Origins and development - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 49

• Article 9: A competent authority must make public the main reasons and
considerations on which decisions are based, together with a description of the
main mitigation measures (CEC 1997a).
A consolidated version of the full Directive, as amended by these changes, is included in
Appendix 1. There will be more projects subject to mandatory EIA (Annex I) and
discretionary EIA (Annex II). Alternatives also become mandatory, and there is emphasis
on consultation and participation. The likely implication is more EIA activity in the EU
Member States over the next decade. Member States will also have to face up to some
challenging issues when dealing with topics such as alternatives, risk assessment (RA)
and cumulative impacts.
2.7 An overview of EIA systems in the EU—divergent practice in a
converging system?
The EU has been active in the field of environmental policy, and the EIA Directive is
widely regarded as one of its more significant environmental achievements (see CEC
2001). However, there has been, and continues to be, concern about the inconsistency of
application across the (increasing number of) Member States (see CEC 1993, CEC 2003,
Glasson & Bellanger 2003). This partly reflects the nature of EC/EU directives, which
seek to establish a mandatory framework for European policies whilst leaving the “scope
and method” of implementation to each Member State. In addition, whatever the degree
of “legal harmonization” of Member State EIA policies, there is also the issue of
“practical harmonization”. Implementation depends on practitioners from public and
private sectors, who invariably have their own national cultures and approaches.
An early inconsistency was in the timing of implementation of the original Directive.
Some countries, including France, the Netherlands and the UK, implemented the
Directive relatively on time; others (e.g. Belgium, Portugal) did not. Other differences,
understandably, reflected variations in legal systems, governance and culture between the
Member States, and several of these differences are outlined below:
• The legal implementation of the Directive by the Member States differed considerably.
For some, the regulations come under the broad remit of nature conservation (e.g.
France, Greece, the Netherlands, Portugal); for some they come under the planning
system (e.g. Denmark, Ireland, Sweden, the UK); in others specific EIA legislation
was enacted (e.g. Belgium, Italy). In addition, in Belgium, and to an extent in
Germany and Spain, the responsibility for EIA was devolved to the regional level.
• In most Member States, EIAs are carried out and paid for by the developers or
consultants commissioned by them. However, in Flanders (Belgium) EIAs are carried
out by experts approved by the authority responsible for environmental matters, and in
Spain the competent authority carries out an EIA based on studies carried out by the
developer.
• In a few countries, or national regions, EIA commissions have been established. In the
Netherlands the commission assists in the scoping process, reviews the adequacy of an
EIS and receives monitoring information from the competent authority. In Flanders, it
reviews the qualifications of the people carrying out an EIA, determines its scope and