Comparative practice - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 321

• a description of the activity and “reasonable” alternatives (including that least harmful
to the environment and the do-nothing option);
• an overview of the specific decision(s) for which the EIS is being prepared and of
decisions already taken regarding that activity;
• a description of the existing environment, and the expected future state of the
environment if the activity is not carried out;
• a description of the environmental impacts of the proposed activity and alternatives, and
the methods used to determine these impacts;
• a comparison of the activity with each alternative;
• gaps in knowledge; and
• a non-technical summary.
The developer submits the EIS to the competent authority, which has six weeks to decide
whether it meets the criteria of the guidelines or whether any corrections or amendments
are required. The findings of this inspection are made public. Once it has been accepted,
the EIS is made publicly available for at least four weeks. During this time, a public
hearing must be held, and the public may comment on the EIS. At this time other
environmental bodies may also provide advice to the competent authority concerning the
contents of the EIS. A record of the public review and other advice is then passed to the
EIA Commission.
The EIA Commission then reviews the EIS against current legislation and the EIS
guidelines. It also considers the advice and public review. The Commission's review is
generally guided by two issues: whether the EIS can assist in decision-making, and, if so,
whether it is complete and accurate. The review concerns the adequacy of the EIS, not
the environmental acceptability of the activity. Within two months of receiving the EIS,
the Commission sends the results of this review to the competent authority, which makes
the final decision. About 40 per cent of the EISs reviewed by the Commission between
1999 and 2001 were inadequate. In such cases, the developer may be required to provide
further environmental information.
The competent authority makes a decision based on the EIS, the advisers' comments,
the Commission's review and the results of the public hearing. It makes the results of this
decision known, including how a balance was struck between environmental and other
interests, and how alternatives were considered. The competent authority must
subsequently monitor the project, based on information provided by the developer, and
make the monitoring information publicly available. If actual impacts exceed those
predicted, the competent authority must take measures to reduce or mitigate them.
About 70 EIAs are carried out in the Netherlands each year: this has not changed
much since Directive 97/11 came into force. EIA in the Netherlands does appear to
influence decisions on projects. An evaluation of the EIA system carried out in 1996
suggested that 79 per cent of respondent competent authorities and project proponents felt
that EIA had brought up new relevant information, leading in 52 per cent of cases to
changes in the project that made it more environment-friendly (including withdrawal of
project proposals). In 71 per cent of cases, EIA led to a more receptive attitude towards
environmental issues that might affect future development decisions; and in 70 per cent
of cases competent authorities and project proponents felt that the benefits of EIA
outweighed its costs (Scholten 2003).