Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Finland
22
25
France
6,000-7,000
7,000+
Germany
1,000
est. increase
Greece
1,600
1,600
Ireland
140
178
Italy
37
No data
Luxembourg
20
20
Netherlands
70
70
Portugal
87
92
Spain
120
290
Sweden
1,000
1,000
UK
300
500
Source: CEC (2003).
procedures in place. Commitment to scoping in the other Member States is more
variable. Similarly, the consideration of alternatives to a proposed project was
mandatory in only a very few countries, including the Netherlands which also
required an analysis of the most environmentally acceptable alternatives in each
case. The amended Directive requires developers to include an outline of the main
alternatives studied. The 2003 review shows that in some Member States the
consideration of alternatives is a central focus of the EIA process; elsewhere the
coverage is less adequate—although the majority of countries do now require
assessment of the zero (do minimum) alternative.
• Variations in nature of public consultation required in the EIA process. The Directive
requires an EIS to be made available after it is handed to the competent authority, and
throughout the EU the public is given an opportunity to comment on the projects that
are subject to EIA. However, the extent of public involvement and the interpretation of
“the public concerned” varies from quite narrow to wide. In Denmark, the Netherlands
and Wallonia, the public is consulted during the scoping process. In the Netherlands
and Flanders, a public hearing must be held after the EIS is submitted. In Spain, the
public must be consulted before the EIS is submitted. In Austria, the public can
participate at several stages of an EIA, and citizens' groups and the Ombudsman for
the Environment have special status. The transposition of the Aarhus Convention into
EIA legislation may provide an opportunity for improvements in public participation
in EIA (CEC 2001).
• Variations in some key elements of EIA/EIS content, relating in particular to
biodiversity, human health, risk and cumulative impacts. Whilst the EIA Directive
does not make explicit reference to biodiversity and to health impacts, both can be
seen as of increasing importance for EIA. There are some examples of good practice,
in the Netherlands and Finland for biodiversity, and in the Netherlands again for
health impact assessment. On the other hand, the amended Directive (Annex III) now
Search WWH ::




Custom Search