Origins and development - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 53

includes risk and cumulative impacts. The 2003 review shows that although RAs
appear in many EISs, for most Member States risk is seen as separate from the EIA
process and handled by other control regimes. The review also shows a growing
awareness of cumulative impacts, with measures put in place in many Member States
(e.g. France, Portugal, Finland, Germany, Sweden and Denmark) to address them.
However, it would seem that Member States are still grappling with the nature and
dimensions of cumulative impacts.
• Lack of systematic monitoring of a project's actual impacts by the competent authority.
Despite widespread concern about this Achilles' heel in the EIA Directive, there was
considerable resistance to the inclusion of a requirement for mandatory monitoring. As
such, there are very few good examples (e.g. the Netherlands) of a mandatory and
systematic approach. Dutch legislation requires the competent authority to draw up an
evaluation programme, which compares actual outcomes with those predicted in the
EIS. If the evaluation shows effects worse than predicted, the competent authority may
order extra environmental measures. In Greece, legislation provides for a review of the
EIA outcome as part of the renewal procedure for an environmental permit.
Overall, the 2003 review showed that there are both strengths and weaknesses in the
operation of the Directive, as amended. There are many examples of good practice, and
the amendments have provided a significant strengthening of the procedural base of EIA,
and have brought more harmonization in some areas—for example on the projects subject
to EIA. Yet, as noted here, there is still a wide disparity in both the approach and the
application of EIA in the Member States, and significant weaknesses remain to be
addressed. The review concluded with a number of recommendations. These included
advice to Member States to, inter alia, better record on an annual basis the nature of EIA
activity; check national legislation with regard to aspects such as thresholds, quality
control, cumulative impacts; make more use of EC guidance (e.g. on screening, scoping
and review); and improve training provision for EIA.
2.8 Summary
This chapter has reviewed the development of EIA worldwide, from its unexpectedly
successful beginnings in the USA to recent developments in the EU. In practice, EIA
ranges from the production of very simple ad hoc reports to the production of extremely
bulky and complex documents, from wide-ranging to non-existent consultation with the
public, from detailed quantitative predictions to broad statements about likely future
trends. In the EU, reviews of EIA experience show that “overall, although practice is
divergent, it may not be diverging, and recent actions such as the amended Directive
appear to be 'hardening up' the regulatory framework and may encourage more
convergence” (Glasson & Bellanger 2003). All these systems worldwide have the broad
aim of improving decision-making by raising decision-makers' awareness of a proposed
action's environmental consequences. Over the past 35 years, EIA has become an
important tool in project planning, and its applications are likely to expand further.
Chapter 10 provides further discussion of EIA systems internationally and Chapter 12
discusses the widening of scope to strategic environmental assessment of policies, plans
and programmes. The next chapter focuses on EIA in the UK context.