Doubts remain as EIA agreement beckons

Date: 14/12/1995

EU member states are close to agreement on new rules to tighten those governing the way environmental impact assessments (EIAs) on major construction and infrastructure projects are carried out.

But although changes, due to be voted through at next week's meeting of environment ministers, will broaden the scope of the EIA rules and mean that governments have to carry out assessments on a wider range of projects, officials are doubtful that they will fulfil one of their main aims of ensuring consistency throughout the EU in the way projects are assessed.

While no one is in any doubt that ministers will reach a common position at their meeting on 18-19 December, there is uncertainty about whether France and Italy can be persuaded to support the deal before it is referred back to the European Parliament for its second reading.

So diverse are member states' views on the details of the proposals that a working group will probably be held alongside the Council meeting to thrash out a final form of wording.

Although a lot of member states agree that the system of EIAs plays a vital part in ensuring that at least some reference is made to environmental concerns in planning decisions, differing interpretations of the original and rather vague 1985 directive have left some governments open to legal challenges from environmental protesters.

“Some countries have faced huge problems. It's so easy for anyone to argue that assessments haven't been carried out properly, because of the nature of the directive and the subjective nature of whether a project is likely to have an impact on the environment. A lot of member states wanted more legal clarity,” explained one official.

Northern member states, especially Germany, the Netherlands and the UK, have faced the greatest problems because all three countries have relatively vocal green lobbies. Officials from northern countries are also concerned that too much time has been taken up discussing the scope of the revised rules, to the detriment of measures to ensure their even implementation.

But they also admit to resisting calls for a greater extension of the scope of the directive. “One idea was to require completely alternative projects to be considered, but most people resisted this as a potential legal nightmare,” said one member state official.

The current directive includes two annexes, one made up of projects where EIAs are compulsory and the other of projects where EIAs are only mandatory if they are thought likely to have a significant effect on the environment.

Unsurprisingly, this has led to very different interpretations of what requires an EIA. “We have now found a form of wording which toughens up Annex II, setting out a longer list of criteria people must have regard to,” said an official.

But he admitted that the biggest problem remained the varying degree of seriousness with which assessments are taken. “Germany, the UK and Italy do about 400 EIAs each year and generally do them properly. France does about 6,000 and really just uses it as a rubber stamp for projects which are sometimes already under way.”

Nevertheless, the overriding impression remains that although there will now be a degree of obligation for projects in Annex II, not much has been done to improve the quality of EIAs.

France has so far adopted a different approach, calling instead for an extension of Annex I, a move supported by Italy but interpreted elsewhere as an attempt to move all member states towards the French 'lowest common denominator' approach.

“The Dutch and Germans resisted this very strongly. It simply would not be realistic to carry out thousands of EIAs every year in the thorough way they do them,” said one official.