Related
Recommended
Simon Marsh

After all the excitement with Northern Ireland’s Planning Bill (see yesterday's post), it’s worth remembering another piece of draft law which is still progressing, this time on a much broader canvas. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive is a crucial tool in the protection of Europe’s environment, and earlier this month the proposals were voted on by the European Parliament.

The report taken to the Parliament by its Environment Committee was extremely positive for the environment, thanks partly to our work with MEPs through BirdLife International. However, it faced significant opposition in the plenary debate, and a number of further amendments were made before the final text was agreed.

Here are some of the things we welcome:

  • Respecting the ‘mitigation hierarchy’ – first you avoid harm to the environment, then you mitigate it, and only as a last resort do you compensate for it
  • Using independent, qualified and technically competent experts
  • Appropriate penalties and opportunities for legal challenge when things go wrong
  • Making information available through a central electronic portal in each Member State
  • Fracking for unconventional gas now requires EIA in all cases

However, there are a couple of issues where we’ve gone backwards from the European Commission’s original proposals:

  • Scoping (what do I need to include in my environmental report?) needs to be a requirement, not optional. Getting scoping right can play a significant role in focussing the environmental assessment on the issue that really matter and helps to avoid unnecessary costs
  • Reasonable alternatives to the project should be agreed between the competent authority (usually the local planning authority) and the developer, in order to enable the most sustainable choice

And here’s another key issue which is missing:

  • Measures for post-construction monitoring (which are included) need to be complemented by a requirement to take corrective action where monitoring shows adverse effects on the environment.

This isn’t yet the end of the story. The process now moves into a period of negotiation between Member States in the Council of ministers, and then a ‘trialogue’ between the Commission, the Council and the Parliament. This process may well conclude by the end of 2013.

Unfortunately the UK Government has been strongly opposing the Commission’s proposals. It seems to have completely bought into the argument from business that EIA is an unnecessary burden on business. Yet EIA only applies to a tiny proportion (less than 0.1%) of all planning applications in the UK, and the projects are by their nature likely to impose significant costs on the environment.

We think that the impact on business in the UK will be limited where practitioners are already following good practice. Especially if we can resolve acknowledged issues over screening (does my project need EIA?) and the accreditation of experts. On the latter, we’ve come to the view (based on experience in other parts of Europe) that formal accreditation of experts is not the way forward – but it is essential nonetheless to ensure that they are truly independent, qualified and technically competent.

We ask that the UK Government adopts a constructive approach to negotiations in the Council of Ministers. It must recognise the importance of a high quality environment to economic development and human well-being. The focus must be on achieving good environmental outcomes, not on a narrow definition of costs to developers or local authorities which does not recognise the environmental costs imposed by poor development.