Saving Europe's special places (2)

It’s good to start the new year with some positive news.

We return to the review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive, which I last blogged about on 25 October, here. Since then, the proposed text moved into an intense period of negotiation between the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, in a process known as a ‘trilogue’.

The RSPB, as part of BirdLife International, worked closely with other environmental partners such as the European Environmental Bureau, to bring our issues to the attention of MEPs and the Member States. This was more challenging than for debates in Parliament as the negotiations went on behind closed doors and it was difficult to keep track of what had been agreed, and what was still possible to influence.

We knew that many member states were hostile to the Parliament’s proposals, and that making EIA mandatory for fracking was a particular bone of convention.

To cut a long story short, negotiations went up to the wire, but a compromise text was agreed on 20 December just before everyone left for their Christmas holidays. It’s still subject to a final plenary vote in the Parliament and the Council, but barring the unexpected, the deal is now done.

We’re disappointed – but not surprised – that fracking for unconventional gas is not included in the final text. It’s also disappointing that the Commission’s proposals for mandatory scoping, and considering reasonable alternatives to the project are also not included.

However (and this is a very big HOWEVER), when compared to the current directive, the agreed text still includes a number of significant improvements, which will make it easier to protect Europe’s special places.

We didn’t get everything we asked for (when does that ever happen?), and some of the language may not be exactly as we would prefer, but nonetheless here are some of the things we welcome:

• Reference to the definition of biodiversity in the Convention on Biological Diversity
• Respecting the ‘mitigation hierarchy’ – first you avoid harm to the environment, then you mitigate it, and only then do you compensate for it (the directive says “offset” rather than “compensate”, and it is not explicitly a matter of last resort, but I’m still pleased about this)
• Developers should use competent experts, and the “competent authority” (in the UK, usually the local planning authority) should have access to sufficient expertise.
• Avoiding conflicts of interest
• Dissuasive penalties when things go wrong
• Making information available through a central electronic portal in each Member State
• Developers have to implement mitigation measures
• Member States have to determine monitoring procedures
• Greenhouse gas emissions are cited as an example of climate impacts, as well as impacts related to adaptation

Overall, I think these are positive steps for environmental protection. Unfortunately the revised directive is unlikely to come into force across Europe before 2017, but once it’s formally done and dusted we should be encouraging governments to implement it as soon as possible.