Proposal to extend EIAs to earlier stages of planning

Date: 18/07/1996

PLANS to extend environmental impact assessments (EIAs) from individual projects to larger-scale planning decisions are set for adoption before the August break.

But officials admit that political manoeuvring between Commission departments could still hold back the proposal - scheduled for discussion by the full college next Wednesday (24 July) - until September.

Despite indications that it is likely to face a rough ride, officials insist that member states have no cause for concern.

“People tend to get scared by this sort of idea, but we are sure they will be reassured. What we are suggesting sets out broad procedural guidelines as in the original EIA directive, but much is left up to the member states,” said an official.

While the existing directive on EIAs is limited in its scope to certain categories of public or private construction projects, the latest idea is to extend the scheme further back in the planning process.

Under the proposals for 'environmental assessments of plans and

programmes' - Strategic Environmental Assessments - local and regional authorities would be required to consider the potential environmental effects of long-term development projects for areas under their control.

This would add to the range of factors which must be taken into account when authorities consider where to build particular elements of an overall strategic plan covering a whole region.

Campaigners have long insisted that it is pointless to assess the possible damage to an area where a new group of houses is to be built, if the decision on where the building is to be carried out has already been taken well in advance as part of a regional development plan.

Aware of the political sensitivity of even this limited measure, the Commission is holding fire on suggesting extending assessments any further back in the planning process to decisions taken on a national level.

This is the preferred option of 'green' lobbies and some member states already require proposals reaching cabinet level to take account of environmental considerations.

Officials are anxious to keep a tight lid on the latest draft for fear of arousing premature opposition, as happened when the idea was last raised five years ago.

But it is clear that the rules would, in theory, cover a wide range of agricultural, industrial, energy, transport and tourism projects, water resources and waste management or “any town and country planning or land-use strategies” not falling within these categories. However, an earlier draft allowed member states to judge whether the project in question was “likely to have environmentally significant effects” and offered considerable leeway for exemptions where similar goals could be achieved in other ways.

Green lobbyists welcome the initiative. But Birdlife International argues that the rules should cover plans relating to regional development and wetland, coastal and marine environments.