Origins and development - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 51

amended) by Member States, and recommendations for further enhancement of
application and effectiveness (CEC 2003). Some of the key implementation issues
identified included:

• Further delays in the transposition of the Directive. Many Member States missed the
1999 deadline, and by the end of 2002 transposition was still incomplete for Austria,
France and Walloon and Flanders regions of Belgium. There was a complete lack of
transposition for Luxembourg.
• Variations in thresholds used to specify EIA for Annex II projects. In all Member
States, EIA is mandatory for Annex I projects, and some countries have added in
additional Annex I categories. Until the amendments to the Directive, Member States
differed considerably in their interpretation of which Annex II projects required EIA.
In some (e.g. the Netherlands), a compiled list specified projects requiring EIA.
Subsequent to the amendments, most of the Member States now appear to make use of
a combination of both thresholds and a case-by-case approach for Annex II projects.
However, the 2003 review revealed that there are still major variations in the nature of
the thresholds used. For example, with afforestation projects the area of planting that
triggers mandatory EIA ranges from 30 ha in Denmark to 350 ha in Portugal.
Similarly, 3 turbines would trigger mandatory EIA for a wind farm in Sweden,
compared with 50 in Spain. Considerable variations also continue to exist in the
detailed specification of which projects are covered by some Annex II categories, with
10(b) (urban development) being particularly problematic.
• Considerable variation in the number of EIAs being carried out in Member States.
Documentation is complicated by inadequate data in some countries, but Table 2.5
shows the continuing great variation in annual output from over 7,000 (in France,
where a relatively low financial criterion is a key trigger) to fewer than 20 (in Austria).
Whilst some of the variation may be explained by the relative economic conditions
within countries, it also relates to the variations in levels at which thresholds have
been set. The amendments to the Directive do seem to be bringing more projects into
the EIA process in some Member States.
• Some improvements, but still issues in relation to the scoping stage, and consideration
of alternatives. Until the amendments made it a more formal stage of the EIA process,
scoping was carried out as a discrete and mandatory step in only a few countries. The
amended Directive allows Member States to make this a mandatory procedure if they
so wish, and seven of the Member States have such

Table 2.5 Change in the amount of EIA activity in
EU Member States

County Pre-1999 (average p.a.) Post-1999 (average p.a.)

Austria 4 10-20

Belgium—Brussels 20 20

Belgium—Flanders No data 20 per cent increase

Belgium—Walloon No data est. increase

Denmark 28 100