to EIA (WP4) Report Risk Assessment (WP3) Report Human Health (WP2) 3 WP-Reports 1 Final Report 4 Reports in 1 Box 3 WP-Reports 1 Final Report 4 Reports in 1 Box Structure of the study The structure of the final report “(IMP)3 Policy Options” follows the structure of the research conducted in (IMP)3, which was organised along five work packages (WP):  Chapter 1 sums up the general results of WP1 that focused on the gathering of empirical data about, including the dissemination of a questionnaire to EIA-stakeholders in all 25 Member States and interviews with EIA-stakeholders;  Chapter 2 deals with the results of WP2 “Human health” focusing on a better incorporation of human health aspects into EIA;  Chapter 3 concentrates on the results of WP3 “Risk assessment”  Chapter 4 focuses on WP4 “Projects subject to EIA”  Chapter 5 finally investigates the inter-relationship between the thee main issues of (IMP)3 and provides an outlook on further research needed. It concentrates on the work, done in WP5 “policy options”. 8 (IMP)3 WP5 Policy options WP 1 Application of EIA in the EU and elsewhere in the world WP 4 Projects subject to EIA WP 3 Risk assessment WP2 Health aspects in EIA WP5 Policy options WP 1 Application of EIA in the EU and elsewhere in the world WP 4 Projects subject to EIA WP 3 Risk assessment WP2 Health aspects in EIA Structure of the research of (IMP)3 1.2 Methodology 1.2.1 The “triangle-approach” of (IMP)3 Research on the improvement of the application of the environmental impact assessment needs a sound literature review, including especially existing evaluation reports and different types of national legislation as well as a sufficient communication with EIA-stakeholders and applicants in Europe and with EIA-experts at the European level. Even if the investigation of the three core fields of research conducted in (IMP)3 (human health, risk assessment and projects subject to EIA) requires the analysis of rather different sources in order to meet the needs of the future of each thematic field, all three are dealing with the same general issue, the application of EIA in Europe. Thus, for gathering the data required from various sources, a kind of “triangle-approach” was developed. Thereby, the literature review forms the basis of the “research triangle”, whereas both sides cover the communication-tools with the EIA-applicants in Europe: on one side a questionnaire was distributed to about 970 EIA-stakeholders and on the other side interviews have been conducted with 64 selected EIA-experts. (IMP)3 Literature Review Interviews Questionnaire (IMP)3 Literature Review Interviews Questionnaire (IMP)3 “triangle-approach” for gathering and analysing data 9 (IMP)3 Geographical criteria for the selection of the interviewees As the results of the interviews should reflect the European situation the following criteria were taken into account:  interviewees from new European Member States and old European Member States  interviewees from large MS and small MS  interviewees from MS from the southern, the northern, the eastern and the western part of the EU Countries selected for interviews: Austria Czech Republic France Germany Latvia Poland Portugal Slovakia Sweden United Kingdom Countries selected for interviews: Austria Czech Republic France Germany Latvia Poland Portugal Slovakia Sweden United Kingdom Geographic distribution of the countries selected for interviews In order to compare the EIA-application in Europe with the way countries outside Europe apply EIAs, additionally to the 10 European countries selected, two non-EU foreign countries were chosen for a more detailed investigation of their EIA application. The two selected countries are USA and Canada because of their similar conditions as highly industrialised countries and their long experience with EIA. (The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 enacted by the Congress of the United States of America in 1969 was worldwide the first law coming up with the term “environmental impact assessment“ on a legal basis.) Within each thematic issue several additional interviews with senior experts interviews were conducted including experts from countries additional to the ones mentioned above as e.g. Denmark, Finland and Ireland. 16 (IMP)3 Stakeholder-oriented criteria for the selection of the interviewees The EIA-experts interviewed should form a comprehensive picture of the EIA-application in each of the countries selected. Thus the views of experts at national and regional level being mainly involved in the transformation of the EU-Directive into national or regional legislation should be taken into account as well as the views of persons actually dealing with projects subject to EIAs, as e.g. consultants, NGOs or representatives from the administrative side. Thus, the following EIA- stakeholder-groups have been taken into account for selection:  representatives of national governments,  regional bodies with competence in EIA-issues,  NGO’s,  representatives of the private sector as e.g. consultants,  others as e.g. researchers. Interview guide and protocols In order to prepare the interviews, an interview-guide has been developed by the (IMP)3 consortium and discussed with representatives of DG Environment. All in all, 50 interviews with 64 interviewees have been conducted (33 interviews in European countries and an additional 17 in USA and Canada). Each of the interviews was minuted in order to gain a well-structured basis for the analysis. 7 5 4 3 1 2 2 5 4 5 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Austria Czech Republic Germany France Ireland Latvia Poland Portugal Sweden Slovakia United Kingdom Interviews with EIA Stakeholders in Europe funded by the Community’s Sixth Framework Pro g ramme (IMP)3 IMProving the IMPlementation of Environmental IMPact Assessment Number of interviewees Number of EIA stakeholders interviewed 17 (IMP)3 Role of stakeholders in the EIA-process EIA-stakeholders interviewed Stakeholder type Country national government regional government NGO consultant others (e.g. scientists) total Austria 1 4 0 2 0 7 Czech Republic 2 1 2 5 Germany 2 1 1 4 France 1 1 1 3 Latvia 2 2 Poland 2 2 Portugal 1 1 1 1 1 5 Sweden 1 1 1 1 4 Slovakia 1 1 1 1 4 United Kingdom 1 1 2 Canada 2 2 3 1 8 USA 13 3 2 18 total 26 14 6 13 5 64 Number of interviewees per country and stakeholder type 1.2.4 Policy options and SWOT-Analysis Based on the findings of the literature review, the analysis of the questionnaire and the interview results several policy options were elaborated within each of the three main themes of (IMP)3 (human health, risk assessment and projects subject to EIA) to increase the consistency of the application of EIA across the European Union. Literature Review Theoretical background Questionnaires / Interviews Findings Empirical results Policy Options Definition of Priorities Literature Review Theoretical background Questionnaires / Interviews Findings Empirical results Policy Options Definition of Priorities Deduction of policy options from the results of the analysis conducted The policy options aim at tackling the identified weaknesses of the current European EIA practice overcoming the most important barriers on the way forward. They also attempt to build on and advance the strengths that partly exist. The policy options represent a range of different courses of actions that the European Commission could take to better exploit the full potential of EIA to act as an effective instrument of preventive 18 (IMP)3 and precautionary environmental protection. The variety of the options comprises the whole range of potential measures that could be taken into account at the European level. This includes both “soft” and legislative courses of action. They are designed to operate mainly along three major axes:  guidance;  supportive measures;  regulatory or legislative measures. The development of such a range of policy options, as opposed to a simple list of recommendations, is a more robust approach as it recognizes that different levels of action are possible and that each has advantages and disadvantages. The policy options presented in the report are addressed to the European Commission. Yet, eventually they are targeted at Member States and EIA stakeholders and are intended to influence actual implementation and application of EIA on national and regional level. Their main functions are to provide decision support to the policy making process on Community level, to assist informed decision-making on possible future amendments to European legislation, and to contribute to improvement of guidance such as supportive measures for EIA application, but also to stimulate discussions within the European EIA community. For each policy option, a SWOT-Analysis has been conducted, which provides indicative lists of strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats. This form of a SWOT-Analysis is a simple, yet flexible and robust tool for decision-support that is meant as a basis for discussion outlining potential pros and cons of a decision. However, it can not substitute a more rigid cost-benefit-risk analysis to be done on part of the Commission. 1.2.5 Communication process at EU level As the results of (IMP)3 shall serve for a more harmonized application of the EIA-Directive and take into account various policy options possibly being taken at European level, a close communication with relevant stakeholders at EU-level was required. Therefore, a communication process with representatives of DG Environment and the EIA/SEA expert group and DG Research was established, in order to feed back the research approach and the intermediate results with relevant stakeholders at EU-level. SEA/EIA Expert Group The national experts on SEA and EIA on governmental level (= SEA/EIA Expert Group) meet twice a year in order to discuss relevant issues about EIA and SEA on the European level. The meeting is chaired by a member of DG Environment. This group of experts was informed at the start of the project about the research focus and their remarks on the research topic were taken into account at the elaboration of the details of the research of (IMP)3. Moreover, some of the group-members supported the (IMP)3-team in order to find relevant EIA-stakeholders at the national level. Intermediate results of the data-analysis were 19 (IMP)3 presented to the SEA/EIA Expert Group and the final results will be presented and discussed at upcoming meetings. EU EIA expert group/ DG Environment (IMP)3 research team EIA stakeholders Kick off Expert group meeting presentation of (IMP)3 DG Environment Feed back Interviews in 12 countries Formulation of policy options Final conference presentation + discussion of results Dissemination of the final report Draft questionnaire Interview guide questionnaire Interview guide: final version Questionnaire to 970 stakeholders Literature review Analysis empirical data DG Environment Feed back Information about first results Information DG Environment Final report (IMP)3 communication process EU EIA expert group/ DG Environment (IMP)3 research team EIA stakeholders Kick off Expert group meeting presentation of (IMP)3 DG Environment Feed back Interviews in 12 countries Formulation of policy options Final conference presentation + discussion of results Dissemination of the final report Draft questionnaire Interview guide questionnaire Interview guide: final version Questionnaire to 970 stakeholders Literature review Analysis empirical data DG Environment Feed back Information about first results Information DG Environment Final report EU EIA expert group/ DG Environment (IMP)3 research team EIA stakeholders Kick off Expert group meeting presentation of (IMP)3 DG Environment Feed back Interviews in 12 countries Formulation of policy options Final conference presentation + discussion of results Dissemination of the final report Draft questionnaire Interview guide questionnaire Interview guide: final version Questionnaire to 970 stakeholders Literature review Analysis empirical data DG Environment Feed back Information about first results Information DG Environment Final report (IMP)3 communication process (IMP)3 communication process with EIA-stakeholders at EU-level DG Environment In order to ensure the usability of the results of (IMP)3, serving as input for the policy making process on the European level, members of DG Environment were informed about the work plan and the progress of the project and their feed-back was incorporated into the next steps of (IMP)3. The following formal contacts were established:  1st co-ordination meeting at the start of (IMP)3: general information about the project and fine-tuning of the research focus of (IMP)3;  2nd co-ordination meeting: presentation of the draft questionnaire and the draft interview guide;  3rd co-ordination meeting: presentation of first results of the analysis of the empirical data coming from the questionnaire and the interviews, agreement about the form of the results of (IMP)3 (elaboration of several policy options including a SWOT-Analysis for each option); and  pre-information about the policy options proposed by (IMP)3. 20 (IMP)3 The close contact with DG Environment aimed to ensure that the results of (IMP)3 are a useful contribution to the policy making process of DG Environment concerning the improvement of EIA- application. 1.3 Contribution to policy developments (IMP)3 goes in line with the European policy to establish a sustainable development, which is laid down e.g. in the Sixth Environment Action Programme of the European Community ”Environment 2010: Our future, Our choice” and the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). The main goal of (IMP)3 to contribute to the process of a more harmonized application of EIAs meets directly the scientific and technological needs of the policies of the Community related to the application of the EIA-Directive (97/11/EC). In detail (IMP)3:  provides a better understanding of ”impacts” and clarifies different interpretations of environment, health, vulnerability, and risks within EU 25;  provides a better understanding of EIA applications;  analyses the improvement of the coherence of EIA with different assessment tools (health impact assessment etc.); and  gives proposals for the integration of health aspects into EIA, how to come to a risk characterisation and suggestions for improving the coverage of projects types likely to have adverse effects on the environment. Setting up policy options in the three core fields of the research human health, risk assessment and project types, (IMP)3 contributes directly to the scientific and technological needs of the policies of the Community in terms of the improvement of the application of the EIA. 21 (IMP)3 22 (IMP)3 2 HEALTH ASPECTS IN EIA 2.1 Theoretical and Legal Background The human health and environmental impacts of development projects ranging from nuclear power stations and landfills to large housing estates and mobile phone base stations have generated growing public concern across the European Union (EU). Policy and decision-makers at EU, national and local levels are facing increasing pressure and protest against the siting of such projects near existing communities. This pressure and protest has fed into three strands of work. Firstly, it has led to research and evaluation that has highlighted the weaknesses of current environmental impact assessment (EIA) legislation and practice to deal adequately with the human health impacts of projects. Secondly, it has led to the use and development of quantitative health risk assessment either within or alongside EIA. Lastly, it has led to the growth of health impact assessment (HIA) as a separate and distinct form of impact assessment theory and practice, albeit one with roots in EIA. It is at the intersection of these three strands of thinking that the differences and tensions about health and EIA come to the fore. Among the questions at the heart of this debate are: a. should health be integrated into EIA or should it be dealt with separately? b. if health should be integrated then what form should that integration take, in terms of the process and content of EIAs? c. what methodologies and methods are needed to adequately assess health impacts? And, in particular, d. should these health impacts be assessed in largely quantitative or qualitative ways, or both,? Still relating to the method, should community experiences and knowledge be incorporated into impact assessments and, if so, how could or should it be done? Although national and EU policies in the past few decades have led to steady improvement in the quality of the environment in Member States (MSs) much remains to be done since pressures on the environment, and in turn on human health, are continuing to increase. Consequently, there is a demand to better integrate environmental and health matters into planning and decision-making on every issue and in every sector. There are calls for a more holistic and comprehensive approach to environment and health issues with the precaution and prevention of risk being more central to environmental and health policy and decision-making. The EIA Directive does not specifically require human health to be examined as part of the assessment process. It only refers to the need to identify, describe and assess the direct and indirect effects on, amongst other things, human beings [article 3]. 23 (IMP)3 The more recently published Sixth EU Environment Action Programme – Environment 2010: Our Future, Our Choice (Commission of the European Communities 2001a), on the other hand, stresses that a clean and healthy environment is vital to the quality of life, both for present and future generations, adopting the WHO’s definition of health (“a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease”). 2.1.1 Basic Concepts Health is not a straightforward concept. Besides having evolved over time, following increasing knowledge about the way human beings function as well as the range of factors directly and indirectly affecting health in a given moment – the so called determinants of health – there are still different approaches to the concept of Health, pertaining to different definitions of the term and thus to different health assessing methods. Among existing theoretical approaches towards human health, the Medical, the Holistic and the Wellness or Social Health Models are of particular relevance to the present research. The medical model considers health as the absence of disease and the presence of high levels of normal physical functioning. The holistic model also considers the mental and social components of human health, besides physical well-being. It adopts, in this sense, the WHO’s definition of human health, which is of “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”. The social model refers to human health in terms of the capacity to fulfil objectives, satisfy needs and be able to cope with the environment around. It is a more theoretical and difficult-to-use model than the holistic model, even though acknowledging more than one physical (physiological) dimension for human health. Moreover, the concepts of health and health determinants are quite exchangeable. We can conceive a healthy person as someone physically and mentally sound and living a good social life (what ever “good” may stand for…). However, this person’s health will strongly depend on his/her living in a healthy environment! Furthermore, these general conceptualizations of health led to the concepts of environmental health, health impact assessment (HIA) and Health Risk Assessment (HRA). Environmental health includes both the direct pathological effects of chemicals, radiation, biological agents on health and well-being, and the effects often indirect of the broader physical, psychological, social and aesthetic environment (housing, urban development, land use and transportation, … included) (WHO 1989). 24 (IMP)3 There are a number of definitions for health impact assessment (HIA). The key one developed by WHO (1999), in order to create a common understanding of HIA, is known as the Gothenburg consensus paper. The main conclusions of the Gothenburg consensus paper were that:  Health impacts are the overall effects, direct or indirect, of a policy, strategy, programme or project on the health of population.  HIA is a combination of procedures, methods and tools by which a policy, program or project may be judged as to its potential effects on the health of a population, and the distribution of those effects within the population. Health Risk Assessment (HRA), on its turn, is defined as the quantitative evaluation of the environmental health risks resulting from exposure to a chemical or physical agent (pollutant). It is a more specific and narrower form of health assessment than HIA, once HIA can include qualitative as well as quantitative information and evidence. Therefore, health risk assessment can be part of a wider HIA but HIA cannot form a part of health risk assessment. 2.1.2 Health in the context of Environmental Impact Assessment A prerequisite for the existence and development of good practice to including human health issues in EIA is that health is indeed perceived as a subject of environmental impact assessment. One important starting point for this good practice to develop is the existence of legislation that clearly defines human health, emphasizes the importance of assessing human health impacts and explicitly asks for its assessment within EIA. Table1 provides a summary of the key findings among fifteen Member States, the international comparator countries and the EU in relation to EIA legislation and health. At national level, the definition of human health in legislation and guidelines varies and tends to be quite unspecific and vague. The results show that a majority of the 13 countries studied, include, some kind of reference to impacts on humans or on human health (or related concepts) in their EIA legislation. This is done either separately or when defining concepts such as “environmental impact“ (e.g. Canada and Latvia) or setting the scope for assessment (e.g. Czech Republic and Poland). There is also a variety of approaches. Even if the concept of human health prevails, other related concepts may be used, such as health, public health (Czech Republic), affected population (Portugal, Slovakia, UK), humans or impacts on human beings (Austria, Germany, Ireland) and impacts on the health of the inhabitants. In some of the national EIA legislations human health is more closely defined and in some not at all. In most legislations human health refers to the environmental risks to health, e.g. the health impacts coming from noise, vibration, pollution, odours, etc. Examples of legislation that includes a broader definition of human health, including also economic or social impacts, are from the US, Canada, Slovakia and Czech Republic. 25 (IMP)3 However, there are signs that small but significant shifts have occurred in most Member States. A significant minority of EIA stakeholders in each of them recognises and acknowledges the importance of human health and the need to assess not just the environmental risks to health but the wider social determinants and the mental, social and well-being impacts. There are also signs that human health within EIAs is being assessed but the majority of these either tend to be detailed health risk assessments of emissions into the air, water and soil or are separate HIAs undertaken after the EIA has already been completed. The questionnaire and interviews also give a picture that there already exists, to a certain extent, a political and more practical momentum in relation to promoting inclusion of human health in EIA. Legislation and ministerial orders are being prepared, professional networks are being created and education and training are conducted. The question is whether it is enough to rely on this momentum? Both the literature review and the desk study show that there is considerable recognition that the assessment of human health is a part of EIA. This is manifested in the EIA legislations, guidelines and in the professional EIA practice. There was almost unanimous agreement among the interviewees in (IMP)3 that, wherever possible, human health impacts of a project should be assessed within an EIA rather than through a separate HIA. The difference emerges in where the boundaries are set on what health impacts are to be assessed. There are however a small but significant number of EIA stakeholders who feel that separate HIAs after an EIA is done is the best way forward. The EIA practice and discourse so far imply that the main option, in relation to impacts on human health, is to include these as part of the EIA implementation. The question of integration though is embedded in a larger question. This concerns the current state of the overall EU and national legislative and professional practice picture in relation to how human health is treated in the planning and approval processes of development projects. Are human health issues and impacts dealt with in the realms of other environmental or human health legislations or not? The results from the five-year report from the Commission (Commission of the European Communities 2003) indicated that human health issues are partly covered by other legislation. Considering the wider picture makes it appropriate to not only explore the integration into EIA option but to also explore the option of not integrating human health issues in EIA. There are several arguments supporting the inclusion of human health issues in the EIA process (Health Canada 1999). Integration of health into EIA provides better possibilities to address public concerns of the development project as the public’s main concern about projects is frequently related to health, well-being and the quality of life. On the other hand, integrating health assessment into EIA ensures that decision-makers obtain concurrent information on economic, social and health issues, instead of waiting for a set of consecutive assessments on the various aspects of a project which would be both time-consuming and costly. Besides, legislation and guidelines focusing on the need to assess human health issues within EIA, as well as professional networks setting and training are already in place and could be used for improvement. Including human health considerations in EIA may also be more cost-effective than the eventual costs on society for provision of curative and treatment services because health effects were not previously foreseen and assessed adequately. Early identification of negative impacts on human 32 (IMP)3 health, before a project is implemented, allows for these impacts to be eliminated or mitigated through changes to the design of the project. Lastly, addressing health concerns together with other social, environmental and economic issues supports the concept of sustainable development. The benefits of including health impacts in EIA vary depending on the subject of the assessment and its physical and institutional setting. Not all EIAs need or ought to encompass health effects, but there is a strong argument that all initial scoping procedures should examine the possibility that the project under review might have an impact on health (Turnbull, 1992). On the other hand, one of the main arguments supporting separate and independent HIA procedures is that it provides for more thorough and complete analysis of health impacts, given the analytical complexity of this kind of assessment. Furthermore, health impact assessments are also difficult to present and discuss, which means their inclusion in EIA procedures could lead to a more time-consuming and politically costly public discussion of a given EIS. Even if human health issues were adequately addressed, extended EIA procedures could be counterproductive, due to the overload of administrative resources. The question of whether or not to integrate health impact assessments into EIA is also one of effectiveness. Those who stand for separate health assessments argue that addressing all and every type of impact in EIA can lead to inefficient procedures. Besides, having in mind that health issues are partly covered by other (sectoral) regulations, according to the results of the five-year report of the European Commission (Commission of the European Communities, 2003), the question of including health impacts assessments in EIA we think is most appropriate to EIA pertains to which role, in promoting mitigation and prevention of human health impacts. Maybe the indications of the low effectiveness of EIA in general (e.g. Barker & Wood, 1999; Council on Environmental Quality, 1997; Emmelin & Lerman, 2004; Hokkanen, 2001; Hilding- Rydevik, 2001; Hilding-Rydevik, 2005; Stenstadvold, 2001; Wallentinus & Päiviö, 2001; Wood, 1999) and that there still exist problems among EU member countries with the conformity of national measures and the existence of bad application of the EIA Directive (Commission of the European Communities, 2003) point at a direction where human health issues should be assessed separately. For the sake of the discussion one could argue for a solution that clearly narrows down the range of health issues included in EIA. At the same time the regulation and promotion of a separate HIA process could be launched, encompassing a HIA process with a broad human health definition. EIA may not be the only relevant context and tool for promoting and integrating human health issues in project planning. There is always the risk of overburdening EIA with too many issues and expectations as regards outcomes – outcomes like the promotion of integration of environmental and health issues, the promotion of sustainable development and achieving implementation effectiveness (having direct impact on changes of projects or on the direction of the decisions taken). 33 (IMP)3 On the other hand, if health should be integrated into EIA then how should this integration take place? The answer to this question will depend on which human health definition we choose to work with. The majority of stakeholders in Member States agree that the environmental risks to human health are well covered and that mental, social and well-being impacts are not well covered. Where they do not agree is on the need to widen and broaden the implicit definition and boundary for what is considered a health impact. There are stakeholders of all types who recognise the need to broaden the scope of what is considered in the assessment of human health impacts within EIA but, though growing, they are small in number. The results from WP2 thus show that presently a narrow range of the overall health determinants from development projects are being treated in EIA. As a basis for choosing policy options, one needs to consider the implications for EIA implementation of choosing different human health definitions. At least three different approaches can be outlined:  EIA only cover risks to human health.  EIA includes only human health determinants related to impacts on the environment (environmental health). The impact assessment takes into consideration the direct pathological effects of chemicals, radiation, biological agents of well-being and the often indirect effects of the broader physical, psychosocial, social and aesthetic environment, which includes housing, urban development, land use and transportation.  EIA should be developed into Environmental and Health Impact Assessment (EHIA). This includes covering a broad range of human health determinants and, thus, implies that also economic and social impacts of the project must be described as a basis for the HIA, as it is already done in some countries. A further question of relevance here is, what methodologies and methods are needed to adequately address health impacts within EIA? The literature and this study provide no easy or simple answer to this question. Apart from possible variations according to the type of project or the legal and administrative background of health matters, both the literature review and desk research suggest the adoption of a) both quantitative and qualitative methodologies that can be scientifically robust, b) in a form that is as legally robust as EIA in the planning system within which it is being undertaken, and c) consensually agreed upon by both health and environmental professionals and institutions both within each Member State and across the EU. As for the role played by the community, there is already a call for more public participation but the reasons for undertaking it tend to be unclear. Public discussion in EIA may be carried out (1) just to inform local people that a project is being submitted for planning permission, (2) to be aware of the local population’s general opinion about the project, (3) for the improvement of the project design from people’s feedback or even (4) to get to know about how people work, the current environmental and health problems within the community, what projects have succeeded or failed in the past. While there is general understanding and agreement about the first two reasons there is less consensus and agreement among EIA stakeholders about the value and validity of the latter two reasons for community participation and involvement. 34 (IMP)3 The EIA Directive and most HIA methodologies strongly argue for the need to involve and engage with local communities. Community concerns are unlikely to be allayed if the perceived health impacts as understood by the community are not dealt with and hence any methodology that integrates human health assessment into EIA should involve local communities and take serious account of perceived health impacts. The existing literature on HIA highlights some of the key approaches to involving communities and taking into account the health impacts that they perceive and their knowledge and experience of the local area. 2.2.3 Best practice and guidelines The answer to what constitutes best practice is complex, mainly for two reasons. The first is related to the idea that a so called best practice can be formulated out of the implementation context (national, regional, local etc). The second reason is related to the impossibility of (IMP)3 advocating one or the other of the policy options proposed in the following section and a formulation of best practice is by necessity related to a specific policy option. Research on how to make environmental issues an integral part of decisions and action has traditionally been perceived as a question of providing different kinds of decision-makers and agents with an adequate information base (based on the belief that a better environmental information basis, more or less automatically, will lead to more environment friendly decisions, or at least provide better possibilities to do so) in line with the planning thoughts based on instrumental rationality (“goal oriented behaviour within a means-end structured problem area” and “it tells how to best combine means to achieve ends when no preferences are attached to the means” (Sager, 2001)). Consequently, great focus and emphasis has been put on developing and providing effective tools to measure and present environmental information (Hilding-Rydevik & Bjarnadóttir, 2005). The results from this study do however, effectively demonstrate that the barriers to inclusion are not just about a lack of information concerning human health issues in the EIA process. A whole range of other factors have been put on the table, which need to be taken into consideration for furthering how human health issues are treated in project planning and decision-making. Which of these factors that constitute the main barriers in a country specific context varies e.g. in relation to how human health issues in general are treated in legislation and professional practice in project planning and decision-making. This implies that “best practice“ and guidelines for this in fact can be formulated out of context and on a general level. One must however have in mind that this formulation may not capture all the specific country context issues that are crucial for enhancing best or good practice in a specific country context (Hilding-Rydevik & Bjarnadóttir, 2005). One can also argue that what is considered to be “good practice” in one national context may not self-evidently be good practice in another national context. What is good practice will be related to what is currently in place in a specific context. In order for the promotion of inclusion of human health issues in EIA to be effective there needs to be both EU Commission activities and regulations as Country specific activities and regulations. The country specific measures can thus target the crucial context specific barriers (assuming here that integration of human health issues are to be integrated in EIA, the arguments are however also 35 (IMP)3 valid for the option of having a separate HIA process). One can thus identify good practice in different contexts (“this is what we apprehend as good in our country taking our legislation, education, data situation, etc., into account”). This practice may not however need to be best practice. By best practice we thus mean an outline of some general and ideal situation. We include here in the best practice concept also capacity building aiming at the promotion of a human health perspectives in project planning and decision-making, in which EIA and HIA could be important measures. The list below is mainly derived from the barriers identified and solutions proposed in the guidelines in this study and it thus represents a maximum list of all possible good “things“ that could promote best practice in relation to impact assessment and human health in project planning and decisionmaking. This list is not a prescriptive list of all actions and measures that are needed in order to promote improvement of how human health issues are included in EIA. It is simply a list of all the proposed possible measures and approaches that can be derived from our results. As stated above, different measures are of more or less crucial importance depending on the implementation context. EU level:  EU Directive is clear on the importance of including human health in EIA, also the annexes are formulated to be relevant from a human health perspective and in relation to the human health definition chosen in the directive,  EU Directive has a clear human health definition or/and,  EU EIA guidance has a clear human health definition,  EU EIA guidance includes clear instructions concerning how to include human health in EIA e.g. concerning the procedures in relation to screening case-by-case and the scoping procedure but also in relation to public participation,  Motivation and awareness raising actions are taken in order to promote the human health perspective in planning and decision-making in general and in EIA. Since there already exists an overall policy commitment and policy targets for this at the EU level there is a good foundation to build on,  EU Commission targets research funds for exploring the links between the overall project impacts (economic, social, environmental) and human health and for furthering methods for prediction and evaluation of human health impacts,  EU Commission monitors the progress concerning the inclusion of human health impacts in EIA,  Joint working between DG Environment and DG Health and Consumer Protection,  Identification and dissemination of best practices. 36 (IMP)3 National level:  National EIA legislation is clear on the importance of including human health in EIA and the legislation is formulated also from a human health perspective  National legislation has a clear human health definition or/and,  National EIA guidance has a clear human health definition,  National EIA guidance includes clear instructions concerning how to include human health in EIA, e.g. concerning the procedures in relation to screening case-by-case and the scoping procedure but also in relation to public participation,  Improving the amount of human health experts and training in HIA,  Human health competence is provided by consent authorities and EIA competent authorities in early consultations with proponent, the scoping phase and in the review of the EIA),  Baseline data is provided that is useful and updated in relation to impact assessment of human health (which exact measures that are needed in each country will differ) and,  Actions are taken in order to promote the human health perspective in project planning and decision-making in general and in EIA. The existence of national human health policies and programmes is an important basis for this work,  National research ear-marked funds for exploring the links between the overall project impacts (economic, social, environmental) and human health and for furthering methods for prediction and evaluation of human health impacts,  Monitoring of progress in relation to how human health issues are treated in the overall context of project planning and decision-making and more specifically in EIA. Project level EIA and professional issues:  Human health experts are an integral part of the EIA work and the EIA team from the very beginning of the EIA work through out the whole procedure,  EIA screening procedures are formulated and conducted also with a human health perspective,  EIA scoping procedures are designed and conducted also with a human health perspective,  Impact Assessment of environmental and health impacts are conducted in an cost-efficient manner in order to capture the most important human health impacts and not to over burden the EIA process and at the same time having effectiveness as a goal (to have an impact on the project planning and the decision-making),  The EIA process is used and functions as a cooperation platform where different professions and disciplines work together with a common language, 37 (IMP)3  Citizens should be given the possibility to actively declare their views, concerns and expectations,  Improve the awareness as regards the linkages between human–environment interaction through education and pilot projects,  Use lay and non-technical language and avoid professional jargon. Undertake more open communication,  Human health impacts are considered equal to other types of impacts within an EIA. 2.2.4 Monitoring progress Lastly, attention must be drawn to the need to carry out a more detailed assessment of the primary and secondary legislation and key guidance within Member States in relation to human health and EIA. There is also the need to undertake more regular questionnaire surveys of EIA stakeholders on the health aspects in EIA to survey what changes, if any, are occurring within Member States and across the EU with regard to the adequacy of the incorporation and assessment of human health within EIA. 38 (IMP)3 2.3 Policy Options 2.3.1 Introduction Based on the findings of the desk research and the analysis of the empirical data concerning human health and EIA, this chapter presents a series of policy options, from an EU Commission point of view, that are designed to enhance the integration of human health aspects in EIA and to increase the consistency of the various approaches across the European Union. They aim at tackling the identified weaknesses of the current European EIA practice in terms of covering human health issues and at overcoming the most important barriers. They also attempt to build on and advance the partly existing strengths. Building on the IMP3 research results, six policy options have been developed:  Policy option 0: Zero option: ‘Do nothing’  Policy option 1: Preparation of a new health in EIA guidance package  Policy option 2: Supporting measures plus new health in EIA guidance package  Policy option 3: Minor amendment to EIA Directive plus supporting measures plus new guidance package  Policy option 4: Major amendment to EIA Directive plus supporting measures plus new guidance package  Policy option 5: New HIA Directive Guidance plus supporting measures plus new guidance package Each policy option is to be understood as an entire package of individual measures to be taken. These measures comprise both “soft” and legislative courses of action that are designed to operate mainly along three major axes: guidance, supporting measures, and regulatory or legislative measures. For each policy option, a SWOT-Analysis has been conducted, which provides indicative lists of strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats. While this represents a solid basis for decision-support, it can not substitute a more rigid cost-benefit-risk analysis to be carried out by the Commission. 39 (IMP)3 2.3.2 Option 0: Do nothing This policy option assumes that nothing is done from a European Commission and European Union perspective. There is no further work on health and EIA issues, no new guidance, no active awareness raising measures, no new research and no changes to the EIA Directive. This policy option assumes that what is currently in place at EU level continues and that the actions taken of Member States themselves in the field of health and EIA will not be significant. SWOT-Analysis Policy Option 0: Do nothing Strengths Weaknesses  No cost  No additional work required  Comfortable and acceptable to most Member States and the majority of EIA stakeholders No change to existing legi slative, guidance and  omentum already within many es  the forefront of impact assessment practice institutional frameworks There is some m Member Stat  Commission does not take a leadership role in this area  Lack of co-ordination between Member States  Take-up of best practice guidance is dependent on willingness of Member States and EIA stakeholders to act Does not put health at Opportunities Threats  an go their own way within  ace at suits their own national circumstances  co-operation and conflict  ead to the widening of ent Member States ross the ealth into policies and activities  alised ess to  Lack of or fragmented and disjointed progress on key barriers especially those to improve methodology and methods Individual countries c bounds of Directive Member States can develop at their own p and in a way th  No or slow progress within Member States  Loss of momentum within Member States  Increasing divergence of approaches between Member States Divergent approaches between Member States leads to lack of especially when dealing with transboundary and global issues Divergent progress could l inequalities and inequities between citizens in differ  Practice does not change significantly ac EU  Importance of human health ignored or undervalued  Failure of the Commission to fulfil obligations on integrating h  Existing guidance continues to be ignored or underused Potential of assessing health impacts within EIA not re  HIA does not develop at all or develops as a completely autonomous assessment proc EIA Table 2 SWOT-Analysis of Option 0: Do nothing 40 (IMP)3 2.3.3 Option 1: Preparation of a new health in EIA guidance package Option 1 would enhance the health aspects of the Commission’s existing guidance on EIA by developing a new package of guidance. Currently there are four guidance documents related to EIA, each of them repeating and going over material that is in one or the other of the guidance documents. There is potential to streamline this guidance, highlight and emphasise the role of assessing health impacts within EIA, and linking this to existing EU and international best practice. The guidance would:  Provide explicit definitions of health, environmental health, health impacts and the determinants of health.  Identify and describe the quantitative and qualitative methods currently in existence to assess health impacts including health risk assessment.  Identify and provide links to good practice case studies, literature and resources. Dissemination and awareness raising about this document will involve electronic media only via the Europe website and the websites of other public, NGO and private sector websites as well as email dissemination to key stakeholders across the EU. However this would not be one-off, but would involve regular re-disseminations to ensure that as many stakeholders as possible are aware of the new guidance. 41 (IMP)3 2.3.7 Option 5: New HIA Directive Guidance plus supporting measures plus new guidance package There are concerns that fully integrating health assessment into EIA will overburden a process that is already long, costly and complicated. Option 5 involves the creation of a new HIA Directive. It consists of:  the preparation of a new and separate HIA Directive;  the preparation of separate guidelines for HIA according to this directive;  the development and implementation of a range of supporting measures involving awareness raising measures, training, institution building and research; and  the development of a programme of monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the Directive and HIA practice within and between Member States. 48 (IMP)3 SWOT-Analysis Policy Option 5: New HIA Directive Guidance plus supporting measures plus new guidance package Strengths Weaknesses  Member States obliged to take action  Strong and significant demonstration of the Commission’s commitment to improving the health of its citizens  Puts health at the forefront of the EU’s and Member States’ agendas Goes a significant way to addressing all of the concerns about assessing health impacts  within  sses the   f Commission programmes in DG ctorate  matic and co-ordinated approach the EIA agenda at a significant  d 4 Requires new institutions  r changes to the legislation of Member States project planning and decision-making  Commission takes a significant leadership role Comprehensive package that addre majority of identified weaknesses Building on existing momentum already within many Member States  Less chance of divergence between Member States Strategic use o Consumer Protection and Health and DG Environment  Demonstrates joint working between Dire Generals Syste  Puts health on level  More effort and resources needed than Options 1, 2, 3 and 4  Will take longer to implement than Options 1, 2, 3 and 4.  Will require considerable negotiation and agreement between the Member States Does not build on what already exists like Options 1, 2, 3 an and frameworks Will require majo Opportunities Threats  Greatest possibilities for improving health and equity among EU citizens  pment projects  Goes a significant way towards realising the potential of HIA policy A  introducing a and thus not be cost-effective Significant progress on assessing the health impacts of develo  Many Member States and EIA stakeholders are likely to be very resistant to making major changes to the Directive,  Could create conflict and contradictions for and decision-makers and between EIA and HI practitioners May overburden the project planning and decision-making procedures by separate HIA process parallel to EIA (all depending on how EIA and HIA is implemented) Table 7 SWOT-Analysis of Option 5: New HIA Directive Guidance plus supporting measures plus new guidance package 49 (IMP)3 50 (IMP)3 3 RISK ASSESSMENT 3.1 Theoretical and legal background EIA and risk assessment are based on very similar concepts and broadly have the same goals (Brookes, 2001). They both deal with the prediction of future consequences arising from human activities or planned interventions. Uncertainty about the exact nature, likelihood and magnitude of those consequences is inherent to both EIA and risk assessment (ADB, 1997). They both seek to inform decision-makers about adverse consequences and are decision-supporting tools for measures to mitigate, reduce or eliminate adverse impacts, or the risk of those impacts. Both instruments are essentially interdisciplinary, and their application involves a number of similar procedural steps. But while EIA normally fails to adequately address the probability and the range of magnitude of adverse consequences, environmental risk assessment is in particular able to answer these two questions and to quantify risk (ADB, 1997; Kjorven, 1998). The strength of a systematic (quantitative) risk assessment, compared to mere straight-forward impact predictions, is that it can make uncertainty explicit by expressing the likelihood or frequency of an outcome and by generating a probability distribution for a range of possible outcomes of different magnitudes (Covello & Merkhofer, 1993; Kolluru, 1996). Risk assessment is particularly effective in providing a sound information basis for decision-making on risk management in situations where risk is significant, risk issues are complex, and uncertainties are large. Risk management involves developing and evaluating alternative risk management options, balancing risks against the costs and benefits of measures, and selecting and implementing the most effective risk reduction and control measures, aiming at achieving the greatest reduction of the most unacceptable risks in the most cost-efficient way (Kolluru, 1996). The overall objective of the research in the field “risk assessment within EIA” of (IMP)3 is to make substantial contributions to more consistency, enhanced coverage and better integration of risk assessment in EIA practices in the European Union Member States. The focus is on extraordinary (abnormal, non-standard, non-routine) hazards and risks that are associated to projects subject to EIA, as opposed to those effects of a project that are related to routine operating conditions. In particular, project-related risks due to the following hazard categories are examined:  natural hazards: earthquakes, floods, avalanches, landslides, heavy weather conditions etc.;  internal accidents: accidents within the proposed project caused by technological failure, human failure (error, mismanagement, etc.), or a combination of both (man-technology interactions), including various degrees of non-standard/abnormal modes of operation (disturbances of normal operating conditions, hazardous incidents, major accidents);  external accidents: exposure of the proposed project to accidents in other existing installations in the project environment that could affect the project;  sabotage, including various forms of unauthorised interferences (vandalism, etc.);  impacts of the proposed project on the hazard potential and damage potential (vulnerability) that is pre-existent in the area of project location. In general terms, "risk" can be defined as a measure that combines the probability, or frequency, of the occurrence of a particular hazard and the magnitude of the adverse consequences or harm arising to the quality of human health or the natural and man-made environment as a result from exposure to that hazard. Risk increases as the probability, or magnitude, or both, increase. (Brookes, 2001; Calow, 1998; Kolluru, 1996; DEFRA, 2000, Crawford-Brown, 1999). 51 (IMP)3 3.1.1 Risk in the context of the EIA Directive The EIA Directive is a key instrument of European Union environmental policy. EIA shall contribute to achieving equal levels of environmental protection and safety of citizens across all Member States. In principle, the concept of risk is inherent to the EIA Directive. EIA deals with the possibility of future impacts on the environment, and while the scope of the Directive does include the possibility of positive effects, in practice it focuses on potential adverse effects, which are the focus of risk assessment, too. Thus, all vital elements required by the general definition of risk are present:  hazards (associated with the existence of a project),  the possibility of an adverse outcome (damage or harm to man and the environment),  uncertainty about the occurrence (likelihood) and magnitude of that adverse outcome. Main tasks of an EIA are the prediction of the impacts that are likely to be caused by a project, an evaluation of the significance of those impacts, which involves a judgment on magnitude and probability of impacts, and the development of mitigation measures to reduce negative impacts. These are also main tasks within a risk assessment and risk management process. Furthermore, the Directive uses many risk-related terms, such as “magnitude and complexity of the impact”, “probability of the impact”, and “duration, frequency and reversibility of the impact” (Annex III.3). Therefore, the Directive itself is deeply rooted in a risk-based concept. However, the EIA Directive mainly refers to risks under normal conditions, i.e. to impacts connected to the planned – standard or routine – operation of a project. The scope of the EIA Directive is much less clear with regard to extraordinary, or abnormal, risks, i.e. with regard to the possibility that implementation of a project might lead to significant adverse environmental consequences under exceptional circumstances, under non-routine or non-standard modes of operation, or due to any unplanned hazardous incidents. There are arguments in the Directive itself that speak for and against a wide interpretation. So, there is much evidence that a close material interrelationship between the objectives of EIA, according to the Directive, and risk assessment exists. Article 3 and Annex IV para. 4 require EIA to assess the “direct and indirect effects” of a proposed project on, inter alia, the environment, human beings, and material assets resulting from, inter alia, “the existence of the project” and “the emission of pollutants”. If such effects are caused by an accident within a project, e.g. by an accident leading to an unplanned release of pollutants, this may clearly be understood as a “direct effect”. If negative impacts on the environment are caused by natural hazards or external accidents that may occur in the project environment and impact on the project, this may, at least, be understood as an “indirect effect”, which would not have happened without the “existence of the project”. Analogously, any environmental impact generated by sabotage or otherwise unauthorized interferences is an “indirect effect” of “the existence of the project”. Thus, the Directive may be interpreted in a broad way with an obligation to consider all direct and indirect significant environmental effects that could arise from the implementation of a project, i.e. both impacts caused by its standard operation and such caused by extraordinary hazardous incidents. The mere “existence of a project” may increase the hazard potential present at the site, either because an accident-prone project itself poses a technological hazard, or because a project is exposed to external hazards, which in case of their occurrence might in turn cause the project to release hazards into the environment. Such external hazards may either be natural hazards preexistent at the site or man-made hazards (accidents) in other existing projects. Another mechanism through which a project could influence the hazard potential is by increasing the likelihood of 52 (IMP)3 occurrence of a natural hazard. For example, construction might destabilize a slope and increase the risk of a landslide, deforestation or soil sealing might increase surface water runoff and increase the risk of flood build-up areas that may be far off, or changes to vegetation cover might increase the risk of avalanches and mudflows. If the implementation of a project increases the hazard potential of an area, this can be understood as a “significant effect” on man and the environment (Greiving, 2005). Moreover, exposure of a project to an external – natural or technological – hazard increases the vulnerability of the area of the project location to that hazard. Thus, through its mere existence, a project may increase the damage potential or vulnerability of the area where it is sited. Possible environmental impacts on a project may lead to, amongst others, damage to, or destruction of the project and the injury or loss of lives of employees. Environmental impacts on the project may also cause the project itself to become a hazard to the environment and residents, i.e. the project may become a risk source and a link in a ‘risk chain’: external hazards impacting on the project, which in turn causes “significant effects” on the environment. Thereby, an increase in the damage potential would result in the increase of the hazard potential of the project location area. If the implementation of a project increases the damage potential of an area, this can also be understood as a “significant effect” on man and the environment (Greiving, 2005). Annex IV.3, in accordance with Article 5 (1), requires the EIS to consider the “aspects of the environment likely to be affected by the proposed project.” Likewise, Annex III.2 requires that “the environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected by projects must be considered” in screening. Both, the changes to the hazard potential and the damage potential, can be understood as “aspects of the environment” and as part of “the environmental sensitivity of geographical areas” likely to be affected. The material interrelationships argued above provide evidence in support of the hypothesis that the concept of ‘extraordinary’ risks and their consideration and assessment in EIA is within the material scope of the Directive. However, these material interrelationships are to a large extent implicitly hidden in the Directive and do seldom become manifest in explicit verbal terms. However, close analysis of the Directives’ text also reveals much evidence that the manifest and explicit scope of the Directive in terms of extraordinary risks is limited: While the Directive does not exclude consideration of extraordinary hazards, explicit reference to the consideration of risks under non-standard operation of a project, or under exceptional conditions, is restricted to Annex III.1 to the Directive. Annex III, which has been introduced with the amending Directive in 1997 (Directive 97/11/EC), lists selection criteria that are to be applied in accordance with the provisions of the screening Article 4 (3). These criteria cover the characteristics of projects, the location of projects and the characteristics of the potential impacts. Under ‘characteristics of projects’, the screening criteria provided by Annex III.1 include the criterion “the risk of accidents, having regard in particular to substances or technologies used.” Apart from Annex III.1, no further explicit mentioning is made of extraordinary hazards or risks in the Directive. Besides “risk of accidents”, indirectly the screening criteria listed under “location of projects” in Annex III.2 to the Directive, bear potential relevance to risk-based considerations. By stating that the “environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected by projects” must be considered in screening decisions, both the hazard potential and the vulnerability of the project environment, including the damage potential present at the site and its coping capacity, are implicitly touched upon (cf. above). By listing densely “populated areas”, the “existing land use” and various types of naturally sensitive areas as screening criteria, Annex III.2 may be interpreted as 53 (IMP)3 making indirect reference to the exposure to hazards and to the magnitude of potential adverse consequences of a risk event occurring. However, none of these possible implicit meanings are stated explicitly in the Directive. External impacts of the environment on the project are not mentioned explicitly in the Directive, either. These would include both natural hazards and accidents in other existing installations impacting on the proposed project. In contrast, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is much more explicit about that point by including “any change to the project that may be caused by the environment” (CEAA, 1992). Canadian guidance in EIA points out that “potential effects of the environment on the project must be examined using the same criteria for significance as used in the assessment of effects of the project on the environment" (CEAA, 1994). However, no such concept can be found in the EIA Directive. The function of Annex III is to determine if an EIA is required. For that purpose, the relevant selection criteria must be considered by Member States when drawing up their legislation, i.e. in the setting of thresholds and criteria for projects subject to mandatory EIA, and/or by competent authorities when making screening decisions for Annex II projects, i.e. in deciding on the need for an EIA in case-by-case examinations. The field of application of Annex III is restricted to screening provisions or decision-making related to Annex II projects. Annex I projects, which are subject to mandatory EIA, are out of the scope of application of Annex III. An explicit obligation to apply the criterion "risk of accidents" throughout the entire EIA procedure and in particular to the identification, description and assessment of significant effects in the EIS is not present in the Directive. Thus, it may be concluded that the Directive does not require in a manifest way to consider “risk of accidents” in other stages of the EIA procedure than screening. The concept of risk expressed in the Directive is narrow. Besides the “risk of accidents, having regard in particular to substances or technologies used”, no other risk category is mentioned. The risk concept appears to be confined to internal accidents within the proposed project that might cause the release of chemical hazards. Evidence gathered by the (IMP)3 project supports the hypothesis that there is a tendency among Member States and stakeholders towards such a narrow interpretation. Nevertheless, the semantic meaning of the term "accidents" may also be interpreted in a much wider sense as meaning 'anything that can go wrong and might have significant effects on the environment', which would comprise various hazard categories that could affect a project, including external risk sources and sabotage. However, as neither the term “risk" nor the term "accidents” is defined or specified further in the Directive, it would appear that the European legislator has left his exact purpose largely up to discretion. Consideration of the “likely significant effects” of a project, as required by Article 1.1, Article 2.1, and Annex IV. 4, is a key concept of the EIA Directive. Interpretation problems exist with regard to the issue of ‘risk’. The expression "likely" appears to be in contradiction to the inherent nature of risks, which are characterised by uncertainty and limited likelihood of occurrence, and are thus per definition more or less "unlikely". This wording of the Directive may be seen as excluding low probability risks from assessment, irrespective of the magnitude of potential adverse consequences, and it tends to favour and justify an interpretation that defines "extraordinary risks" as being largely out of the scope of the Directive4. There is solid evidence provided by national implementing regulations, as well as by the last five-year review of the implementation of the EIA Directive (EC, 2003a), that there are Member States that understand and interpret the Directive in the narrow way that there is no requirement in the Directive to cover hazardous incidents that can 4 But also a wider interpretation could reasonably be argued: the English adjective "likely" carries semantic connotations in the sense of "possible", and there are officially approved translations of the Directive's text into non-English languages that in fact use this meaning. 54 (IMP)3 be rated as “unlikely”, while yet the same Member States still acknowledge that "risk of accidents" is a screening criterion. 3.1.2 EC’s guidance on EIA In theory, EC’s guidance on EIA (2001a, 2001b, 2001c) reflects a comprehensive and wide concept of risk in the EIA context. In all three checklists, explicit references to the consideration of extraordinary risks are repeatedly made. It is recommended to consider impacts of various kinds of natural hazards and exceptional external conditions on the project, accidents and hazardous incidents during construction and operation, and exposure of projects to external accidents. Only sabotage is not mentioned explicitly. Effects of abnormal events on human health and all relevant environmental receptors should be considered and, where appropriate, quantified. The guidance materials demonstrate that good application of the Directive should cover most of the hazard categories and risk types that are relevant during the major stages of the EIA process (screening, scoping, EIS, mitigation measures). Moreover, the guidance recommends addressing various categories of major social and economic impacts in EIA, such as changes in social structure, resettlement of people, in-migration of new residents, employment and quality of employment, etc. 3.1.3 National EIA systems A number of different risk concepts and varying requirements for consideration of extraordinary risks in EIA are to be found in EIA legislations of the Member States, reflecting the considerable amount of discretion European EIA legislation leaves in interpreting its scope in terms of risk. Consequently, inconsistencies in coverage of risks in national EIA practices must not surprise. Although differing types of implementation approaches exist, the majority of examined Member States have chosen to adopt the narrow risk concept and the narrow field of its application from the EIA Directive, i.e. to restrict explicit references in their EIA regulations to “risk of accidents” and to confine its application primarily to screening decisions. Apart from fulfilling that minimum requirement of the Directive, no further legal obligations to consider extraordinary risks throughout the EIA procedure, including the EIS, exist in those countries. In some rare instances, Member States have chosen to implement more detailed or more comprehensive requirements for risk assessment into their EIA legislation, or in closely related sectoral legislation, which exceed the explicit scope of the Directive. Relevant provisions in those few Member States include:  use of a wider risk concept in screening procedures;  consideration of “risk of accidents” according to Annex III.1 to the Directive beyond screening, i.e. throughout the EIA process;  definition of a wider and more detailed concept of risk beyond “risk of accidents”;  comprehensive requirements for applying a wide risk concept in all relevant stages of the EIA process that arise from other applicable legislation related to EIA in a few Member States, but these provisions do not apply to all projects subject to EIA. However, most of these requirements do by far not fully reflect the wide risk concept put forward in EC’s guidance (2001a, 2001b, 2001c). In many Member States, albeit not in all, national guidance on EIA makes more explicit and more extensive references to the coverage of risks in EIA than is 55 (IMP)3 required by national legislation. Yet, compared to EC’s guidance on EIA, very few Member States have issued recommendations that are similarly comprehensive and detailed. In this respect, the impact of EU guidance on Member States appears to have been rather limited. Moreover, practicerelated specific methodical and technical guidance on how to apply risk assessment in EIA does not exist in any of the sample countries. There are considerable inconsistencies in the project-level regulatory framework and corresponding licensing procedures related to risk assessment. The ways the Seveso II and IPPC Directives have been implemented in the examined Member States are highly varied and diversified. Models with a certain degree of integration of EIA procedures and IPPC/Seveso II procedures in a minority of Member States can be differentiated from prevailing models that practice separation of procedures. In general, most risk assessments are required by legislation outside EIA, and they are applied in procedures separate from, or parallel to, EIA. Requirements for risk assessment and risk management are much stronger under Seveso II- and IPPC-related licensing regimes than in EIA procedures; in addition, many sectoral regulations for specific project types exist (e.g., for nuclear plants, contaminated sites), often with an emphasis on safety risks. In a few Member States, EIA is a dependent part of other procedures under applicable sectoral legislation; for projects that are simultaneously subject to EIA and certain subject specific regulations that require risk assessment, both an EIS and separate risk studies are submitted. In a number of countries, procedures follow a sequential order, with Seveso II and IPPC procedures subsequent to EIA and requiring the EIA permit. All mentioned models of organising procedures are associated with inconsistencies that cause coordination problems. Discrepancies in the fields of application of the EIA, IPPC and Seveso II Directives in terms of project lists cause potential gaps in the coverage of risk-relevant projects. Discrepancies imply that certain projects are subject to only one procedure; since the field of application of the EIA directive in terms of project types is more comprehensive than that of the other two Directives, Member States that rely much on Seveso II and IPPC procedures to address hazards and risks may fail to properly examine risks of such projects that are only subject to EIA, i.e. they are in danger of failing to cover all potentially risky developments. Moreover, the material scope of the Directives is different: For example, the Seveso II Directive focuses on chemical safety hazard assessments (risk of accidents) and on response measures (accident prevention policy, emergency plans, inspections, etc.), with not much attention dedicated to the environmental consequences of an accident occurring, which is the domain of EIA. Thus, there is a need for better coordination and streamlining of procedures in order to make project-level risk assessment more efficient and to avoid gaps in the coverage of projects. 3.2 Empirical evidence and key findings The analysis of the empirical data is based on 183 completed questionnaires returned by European EIA-stakeholders and on 50 interviews with various EIA-stakeholders in Europe, the USA and Canada. The following discussion sums up and interprets the results of the analysis that is elaborated in detail in the report “Risk Assessment and EIA”. 3.2.1 Coverage of extraordinary hazards, risks and risk assessment in EIA practice The different potential risk sources are dealt with very differently across the European Union. A considerable range of variability in coverage of most types of extraordinary hazards persists 56 (IMP)3 across hazard categories and for the same hazard categories, both within individual Member States as well as between Member States. The EIA performance profile appears to be best with regard to natural hazards and internal technological accidents. These two risk sources are addressed more regularly than other hazard categories, albeit notable differences between countries exist. Which hazard type gets considered in EIA to what extent depends much on project types, less on project locations. The coverage of "more likely” technological accidents is often a matter of routine, but it is mostly restricted to projects involving accident-prone high-risk technologies or substances and/or to certain classes of project types (chemical industries, power and incineration plants, nuclear installations, fuel storage and pipelines, etc.)., which in both cases are often subject to specific legislation outside EIA. The focus is often on safety risks; the environmental consequences of accidents are rather seldom assessed. Different national priorities are attributed to the different types of natural hazards, apparently depending much on differing environmental conditions and risk perceptions. While some natural hazard types are quite often assessed (e.g., floods, landslides, seismic risks), others are very seldom an issue (e.g., forest fires, heavy weather conditions). Natural hazards are often identified prior to submission of the EIS, making use of hazard maps where existent, and avoided by choosing more suitable locations. Impacts of a project on the hazard potential pre-existent at the site were hardly mentioned. Accidents due to human error and exposure of projects to external accidents are rather seldom considered. Sabotage is almost completely out of scope of EIA practice, even in the only sample country where a respective requirement in EIA-related legislation exists. Some project types, although risk-relevant, were frequently felt to be missing on the EU and/or national project lists. Most applications of (formalised or quantitative) risk assessment are human health risk assessments related to radiation or chemical hazards, but not necessarily associated with abnormal conditions. Effects on non-human environmental receptors and ecosystem wellbeing and integrity are strongly underrepresented. In general, even in those cases where extraordinary risks get some consideration, risk assessment is often a side issue in EIA procedures and in the EIS. Stakeholders could not identify many good practice examples for applying risk assessment in EIA. 3.2.2 Procedural and methodical aspects of risk assessment approaches in EIA In general, in most Member States the risk assessment process within EIA tends to lack consistency and completeness, and may sometimes even appear patchy. Empirical results show that risk assessment in EIA is often much hazard-based and heavily oriented on risk management approaches. According to stakeholder responses of the questionnaire at EU-level, the two steps that are conducted most often are hazard identification and mitigation measures. This implies in formal terms that a number of analytical key steps in the stages between hazard identification and risk management are often lacking, compared to a comprehensive risk assessment that would involve analysing exposure and consequences and an evaluation and/or estimation of risk. Too often, the environmental consequences of accidents are not assessed, or only for human health effects. Not having an estimate of the probability of a hazard occurring, a prediction of the exact nature and magnitude of adverse consequences, and a judgement about the significance of a risk makes designing appropriate risk control and reduction measures and setting the right priorities among them difficult. However, there are a few Member States where data suggest a more systematic and coherent approach to a complete risk assessment process. 57 (IMP)3 Each policy option is to be understood as an entire package of individual measures to be taken. These measures comprise both “soft” and legislative courses of action that are designed to operate mainly along three major axes: guidance, supporting measures, and regulatory or legislative measures. While some options are located on the same axes, they may be situated at different points of those axes regarding intensity and strength of intervention. With the exception of option 0, which excludes all other options, the logical relationship between the policy options should be seen as complementary in allowing combinations with one another. In fact, taking an additive approach and combining several policy options is not only possible, but may offer a variety of advantages and increase their effectiveness. At any rate, any amendments to the EIA directive would require accompanying supportive measures and additional guidance. Thus, some policy options are proposed that incorporate other options, or sub-sets of relevant actions thereof. The policy options suggest interventions at different stages of the EIA policy process and the EIA policy implementation cycle (Bussman et al., 1997; Windhoff-Heritier, 1987). While some options focus primarily on improvement of implementation and application of the existing EIA regulatory framework, others propose changes to the European EIA policy design. For each policy option, a SWOT-Analysis has been conducted, which provides indicative lists of strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats. While this represents a solid basis for decision-support, it can not substitute a more rigid cost-benefit-risk analysis to be carried out by the Commission. 3.3.2 Policy Option 0: Zero option: 'Do nothing' The “zero option” represents the “business as usual” scenario. It assumes that no particular actions of any kind are taken by the European Commission, neither on the level of Community legislation nor along the axis of guidance enhancement nor regarding supportive measures, such as awareness-raising, knowledge-sharing, or targeted research. It is anticipated that the full range of weaknesses and insufficiencies of European EIA practice in terms of risk assessment having been identified by the IMP3 project will continue to persist, including, inter alia, the following:  extraordinary hazards and resulting risks for man and the environment will continue to be addressed inconsistently, with considerable variability in terms of coverage of different risk sources, and with significant differences in consideration of each hazard category both between and within Member Sates;  methodological and technical approaches to the practical application of risk assessment and risk management in EIA will continue to often lack coherence, deliberateness, systematic coverage, technical soundness and adequacy;  existing barriers to the enhancement of risk assessment in EIA will not be tackled systematically;  coordination between EIA procedures and risk assessment under other development consent procedures that are subject to different regulatory and environmental control regimes will continue to be partly ineffective and inefficient, and the full potential of synergies will remain unexploited;  even when risk assessment is applied in EIA, its effectiveness in terms of influence on decision-making, project designs, project modifications, and appropriate risk management measures to prevent, reduce, control and mitigate risks will remain limited. 64 (IMP)3 The "zero option" would also imply that strengths and promising approaches that partly exist will not be consciously built on and encouraged. SWOT-Analysis Policy Option 0: Zero option: 'Do nothing' Strengths Weaknesses  No financial cost neither for Commission nor for Member States  No additional effort required  No political negotiations with Member States and economic interest groups required  No change to existing national regulatory frameworks, institutional arrangements and working routines required  Comfortable to most Member States as existing EIA systems can be retained unchanged  The full range of existing weaknesses of current EIA practice in terms of risk assessment continues to persist  No incentives for those MS where good practices partly exist to develop and expand their strengths  No progress, or progress is likely to be slow and incidental  Commission fails to live up to its own principles of environmental policy  Divergent and inconsistent approaches to risk assessment in EIA across Europe are likely to persist  Risks associated to developments continue to be undervalued  Barriers to integration of risk assessment into EIA are not tackled deliberately  Lack of coordination between procedures under different risk-related Directives will persist  Heterogeneous coverage of risks among Member States will continue to cause problems in the case of projects with serious risks with potentially transboundary consequences Opportunities Threats  Individual Member States who have progressed beyond legal Community requirements and are more advanced than others can continue their own path of action  All Member States can develop at their own pace  The present situation allows Member States a considerable amount of discretion in interpreting the Directive’s requirements regarding risk assessment, which can be used to suit best national needs  New Member States can gain further experience in applying the Directive in its present form  Application of EIA fails to fulfil the substantial purposes of the Directive  Failure to recognize and address serious risks adequately may cost many human lives and cause high financial and environmental costs, including liability claims to project operators  Does not change anything about the insufficient policy design of the Directive  Different levels of environmental protection across the EU  Divergences in the application of EIA in Member States may increase  Differing national requirements for risk assessment in EIA imply incoherent conditions for economic development and may cause biases in economic competition between countries  More advanced countries could cut back their requirements for risk assessment in EIA  The longer present EIA practices persist, the harder it will become to change them  “Double-checked” projects through obligations from other Directives and/or regulations increase costs of procedures for developers and governments  Full potential of EIA to act as an effective instrument for the implementation of the preventive and the precautionary principles in environmental protection is not exploited Table 8 SWOT-Analysis for Policy Option 0: Zero option: 'Do nothing' 65 (IMP)3 3.3.3 Policy Option 1: Guidance ‘light’ – Enhancement of existing EC guidance Policy option 1 focuses on the review and enhancement of existing EC guidance on EIA. It encourages an examination of current EC checklists on screening, scoping and EIS reviews as to their completeness, up-to-datedness and adequacy in terms of identifying, describing, assessing, and mitigating project-related hazards and risks. Compared to the EIA Directive, existing EC guidance on EIA is considerably more explicit in indicating that natural hazards are within the scope of EIA, and that the risk of accidents is not only a screening criterion, but should be examined throughout the EIA procedure (EC, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c). However, the checklists for screening, scoping and EIS review do not cover all aspects identified as important in this report. There is potential to highlight and emphasize the role of considering risks in EIA. Also, linkages to other risk-related Directives could be indicated, including in particular the SEA, IPPC, and Seveso II Directives. Extended definitions, key references, and links to relevant information sources could be added. While EC guidance is quite inclusive and comprehensive in recommending what should be considered in EIA, few indications are given on how this should be done. By supplementing the set of checklists with a further volume specifically for EIS preparation, additional practice-related support for EIA practitioners could be provided. An add-on to existing guidance could include a “toolbox”, which would provide an indicative list of well-proved methods for EIA, including methods for risk assessment, and references and links to further information sources. Policy option 1 suggests the following actions to be taken:  Review and upgrade of the EIA guidance on screening (EC, 2001a)  Review and upgrade of the EIA guidance on scoping (EC, 2001b)  Review and upgrade of the EIA guidance on EIS review (EC, 2001c)  Review and upgrade of the guidelines on the assessment of indirect and cumulative impacts and impact interactions (EC, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c) 66 (IMP)3 SWOT-Analysis Policy Option 1: Guidance ‘light’ – Enhancement of existing EC guidance Strengths Weaknesses  Marginal financial cost  Little effort is required  Simple in technical terms  Builds on what already exists Does not require much political negotiations wit h oups   tuate and strengthen its opinion on the as  y  l regulatory  ur improvement of EIA practice and harmonization of coverage of risks between countries  of  ufficient  ajority of Member d EIA ate way   ber f visibility on the European political agenda Member States and economic interest gr  Can be implemented within a short time Little resistance from Member States and stakeholders is to be expected Gives the Commission the opportunity to accen Directive’s scope without changing the Directive such Guidance should be updated regularly anywa No change to existing nationa frameworks, institutional arrangements and working routines is required Would favo  Guidance is non-binding and relies completely on good will and voluntary compliance, whose presence must not be taken for granted  Even if Member States use enhanced guidance to upgrade their own national guidance, there is still no need for stakeholders to comply with it  Existing guidance appears to be underused already at present Little impetus to counteract existing weaknesses current EIA practice in terms of risk assessment Does not change anything about the ins policy design of the Directive No or slow progress in the m States may be anticipate  Low visibility impact  Divergent approaches to risk assessment in EIA across Europe are likely to persist  Barriers to integration of risk assessment into are not tackled in a systematic and deliber Enhancement of existing guidance does not address the lack of coordination between procedures under different risk-related Directives Heterogeneous coverage of risks among Mem States will continue to cause problems in the case of projects with serious risks with potentially transboundary consequences  Lack o  Leadership role of the Commission is minimal Opportunities Threats  n use enhanced EC guidance to  reserved l  tes  New Member States are not overburdened with new needs to implement and apply new legal Community requirements  ugh impetus to overcome the inertia of  ce with guidance will continue to   er ase e development and threats of biases in economic competition between countries might increase Member States ca upgrade their own national guidance Flexibility in implementation of the Directive would still be p  Member States can continue to develop at their own pace and in a way that suits best their nationa needs Supports momentum of positive development that exists in some Member Sta Not eno established institutional systems Non-complian persist The existence of updated guidance will be overlooked  The most important barriers to integration of risk assessment into EIA remain untackled  Application of EIA may still fail to fulfil the substantial purposes of the Directive Lack of coordination between procedures und other risk-related Directives are likely to persist  If upgraded guidance will be followed by only some MS, the different levels of environmental protection across the EU, as well as inequities between citizens in different Member States, might incre  If upgraded guidance will be followed by only som MS, incoherent conditions for economic Table 9 SWOT-Analysis for Policy Option 1: Guidance ‘light’ – Enhancement of existing EC guidance 67 (IMP)3 3.3.4 Policy Option 2: Preparation of a new guidance package plus pro-active dissemination strategy Policy option 2 suggests preparing a comprehensive new technical guidance package on the practical application of risk assessment in EIA. By relying on "soft" knowledge-enhancing measures and by pursuing a non-regulatory path of action, the application of the present EIA Directive would be enhanced without changing European legislation. Contrary to existing EC guidance, the new guidance would be much more a “how to do”-manual, answering questions as to what, why, when and how to assess risks in EIA. The guidelines could be issued for specific application purposes, focusing amongst others, on natural or technological hazards, and certain high-risk project types. The new technical guidance would respond to some of the barriers to more coverage of risk assessment identified most frequently by stakeholders and to the strong empirical indications identified by the IMP3 project that risk assessment within EIA is often unsystematic, incoherent and incomplete in terms of methodology in the Member States. Based on a preparatory collaborative process, and supported by systematic dissemination activities, the new guidance package on risk assessment in EIA should provide support and advice on the key issues presented below: Preparatory activities  consultations with Member States and relevant stakeholder groups on policy-level.  establishment of an expert-level working group consisting of representatives of the Commission, Member States, EIA stakeholder groups, EIA experts, and risk assessment experts, to build on existing knowledge and experience. Guidance package: key issues to be addressed  clear definitions of the concept of risk and of terminology in the specific context of EIA  specification of hazard categories and risks that should be considered in EIA, as well as of those outside the scope of EIA  technical and methodological guidance on how to apply risk assessment approaches as supporting and complementary techniques within EIA  models, methods and tools of risk assessment specifically suited to EIA applications, including indications of limitations inherent to each method  technical guidance on integrating risk-based considerations into decision-making and on risk management  recommendations on procedural integration of risk assessment in the EIA process, including strengthening of scoping to facilitate focussing EIA on significant risk issues  technical guidance on risk assessment and public participation (incl. risk communication, risk psychology, cognitive barriers, risk perceptions, etc.)  establishment of an effective post-project monitoring system (EIA follow-up process)  compilation of good/best practice examples for applying risk assessment in EIA  indications of typical pitfalls and limitations  collation of references and links to relevant literature, resources, institutions, websites, etc. 68 (IMP)3 Pro-active dissemination strategy: The guidance would be disseminated to all relevant EIA stakeholder groups to raise awareness about the existence of new guidance and to encourage its use in everyday EIA practice. “Proactive” dissemination is to be understood as a strategy that uses all available information channels, rather than relying merely on the official European Union website:  Distribute new guidance among Member States and all EIA stakeholder groups: – via translation into Member States languages – via presentation at conferences, technical journals, circulation of newsletters and e-mails in the EIA community, etc. – via EIA gateway of DG Environment on the European Union website, posting on websites of relevant national and international organisations – via involving stakeholders already in the preparation phase, both awareness and acceptance of new guidance can be increased  Promoting the actual use and practical application of new guidance  Encouraging Member States to develop their own technical guidance on risk assessment in EIA that is in accordance with EC guidance and that uses its recommendations as minimum requirements for good practice, but may go further beyond 69 (IMP)3 SWOT-Analysis Policy Option 2: Preparation of a new guidance package plus pro-active dissemination strategy Strengths Weaknesses  No legislative implementation costs for MS  Likely to be cost-efficient in terms of relationship between time, money and personnel involved and the likelihood of improvements  Can be implemented within a medium-term time span Builds on existing regulator y frameworks and  rriers rated most  e support for all Member  due  re widespread pt y essment in EIA on the European  y to be rather slow in a number  ssment in EIA across Europe is likely to   n  of s,  pensate for gaps  f se risk assessment provides decisiong institutional arrangements Responds directly to the ba important by stakeholders Provides strong knowledg States and stakeholders Not much need for political negotiations with Member States and economic interest groups to non-binding nature of guidance  Political resistance from Member States and stakeholders is expected to be limited Creates the predisposition for mo use of risk assessment in EIA, by making the necessary knowledge available  Systematic, collaborative approach appreciating the role of MS in preparing new guidance  Technical clarification of definitions, of the conce of risk and of the field of application of EIA  New guidance is more likely to be noticed than changes to existing guidance  Desired impact of new guidance is supported b systematic dissemination activities  Puts risk ass political agenda with significant visibility  Due to its non-binding nature, effectiveness depends on compliance of Member States  Even if Member States use new guidance to develop their own national guidance, there is still no need for stakeholders to comply with it  Existing guidance appears to be underused already at present Progress is still likel of Member States A certain amount of divergence in approaches to risk asse persist Does not address all barriers to integration of risk assessment into EIA Lack of coordination between procedures under different risk-related Directives is not addressed actively  Different interpretations of guidance could agai lead to varied applications In most European countries, there is a lack specialized risk assessors and risk manager which may be still required for quantitative assessments and more complex problems Technical guidance can not com in baseline data on toxic properties of specific substances or their compounds Decision-makers still need to integrate results o risk assessment into decision-making and to develop an appropriate understanding of risk, becau support, but it cannot substitute decision-makin Opportunities Threats  Member States can use new EC guidance to develop their own guidance on risk assessment MS can continue to develop at their own p ace tion  al adverse consequences with transnational impacts  Could be a medium-term step that prepares a future amen rt of  pment  New guidance as a stand-alone approach may be too passive to cause substantial changes  Good compliance of Member States with new guidance can considerably improve harmoniza of coverage of risks between countries New MS are not overburdened with new needs to implement and apply new legal requirements  New guidance could reduce conflicts arising from projects that generate risks with potenti dment to the Directive across the EU might increase  Increased cost for project developers in some cases can not be excluded  Established systems and traditional working routines may prove to be too inert to be changed without new regulations  Non-compliance with guidance could continue to persist, and application of EIA may still fall sho the substantial purposes of the Directive Lack of coordination between procedures under other risk-related Directives is likely to persist  If new guidance will be followed only by some MS, the different levels of environmental protection and incoherent conditions for economic develo Table 10 SWOT-Analysis for Policy Option 2: Preparation of a new guidance package plus pro-active dissemination strategy 70 (IMP)3 3.3.5 Policy Option 3: Set of supporting measures Policy option 3 comprises a comprehensive set of measures building entirely on “soft” strategies to support the integration of risk assessment in EIA practice, to promote its more widespread use and to enhance its technical excellence. The suggested activities focus on awareness-raising activities, knowledge-sharing and information, training and capacity-building, and targeted research. The package may be applied as an entire bundle of complementary activities in a concerted action. Effectiveness, however, can also be expected if actions are taken individually or are downsized to a reduced selection of measures. It may be particularly conducive to combine policy option 3, or a sub-set of actions thereof, with any other option presented here, thereby increasing effectiveness of options reciprocally. In detail, the measures of policy option 3 for supporting the use of risk assessment in EIA are the following: Awareness-raising  Development, funding and implementation of a long-term awareness-raising programme for EIA and risk assessment professionals from the public, private and NGO sectors on the links between project development and environmental risks that: – promotes interdisciplinary exchange of knowledge and experiences between EIA and risk assessment – encourages inclusion of risk assessors in EIA teams – raises awareness on the need for cooperation and coordination across traditional institutional and professional barriers – raises awareness among EIA experts about the multiple benefits that integration of risk assessment in EIA has to offer – promotes assessment of risks in early stages of project planning and project design; – points out to the different risk perceptions and the differing levels of awareness of certain hazards between Member States Training and education  Development, funding and implementation of a systematic, widespread and long term training, capacity-building and educational programme for EIA and risk assessment professionals from the public, private and NGO sectors on risk assessment in EIA Knowledge-sharing and information activities  Promoting international knowledge exchange on risk assessment in EIA, including with non-European countries (interdisciplinary conferences, stakeholder workshops, expert groups etc.)  Re-activation of national EIA centres to act as national focal points and links within and between Member States, and financial support to ensure their sustained existence and operation  Establishing an interactive internet platform, possibly accessible via the EIA gateway of DG Environment, which can serve as a forum for discussion, where questions can be posted and frequently asked questions would be answered by experts of DG Environment 71 (IMP)3  Establishing and maintaining an electronic database on the website of DG Environment that should feature, amongst others, relevant official documents (legislation, guidance) provided by the Member States and an online collection of case studies and good practice examples, with regular updates of the material  Establishment of an EIA documentation centre on EU level, and making the information electronically accessible Research  Funding of targeted research on EIA and risk assessment, and launching of appropriate research programmes, with a focus on: – methodological problems; – interdisciplinary knowledge transfer to EIA from other scientific and technical fields, such as health risk assessment, occupational health and safety, engineering sciences, technology impact assessment, etc., that are more experienced and advanced in risk assessment methodologies than EIA; – comparative “anatomical” studies of EIA procedures in European and non-European countries in order to improve procedural integration of risk assessment in EIA and to enhance coordination with procedures under other risk-related regulatory regimes; – risk communication, with a view to public participation; – pilot projects, in order to do practical testing of approaches to risk assessment in EIA and to provide future demonstration examples. 72 (IMP)3 SWOT-Analysis Policy Option 3: Set of supporting measures Strengths Weaknesses  Likely to be cost-efficient in terms of relationship between time, money and personnel involved and expected benefits  Builds on existing regulatory frameworks and institutional arrangements  Tackles many of the identified weaknesses of current practice, and the most important barriers towards integration of risk assessment in EIA No need for political negotiations with  Member ts   n the participate actively, which is in  ng ative  s of current EIA practice  stakeholders to   t change anything about the EIA policy design States and economic interest groups  Likely high level of acceptance on part of MS  Creates a knowledge base for EIA improvemen Creates a sound information base for decisionmaking on possible future amendments to the Directive  Strengthens cooperation between Commission, Member States and stakeholders Stakeholders and Member States are give opportunity to favour of new governance and bottom-up approaches  Puts risk assessment in EIA visibly on the European political and research agenda Meets requirements of the European Convention in terms of improving the system of information exchange between MS and the EU, supporti training schemes and providing for administr cooperation  Commission takes a visible leadership role  Requires concerted, long-term efforts  Requires sustained input of resources in terms of money, personnel and time  Will be a long-term process until results become available for application in EIA practice, and hence any progress will be slow Until then, all weaknesse will continue to persist Success depends on active interest and willingness of Member States and participate actively in the process Lack of coordination between procedures under different risk-related Directives is not addressed Does no Op Thportunities reats  Can improve awareness and understanding of risks and risk assessment in the EIA process Could have a high impact on thinki ng and ithout   al guidance on risk assessment in EIA  Could future amendment to the Directive, or assist good implementation of such an amendment  of-the- d to aising efforts changed  efforts as a stand-alone approach may be not sufficient to overcome identified weaknesses, barriers, and discrepancies between countries behaviour of EIA stakeholders, and enhance early integration of risk considerations in project planning and design  Sharing knowledge and experience can contribute to harmonizing approaches across Europe w regulatory interventions  Flexibility and discretion in application of EIA would remain untouched, and MS can continue to develop at their own pace Tackles systematically the lack of professionals for risk assessment in EIA Outcome of research and knowledge-sharing can serve as input to preparation of new technic  No guarantee that results of the process will ever be applied and become effective in EIA practice Member States who are satisfied with stateart will have little motivation to do research an participate in knowledge-sharing, and might be resistant against awareness-r  Established systems and traditional working routines may prove to be too inert to be without new regulations Supportive be an intermediate step in preparation of a Table 11 SWOT-Analysis for Policy Option 3: Set of supporting measures 73 (IMP)3 Preparatory activities  Similar to policy options 4 and 5, but perhaps more intense and deliberate. Major amendments to the Directive  Inclusion of an explicit requirement to consider relevant extraordinary hazards and significant risks to man and the environment in EIA, complementary to the likely significant effects of a project.  Adoption of an explicit obligation to identify, describe and assess relevant extraordinary hazards and risks to man and the environment in the information provided by the developer (EIS), provided hazards are relevant to a submitted project and the extent of risk is significant.  Inclusion of an explicit reference to consider appropriate risk management and response measures for the prevention, reduction and control of significant risks, including measures to limit and contain adverse consequences of hazardous incidents occurring, as part of the mitigation measures.  Introducing to the Directive an explicit reference encouraging that the documentation required by other risk assessment procedures under other relevant Directives (in particular, the Seveso II, IPPC, and SEA Directives) may be incorporated into, built on and supplemented by the environmental information required by the EIA procedure.  Reviewing the project lists in Annexes I and II of the EIA Directive as to completeness and up-to-datedness with regard to new technologies and project categories with environmental and/or human health risks, and amending project lists, if required. Support for implementation  similar to policy option 5 80 (IMP)3 SWOT-Analysis Policy Option 6: Major amendment to EIA directive + new technical guidance package + support for implementation Strengths Weaknesses  MS are obliged to take legislative action and to adjust their national EIA acts  Makes explicit in the strongest way what has already been implicit in the Directive, and fully legalizes what appears to have already been the Commission’s opinion  Highest effectiveness of all options expect Eliminates legal uncertainty and differing ed   rly the requirements for practical EIA  ice  sment  pportive measures provides opean d practice agendas  d, and of interests may be hard to  low  k  f g s little discretion in interpretation to MS interpretations of the Directive’s wording Defines clea application Leaves some flexibility in practical application, because it does not prescribe to MS how provisions should exactly be put into pract  Provides most likely for harmonization of approaches between Member States Responds directly to views of many stakeholders who stated that “a lack of legal requirements” is a main barrier to more coverage of risk asses in EIA Combination of amendment with technical guidance and su maximum support of the Commission for implementation  Puts risk assessment on the forefront of Eur EIA policy an  Commission takes a strong leadership role  Considerable financial costs, high efforts and resources needed on part of Commission and Member States  Amending the Directive is a long-term approach that will require considerable time for preparation  More time will pass until amendments become fully effective in practice, because time lags will inevitably occur at all stages of the implementation cycle (transposition, integration into sub-legal implementing regulations, practical application, full assimilation into working routines and minds of professionals) Difficult political negotiations with MS and economic interest groups must be expecte reconciliation accomplish Considerable political resistance from MS and (some) stakeholder groups must be expected, acceptance of amendment may eventually be Lack of professional risk assessors and ris managers, which may be still required for quantitative assessments will persist Decision-makers still need to integrate results o risk assessment into decision-making and to develop an appropriate understanding of risk, because risk assessment provides decisionsupport, but it cannot substitute decision-makin  Leave Op Thportunities reats  in  other es tries   e ld probably cause MS to streamline and consolidate differen avoid d and effort for double/multiple risk assessments  of onals uire full quantitative  on acceptability of risk es  Cases of infringement and incidents of bad application might increase, causing lawsuits and conflict between Commission and Member States Deeper and more sustained progress in terms of anchoring risk assessment in EIA, compared to all other options  Involvement of MS and stakeholder representatives preparation process is likely to increase acceptance Would strengthen the position of EIA against environmental control regim  Harmonization of coverage of risks between coun decreases conflict potential due to risks with transboundary dimension Would ensure for the largest possible number of project types that environmental consequences of hazardous incidents are dealt with (projects subject only to EIA, projects subject to the EIA and to the Seveso II or IPPC Directive) If environmental consequences of risks have to be considered for all project types subject to EIA (whos project lists are more comprehensive than the ones of the Seveso II and IPPC Directives), this wou Implementation deficits may still occur at all stages the implementation cycle: conformity problems at transposition stage, interpretation and concretion deficits on level of national sub-legal regulations, incidents of bad application, full integration into working routines and awareness of EIA professi  Potential threat of overburdening EIA with additional requirements, EISs may tend to become more voluminous and more unreadable  Increased cost for project developers, in particular in cases of serious risk that may req risk assessment Decision-makers might get confronted with difficult decisions  Established systems and traditional working routin may still prove to be inert and resistant against progress t licensing procedures out of self-interest to uplication and overlaps, and to save time Table 14 SWOT-Analysis for Policy Option 6: Major amendment to EIA directive + new technical guidance package + support for implementation 81 (IMP)3 82 (IMP)3 4 PROJECTS SUBJECT TO EIA 4.1 Theoretical and legal background 4.1.1 General Concepts Screening is one of the earliest steps in every EIA process. It corresponds to the determination of whether or not a certain project must be subject to an EIA prior to or as a requirement of its rldwide: those based on policy delineations – a set of screening rules and criteria to be applied by a given community or group of countries – and the preparation of preliminary studies European Union, whose pe of screening approach given the set of rules defined by Directive 97/11/EU, preliminary environmental assessment studie it in the se-by-case examinations. Indeed, within the Eu ere are oo y MSs: a. lists of projects with specified threshold values and criteria; and b. ase examinations. Lists of projects are straightforward screening tools. Acco o the type o ct or certain project features, such as its dimensions or o ata, proj e classified a to the need for an environmental impact assessment. Some projects are subj ses, independently of their dimensions, while other types of projec subject IA only above certain threshold values or when located in more ecologically as lues are mostly technical, although in France, for instance, also financi sholds ap Lists de se oject categories that must be subje cas r above certain thresho are nclusive (or positive) lists, as opposed to exclusive (or n gative) lists, which identify project types below given threshold values exemptin velopment project from EIA. In case-by-case examinations, a project is ubject to an EIA if certain criteri some cases, the environm ntal effects of a proje t are forecas valuated ac ording to a set of predefined criteria, while in some other countries (e.g. Cyprus, Czech Republic, Greece and Hungary) case-by-case examinations take the form of preliminary or simplified EIA procedures whose re values). licensing procedure. According to Canter (1996) and Canter & Canty (1993) there are basically two approaches to screening wo as a means of determining impact significance. In the case of the screening practices belong to the first ty s are also used albe context of ca ropean Union, th mainly two kinds of screening t ls used b case-by-c rding t f proje utput d ects ar s ect to EIA in all ca ts are to an E sensitive are . Threshold va al thre ply. fining tho ld values) pr ct to EIA (in all es o i e g a de sa are met. In e c t and e c sults determine whether the project must be subject to a full EIA or not. These two screening methods may also be used in combination, as in the cases where projects must be subject to mandatory EIA above specified threshold values and assessed on a case-by- case basis (when below inclusive threshold values or between inclusive and exclusive threshold 83 (IMP)3 Case-by-case examination is a more discretionary screening method, once the evaluation of the expected environmental effects of a project strongly depends on the relative weight given to each criterion. When compared to the use of positive lists, it enables a better consideration of particular only when environmental impacts may be determined to a large extent by local characteristics or in the cases of new or less common project features, such as local ecological or socio-economic conditions which may be determinant for the impact assessment of the project. However, it is a more time demanding and administrative resources consuming method that should thus be used types. 4.1.2 Screening Approaches in the European Context Table 15 classifies MSs according to the screening method and number of existing EIA procedures. Classification of MSs according to the main screening method applied and number of existing EIA procedures LISTS LISTS + CBC ANALYSIS SCREENING METHOD 1 list ≥ 2 lists List(s) + Listed CBC List(s) + Not Listed CBC Belgium (Walloon) Slovenia Belgium (Flanders) Sweden Denmark Finland Estonia Ireland Lithuania 1 Type of EIA Procedure UK France Austria Belgium (Brussels) Malta Cyprus Portugal Czech Republic Germany Greece Hungary Italy Latvia Netherlands Poland Slovakia EIA PROCEDURE > 1 Type of EIA Procedures Spain Table 15 Classification of MSs according to the main screening method applied and number of existing EIA procedures As for the screening method, a major distinction is made between those MSs applying case-by- case examinations on a regular basis and those where screening is made mainly through the use of (one or more) lists of project types with thresholds. In the former case, MSs are also classified 84 (IMP)3 according to whether case-by-case assessments are applied to project types previously defined in positive lists, similar to Annex II of the EIA Directive or to particular cases (not listed CBC). Additionally, MSs are classified as to the number of screening approaches applied, according to decision by the Minister of the Environment, if expected to have significant environmental effects on the basis of a case-by-case assessment. In the case of Sweden, there is a mandatory list the possibility for other projects, not included in the mandatory list, to be subject to an environmental impact assessment mpetent authority (County Administrative Boards), on the basis of a case-by-case analysis focusing on the technical characteristics of the project and the site’s In most MSs (e.g. Denmark, Czech Republic, Estonia, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Slovak Republic ries with listed case-by-case screening procedures (e.g. Germany or Latvia), there is always the possibility for case-by-case assessments for non-listed project types likely to give rise to nts for changes towards further harmonization of screening procedures. Main findings of the desk research on the 25 Member States’ EIA procedures and the relevance of expected impacts in the sense that different EIA procedures should correspond to different demanding levels of environmental protection. As shown in Table 16, most EU countries apply case-by-case examinations as a screening tool. However, only Finland and Sweden apply case-by-case analysis to particular project types (not listed). In the former case, EIA may be integrated in land-use planning procedures, but always as an independent procedure. Projects not listed in the mandatory list are subject to EIA following a describing all the project types subject to EIA in all cases. There is also procedure by decision of the co ecological sensitiveness. The great majority of countries (see Table 16) apply case-by-case assessments for listed project types, according to one of three possible cases: case-by-case analysis is either applied (1) to projects falling below mandatory thresholds, (2) in-between inclusion and exclusion thresholds/ criteria or (3) to projects included in descriptive lists. and the UK), EIA is applied within land-use planning procedures, at national or local level. In Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Italy and Spain EIA regulations are enacted and applied at a regional level. In most count significant environmental effects. In Malta and Portugal, there is also the possibility for case-by-case assessments, although this is not usually applied as a screening method. In the case of France it is not even considered in the EIA regulations; almost all projects are a priori subjected to EIA. These three countries apply EIA at national level. Within WP4 research activities also focused on the type of EIA authority or the legal context of EIA regulations, in order to better understand how much the EIA systems differ among MSs, as well as to evaluate the main deterre screening methods are summarized in Table 4 of the WP4 Report. 85 (IMP)3 Regarding the EIA authority, national, regional and sectoral types of EIA authorities were found. In some of the cases, more than one competent authority was found, according to the type of project or licensing procedure. As for the administrative context of EIA, the great majority of countries have their EIA regulations applied within land-use planning procedures, although EIA regulations may also be enacted under 4.2 Empirical evidence and key findings practice throughout the European Union. This varied application of the EIA Directive results in different project types being subject to ctive, regarding both screening methods and the list of projects and criteria/thresholds applied according to national EIA technical or social local specificities. Nature Conservation Laws, as is the case of most Central and Eastern European Countries, such as the Czech Republic, Slovakia or Hungary. In the case of Italy EIA regulations have been enacted at a national level, under Nature Conservation Laws, but are applied by the regions under land-use planning procedures. However, the general rule in most of the cases where EIA is applied within land-use planning procedures, is to have EIA regulations enacted under planning legislation. 4.2.1 General Findings Divergent screening methods and, most important, different legal and administrative EIA frameworks, necessarily lead to a heterogeneous day-to-day EIA EIA, either due to their non transposition to the national EIA regulations or to different inclusive criteria or adopted thresholds. Furthermore, the set of criteria considered in case-by-case assessments chiefly depends on regional specificities and, to a greater or lesser extent, to the discretionary judgement of the competent authorities. It should thus come to no surprise that the (further) harmonization of screening procedures is seen as a positive measure by most stakeholders, even though the majority of responses account for a general satisfaction regarding the present annexes system of the EIA Dire regulations. Most of the interviewees do not support the proposed changes to the EIA Directive’s Annexes system. The present system is regarded as well working, because it combines the use of mandatory lists with thresholds for those major projects likely to have a significant environmental impact with the possibility for MS applying the most adequate screening tools for other types of projects that can be more or less environmentally harmful given ecological, It is also said that the great diversity of screening procedures practiced among MSs are the result of different contextual factors – administrative (political), social and historical – and thus is not necessarily a problem in itself. The need for clarification regarding the definition of screening criteria and project types as well as the inclusion of new project types for which present state-of-the-art already enables the setting of consensual inclusive threshold values/criteria are the main arguments supporting the deeper 86 (IMP)3 harmonization of the annexes system of the EIA Directive’s. In the former case, better guidance on screening criteria as well as clearer project types definitions for some more troublesome cases could lead to less discretionary judgement by EIA authorities on the screening decision and thus, to a less discrepant application of the EIA Directive. The definition of sensitive areas and the problem well. Annex I lists those projects likely to cause serious environmental effects and are therefore subject to EIA on a mandatory basis in all MS. Regarding the three options presented as to the way the present Annexes system could be oach was highly rom the EIA set e list with thresholds is see different legal and administrative frameworks of EIA and lice ures among MSs, in spite of the simplification of screening procedures and uniform Lik e case of the third option – duplicating the project categories in both Annexes – the against arguments, the former pertaining mainly to the higher flexibility of the f activities”. However, some suggestions were made towards the deeper harmonization of the screening inions about the advantages and disadvantages of more flexibility versus deeper uniformity, changes to Regarding national/regional lists of projects subjected to EIA, problems lie mostly in the setting of There were, however, some negative responses concerning national or regional lists of projects, albeit complaints about too many projects and still missing projects were in similar proportions (around 20% of respondents unsatisfied with the lists of projects in each case). The former referred of cumulative impacts are also referred to as needing further clarification by the EIA Directive. While acknowledging the need for further harmonization of EIA practice among MSs, for most respondents the present annexes system works Transposing annex II project types allows the flexibility to either define mandatory threshold values or set screening criteria for the assessment of the environmental impact on a case-by-case basis. In the latter case, local ecological or social specificities may also be taken into due consideration, which otherwise could hardly be accounted for. changed, responses were not unanimous. The suppression of the threshold-appr disregarded by some of the interviewees, as being too high a risk of evasion f procedure and because it would imply drastic modifications to the present screening procedures by the EIA Directive and gradually implemented by the MSs. The proposal of merging the two annexes of the EIA Directive into a singl n as hardly possible, given the nsing proced higher levels of environmental protection it might (theoretically) lead to. ewise, for th re were both pro and system and the latter referring to it as a “useless repetition o procedures while maintaining enough flexibility to account for regional specificities. Essential changes to the screening procedure were considered in accordance to the interviewees‘ op the certain EIA procedural steps, such as a mandatory scoping phase or the deeper integration of EIA into other control regimes. There were also several suggestions referring to EIA good practice as awareness-rising measures or more general and sectoral EIA guidance. adequate thresholds and not so much in the selection of categories of projects, which should come to no surprise given the fact that all MS already introduced additional project types to their national EIA regulations relative to those listed in the annexes to the EIA Directive. 87 (IMP)3 mainly to the needless assessment of some minor project types, whereas the latter related mostly to gaps in regional regulations that, according to this group of respondents, did not account for local specificities or impact accumulation. Table 16 presents the project types mostly referred to for inclusion in both annexes I and II to the EIA Directive. Some of these have already been added by some MSs to their national lists of projects, as e.g. golf courses (Czech Republic, Portugal) or masts for mobile phones and radio or telecommunication stations (Poland, Slovakia). Regarding the threshold values and criteria supporting the screening decision, some stakeholders drew the attention to the need for a more widespread use of inclusive thresholds in order to avoid needless (case-by-case) screening proceedings. Furthermore, case-by-case assessments may be used as a means to circumvent EIA, as referred to by two German and one Slovak stakeholders, especially in the absence of more limiting screening criteria. Project types proposed for inclusion in both annexes to the EIA Directive ≥ 50 respondents required clearly mandatory assessment for the following project types: installations working with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) or pathogenic micro-organism such as laboratories, test facilities, trial areas military practice grounds Over 40 stakeholders indicated a requirement for mandatory assessment for: redevelopment of contaminated land golf courses. ≥ 40 respondents suggested subjecting the following project types to a specified criteria/threshold: business parks golf courses meat processing plants masts for mobile phones and radio or telecommunication stations Table 16 Project types proposed for inclusion in both annexes to the EIA Directive Furthermore, some pertinent arguments were presented, such as the need for clarification tensions to existing installations. Thresholds were also discussed. Some respondents suggested the use of new types of threshold values/criteria, such as production output, once directly related to emissions or waste generation. A need for using different criteria was mentioned for project categories such as metal processing, plastic production and golf courses. regarding the minimum number of criteria to be met in order to decide upon mandatory EIA. On the other hand, some respondents called for the need to review the present threshold setting approach in order to prevent the evasion from EIA by staying just below inclusive thresholds or through salami slicing the projects at an early stage. Others also referred to the insufficient capacity for dealing with changes and ex 88 (IMP)3 As for suggested threshold values, objective and straightforward proposals are hardly possible. Apart from the different relative weight of a given threshold value in different countries (as may be the case of area-based criteria), threshold setting will always take place in a political context. The ne projects anagement installations, shipping lanes, water management facilities these w tely assessed through Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), whi esent shortcomings of the Research on the relationship between mandatory and screening lists, project types adopted and thre and des d by the addressed stakeholders – in terms of the screening procedures practiced by MS 4.2.2 select Annex II projects to be submitted to assessment. Differing projects exc Membe screenin nd for the environmental impact statements. The a satisfied with at the EU and national/regional levels, both regarding legal pro present Eve re possible, given the small sample size and discrepant res naire per country (the UK and Slovakia a nnaire returns), the combination of desk rese sults allowed the definition of major trends reg varying rn. ed for a clearer definition was also referred to, especially for the case of urban development , clear-cutting, waste m and the production and storage of chemicals. In the case of urban development projects, ere regarded as more adequa ch is seen additionally as a means to make up for some of the pr present EIA Directive. sholds and criteria setting enabled the comprehension of present shortcomings – perceived cribe s. Discussion A successful implementation of the Directive may depend to a considerable extent upon the ways in which Member States choose to approaches have been adopted by the various Member States in determining which should be subject to the EIA process and the circumstances under which they can be luded. A further determinant of successful implementation may well be the extent to which r States set the information requirements above the minimum prescribed, both for the g decisions a nalysis results of this study mainly give the impression that EIA experts are in general the present system visions to encompass all projects which may have significant environmental impacts and definitions and criteria. n if no statistically significant results we ults obtained in terms of number of responses to the question ccount for as much as 30% of total questio arch outcomes with questionnaire and interview re arding most of the issues focused on this analysis. However, many other responses were giving no clear patte 89 (IMP)3 4.3.3 Policy Option 1: Guidance plus supportive measures Key issues: enhancement of existing guidance and/or elaborating new guidance This Poli oncentrates on “soft” measures to enhance the application of the Directive with regard to the s without changing it as such. This would include a revision of the existing EIA – G ening checklist and the preparation of new gu definitions (also with respect to co-ordination with other relevant EU Dire ation of project types (Annex I & II). In addition, new guidance would al criteria applied to Annex II projects (Annex III). New guidance for accumu particular regard to linkages to the SEA directive could also be conside slated into all MSs languages. Enhanceme should focus on:  nd extending the existing EU EIA Guidance on Screening – update of the hecklist es on the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Developing  pretations or additions to varying ver IMPEL es for small/large facilities)  Improved application of screening criteria  Cumulative effects assessment  EIA Follow-up and Monitoring  Biodiversity and EIA Policy Option 1 will also cover further potential supportive measures, which the Commission could consider to engage in, such as offering training for implementation and knowledge sharing. cy Option c WP focu uidance on Screening (EC, 2001) such as the scre idance for clarifying certain ctives) and/or the applic so refer to the selection lation assessment with red. All guidance material should be tran nt of existing guiding material Improving a screening c  Improving and extending the existing EU EIA Guidance on Scoping  Review of the guidelin impact interactions  Review of the EU EIA review checklist with particular regard to linkages to SEA  Improved definition of “sensitive areas” – link to Habitats Directive new guidance should in general address the following issues: Co-ordination with other Directives through clear inter definitions to avoid overlaps and support a mutual complement (potentially o Network)  Harmonization of the EIA Directive with the relevant international conventions and agreements regarding lists of project types and descriptions  Licensing procedures (e.g. different procedural approach 96 (IMP)3 Training could address:  Screening as part of the EIA process with g the practical application essme g and predicting environmental eff environmental effects, and platform for n exchange that could io h d is r aterial provided by MSs, running on the EC website database updated for distribution in English tional Information-Centres such as searching for existing IA society, conferences, networks) and using them. Ta T-Analysis for this Policy Option. emphasis on improvin  Managing effective environmental ass nts, including: – scoping, – identifyin ects, – evaluating significance, – reporting EIA findings, – involving the public, – mitigating – quality assurance.  Public participation  E-learning Knowledge Sharing by establishing a dialogue and informatio take place at different levels:  Interactive internet platform as a discuss  Establishing Stakeholder dialogue throug n forum organizing workshops (capacity building) sues (deriving from Internet Platform and/o Funding research activities on selecte Stakeholder Dialogue)  Building up a database with relevant m and providing resources to keep this  Encouraging MSs to provide information  Reactivating EIA centres as na structures and information lines (e.g. IA ble 18 presents the SWO 97 (IMP)3 SWOT-Analysis Policy Option 1: Guidance plus supportive measures Strengths Weaknesses  Builds on what already exists  Commissi  Long term financial, personnel and resource on takes a significant leadership role  Likely to be cost-effective in terms of the time, n of Directive would still be preserved support needed  Lack of legal clarity money and personnel involved and the likelihood of improvement  Supports Member States’ progress and therefore likely to be taken up by most stakeholders  Builds on and uses existing regulatory and institutional frameworks  Flexibility in the implementatio  Diverse interpretations of guiding material could again lead to uneven implementation  Lack of visibility on the political agenda Opportunities Threats  Incre EU Director ases and enhances co-operation between ate Generals (DGs) and between  Mem own p natio  Could I  Membe own na  Clari as for p guidanc would gu  Improv would e ee of harmonization betw  Enhanc conflict transna project  Provides an opportunity to bring together, review internation  Specif guidanc o apply those will contribute to a more harmonized implementation dealing with  No or slow progress in some Member States because these are supporting measures and uidance will not be taken up by ntly change across the Member States ber States can continue to develop at their ace and in a way that suits their own guidance only  Improved g Member States nal circumstances mprove EIA practice significantly r States can use support to enhance their  Continuing potential for divergent progress between Member States  Practice does not significa tional guidance fication regarding application of criteria such roject type definitions through improved e material and other supportive measures arantee more reliance in EIA procedure ed Guidance on the screening system nsure a certain degr EU  New guidance continues to be ignored and underused  Take-up of supporting measures and new guidance is dependent on willingness and active interest of Member States and EIA stakeholders een MSs ement of guiding material could reduce s arising from projects likely to generate tional impacts and from transnational s subjected to EIA and highlight best practice at the EU and al level (Knowledge sharing!) ying the set of criteria and providing e on how t certain project categories Table 18 SWOT-Analysis for Policy Option 1: Guidance plus supportive measures Policy Option 1 is adequate for the short to medium term. Improved guidance in terms of project types definition and screening criteria can lead to less divergent EIA practice among MSs with little disturbance of national legal and administrative EIA systems. The requirements of Section 6, Art. III-185 of the European Convention in terms of improving the system of information exchange e Union, as well as supporting training schemes and provisions for administrative cooperation could also ease the implementation. However, it implies additional c s across the Member States and th o ts, if well applied. 98 (IMP)3 4.3.4 Policy Option 2: Minor amendment to the EIA directive plus supportive measures Key issues: Annex I+II remain untouched; changes to Annex III combined with supportive measures ex I and II according to the present EIA Directive and option would also reflect risk and health concerns, the emergence of new types of projects, the introduction of the SEA nd the opportunity to align selection crit r environmental policy Directives. In x III, this option wo sures Int tended set of selection criteria i nsiderations nificance6, i.e. whether a project is likely to cause significant adverse uld in general include: ria for deciding whether the en tal effects are adverse Policy Option 2 suggests to keep Ann introduce an extended set of project selection criteria in Annex III. This Directive a eria with othe addition to changing Anne uld also contain relevant supportive mea mentioned in Policy Option 1. roducing an ex n Annex III would have to include co about:  Determination of sig environmental effects. This sho – Crite vironmen (e.g. through gof the ce us comparing the quality of the existin environment once the project is in pla environment with the predicted quality ing certain indicators); – Extended Set of Criteria for deciding whether the adverse environmental effects are significant (adding provisions to use enviro rds, guidelines or objectives – line or cant; introducing ding ifica nmental standa e.g. if the level of an adverse environ objective, it may be signifi mental effect exceeds the standard, guide quantitative risk assessment criteria (inclu health concerns); – Criteria for deciding whether the sign nt adverse environmental effects are likely to urrence – bility of occ also combined with quantitative risk h concerns) – the scientific uncertainty should also be reening decision r how to use screening criteria to make a transparent and thorough Guidance and supportive measures to changes to Annex III could particularly address occur (in addition to the proba assessment (also including healt taken into account and weighted)  Methodological approach for the sc – Basic provisions fo decision methodological approaches for the screening decision. Provisions for a more profound and unified approach in selecting project types to be subjected to EIA will likely contribute to a more harmonized application of the Directive. It would also provide for a higher legal certainty for the screening decisions. Guidance could be elaborated by establishing a working group with representatives of all Member States to build on existing knowledge and experience. 6 Following the approach for deciding whether a project is likely to cause significant environmental effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act; Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (1994): Reference Guide: Determining Whether A Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects. 99 (IMP)3 In addition to the above mentioned key issues of Policy Option 2, the Commission could also consider to implement provisions for e.g. elaborating guidance notes and/or regulations in the Directive. This would mirror a more regulative approach for the considered changes and it would provide an option to bind Member States to following a certain way of implementation. measures SWOT-Analysis Policy Option 2: Minor amendment to the EIA directive plus supportive Strengths Weaknesses  Easy to implement by MSs  Contributes to further harmonization of the EIA application throughout MSs  Introduces new and clearer concerns on e.g. health and risk  Is able to address the necessary coordination of EIA and SEA procedures concerning the selection of projects for assessment  Adapts existing selection criteria to the emergence of new project types  Requires an amendment to the present EIA Directive  Doubtful cost-effective results in view of the likely minor changes  Likely modest results in terms of the harmonization of screening procedures among MSs Opportunities Threats  Keeps a flexible approach to screening, updating and enlarging the respective selection criteria  Provides an additional tool to align EIA with other environmental policy Directives/regulations (particularly SEA)  Provides for a higher legal certainty for Member States for their screening decisions  Simplifies the process of excluding those projects for which EIA is clearly not required  Constitutes a firmer basis for screening decisions which reduces administrative burden for competent authorities  Provides for a more robust and transparent approach in defining project types with likely significant effects  Seizes the chance to reduce possibilities to circumvent EIA obligations  May result in irrelevant changes to existing national EIA legislations  Likely negative reaction from MSs that will be faced with the need to change existing legislation in minor aspects  Denial of acceptance in Member States to implement changes which likely interfere with national/regional screening system  Revising the Annex III to the EIA Directive’s may hold the risk that other issues could be put on the political agenda, potentially leading to additional changes Table 19 SWOT-Analysis for Policy Option 2: Minor amendment to the EIA directive plus supportive measures Changes to Annex III to the EIA Directive as proposed by this policy option comprise a possible solution to the different interpretations of the present definition of project types in both Annex I and Annex II. It also provides guidance for general screening procedures, which should contribute to clearer screening rules and outcomes. Its focus is on health and environmental risk assessment, among other relevant issues and allows for additional enhancement of overall EIA practice. 100 (IMP)3 Such hanges may also trigger future amendments to national legislations concerning thc e alignment of EIA with other Directives and European Regulations, such as the SEA or the IPPC Directive, which would make major amendments to the present annexes system easier to Policy Option 2 must be regarded as a modest contribution to the overall improvement and implement in the medium to long term. harmonization of the implementation of the EIA Directive by MSs, given remaining disparities regarding the lists of projects and threshold values setting. 101 (IMP)3 4 portive Key issues .3.5 Policy Option 3: Moderate amendment to the EIA directive plus sup measures : Annex I remains untouched; ch rdin ct t ed with supportive measures and relevant changes to Annex III Phe list of proj types included in Annex II, reflecting the e es with likely significant impacts, and/or if applicable, a r project types with minor rele regarding their significant impacts. In pdress an enhanced linkage of the EIA and SEA directive (e.g. r ctivities from the EIA requirement, which should rathe e assessed through SEA) and/or harmonization with other related Directives. Policy Option 3 would also r o Annex II with n of Annex III such as supportive m Policy Option 3 includes all relevant actions proposed in Options 1 and 2. A A revision  Review of project categories listed in Annex II anges to Annex II rega g change of listed proje ypes combin olicy Option 3 proposes a revision of t mergence of new project typ ect eclassification of other vance articular a revision should also ad emoval of project types/a r b ecommend to combine changes t a revisio easures. Therefore nnex I would remain unchanged. would in particular address: considering: emergence of new types of projects with likely significant impacts and/or g their significant s and/or n A ted develop re) with particular to Annex I c The followi e aire retu ults: – – reclassification of other project types with minor relevance regardin impact – determination of thresholds for certai construction of roads, associa rega nnex II project categories (e.g. holiday villages, ments for tourism and leisu rd to potential overlaps ategories. ng new projects categories could b rns and the Commissions 5 years’ report7 res formed, considering both (IMP)3 questionn 7ropean Parliament and the Council on the application and effectiveness of the s amended by Directive 97/11/EC). How successful are the Member States in implementing the EIA Directive. Report from the Commission to the Eu EIA Directive (Directive 85/337/EEC a 102 (IMP)3 Additional project categories suggested within (IMP)³ and the 5 years report Project category Suggested by the majority8 of Stakeholders addressed within IMP³ Suggested by MSs mentioned in the 5 years report Golf courses X X Installations wo Genetically Mo rking with certain dified Organisms (GMOs) or pathogenic micro-organism such as X X laboratories, test facilities, trial areas Military practice grounds X X Masts fo telecomm r mobile phones and radio or unication stations X X Business parks X Redevelopment of contaminated land X Transhipment depots X Installations for the manufacture of particle and fibreboard X Table 20 Additional project categories suggested within IMP³ and the 5 years report SWOT-Analysis Policy Option 3: Moderate amendment to the EIA directive plus supportive measures Strengths Weaknesses  Substantial demonstration of the Commission’s commitment to improving environmental protection  Member States obliged to take action  Supports Member States’ progress  Likely to provide for a more consistent approach across Member States.  More effort and financial and personnel resources needed than Options 1 and 2  Will take longer to implement than Options 1 or 2  Politically more sensitive than Options 1 and 2  Reconcilement of national interests could be difficult. Opportunities Threats  Deeper and more sustained progress in EIA process.  Will drive change and hence be more effective than Options 1 and 2  Supports better co-ordination between Member States, in particular regarding the transboundary sector.  Some Member States and EIA stakeholders are likely to be very resistant to amending the Directive  Changes to the Directive may still lead to little improvement in EIA practice within Member States Table 21 SWOT-Analysis for Policy Option 3: Moderate amendment to the EIA directive plus supportive measures 8 „Majority“ refers to: Ticked in the Response to the Questionnaire by more than 40% of the Stakeholders and mentioned by at least two Interviewees. Project categories mentioned either only in the Responses to the Questionnaire or by Interviewees are not listed here. 103 (IMP)3 Given the proposed changes to the list of projects in Annex II and the combined measures o y Option 2, s utlined in Polic ignificant improvement to EIA application is to be expected, through a more consistent approach among MSs and thus more effective in terms of a deeper harmonization of screening procedures. However, it still does not allow for the mandatory assessment of certain additional project types, which, given their significant impact on the environment, would justify an EIA process. It is therefore necessary to consider very carefully the required effort and expected outcome in terms of a more consistent and comprehensive set of project types with likely significant adverse effects. 104 (IMP)3 4.3.6 Policy Option 4: Major amendment to the EIA directive plus supportiv measures e Key issues: Changes to lists of project types a r e descriptions, thresholds, and the selection criteria to be applied (Annex III) combined with portive measures. lists of project types included, at present, in Annex I and ject types between these two Annexes and/or introduction e emergence of new project types as well as the possible ect types with minor relevance regarding their significant impacts. rticular address linkages to the SEA Directive. uld address: nex I+II in Annex I & II, including evision of all project typ sup Policy Option 4 proposes a revision of the Annex II, with possible reallocation of pro of additional project types, reflecting th reclassification of proj Furthermore, a revision would in pa The revision sho  Review of project categories listed in An considering: – Linkages to other Directives and in p be added; – reclassification of project types with minor relevance regarding their significant impacts. At present, the SEA- and EIA-Directives e 3(2) of Directive 2001/42/EC requires SEA for those plans and programmes, which set the cept of tiring in ent, major wind farms); This op Options implement further supportive measures. A consi project , made b should be ecified criteria/threshold. articular the SEA directive; – emergence of new project types to are only directly linked in one way (articl framework for future development consent of EIA projects). Having the con mind, a linkage of SEA- and EIA-Directives regarding the assessment of activities with likely adverse effects on the environment could consider the following issues: – Raising the assessment of cumulative impacts, indirect effects and large-scale effects to the strategic level and unburden EIA procedures – removal of categories, where such impacts are likely inherent (e.g. urban developm – Special provisions for the transport sector. tion would also be combined with a revision of Annex III, taking all relevant actions of Policy 1 and 2 into account and deration of adding new categories to the Directives Annexes could follow the suggested types listed under Policy Option 3. Within these categories Table 23 shows suggestions y IMP³ Stakeholders for which project types an assessment should be mandatory and/or subject to a sp 105 Table 25 Supportive measures WP2 – Policy Options on the Health aspects Regulative measures Policy option (European policy level) Amendm guidelines, a dissemi ent of nd passive nation activities in eness g campaign h earch n o E ctiv endments to EIA Directive HIA Directive Tra ing Active awar raisin Researc funding, and targeted res Mo itoring pr gress in MS Minor amendments to IA Dire e Major am New 0 Do nothing - - - - - - - - 1 Preparation of new guidance package  2 Supporting measures plus preparation of new guidance packag    e  3 us supporting measures plus guidance       Minor amendments to EIA Directive pl package 4 Major amendment to EIA Directive plus suppor package ting measures plu guidance  s     5  1      New HIA Directive Table 26 ulatory measures WP3 – Policy Options on Risk assessment Reg Guidance Supporting measures Other Amendment to EIA Directive Policy option [European policy level] Upgrade New guidance (Preparatory) consultation process Dissemination activities Awarenessraising Training, education Knowledgesharing Research Coordination of procedures Specific implementation support New Directive on Hazard Mapping Moderate Major 0 Do nothing - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 X Guidance 'light' 2 Preparation of new technical guidanc package plus pro-active disseminatio e n (X) X X activities X 3 Set of supporting measures X X X X 4 Launching a risk assessment initiative with a X broader perspective X X X X Moderate amendment to EIA Directive plus 5 new technical guidance package plus support for implementation (X) X X X (X) X X (X) (X) X (X) X 6 Major amendment to EIA Directive plus new technical guidance package plus support for implementation (X) X X X (X) X X (X) (X) X (X) X X Legend: X ... obligatory measure; (X) ... may be useful as complementary measure Tab Op ea le 27 WP4 – Policy tions on Projects subject to EIA Regulative m sures Supportive measu IA c res Amendments to E Dire tive Po (Eu Minor Radical licy option ropean policy level) Amendment of existing guidance material New guidelines Training Knowledge sharing Moderate Major 0 ng No change/Do nothi 1 or X Guidance plus supp tive measures X X X 2 the e X X Minor amendment to EIA directive plus supportiv measures X X X 3 nt to t rti X Moderate amendme he EIA directive plus suppo ve measures X X X X 4 the E e X X Major amendment to IA directive plus supportiv measures X X X 5 to the tiv X X Radical amendment EIA directive plus suppor e measures X X X (IMP)3 The comparison of the policy options between the three thematic issues “human health”, “risk assessment” and “projects to EIA” shows that in the overall the format of the three sets of policy options is very similar, as in each field the options are designed to operate mainly along three measures; ng “risk assessment” and “Radical amendment eminated to European EIA stakeholders and from more than 50 interviews. While the structure of the policy options of each thematic issue ecific. Additionally, in some countries a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) has been developed. The main discussion about improving health issues tems and of the co-ordination mechanisms with other risk assessment procedures under sectoral national laws parallel to or separate from EIA, with ssment into the EIA decisionmaking process, the policy options concerning “risk assessment” aim at improving the effectiveness of risk assessment in EIA.. The analysis of the “projects subject to EIA” has shown that the system of project types, thresholds and criteria for the screening process is felt to be satisfactory by most EIA stakeholders in the MS. However, there exist differences among the MSs in the set of thresholds/criteria and project descriptions that lead to a variety of EIA applications. One problem lies in the lack of accurate interpretation of screening criteria and a need for a closer linkage of thresholds/criteria with the actual impacts. Reflecting on this situation, the policy options in this field include soft measures, major axes:  guidance;  supportive  regulatory or legislative measures. Each bundle of 6 to 7 policy options includes the “zero option – do nothing” on the one hand, and extensive changes to the actual legislative situation on the other hand: a new “HIA Directive” in the field of “human health“, “Major amendment to the EIA Directive plus new technical guidance package plus support for implementation” concerni to the EIA directive plus supportive measures” concerning “projects subject to EIA”. This variety of options within each research field aims to support the European Commission in taking action on improving EIA application by providing an accurate, comprehensive, and yet flexible document, containing broad sets of possible paths of action. The policy options are based on a technical and scientific analysis of the current situation, taking into account existing evaluation reports, the analysis of the existing legislation and literature, combined with empirical data from a questionnaire diss is similar, the substance of the different options is very specific to each thematic field. Concerning “human health”, the analysis of the present situation has shown that in general human health is referenced in EIA, but understood in a narrow way, and that the definition of “human health” varies and is generally vague and unsp in EIA is about the advantages and disadvantages of integrating health aspects into EIA versus undertaking separate and autonomous HIAs. The elaborated policy options reflect this discussion. In a comparative analysis of approaches to “risk assessment”, the regulatory and legislative basis of risk assessment in national EIA sys particular regard to the IPPC, Seveso II and SEA directives, have been investigated. In general, risk assessment and risk management appear to be often a disaster-driven process, and the risk assessment process lacks a number of analytical key steps required for risk management decisions. As there is a need for the proactive integration of risk asse 115 (IMP)3 such as training, in order to achieve a common understanding about details of EIA application throughout the European EIA applicants as well as a radical amendment to the EIA directive. Each of the six or seven imp radical early set the scene defining the outer boundaries of th Between that support three to haracterised by m The se y options allows implementing the options independently from each other, yet it offers high potential for an implementation in a combined and dissemination activities (risk-option 2) in order to improve the application of risk assessment, and to make radical amendments to the IA directive according to “project types subject to EIA”. However, all policy options except the zero option need the political agreement to take action in order to improve the application of EIA. As a modification of the EIA Directive would result in a modification of the national legislation in all 25 MSs, the policy options that include a change of the Directive require a strong political commitment to justify the heavy, complex and time consuming technical, and administrative processes needed. For each of the policy options a SWOT-Analysis has been conducted, showing the strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats associated with each. This way, the SWOT-analysis helps to compare the pros and cons of each option as a basis for discussing its implementation. However, it can not substitute for a more thorough analysis, such as a cost-benefit-risk analysis, to be done on part of the Commission. At the end of the day, a decision on how to improve EIA application in Europe, and especially a modification of the EIA Directive, is a truly political decision that requires a complex and diversified technical supporting framework. The SWOT analysis helps to structure the arguments, but a political decision is clearly beyond the remit of any research project. policy options provided for each topic, illustrates a particular path to rove the application of EIA. On the extremes, the zero option and the most ambitious, if not option presented for each research field cl e discussion. these “extreme” options in all three research fields at least one policy option is defined contains a bundle of soft measures including the improvement of the guidance and additional ive measures like e.g. training. Moreover, another type of policy option can be found in all pics, which goes beyond technical guidance and awareness raising, and is c odest or minor changes to the EIA Directive. t-up of the three different series of polic coordinated way. The different options elaborated separately within each thematic issue can be combined across the three fields “human health”, “risk assessment” and “projects subject to EIA”. For example, it is possible to take no action in the field of human health (health-option 0), to prepare a new technical guidance package including pro-active E 116 (IMP)3 All in all, the overall design of the (IMP)3 project, the theoretical, legal, regulatory and empirical evidence gathered and, in particular, the final evaluation of the range of policy options for each and every WP, was performed to and is expected to contribute to  Enhancing the application and effectiveness of EIA as a preventive, precautionary, prospective and anticipative instrument;  Responding to the scientific and technological needs of the European Commission to improve EIA as one of the most relevant environmental policy tools at European level;  Building a more harmonised application of EIA in all Member States with positive results as far as European cohesion, equity and competitiveness are concerned, while providing for the necessary flexibility to accommodate for national and regional differences;  Designing a robust and effective reform agenda for EIA closely linked with recent developments such as the Aarhus Convention and the implementation of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive. Based on the sound analysis of the legislative background and various empirical data from EIA stakeholders across Europe, the results of (IMP)3 shall provide decision support to the policy making process at Community level, contribute to an improved knowledge basis on EIA application and stimulate discussions within the European EIA community. 117 (IMP)3 118 (IMP)3 6 LITERATURE 6.1 Literature Chapter 2 “Human health” Alenius, K. (2001): Consideration of health aspects in environmental impact assessments for d, C. (1999): "An evaluation of EIA system performance in eight EU countries. strom, T. (1993): Basic Epidemiology. World Health c and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the health a decision of the European Parliament and of russels, 24.1.2001, COM (2001) 31 final 2001/0029 (COD). the Commission. rective (Directive 85/337/EEC as an Environment & Health Action roads. National Institute of Public Health, Sweden 2001:27. Tryckcentrum i Stockholm AB, Stockholm. Barker, A. & Woo Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1999; 19, pp 387-404. Beagleholde, R., Bonita, R. & Kjell Organization, Geneva. Breeze, C.H. & Lock, K. (eds) (2001): Health impact assessment as part of strategic environmental assessment. WHO, Regional Office for Europe. Cherp, A. (2002): Integrating health into EIA in Central and Eastern Europe Cole, B.L. et al (2004): Prospects for Health Impact Assessment in the United States: New and Improved Environmental Assessment or Something different? Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law. Vol. 29, No 6. ABSTRACT ONLY Commission of the European Communities (2000): Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council adopting a programme of Community action in the field of public health (2001-2006). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economi strategy of the European Community. Brussels .16.5.2000, COM(2000) 285 final, 2000/0119 COD). Commission of the European Communities (2001a): Environment 2010: Our future, our choice. The Sixth Environment Action Programme. Proposal for the Council. Laying down the Community Environment Action Programme 2001-2010. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the sixth environment action programme of the European Community. B Commission of the European Communities (2001b): A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development. Communication from (Commission's proposal to the Gothenburg European Council). Brussels, 15.5.2001 COM(2001)264 final. Commission of the European Communities (2003): How successful are the Member States in implementing the EIA Directive? Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council On the Application and Effectiveness of the EIA Di amended by Directive 97/11/EC). Commission of the European Communities (2004a): The Europe Plan 2004-2010. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee. Brussels, 9.6.2004, COM(2004) 416 final, Volume I. {SEC(2004) 729} Commission of the European Communities (2004b): Towards a thematic strategy on the urban environment. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the 119 (IMP)3 European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels, 11.02.2004, COM(2004)60 final. 001): Health Impact Assessment r twenty-five years. CEQ, Executive Office of the President, January 1997. of cept, theory and applications. ge Institute of Technology, Research report 2004:09. Karlskrona. (In the assessment of the effects of certain public and 99a): ESDP. European Spatial Development Perspective.Towards 001c): Guidance on EIA. Screening. Office for Official Publications of the /2001, LEX 271. rogramme of Community action in the field of public Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care (2 guidelines. Commonwealth of Australia. Canberra. Council on Environmental Quality (1997a): The national environmental policy act. A study of its effectiveness afte Washington DC. Dahlgren & Whitehead (1991): Policies and strategies to promote social equity in health. Stockholm, Institute for Future Studies. Davies, K. & Sadler, B. (1997). Environmental Assessment and Human Health: Perspectives, Approaches and Future Directions. A Background Report for the International Study Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment, Health Canada, Ottawa. Department of Health and Neighbourhood Renewal Unit (2002): Health and neighbourhood renewal, HMSO. London. Dora, C. (2004): HIA in SEA and its application to policy in Europe. In Kemm, John & Jayne Perry & Stephen Palmer (eds.) (2004). Health impact assessment. Con Oxford University Press. Emmelin, L. & Lerman, P. (2004): Environmental regulations – obstacles for development and a healthy environment? Blekin Swedish) European Commission (1997): Directive “On private projects on the environment” (Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC). Official Journal no. L 073, 14/03/1997 P. 0005 European Commission (19 Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the European Union. Agreed at the Informal Council of Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning in Potsdam, May 1999. Published by the European Commission. European Commission (1999b): EIA Review Checklist (EIS Review) and Guidelines on the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions. European Commission (2001a): Guidance on EIA. EIS review. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. ISBN 92-894-1336-0. European Commission (2001b): Guidance on EIA. Scoping. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. ISBN 92-894-1335-2. European Commission (2 European Communities, Luxembourg. ISBN 92-894-1334-4. European Parliament (2001): Directive "On the assessment of the effects on certain plans and programmes on the environment". Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. 1996/0304 (COD), C5-0118 European Parliament (2002): Decision No 1786/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 adopting a p 120 (IMP)3 health (2003-2008). http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_programme/programme_en.htm 2005-10- 11 European Union (1997): Treaty of Amsterdam. October 1997. Fehr, R., Mekel, O. & Welteke, R. (2004): HIA: the German perspective. In Kemm, J., Parry, J. & Palmer, S. (eds.) (2004): Health impact assessment. Concept, theory and applications. Oxford University Press. Franssen, E.A.M., Staatsen, B.A.M. & Lebret, E. (2002): Assessing health consequences in an chiphol. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2002:22. Committee on Environmental and Occupational Health. Minister of ns for the aim of SEA and the direction of SEA research. Draft paper presented at the 6. Stockholm. Health) Palmer, S. (eds.) (2004): Health impact assessment. Concept, theory and University Press. 72. Health Risk EIA. The case of Amsterdam Airport S Health Canada (1999): Canadian Handbook on Health Impact Assessment. A report of the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Public Works and Government Services, Canada. Cat. H46-2/99-235E. ISBN 0-662-28086-5. Hilding-Rydevik, T. & Bjarnadóttir, H. (2005): Understanding the SEA implementation context and the implicatio conference International Experiences and Perspectives in Strategic Environmental Assessment, Prague, Czech Republic, Sept 27-30, 2005 at the session SEA Theory and Research. In preparation for final version and submission. Nordregio, Stockholm. Hilding-Rydevik, T. (2001): Large projects, decision making and EIA. In: Hilding-Rydevik, T. (ed) (2001) EIA, large development projects and decision-making in the Nordic countries. Nordregio report R2001: HMSO (1994): Good Practice Guide. London. HMSO (1995): Good Practice Guide. London. Hokkanen, P. (2001): EIA and decision making in search of each other. In Hilding-Rydevik, T. (ed) (2001) EIA, large development projects and decision-making in the Nordic countries. Nordregio report R2001:6. Stockholm. Kauppinen, T. & Tähtinen, V. (2003): Ihmisiin kohdistuvien vaikutusten arviointi – käsikirja. Stakes aiheita 8/2003. (Handbook on Human Impact Assessment. National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Kemm, J (2004): What is health impact assessment and what can it learn from EIA? (p. 131-134). Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24. Kemm, J., Parry, J. & applications. Oxford University Press. Kwiatkowski, R. E. (2004): Impact Assessment in Canada: an evolutionary process. In Kemm, J., Parry, J. & Palmer, S. (eds.) (2004): Health impact assessment. Concept, theory and applications. Oxford Last (1995): A dictionary of epidemiology. 1995:73. New York: Oxford University Press. Lee, N., Walsh, F. & Reeder, G. (1994): Assessing the performance of the EA process. Project Appraisal, Vol 9, no 3, pp 161-1 Lieskovská & Palúchová (2004): Report on the Possible Implementation of Assessment Principles into the EIA Process. 121 (IMP)3 SRU (Rat von Sachverständigen für Umweltfragen) (1999): Umwelt und Gesundheit: Risiken richtig einschätzen. Sondergutachten des Rates von Sachverständigen für Umweltfragen. Drucksache 14/2300. ent. Cambridge University A. & Kahnemann, D. (1982): Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. In: rogramme of action n Agency) (1992): Framework for ecological risk assessment. delines for Ecological Risk Assessment. (2005): Risk assessment topics. Homepage of the staltung, Band A 137. Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin. 61-286. w. Longman, Scientific & itoring environmental assessment and planning. – HMSO, ecisions. – Urban Studies, vol. 34, no. 8: 1237-1257. Sunstein, C.R. (2002): Risk and Reasons: Safety, law and the environm Press, Cambridge. Suter II, G.W. (1993): Ecological risk assessment. Lewis publishers, Chelsea, Michigan, USA. Tversky, Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases 3, II, Kahnemann, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A. (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) (1992): Agenda 21. Global p for sustainable development. US EPA (Environmental Protectio EPA/630/R-92/001. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (1998): Gui US Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register 63(93): 26846-26924. US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/topics.htm. Cited 25.11.2005. WB (World Bank) (1991): Environmental Assessment Sourcebook. World Bank Technical Paper 154. Washington, DC. Wende, W. (1998): Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung und Störfallvorsorge: Berücksichtigung und Prognose störfallbedingter Auswirkungen in der Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung (UVP). Beiträge zur Umweltge Wende, W. (2001): Praxis der Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung und ihr Einfluss auf Zulassungsverfahren: Eine empirische Studie zur Wirksamkeit, Qualität und Dauer der UVP in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. – Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden. Wentsel, R.S. (1998): Application of risk assessment in policy and legislation in North America. – In: Calow, P. (ed): Handbook of environmental risk assessment and management. Blackwell Science: 2 WHO (World Health Organisation) (2004): Public health monitoring of the Metro Manila Air Quality Improvement Sector Development Programme. WHO. Windhoff-Heritier, A. (1987): Policy-Analyse: eine Einführung. Campus, Frankfurt. Wood C. (1995): Environment Impact Assessment – A comparative revie Technical, Essex. Wood, C. & Jones, E.J. (1991): Mon London. Wood, C. & Jones, E.J. (1992): The impact of environmental assessment on local planning authorities. – Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, vol. 35: 115-127. Wood, C. & Jones, E.J. (1997): The effect of environmental assessment on UK local planning authority d 128 (IMP)3 Wood, C., Barker, A., Jones, C. & Hughes, J. (1996): Evaluation of the performance of the EIA process: Volume 1: Main report. – Commission of the EC, Luxembourg. 6.3 Literature Chapter 4 “Projects subject to EIA” Allelt, E.J. (1986): EIA and Decision Analysis – Journal of the Operational Research Society 37: 901-10. Ames, G. (1978): An Approach to the Determination of Significance in the Preparation of Environmental Assessments – Environmental Assessment: Approaching Maturity, edited by Bendix per 493-504. ssessment in the European Union: Perspectives, ironmental Impact ts, J. (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment Volume 2 Environmental Impact ssment and Planning: A Chronology of nvironmental Decision-making: Assumptions are Environmental Impact mental Impact Assessment – Mc Graw-Hill, Second Edition. and Graham, 25-33. Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Arts J., Tomlinson P. & Voogd H. (2004): EIA and SEA tiering: the missing link? – Position Pa IAIA SEA Conference, Prague’05. Bacow, L.S. (1980): The Technical and Judgemental Dimensions of Impact Assessment – Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1(2): 109-24. Bakus, G., W. Stillwell, S. Latter and M. Wallerstein (1982): Decision Making: With Applications for Environmental Management. 6(6): Barker, A. & Wood, C. (1999): An Evaluation of EIA System Performance in Eight EU Countries – Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 19, 387–404. Barker, A. & Wood, C. (2001): Environmental A Past, Present and Strategic – European Planning Studies, 9 (2), 243-254. Beanlands, G.E. and P.N. Duinker. (1983): An Ecological Framework for Env Assessment in Canada. Halifax, NS: Institute for Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University and FEARO. Bond, A. J. & Wathern, P. (1999): Environmental Impact assessment in the European Union, in Pet Assessment in Practice: Impact and Limitations, Blackwell Science Ltd, 223-248 Oxford. Bond, A. J. (1997): Policy and Practice Environmental Asse Development in England and Wales – Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 40(2), 261-271. Burris, R. & Canter, L. (1997): Cumulative Impacts Are Not Properly Addressed in Environmental Statements, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 17, 5 – 18. Caldwell, L.K. (1987): The Contextual Basis for E Predeterminants of Choice – The Environmental Professional 9: 302-08. Canter, L. W. & Canty, G. A. (1993): Impact significance determination – Assessment Review, 13(5), 275-297. Canter, L. W. (1996): Environ Cashmore M., Gwilliam R., Morgan R., Cobb D., Bond A. (2004): The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory – Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22(4), 295- 310(16). 129 (IMP)3 CEAA (1994): Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA): Reference Guide: Determining Whether A Project is Likely to Cause Significant tal Assessment d the former pa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/eia-support.htm). ichards, D. (1999): Environmental Impact assessment in North America, in Petts, J. d & Rural 99, Environmental Impact Assessment ice. essment, The Hague, Netherlands, November 27-28. United Nations economies, EIA Centre Leaflet Series, in : Screening – Office for Official Publications of the European ation Exchange and Consultation Harmonization of the EIA directive and Adverse Environmental Effects, Ottawa, Canada. CEAA (2004):Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Canadian Environmen Agency (CEAA), in http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-15.2/text.html Cherp, A. (2001): EA Legislation and Practice in Central and Eastern Europe an USSR: A Comparative analysis – Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21, 335-361. Christensen, P., Kørnøv, L. & Holm Nielsen, E. (2003): The outcome of EIA in Denmark. Ministry of Environment, Aalborg University (http://euro Clark, B.D. (1983): EIA manuals: general objectives and the PADL manual – PADL, EIA and Planning Unit (ed.) Environmental Impact Assessment. Martinus Nijhoff: The Hague, 149-164. Clark, R. & R (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment Volume 2 Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice: Impact and Limitations, Blackwell Science Ltd, 123-142 Oxford. Davy, B. (1995), The Austrian Environmental Impact Assessment Act – Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15, 361-375 DEFRA (2002), Environmental impact assessment for use of uncultivated land or semi-natural areas for intensive agricultural purposes, Guidelines, Department for Environment, Foo Affairs (DEFRA), DEFRA Publications, London. DETR (1999): Circular 02/ (http://www.databases.detr.gov.uk/planning/npp/PubDetail.asp?thisPub=02/99) DETR (2000): Environmental Impact Assessment: a guide to procedures, Office of Deputy Prime Minister, (http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/page/odpm_plan_026667.hcs p) DOE (1999): Environmental Impact Assessment, Development Control Advice Note 10 (revised), Department of Environment (DOE), The Planning Serv Duinker, P.N., and G.E. Beanlands. (1986): The Significance of Environmental Impacts: An Exploration of the Concept – Environmental Management 10(1): 1-10. EC (1989): Criteria for Determining the Environmental Significance of Projects. Meetings of Experts on Environmental Impact Ass Economic Commission for Europe. Netherlands. EC (1996): EIA in transitional http://www.art.man.ac.uk/EIA/publications/leafletseries/leaflet16/index.htm. EC (2001): Guidance on EIA Communities, Luxembourg. EIARWG (1997): Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in the Wadden Sea Region – Annex 2 (Final Version) – Inform Level of Environmental Information, Inter-regional Dutch – German – Danish Working Group (EIARWG). 130 (IMP)3 Geraghty, P. J. (1996): Environmental Impact Assessment Practice in Ireland following the Adoption Glasson, J. and Bellanger, C. (2003): Divergent practice in a converging system? The case of EIA in F of the European Directive, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16, 189-21. rance and the UK – Environmental Impact assessment Review, 23, 605 – 624 l Impact Assessment Review, sment, EIA Unit, Institute of R.W. Burwell, A. Stein, and B.L. Bandurski (1984): Determining the Significance of ole of Qualitative Decision Making Methods in EIA – Journal of nit (IAU), Ltd. (2005): The Relationship between the EIA and SEA f Decisions – tions on n Denmark – Consolidated Act No. 763of 11 c of Lithuania (2001): Manual for Environmental Impact 1-325. Glasson, J., Therivel, R. & Chadwick, A. (1994): Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment – Principles and procedures, process, practice and prospects, UCL Press, Norwich. Glasson, J.; Neves, N. & Salvador, B. (2000): EIA in Brazil: a procedures–practice gap. A comparative study with reference to the European Union, and especially the UK – Environmental Impact assessment Review, 20, 191-225. Gonçalves, M. (2002): Implementation of EIA Directives in Portugal. How changes in civic culture are challenging political and administrative practice – Environmenta 22, 249-269. Hadjipanayiotou, C. A. (1998): The adequacy of the Cyprus existing EIA procedure. Project submitted for the Postgraduate Diploma in Environmental Impact asses Biological Science, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, (http://users.aber.ac.uk/zwk/distlearn/virtlib/projects/hadji/hadjip.html) Haug, P.T., Environmental Issues Under NEPA – Journal of Environmental Management 18, 15-24. Hollick, M. (1981): The R Environmental Management 12(1), 65-78. IAU (2003): Review of International Legal Instruments, Policies and Management in respect of the Wadden Sea Region, Final Report for the Wadden sea Forum – Impacts Assessment U Oxford Brookes University, Oxford. Imperial College London Consultants Directives – Final Report to the European Commission, London. Kjellerup, U. (1999): Significance Determination: a Rational Reconstruction o Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 19, 3-19. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (2000): The Texts of the Regula environmental impact assessment in the Netherlands, The Netherlands. Ministry of the Environment (2002): The Planning Act i September 2002, Denmark. Ministry of the Environment of the Republi in Lithuania, Finnish Environment Institute Morgan, R. (2001): Environmental Impact Assessment: a Methodological Perspective, Kluwer Academic Publishers, London. Morrison-Saunders, A., Annandale, D., Cappeluti, J. (2001): Practitioner perspectives on what influences environmental impact assessment quality. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 19(4), 32 MSD (2000): The Swedish Environmental Code, Ministry of Sustainable Development, Ministry Publication Séries, Sweden. 131 (IMP)3 ODPM (1999), Environmental Impact Assessment, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), Circular 02/99. html). sources, Organisations for the Promotion of Energy Technologie (OPET) , 123-142 Oxford. Sánchez , L. E. (1993): Environmental Impact Assessment in France – Environmental Impact . Scottish Executive Development Department (1999): Circular 15/99, The Environmental Impact http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/doc04/eia-00.htm). , R. & Kolhoff, A. (2003): A generic approach to integrate biodiversity considerations in g and scoping for EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23, 657–681. untry Planning (Environmental d Dauer der UVP in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland – Nomos Verlagsgeselschaft, Baden-Baden. (in German) (http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/page/odpm_plan_606799.hcs p) Paci, C., Tobin, A. & Robb, P. (2002) : Reconsidering the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act – A place for traditional environmental knowledge – Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22, 111-127. Pardo, M. (1997): Environmental Impact assessment: Myth or Reality? Lessons from Spain – Environmental Impact assessment Review, 17, 2, 123-142. Partidário, M. & Pinho, P. (2000): Guia de apoio ao novo regime de Avaliação de Impacte Ambiental, Ministério do Ambiente e do Ordenamento do Território. PlanNet Europe (2001): Reports delivered for the 1st European Planning Law Network Meeting on Environmental Impact Assessment in Urban Planning on the 20th and 21st September in Berlin (http://www.difu.de/projektforen/plannet/eng/2001/reports/index.s Pohjonen, M. (2002): Finnish environmental licensing procedure in energy producing projects based on renewable Report 10. RTPI (2001): Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Practice Standard – The Royal Town Planning Institute, London. Rzeszot, U. (1999): Environmental Impact assessment in Central and Eastern Europe, in Petts, J. (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment Volume 2 Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice: Impact and Limitations, Blackwell Science Ltd Assessment Review, 13(4), 255-265 Assessment Regulations ( Slootweg screenin Steinmann, A. (2001): Improving Alternatives for Environmental Impact Assessment – Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21, 3–21. UNEP (2002): Environmental Impact Assessment Training Resource Manual, second edition, United Nations Environment Programme. Waldeck, S., Morrison-Saunders, A., Annandale, D. (2003): Effectiveness of non-legal EIA guidance from the perspective of consultants in Western Australia – Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21(3), 251-256. Welsh Assembly Government (2005), The Draft Town and Co Impact Assessment) Wales (Amendment) Regulations, a consultation document, Planning Division, Wales. Wende W. (2001): Praxis der Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung und ihr Einfluß auf Zulassungsverfahren – Eine empirische Studie zur Wirksamkeit, Qualität un 132 (IMP)3 Wende W. (2002): Evaluation of the effectiveness and quality of environmental impact assessment in the Federal Republic of Germany – Assessment and Project Appraisal, 20(2), 93-99(7). Weston, J. (2000): EIA, Decision-making Theory and Screening and Scoping in UK Practice – Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(2), 185–203. Weston, J., Piper, J. & Glasson, J. (2002): Defining Screening Criteria for ‘Changes or Extensions’ to Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors, Research Report – Impacts Assessment Unit (IAU), Oxford Brookes University, Oxford. Wiszniewska, B., Farr, J. & Jendróska, J. (2002): Handbook on Environmental Impact assessment Federal EARP. Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. Hull, Quebec. , N. (1998): The European Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment: Implementation at Last? – The Environmentalist, 8(3), 177-186. ific ation of Environmental Impact Assessment Systems, in Petts, t in Practice: Impact and Limitations, Blackwell Science Ltd, 10-34, Oxford. or Environmental Impact Assessment – Journal of ationsverordnung – StIV) idF BGBl. Nr. II 498/2004]. Federal Immission Control Act (Air Pollutants), BGBl. (Federal Law Gazette) No. I 115/1997 idgF, [Immissionsschutzgesetz-Luft: Bundesgesetz zum Schutz vor Immissionen durch Luftschadstoffe, mit dem die Gewerbeordnung 1994, das Luftreinhaltegesetz für Kesselanlagen, das Berggesetz 1975, das Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz und das Ozongesetz geändert werden]. procedures in Poland – Ministry of Environment, Poland. Wolf, P.G. (1982): User's Guide to Defining Significant Impacts under the Wood, C. & Lee Wood, C. (1995): Environmental Impact Assessment – A comparative review – Longman, Scient & Technical, Essex. Wood, C. (1999): Comparative Evalu J. (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Impact assessment Volume 2 Environmental Impact assessmen Wood, G. & Becker, J. (2005): Discretionary Judgement in Local Planning Authority Decision Making: Screening Development Proposals f Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 48, No. 3, 349 – 371. 6.4 National documents 6.4.1 Legislation Austria Austrian Federal Act on Environmental Impact Assessment 2000 (Environmental Impact Assessment Act 2000), BGBl. (Federal Law Gazette) No. 697/1993 as amended by BGBl. No. 773/1996, BGBl. I No. 89/2000, BGBl. I No. 108/2001, BGBl. I No. 151/2001, BGBl. I No. 50/2002, BGBl. I No. 153/2004 and BGBl. I No. 14/2005 [Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungsgesetz 2000 idgF]. Statutory Order on Information about Hazardous Incidents, BGBl. (Federal Law Gazette) No. II 391/1994 as amended by BGBl. No. II 498/2004 [Verordnung der Bundesministerin für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie betreffend die Information über die Gefahr von Störfällen (Störfallinform 133 (IMP)3 300th Statutory Order on Areas Heavily Loaded with Air Pollutants in relation to the Federal Environmental Impact Assessment Act 2000, BGBl. (Federal Law Gazette) II 300/2004 [300. erträglichkeitsprüfungsgesetz 2000]. , BGBl. (Federal Law Gazette) II No. 298/2001 [Verordnung zum IG-L: Verordnung des e 1994, BGBl. (Federal Law Gazette) No. 194/1994, last amended by on Amendment of the Act 425/1990 Coll. on Annual Plan of Safety Inspections, Process of Inspection, Decree No. 7/2000 on Contents and Way of Preparation of Report Following a Major Accident. . 8/2000 on the Principles of Major Accident Risk Analysis, Contents and Way of Preparation of Major Accident Prevention Policy and Safety Report, Preparation of Internal o Verordnung des Bundesministers für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft über belastete Gebiete (Luft) zum Umweltv Statutory Order on Critical Loads and Target Values for Immissions of Air Pollutants for the Protection of Ecosystems and the Vegetation in relation to the Federal Immission Control Act (Air Pollutants) Bundesministers für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft über Immissionsgrenzwerte und Immissionszielwerte zum Schutz der Ökosysteme und der Vegetation]. Trade and Industry Cod BGBl. (Federal Law Gazette) I No. 85/2005 [Gewerbeordnung 1994 idgF]. Czech Republic Act No. 100/2001 Coll. on Environmental Impact Assessment as amended by Act 93/2004 Coll. Decree No. 457/2001 of the Ministry of the Environment on Professional Qualification and Regulation of Certain Other Issues. Act No. 244/1992 on Environmental Impact Assessment of Concepts and Programmes, as amended. Act 76/2002 Coll. on Integrated Prevention Pollution Control, on Integrated Pollution Register and on Amendment of Certain Acts, as amended. Act 353/1999 Coll. on Major-Hazardous Accidents Prevention Caused by Selected Dangerous Chemical Substances and Chemical Preparations and District Authorities, Their Powers and on Certain other Related Measures, as amended (Act on Hazardous Accidents Prevention, as amended). Resolution of Government No. 6/2000 on the Way of Assessment of Major Accident Prevention Policies and Safety Report, Contents of Contents of Information and Contents of the Final Report. Decree No Emergency Plans, Preparation of Base Information for Establishing Zones of Emergency Planning, and Preparation of External Emergency Plan, Content and Way of Communicating Information t the Public in Zones of Emergency planning. Decree 353/2004 Coll. laying down detailed conditions of certificates of professional qualification for EIA, the procedure for verification thereof and the procedure for granting and withdrawing authorization 134 (IMP)3 France Law No. 76-629 of July 10th 1976 on the Protection of Nature [Loi n° 76-629 du 10 juillet 1976 relative à la protection de la nature]. Decree No. 77-1141 of October 12th 1977 on Impact Studies implementing art. 2 of the Law no. 76-629 on the Protection of Nature [Décret n° 77-1141 du 12 octobre 1977 sur les études d’impact]. 76-663 of July 19th 1976 related to Classified Installations for the Protection of the Decree No. 77-1133 of September 21st 1977, taken for the application of law No. 76-663 of July 6 related to Classified Installations for the Protection of the Environment [Décret n° 77- 21 septembre 1977. pris pour l'application de la loi n° 76-663 du 19 juillet 1976 relative 1977 related to the List of Classified Installations [Décret th 1993 related to EIA and the implementation of the public 1 July 2003 page 13021 [Loi n° 2003-699 du 30 juillet 2003 relative à la prévention des risques technologiques et naturels et à la réparation des es]. énergie] Decree on Hazardous Incidents: 12th decree regarding the Federal Immission Control Act (Act on tion of harmful effects on the environment caused by air pollution, noise, vibration and similar phenomena), BGBl I 2000, 603, as amended by BGBl I 2005, p. 1598 [Störfallverordnung: ionsschutzgesetzes] revention of harmful effects on the environment caused s amended esetz (Gesetz zum e, che Vorgänge)]. Law No. Environment [Loi n° 76-663 du 19 juillet 1976 relative aux installations classées pour la protection de l'environnement]. 19th 197 1133 du aux installations classées pour la protection de l'environnement]. Decree No. 77-1134 of September 21st No. 77-1134 du 21 septembre 1977 pris pour l'application de l'article 2 de la loi No. 76-663 du 19 juillet 1976 relative aux installations classées pour la protection de l'environnement]. Decree No. 94-484 of June 1994 amending Decree No. 77-1133 related to Classified Installations. Decree No. 93-245 of February 25 enquiries [Décret No. 93-245 du 25 février 1993 relatif aux etudes d'impact et modifiant le décret de 12 Octobre 1977 et Circulaire du 27 Septembre 1993 relative aux études d'impact]. Law No. 96-1236 of December 30th 1996 related to the Air and the Rational Uses of Energy [Loi 96-1236 sur l’air et l’utilisation rationelle de l’energie]. Law No. 2003-699 of July 30th 2003 concerning the Prevention of Technological and Natural Risks and the Repair of Damage, J.O. no. 175 dated 3 dommag Loi 96-1236 Law on air and the rational use of energy [sur l’air et l’utilisation rationelle de l’ Germany Environmental Impact Assessment Act, BGBl I 1990, p. 205 as amended by BGBl I 2001, p. 2350; BGBl I 2004, p. 1359 and BGBl I 2005, p. 1757 [Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung]. the preven 12. Verordnung zur Durchführung des Bundes-Immiss Federal Immission Control Act (Act on the p by air pollution, noise, vibration and similar phenomena), BGBI I 1974, p. 721, p. 1193 a by BGBI I 2002, p. 3830 and BGBI I 2005, p. 1865 [Bundes-Immissionsschutzg Schutz vor schädlichen Umwelteinwirkungen durch Luftverunreinigungen, Geräusch Erschütterungen und ähnli 135 (IMP)3 Statutory Order on the Implementation of Directive 2003/105/EG of the European Parliament and the Council on the Amendment of Directive 96/82/EG of the Council on the Control of Majorvom 16. Dezember 2003 zur Änderung der Richtlinie n May 30th 2001, No. 87 of February 17th, 2004, on Procedures for Environmental Impact Assessment. f Ministers Regulations No. 157 of March 23, 2004, on Procedures for Strategic th th mber 18th, 2003. Reduction Measures. l Protection Law – Act of April 27th 2001, as amended in May 10th 2005. th Dangerous No. 425/1990 Coll. Environment – Law No.11/87. 00. Po De ovember 2000 (amending Decree-Law 69/2000). Po Accident Hazards, BGBl. I 2005, p. 1591 [Verordnung zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie 2003/105/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates 96/82/EG des Rates zur Beherrschung der Gefahren bei schweren Unfällen mit gefährlichen Stoffen]. Ireland European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, 1989 (S.I. No. 349 of 1989) Latvia Law on Environmental Impact Assessment of October 14, 1998, as amended i June 19th 2003, and February 26th 2004 Cabinet of Ministers Regulation Cabinet o Environmental Impact Assessment. Law on Pollution of March 15 , 2001, as amended in June 20 , 2002, and Dece Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 294 of 9 July, 2002, on the Procedure for the Notification of Category A, B and C Polluting Activities and Issuing Category A and B permits. Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 259 of June 19th, 2001, on Procedures for Industrial Accident Risk Assessment and Risk Poland The Environmenta The Act of 9 November 2000 on Access to Information on the Environment and Its Protection and on Environmental Impact Assessments, as amended in 2005. Act No. 353/1999 Coll. on the Prevention of Major Accidents caused by Selected Chemical Substances and Chemical Preparations and on Amendment to Act Portugal Framework Act on the EIA legislation – Decree-Law No. 69/20 rtaria No. 330/2001 (regulating decree supporting Decree-Law No. 69/2000). cree-Law No.197/2005 of 8th N rtaria No.330/2001 136 (IMP)3 Slo Ac by Act No. 391/2000 Coll. of 25 October 2000. Regulation No. 52/1995 on the List of Persons Professionally Qualified for Environmental Impact Ac nts and on certain amending and sup Decre pro De and the Emergency Plan (according to Act No. 261/2002). Ac De 03 of the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic (executing some pro Sweden Swedish Environmental Code – SEC (1998: 808). The Ordinance on Environmental Impact Statements (1998:905). Föro act Statements). La onsequences of Serious Accidents involving Chemical Substan Or lly Hazardous Activities and the Protection of Public Health (199 Un To 19 d. The Environmental Assessment Regulations (Scotland) 1999, as amended. The Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999, as of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 lations 1988 (SI No. 1241), as amended. vak Republic t No. 127/1994 of 1st September 1994 on Environmental Impact Assessment, as amended th Assessment. t No. 261/2002 on the Prevention of Major Industrial Accide plementing laws. e No. 489/2002 of the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic (executing some visions of Act No. 261/2002). cree No. 490/2002 of the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic on the Safety Report t No. 245/2003 on Integrated Environmental Pollution Prevention and Control. cree No. 391/20 visions of Act No. 245/2003). rdningsmotiv (Fm 2005:2) (amending the Ordinance on Environmental Imp w on Measures to Prevent and Limit the C ces (1999:381). dinance concerning Environmenta 8:899). ited Kingdom wn and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 99 (Sl 1999 No. 293), as amende amended. Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999, Statutory Rule No. 73, as amended. Major sectoral EIA regulations: Land Drainage Improvement Works (Assessment (SI No. 1217), as amended. Highways (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regu 137 (IMP)3 USA, State of Minnesota: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/mhip/#6 Vertigo (France) http://www.vertigo.uqam.ca/vol4no1/j_ai_lu/j_ai_lu.html The Welsh Assembly Government is committed to developing the use of Health Impact Assessment. http://www.cmo.wales.gov.uk/content/work/health-impact/index-e.htm World Health Organization (WHO) WHO/Regional Offices/Europe. Health impact assessment. http://www.who.int/hia/network/regional/en/index2.html World Health Organization (WHO): Health impact assessment. http://www.who.int/hia/en/ 6.6 Country abbreviations Austria (AT) Belgium (BE) Canada (CA) Cyprus (CY) Czech Republic (CZ) Denmark (DK) Estonia (EE) France (FR) Germany (DE) Greece (GR) Hungary (HU) Ireland (IE) Italy (IT) Latvia (LV) Lithuania (LT) Luxembourg (LU) Malta (MT) Netherlands (NL) Poland (PL) Portugal (PT) Slovakia (SK) Slovenia (SI) Spain (ES) Sweden (SE) United Kingdom (UK) United States of America (US) 144 (IMP)3 145