COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document

PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment This report commits only the Commission's services involved in its preparation and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1........... Introduction. 1

2........... Procedural Issues and Consultation of Interested Parties. 1

2.1........ Organisation and timing. 1

2.2........ External expertise. 2

2.3........ Consultation of interested parties. 2

2.4........ Consultation of the Impact Assessment Board (IAB) 2

3........... Policy Context, Problem Definition and Subsidiarity. 3

3.1........ Policy context: overview of the application of the EIA Directive. 3

3.1.1..... Main features of the EIA procedure. 3

3.1.2..... Key information on the application of the EIA Directive across the EU.. 4

3.1.3..... Direct administrative costs from the application of the EIA Directive. 5

3.1.4..... Environmental and wider socio-economic benefits. 6

3.2........ Problem definition. 8

3.2.1..... Factors limiting the environmental and socio-economic benefits of the EIA.. 8

3.2.2..... Higher socio-economic costs limiting the effectiveness of the EIA.. 10

3.2.3..... Need for action to address the EIA shortcomings. 11

3.3........ Specific problems and their underlying causes. 12

3.3.1..... Problems related to the insufficiencies of the screening process. 13

3.3.2..... Problems related to the insufficient quality and analysis of the EIA.. 14

3.3.3..... Problems related to the risks of inconsistencies in the EIA process. 15

3.4........ The baseline scenario. 17

3.4.1..... Evolution of the environmental impacts in the baseline scenario. 17

3.4.2..... Evolution of the direct administrative costs in the baseline scenario. 17

3.4.3..... Evolution of the wider socio-economic impacts in the baseline scenario. 18

3.5........ Who is affected?. 19

3.6........ Justification of the EU’s right to act 19

4........... Objectives. 20

4.1........ General objective. 20

4.2........ Specific objectives. 20

4.2.1..... Introduction and/or strengthening of the quality related elements of the Directive. 20

4.2.2..... Enhancing of policy coherence and synergies with other EU/international law and simplification of procedures 21

4.3........ Interdependence between objectives and consistency with EU policies. 22

5........... Policy Options. 23

5.1........ Policy options discarded. 23

5.2........ Description of the policy options selected for the detailed impact assessment 24

5.2.1..... Option 0+ - Guidance approach. 26

5.2.2..... Option 1- Technical adaptation. 27

5.2.3..... Option 2 - Modifications of substance. 29

6........... Analysis of Impacts. 31

6.1........ Environmental impacts. 32

6.1.1..... Environmental impacts of the various possible amendments to the EIA.. 32

6.1.2..... Environmental impacts of the identified policy options. 35

6.1.3..... Summary of environmental impacts of the policy options. 36

6.2........ Direct administrative costs. 37

6.2.1..... Direct administrative costs of the possible amendments to the EIA.. 37

6.2.2..... Direct administrative costs of the policy options. 44

6.3........ Wider socio-economic impacts. 45

6.3.1..... Wider socio-economic impacts of the possible amendments to the EIA.. 45

6.3.2..... Additional wider socio-economic impacts specific to each amendment 48

6.3.3..... Wider socio-economic impacts of the policy options. 50

7........... Comparing the Options. 51

7.1........ Comparison and cost-benefits analysis of the possible amendments. 51

7.2........ Comparison of the policy options. 53

8........... Monitoring and Evaluation. 56

8.1........ Indicators of progress. 56

8.2........ Monitoring and evaluation arrangements. 56

9........... Glossary. 58

10......... Annexes. 59

10.1...... Annex 1: Information on the EIA Directive. 59

10.2...... Annex 2: Information on the meetings of the IASG.. 60

10.3...... Annex 3: Main sources and studies used. 60

10.3.1... Legislation. 60

10.3.2... Commission documents. 61

10.3.3... Guidance documents and studies. 62

10.3.4... Literature. 62

10.4...... Annex 4: Detailed information on the key parameters related to the application of the EIA Directive 66

10.4.1... Number of EIAs processed. 66

10.4.2... Number of screenings undertaken. 69

10.4.3... Share of positive and negative screening decisions. 70

10.4.4... Average duration of the EIA process. 72

10.4.5... Number and size of actors involved in EIA processes. 74

10.5...... Annex 5: Detailed description of specific aspects of the problem.. 76

10.5.1... Issues related to screening. 77

10.5.2... Issues related to quality and completeness of information for the EIA process. 79

10.5.3... Issues related to consistency with other policies and legal requirements. 86

10.5.4... Issues related to public participation and timing of EIA process. 89

10.6...... Annex 6: Detailed description of the policy options discarded. 91

10.6.1... Non-regulatory options. 91

10.6.2... Merging the SEA and EIA Directives – Option 3. 91

10.6.3... Adopting new legislation on environmental assessment – Option 4. 92

10.6.4... Transforming the EIA Directive in a Regulation. 93

10.7...... Annex 7: Environmental benefits related to EIAs in the baseline scenario. 95

10.8...... Annex 8: Methodology for calculating direct administrative costs in the baseline scenario for public authorities and developers. 100

10.9...... Annex 9: Description of wider socio-economic impacts in the baseline scenario. 103

10.9.1... Functioning of the internal market and competition. 103

10.9.2... Competitiveness, trade and investment flows. 104

10.9.3... Costs related to legal disputes. 105

10.9.4... Avoided risk of environmental damages and cost savings. 106

10.9.5... Costs related to delays. 107

10.9.6... Employment and labour markets. 109

10.9.7... Public health, safety and the quality of life. 110

10.9.8... Governance, participation, good administration and access to justice. 111

10.10.... Annex 10: Detailed description of possible amendments to the EIA Directive. 113

10.10.1. Adaptation of Annexes I and II 113

10.10.2. Alternative procedure for Annex II projects. 114

10.10.3. Modifications of Annex III 115

10.10.4. Justification of negative screening decisions. 116

10.10.5. Mandatory scoping procedure. 116

10.10.6. Quality control of the EIA information. 118

10.10.7. Mandatory assessment of reasonable alternatives. 120

10.10.8. Justification of final decisions. 120

10.10.9. Mandatory post-EIA monitoring. 121

10.10.10. Additional environmental issues. 124

10.10.11. Specific time-frame for public consultation. 125

10.10.12. Maximum time-frame for decision-making on screening and EIA decision. 126

10.10.13. Better coordination/integration with other legislation (EIA ‘one-stop shop’) 127

10.11.... Annex 11: Details of the methodology for assessing the impacts of policy options. 129

10.11.1. Geographical scope of the assessment 129

10.11.2. Available data for the impact assessment 129

10.11.3. Data limitations. 130

10.12.... Annex 12: Detailed description of the environmental impacts. 132

10.12.1. Adaptation of Annexes I and II 132

10.12.2. Alternative procedure for Annex II projects. 133

10.12.3. Modifications of Annex III 134

10.12.4. Justification of negative screening decisions. 134

10.12.5. Mandatory scoping. 135

10.12.6. Quality control of the EIA information. 135

10.12.7. Mandatory assessment of reasonable alternatives. 136

10.12.8. Justification of final decisions. 137

10.12.9. Mandatory monitoring. 137

10.12.10. Additional environmental issues. 138

10.12.11. Clear time-frame for the public consultation process. 141

10.12.12. Maximum time-frames for decision-making (screening and EIA decision) 141

10.12.13. Better coordination/integration with other legislation. 141

10.12.14. Summary of environmental impacts. 141

10.13.... Annex 13: Detailed description of the direct administrative costs. 143

10.13.1. Adaptation of Annexes I and II 143

10.13.2. Alternative procedure for Annex II projects. 144

10.13.3. Modifications of Annex III 145

10.13.4. Justification of negative screening decisions. 145

10.13.5. Mandatory scoping. 146

10.13.6. Use of accredited consultants or mechanism for quality control 146

10.13.7. Mandatory assessment of reasonable alternatives. 148

10.13.8. Justification of final decisions. 149

10.13.9. Mandatory monitoring. 149

10.13.10. Additional environmental issues. 150

10.13.11. Amendments related to time-frames. 152

10.13.12. Better coordination/integration with other legislation (EIA one-stop shop) 152

10.13.13. Summary of direct administrative costs. 153

10.14.... Annex 14: Detailed description of the wider socio-economic costs. 155

10.14.1. Impacts common to most of the amendments. 155

10.14.2. Other impacts specific to each amendment 158

10.14.3. Summary of wider socio-economic impacts. 165

10.15.... Annex 15: Specific monitoring parameters. 166

10.16.... Annex 16: Changes introduced to address comments of the IAB.. 167

1. Introduction

Environmental Impact Assessment (hereafter EIA) is the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the relevant environmental impacts from projects prior to decisions being taken and commitments made[1]. This impact assessment report is supporting the legislative proposal on the EIA of public and private projects, which will modify the existing codified Directive 2011/92/EU[2]. An EIA can be undertaken for public or private projects, based on Directive 2011/92/EU (known as ‘Environmental Impact Assessment’ – EIA Directive) or for public plans or programmes, on the basis of Directive 2001/42/EC (known as ‘Strategic Environmental Assessment’ – SEA Directive).

Directive 2011/92/EU contains a legal requirement to carry out an EIA of projects likely to have significant effects on the environment, prior to their authorisation. Its main and explicit purpose is to harmonise the principles of environmental assessment by introducing minimum requirements with regard to the type of projects subject to assessment, the main developer’s obligations, the content of the assessment and the participation of the competent authorities and the public. Hence the Directive should lead to the alignment of national laws and a level playing field. As part of the permitting (development consent) process, the EIA is also a tool to assess the environmental costs and benefits of specific projects with the aim of ensuring their sustainability. The EIA is essentially a process directive, which establishes certain procedures, but, contrary to most environmental legislation, does not lay down any measurable environmental standards. The EIA process is about helping policy makers make well-informed decisions based on objective information and the results of consultation with the public/stakeholders.

The mid-term review of the 6th Environment Action Programme[3] and the latest evaluation on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive[4], stressed the need for improving the assessment of environmental impacts at national level, and the Commission announced the review of the EIA Directive.

2. Procedural Issues and Consultation of Interested Parties

Lead DG: Environment – Agenda planning/WP reference: 2012/ENV/003.

2.1. Organisation and timing

The following Commission services have participated in an inter-service Impact Assessment Steering Group (IASG): SG, LS, AGRI, ECFIN, EMPL, ENTR, MARE, MARKT, REGIO, MOVE, ENER, CLIMA and ECHO. The IASG accompanied all phases of the review process (Annex 2 contains more information).

2.2. External expertise

There is considerable experience with the implementation of the EIA Directive, including information from complaints and case-law[5]. As there is no formal reporting mechanism under the Directive, but only a general obligation for exchanging information between the Member States and the Commission. To this end, the Commission has created a Group of EIA/SEA National Experts to provide inter alia support on the transposition and implementation of the two Directives at national level. Such information has been used for the purpose of this exercise. To gather more detailed data (e.g. annual number of EIAs and screenings carried out, at central, regional or local levels; costs and duration of the EIA procedures), external expertise was commissioned. The main sources used are listed in Annex 3.

2.3. Consultation of interested parties

Consultation took place in 2010, in line with the Commission’s standards. From June to September 2010, a wide public consultation was launched on the review of the EIA Directive, using a web questionnaire available in all EU official languages. 1.365 replies were received (684 from citizens, 479 from organisations, companies and NGOs, 202 from public authorities and administrations). In addition, the Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (IEMA)[6] has sent a contribution (1.815 responses) in the form of a survey incorporating a number of the Commission’s questions. The replies and their analysis are available on the web[7]. The consultation phase was concluded with a conference at Leuven (18-19 November 2010), which looked for complementary targeted input from specialised stakeholders and experts. 200 representatives from the EU and international institutions, public authorities (at national, regional and local levels), industry, environmental organisations, and the academic community were present at the conference. Papers and the conclusions of the conference are available on the web[8].

The analysis of the input received indicates that the large majority of the stakeholders have a positive view of the EIA Directive[9]. Although 56 % of respondents consider that measures should be taken to improve the EIA process, the large majority of them (>60 %) disagrees with radical changes of the scope and structure of the Directive. The following sections of this report describe the different positions expressed and issues identified and explain how this detailed input has been taken into account in the EIA revision process.

2.4. Consultation of the Impact Assessment Board (IAB)

The draft Impact Assessment report has been discussed at the IAB meeting of 14 March 2012. In its opinion of 19 March 2012, the IAB requested a resubmission of the report, with the following recommendations for improvements: (1) to strengthen the problem definition and improve the baseline scenario; (2) to establish and justify a clear intervention logic linking the problems with the objectives and the options; (3) to improve the presentation of the options; (4) to provide a more substantive and differentiated analysis of impacts and improve the comparison of impacts per option; (5) to clarify the monitoring and evaluation arrangements.

The report was accordingly reorganised and a revised version was submitted on 7 June 2012 (Annex 16 presents how the comments of the IAB have been addressed). In its new opinion of 12 July 2012, the IAB acknowledged that the report had been significantly improved and addressed its comments. The IAB opinion pointed to the need to firstly better present the content of options 1 and 2, including sub-options therein (modifications in sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3) and secondly to strengthen the assessment of impacts by adding more information on the underlying methodologies and assumptions made and by presenting the impact of options more in detail, in particular the impacts on business, SMEs and competitiveness (changes introduced in chapter 6). In addition, the IAB suggested that the report should better present the reasons behind the evasive behaviour of developers to circumvent an EIA and the limited enforcement by national authorities (changes in sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and 3.3.1).

3. Policy Context, Problem Definition and Subsidiarity

3.1. Policy context: overview of the application of the EIA Directive

This section summarises the EIA process and presents a comprehensive overview of the application of the Directive across the EU at Member State level: it provides key information on the features and the application of the EIA (including direct administrative costs) and assesses its environmental and wider socio-economic costs and benefits. It also identifies implementation gaps and the shortcomings that need to be addressed in the EIA revision.

3.1.1. Main features of the EIA procedure

Figure 1: The EIA procedure

The EIA Directive establishes procedural requirements rather than technical and measurable ones. The first step in this process is to determine whether an EIA is needed for a project. For all projects listed in Annex I of the Directive, which are considered to have significant environmental effects (e.g. motorways, nuclear plants, large industrial installations), a mandatory EIA has to be carried out, in accordance with the requirements of the Directive. For projects listed in Annex II (e.g. agriculture, energy, food industry), the competent national authorities follow a screening procedure, based on a case-by-case examination or on nationally set thresholds or criteria. The screening is based on the criteria listed in Annex III of the Directive and aims at determining whether an EIA is required: if the screening concludes that an EIA is not needed, the decision is published and the process ends.

If an EIA is needed, the following steps are foreseen: (a) the developer may request the competent authority to specify what should be covered by the EIA information to be provided (scoping); (b) the developer must provide information (described in Annex IV of the Directive) on the environmental impacts of the project during the construction and operational phases (known as EIA report); (c) the environmental authorities and the public (and, where appropriate, affected Member States) must be informed and consulted; (d) the competent authority decides to grant or refuse a development consent, taking into consideration the findings of the EIA report and the results of consultations; (e) the public is informed of the decision and can challenge it before the courts. Figure 1 illustrates the EIA procedure. More information on the EIA Directive is found in Annex 1 of this report and on line[10].

3.1.2. Key information on the application of the EIA Directive across the EU

The Commission has regularly evaluated the implementation of the EIA Directive[11]. The last Commission report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, published in July 2009[12], concluded that the minimum requirements laid down by the Directive have been transposed and are implemented in all Member States. Information on the practical application of the EIA Directive across the EU, on the basis of a number of key parameters, for which sufficient data is available from previous studies and/or which can easily be estimated[13], follows. More detailed information is provided in Annex 4. It was not possible to gather data regarding the application of the EIA at regional level.

For the period 2005-2008, the average number of EIAs[14] in the EU is at the range of 15.000 to 26.000 EIAs per year. For the same period, on average 27.400 to 33.800 screenings were carried out yearly for Annex II projects. The number of positive screenings (i.e. EIA to follow) is estimated between 5 and 10 % of all screenings (between 1.370 and 3.380 yearly). The share of Annex II projects with regard to the total of number of projects submitted to the authorities is estimated at 7.6 %[15]. However, the average annual number of EIAs varies considerably across the EU: from fewer than 30 (10 in Malta, 11 in Latvia and 23 in Austria) to more than 1.000 (1.000 in Germany, 1.054 in Spain, 1.548 in Italy, 3.867 in France and 4.000 in Poland). The same variation is observed as regards the average annual number of screenings[16]. Such variations exist even when comparing Member States of a similar size and population[17].

Main categories of projects subject to EIA: the Cohesion Member States are undertaking a significantly higher proportion (35-55 %) of infrastructure-based projects (e.g. energy, waste and water management, transport), while in other Member States the numbers of projects related to urban and industrial development[18] are higher. It was not possible to find a more detailed breakdown of EIAs by project category. Also, with regard to possible overlaps with other directives, it was not possible to identify the share of projects subject to requirements of both the EIA Directive and the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED)[19].

While the average duration of the EIA process is 11.6 months, considerable variations are observed among the Member States (the duration of an EIA ranges from 5 to 27 months)[20].

Average duration of the EIA process per stage

Stage of EIA process || Average duration

Screening || 1.2 months

Scoping || 1.3 months

Environmental information (environmental report) || 5.5 months

Consultations (public, authorities, other Member States…) || 1.6 months

Final decision || 2 months

|| 11.6 months

3.1.3. Direct administrative costs from the application of the EIA Directive

The average costs for developers depend on the size of the project and are estimated at 1 % of the total project cost[21] or approximately € 41.000 per EIA[22]. Overall, the EIA costs for EU developers are estimated at € 558 to 846 million per year[23]. The efforts for developers per stage of the EIA process[24] are presented below:

Average cost of the EIA process for developers

Stage of the EIA process || Share of total EIA cost[25] || Cost (€) per EIA stage

Preliminary studies (prior to the EIA) || 1 % || 425

Screening and scoping || 2 % || 850

Information on environmental impacts || 80 % || 32.715

Revision of EIA report (if needed) || 17 % || 7.010

|| 100 % || 41.000

The administrative costs per EIA for public authorities can be measured by the effort in terms of number of hours to process an EIA[26] multiplied by the average gross labour cost. The EU Standard Cost Model[27] has been used for this. Under the assumption that an average working day contains 7.5 working hours, the time spent in processing the EIAs results in an overall administrative cost for public authorities of approximately €146 million to € 215 million in 2010 for the EU[28]. Most of the efforts for the authorities are due to the review of environmental information and the final decision-making (89 % of total EIA costs[29]). The case studies available[30] show that bigger effort during the scoping stage resulted in relatively less effort during the stage of final decision-making.

Annex 8 details the methodology for calculating the direct administrative costs for public authorities and developers.

3.1.4. Environmental and wider socio-economic benefits

Since its coming into force, the Directive has provided significant environmental benefits[31], which cover a wide range of areas[32], such as population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climate, landscape, material assets and the cultural heritage. The major benefit of the EIA is that it ensures environmental considerations are taken into account as early as possible in decision-making process; this makes projects more environmentally sustainable by preventing, mitigating or compensating damages to the abovementioned environmental media[33]. The Commission’s experience from the assessment of major projects co-funded under the EU Regional Policy shows that EIAs have improved the projects’ design from an environmental perspective[34]. Furthermore, the EIA contributes to environmental awareness of the public and has raised the profile of the environment[35]. The results of the public consultation corroborated the positive role played by the Directive[36]. The EIA Directive also gives strong incentives to developers to anticipate possible compliance issues even prior to the project application. This is attributed to the screening procedure, when it is adequately used. According to a Danish study[37], almost half of the investigated projects were changed when environmental impacts were identified with changes being primarily of a preventive nature. More information on the environmental benefits, including concrete examples as identified in the case studies, are provided in Annex 7.

Previous studies on EIA costs and benefits have not quantified or monetised the environmental benefits that can be attributed to the EIA and have not provided any differentiated analysis per Member State or per region. This difficulty can be explained by the variety of projects and environmental issues covered by the EIA Directive, as well as the diversity of approaches to the EIA process. Evaluating the environmental benefits once the project has been developed also proves difficult, as the EIA Directive does not entail ex post project monitoring requirements.

This remark is also valid for the assessment of the wider economic and social benefits from the application of the EIA Directive. Hence, the analysis presented below is essentially of qualitative nature. Annex 9 details the wider socio-economic impacts. Having said this, the benefits of the EIA Directive can be valued in economic terms through avoided costs of reparation. The EIA Directive is seen as a cost-effective instrument in the field of environmental policy; indeed, Member States perceive the costs of EIAs as ‘negligible’ compared to the potentially high costs of unanticipated environmental damage or liabilities which may arise at a later stage[38]. Benefits from the implementation of the EIA Directive also result in health benefits (e.g. avoided nuisances and emissions of pollutants). The associated financial benefits, in terms of avoided public costs for health damages, while likely to be significant[39], are difficult to estimate and no data is available at present. Other social benefits include the preservation of quality of life (e.g. preservation of ecosystems and the landscape), where again no quantifiable data is available.

The EIA Directive has harmonised the principles and practices of environmental assessments in the EU and has introduced minimum requirements that have improved the functioning of the internal market. By obliging developers to assess environmental impacts, the EIA Directive, contributes to improving the environmental profile and reputation of the project initiator and significantly enhances the developer’s environmental credibility[40]. In addition, through the obligation to anticipate environmental impacts of their projects and identify measures to prevent and mitigate them, the EIA Directive provides incentives for developers to apply innovative design and pollution abatement processes. Increased innovation is in turn likely to translate into higher competitiveness for companies[41].

Expertise is required to comply with the requirements of the EIA Directive (mainly the preparation of EIA reports). This has led to the creation or to the preservation of jobs (mostly high-skilled ones) in public authorities[42] and in environmental consultancy companies; specific jobs dedicated to EIAs may also have been created internally in large companies.

The alignment of the EIA with the Aarhus Convention (through Directive 2003/35/EC), resulted in wider social (governance) benefits, such as increased public participation in decision-making procedures relating to projects[43] (e.g. changes in the design of projects and increased social acceptability), development of ‘civil society’[44] and increased possibilities for the public to challenge the legality of final decisions.

3.2. Problem definition

There is consensus that the main objective of the EIA Directive has been achieved (minimum requirements to harmonise the principles of environmental assessment). The Directive has also become a useful tool of environmental policy-making, which has brought environmental and socio-economic benefits across the EU, as described above. However, the implementation experience, as reflected in the Commission reports on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive and confirmed by the public consultation, identified a number of shortcomings that are explained below.

3.2.1. Factors limiting the environmental and socio-economic benefits of the EIA

The fact that the EIA Directive does not specify a hierarchical order between prevention, mitigation and compensation measures often results in a lack of preventive action at the design stage of the project and rather focuses on minor changes[45] in relation to mitigation and/or compensation. This has also been confirmed by the public consultation[46] and leads to a situation where major problems with a project are not being detected and addressed at an early stage. However, detection of impacts late in the project cycle often leads to insufficient rectification in order not to increase the costs of the project. Forgone environmental and social benefits and increased costs are often the result of such an approach.

Another shortcoming is that the Directive introduces essentially procedural requirements, but has no provisions to ensure the quality of the EIA report and the quality of the EIA process as such[47]. Due to the absence of quality enhancing provisions and standards, there is a wide discretion left to the Member States and their competent authorities in implementing and interpreting certain of its provisions; this is detrimental for the internal market and – more importantly – it adversely affects the ability to have good quality EIA reports and processes, which in turn are vital for well-informed decision-making.

Furthermore, the EIA is often criticised for not addressing issues other than those listed in Annex IV (content of the EIA report). Over the last decade, additional emerging environmental issues, such as climate change, disaster risks, biodiversity and resource efficiency, have become more important in policy making and should therefore also be critical elements in project decision-making, especially decisions related to infrastructure projects. For instance, even if the EIA is one of the instruments that could contribute to combating climate change, many Member States already recognise that climate change issues are not specifically identified and assessed within the EIA[48] (e.g. as regards adaptation to climate change or halting biodiversity loss, insufficient information in EIA reports is observed in all Member States). Accepting the importance of such additional issues could be a good opportunity to integrate environmental impacts into the project’s design[49] thereby ensuring a more complete assessment of environmental and climate change impacts of projects and foreseeing appropriate mitigation measures.

The implementation problems of the EIA Directive are generally underpinned by information which the Commission obtains through complaints and petitions. All Member States are involved, as confirmed by statistics available for the period 2008-2011. The EIA represents 12 % of the infringement cases initiated by the Commission in relation to EU environmental legislation[50]. Furthermore, the EIA alone represents 13 % of all complaints, petitions and other cases related to the possible incorrect implementation of EU environmental legislation investigated through the EU Pilot[51]. Also, 14.5 % of the cases investigated through the EU Pilot do not only relate to the EIA but are combined with directives from other fields (mainly nature, water, waste and air).

Experience shows that major implementation gaps are related to the screening procedure, which is a problem in 69 % of the initiated EIA infringement cases. Relating this to a range of 27.400 to 33.800 screenings carried out per year means that the effectiveness of the EIA Directive is being affected negatively, and detrimental environmental effects resulting from not correctly assessed projects are likely to be widespread[52]. Implementation problems are also related to the provisions on public participation in decision-making process and access to justice in environmental matters, which were consolidated after 2005[53]. This reduces the acceptability of projects by civil society and implies a risk of public opposition, which is observed for instance as regards energy infrastructure projects[54].

Implementation problems and limited enforcement are particularly observed in Cohesion countries, where there is a significant number of infrastructure projects and which have less experience, capacity and dedicated resources in applying the EIA Directive[55]. Implementation problems are also observed in Member States where the application of the EIA Directive has been decentralised to regional/local levels (e.g. uneven application of screening criteria)[56] and where authorities and developers still lack sufficient experience and expertise. The limitations as described above do therefore not allow the EIA Directive to be fully effective in terms of the environmental and social benefits that could be gained from such an instrument.

3.2.2. Higher socio-economic costs limiting the effectiveness of the EIA

The limitations concerning the effectiveness of the EIA Directive extend beyond the environmental and social benefits foregone and undermine the harmonisation objective of the Directive by resulting in higher than necessary socio-economic costs.

Studies available indicate that the fixed administrative costs for an EIA represent only 1 % on average (from 0.01 % to 2.37 % in some exceptional cases) of the total project’s costs i.e. a relatively modest part of total development costs[57]. The administrative burdens of the EIA process has been identified by business and industry as an important problem, as in some cases, the way that the EIA is applied may increase the costs of projects considerably[58]. Business and industry are mostly concerned by delays in EIA procedures; the energy sector provides such examples[59]. According to studies available, the costs resulting from delays in the EIA process are generally not significant. Although delays can occur for many reasons unrelated to the EIA process itself[60], developers and business consider that the EIA often causes delays[61], e.g. the need for new assessments when environmental data are not available or when authorities request additional information, that can generate, quite significant in some cases, costs (capital costs and revenues foregone). Delays may also occur from overlaps between the EIA and other EU environmental directives, which require specific environmental assessments[62]. All the above suggest that developers may adopt an evasive behaviour to circumvent the requirements of the EIA Directive.

In addition, the EIA costs weigh differently on small and medium developers (SMEs) and on larger companies involved in the development of projects. The higher the share of fixed costs in overall costs related to EIAs, the higher the relative impact would be on SMEs[63].

The EIA Directive is also found to give rise to legal disputes which can involve multiple stakeholders and the public[64] and generate costs; these primarily include court fees and fees for legal representation, but may also delay the implementation of projects. It is not possible to quantify or give an overview of these costs at EU level, as the court fees differ substantially between Member States and as there are no data on national EIA-related court proceedings and their length.

Despite causing problems for individual developers/enterprises, the EIA in its current form and implementation is likely to create more generally an obstacle to the proper functioning of the internal market as well as the competitiveness of industrial sectors[65], due to the differences in the implementation of the EIA across the EU. It can further be argued that uneven implementation and especially delays in the implementation of the EIA Directive may also lead to negative effects in the creation of jobs. However, job opportunities are rarely lost because of EIAs, as the purpose of the EIA is not to stop projects (even the ones which are negative for the environment).

The above inherent risks of possible delays and costs from the implementation of the EIA, which affect all Member States, but mainly those with higher numbers of EIAs, suggest that there are opportunities for reducing unnecessary burden and ensuring a more consistent application of the EIA.

3.2.3. Need for action to address the EIA shortcomings

If the identified shortcomings are not adequately addressed, the Directive would remain less effective and efficient in the sense that projects likely to have significant environmental effects could escape an EIA, whilst other that should not undergo an EIA because of no significant impacts are made subject to an EIA. Furthermore, when an EIA is carried out, the often poor quality of data and analysis in the EIA report does not help policy makers making well-informed decisions; this also reduces the social acceptance of projects and can lead to litigation. As a result, the EIA would not be able to ensure the integration of environmental considerations in the decision-making and this would go against the objective of a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment.

In addition, the higher socio-economic costs from the implementation of the EIA are likely to negatively affect the internal market harmonisation. Due to the risk of adding unnecessary burdens for developers/business and public authorities, the Directive has been identified as a potential instrument for simplification[66].

3.3. Specific problems and their underlying causes

The shortcomings of the Directive are related to specific problems[67] concerning: (1) the screening procedure, (2) the quality of and analysis within the EIA and (3) the risks of inconsistencies in the EIA process and in relation to other legislation. Each specific problem may have one or several underlying causes, some of them being common to several ones. Table 1 presents an overview of the problems and their potential drivers. The following paragraphs describe the concrete problems to be addressed, their significance and their drivers. A more detailed explanation is provided in Annex 5.

Table 1: THE PROBLEM TREE

DRIVERS OF THE PROBLEMS || KEY and SPECIFIC PROBLEMS

D1. Broad margin of discretion left to Member States in the screening process to decide whether an EIA is required for Annex II projects || D1+D2 D1+D2 D3 || Problems with the screening process P1: Projects with significant environmental impacts escape EIA P2: Projects without significant environmental impacts are subject to EIAs P3: No justified decisions on screenings by authorities

D2. Screening criteria of Annex III not very specific

D3. Justification of screening decisions not required

D4a. No specific requirements for scope and quality of information provided || D4a+D8+D9 D4a+D9 D4b D4c D4d D5+D6+D8 D5 || Problems in the EIA quality and analysis P4: EIA reports do not focus on the most significant impacts P5: EIA reports with poor quality of environmental data and analysis P6: Insufficient consideration of impacts of project alternatives P7: No justified decisions on development consent by authorities P8: Gaps between predicted impacts in EIA reports and actual impacts P9: Inconsistencies between requirements of EIA Directive and other EU legislation and international conventions P10: EIAs do not cover new environmental topics

D4b. No sufficiently stringent requirements for assessment of project alternatives

D4c. No requirements for justification of decisions by competent authorities

D4d. No specific requirements for post-EIA monitoring

D5. Potential (environmental) impacts of projects to new environmental issues (e.g. climate, biodiversity) are not sufficiently covered by the EIA Directive

D6. Lack of harmonisation among EU legislation on environmental assessments || D6 D7 D7+D8+D9 || Inconsistencies within the EIA process itself and in relation to other legislation P11: Overlaps/duplications with environmental assessments under other EU legislation P12: Too short or too long public consultation P13: Excessive time for the processing of EIAs by authorities

D7. The time-frames for the various stages of the EIA process are not specified or are not specific enough

D8. Lack of experience of authorities in some MS

D9. Lack of expertise of developers and consultants undertaking EIAs

3.3.1. Problems related to the insufficiencies of the screening process

Annex III criteria, which guide the screening process, are interpreted and applied in various ways by national competent authorities, which mostly use different types and levels of thresholds in addition to case-by-case assessment. As a result, large differences are observed in the number of EIAs carried out by each Member State: from 10 to over 4.000 per year (section 3.1.2), in particular when Member States use exclusion thresholds. The above discrepancies mean that, in some Member States, an excessive number of EIAs are carried out and projects with minor environmental impacts are subject to EIAs (e.g. if thresholds are low), thus generating an unnecessary administrative burden for developers, business and authorities. On the other hand, in some other Member States, certain projects with significant environmental impacts escape the EIA requirement if the thresholds used are set high[68]; the most common illustration of this problem is the ‘salami-slicing’ practice[69]. This may be the result of both the developers’ evasive behaviour and limited implementation capacities in some Member States. Despite the Commission’s guidance on screening[70], there was no significant improvement. These features could jeopardise the legitimacy of the Directive and undermine efforts to establish common standards; the absence of a requirement to justify the screening decisions enhance the above risks[71].

The Commission’s implementation experience confirms the magnitude of the problem. Failures to correctly transpose or apply the screening process requirements of the EIA Directive constitute the most significant and recurring problem, as they represent 69 % of the infringement cases initiated by the Commission. When it comes to referral to the Court, the percentage of infringement cases related to screening goes up to 80 % of all cases concerning EIA implementation. Despite the absence of figures at national level, the magnitude of the problem is confirmed by the increasing number of requests for preliminary rulings from national courts[72].

The central driver of the problem is the broad discretion given to Member States to determine whether an EIA is required for projects listed in Annex II. Member States often exceed their margin of discretion, either by exempting some projects in advance or by taking account only of some of the screening criteria listed in Annex III. The absence of clear provisions related to the justification of screening decisions is an additional driver. The different political and administrative traditions and capacities in an enlarged EU of 27 Member States enhance the diversity of approaches, while the degree of decentralised implementation in some Member States can lead to an even wider variation, not least even within a Member State[73].

3.3.2. Problems related to the insufficient quality and analysis of the EIA

The insufficient quality and analysis of the EIA is a well-documented point of criticism and has been confirmed during the public consultation[74]. National experts raise concerns about the quality of EIAs, as they are often too descriptive and do not include relevant data to characterise environmental impacts[75]. Environmental NGOs share this concern[76] and also complain that projects having significant adverse environmental impacts are granted development consent with no clear justification of how the findings of EIA reports and consultations have been taken into account[77]. The EIA consultants and developers have problems with obtaining appropriate guidance and data from the competent authorities (e.g. to interpret what is meant by ‘significant’ environmental effects). As a result, the decision-making process is not properly informed and environmental issues are not given the appropriate attention[78]. The case-law provides a concrete example of how an inappropriate EIA may lead to environmental damages[79].

The problem of quality based decision-making also relates to the lack of proper identification and assessment of alternatives, as there is no specific obligation. Consequently, the number and types of alternatives assessed vary significantly across Member States. However, the ability to assess different and reasonable alternatives is seen as the main added value of an EIA process, especially for infrastructure projects, as it provides a comparison of different options upon which to make the final decision and, if necessary, to adjust the project in its early development stages in order to minimise environmental impacts[80]. The insufficient examination of the project alternatives is a recurring issue during the consultation with the public. Uninformed decision-making can also cause delays with project implementation, as it often leads to resubmission of EIA reports and litigation[81]. The recent implementation experience confirms the recurrence of the problems linked to the quality of the EIA process[82].

In addition, the lack of quality standards can result in a project that, when implemented, ensues more negative environmental impacts than those initially assessed in the EIA (e.g. because of erroneous assumptions, lack of detailed available information on climate change impacts or because mitigation measures suggested in the EIA report have not been put in place). As competent authorities often do not engage in proper ex-post impact monitoring of the adverse significant effects resulting from the construction and operation of a project, the effectiveness of mitigation measures suggested in the EIA report is not systematically checked and there are no means for rectification. This issue is particularly relevant for projects that are not already subject to environmental monitoring requirements (e.g. under the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), the Habitats Directive or as part of voluntary environmental management systems), or in cases where environmental issues not yet covered by the Directive, such as climate change, disaster risks, resource efficiency or biodiversity, are addressed in a superficial manner in the EIA report[83] and in subsequent decisions. In relation to the latter, the results of the public consultation show that the majority (52.5 %[84]) of respondents consider that synergies should be improved between the EIA and other EU policies[85]. That synergies are not sufficiently exploited currently is due to the fact that the new environmental issues are not expressly referred to in the Directive[86]; hence there is little incentive for developers and competent authorities to account for the impacts of their projects in these areas[87].

The abovementioned problems not only hamper the effectiveness of the EIA, as a tool to prevent and mitigate environmental damages, but also adversely affect global objectives of the EU. For instance, in the field of transportation, which is a significant for the fight against climate change and relates to many projects subject to EIAs, the EU’s vision for 2020[88] is that ‘transport will use less and cleaner energy and (...) reduce its negative impact on the environment and key natural assets like water, land and ecosystems’. The EIA can contribute to this objective only if the problems related to the quality of and analysis in the EIA are adequately addressed.

3.3.3. Problems related to the risks of inconsistencies in the EIA process

Since the adoption of the EIA Directive in 1985, new legal requirements have been introduced in international and EU environmental legislation. As the EIA has not been significantly adapted since 1997[89] , there is a risk of inconsistency with other new or revised legal instruments, in particular the SEA Directive (for projects changing the land use, it is often not clear whether either an EIA or a SEA, or both, are required)[90]. The public consultation confirms the need to improve synergies between the EIA and other EU Directives[91]. There is also a potential risk of inconsistency with the Espoo Convention[92], as additional activities[93] have been added to the Convention through its 2004 amendment[94] as well as the ratification of the SEA Protocol[95]. However, such a risk is limited, as the EU has ratified the second amendment of the Espoo Convention and the SEA Protocol. Both texts form an integral part of the legal order of the EU, and Member States have to take all necessary measures to comply with them.

Synergies between the EIA and other legal instruments would also address existing overlaps between environmental assessments resulting either from the EU or national law and leading to a duplication of efforts and costs for developers and for public authorities[96]. For instance, some of the environmental information required to be submitted in EIA reports is also needed as part of the permit application required by the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) or as part of the ‘appropriate assessment’ required by the Habitats Directive; in the case of projects which are part of wider plans/programmes subject to a SEA, there can be overlaps in the information requirements. So far possible synergies between the various environmental assessments are not sufficiently exploited (e.g. conclusions from one environmental assessment may reinforce the conclusions of another one); the above situation often leads to a fragmentation of administrative responsibilities in the Member States, as different authorities deal with different Directives. While Article 2 of the EIA Directive suggests the possibility to implement a single procedure to fulfil the requirements of the EIA and IED Directives[97], most Member States have not taken action in this respect. If no measures are taken to streamline administrative procedures under the EU environmental law, there are risks of increased uncertainty, delays and costs for business and developers[98].

Inconsistencies may also result from the difference in timing to conclude the EIA procedure. The average duration of an EIA procedure is approximately 11.6 months, but figures range from 5 to 27 months[99]. Hence, the different time schedules applied by the authorities to finalise their decisions can generate significant uncertainty and delays for the developers, with ensuing additional costs in some countries. 46 % of the respondents to the public consultation, in particular developers and public authorities, consider that the EIA sometimes causes considerable delays in the approval of projects[100]. The energy sector offers an illustrative example[101]. Overall, it appears that[102] the responsibility for delays is shared between the authorities involved in the EIA process (e.g. lack of experience) and the developers (e.g. lack of expertise) or is due to other possible actors or external factors[103]. One of the main drivers of this problem is that the EIA Directive does not specify time‑frames for individual steps of the process, nor for the whole EIA decision process[104].

The exception is the public consultation phase, where, according to the Directive and the Aarhus Convention[105], ‘reasonable time-frames’ for the different consultation phases should be provided. However, this provision is rather unspecific and consequently is interpreted differently by Member States. Hence, the time-frames for the consultation on the EIA report vary considerably, from 2 weeks up to 2 months. However, while too short time-frames may create a risk of inconsistencies with the principles of the Aarhus Convention[106], too long ones may generate additional costs and uncertainties for the developer. There is therefore a need for clarifying the text and specifying applicable time-frames.

3.4. The baseline scenario

The baseline scenario describes the implications of continuing the current application of the EIA Directive over time, without further EU action.

3.4.1. Evolution of the environmental impacts in the baseline scenario

The environmental benefits resulting from the implementation of the EIA Directive and its shortcomings (see section 3.1.3) are likely to remain at the current level. While some improvements could occur as a result of increased experience progressively gained by authorities and developers, it is unlikely that the main problems related to screening and the quality of the EIA process will be solved since: (a) the problems are mostly related to the design of the Directive; (b) the implementation problems are recurrent (see above section 3.2) and there is no indication in recent trends that this will change without action; (c) the use of EU guidance documents had so far very limited results[107]. In addition, if Court rulings are the only effective means to ensure better implementation, there is a certain risk that the volume and the complexity of the jurisprudence will make implementation more difficult and possibly less transparent. This in turn will negatively affect the level of environmental protection across the EU and the level playing field.

3.4.2. Evolution of the direct administrative costs in the baseline scenario

As explained, cost estimates of the current EIA Directive are limited, as the Directive does not set out specific environmental quality requirements and measurable standards. Projections of cost into the future therefore obey to the same considerations. Further to the analysis in section 3.1.3, Tables 2 and 3 present estimates and projections of administrative costs for developers and public authorities respectively; the projections take into account the foreseen increase in the number of EIAs and the outlook for inflation[108]. Annex 8 details the methodology for calculating the direct administrative costs.

Table 2: Estimation and projection of administrative costs for developers

|| Administrative costs for developers

Method 1 (based on an average cost of € 53.053 per EIA) || Method 2 (based on a median costs of € 35.000 per EIA) || Method 3 (adjusted for wage differences and actual values of respondents € 41.000 per EIA)

2010 || Overall costs for EU (€/year)[109] || 845.727.456 || 557.941.322 || 654.236.265

Cost per EIA (€) || 53.053 || 35.000 || 41.041

Medium-term (2017) || EU (€/year) || 902.144.249 || 595.166.570 || 669.662.757

Cost per EIA (€) || 55.541 || 36.642 || 41.228

Long-term (2037) || EU (€/year) || 1.365.337.126 || 900.746.211 || 1.029.144.373

Cost per EIA (€) || 82.531 || 54.448 || 62.209

Table 3: Estimation and projection of administrative costs for public authorities

Administrative burden for authorities to process EIA dossiers in the EU

2010 || 146 to 215 million €/year

Medium-term (2017) || 173 to 255 million €/year

Long-term (2037) || 269 to 396 million €/year

3.4.3. Evolution of the wider socio-economic impacts in the baseline scenario

The EIA Directive has contributed to a certain degree of harmonisation of environmental assessment practices in the EU that is not likely to increase further without additional measures. Furthermore, in areas with a wide margin of discretion, such as the screening procedure and the quality control of the EIA process, discrepancies and differences in the implementation of the EIA across the EU and uncertainties concerning the applicability of legal requirements will persist. This can be an obstacle to the proper functioning of the internal market, which is likely to affect the competitiveness of industrial sectors and/or individual enterprises (e.g. in the field of energy). SMEs might be affected in a specific way, since continuation of existing policies with regard to small scale projects (Annex II of the EIA), implies that projects without significant environmental effects would still be made subject to an EIA.

The costs related to legal disputes will remain stable in the baseline scenario. This assumption is a compromise between two contradictory effects: on the one hand, increased awareness for environmental protection is likely to lead to challenging more decisions and eventually to an increase in legal disputes; on the other hand, both developers and authorities will get more used to the obligations of the Directive, which may reduce the risk of legal disputes.

The overall costs resulting from delays in the EIA process would remain the same in the baseline scenario. As regards energy infrastructure projects, the measures proposed by the Commission in October 2011 in the context of the Trans-European Energy Networks (TEN-E), which aim at streamlining permitting procedures, are likely to reduce delays, but only if adopted. In some Member States, recent developments show that there is a trend towards simplifying existing procedures[110]; however, in contrast, this would increase discrepancies in EIA practices across the EU (both in terms of uneven environmental protection and reduced level playing field). Other Member States have put in place schemes for coordinating/integrating environmental assessment processes (e.g. Austria or France), while in Member States where environmental assessment processes have not been coordinated to date, there is no evidence that the situation would change.

For the baseline scenario it is assumed that the remaining wider social[111] and economic[112] benefits (described in sections 3.1.3) resulting from the implementation of the EIA Directive would remain stable, as there are no trends or features showing that there will be significant changes of the parameters affecting those benefits.

3.5. Who is affected?

– Public authorities (at national, regional and/or local levels), through impacts such as: time/resources to implement legal requirements (e.g. review of EIA reports, scoping, monitor EIA application, consultation) litigation costs, time costs/savings through streamlined assessment and authorisation procedures.

– Industries and enterprises related to the project categories listed in Annexes I and II, through impacts such as: time/resources needed to prepare EIA reports, costs related to possible delays and litigation, time costs/savings through streamlined assessment and authorisation procedures, costs savings through efficient use of resources, better risk prevention and mitigation and integration of environmental considerations in their overall business strategies.

– Consultancy firms engaged in EIAs, through impacts such as: revenues from EIA projects, costs related to lack of clarity and uncertainties in the EIA process (e.g. scoping), accreditation costs, revenues/costs from litigation.

– Natural or legal persons and their associations, through impacts such as: avoided environmental and public health damages, well-being benefits, resource savings, public participation and litigation costs.

3.6. Justification of the EU’s right to act

The EU’s competence in the area of the environment is based on Article 191 of the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Article 193 TFEU allows Member State to maintain or introduce more stringent protective measures, provided that they are compatible with the Treaties. The need for a high level of environmental protection and improvement of the quality of the environment are enshrined in Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Action at EU level is justified on the basis of the following considerations:

Firstly, many of the problems identified are related to the need to define and apply minimum requirements concerning the environmental assessment processes. Individual actions from the Member States cannot address such problems, as they could even result in a deterioration of the functioning conditions of the internal market and distort competition, as varying national regulation might hamper transboundary economic activities. An EU action is needed to streamline procedures, further harmonise practices and address overlaps and inconsistencies.

Secondly, since the adoption of the EIA Directive in 1985, the EU has enlarged and the scope and seriousness of environmental issues to be tackled enhanced and the number of major EU scale infrastructure projects have also increased (e.g. in the field of energy or transport), because of available EU co-financing. Due to the transboundary nature of environmental issues (e.g. climate change, disaster risks) and some projects, action at EU level is necessary and brings added value compared to individual national actions. The EU’s action will also address issues that are amongst the EU priorities, such as adaptation to climate change and disaster prevention and will support the achievement of Europe’s 2020 objectives related to smart and sustainable growth.

Thirdly, as the EIA Directive is the key legislative tool for complying with international conventions (e.g. Espoo and Aarhus), action at EU level is required.

4. Objectives

4.1. General objective

After 25 years of application, the EIA Directive has not significantly changed, while the policy, legal and technical context has evolved considerably. The general objective of this review is to adjust the EIA Directive, so as to correct identified and persisting shortcomings, reflect ongoing environmental and socio-economic priorities and challenges and align with the principles of smart regulation.

4.2. Specific objectives

Taking into account the general objective and the problems and drivers identified earlier, two main specific objectives are essential for the review of the EIA Directive: (1) introduce and/or strengthen the quality related elements of the Directive; (2) enhance policy coherence and synergies with other EU/international law and simplify procedures. Each of these specific objectives contains a set of operational ones; however, it is not possible to define scoring scales in concrete measurable terms for these operational objectives, as the EIA is essentially a process Directive, which does not lay down measurable environmental standards.

4.2.1. Introduction and/or strengthening of the quality related elements of the Directive

A key objective of the revision is to ensure that all projects with significant environmental effects are made subject to an appropriate assessment, while projects with limited environmental effects are assessed to the degree needed to avoid unnecessary administrative burden. This can only be done if the quality of the information at certain stages of the EIA process is being improved either by introducing new or strengthening certain existing requirements, taking also into account the clarification provided by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice (better law-making). The main areas for action relate to an improved and transparent screening procedure and a more comprehensive and substantiated EIA report. This specific objective of quality improvement can be translated into the following operational objectives: (a) specify the content and justification of the screening decision; (b) specify the content and justification of the EIA report and the final decision; (c) adjust the Directive to the new environmental issues (climate change mitigation and adaptation, disaster risks, biodiversity, marine environment and resource efficiency).

4.2.2. Enhancing of policy coherence and synergies with other EU/international law and simplification of procedures

This objective involves improving the consistency between the EIA Directive and sectoral assessment obligations deriving from other Directives (e.g. SEA Directive, Industrial Emissions Directive, Habitats and Birds Directives, Water and Marine Framework Directives, etc) or international conventions (e.g. Aarhus and Espoo). Efficiency gains can also be realised through simplifying and streamlining assessment procedures with a view to reducing administrative burden[113], particularly through better pooling of administrative processes and actors. Simplification would benefit public authorities and developers and contribute to the success of other EU policies (e.g. Regional Policy). This specific objective would be translated into the following operational objectives: (a) streamline environmental assessments and (b) specify time-frames for the various stages of the EIA process. Table 4 presents the intervention logic by linking problems, drivers and specific/operational objectives.

Table 4: Links between problems, drivers and specific objectives

Drivers of the problems || || Key and specific problems || Specific objectives || Operational objectives

D1. Broad margin of discretion left to Member States in the screening process to decide whether an EIA is required for Annex II projects || D1+D2 D1+D2 D3 || Problems with the screening process P1: Projects with significant environmental impacts escape EIA P2: Projects without significant environmental impacts are subject to EIAs P3: No justified decisions on screenings || 1. Introduce and/or strengthen the quality related elements of the Directive (P1+P3) 2. Enhance policy coherence and synergies with other EU/international law and simplify procedures (P2) || Specify the content and justification of the screening decision (P1+P2+P3)

D2. Screening criteria of Annex III not very specific

D3. Justification of screening decisions not required

D4a. No specific requirements for scope and quality of information provided || D4a+D8+D9 D4a+D9 D4b D4c D4d D5+D6+D8 D5 || Problems in the EIA quality&analysis P4: EIA reports do not focus on the most significant impacts P5: EIA reports with poor quality of environmental data and analysis P6: Insufficient consideration of impacts of project alternatives P7: No justified decisions on development consent P8: Gaps between predicted impacts in EIA reports and actual impacts P9: Inconsistencies between requirements of EIA Directive and other EU legislation and international conventions P10: EIAs do not cover new environmental topics || 1. Introduce and/or strengthen the quality related elements of the Directive (P4+P5+P6+P7+P8+P10) 2. Enhance policy coherence and synergies with other EU/international law and simplify procedures (P9) || Specify the content of the EIA report and of the final decision (P4+P5+P6+P7+P8) Streamline environmental assessments (P9) Adjust the Directive to the new environmental issues (P10)

D4b. No sufficiently stringent requirements for assessment of project alternatives

D4c. No requirements for justification of decisions by competent authorities

D4d. No specific requirements for post-EIA monitoring

D5. Potential (environmental) impacts of projects to new environmental issues (e.g. climate, biodiversity) are not sufficiently covered by the EIA Directive

D6. Lack of harmonisation among EU legislation on environmental assessments || D6 D7 D7+D8+D9 || Inconsistencies within the EIA process itself and in relation to other legislation P11: Overlaps/duplications with environmental assessments under other EU legislation P12: Too short or too long public consultation P13: Excessive time for the processing of EIAs by public authorities || 2. Enhance policy coherence and synergies with other EU/international law and simplify procedures (P10+P11+P12) || Streamline environmental assessments (P11)

D7. The time-frames for the various stages of the EIA process are not specified or are not specific enough

D8. Lack of experience of authorities in some MS || Specify time-frames for the various stages of the EIA process (P12+P13)

D9. Lack of expertise of developers and consultants undertaking EIAs

4.3. Interdependence between objectives and consistency with EU policies

The two specific objectives are interrelated and policy actions will often address more than one objective. For instance, an improved quality of EIA related elements will not only increase the Directive’s effectiveness, but is also likely to contribute to harmonisation of practices across the EU. Conversely, the streamlining of environmental assessments and the definition of specific time-frames for the EIA process will contribute to better coherence with existing environmental legislation and will improve the effectiveness of the EIA Directive.

By introducing new requirements with regard to assessing issues such as biodiversity and climate change which are related to the use of natural resources, the EIA Directive can play a crucial role towards the objective of resource efficiency; the revision of the Directive is therefore part of the initiatives aiming to implement the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe[114]. Furthermore, the revision of the EIA Directive subscribes to the Europe 2020 strategy[115], in particular the priority of sustainable growth (see Table 5).

Table 5: Links between the revision of the EIA Directive and the sustainable growth

Objectives of the EIA revision Components of sustainable growth || Objective 1: Introduce and/or strengthen the quality related elements of the Directive || Objective 2: Enhance policy coherence and synergies with other EU/international law and simplify procedures

Build a more competitive low-carbon climate resilient economy that makes efficient, sustainable use of resources || ++ || +

Protect the environment, reduce emissions and prevent biodiversity loss || ++ || +

Capitalise on Europe’s leadership in developing new green technologies and production methods || ≈ || +

Introduce efficient smart electricity grids || ≈ || ++

Harness EU-scale networks to give our businesses (especially small manufacturing firms) an additional competitive advantage || ≈ || ≈

Improve the business environment, in particular for SMEs || + || ++

Help consumers make well-informed choices || ≈ || ≈

Scale of relevance: ++ very relevant; + relevant; ≈ not relevant

While the specific objective 1 aims at reinforcing synergies with challenges resulting from new EU policies, the specific objective 2 aims at enhancing coherence with other EU instruments. As the revision coincides with the draft legislative package which will frame the cohesion policy for the programming period 2014-2020, this is an opportunity to clarify the future application of the EIA to EU co-financed projects (e.g. by inserting specific transitional provisions on the date of application of the new requirements) and to improve the administrative capacity to implement the Directive in line with the Commission proposal[116]. Moreover, the revision of the EIA Directive is also in line with the measures proposed by the Commission in the context of the Trans-European Energy Networks (TEN-E), which aim at simplifying permitting procedures[117].

5. Policy Options

Non-regulatory policy options, except the use of guidance, have not been considered further[118], as they are not adequate and consistent with the main objective of the EIA Directive (i.e. harmonisation of national measures). Such options would result in even greater deviation of practice in EIA, with potential distortions of the internal market and negative environmental effects within the EU, thus generating greater costs than savings. Therefore, a wider range of regulatory policy options has been identified, taking into account the opinions and comments expressed during the public consultation.

Option 0 (no policy-change) would not involve any new regulatory action and provides the baseline (described in section 3.4). Option 0+ (guidance approach) consists of new or updated Commission guidance to clarify interpretation issues and improve implementation. Option 1 (technical adaptation) mostly entails modification of the Annexes to the EIA Directive in order to adapt them to technical and regulatory developments. Option 2 (modifications of substance) would amend both the Articles and Annexes of the EIA Directive; depending on the range of the amendments, this option results in three sub-options (2a, 2b, 2c). Option 3 (merging the SEA and EIA Directives) would introduce a single joint assessment procedure for plans and projects. Option 4 (new legislation on environmental assessments) would repeal the EIA Directive and propose new legislation to harmonise and integrate environmental assessment and/or permit requirements resulting from different legal instruments (e.g. IED, Habitats and SEA Directives, etc.) that would also need to be amended accordingly.

5.1. Policy options discarded

Option 3 is neither feasible nor viable for the following reasons: (a) the information available[119] shows that Member States have so far resisted to introduce joint assessment procedures for plans and projects[120]; (b) merging would require a full revision of the SEA Directive and would entail significant institutional and procedural changes in the Member States; (c) a vast majority of Member States underlined that the SEA and the EIA processes should be distinguished, due to their specificities and the limited experience in applying SEA[121], as well as because of the different authorities involved; (d) this option is not favoured by any of the stakeholders groups[122].

Option 4 could potentially bring certain benefits (e.g. ensure a level playing field and simplify the environmental assessment and permitting processes foreseen under different Directives), but is not feasible at this stage for the following reasons: (a) this option would require a thorough evaluation and fitness test of all existing legislation related to environmental assessments and/or permits; (b) the objective of reconsidering all environmental assessments and permitting processes embedded in other EU legislation would not only require various and considerable changes in the scope and content of a number of other relevant pieces of EU legislation, but it would certainly lead to important institutional and administrative changes in EU and national procedures; (c) a broad change of existing EU legislation would be disproportionate, especially in view of the fact that some of the Directives which would have to be modified have only been revised and adopted very recently[123]; (d) this option is not favoured by any of the categories of stakeholders who participated at the public consultation[124]; (e) because of the various amendments, this option could lead to reopening the discussion of the acquis on issues not covered by the review or the purpose/scope of the new Directive.

It should be noted, however, that even if options 3 and 4 are discarded, the inclusion of provisions for better coordination/integration (streamlining) between the EIA and other EU environmental legislation will be addressed as part of other options.

The use of a Regulation was not considered further. Taking into account the objectives of the EIA revision and the specific circumstances linked to the implementation of the EIA, a change of instrument, from Directive to Regulation, would not do justice to the multiplicity of projects and the diversity of project related circumstances. Moreover, in view of the current differences in national systems, the move towards a Regulation would require considerable changes by the Member States in order to adapt and harmonise their systems and, apart from considerable political resistance, is likely to generate high costs. Finally, 64 % of respondents to the public consultation were against such a change[125].

Annex 6 describes in detail the reasons for discarding policy options 3 and 4, and discusses and discards the use of a Regulation.

5.2. Description of the policy options selected for the detailed impact assessment

The majority of respondents to the public consultation favours changes to the existing Directive (54 %)[126]. The problems and objectives identified for the revision of the EIA Directive can be addressed in a proportionate and realistic manner by the policy options 1, 2a, 2b and 2c, which will introduce specific changes/amendments to the content of the EIA; Annex 10 describes the proposed amendments to the Directive in detail. Table 6 summarises the links of the amendments to problems and objectives identified[127].

Table 6: Links of amendments with problems and objectives

Key problems identified || Specific objectives || Operational objectives || Amendments

Screening || Projects with significant environmental impacts escape EIA || Introduce and/or strengthen the quality related elements of the Directive || Specify the content and justification of the screening decision || Adaptation of Annexes I and II Modification of Annex III

Projects without significant environmental impacts are subject to EIAs || Enhance policy coherence and synergies with other EU/international law and simplify procedures || Alternative procedure for Annex II projects

No justified decisions on screenings by authorities || Introduce and/or strengthen the quality related elements of the Directive || Justification of negative screening decisions

EIA quality and analysis || EIA reports do not focus on the most significant impacts || Introduce and/or strengthen the quality related elements of the Directive || Specify the content of the EIA report and of the final decision || Mandatory scoping

EIA reports with poor quality of environmental data and analysis || Mandatory scoping Quality control of the EIA information

Insufficient consideration of impacts of project alternatives || Mandatory assessment of reasonable alternatives

No justified decisions on development consent by authorities || Justification of final decisions

Potential gaps between predicted and actual impacts || Mandatory post-EIA monitoring

Inconsistencies between requirements of EIA Directive and other EU legislation and international conventions || Streamline environmental assessments || Adaptation of Annexes I and II Modification of Annex III Coordinated or integrated/joint procedure (EIA ‘one-stop shop’)

EIAs do not cover new environmental topics || Adjust the Directive to the new environmental issues || Additional environmental issues Modification of Annex III Quality control of the EIA information

Risks of inconsistencies || Overlaps/duplications with environmental assessments under other EU legislation || Enhance policy coherence and synergies with other EU/international law and simplify procedures || Streamline environmental assessments || Coordinated or integrated/joint procedure (EIA ‘one-stop shop’)

Too short or too long public consultation || Specify time-frames for the various stages of the EIA process || Specific time-frames for public consultation

Excessive time for the processing of EIAs by public authorities || Maximum time-frames for decision-making

However, a quite large share of respondents (41 %) would also support an option involving no changes of the EIA Directive[128] but only the development of guidance documents; this is why Option 0+ (guidance approach) has also to be considered further. The above options will be assessed against Option 0 which corresponds to the baseline scenario. The following sections describe the content of the policy options selected. Table 7 summarises the links of the selected policy options to the problems and objectives of the EIA revision, as well as to the links of options 1, 2a, 2b and 2c to specific amendments[129].

Table 7: Links of policy options with problems and objectives

Key problems identified || Specific objectives || Operational objectives || Option 0+ || Amendments || Option 1 || Option 2a || Option 2b || Option 2c

SCREENING || Projects with significant environmental impacts escape EIA || Introduce and/or strengthen the quality related elements of the Directive || Specify the content and justification of the screening decision || Update guidance on the screening procedure and on the project categories || Adaptation of Annexes I and II || ü || - || - || ü

Modification of Annex III || ü || ü || ü || ü

Projects without significant environmental impacts are subject to an EIA || Enhance policy coherence and synergies with other EU/international law and simplify procedures || Alternative procedure for Annex II projects || ü || ü || ü || ü

No justified decisions on screenings || Introduce and/or strengthen the quality related elements of the Directive || Justification of negative screening decisions || - || ü || ü || ü

EIA QUALITY AND ANALYSIS || EIA reports not focusing on the most significant impacts || Introduce and/or strengthen the quality related elements of the Directive || Specify the content of the EIA report and of the final decision || Update existing guidance (on scoping and EIA review checklist) and develop new guidance on monitoring of predicted impacts || Mandatory scoping || - || - || ü || ü

EIA reports with poor quality of environmental data and analysis || Mandatory scoping || - || - || ü || ü

Quality control of the EIA information || ü || ü

Insufficient consideration of impacts of project alternatives || Mandatory assessment of reasonable alternatives || ü || - || ü || ü

No justified decisions on development consent || Justification of final decisions || - || ü || ü || ü

Potential gaps between predicted and actual impacts || Mandatory post-EIA monitoring || - || - || ü || ü

Inconsistencies between requirements of EIA Directive and other EU legislation and international conventions || Streamline environmental assessments || Develop new guidance on streamlining environmental assessments || Adaptation of Annexes I and II || ü || - || - || ü

Modification of Annex III || ü || ü || ü || ü

Coordinated or integrated/joint procedure (EIA ‘one-stop shop’) || - || ü || ü || ü

EIAs do not cover new environmental topics || Adjust the Directive to the new environmental issues || Develop new guidance on how new topics can be assessed by EIAs || Additional environmental issues || ü || - || ü || ü

Modification of Annex III || ü || ü || ü || ü

Quality control of the EIA information || - || - || ü || ü

RISKS OF INCONSISTENCIES || Overlaps/duplications with environmental assessments under other EU legislation || Enhance policy coherence and synergies with other EU/international law and simplify procedures || Streamline environmental assessments || Develop new guidance on streamlining environmental assessments || Coordinated or integrated/joint procedure (EIA ‘one-stop shop’) || - || ü || ü || ü

Too short or too long public consultation || Specify time-frames for the various stages of the EIA process || Develop new guidance on best practices related to public consultation and EIA decision-making || Specific time-frames for public consultation || - || ü || ü || ü

Excessive time for the processing of EIAs by public authorities || Maximum time-frames for decision-making || - || ü || ü || ü

5.2.1. Option 0+ - Guidance approach

This option seeks to enhance the implementation efforts through Commission guidance. Existing guidance documents would be updated and new ones developed, where appropriate, in order to address the problems identified. Guidance would refer to the stages of the EIA process (i.e. updating of the guidance documents on screening, scoping and the EIA review checklist or new guidance on streamlining environmental assessments), specific environmental issues to be addressed in EIA reports (e.g. climate change and biodiversity) and specific guidance for types of projects (e.g. energy projects). In addition, this option implies intensified enforcement action, based on the priorities laid down in the Commission’s communications[130].

Improved policy coordination and exchange of information (e.g. support to national EIA networks) would continue to address problems in implementation. For instance, due to the allowed flexibility for Member States in transposing some aspects of the Directive and the right of Member States to set stricter requirements, many Member States have already voluntarily gone beyond the Directive’s provisions. The Commission services would identify the benefits of such requirements and would promote their use across the EU. This would be particularly relevant as regards measures aiming to streamline environmental assessments, practices of public consultation and measures framing the EIA and permitting decision-making processes. Furthermore, important rulings from the ECJ or national courts would be collected and disseminated.

As part of this option, existing policy developments which will affect the EIA process in future years also need to be taken into account both in guidance and enforcement activities and could potentially be related to the Habitats and Birds Directives, the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU), Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC), Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC), as well as the new legal framework related to specific categories of projects, e.g. energy infrastructure projects[131], offshore oil and gas projects[132].

5.2.2. Option 1- Technical adaptation

This option aims to adapt the scope of the Directive (mainly its Annexes) to the new technical and regulatory developments by introducing a minimum number of changes: update of project categories (Annexes I and II), clarification of screening criteria (Annex III), and modification of the information to be submitted by the developer (Annex IV). This policy option was the most supported by the respondents to the public consultation: 61 % were in favour, 34 % against and 5 % not having an opinion[133] Besides, such an option could also satisfy those respondents who support no changes of the EIA Directive and can be seen as a logical prolongation of Option 0+. The following amendments of the EIA Directive can be envisaged:

Adaptation of Annexes I and II: this amendment would aim at tackling the problems related to the discrepancies in screenings and the inconsistency with other policies, mainly those involving additional environmental issues. This amendment is linked to the implementation of the criteria listed in Annex III. The adaptation process would include moving project categories from Annex II to Annex I[134] and adding new projects to both Annexes[135]. However, even if the respondents to the public consultation favour the technical adaptation option, they were against the broadening of Annex I[136] and rather prefer targeted changes to the project categories.

A number of Member States (e.g. Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Italy, Greece) have adopted alternative procedures for Annex II projects, mainly for small-scale activities and projects[137], which are often carried out by SMEs. Prior to or during the screening process, the developer modifies the project at an early stage to reduce any negative impacts; hence an EIA is not needed. Moreover, during the screening stage, if it appears that a project impacts on a few environmental media and appropriate solutions are identified to avoid or mitigate such effects, an EIA will not be required. For instance, in Denmark, almost 50 % of projects are changed as a result of this process[138]. By specifying the content of the screening decision and streamlining the process, this amendment would ensure that EIAs are carried out only for projects that would have significant environmental effects, avoiding unnecessary administrative burden for small-scale projects. To reach its full potential, this measure will have to be combined with the setting of maximum time-frames for authorities to make their final decisions.

In order to address discrepancies in the screening process for Annex II projects, the modification of Annex III is crucial. The modified screening criteria would mainly address the issue of ‘salami-slicing’ and cumulative impacts. The public consultation found the stakeholders divided, as 44 % were in favour of this policy option and 47 % against[139].

Mandatory assessment of reasonable alternatives would be required as part of the information to be submitted by the developer[140]. This assessment should include at least the ‘zero alternative’ and one ‘reasonable’ alternative (e.g. of a technical or spatial nature or related to the timescale for construction and operation). 13 Member States have already introduced a legal obligation to consider specific alternatives (including the ‘zero-alternative’ in some cases). This amendment was supported by 55 % of all respondents to the public consultation.

Additional environmental issues (i.e. climate change, biodiversity, marine environment, availability of natural resources, disaster risks), which at present are not specifically mentioned in the relevant sections of the EIA Directive (Articles 3 and 5, Annexes III and IV), will be covered. Hence, when determining whether an EIA is needed, the above issues should be considered. Furthermore, the EIA report should describe impacts of projects on the above issues and vice versa (e.g. impacts of a project on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts on a project).

5.2.3. Option 2 - Modifications of substance

This policy option builds on Option 1, but aims at adapting both the Annexes and the Articles of the Directive, in particular those related to various stages of the EIA process. Hence, Option 2 has a considerable potential for changes, especially if all possible amendments (see Table 7) would be taken on board. The public consultation found 38 % being in favour of a comprehensive modification, 53 % against, and 9 % not having an opinion[141]. A large percentage of respondents (56 %) was in favour of changes on more specific issues, including measures to streamline the EIA process. For instance, the European Wind Energy Association[142] called for streamlining the EIA process and proposed changes which in that respect require comprehensive modifications of the EIA Directive. The paragraphs below set out all possible amendments of Option 2, which are add-ons to the amendments examined above under Option 1.

Screening decisions, which have to be made publicly available, do not so far include the reasons to justify the nature of the decision. In order to be consistent with the transparency objective of the EIA Directive and the Aarhus Convention, public authorities would have to justify negative screening decisions and make their reasoning public. This would also be in line with the relevant Court case-law[143] and was supported by 62 % of the respondents to the public consultation.

In the scoping stage, which is optional under the current Directive[144] but would become mandatory, the competent authority is required to specify the content and level of detail of the environmental information to be submitted by the developer (e.g. ‘significant’ environmental impacts of the project, project alternatives to be considered, methodologies for the analysis, data sources) and the EIA process (timeline and milestones of the process, authorities to be consulted); hence, the developer can avoid potential delays later on in the process (because the request for additional information would be limited), while a better quality assessment is ensured. Scoping is therefore a highly recommended measure to optimise EU permitting procedures[145]. 37 % of all respondents to the public consultation supported mandatory scoping and 10 % are in favour of mandatory scoping at the request of environmental authorities[146]. Introducing mandatory scoping would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the EIA process. In approximately in half of the Member States, scoping is already mandatory. Mandatory scoping has strong links with other amendments (i.e. the assessment of reasonable alternatives and additional environmental issues).

Article 8 of the Directive only requires the results of the consultations and the environmental information gathered to be taken into account in the development consent without specifying how this is done. Hence, there is no obligation for competent authorities to provide justification of their final decisions. The Directive provision would be further detailed to ensure that competent authorities explain how the results of the consultations and the environmental information were taken into consideration, in particular when the EIA shows that a project will have negative environmental effects. This amendment will be enhanced in its effects by the mandatory scoping, as explained in the previous paragraph.

The need for reinforcing the quality control of the EIA information would address the problems pointed out by many Member States and stakeholders. Among the various quality control measures already put in place in some Member States, two main possibilities emerge: the use of accredited consultants[147] and the creation of a quality control committee[148]; these two possibilities could also be implemented simultaneously. The implementation of a mechanism to ensure the quality of the environmental information supplied by the developer was supported by 53 % of all respondents to the public consultation.

Mandatory post-EIA monitoring of significant impacts from the construction and operation of a project, is relevant to ensure that the impacts from projects do not exceed impacts initially predicted in the EIA report, take account of additional relevant information on the foreseeable impacts, e.g. due to climate change, and necessary remedial measures are taken as early as possible. It is also relevant to assess which methods are sufficiently robust to predict actual impacts from future projects, with a view to improving the characterisation of impacts in future EIA reports. Finally, it brings consistency with the SEA Directive and the international best practices[149]. Such a requirement was supported by 47 % of the public consultation respondents and rejected by 49 %[150]. This requirement is already in place in two Member States.

The Directive would be amended to specify time-frames for the public consultation phase (minimum and maximum ones) to harmonise the current considerably varied practices[151]. Competent authorities would be allowed to extend these time-frames, provided that this is duly justified[152]. During the 2010 public consultation on the EIA Directive’s review, respondents generally favoured the introduction of minimum and maximum time-frames for public consultation[153].

The Directive would be amended in order to specify a maximum time-frame for the competent authorities to issue their final decision (screening decision and EIA decision)[154], once all the required information has been submitted by the developer, mainly the information identified at the scoping stage. An extension of the time-frames would be possible, provided that adequate justification is given (e.g. new circumstances or complexity of the proposed project). The introduction of such time-frames is also recommended as a highly relevant measure to optimise EU permitting procedures[155]. The introduction of a maximum time-frame for the screening decision was supported by 69 % of all respondents to the public consultation.

One of the amendments would concern the introduction of a mechanism, a sort of EIA ‘one-stop shop’. This mechanism will not necessarily entail the creation of a new specialised body, but, through the designation of an authority for facilitating and managing the development consent procedure, it will ensure coordination or joint/integrated procedures of the EIA process with the environmental assessments required under other relevant EU legislation, e.g. the IED, the Habitats Directive, WFD and the SEA Directive (this would be done through a modification of the EIA Directive, not the other Directives). This way it will formally address potential overlaps and inconsistencies between environmental assessments.

In view of the percentage of respondents to the public consultation (56 %) that were in favour of more specific changes, it was decided to assess three alternative sub-options (2a, 2b and 2c). These sub-options reflect the varying degrees of changes to the existing EIA process and the various levels of policy ambition, with their associated potential administrative costs and the interlinkages between the possible various amendments. The content of the options and how they are linked to the problems are presented in Table 7.

· Option 2a (basic modifications) includes those amendments aiming to improve the efficiency of the EIA process by simplifying and streamlining it. Hence, it includes 7 amendments: introduction of an alternative screening procedure, the modification of Annex III, the justification of the final decisions, the introduction of specific time-frames (for public consultation and for decision-making) and the coordinated or joint procedures for the EIA process and other environmental assessments.

· Option 2b (targeted modifications) is based on Option 2a with five additional amendments aiming at reinforcing the quality of the EIA process: mandatory scoping, mandatory assessment of reasonable alternatives, inclusion of additional environmental issues, quality control of the EIA information and mandatory monitoring. In total, Option 2b includes 12 amendments.

· Option 2c (comprehensive modifications) includes the 12 amendments of Option 2b described above and in addition the adaptation of Annexes I and II.

6. Analysis of Impacts

All the impacts discussed below represent incremental costs and benefits with regard to the baseline scenario. Environmental and wider socio-economic impacts have been assessed in a qualitative manner only, due to the lack of quantitative parameters in the Directive and the lack of relevant quantitative data. Direct administrative costs and benefits have been quantified, where sufficient information was available. Specific methodologies and assumptions are described below in each relevant section. The assessment of impacts relies on extrapolations using existing data[156] and case studies. Annex 11 details the data sources, assumptions made and the methodology used. The extent to which Member States will be affected by the various proposed amendments is different, as it depends on whether similar measures are already implemented. The analysis of impacts has therefore taken into account whether an amendment will affect all or most of the Member States (e.g. in the case of additional environmental issues) or only those where such requirements are not yet in place (e.g. for the assessment of alternatives). It was not possible to make a differentiated analysis per region, as there are no specific data available.

Each section will first analyse the relevant impacts for each of the possible amendments to the EIA Directive. Subsequently, the impacts of each of the selected policy options as outlined in Table 7 will be analysed.

6.1. Environmental impacts

6.1.1. Environmental impacts of the various possible amendments to the EIA

No attempt has been made to distinguish between different environmental impacts associated with the various amendments (e.g. emissions of pollutants, use of resources, climate change), as each amendment is likely to provide multiple environmental benefits. One exception is the amendment related to additional environmental issues, which clearly focuses on certain types of impacts (e.g. disaster risks, biodiversity…). The specific environment