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.
Date: 2012-10-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building industry, environmental impact, environmental protection, impact study, industrial project, private sector, public sector

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 26.10.2012  
SWD(2012) 355 final 

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. 

{COM(2012) 628 final} 
{SWD(2012) 354 final}

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
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. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

3. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
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. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 20 

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

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. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

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

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

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 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

8. 

8.1. 

8.2. 

9. 

10. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glossary ..................................................................................................................... 58 

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 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
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 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
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 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
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 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
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  made1.  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/EU2.  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 Programme3 and the latest evaluation on 
the  application  and  effectiveness  of  the  EIA  Directive4,  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). 

1 

2 

3 
4 

Definition of the International Organisation for Impact Assessment (IAIA): 
http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/Principles%20of%20IA_web.pdf. 
Directive 2011/92/EU (OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, p.1) codifies Directive 85/337/EEC and its three subsequent 
amendments (Directives 97/11/EC, 2003/35/EC and 2009/31/EC). 
COM(2007)225. 
COM(2009)378. 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.2. 

External expertise  

There  is  considerable  experience  with  the  implementation  of  the  EIA  Directive,  including 
information from complaints and case-law5. 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  web7.  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 
industry,  environmental 
organisations,  and  the  academic  community  were  present  at  the  conference.  Papers  and  the 
conclusions of the conference are available on the web8. 

levels), 

local 

The analysis of the input received indicates that the large majority of the stakeholders have a 
positive  view  of  the  EIA  Directive9.  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; 

5  

6  

7 
8 
9  

A  collection  of  the  most  important  rulings  of  the  European  Court  of  Justice  on  the  EIA  Directive  is 
available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/eia_case_law.pdf.  
The  largest  professional  membership  body  for  the  environment  with  over  15,000  members  working 
across all industrial sectors. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/eia.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/conference.htm 
For instance 63 % of the respondents consider that the Directive always/often contributes to an effective 
protection  of  the  environment  and  the  quality  of  life  and  is  an  efficient  instrument  to  address 
environmental concerns in the design of projects. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(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 

Request for development consent

Annex I Project

Scoping
(depending on national legislation)

Information on 
environmental impacts
(report submitted by developer and 
reviewed by competent authorities)

Consultation
(public, authorities, other MS, etc)

Final decision

Annex II Project

Screening

EIA required
(positive screening 
decision)

No EIA required 
(negative screening 
decision)

Review 
procedures
Proceedings 
before court

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 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
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 line10. 

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 Directive11. The last 
Commission  report  on  the  application  and  effectiveness  of  the  EIA  Directive,  published  in 
July 200912, 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 
estimated13, 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 EIAs14 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 

10 
11 
12  
13 

14 

15  

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/home.htm. 
All reports are available on http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-support.htm.  
COM(2009)378. 
Data  are  also  available  on  the  number  of  actors  involved  in  EIAs,  by  type  (public  authorities, 
developers,  environmental  consultancy  firms).  However,  no  specific  pattern  could  be  derived,  as  the 
absence of a formal reporting mechanism under the EIA Directive hinders the collection of specific data 
(mainly breakdown of EIAs per type of project and per type of developer).  
It is not possible to compare the range of EIAs with the total number of development consents delivered 
in the EU, as there are no data available on the latter aspect (which is not subject to EU legislation). 
This figure is the result of the following calculation: average number of positive screenings (1.370 to 
3.380 per year)/average total number of screenings (27.400 to 33.800 per year), multiplied by 100. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
screenings16. Such variations exist even when comparing Member States of a similar size and 
population17. 

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  development18  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 
Screening 
Scoping 
Environmental information (environmental report) 
Consultations (public, authorities, other Member States…) 
Final decision 

Average duration 
1.2 months  
1.3 months 
5.5 months 
1.6 months 
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 cost21 or approximately € 41.000 per EIA22. Overall, the EIA costs for EU 
developers  are  estimated  at  €  558  to  846  million  per  year23.  The  efforts  for  developers  per 
stage of the EIA process24 are presented below: 

Average cost of the EIA process for developers  

Stage of the EIA process 
Preliminary studies (prior to the EIA) 
Screening and scoping 
Information on environmental impacts 
Revision of EIA report (if needed) 

Share of total EIA cost25 
1 % 
2 % 
80 % 
17 % 
100 % 

Cost (€) per EIA stage 
425 
850 
32.715 
7.010 
41.000 

16  

17  
18 

19 

20 

21 

22 
23  
24 

25  

From fewer than 100 (0 in France, 36 in Finland, 58 in Cyprus, 62 in Malta and 96 in Austria) to more 
than  2.000  (2.200  in  Germany,  2.236  in  Spain,  2.337  in  Belgium,  2.500  in  Denmark,  2.695  in  Italy, 
2.745 in the UK and 4.400 in Poland). 
E.g. 23 EIAs in Austria, 117 in the Czech Republic, 152 in Hungary, 288 in Sweden and 425 in Greece. 
GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive, section 2.3. 
It  is  known  that  most  activities  covered  by  the  IED  are  also  covered  by  the  EIA  Directive,  but  the 
annual number of EIAs concerning projects that are also subject to the IED remains unknown. 
GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive. The average duration of an EIA ranges from 7 months or less (4.75 in Estonia, 5 in Slovakia, 
6.5 in Latvia, 7 in Greece) to more than 20 months (21 in Denmark, 27 in Spain). 
GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive, Table 2-8. 
According to different calculation methods, the cost per EIA can be 53,000 or 35,000 €. 
The total annual cost is calculated by multiplying the average cost by the total number of EIAs. 
The  findings  of  the  GHK  study  are  confirmed  by  the  study  of  JRC  (The  Use  of  Spatial  Data  for  the 
Preparation  of  Environmental  Reports  in  Europe,  2010).  The  JRC  study  finds  that  the  average  time 
needed by environmental consultants to complete an EIA report is between 1 and 3 months. 
Median values were then adjusted to give a total of 100 %. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
The  administrative  costs  per  EIA  for  public  authorities  can  be  measured  by  the  effort  in 
terms of number of hours to process an EIA26 multiplied by the average gross labour cost. The 
EU  Standard  Cost  Model27  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 EU28. Most of the efforts for the authorities are due to the review of 
environmental  information  and  the  final  decision-making  (89 %  of  total  EIA  costs29).  The 
case studies available30 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 benefits31, 
which cover a wide range of areas32, 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  media33.  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 
perspective34. Furthermore, the EIA contributes to environmental awareness of the public and 
has raised the profile of the environment35. The results of the public consultation corroborated 
the positive role played by the Directive36. The EIA Directive also gives strong incentives to 

26 

27  

28 

29 
30 

31 

32 

33 

34 
35  
36 

The average number of days to process an EIA is estimated at 32 man-days (GHK (2010), Collection of 
information and data to support the IA study of the review of the EIA Directive, Table 2-8). 
The EU Standard Cost Model contains average costs for administrative work, the costs being calculated 
according to the full cost principle. 
The low estimate is based on the GHK study, while the high estimate is based on questionnaires of the 
GHK study. The total cost of the entire EIA process per Member State depends on the labour cost and 
the number of EIAs processed by each Member State. 
The efforts for the screening and scoping stages represent 3 % and 8 % of total EIA cost respectively. 
GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive, Chapter 3.4 and Annex 7. 
IVM,  BIO,  IEEP,  IEP  and  Ecologic  (2007),  Costs  and  benefits  of  the  EIA  Directive;  Report  on  the 
application  and  effectiveness  of  the  EIA  Directive  (COM(2009)  378);  GHK  (2010),  Collection  of 
information and data to support the IA study of the review of the EIA Directive, section 2.6. 
This corresponds to the main aspects listed in Article 3 of the Directive. Environmental aspects to be 
described  in  an  EIA  cover  in  particular  those  resulting  from:  the  existence  of  the  project,  the  use  of 
natural  resources  and  the  emission  of  residues  and  pollutants  resulting  from  the  construction  and 
operation  of  the  proposed  project,  the  creation  of  nuisances  and  the  elimination  of  waste  (see  also 
Annex  IV).  It  is  difficult  to  distinguish  between  the  environmental  benefits  resulting  from  the  EIA 
Directive itself and from the need to comply with other environmental legislation which has to be taken 
into account in the permitting process. 
For  instance,  through  changes  in  the  technical  and  spatial  design  of  projects  (e.g.  route  selection  for 
transport  infrastructure,  location  selection  for  industrial  facilities)  or  through  implementation  of 
mitigation and compensation measures. 
See the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive (COM(2009) 378). 
Environmental benefits also result from decisions taken by developers during the public consultation.  
Almost all respondents (97 %) agreed that: the EIA Directive contributes to effective protection of the 
environment  and  the  quality  of  life  and  that  the  EIA  Directive  is  an  efficient  instrument  to  address 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 
study37,  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 stage38. 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 
significant39, 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  credibility40.  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 companies41. 

37 

38 

39  

40 
41 

environmental  concerns  in  the  design  of  projects.  This  is  always  or  often  the  case  for  63  %  of  the 
respondents and this is sometimes the case for 34 %. 
Nielsen, E., P. Christensen, and L. Kørnøv (2003), Are screening processes effective instruments and 
what are the environmental benefits? Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University. 
GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive, section 2.6. 
National  Health  Authorities  are  consulted  as  part  of  the  EIA  process  and,  in  most  Member  States, 
assessing the impacts of projects on human health as part of EIAs is a requirement.  
European Commission (1996), EIA in Europe - A Study on Costs and Benefits. 
Impacts  of  Innovation  on  the  Regulatory  Costs  of  Energy-using  Product  Policy,  Final  Report  for 
DEFRA (2010), p.21. See also the example of the German high pressure gas pipeline project in which 
specific technical design and construction methods have been implemented as part of the EIA process 
(in GHK (2010) Collection of information and data to support the IA study of the review of the EIA 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
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  authorities42  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 projects43 (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  changes45  in  relation  to  mitigation 
and/or compensation. This has also been confirmed by the public consultation46 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 
such47. Due to the absence of quality enhancing provisions and standards, there is a wide 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46  

47  

Directive – Annex 7). It is however difficult to distinguish the extent to which innovation is the result of 
the EIA Directive itself or whether it is driven by other environmental legislation.  
The  average  number  of  staff  working  on  processing  EIAs  or  screenings  in  the  public  authorities  was 
estimated at approximately 75, with a large variation across Member states (GHK (2010), Collection of 
information and data to support the IA study of the review of the EIA Directive, section 2.5). 
The literature mentions significant environmental impacts (IVM, BIO, IEEP, IEP and Ecologic (2007), 
Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive). 
Almer  and  Koontz  (2004)  Public  hearings  for  EIA  in  post-communist  Bulgaria:  do  they  work? 
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24, pp. 473-493, as cited by IVM (2007). 
Christensen  et  al.  (2003),  The  advantages  of  EIA—Evaluation  of  EIA  in  Denmark,  Ministry  of  the 
Environment, Denmark Landsplanafdelingen. 
47  %  of  the  respondents  consider  that  the  EIA  Directive  only  sometimes  contributes  to  modifying 
significantly projects to take into account environmental concerns. 
For instance: there is no obligation for ex-post impact monitoring; scoping, which could streamline the 
information  to  be  submitted,  is  only  optional;  the  Directive  only  requires  ‘an  outline  of  the  main 
alternatives studied by the developer’ to be provided as part of the environmental information.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
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  EIA48  (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 design49 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  legislation50.  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  Pilot51.  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  widespread52.  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  200553.  This  reduces  the 

48  

49 

50  

51  

52  

53  

COWI (2009), Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, 
June 2009, p.175-178. 
Some  project  developers  tend  to  use  EIAs  more  as  juridical  insurance  than  as  decision-making  tools 
(see for example the French case study in the IVM study). 
The other environmental sectors represent 23 % (for six Directives on water protection), 22 % (for the 
two Directives on nature protection) and 19 % (for eleven Directives on waste management). 
The  EU  Pilot  has  been  operating  since  April  2008;  more  details  are  available  at 
http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/infringements/application_monitoring_en.htm. 
Exempting  in  advance  from  the  requirement  of  an  EIA  projects  of  a  certain  type  disregards  possible 
negative  environmental  effects.  For  instance,  projects  for  the  restructuring  of  rural  land  holdings, 
projects  for  the  use  of  uncultivated  land  or  semi-natural  areas  for  intensive  agricultural  purposes  or 
water  management  projects  for  agriculture  may,  regardless  of  their  size,  result  in  the  loss  of  field 
boundaries, and therefore of hedgerows, a loss which is likely to have significant effects on the fauna 
and flora (see case C-66/06). 
Those amendments were introduced by Directive 2003/35/EC and apply as from 2005. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
acceptability  of  projects  by  civil  society  and  implies  a  risk  of  public  opposition,  which  is 
observed for instance as regards energy infrastructure projects54.   

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 Directive55. 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  costs57.  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  considerably58. 
Business and industry are mostly concerned by delays in EIA procedures; the energy sector 
provides such examples59.  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  itself60,  developers  and  business  consider  that  the  EIA  often 
causes delays61, 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 
the  EIA  and  other  EU  environmental  directives,  which  require  specific 
between 

54  

55  
56  
57 

58  

59  

60 

61 

See  the  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the  proposed  Regulation  on  guidelines  for  trans-European 
energy infrastructure (SEC(2011)1233). 
For instance, see the case studies at: http://www.justiceandenvironment.org/publications/eiasea2011. 
There are no specific data available related to the application of the EIA at regional/local levels.  
GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive. 
About 44 % of respondents (all categories) to the public consultation, found that the EIA ‘always’ or 
‘often’  increases  the  (direct  and  indirect)  costs  of  projects  considerably  (45  %  found  that  this  is 
‘sometimes’ the case). 
For instance, EWEA – European Wind Energy Association (2010), Wind Barriers: Administrative and 
grid access barriers to wind power; IVM Institute for Environmental Studies (2011), Wind energy and 
the review of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. 
EC (1996) EIA in Europe – A study on costs and benefits; IVM, BIO, IEEP, IEP and Ecologic (2007), 
Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive; GHK (2010), Collection of information and data to support the 
IA study of the review of the EIA Directive. 
During the public consultation, about 21 % of respondents (all categories) found that the EIA ‘always’ 
causes  considerable delays  and  about 45  %  found  that  it  ‘sometimes’  causes  considerable  delays.  For 
instance, in the field of wind energy see: EWEA – European Wind Energy Association (2010), Wind 
Barriers: Administrative and grid access barriers to wind power. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
environmental  assessments62.  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 SMEs63. 

The  EIA  Directive  is  also  found  to  give  rise  to  legal  disputes  which  can  involve  multiple 
stakeholders and the public64 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  sectors65,  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. 

62  

63 

64 

65  

Mainly the Industrial Emissions Directive, the Habitats Directive and the SEA Directive (see also the 
findings of GHK (2010), Collection of information and data to support the IA study of the review of the 
EIA Directive, p.28-29). 
GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive. 
Information  from  the  European  Commission’s  Infringement  Database  indicates  that  numbers  of  EIA-
related infringement procedures was stabilised, but it started increasing after the 2004 enlargement and 
the amendments introduced by the 2003/35 Directive (applicable as from 2005). 
For  instance,  developers  in  the  energy  sector  may  be  affected  by  the  uncertainties  concerning  the 
applicability  of  certain  requirements  and  possible  delays  in  EIA  processes  (EWEA  –  European  Wind 
Energy Association (2010), Wind Barriers: Administrative and grid access barriers to wind power).  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 simplification66. 

3.3. 

Specific problems and their underlying causes 

The  shortcomings  of  the  Directive  are  related  to  specific  problems67  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 

D1. Broad margin of discretion left to 
Member States in the screening process to 
decide whether an EIA is required for Annex 
II projects 
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 
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 
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 

D1+D2 

D1+D2 

D3 

D4a+D8+D9 

D4a+D9 

KEY and SPECIFIC PROBLEMS 
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 
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 

D4b 

D4c 

D4d 

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 

 D5+D6+D8 

P9: Inconsistencies between requirements of EIA Directive 
and other EU legislation and international conventions 

D5 

D6 

D7 

P10: EIAs do not cover new environmental topics  

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 

D7+D8+D9 

P13: Excessive time for the processing of EIAs by 
authorities 

66 
67 

COM(2009)15. 
The  specific  problems  were  identified  by  the  Communication  Reports  on  the  application  and 
effectiveness  of  the  EIA  Directive  (in  particular  the  one  published  in  July  2009),  the  COWI  report 
(COWI (2009), Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, 
June 2009) and the outcomes of the public consultation on the review of the EIA Directive. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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 high68; the 
most common illustration of this problem is the ‘salami-slicing’ practice69. 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  screening70,  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 risks71.  

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 courts72.  

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 State73.  

68 

69 

70 

71  
72  

73 

This  is  confirmed  by  the  implementation  experience  and  the  case-law  (e.g.  see  the  following  Court 
cases: C-301/95, C-392/96, C-87/02, C-332/04, C-66/06, C-255/08, C-435/09). 
Projects  with  significant  environmental  impacts  (e.g.  infrastructure  projects)  escape  the  EIA 
requirement by being divided into two or more separate entities or sub-projects to avoid thresholds that 
would  trigger  an  EIA.  This  can  happen  through  splitting  of  territory,  dividing  the  project  into  sub-
projects,  stretching  activities  over  time  or  doing  several  smaller  rounds  of  project  modifications.  For 
instance, see cases C-142/07 and C-205/08. 
A guidance document on screening is available since 2001 and guidance on interpretation of definitions 
of certain project categories was issued in 2008. 
More detailed information and analysis are available in Annex 5 (sections 10.5.1.1 and 10.5.1.2). 
For instance, the refurbishment of the Madrid ring road and the extension of the Vienna airport were not 
made subject to an EIA (see cases C-142/07 and C-420/11). 
COWI (2009), Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, 
June 2009.  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 consultation74. National experts raise concerns about the 
quality  of  EIAs,  as  they  are  often  too  descriptive  and  do  not  include  relevant  data  to 
characterise  environmental  impacts75.  Environmental  NGOs  share  this  concern76  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  account77.  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  attention78.  The  case-law  provides  a  concrete  example  of  how  an  inappropriate 
EIA may lead to environmental damages79. 

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  impacts80.  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  litigation81.  The  recent  implementation 
experience confirms the recurrence of the problems linked to the quality of the EIA process82.  

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 

74 

75  

76  
77  
78  
79  

80 

81  
82  

in  November  2010: 

the  stakeholder  Conference 

the  views  expressed  during 

See  also 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/conference.htm. 
This view is shared by national experts (COWI (2009), Study concerning the report on the application 
and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, June 2009, chapters 6 and 7). 
For instance, this has been raised by a number of NGOs in their replies to the public consultation.  
More detailed information and analysis are available in Annex 5 (section 10.5.2.3). 
More detailed information and analysis are available in Annex 5 (section 10.5.2.1). 
See case C-215/06, where the EIA report did not examine the question of soil stability, although this is 
fundamental when excavation is intended, and despite landslides in the area.  
See in this regard the case study of the Britned Connector (Netherlands) in GHK (2010), Collection of 
information and data to support the IA study of the review of the EIA Directive, Annex 7. 
More detailed information and analysis are available in Annex 5 (section 10.5.2.2). 
For instance see the last Court rulings in cases C-50/09 and C-494/09. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
covered  by  the  Directive,  such  as  climate  change,  disaster  risks,  resource  efficiency  or 
biodiversity,  are  addressed  in  a  superficial  manner  in  the  EIA  report83  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 policies85. That synergies are not sufficiently exploited currently is due to the fact 
that the new environmental issues are not expressly referred to in the Directive86; hence there 
is little incentive for developers and competent authorities to account for the impacts of their 
projects in these areas87. 

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 202088 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 199789 , 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 
Directives91. There is also a potential risk of inconsistency with the Espoo Convention92, as 

83  
84 

85 

86 

87  
88 
89 

90  
91 

92 

More detailed information and analysis are available in Annex 5 (section 10.5.2.4). 
This percentage is higher as regards public authorities, NGOs, citizens and developers from all Member 
States except Germany. 
35.5 % were against and 12 % had no opinion. Biodiversity (53 %), and energy and climate (50 %) are 
mostly mentioned as examples. 
In particular in Articles 3 and 5 and Annexes III and IV. For instance, ‘climate’ is mentioned in Article 
3  however  it  does  not  specifically  refer  to  ‘global  climate  change’.  Effects  of  projects  on  ‘human 
beings, (...), material assets, etc.’ are mentioned in Article 3, but the specific risks to a project due to the 
changing climate and other man-made or natural disasters are not specifically mentioned. Article 3 also 
mentions ‘fauna and flora’, which is more restrictive than the concept of ‘biodiversity’. 
More detailed information and analysis are available in Annex 5 (section 10.5.2.5). 
Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (COM(2011)571). 
The 2003 amendment (Directive 2003/35/EC) aligned the EIA Directive with the requirements of the 
Aarhus Convention and the 2009 amendment (Directive 2009/31/EC) added new categories of projects 
in the Annexes in relation to the transport, capture and storage of carbon dioxide. 
More detailed information and analysis are available in Annex 5 (section 10.5.3.2). 
The majority (52.5 %) of respondents (35.5 % were against and 12 % had no opinion) share this view, 
in particular regarding the Habitats Directive (80 %), Water Framework Directive (68.5 %), the SEA 
Directive (64 %), the IPPC/IED (54 %). 
UNECE  Convention  on  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  in  a  Transboundary  Context  (adopted  in 
1991 and entered into force in 1997). The Espoo Convention sets out the obligations of Parties to assess 
the environmental impact of certain activities at an early stage of planning and lays down the general 
obligation of States to notify and consult each other on all major projects under consideration that are 
likely  to  have  a  significant  adverse  environmental  impact  across  boundaries.  More  information  is 
available at the following website: http://www.unece.org/env/eia/eia.html. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
additional  activities93  have  been  added  to  the  Convention  through  its  2004  amendment94  as 
well as the ratification of the SEA Protocol95. 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  authorities96. 
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 Directives97, 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 developers98. 

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  months99.  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  projects100.  The  energy  sector  offers  an  illustrative 
example101.  Overall,  it  appears  that102  the  responsibility  for  delays  is  shared  between  the 

93 

94 

95 

96  

97  
98  
99 

100 
101  

102 

to 

adopted 

Protocol 

Strategic 

in  2004 

amendment 

Assessment 

Convention, 

Environmental 

the  Espoo  Convention, 

The  new  activities  are:  deforestation  of  large  areas,  offshore  hydrocarbon  production  and  major 
installations  for  the  harnessing  of  wind  power  for  energy  production.  It  should  be  noted  that  no 
thresholds have been specified. 
Decision 
III/7  –  Second 
(http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/eia/documents/legaltexts/2nd_amendment_en.pdf). 
Espoo 
on 
(http://live.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/eia/documents/legaltexts/protocolenglish.pdf). 
For  instance,  this  has  been  raised  by  the  German  Association  of  the  Chambers  of  Industry  and 
Commerce (Deutscher Industrie- und Handelskammertag) during the public consultation.  
"Member States may provide for a single procedure...". 
More detailed information and analysis are available in Annex 5 (section 10.5.3.1). 
GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive. See also above section 3.1.2. 
21 % considers that this is always the case, while 25 % thinks that this is often the case. 
EWEA  –  European  Wind  Energy  Association  (2010),  Wind  Barriers:  Administrative  and  grid  access 
barriers to wind power. 
The  analysis  of  case  studies  shows  that  lengthy  EIA  processes  are  due  to:  the  complexity  of  some 
projects (large scale, transboundary, sensitive location); the difficulty in collecting environmental data; 
the  poor  quality  of  information  submitted  by  the  developer  (resulting  in  requests  for  additional 
information  by  the  authorities);  issues  raised  by  local  stakeholders;  excessive  time  taken  by  the 
authorities  in  the  decision-making  process;  inadequate  staff  resources  of  the  competent  authority; 
uncertainty  over  the  applicability  of  thresholds;  lack  of  agreed  timetables  and/or  failures  to  respect 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 factors103. 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 process104. 

The  exception  is  the  public  consultation  phase,  where,  according  to  the  Directive  and  the 
Aarhus Convention105, ‘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 Convention106, 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 results107. 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 

103 
104  
105 

106  
107  

agreed timetables for different stages (more details in GHK (2010), Collection of information and data 
to support the IA study of the review of the EIA Directive, chapter 3.3.4). 
For instance political unwillingness to consider the project. 
More detailed information and analysis are available in Annex 5 (section 10.5.4.2). 
UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to 
Justice  in  Environmental  Matters  (adopted  in  Aarhus  in  1998  and  entered  into  force  in  2001).  The 
Aarhus  Convention  grants  the  public  rights  and  imposes  on  Parties  and  public  authorities  obligations 
regarding access to information and public participation and access to justice. Information is available 
at the following website: http://www.unece.org/env/pp/welcome.html. 
More detailed information and analysis are available in Annex 5 (section 10.5.4.1). 
The general trend is that the EU guidance on EIA is used to a quite limited extent (COWI (2009), Study 
concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, June 2009, p.94). 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
developers and public authorities respectively; the projections take into account the foreseen 
increase  in  the  number  of  EIAs  and  the  outlook  for  inflation108.  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 2  
(based on a median 
costs of  € 35.000 
per EIA) 

Method 1  
(based on an average 
cost of € 53.053  per 
EIA)  

Method 3 
(adjusted for wage 
differences and actual 
values of respondents  
€ 41.000 per EIA) 

2010 

Medium-term 
(2017) 
Long-term 
(2037) 

Overall costs for EU 
(€/year)109 
Cost per EIA (€) 
EU (€/year) 
Cost per EIA (€) 
EU (€/year) 
Cost per EIA (€) 

845.727.456 

53.053 
902.144.249 
55.541 
1.365.337.126 
82.531 

557.941.322 

35.000 
595.166.570 
36.642 
900.746.211 
54.448 

654.236.265 

41.041 
669.662.757 
41.228 
1.029.144.373 
62.209 

Table 3: Estimation and projection of administrative costs for public authorities 
Administrative burden for authorities to process EIA dossiers in the EU 
146 to 215 million €/year 
173 to 255 million €/year 
269 to 396 million €/year 

2010 
Medium-term (2017) 
Long-term (2037) 

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-

108 

109  

Based on International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, April 2011 for the period 
2011-2016 and based on the assumption that for the period 2017-2037 the inflation remains constant at 
2 % per year. 
The total annual cost is calculated by multiplying the average cost by the total number of EIAs. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
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 procedures110; however, in contrast, this would increase discrepancies in 
EIA practices across the EU (both in terms of uneven environmental protection and reduced 
level  playing 
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.  

field).  Other  Member  States  have  put 

in  place 

schemes 

For  the  baseline  scenario  it  is  assumed  that  the  remaining  wider  social111  and  economic112 
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: 

110  

111  

112  

For  instance,  in  September  2011,  Greece  adopted  a  new  legislative  framework  on  environmental 
permitting procedures, as a result of the Memorandum of Understanding.  
Creation/preservation  of  jobs  in  public  authorities  and  in  environmental  consultancy  companies; 
avoided  public  health  damages;  preservation  of  the  quality  of  life;  public  participation  in  decision-
making procedures; access to justice. 
Environmental  profile  and  reputation  for  business  and  developers;  innovation  and  research;  avoided 
risks of environmental damages and cost savings. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
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 burden113,  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. 

Drivers of the problems 

Key and specific problems 

Specific objectives 

Table 4: Links between problems, drivers and specific 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 
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 
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 
D7. The time-frames for the various stages 
of the EIA process are not specified or are 
not specific enough 

Problems with the screening process 

D1+D2 

P1: Projects with significant 
environmental impacts escape EIA 

D1+D2 

P2: Projects without significant 
environmental impacts are subject to 
EIAs 

D3 

P3: No justified decisions on screenings 

Problems in the EIA quality&analysis 

D4a+D
8+D9 

D4a+D9 

D4b 

D4c 

D4d 

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 

D5+D6
+D8 

P9: Inconsistencies between 
requirements of EIA Directive and other 
EU legislation and international 
conventions 

D5 

D6 

P10: EIAs do not cover new 
environmental topics 
Inconsistencies within the EIA process 
itself and in relation to other 
legislation 

P11: Overlaps/duplications with 
environmental assessments under other 

Operational 
objectives 

Specify the content 
and justification of the 
screening decision 
(P1+P2+P3) 

Specify the content of 
the EIA report and of 
the final decision 
(P4+P5+P6+P7+P8) 

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) 

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) 

2. Enhance policy 
coherence and 
synergies with other 
EU/international law 
and simplify 

Streamline 
environmental 
assessments (P9) 

Adjust the Directive 
to the new 
environmental issues 
(P10) 

Streamline 
environmental 
assessments (P11) 

113 

The main criticism on the EIA Directive by developers is related to the length of time it takes. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
D8. Lack of experience of authorities in 
some MS 

EU legislation 

procedures 
(P10+P11+P12) 

D9. Lack of expertise of developers and 
consultants undertaking EIAs 

D7 

P12: Too short or too long public 
consultation 

D7+D8
+D9 

P13: Excessive time for the processing of 
EIAs by public authorities  

Specify time-frames 
for the various stages 
of the EIA process 
(P12+P13) 

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 
Europe114.  Furthermore,  the  revision  of  the  EIA  Directive  subscribes  to  the  Europe  2020 
strategy115, in particular the priority of sustainable growth (see Table 5).  

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

Components of  
sustainable growth 

Objectives of the EIA revision

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 

114 
115 

COM(2011) 571. 
COM(2010) 2020. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
administrative capacity to implement the Directive in line with the Commission proposal116. 
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 procedures117.  

5. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Non-regulatory  policy  options,  except  the  use  of  guidance,  have  not  been  considered 
further118,  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 
available119  shows  that  Member  States  have  so  far  resisted  to  introduce  joint  assessment 
procedures  for  plans  and  projects120;  (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 

116  
117  
118  
119 

120 

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/proposals_2014_2020_en.cfm.  
COM(2011) 658. 
Annex 6 describes in detail the reasons for discarding non-regulatory options. 
COWI (2009), Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, 
June 2009. 
According to Article 11(1) and (2) of the SEA Directive, Member States may provide for coordination 
and  joint  procedures  in  situations  where  an  obligation  to  carry  out  assessments  of  the  effects  on  the 
environment  arises  simultaneously  from  the  SEA  Directive  and  other  EU  legislation.  Hence,  the 
Member  States  can  choose  to  coordinate  SEA  and  other  assessments  or  introduce  a  form  of  joint 
procedure with one single assessment fulfilling the requirements of both Directives. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
SEA121, as well as because of the different authorities involved; (d) this option is not favoured 
by any of the stakeholders groups122.  

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 
recently123;  (d)  this  option  is  not  favoured  by  any  of  the  categories  of  stakeholders  who 
participated at the public consultation124; (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 change125.  

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 

121 

122  
123  

124 

125 

126 

See  the  Commission  reports  on  the  application  and  effectiveness  of  the  EIA  and  the  SEA  Directives 
(COM(2009)378 and COM(2009)469). 
The public consultation found 29 % being in favour of this option and 50 % against (21 % no opinion). 
For instance, the IED was adopted in November 2010 following a long revision and discussion process. 
The ongoing implementation process of the IED in Member States would be put into question thereby 
creating not only legal uncertainty but most likely also having negative financial repercussions. 
26 % of all respondents are in favour of this option and 61 % are against (13 % no opinion). Individual 
citizens  and  public  authorities  provided  the  greatest  support  for  this  option  (31  %  and  29  % 
respectively);  NGOs  and  businesses  were  strongly  opposed  (15  %  and  17  %  were  in  favour 
respectively).  
23 % were in favour and 13 % had no opinion (based on all responses). Only 14 % of businesses/private 
companies supported this option; the greatest support (31 %) comes from individual citizens. 
Mainly NGOs (85  %), public authorities (72  %) and individual citizens (53  %). 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 identified127.  

 Table 6: Links of amendments with problems and objectives 

Key problems identified 

i

g
n
n
e
e
r
c
S

s
i
s
y
l
a
n
a
d
n
a

y
t
i
l
a
u
q
A
I
E

Projects with significant 
environmental impacts escape 
EIA 

Projects without significant 
environmental impacts are 
subject to EIAs 

No justified decisions on 
screenings by authorities 

EIA reports do not focus on the 
most significant impacts 

EIA reports with poor quality of 
environmental data and analysis 

Insufficient consideration of 
impacts of project alternatives 

No justified decisions on 
development consent by 
authorities 

Potential gaps between predicted 
and actual impacts 

Inconsistencies between 
requirements of EIA Directive 
and other EU legislation and 
international conventions 

EIAs do not cover new 
environmental topics 

f
o

s
k
s
i
R

s
e
i
c
n
e
t
s
i
s
n
o
c
n
i

Overlaps/duplications with 
environmental assessments 
under other EU legislation 
Too short or too long public 
consultation 
Excessive time for the 
processing of EIAs by public 
authorities 

Specific 
objectives 
Introduce and/or strengthen 
the quality related elements 
of the Directive 
Enhance policy coherence 
and synergies with other 
EU/international law and 
simplify procedures 

Introduce and/or strengthen 
the quality related elements 
of the Directive 

Introduce and/or strengthen 
the quality related elements 
of the Directive 

Operational objectives 

Amendments 

Adaptation of Annexes I and II 
Modification of Annex III  

Specify the content and 
justification of the screening 
decision 

Alternative procedure for Annex II projects 

Justification of negative screening decisions 

Mandatory scoping 

Mandatory scoping 
Quality control of the EIA information 

Mandatory assessment of reasonable 
alternatives 

Justification of final decisions 

Mandatory post-EIA monitoring 

Adaptation of Annexes I and II  
Modification of Annex III 
Coordinated or integrated/joint procedure 
(EIA ‘one-stop shop’) 

Additional environmental issues  
Modification of  Annex III 
Quality control of the EIA information 

Specify the content of the EIA 
report and of the final decision 

Streamline environmental 
assessments  

Adjust the Directive to the new 
environmental issues  

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’) 

Specify time-frames for the 
various stages of the EIA process 

Specific time-frames for public consultation 

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 Directive128 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 amendments129. 

127  

128 
129  

Some amendments (e.g. modification of Annex III) are likely to address more than one problem, while 
some  problems  (new  environmental  topics  not  covered  by  EIAs)  can  be  addressed  by  more  than  one 
amendment.  
5 % had no opinion. The largest support for this came from business and private companies (62  %). 
As Option 0+ does not involve any modification, there is no link to specific amendments.  

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 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 

Introduce and/or 
strengthen the 
quality related 
elements of the 
Directive 
Enhance policy 
coherence and 
synergies with 
other 
EU/international 
law and simplify 
procedures 
Introduce and/or 
strengthen the 
quality related 
elements of the 
Directive 

Introduce and/or 
strengthen the 
quality related 
elements of the 
Directive 

Projects with 
significant 
environmental 
impacts escape EIA 

G
N
I
N
E
E
R
C
S

Projects without 
significant 
environmental 
impacts are subject 
to an EIA 

No justified 
decisions on 
screenings 

EIA reports not 
focusing on the most 
significant impacts 

EIA reports with 
poor quality of 
environmental data 
and analysis 

Insufficient 
consideration of 
impacts of project 
alternatives 

No justified 
decisions on 
development consent 

Potential gaps 
between predicted 
and actual impacts 

Inconsistencies 
between 
requirements of EIA 
Directive and other 
EU legislation and 
international 
conventions 

EIAs do not cover 
new environmental 
topics 

S
I
S
Y
L
A
N
A
D
N
A
Y
T
I
L
A
U
Q
A
I
E

F
O
S
K
S
I
R

S
E
I
C
N
E
T
S
I
S
N
O
C
N
I

Overlaps/duplication
s with environmental 
assessments under 
other EU legislation 

Too short or too long 
public consultation 

Excessive time for 
the processing of 
EIAs by public 
authorities 

Enhance policy 
coherence and 
synergies with 
other 
EU/international 
law and simplify 
procedures 

Adaptation of Annexes I 
and II 

Modification of Annex 
III  

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

- 

(cid:57) 

- 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

Alternative procedure 
for Annex II projects 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

Specify the 
content and 
justification 
of the 
screening 
decision 

Update guidance 
on the screening 
procedure and on 
the project 
categories 

Justification of negative 
screening decisions 

Mandatory scoping 

Mandatory scoping 

Quality control of the 
EIA information 

Mandatory assessment 
of reasonable 
alternatives 

Justification of final 
decisions 

Mandatory post-EIA 
monitoring 

Adaptation of Annexes I 
and II  

Modification of Annex 
III 

Coordinated or 
integrated/joint 
procedure (EIA ‘one-
stop shop’) 
Additional 
environmental issues  

Modification of  Annex  
III 

Quality control of the 
EIA information 

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

Specific time-frames for 
public consultation 

Maximum time-frames 
for decision-making 

- 

- 

- 

(cid:57) 

- 

- 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

- 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

- 

- 

- 

- 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

- 

- 

- 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

- 

- 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

- 

(cid:57) 

- 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

- 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

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 

Streamline 
environmental 
assessments  

Develop new 
guidance on 
streamlining 
environmental 
assessments 

Adjust the 
Directive to the 
new 
environmental 
issues  

Develop new 
guidance on how 
new topics can be 
assessed by EIAs 

Streamline 
environmental 
assessments  

Specify time-
frames for the 
various stages 
of the EIA 
process 

Develop new 
guidance on 
streamlining 
environmental 
assessments 
Develop new 
guidance on best 
practices related to 
public consultation 
and EIA decision-
making 

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 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
communications130. 

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 
projects131, offshore oil and gas projects132. 

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  opinion133  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  I134  and  adding  new  projects  to  both  Annexes135. 

130  
131 
132 

133 
134  

135  

COM(2012)95 and COM(2008)773. 
Proposal for a Regulation on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure (COM(2011)658). 
Proposal  for  a  Regulation  on  safety  of  offshore  oil  and  gas  prospection,  exploration  and  production 
activities (COM(2011)688). 
The largest support for this option came from NGOs (89 %) and public authorities (81 %). 
For instance, in some Member States (Greece, Romania) projects meeting the thresholds provided for 
by the IED are automatically subject to an EIA. 
For  instance,  several  Member  States  have  introduced  golf  courses  or  desalination  plants  when 
transposing the Directive. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
However,  even  if  the  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  favour  the  technical  adaptation 
option, they were against the broadening of Annex I136 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 
projects137, 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 process138. 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 % against139. 

Mandatory  assessment  of  reasonable  alternatives  would  be  required  as  part  of  the 
information to be submitted by the developer140. 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).  

136 

137  

138  

139 

140 

60  %  reject  it,  33  %  are  in  favour  (7  %  no  opinion).  Public  authorities  and  business  are  strongly 
opposed (87 %).  
Of  the  12  project  categories  listed  in  Annex  II,  9  are  related  to  industrial  activities  (e.g.  extraction, 
energy, production and processing of metals, minerals, chemicals, food, rubber, textile, wood). 
See  the  presentations  of  Lone  Kørnøv  and Kaja  Peterson at  the  stakeholder  Conference  (available  at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/conference.htm). 
The  largest  support  for  this  option  came  from  consultants  (85  %),  NGOs  (60  %),  public  authorities 
(50 %); business and private companies are against (60 %). 
The current provisions of the EIA Directive only require ‘an outline’ of the main alternatives studied by 
the developer. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 
opinion141.  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  Association142  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-law143 and was supported by 62 % of the respondents to the 
public consultation.  

In  the  scoping  stage,  which  is  optional  under  the  current  Directive144  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 
procedures145.  37 %  of  all  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  supported  mandatory 
scoping  and  10 %  are  in  favour  of  mandatory  scoping  at  the  request  of  environmental 
authorities146.  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 

141 

142  

143 
144  
145 

146 

77  %  of  NGOs  supported  this  option  compared  to  only  a  19  %  support  from  business  and  private 
companies, in particular from Germany. 
EWEA  –  European  Wind  Energy  Association  (2010),  Wind  Barriers:  Administrative  and  grid  access 
barriers to wind power. 
See cases C-87/02 and C-75/08. 
It is carried out at the request of the developer. 
Roland Berger Strategy Consultants (2011) Permitting procedures for energy infrastructure projects in 
the EU: evaluation and legal recommendations.  
The largest support came from NGOs (80 %), consultants (57 %), public authorities (50 %); business 
and private companies consider that scoping is needed at the request of the developer (73 %).  

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 consultants147 and the creation of a quality control committee148; 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  practices149.  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  practices151. 
Competent  authorities  would  be  allowed  to  extend  these  time-frames,  provided  that  this  is 
duly  justified152.  During  the  2010  public  consultation  on  the  EIA  Directive’s  review, 
respondents generally favoured the introduction of minimum and maximum time-frames for 
public consultation153. 

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 

147  
148  
149 

150 

151 

152  
153 
154 

Accredited consultants exist in at least 14 Member States. 
Such committees are already in place in 4 Member States (NL, FR, IT, EL). 
‘EIA has little value unless follow-up is carried out because without it the process remains incomplete 
and  the  consequences  of  EIA  planning  and  decision-making  will  be  unknown’  (IAIA  (2007)  EIA 
Follow-Up  –  International  Best  Practice  Principles,  http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-
publications/SP6.pdf). 
The  largest  support  for  monitoring  came  from  consultants  (94  %),  NGOs  (92  %),  public  authorities 
(73 %); business and private companies (mainly from Germany) are against (76 %). 
The  average  duration  of  the  public  consultation  phase  is  estimated  at  1.6  months  (GHK  (2010), 
Collection of information and data to support the IA study of the review of the EIA Directive). 
The extension would depend on the nature, complexity, location and size of the proposed project. 
Maximum time-frames: 51 % yes vs. 43 % no; minimum time-frames: 49 % yes vs. 46 % no. 
The  average  duration  of  the  screening  stage  is  1.2  month  (this  can  range  from  0.1  to  3  months 
depending on the Member State), while the average duration for issuing the final decision is 2 months 
(ranging  from  1  to  3  months  depending  on  the  Member  State).  See  GHK  (2010),  Collection  of 
information and data to support the IA study of the review of the EIA Directive. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
measure to optimise EU permitting procedures155. 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  data156  and  case  studies.  Annex  11  details  the  data  sources, 
assumptions  made  and  the  methodology  used.  The  extent  to  which  Member  States  will  be 

155 

156  

Roland Berger Strategy Consultants (2011), Permitting procedures for energy infrastructure projects in 
the EU: evaluation and legal recommendations. 
E.g. examples of Member States which have already implemented some of the measures considered. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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  environmental  benefits  are 
strongly related to the types of projects being developed in the future. Due to the wide variety 
of  project  categories,  it  is  not  possible  to  provide  a  quantitative  assessment  of  the 
environmental  impacts.  The  following  sections  therefore  present  a  broad  qualitative 
assessment. Annex 12 describes the environmental impacts in detail. 

The adaptation of the project categories listed in Annexes I and II would lead to a higher 
level of mandatory assessments of Annex II projects and would have a positive environmental 
impact. However, the scale of such impacts is significantly limited by two parameters: a) the 
Member States have already moved project categories of Annex II to Annex I or lowered the 
thresholds  of  Annex  I,  considering  that,  on  the  basis  of  the  national  circumstances,  such 
projects  are  likely  to  have  significant  negative  environmental  effects;  b)  the  Member  States 
have already added new projects in Annexes I and II157. Consequently, the benefits from this 
amendment will vary from limited (for those Member States which imposed stricter criteria, 
going beyond the classification of the Directive) to high (for those Member States which have 
not gone beyond the classification of the Directive). 

An alternative procedure for Annex II projects may have some environmental benefits158, 
but its overall environmental impact would be neutral, as it may not produce the same effects 
for all Member States. The clarification and specification of the Annex III screening criteria 
is  likely  to  have  high  environmental  benefits.  It  will  address  the  major  problem  of  projects 
with  significant  effects  escaping  an  EIA  (including  the  problems  of  salami-slicing  and 
cumulative effects). Any update that improves the consideration of additional environmental 
issues will also inevitably have high environmental benefits. 

157  

158 

For instance: installations working with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), golf courses, masts 
for radio and telecommunications, underground electricity cables, desalination plants. 
A Danish study, which examined a vast number of screening decisions in Denmark, found that in the 
majority of the cases, the applicant changed already its project prior to the screening procedure in order 
to reduce significant environmental effects and hence avoid an EIA (Holm Nielsen, et al. in Journal of 
Environmental Policy, Assessment, and Management, vol.7 no.1, March 2005). 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
                                                 
A  mandatory  assessment  of  reasonable  alternatives,  including  the  zero  option,  would 
provide  better  information  for  future  decision  making,  induce  improvements  in  the 
environmental design of projects at an early stage and increase the awareness of developers 
and  of  the  general  public.  Such  an  amendment  is  also  expected  to  better  identify  the  most 
efficient use of natural resources and serve research and innovation (e.g. promote the uptake 
of  innovation  in  terms  of  materials  used  or  technologies/design  employed  and  indirectly 
leading  to  more  research).  Overall,  this  amendment  would  improve  the  quality  of  the  EIA 
process and of the final decision and would have high benefits for environment. 

Providing  information  in  EIA  reports  on  projects’  impacts  on  additional  environmental 
issues would increase the quality of EIA reports and lead to well-informed decisions. This is 
also likely to contribute to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, resilience to disasters, a 
reduction  of  environmental  damages  due  to  climatic  events,  a  reduction  in  the  loss  of 
biodiversity,  an  increased  protection  of  the  marine  environment  and  savings  in  the  use  of 
natural resources. In the longer  term, these new environmental issues would be better taken 
into  account  at  an  early  stage  of  project  design  (before  EIA  application).  This  amendment 
would also contribute to increased overall environmental awareness of the public concerning 
these environmental challenges. This amendment is therefore expected to have high benefits. 
More specific benefits are discussed in Annex 12. 

The justification of negative screening decisions may have a positive environmental impact 
by obliging the authorities to better preparing and justifying their decisions. Similar impacts 
are expected from the justification of final decisions; indeed, authorities would be obliged to 
better  motivate  decisions  which  grant  development  consent  to  projects  with  significant 
negative effects and would have to demonstrate how consultations and the EIA information 
were  taken  into  consideration.  Both  amendments  would  be  expected  to  have  limited 
environmental benefits. 

A mandatory scoping procedure clarifies the environmental issues to be covered by the EIA 
report,  identifies  the  most  significant  environmental  impacts  and  specifies  preferred 
methodologies  for  their  assessment,  advises  relevant  information  sources  and  considers  the 
efficient  use  of  natural  resources.  Hence,  the  EIA  report  is  likely  to  be  of  better  quality, 
without significant gaps in the environmental information, and would provide robust evidence 
for the final decision. Scoping would result in significant environmental benefits159 in those 
Member States where scoping is not yet mandatory (approximately half of them160). 

Mechanisms for quality control of the EIA information (accredited consultants or national 
quality control committees) will have significant environmental benefits, as a means to ensure 
better  quality  of  EIA  reports  and  better  informed  final  decisions.  The  use  of  ‘accredited 
consultants’, having sufficient experience and expertise161, to prepare or to verify EIA reports 
would ensure that the information and the assessments are objective162. Such mechanism has 

159 

160 
161  

162 

The  overall  majority  of  the  new  Member  States  considers  scoping  as  an  important  feature  of  an 
adequate  EIA  regime  and  beneficial  in  improving  the  quality  of  the  EIA  (in  COWI  (2009),  Study 
concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive). 
COWI (2009), Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive. 
The accreditation should not be based on the possession of specific professional qualifications, but on 
the assessment of the experience/expertise of the consultants. 
In  the  Walloon  region  of  Belgium,  the  accreditation  procedure  seems  to  have  been  effective  in 
improving the overall quality of EIAs. Even if not all EIAs are of good quality, the process works well, 
as  the  accreditation  of  consultants  which  would  have  produced  unsatisfactory  work  is  cancelled  or 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
been mainly used by the Member States who joined the EU after 2004; it could be argued that 
public authorities, developers and consultants in Member States with more experience in the 
EIA would not need such an accreditation process163. However, the challenges resulting from 
the  need  to  assess  complex  projects  or  specific  issues  may  require  the  use  of  accredited 
experts  in  order  to  ensure  that  the  EIA  information  is  complete  and  the  assessments  robust 
and  objective.  The  review  of  EIA  reports  by  national  ‘quality  control  committees’  would 
bring similar environmental benefits, as it would provide a critical and objective opinion on 
the quality of EIA reports. 

The environmental benefits of mandatory post-EIA monitoring have been widely discussed 
in  EIA-related  literature164.  Ultimately  it  is  not  the  predicted  impacts,  but  rather  the  real 
effects  of  the  construction  and  operation  of  projects  that  are  relevant  for  protecting  the 
environment. This requirement would provide a higher level of environmental protection, by 
checking  whether  actual  impacts  are  similar  to  impacts  predicted  in  the  EIA  report  and  by 
enabling learning from experience to occur165. If actual negative impacts are more significant 
than  expected,  monitoring  would  enable  early  identification  of  the  problem  and  better 
mitigation  or  compensation  of  environmental  damages.  Such  a  requirement  would  also 
contribute to improved quality of EIA reports. Consequently, this amendment will have high 
environmental benefits.  

In Member States where the public consultation phase can be considered as being too short to 
ensure  effective  public  consultation,  an  increase  in  the  minimum  duration  could  provide 
environmental benefits (i.e. additional time-frame for debating on environmental impacts and 
mitigation  measures;  better  integration  of  environmental  considerations  in  the  project’s 
design; well-informed decisions). According to available information, if the minimum time-
frame  for  public  consultation  is  set  at  one  month  for  the  consultation  on  the  EIA 
information  submitted  by  the  developer,  this  will  increase  the  minimum  duration  of  public 
consultation phase in six Member States. Hence, the environmental benefits would overall be 
limited.  A  maximum 
time-frame  for  public  consultation  would  have  no  negative 
environmental impacts, provided that there is a possibility for extending the duration, in the 
case of particularly complex projects.  

Maximum time-frames for decision-making (on screening and EIA decisions) would have 
no  negative  environmental  impacts,  provided  that  there  is  a  possibility  for  extending  the 
duration, in the case of particularly complex projects. The introduction of a coordinated or 

163 
164 

165 

modified (CGEDD (2011), Competencies and professionalization of consultancies with regard to EIAs 
– Report for the French Ministry of Environment). 
As suggested by the COWI report (2009). 
For  example  see:  Dipper,  B.,  C.  Jones  and  C.  Wood  (1998)  Monitoring  and  Post-Auditing  in 
Environmental Impact Assessment: A Review. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 41 
(6),  November;  Arts  J  (1998)  EIA  Follow-up.  On  the  Role  of  Ex  Post  Evaluation  in  Environ-mental 
Impact  Assessment.  PhD  thesis,  Geo  Press,  Groningen;  Morrison-Saunders  A,  Baker  J  and  Arts  J 
(2003) Lessons from practice: towards successful follow-up. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 
volume 21, number 1, pages 43–56; Morrison-Saunders A and Arts J (2004) Exploring the Dimensions 
of  EIA  Follow-up.  Presented  at:  IAIA'04  Impact  Assessment  for  Industrial  Development  Whose 
Business Is It? (IA Follow-up stream), 24th annual meeting of the International Association for Impact 
Assessment, 24-30 April 2004, Vancouver, Canada. 
Knowledge gathered or lessons learnt through monitoring may be transferred into future developments, 
as illustrated by a case study in the UK (Marshall, R. (2005), Environmental impact assessment follow-
up and its benefits for industry. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 23 (3), pp.191-196). 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
integrated/joint procedure (EIA ‘one-stop shop’) is likely to have a positive impact on the 
environment, as it enables a more comprehensive information base for decision-making166. 

Based on the above qualitative description of environmental impacts, a comparative overview 
is presented in Table 8.  

Table 8: Summary of environmental benefits of the possible amendments 

Amendment 

Environmental benefits 
High 
High 

High 

Modification to Annex III criteria  
Mandatory assessment of reasonable alternatives 
Additional environmental issues (climate change, disaster risks, biodiversity, 
marine environment, resource use) 
Mandatory post-EIA monitoring 
Adaptation of Annexes I and II 
Mandatory scoping 
Quality control of the EIA information 
Justification of negative screening decisions 
Justification of final decisions 
Specific time-frame for public consultation 
Coordinated or integrated/joint procedure (EIA ‘one-stop shop’) 
Alternative procedure for Annex II projects  
Maximum time-frame for decision-making  
*Depending on the nature of changes performed (e.g. number and types of projects moved from Annex II to Annex I, new thresholds, new 
projects added to Annexes, etc.) and the Member States concerned (the effects will be limited for those Member States which have already 
imposed stricter criteria and have gone beyond the classification of the Directive and high for those Member States which have not gone 
beyond the classification of the Directive). 

High 
Limited to High*  
Moderate 
Moderate 
Limited 
Limited 
Limited 
Limited 
Zero 
Zero 

6.1.2.  Environmental impacts of the identified policy options  

Option 0+: as this option does not involve any change of the Directive, the impacts described 
above  are  not  relevant.  The  main  action  under  this  option  would  be  the  update  of  existing 
guidance  documents167  and  the  development  of  new  ones.  These  updates168  might  bring 
environmental benefits (better assessment by the public authorities or anticipation of an EIA 
requirement  by  developers).  However,  with  regard  to  screening  procedures,  the  benefits 
would  be  limited,  as  it  is  unlikely  that  the  competent  authorities  would  ignore  binding 
national  thresholds  and  rules  in  order  to  follow  the  Commission’s  guidance.  Hence,  the 
problems identified with regard to screening will probably remain. 

The  development  of  new  guidance  documents  on  specific  issues  (e.g.  climate  change  and 
biodiversity) or types of projects (e.g. energy) is likely to have environmental benefits, as the 
quality  of  EIA  reports  and  the  environmental  awareness  of  the  public  and  the  developers 
would be increased. However, the scale of such benefits is likely to be limited by the fact that 
such  documents  would  not  be  binding.  On  the  basis  of  the  experience  with  the  existing 
guidance,  including  in  other  fields  (e.g.  nature  protection),  it  is  unlikely  that  the 
environmental  benefits  would  be  significant.  In  addition,  even  if  the  situation  improves  in 
some  Member  States,  considerable  discrepancies  across  the  EU  would  most  likely  remain 

166  

167 
168  

This is the case in Austria, where all projects requiring a permit (such as those covered by the IED, the 
Habitats Directive or the water, waste and air legislation) undergo an integrated assessment procedure. 
For  instance  see  Sommer  Andreas,  Land  Salzburg,  One  Stop  Shop  –  Conclusions  from  the  Austrian 
experience with Consolidated Procedures and Integrative Assessment, Presentation for the Conference 
for the 25th Anniversary of the EIA Directive, Leuven, 18-19 November 2010.  
All existing guidance documents are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-support.htm. 
For  instance,  the  guidance  related  to  the  interpretation  of  the  project  categories  and  to  the  screening 
process. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
                                                 
leading  to  an  unequal  level  of  environmental  protection.  Consequently,  the  environmental 
benefits of the option 0+ would be negligible to limited. 

Option  1:  this  option  is  composed  of  five  amendments,  of  which  three  have  high  benefits 
(modification  of  Annex  III,  mandatory  assessment  of  reasonable  alternatives,  additional 
environmental issues), one has limited to high benefits (adaptation of Annexes I and II) and 
one has no benefits (alternative procedures for Annex II projects). This option will address all 
problems related to screening and some of the problems related to the quality of EIA reports. 
Based  on  the  above,  the  overall  magnitude  of  the  environmental  benefits  is  expected  to  be 
moderate. 

Option  2a:  this  option  includes  seven  amendments,  of  which  only  one  has  high  benefits 
(modification  of  Annex  III),  while  four  have  limited  benefits  (justification  of  the  screening 
and final decisions, specific time-frame for public consultation, EIA one-stop shop) and two 
have  no  benefits  (alternative  procedures  for  Annex  II  projects,  maximum  time-frame  for 
decision-making). This option will mostly address problems related to screening and some of 
the  problems  related  to  the  quality  of  the  EIA  report  and  process.  Based  on  the  above,  the 
magnitude of the environmental benefits is expected to be limited to moderate. 

Option  2b:  this  option  proposes  twelve  amendments,  of  which  four  have  high  benefits 
(modification  of  Annex  III,  mandatory  assessment  of  reasonable  alternatives,  additional 
environmental  issues,  mandatory  post-EIA  monitoring),  two  have  moderate  benefits 
(mandatory  scoping,  quality  control  of  the  EIA  information),  four  have  limited  benefits 
(justification of the screening decision and the final decision, specific time-frame for public 
consultation, EIA one-stop shop) and two have no benefits (alternative procedures for Annex 
II projects, maximum time-frame for decision-making). This option will address all problems 
related to screening and to the quality of the EIA report and process. Based on the above and 
the synergetic effects between the various amendments, the magnitude of the environmental 
benefits is expected to be significant. 

Option  2c:  this  option  includes  the  twelve  amendments  of  option  2b  and  the  adaptation  of 
Annexes I and II, which has limited to high benefits depending on the nature of changes made 
and the Member States concerned, as explained above. This option will address all problems 
related  to  screening  and  to  the  quality  of  the  EIA  report  and  process,  but  with  a  higher 
combined  environmental  effect  than  Option  2b  (due  to  possible  high  benefits  of  the 
adaptation  of  Annexes  I  and  II).  The  overall  magnitude  of  the  environmental  benefits  is 
therefore expected to be very high. 

6.1.3. 

Summary of environmental impacts of the policy options  

Based on the qualitative description presented above, a comparative overview of environment 
impacts associated with the different policy options is presented in Table 9. The magnitude of 
environmental benefits should be viewed as the level of influence a particular policy option 
would  have  on  specific  issues  (problems  and  objectives  identified)  and  as  a  function  of  the 
magnitude of the impacts of specific amendments, both individually and cumulatively.  

The  analysis  does  not  distinguish  between  short  term  and  long-term  impacts,  as  there  is  no 
reason why environmental impacts would differ significantly over time, once the amendments 
are in place. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
Table 9: Summary of environmental benefits of the policy options 

Policy 
options 

Option 0 

Option 0+  All 

Problems addressed (see above section 3.2) 

0 

Option 1 

Option 2a 

Option 2b  

- Projects with significant environmental impacts escape EIA 
- Projects without significant environmental impacts are subject to EIA 
- Insufficient consideration of impacts of project alternatives 
- EIAs do not cover new environmental topics 
- Overlaps/duplications with environmental assessments under other 
EU legislation 
- Projects with significant environmental impacts escape EIA 
- Projects without significant environmental impacts are subject to EIA 
- No justified decisions on screenings by authorities 
- No justified decisions on development consent by authorities 
- Inconsistencies between requirements of EIA Directive and other EU 
legislation and international conventions 
- Overlaps/duplications with environmental assessments under other 
EU legislation 
- Too short or too long public consultation 
- Excessive time for processing EIA dossiers by public authorities  
- Projects with significant environmental impacts escape EIA 
- Projects without significant environmental impacts are subject to 
EIAs 
- No justified decisions on screenings by authorities 
- Problems in the EIA quality and analysis 
- EIA reports do not focus on the most significant impacts 
- EIA reports with poor quality of environmental data and analysis 
- Insufficient consideration of impacts of project alternatives 
- No justified decisions on development consent by authorities 
- Gaps between predicted impacts in EIA reports and actual impacts 
- Inconsistencies between requirements of EIA Directive and other EU 
legislation and international conventions 
- EIAs do not cover new environmental topics 
- Inconsistencies within the EIA process itself and in relation to other 
legislation 
- Overlaps/duplications with environmental assessments under other 
EU legislation 
-Too short or too long public consultation 
- Excessive time for the processing of EIAs by public authorities 

Links with objectives* 

Specific 

Operational 

Magnitude of 
environmental 
benefits** 

0 

1, 2  

All 

0 

+ 

1, (2) 

1, 2, 3, (4)  

++ 

1, 2 

1, (2), 4, 5  

++ 

1, 2 

1, 2, (3), 4, 
5  

+++ 

Option 2c  All 
* Specific objectives: (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. Operational objectives: (1) Specify the content and justification of the screening 
decision; (2) Specify the content of the EIA report and of the final decision; (3) Adjust the Directive to the new environmental issues; (4) 
Streamline environmental assessments; (5) Specify time-frames for the various stages of the EIA process. The use of brackets implies that the 
objective is not fully addressed. 
** The magnitude of the impacts (costs/benefits) depends on the level of influence a particular policy option would have on specific issues 
(problems/objectives): no impact (0), small (-/+), moderate (--/++), significant (---/+++), very high (----/++++). 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5  

++++ 

1, 2 

6.2. 

Direct administrative costs 

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

This section assesses the administrative costs related to each amendment and then the changes 
between  the  baseline  scenario  and  the  different  policy  options.  Orders  of  magnitude  of  the 
estimates provided can be compared with costs for conducting EIAs in the baseline scenario, 
i.e.  146  to  215  million  €/year  for  public  authorities  and  558  to  846  million  €/year  for 
developers in 2010. 

The  type  and  size  of  projects  is  an  important  factor  determining  the  cost  of  the  EIA.  In 
addition, the baseline scenario identified considerable differences between Member States in 
the  way  they  have  transposed  and  apply  the  EIA.  These  factors  undoubtedly  lead  to 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
 
significant differences in administrative burden between Member States, even for comparable 
projects169.  Therefore,  quantification  of  administrative  burden  provides  orders  of  magnitude 
of the potential impacts of an amendment at EU level, which can be used to rank the impact of 
policy  options.  As  Member  States  have  transposed  the  EIA  in  different  ways,  some 
amendments analysed are already in place (partially or completely) in some of them; hence, 
for those Member States there will be no additional administrative burden. This is taken into 
account for each amendment when estimating the overall impact of amendments at EU level. 
Quantitative  estimates  provided  in  the  sections  below  correspond  to  long-term  costs  and 
benefits associated with the implementation of the amendments (i.e. not taking into account 
possible  one-off  costs  for  the  transposition  and  implementation  of  the  legislative  changes). 
Given  the  limited  data  available,  the  possible  evolution  of  impacts  over  time  has  only  been 
assessed in a qualitative manner, where relevant. Annex 13 describes the direct administrative 
costs of each amendment in detail. 

It is difficult to calculate the overall impact of the adaptation of Annexes I and II without 
specifying  in  detail  which  types  of  projects  would  be  concerned  and  what  new  thresholds 
would be imposed. However, on the basis of reasonable assumptions, an order of magnitude 
can  be  given.  A  shift  of  projects  from  Annex  II  to  Annex  I  would  decrease  the  number  of 
screenings carried out. Under the assumption that only the projects most likely to be subject to 
an EIA would be transferred to Annex I, the shift is not expected to significantly affect the 
number of EIAs. Hence, there would be a limited impact on the total cost for authorities and 
developers reported in the baseline scenario. On the other hand, additional thresholds or types 
of  projects  to  be  included  in  Annexes  I  and  II  would  increase  the  costs  for  authorities  and 
developers,  unless  Member  States  have  already  imposed  similar  thresholds  and  similar 
additional  project  categories.  If  10 %  of  the  projects  undergoing  a  screening  are  moved  to 
Annex I and are subject to an EIA, the costs for public authorities and developers would be 
quite high compared to the baseline (approximately 17-20 %)170; the costs can be very high if 
15-20 % of the projects undergoing a screening are subject to an EIA. The relative burden of 
costs of undertaking an EIA is likely to be proportionately higher for SMEs, as they are more 
vulnerable to a change in the scope of the Directive. 

A number of Member States have adopted alternative procedures for Annex II projects171. 
The impact of this procedure can only be calculated on a case-by-case basis per Member State 
and would also depend on what other changes are required, such as moving more Annex II 
projects to Annex I or modifying Annex III criteria. Based on the information available, only 
a  theoretical  estimate  of  potential  impacts  can  be  made;  according  to  a  conservative 
assumption172,  the  impact  would  be  in  the  order  of  €  3.8  million  annual  savings  for 

169  

170  

171 

172 

In  some  Member  States  differences  might  even  occur  between  regions.  These  differences  between 
regions and Member States are difficult to quantify due to the lack of necessary data. 
The  average  costs  of  processing  one  extra  EIA  is  in  the  order  of  €  11.000  for  the  authorities  and 
€ 41.000 for developers. If these figures are  multiplied by 10 % of the average number of screenings 
(2.740-3.380),  the  costs  would  be  for  €  30.140.000  to  €  37.180.000  for  public  authorities  and  € 
112.340.000 to € 138.580.000 for developers.  
For  example,  in  Austria,  approximately  half  the  projects  submitted  to  the  authorities  undergo  a 
‘simplified’ EIA procedure. The duration of such a simplified process is estimated to be 50 % of the 
duration of a normal procedure (Kammer für Angestellte und Arbeiter zu Wien (2008), Die UVP auf 
dem Prüfstand, Zur Entwicklung eines umkämpften Instruments). 
The  assumption  is  that,  at  EU  level,  50  %  of  Annex  II  projects  could  be  carried  out  with  20  %  less 
effort.  

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
                                                 
authorities and almost € 21.4 mill ion annual savings for developers173. This estimate takes 
into account the fact that some Member States already have such a procedure in place. Since 
projects  listed  in  Annex  II  are  of  a  small-scale,  such  procedures  would  be  particularly 
relevant  for  SMEs  and  for  the  sectors  mentioned  in  the  project  categories  listed  in 
Annex II of the Directive174.  

The  modification  of  the  screening  criteria  listed  in  Annex  III  is  expected  to  reduce  the 
time  spent  by  authorities  during  the  screening,  as  there  would  be  fewer  margins  for 
interpretation.  As  there  is  no  information  from  Member  States’  experience,  it  is  roughly 
assumed  that  screening  time  could  be  reduced  on  average  by  10  to  20 %  at  EU  level.  The 
associated annual savings for the authorities would be € 0.5 to 1.5 million 175. 

The  mandatory  assessment  of  reasonable  alternatives,  including  the  ‘zero-alternative’, 
would affect 14 Member States and only projects not already subject to similar requirements 
arising  from  other  EU  legislation  (e.g.  SEA,  Industrial  Emissions,  Habitats  and  Water 
Framework Directives)176. For developers, additional information will have to be provided at 
the scoping stage and additional scenarios (e.g. a ‘zero-option’ and ‘reasonable alternatives’ 
related to location, design or technology depending on the project) will have to be taken into 
account  when  preparing  the  EIA  report.  It  is  assumed  that  this  amendment  would  be 
implemented in conjunction with mandatory scoping option, since this would greatly facilitate 
its  implementation  and  reduce  costs.  For  the  public  authorities,  this  new  requirement  will 
increase the number of man-days required to be spent in the EIA process177, but it will reduce 
the  time  needed  to  answer  further  requests  and  issues  raised  during  the  public  consultation. 
No  information  through  other  sources  is  currently  readily  available  on  the  impact  of  this 
requirement  on  developers  and  on  public  authorities  (e.g.  as  regards  the  current 
implementation of this obligation for other EU Directives or from the Member States where it 
is already in place). However, according to a conservative estimate, it can be assumed that the 
costs for the extra work for consultants/developers would correspond to € 41.9 to 55.8 million 
per year. This cost may decrease in the long term, as developers and consultants gain more 
experience. It is also logical to assume that pursuing further the analysis of alternatives may 
provide for some cost reductions too (in case that an alternative with more benefits and less 
costs  is  identified),  but  it  is  difficult  to  quantify  them.  There  could  also  be  policy  gains,  as 
looking to alternatives may boost positively the uptake of new technologies and provide for 
innovation  and  research.  For  public  authorities,  it  could  be  assumed  that,  on  average,  5 % 
extra  time  would  have  to  be  spent  during  the  EIA  process,  corresponding  to  €  3.8  to  5.6 
million per year at EU level. 

173 

174  

175 

176 

177 

This estimate takes into account the fact that some Member States already have a simplified procedure 
in place.  
For instance extraction, energy, production and processing of metals, minerals, chemicals, food, rubber, 
textile, wood. 
Assuming a total screening cost (i.e. efforts to conduct positive and negative screenings) estimated at 
4.8-7.7 million €/year. 
Unfortunately  it  is  not  possible  to  calculate  the  percentage  of  projects  for  which  the  assessment  of 
alternatives is not required under the current state of implementation of the EIA Directive. 
In the case of projects which are part of larger plans or programmes subject to the SEA Directive, the 
incremental work would be minimal since reasonable alternatives would have already been assessed in 
the  context  of  the  SEA  process.  A  similar  conclusion  can  be  reached  for  projects  requiring  a  permit 
under the IED, as technological alternatives are likely to be assessed in this framework. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
                                                 
It is difficult to estimate the impact from the assessment of additional environmental issues, 
as  relevant  data  is  not  available  (e.g.  the  proportion  and  types178  of  projects  likely  to  have 
significant  impacts  on  each  of  the  additional  issues179).  Developers  will  need  to  assess  a 
broader  scope  of  impacts,  in  particular  as  regards  projects  with  significant  impacts  on 
greenhouse gases emissions, on biodiversity, on the marine environment and/or resource use, 
as  well  as  projects  with  high  vulnerability  to  a  changing  climate  or  to  other  man-made  or 
natural disasters. As there are no methodologies for assessing these impacts180, more time will 
be needed in the first years of implementation. For public authorities, there would also be a 
slight increase in the time needed during the scoping phase and the review of the EIA report, 
depending on the type of project and the number of authorities involved. Costs may be higher 
in Member States where the implementation of the EIA is highly decentralised. The overall 
additional costs of this amendment, at EU level, are likely to be moderate to high for public 
authorities and developers. 

The  justification  of  negative  screening  decisions  will  require  time  for  the  authorities  to 
formally write the reasons for their decision, but it will save time because there will be less 
queries  and  informal  discussions.  On  the  basis  of  the  information  available181,  the  annual 
cost  for  public  authorities  would  be  in  the  range  of  €  0.96  to  1.2  million 182.  The 
requirement to explain in the final decision how the opinions expressed during consultations 
and hearings were taken into account may result in a small increase in the time spent during 
the last stage of the EIA process. However, this would likely be offset by reduced time needed 
to justify any decisions that might be challenged by stakeholders later. Overall, it is unlikely 
that significant impacts on administrative burden will result.  

In  approximately  half  of  the  Member  States,  scoping  is  already  mandatory.  Based  on  the 
average  times  spent  on  the  scoping  step,  the  introduction  of  mandatory  scoping  in  all 
Member States is estimated to cost in the order of € 6.4 million per year for authorities and 
€ 14.8 per year for developers. On the other hand, scoping is generally seen as a useful way of 
reducing  the  costs  of  an  EIA  procedure183.  According  to  a  recent  survey  in  the  UK  (where 
scoping  is  not  mandatory),  the  majority  of  authorities  (67 %)  consider  that  scoping  yields 
beneficial effects on the quality of the EIA report subsequently submitted184. The experience 
in  Hungary185  shows  that  ignoring  scoping  can  lead  to  EIA  reports  containing  a  lot  of 
unnecessary or unimportant information. In France, it is noticed that some project developers 
produce  extensive  EIA  reports  on  some  topics  (e.g.  air  pollution)  which  would  not  have 

178 

179 

180 
181 

182 

183 
184 

185 

For example, the need to further describe impacts due to indirect greenhouse gas emissions or impacts 
from a changing climate is likely to concern the majority of projects, while the need to describe impacts 
on the marine environment would only concern a small number of projects. 
Most  projects  will  require  further  assessment  only  in  relation  to  one  or  two  additional  environmental 
topics (i.e. only the ones corresponding to significant effects) and very few projects will be concerned 
by all the additional environmental topics. 
Except for the direct impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and the inventory of fauna and flora species. 
This  amendment  has  been  subject  to  an  impact  assessment  in  the  UK  (UK  Communities  and  local 
government  (2011),  The  Town  and  Country  Planning  (EIA),  Regulations  2010,  Consultation  on  draft 
regulations). The impact assessment concluded that the average net effect of this change is an increase 
in screening time equivalent to one working hour per negative screening decision.  
For 24.660 to 32.110 negative screening decisions per year. Hourly rates for public authorities are taken 
from the EU Standard Cost Model. 
IVM, BIO, IEEP, IEP and Ecologic (2007), Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive. 
UK Communities and Local Government (2006), Evidence review of scoping in environmental impact 
assessment, EIA Centre, University of Manchester, DCLG, London. 
Radnai  and  Mondok  (2000),  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  Implementation  in  Hungary,  in: 
Bellinger, E., et al. (eds.)¸ Environmental Assessment in Countries in Transition. CEU Press, (p.57-62). 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
                                                 
necessarily  been  the  case  if  scoping  had  been  done  correctly186.  This  extra  time  needed  for 
authorities  to  undertake  mandatory  scoping  is  therefore  expected  to  be  largely  offset  by  the 
fact  that  EIA  reports  would  be  of  better  quality  and  more  focused.  Thus,  authorities  would 
spend less time requesting further information to developers, reviewing lengthy EIA reports 
and asking for successive modifications of these reports. For developers, the extra cost is also 
likely to be offset by time savings during the drafting of the EIA, as the analysis of irrelevant 
information would be avoided. It was previously estimated that, when an EIA report needs to 
be revised by the developer, the revision step can represent up to one third of the total EIA 
cost for the developer. Given the above, overall, this option is likely to have zero net impact 
on administrative burden for authorities and developers. 

As regards the mechanisms for ensuring quality control of the EIA information, it was not 
possible  to  quantify  the  costs  for  the  creation  of  a  ‘quality  control’  committee  at  national 
level. However, it is considered as a costly variant for public authorities, especially if a new 
body  has  to  be  created.  The  use  of  accredited  consultants  seems  to  be  the  easiest  way  to 
address  quality  issues.  This  mechanism  is  already  in  place  in  17  Member  States.  For  those 
Member  States  that  do  not  have  any  of  the  above  requirements,  this  amendment  would 
generate some costs for the authorities that would have to organise the accreditation process 
and enforce the requirements187. However, the extra cost for authorities is likely to be offset 
by an improved quality of EIA reports, leading to less time being spent at requesting further 
information from developers and at reviewing revised versions of EIA reports. It is therefore 
assumed  that  there  would  be  no  net  impact  for  public  authorities.  For  consultants,  this 
amendment would involve costs for obtaining and maintaining accreditation. According to the 
estimates, the average cost (for consultants in those Member States that do not yet have any 
requirement in place) equals  approximately €  2  to  3  million  per  year 188. It  is assumed  that 
half of this cost would be passed on to developers and business. For developers, the cost of 
preparing  an  EIA  report  might  increase  due  to  the  fact  that  accredited  consultants  may  be 
more  expensive  to  hire  than  using  internal  resources.  However,  only  a  small  share  of 
developers currently has dedicated staff working on EIAs (usually large companies or public 
entities). 

The administrative burden related to mandatory post-EIA monitoring would affect projects 
not already subject to similar requirements arising from other EU or national legislation (e.g. 
IED,  WFD,  Habitats  Directive),  from  EU  or  national  guidance  (e.g.  guidance  on  the 
assessment  of  projects  with  impacts  on  biodiversity),  from  voluntary  initiatives  (e.g.  ISO 
14001 or EMAS) or as a mitigation measure proposed by the EIA reports. No data could be 
found on the share of projects which are subject to environmental monitoring on the basis of 
the above. In addition, no quantitative information is available on the costs of existing post-
EIA monitoring activities. The efforts required are likely to vary from one project to another. 
The type and number of environmental parameters to monitor and the monitoring frequency 
would be defined by the authorities on a case-by-case basis. Developers would need time to 
conduct  monitoring  activities  in  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  the  authorities’  final 

186 

187 

188 

BIO Intelligence Service (2006), Cost and benefits of the implementation of the EIA directive in France 
(Appendix IIB to the IVM report of 2007 on Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive). 
Costs  for  the  authorities  in  a  decentralised  state  are  higher  than  in  a  centralised  state  (see  Nationales 
Zentrum  für  Bürokratiekostenabbau  (2010),  Expert  Opinion  on  the  Assessment  of  Administrative 
Burdens  arising  in  connection  with  the  draft  Soil  Protection  Directive  (COM(2006)232),  and  taking 
account of the proposed compromise of the Czech Presidency submitted on 5 June 2009). 
The cost per hour in each of the concerned Member States is taken from the EU Standard Cost Model, 
for Category 1 staff. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
                                                 
decision189. In the absence of data from Member State’s experience and given the wide range 
of  monitoring  procedures  that  could  be  established,  only  theoretical  estimates  can  be  made. 
According to a conservative estimation, monitoring would create additional burden in 50 % of 
projects  subject  to  EIA.  In  order  to  obtain  an  order  of  magnitude  of  possible  costs,  the 
following assumptions are made: additional monitoring would be required on an annual basis 
during 3 or 6 years following the development of the project; this requirement would apply to 
50 % of projects being developed each year and the time requirements would be 5 to 10 man-
days  of  environmental  expert  covering  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  1  or  2  key 
environmental  parameters  per  project  per year. Based  on these  assumptions, the cost  of this 
amendment  is  estimated  at  a  total  of  €  22.8  to  45.7  million  per  year   for  developers190, 
however it would be incurred by different developers each year since monitoring would only 
be  conducted  annually  during  the  first  3  years  of  the  project191.  For  each  new  project,  the 
average  cost  of  this  option  would  amount  to  1.100  to  2.200  €/year   across  the  EU.  This 
represents a total of € 3.300 to 6.600 per new project for a 3 year monitoring period192 (or € 
6.600 to 13.200 per new project for a 6 year monitoring period). The above estimates could be 
lower if monitoring focuses only on projects where significant negative effects are predicted, 
if one considers the number of projects already subject to environmental monitoring193, or if 
requirements are set to account for less frequent monitoring effort. Public authorities would 
need  additional  time  to  enforce  monitoring  requirements  (e.g.  via  random  inspections  and 
evaluation of monitoring results). In the absence of quantitative data based on Member State 
experience,  only  a  theoretical  estimate  can  be  made.  It  is  assumed  that  authorities  would 
inspect  each  year  10 %  of  projects  having  received  a  development  consent  in  the  previous 
year and would spend 1 to 2 man-days for each inspection, which leads to an additional cost 
in the order of € 0.46 to 0.92 million per year 194. 

Changes  related  to  time-frames  (for  public  consultation  and  for  decision-making)  will 
influence the duration of the EIA, but will not have a zero impact on administrative burden195. 

Case studies show that better coordination or integration of different types of assessment 
and permits (‘EIA one-stop shop’)196 can result in economic benefits. For public authorities, 
a  reorganisation  of  the  administration  in  some  Member  States  may  be  required  and,  in  the 
short term, this may be costly. However, as this measure will avoid duplication of efforts at 
the  various  stages  of  the  EIA  process,  it  is  expected  to  reduce  administrative  burden  in  the 

189 

190 

191 
192 
193  
194 

195  

196 

The  identification  of  relevant  monitoring  measures  to  be  proposed  in  the  EIA  report  is  considered  as 
negligible compared to the overall time needed to prepare an EIA report. 
Cost  calculated  for  2010,  covering  25  MS  (it  is  considered  that  NL  and  FR  already  have  similar 
requirements  in  place).  The  calculation  takes  into  account  the  average  number  of  EIAs  per  Member 
State and the average cost per hour in each Member State given by the EU Standard Cost Model (staff 
category 1). It is assumed that the cost of monitoring equipment is included in the hourly rates used in 
the calculation. 
For a 6-year period, it would be € 45.6 to 91.4 million per year. 
Between 8 % and 16 % of the average cost of an EIA. 
If this requirement would apply to 25 % of projects, the annual cost would be € 11.4 to 22.8 million. 
The calculation takes into account the average number of EIAs per Member State and the average cost 
per hour in each Member State given by the EU Standard Cost Model (staff category 1). 
The time-frame for public consultation does not entail any direct costs for the developers or the public 
authorities; the time-frames for decision-making will be based on EU averages and will even provide 
incentives to public authorities to consolidate internal processes. 
Austria  has  introduced  an  integrated  one-stop  shop  approach,  which  combines  the  assessment  and 
permit requirements of the EIA, the IED, the Habitats Directive and the national legislation on water, 
air and waste licensing, etc. The SEA Directive is not part of this process, as SEAs are seen to be part of 
the responsibility of planning authorities, not permitting ones.  

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
                                                 
medium/longer  term.  A  formalised  coordinated  or  joint  procedure  for  environmental 
assessments reduces the administrative burden for developers compared to an approach where 
the  assessment  and  permitting  responsibilities  are  allocated  to  several  separate  entities  (e.g. 
reduced  environmental  assessment  costs  as  a  single  assessment  report  would  be  prepared). 
Cost savings will be particularly significant in Member States where such procedures are not 
yet in place and for certain types of projects, e.g. projects related to industrial activities (i.e. 
also  subject  to  the  IED)  and  projects  with  significant  impacts  on  biodiversity  (e.g. 
infrastructure projects197; quarries and mines; projects related to agriculture, silviculture and 
aquaculture;  tourism  and  leisure  projects).  In  order  to  assess  the  potential  cost  savings  for 
public  authorities  and  developers,  it  would  be  necessary  to  have  an  estimate  of  the 
percentage  of  projects  for  which  there  are  overlapping  information  requirements198.  In  the 
absence of such data, it is difficult to quantify the economic impacts of this amendment in a 
more concrete manner. 

Table 10: Summary of direct administrative costs/savings of the possible amendments 

Amendment 

Coordinated or integrated/joint procedure (EIA ‘one stop shop’) 
Alternative procedure for Annex II projects  

Modification of Annex III criteria  

Justification of final decision 
Mandatory scoping 
Specific time-frame for public consultation 
Maximum time-frame for decision-making 
Justification of negative screening decisions 

Quality control of the EIA information 
Mandatory assessment of reasonable alternatives 

Mandatory post-EIA monitoring 

Net impact for public 
authorities  
Moderate savings 
Limited savings 
(€ 3.8 million) 
Negligible savings  
(€ 0.5 to 1.5 million ) 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
Negligible costs  
(€ 0.96 to 1.2 million) 
/ 
Limited costs 
(€ 3.8 to 5.6 million)* 

/ 

Net impact for developers 

Moderate savings 
Limited savings  
(€ 21.4 million) 

/ 

/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 

/ 

/ 
Moderate costs 
(€ 41.9 to 55.8 million)* 
Moderate costs 
(€ 22.8 to 45.7 million)* 

Additional environmental issues (climate change, disaster risks, 
biodiversity, marine environment, resource use) 
Adaptation of Annexes I and II 

Moderate  to high costs 

Moderate to high costs  

High costs**  
(€ 30.1 to 37.2 million) 

High costs**  
(€ 112.3 to 138.5 million) 

/ : Zero or negligible costs/savings, i.e. +/- 0-1 % with regard to baseline scenario 
Limited costs/savings: +/- 1-5 % with regard to baseline scenario 
Moderate costs/savings: +/- 5-10 % with regard to baseline scenario 
High costs/savings: +/- 10-25 % with regard to baseline scenario 
Very high costs/savings: > +/- 25 % with regard to baseline scenario 
*These estimates correspond to the assumptions that would lead to the highest costs (i.e. it is assumed that monitoring would apply with no 
exemptions to 50 % of projects and/or that the assessment of alternatives would require 15-20 % extra work). It can be reasonably expected 
that actual costs would be lower (e.g. monitoring could be needed for less projects, due to selection criteria or sampling, while the assessment 
of alternatives could require less work than the effort assumed, as this often is the experience from other EU legal requirements). Therefore, 
these are upper limit estimates of costs, not central estimates. 
**These estimates are based on the conservative assumption that 10 % of the projects undergoing a screening are moved to Annex I and are 
subject to an EIA; the costs can be very high, if 15-20 % of the projects undergoing a screening are subject to an EIA.  

Based  on  the  above  description  of  direct  administrative  costs  and  savings  of  the  various 
amendments, a comparative overview is presented in Table 10.  

197 

198 

According  to  GHK  study  (2010),  in  Cohesion  Member  States  most  projects  are  infrastructure  related 
projects (up to 80 % in Greece), whereas in old Member States this is not always the case (only 20 % in 
France). 
Mainly between the EIA Directive and other EU legislation, in particular the SEA Directive, the IED, 
the Habitats/Birds Directives. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
                                                 
6.2.2.  Direct administrative costs of the policy options 

Option 0+: as this option does not involve any regulatory change, no additional administrative 
burden  is  expected,  compared  to  the  baseline  scenario.  The  costs  related  to  the  preparation 
and implementation of guidance documents by the Commission and the public authorities are 
not expected to be significant. 

Option 1: of the five amendments under the option, two will result in negligible (modification 
of  Annex  III)  or  limited  (alternative  procedures  for  Annex  II  projects)  savings,  one  has 
moderate  costs  (mandatory  assessment  of  reasonable  alternatives),  and  two  have  high  costs 
(additional environmental issues and adaptation of Annexes I and II). In total, option 1 leads 
to  an  additional  annual  cost  of  €  34.9  to  44  million  for  authorities  and  of  € 155.2  to  195.8 
million  for  developers  (plus  moderate-to-high  costs  related  to  the  additional  environmental 
issues). The annual savings would be in the order of € 4.3 to 5.3 million for authorities and 
€ 21.4 million for developers. 

Option  2a:  of  the  seven  amendments  included  in  this  option,  four  have  zero  or  negligible 
costs  (justification  of  the  screening  decision  and  the  final  decision,  specific  time-frame  for 
public consultation, maximum time-frame for decision-making), two will result in negligible 
or  limited  savings  (modification  of  Annex  III,  alternative  procedures  for  Annex  II  projects) 
and  one  will  lead  to  moderate  savings  (EIA  ‘one-stop  shop’).  In  total,  option  2a  will  have 
negligible annual costs for authorities (€ 0.96 to 1.2 million) and will lead to annual savings in 
the  order  of  € 4.3  to  5.3  million  for  authorities  and  € 21.4  million  for  developers  (plus 
moderate savings from the EIA one-stop shop). 

Table 11: Costs and savings for public authorities and developers per policy option 

Policy 
options 

Option 0  
Option 0+  

Option 1  

Public authorities 

Developers 

Costs  

Savings 

Costs  

Savings 

- 
0  
€ 34.9 to 44 million* 
+ 
moderate to high costs 
related to the addition of 
environmental issues 

- 
0 

€ 4.3 to 5.3 million  

- 
0 
€ 155.2 to 195.8 million*  
+ 
moderate to high costs 
related to the addition of 
environmental issues 

- 
0 

€ 21.4 million  

Option 2a   

€ 0.96 to 1.2 million 

0 

Option 2b  

Option 2c  

€ 4.8 to 6.8 million 
+ 
moderate to high costs 
related to the addition of 
environmental issues 
€ 34.9 to 44 million* 
+ 
moderate to high costs 
related to the addition of 
environmental issues 

€ 4.3 to 5.3 million 
+  
moderate savings 
from the ‘EIA one-
stop shop’ 

€ 65.7 to 103 million 
+ 
moderate to high costs 
related to the addition of 
environmental issues 
€ 178 to 241.5 million* 
+ 
moderate to high costs 
related to the addition of 
environmental issues 

€ 21.4 million  
+  
moderate savings 
from the ‘EIA 
one-stop shop’ 

0 : Zero or negligible costs/savings, i.e. +/- 0-1 % with regard to baseline scenario 
Limited costs/savings: +/- 1-5 % with regard to baseline scenario 
Moderate costs/savings: +/- 5-10 % with regard to baseline scenario 
High costs/savings: +/- 10-25 % with regard to baseline scenario 
Very high costs/savings: > +/- 25 % with regard to baseline scenario 
* These estimates are based on the assumption that 10 % of the projects undergoing a screening are moved to Annex I 
and are subject to an EIA; the costs can be very high, if 15-20 % of the projects screened are subject to an EIA. 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
 
 
Option 2b: of the twelve amendments included in this option, six have zero or negligible costs 
(justification of the screening decision and the final decision, specific time-frame for public 
consultation,  maximum  time-frame  for  decision-making,  mandatory  scoping,  quality  control 
of  the  EIA  information),  two  will  result  in  negligible  or  limited  savings  (modification  of 
Annex  III,  alternative  procedures  for  Annex  II  projects),  one  will  lead  to  moderate  savings 
(EIA  one-stop  shop),  two  have  moderate  costs  (mandatory  assessment  of  reasonable 
alternatives, mandatory post-EIA monitoring), and one has moderate to high costs (additional 
environmental issues). In total, option 2b will lead to annual savings in the order of € 4.3 to 
5.3 million for authorities and € 21.4 million for developers (plus moderate savings from the 
EIA one-stop shop). The additional annual costs would be in the order of € 4.8 to 6.8 million 
for authorities and € 65.7 to 103 million for developers (moderate-to-high costs related to the 
additional environmental issues should be added to both estimates). 

Option 2c: this option will have the same savings as option 2b. However, its costs will include 
the additional high costs of adapting Annexes I and II and amount to approximately € 34.9 to 
44 million for authorities and € 178 to 241.5 million for developers (moderate-to-high costs 
related to the additional environmental issues should be added to both estimates).  

Table 11 presents a comparative overview of the direct administrative costs and savings of the 
various policy options with regard to the baseline scenario199. 

6.3.  Wider socio-economic impacts 

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

The wider economic and social impacts described in this section correspond to indirect, long-
term  impacts  of  the  amendments.  As  some  of  the  wider  socio-economic  impacts  are  very 
similar  for  all  amendments,  they  are  described  in  a  first  section  (functioning  of  the  internal 
market  and  competition;  competitiveness  and  trade;  better  integration  of  environmental 
aspects; public health and safety). Other types of impacts, which may differ significantly from 
one amendment to the other, are described separately in the remainder of this chapter. Annex 
14 describes the wider socio-economic impacts in detail. 

6.3.1.1.  Wider socio-economic impacts common to most of the amendments  

Functioning of the internal market and competition: all the amendments analysed aim to 
set higher minimum standards for different stages of the EIA process and thus contribute to an 
increased  degree  of  harmonisation  of  the  EIA  practices  between  Member  States;  this  is  the 
case  in  particular  for  the  amendments  related  to  the  screening  procedure  (alternative 
procedure  for  Annex  II  projects,  modification  of  Annex  III  criteria  and  justification  of 
negative  screening  decisions),  the  justification  of  final  decisions,  the  introduction  of  time-
frames  and  the  mandatory  scoping  and  assessment  of  alternatives.  Increasing  harmonisation 
between  Member  States  contributes  to  improving  the  functioning  and  efficiency  of  the 
internal market, as developers and business in general benefit from a more level playing field 
and less distorted market conditions. For example, the differences in the overall duration of 
EIAs across the Member States can provide an indication of the discrepancies in terms of the 

199 

The levels of costs and benefits (zero, negligible, limited, moderate, high, very high) correspond to the 
estimated  order  of  magnitude  of  costs  or  savings  with  regard  to  the  costs  for  conducting  EIAs  in  the 
baseline scenario, i.e. 146 to 215 million €/year for public authorities and 558 to 846 million €/year for 
developers in 2010. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
                                                 
EIA procedures, the level of requirements imposed by national authorities to developers and 
the  ability  of  developers  to  submit  sufficiently  completed  EIA  reports200.  Developers  and 
business involved in transboundary projects (e.g. energy and transport) would be the first to 
benefit from a harmonisation of EIA requirements and practices within the EU; benefits are 
also expected for business related to the sectors mentioned in the project categories listed in 
Annex II of the Directive201.  

The  magnitude  of  the  benefits  from  the  increased  degree  of  harmonisation  depends  on  the 
specific  changes  that  will  be  made.  For  those  Member  States  that  have  already  put  these 
amendments in  place  voluntarily, the benefits would be moderate, while for those that  have 
not done so the benefits would be higher. The overall effect of the benefits is expected to be 
moderate.  

Competitiveness, trade and investment flows: the present revision is not relevant for all the 
above  aspects  of  competitiveness;  it  refers  mostly  to  effective  market  competition.  At  least 
eight  amendments202  would  clarify  the  administrative  requirements,  provide  a  more  certain 
regulatory environment and improve the overall economic and business environment. Hence, 
they are likely to have direct moderate competitiveness gains for developers and business, by 
reducing uncertainties and delays, and by avoiding lost business opportunities and any costs 
related to delays203. To some extent, this would also be the case for the amendments related to 
the  assessment  of  alternatives  and  the  quality  control  mechanism,  especially  if  they  are 
combined  with  other  amendments,  such  as  mandatory  scoping.  SMEs  and  the  sectors 
mentioned  in  the  project  categories  listed  in  Annex  II  of  the  Directive  will  very  likely 
benefit more from the above changes, in particular from the alternative screening process. As 
mentioned  in  the  baseline  scenario,  delays  caused  by  lengthy  EIA  processes  are  one  of  the 
main  issues  raised  by  developers204.  A  more  certain  regulatory  environment  and  clear  time-
frames for certain steps of the EIA process are beneficial to attract private investment. 

Avoiding new  costs: 9 of the 13 amendments will have no additional administrative cost 
(or  will  even  generate  savings).  Two  amendments  (assessment  of  alternatives,  monitoring) 
will  have  moderate  costs  (i.e.  5-10 %  with  regard  to  the  baseline)  and  two  amendments 
(additional environmental issues, adaptation of Annexes I and II) will have high costs (i.e. 10-
25 %  with  regard  to  the  baseline).  However,  the  EIA  costs  only  represent  1 %  of  the  total 
costs of projects (on average), i.e. a relatively modest part of total development costs205. On 
the  basis  of  the  above,  even  the  most  costly  amendments  are  not  likely  to  affect  the 
competitiveness of EU developers significantly. 

200  

201  

202  

203  

204  

205  

The average duration of the EIA process is approximately 11 months, ranging from 5 months (Slovenia, 
Estonia)  to  27  months  (Spain),  with  a  standard  deviation  of  more  than  6  months  (see  GHK  (2010), 
Collection of information and data to support the IA study of the review of the EIA Directive). 
For instance extraction, energy, production and processing of metals, minerals, chemicals, food, rubber, 
textile, wood. 
Alternative procedure for Annex II projects, modification of Annex III, justification of (screening and 
final) decisions, introduction of time-frames, mandatory scoping, EIA one-stop shop. 
For  instance,  mandatory  scoping  would  make  the  content  of  the  EIA  report  clearer  and  would  help 
planning.  
During  the  public  consultation  on  the  review  of  the  EIA  Directive,  about  22  %  of  respondents  (all 
categories) found that the EIA ‘always’ causes considerable delays in the approval of projects and about 
25 % found that it ‘sometimes’ causes considerable delays. 
Costs  range  from  0.01  %  to  2.37  %  in  some  exceptional  cases  (see  GHK  (2010),  Collection  of 
information and data to support the IA study of the review of the EIA Directive). 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Avoided risk of environmental damages  and cost savings  through better integration of 
environmental  aspects:  11  of  the  13  amendments  analysed  are  expected  to  bring 
environmental benefits, as described in Section 6.1. These environmental benefits also lead to 
benefits, in terms of avoided risk of environmental damages and cost savings through better 
integration of environmental aspects. Benefits would be high for five amendments (adaptation 
of  Annexes  I  and  II,  modification  of  Annex  III  criteria,  additional  environmental  issues, 
assessment  of  reasonable  alternatives;  mandatory  monitoring).  For  instance,  in  the  case  of 
climate  change  and  disaster  risks  to  projects,  it  has  been  demonstrated  that  the  avoided 
damage  costs  to  population,  materials  assets,  the  economy  and  the  environment  largely 
outweigh the costs of adequately assessing and preventing such risks206.  

Public  health  and  safety  and  quality  of  life:  For  8  of  the  13  amendments207,  moderate  or 
high benefits are expected in terms of public health and safety and quality of life, for similar 
reasons  as  those  described  in  section  6.1.  The  avoided  adverse  impacts  on  public  health, 
safety and quality of life are potentially significant for infrastructure projects, especially in the 
transport sector, which generate important amounts of local air pollutants and are a source of 
other negative externalities (noise, congestion, etc.)208. 

Costs related to delays and legal disputes: The measures aiming at improving the quality of 
the  EIA  process  (e.g.  use  of  accredited  consultants,  assessment  of  alternatives,  monitoring) 
can  reduce  the  number  of  disputes  on  the  quality  of  the  EIA  information.  For  instance,  the 
assessment  of  alternatives  and  the  monitoring  of  significant  negative  effects  help  building 
social acceptance for projects. The improvement of the EIA information will reduce the risks 
of reports that are rejected by public authorities or the public and have to be revised by the 
developers. As demonstrated in section 3.1.3, the costs of revising and resubmitting the EIA 
report can represent up to one third of the total EIA cost for the developer and approximately 
17  % of the total costs, on average. This will be translated into reduced costs related to delays 
and legal disputes both for developers and public authorities. Such costs can seriously affect 
SMEs,  which  are  more  vulnerable  due  to  their  limited  financial  capacity;  hence,  SMEs  will 
very likely benefit more from such reduced costs. Timely completion of EIA procedures will 
have  positive  impacts  on  climate  change,  as  projects  necessary  to  produce  and  integrate 
renewable energies may be implemented in line with the EU’s 2020 targets209. 

Governance:  All  amendments  which  improve  the  quality  of  the  EIA  process  will  provide 
greater  impartiality,  transparency  and  legitimacy  to  the  decision-making  process210. 
Consequently, they will have moderate or high211 benefits for the civil society.  

206  

207  

208  

209  

210  

Draft  estimates  for  inland  flooding  from  the  ClimateCost  project  (http://www.climatecost.cc)  suggest 
the following: the EU costs of inaction would be 20 billion per year by 2020 and 46 billion by 2050; the 
EU costs of adaptation would be 2.4 billion per year by 2020 and 5.7 billion per year by 2050; the EU 
avoided costs (benefits) would be 8 billion per year by 2020 and 20 billion per year by 2050. 
High  benefits  are  expected  from:  additional  environmental  issues;  assessment  of  reasonable 
alternatives;  mandatory  monitoring.  Moderate  benefits  are  expected  from:  modification  of  Annex  III; 
mandatory scoping; quality control of EIA information. The adaptation of Annexes I and II may have 
limited to high benefits, depending on the projects and Member States concerned.  
For instance, assessment of reasonable alternatives and mandatory monitoring will contribute avoiding 
adverse impacts on public health, safety and quality of life from infrastructure projects. 
In October 2011, the Commission proposed measures to simplify permitting procedures in the context 
of the Trans-European Energy Networks (TEN-E). 
For  instance,  see  Jan  De  Mulder,  EIA  quality  issues  in  a  broader  decision  making  perspective, 
Presentation  for  the  Conference  for  the  25th  Anniversary  of  the  EIA  Directive,  Leuven,  18-19 
November 2010. 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Job creation: The additional workload resulting from the new requirements to be addressed 
in  the  EIA  process  (mainly:  assessment  of  alternatives,  mandatory  monitoring,  new 
environmental  issues,  adaptation  of  Annexes  I  and  II)  may  lead  to  job  creations  within 
environmental consulting companies, as there will be an increased need for various relevant 
experts. The introduction of monitoring would probably also increase the overall workload of 
public  authorities.  However,  there  is  insufficient  data  to  estimate  the  magnitude  of  possible 
impacts on employment. The overall impact on employment would probably remain limited 
but positive.  

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

The  adaptation  of  Annexes  I  and  II  and  the  modification  of  the  screening  criteria  of 
Annex III would reduce the amount of legal disputes as more certainty would be provided. 
Given that screening is the most common cause for litigation, moderate benefits are expected 
regarding the costs related to legal disputes.  

The introduction of an alternative procedure for Annex II projects would be particularly 
relevant  for  SMEs,  which  are  more  affected  from  the  administrative  compliance  costs 
inherent to a requirement for an EIA. Annex II of the EIA Directive, which mainly refers to 
small-scale activities and projects, is the most relevant for SMEs. The aim of the alternative 
procedure  would  be  to  avoiding  unnecessary  EIAs  for  projects  with  low  environmental 
impacts.  

The  requirements  for  assessing  reasonable  alternatives212  and  additional  environmental 
issues213 entail innovation gains (and indirectly support to competitiveness). 

The justification of negative screening and of the final decisions would reduce the risk of 
misinterpretation that often leads to legal disputes. Hence, financial and time costs associated 
with  legal  disputes  would  be  reduced,  for  all  stakeholders.  In  addition,  such  measures  will 
bring greater transparency helping developers to gain a better understanding of EIAs; this may 
reduce  EIA  costs  for  developers  in  the  long-term214.  Finally,  the  above  amendments  would 
have a strong positive effect on governance and public participation.  

Mandatory scoping is likely to reduce the overall duration of EIA processes, by avoiding 
additional requests for information by the authorities, when the  EIA report  is incomplete or 
after  the  public  consultation215.  Mandatory  scoping  may  also  contribute  to  reducing 
unexpected delays. In addition, mandatory scoping would contribute to reducing the number 
of  legal  disputes,  as  there  would  be  more  clarity  at  the  beginning  of  the  process  about  the 
information  requested  and  the  methodologies  to  be  employed.  There  are  also  synergetic 

211  
212  

213  

214  

215 

High benefits are expected from the justification of the screening and final decisions. 
The  examination  of  alternatives,  e.g.  related  to  the  technology  or  location  of  a  project,  will  affect 
positively the uptake of new technologies and promotion of innovation and research. 
The  assessment  of  new  environmental  issues  is  likely  to  identify  measures  for  a  more  cost-efficient 
project design and thus contribute to innovation. 
The  reduction  in  average  EIA  costs  for  developers is  due  to  a  reduction  in  time  spent  in  queries  and 
information requests, and a better understanding of the EIA requirements. This is the conclusion of the 
impact assessment carried out in England for the introduction of a similar amendment.  
The  positive  and  significant  role  of  mandatory  scoping  on  reducing  the  duration  of  EIA  processes  is 
also  highlighted  in  a  recent  study  on  EU  permitting  procedures  (Roland  Berger  Strategy  Consultants 
(2011),  Permitting  procedures  for  energy  infrastructure  projects  in  the  EU:  evaluation  and  legal 
recommendations). 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
effects  from  the  combined  implementation  of  scoping  with  the  requirements  for  assessing 
reasonable alternatives and additional environmental issues216. All the above is particularly 
relevant for competitiveness and for SMEs. Finally, mandatory scoping would favour good 
administration and transparency in the EIA process. Overall, the benefits will be moderate, as 
the amendment is already in place in half of the Member States. 

The  use  of  accredited  consultants  to  ensure  quality  control  of  the  EIA  information  will 
generate  a  loss  of  revenues  for  consultancies  which  will  not  fulfil  the  accreditation  criteria 
(e.g. technical capabilities, years of experience, EIA track record) and an increase in revenues 
for those consultancies having obtained the accreditation. The involvement of national quality 
control  committees  may  introduce  an  additional  step  in  the  EIA  procedure,  with  a  risk  of 
additional  delays.  However,  as  this  measure  would  also  provide  greater  impartiality  and 
transparency to the decision-making process, this risk of delays would be offset by a reduced 
occurrence of conflicts between public authorities, developers and/or other stakeholders. 

Table 12: Summary of wider socio-economic benefits per amendment 

Wider economic benefits 

Possible 
amendments 

Internal 
market 

Competit
iveness 

Adaptation of Annexes 
I and II 

Moderate 

Limited 

Avoided 
damages and 
wastage, risk 
prevention 

Limited to 
high 

Decrease 
in costs 
on legal 
disputes 

Moderate 

Moderate  Moderate 

/ 

/ 

Moderate  Moderate 

High 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Limited 

Limited 

Limited 

Decrease 
in costs 
on delays 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

Wider social benefits 
Health, 
safety, 
quality of 
life 

Jobs 
creation 

Governance 

/ 

/ 

/ 

Moderate 
to high 

/ 

High 

High 

Limited 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

Moderate  Moderate  Moderate 

Moderate  Moderate  Moderate 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Limited 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Limited 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Limited 

Moderate 

Limited 

High 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Limited 

Limited 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Limited 

High 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Limited 

High 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

Limited 

High 

Limited 

High 

Moderate 

/ 

/ 

/ 

High 

Limited 

High 

Limited 

Moderate  Moderate 

Limited 

Moderate  Moderate  Moderate 

Limited 

Moderate  Moderate 

/ 

Moderate  Moderate 

Limited 

/ 

/ 

High 

Moderate 

/ 

High 

Limited 

Limited 

/ 

/ 

/ 

Alternative procedure 
for Annex II projects  
Modification of Annex 
III criteria  
Justification of 
negative screening 
decisions 
Mandatory scoping 

Quality control of the 
EIA information 
Mandatory assessment 
of reasonable 
alternatives 
Justification of final 
decisions 
Mandatory post-EIA 
monitoring 
Additional 
environmental issues 
Specific time-frame for 
public consultation 
Maximum time-frame 
for decision-making 
Coordinated or 
integrated/joint 
procedure (EIA ‘one-
stop shop’) 

216  

The  identification  of  reasonable  alternatives  and  of  the  environmental  issues  requiring  detailed 
assessment at the scoping stage is likely to avoid requests for additional information at a later stage or a 
modification or resubmission of the EIA report following the phase of consultations. 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
/: zero or negligible impact  

The introduction of time-frames (for public consultation and decision-making) would reduce 
the  costs  related  to  delays,  facilitate  investments  by  providing  a  stable  legal  framework  for 
investors  to  plan  their  investments  ahead  and  reduce  the  likelihood  of  unforeseen  delays217. 
Moreover, clear time-frames will improve governance, as it will increase the transparency of 
the  overall  EIA  process,  allow  for  sufficient  time  for  public  consultation  and  improve  the 
visibility  of  developers.  Coordinated  or  integrated/joint  procedures  for  EIAs  and  other 
environmental  assessments  (EIA  one-stop  shop)  will  reduce  the  delays  resulting  from  the 
overall  development  consent  (permitting)  process218.  In  addition,  it  will  have  benefits  on 
governance  and  public  participation  (e.g.  easier  access  to  documents).  The  combined 
implementation of the above amendments is very likely to have synergetic effects. 

Table  12  presents  a  comparative  overview  of  the  wider  socio-economic  impacts  associated 
with each amendment, on the basis of the above qualitative analysis.  

6.3.3.  Wider socio-economic impacts of the policy options  

A comparative overview of the wider socio-economic impacts per policy option is presented 
in Table 13. 

Option  0+:  the  development  of  guidance  documents  summarising  and  promoting  best 
practices is likely to provide incentives to competent authorities to align with such practices 
(e.g.  better  motivation  of  decisions,  time-frames  or  coordination  of  assessment  procedures). 
Those  Member  States  that  put  additional  provisions  and  best  practices  in  place  voluntarily 
would benefit from these more than those Member States that do not take action. Developers 
may also be convinced to go beyond the requirements of the Directive (e.g. increased use of 
scoping, environmental issues taken on board in the EIA reports). The scale of benefits will be 
significantly reduced due to the non-binding character of guidance documents and the effects 
of the continued discrepancies in the EIA process across the EU. 

Option  1:  the  modification  of  the  Annexes  will  moderately  increase  harmonisation  and 
improve the functioning of the internal market. Similar benefits can be expected in terms of 
competitiveness, in particular through the introduction of an alternative procedure for Annex 
II projects (as these projects would not be subject to an EIA, which is longer than screening), 
which is particularly relevant for SMEs. This option will also bring high benefits in terms of 
avoided damages and wastage, risk prevention, and social benefits (health, safety, quality of 
life). 

Option 2a: this option contains several amendments to increase the degree of harmonisation, 
which will be beneficial to the functioning of the internal market. In addition, as the different 
stages of the EIA process will be streamlined, significant competitiveness gains are expected, 

217 

218  

The  positive  and  significant  role  of  legally  defined  target  durations  on  reducing  the  duration  EIA 
processes  and  reducing  possible  delays  is  also  highlighted  in  a  recent  study  on  EU  permitting 
procedures (Roland Berger Strategy Consultants (2011), Permitting procedures for energy infrastructure 
projects in the EU: evaluation and legal recommendations). 
See Sommer Andreas, Land Salzburg, One Stop Shop – Conclusions from the Austrian experience with 
Consolidated  Procedures  and  Integrative  Assessment,  Presentation  for  the  Conference  for  the  25th 
Anniversary of the EIA Directive, Leuven, 18-19 November 2010. 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
as  well  as  decreased  costs  due  to  delays  and  legal  disputes,  mainly  due  to  the  synergetic 
effects from the combined implementation of amendments related to time-frames and the one-
stop shop. The benefits for governance will also be significant, due to the better justification 
of the screening and final EIA decisions. 

Table 13: Summary of wider socio-economic benefits 

Policy  
options 

Option 0  
Option 0+ 
Option 1 
Option 2a 
Option 2b 
Option 2c 

Internal 
market 

- 
0 
++ 
++ 
+++ 
+++ 

Competitiv
eness  

Wider economic benefits 
Avoided 
damages,  
risk 
prevention 
- 
0 
+++ 
++ 
++++ 
++++  

Decrease 
in costs on 
legal 
disputes 
- 
0 
++ 
++ 
+++ 
+++ 

- 
0 
++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 

Decrease 
in costs on 
delays 

- 
0 
+ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 

Governance 

Jobs 
creation 

Wider social benefits* 
Health, 
safety, 
quality 
of life 
- 
0 
+++ 
++ 
+++ 
++++ 

- 
0 
+ 
++ 
+++ 
+++ 

- 
0 
0 
0 
+ 
+ 

The magnitude of the impacts (costs/benefits) depends on the level of influence a particular policy option would have on 
specific issues (problems/objectives): no impact (0), small (-/+), moderate (--/++), significant (---/+++), major (----/++++).  
* Other social impacts were considered (e.g. on poverty or distribution of incomes), but no significant impacts are expected. 

Option  2b:  this  option  will  have  significant  benefits  for  all  kinds  of  wider  socio-economic 
impacts.  All  amendments  under  this  option  will  ensure  a  high  degree  of  harmonisation, 
streamline  the  EIA  process  and  provide  a  more  stable  regulatory  framework,  hence  being 
beneficial to the functioning of the internal market and competitiveness; the synergetic effect 
of  the  amendments  (e.g.  scoping  combined  with  assessment  of  alternative,  time-frames  and 
one-stop shop) will also reduce delays and disputes. This option will also bring moderate to 
significant  benefits  in  terms  of  avoided  damages  and  will  be  equally  beneficial  as  regards 
health,  safety  and  quality  of  life.  Significant  benefits  for  governance,  due  to  the  enhanced 
quality of the EIA process, and limited benefits in terms of job creation may also be expected.  

Option  2c:  this  option,  which  includes  all  amendments,  will  have  the  same  moderate  or 
significant  wider  socio-economic  benefits.  The  adaptation  of  Annexes  I  and  II  will  provide 
additional positive socio-economic benefits (avoided risk of environmental damages and cost 
savings and benefits in terms of public health and safety and quality of life). 

7. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

7.1. 

Comparison and cost-benefits analysis of the possible amendments 

Figure  2  below  classifies  the  possible  amendments  analysed  under  the  different  policy 
options,  according  to  their  cost-benefit  ratio.  In  this  cost-benefit  ratio,  costs  correspond  to 
administrative  burden  for  public  authorities  and  developers,  while  benefits  include 
environmental  as  well  as  wider  indirect  socio-economic  benefits  in  addition  to  potential 
administrative cost savings. 

9 of the 13 amendments analysed are expected to provide moderate or high environmental 
and socio-economic benefits without additional administrative costs. 

Of  the  four  amendments  with  additional  administrative  costs,  two  (assessment  of 
alternatives  and  monitoring)  are  expected  to  provide  high  environmental  and  socio-
economic benefits at moderate costs for developers and limited or negligible costs for public 
authorities;  one  amendment  (additional  environmental  issues)  is  expected  to  provide  high 
benefits  at  moderate  to  high  costs  for  developers  and  public  authorities  (see  above  sections 
6.1.1, 6.2.1, 6.3.1 and 6.3.2). However, in the long-term, environmental and socio-economic 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
benefits  are  likely  to  exceed  the  administrative  costs  associated  with  these  amendments. 
Overall benefits for developers would include, in particular, better level playing field, reduced 
litigation  costs,  avoided  costs  to  repair  potential  damages219,  possible  cost  savings  from  a 
better integration of environmental concerns into projects (energy savings, more efficient use 
of  natural  resources,  innovation  providing  more  cost-efficient  project  design,  etc).  Overall 
benefits  for  the  society  at  large  would  include  a  higher  level  of  environmental  and  public 
health protection and more transparency.  

Figure 2: Classification of possible amendments according to benefit/cost ratio 

Moderate/high benefits 
at no administrative cost  

Amendments 

Alternative procedure for Annex II projects 
Modification to Annex III criteria 
Justification of negative screening decisions 
Mandatory scoping 
Quality control of the EIA information 
Justification of final decisions 
Specific time-frame for public consultation 
Maximum time-frames for decision-making  
Coordinated or integrated/joint procedure 
(EIA ‘one-stop shop’) 

High benefits at 
moderate administrative 
costs 

Mandatory assessment of reasonable 
alternatives 
Mandatory post-EIA monitoring 

o
i
t
a
r

t
s
o
c
/
t
i
f
e
n
e
B

Additional environmental issues 

Policy options 
0+ 
2c 
2b 
2a 
1 
-  (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 
-  (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 
-  (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 
- 
-  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 
- 
- 
-  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 
- 
- 
-  (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 
- 
-  (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 
- 
-  (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 
- 

- 

-  (cid:57)  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

-  (cid:57) 

-  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

- 

- 

-  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

-  (cid:57) 

-  (cid:57)  (cid:57) 

Adaptation of Annexes I and II 

-  (cid:57) 

- 

- 

(cid:57) 

High benefits at 
moderate to high 
administrative costs 

Limited to high benefits 
at high/very high 
administrative costs 

One amendment (adaptation of Annexes I and II) is also expected to provide limited to high 
benefits  (see  above  sections  6.1.1,  6.3.1  and  6.3.2).  However,  its  associated  administrative 
costs depend very much upon the specific modifications that would be made (types of projects 
to  be  shifted,  new  thresholds,  new  project  categories),  but  these  can  be  high/very  high  for 
developers and public authorities.  

The  analysis  of  impacts  also  highlighted  that  some  amendments  are  closely  interrelated. 
Their common implementation would increase the overall coherence of changes made to the 
EIA Directive and may also improve the overall cost-benefit ratio due to possible synergies. 
Amendments that would benefit from being implemented together are the following: 

• 

The combined implementation of the amendments concerning the screening process 
(adaptation of Annexes I and II, modification of Annex III, alternative procedure for 
Annex II projects, justification of screening decisions and maximum time-frame for 
screening  decision)  would  effectively  address  one  of  the  main  problem  areas 
identified. 

219  

For instance, in the case of climate change and disaster risks to projects, previous studies have already 
demonstrated  that  the  avoided  damage  costs  to  population,  materials  assets,  the  economy  and  the 
environment largely outweigh the costs of adequately assessing and preventing such risks. 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
• 

• 

• 

A  mandatory  scoping  is  the  necessary  condition  to  limit  the  additional  efforts  and 
costs  for  developers  to  implement  amendments  related  to  the  assessment  of 
reasonable  alternatives  and  the  inclusion  of  additional  environmental  issues;  it  will 
also lead to more legal certainty and a level playing field. 

The  implementation  of  amendments  on  time-frames  will  be  facilitated  by  the 
implementation  of  coordinated/integrated  assessment  procedures.  A  mandatory 
scoping  can  also  further  facilitate  the  implementation  of  these  amendments  (by 
identifying  at  an  early  stage  possible  synergies  between  the  requirements  of  the 
different environmental assessment procedures that need to be coordinated). 

If the assessment of reasonable alternatives and monitoring become mandatory, this 
should be part of the final decision made by the competent authorities, as the latter 
would  have  to  explain  how  such  critical  issues  have  been  taken  into  account.  The 
assessment  of  alternatives  and  the  monitoring  measures  envisaged  to  address 
negative  effects  would  be 
issues  showing  how  environmental 
considerations were taken into account during the development consent process. 

the  main 

7.2. 

Comparison of the policy options 

Table  14  compares  the  impacts  of  the  various  policy  options.  It  builds  upon  quantitative 
estimates developed for the assessment of the administrative impacts and on the results of the 
qualitative assessments carried out for the non-quantifiable impacts (environmental and wider 
socio-economic ones).  

Policy 
options 

Option 
0  

Option 
0+ 

Option 
1  

Option 
2a   

Option 
2b 

Option 
2c  

Table 14: Comparison of the impacts of policy options 

Costs/savings for public 
authorities 

Costs/savings for developers 

Environmental 
benefits* 

Wider 
economic 
benefits* 

Wider 
social 
benefits* 

- 

0 

- 

0 

- 

+ 

- 

0  

- 

0 

Costs: € 34.9 to 44 million** 
+ moderate to high costs related to 
the addition of environmental issues  

Savings: € 4.3 to 5.3 million  

Costs: € 155.2 to 195.8 million**  
+ moderate to high costs related 
to the addition of environmental 
issues. 
Savings: € 21.4 million 

Costs: € 0.96 to 1.2 million 

Costs: 0 

Savings: € 4.3 to 5.3 million + 
moderate savings from the ‘EIA 
one-stop shop’ 

Costs: € 4.8 to 6.8 million  
+ moderate to high costs related to 
the addition of environmental issues 

Savings: € 4.3 to 5.3 million + 
moderate savings from the ‘EIA 
one-stop shop’ 

Costs: € 34.9 to 44 million**  
+ moderate to high costs related to 
the addition of environmental issues  

Savings: € 4.3 to 5.3 million  
+ moderate savings from the ‘EIA 
one-stop shop’ 

Savings: € 21.4 million + 
moderate savings from the ‘EIA 
one-stop shop’ 
Costs: € 65.7 to 103 million  
+ moderate to high costs related 
to the addition of environmental 
issues. 
Savings: € 21.4 million + 
moderate savings from the ‘EIA 
one-stop shop’. 
Costs: € 178 to 241.5 million **  
+ moderate to high costs related 
to the addition of environmental 
issues 
Savings: € 21.4 million  
+ moderate savings from the 
‘EIA one-stop shop’ 

++ 

++ 

++  

++ 

++ 

++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

++++ 

+++ 

++++ 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
 
 
* The magnitude of the environmental and wider socio-economic impacts (costs/benefits) depends on theinfluence a particular 
policy option would have on specific issues (problems/objectives): no impact (0), small (+), moderate (++), significant (+++), 
major (++++).  

** These estimates are based on the assumption that 10 % of projects undergoing a screening are moved to Annex I and are 
subject to an EIA; the costs can be very high if 15-20 % of the projects undergoing a screening are subject to an EIA. 
/ : Zero or negligible costs/savings, i.e. +/- 0-1 % with regard to baseline scenario 
Limited costs/savings: +/- 1-5 % with regard to baseline scenario 
Moderate costs/savings: +/- 5-10 % with regard to baseline scenario 
High costs/savings: +/- 10-25 % with regard to baseline scenario 
Very high costs/savings: > +/- 25 % with regard to baseline scenario 

The  implementation  of  Option  0+  (guidance  approach)  has  no  costs  and  only  marginal 
environmental  benefits.  Option  2a  (basic  modifications)  has  negligible  costs  for  public 
authorities,  will  result  into  moderate  savings  for  developers  and  public  authorities  and  will 
result  in  moderate  environmental  and  wider  socio-economic  benefits.  Option  1  (technical 
adaptation)  brings  similar  environmental  and  wider  socio-economic  benefits  to  Option  2a, 
but  its  costs  are  high  for  public  authorities  and  developers  with  only  limited  savings  to  be 
expected.  Option  2b  (targeted  modifications)  will  have  moderate  to  high  costs  for  public 
authorities  and  developers,  but  it  will  also  result  into  moderate  savings  for  developers  and 
public authorities and will bring significant environmental and wider socio-economic benefits. 
Option  2c  (comprehensive  modifications)  will  have  very  high  costs  for  public  authorities 
and  developers,  but  it  will  also  result  into  moderate  savings  for  developers  and  public 
authorities and will bring significant wider economic benefits, as well as major environmental 
and wider social benefits. 

Table 15: Overview of the achievement of objectives per policy option 

Specific objective 1: Introduce and/or strengthen the 
quality related elements of the Directive  

Policy 
options 

Operational 
objective 1 

Operational 
objective 2 

Specify the content 
and justification of 
the screening 
decision 

Specify the content 
of the EIA report and 
of the final decision 

Operational 
objective 3 
Adjust the 
Directive to the 
new 
environmental 
issues  

Specific objective 2: Enhance policy 
coherence and synergies with other 
EU/international law and simplify 
procedures 

Operational 
objective 1 

Operational 
objective 2 

Streamline 
environmental 
assessments  

Specify time-frames 
for the various steps 
of the EIA process 

Option 0+ 

Option 1  

Option 2a   

Option 2b 

Option 2c 

≈ 

++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

≈ 

++ 

++ 

+++ 

+++ 

≈ 

+++ 

+ 

+++ 

++++ 

≈ 

++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

≈ 

+ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

The level of contribution to the achievement of the objectives is assessed qualitatively on a five scale basis: 

neutral/marginal (≈); small magnitude (+), moderate (++), significant (+++), major (++++). 

In  addition  to  the  above  cost-benefit  analysis,  it  is  necessary  to  assess  to  what  extent  the 
policy options can help achieving the objectives set for the review of the EIA Directive. An 
overview is presented in Table 15. 

Option  0+  will  most  likely  not  contribute  to  achieving  any  of  the  objectives  of  the  EIA 
revision. Option 1 would only have a moderate level of contribution towards the achievement 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
of  the  specific  and  operational  objectives.  Option  2a  would  significantly  contribute  to  the 
achievement  of  specific  objective  2,  mainly  due  to  the  time  and  cost  savings  from 
streamlining and simplification potential for developers. Public authorities would also benefit 
from  streamlining  and  simplification,  by  avoiding  a  duplication  of  certain  tasks  and  taking 
advantage  of  synergies  between  different  environmental  assessment  requirements.  There 
would  be  also  certain  benefits  in  relation  to  specific  objective  1,  e.g.  better  justification  of 
decisions and better quality of the EIA report, but they would be rather moderate. Option 2b 
would significantly contribute to the achievement of specific objectives 1 and 2, through the 
amendments  related  to  the  quality  of  the  EIA  process  (scoping,  quality  control  of  the  EIA 
information, assessment of alternatives, monitoring, additional environmental issues) and the 
streamlining and simplification of procedures (one-stop-shop; time-frames). Option 2c would 
also  significantly  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  objectives  1  and  2.  The  adaptation  of 
Annexes  I  and  II  would  ensure  a  very  significant  contribution  to  the  achievement  of  the 
operational objective related to the assessment of additional environmental issues. 

Table  16  compares  the  options  in  terms  of  their  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  coherence220. 
Option 0+ is not effective, as it will most likely not contribute to the achievement of any of 
the objectives of the EIA revision and it only has marginal environmental benefits. Option 1 
cannot be considered efficient, as it would only partially achieve the objectives at a high cost 
and  with  only  moderate  wider  environmental  and  socio-economic  benefits.  Option  2a  is 
efficient,  but  its  performance  in  terms  of  coherence  and  particularly  effectiveness  is  quite 
weak.  

Table 16: Evaluation of the options in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency  

Coherence 

Policy 
options 

Option 0+ 

Neutral/marginal 
contribution to the 
achievement of objectives 

Option 1  

Moderate contribution to the 
achievement of objectives 

Option 2a   

Moderate contribution to the 
achievement of objectives 

Option 2b 

Significant contribution to 
the achievement of 
objectives 

Option 2c 

Significant/major 
contribution to the 
achievement of objectives 

No resources needed 

High to very high costs for 
public authorities and 
developers  
Negligible costs for public 
authorities 
Moderate savings for developers 
and public authorities  
High costs for public authorities 
and developers 
Moderate savings for developers 
and public authorities  
Very high costs for public 
authorities and developers 
Moderate savings for developers 
and public authorities  

Marginal environmental 
benefits 

Moderate  
environmental and wider 
socio-economic benefits  

Moderate  
environmental and wider 
socio-economic benefits  

Significant  
environmental and wider 
socio-economic benefits  

Significant wider 
economic benefits 
Major environmental and 
wider social benefits 

Option 2b satisfies the criteria of effectiveness and coherence. With regard to efficiency, it 
should  be  noted  that  the  high  level  of  environmental  and  wider  socio-economic  benefits 
(competitiveness gains and increased level of harmonisation) will most likely give rise to high 

220  

Effectiveness:  the  extent  to  which  options  achieve  the  objectives;  efficiency:  the  extent  to  which 
objectives  can  be  achieved  in  a  cost-effective  manner;  coherence:  the  extent  to  which  options  are 
coherent  with  the  objectives of  EU  policy  and  are likely  to  limit  trade-offs  across  the  environmental, 
social and economic domains. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
                                                 
costs  (this  is  a  result  of  taking  up  cumulative  costs).  More  specifically,  the  administrative 
costs  for  the  mandatory  assessment  of  reasonable  alternatives  and  for  monitoring  range 
between 5 and 10 % of the baseline costs for developers in each case; for both amendments, 
the  possibilities  of  lowering  the  costs  have  been  duly  verified221.  The  costs  of  adding 
environmental  issues  may  range  between  5  and  25 %  of  the  baseline  costs  for  developers. 
However,  the  analysis  showed  that  significant  environmental  and  wider  socio-economic 
benefits are associated with the  implementation  of  those  three  amendments,  which  have  the 
potential  to  outweigh  the  administrative  costs.  In  addition,  this  option  includes  all 
amendments leading to moderate savings for developers and authorities. 

Option 2c has similar impacts as Option 2b with regard to effectiveness and coherence, but 
would fail on the efficiency criterion, since its possible high environmental and social benefits 
would  be  outweighed  by  the  very  high  costs,  which  are  mainly  due  to  the  adaptation  of 
Annexes I and II. Consequently, Option 2b is considered the preferred policy option. 

8. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

8.1. 

Indicators of progress 

The indicators for progress towards meeting the specific and operational objectives set for the 
Directive’s  revision  are:  a)  extent  to  which  the  EIA  Directive  contributes  to  correctly 
assessing  and  addressing    the  environmental  impact  of  projects;  b)  extent  to  which  new 
environmental challenges are integrated into future EIAs; c) evolution in the harmonisation of 
EIA processes across the Member States (mainly the extent to which developers are provided 
with more certainty concerning applicable requirements and time-frames); d) extent to which 
unnecessary administrative burdens are reduced, for public authorities and developers (costs 
for an EIA, duration of the screening and/or EIA process, duration of the various stages of the 
EIA process).  

Due  to  the  procedural  nature  of  the  EIA  Directive,  which  does  not  lay  down  measurable 
quality standards, it is not possible to define more concrete indicators. The above indicators 
will be assessed at national level; it is not possible to propose indicators at regional level, due 
to  lack  of  data.  Table  17  presents  an  overview  of  how  these  indicators  are  linked  to  the 
objectives. The number of infringements and ECJ cases would also constitute an indicator of a 
more general and cross-cutting nature.  

8.2.  Monitoring and evaluation arrangements 

The EIA Directive does not require any formal reporting from the Member States concerning 
its  implementation.  The  absence  of  such  a  requirement  is  one  of  the  reasons  why  the  data 
available  was  scarce  and  sometimes  of  limited  reliability.  In  order  to  evaluate  the  future 
implementation  of  a  revised  EIA  Directive,  the  Commission’s  Group  of  EIA/SEA  National 
Experts  will  be  formally  set  up    to  collect  and  monitor  relevant  key  parameters  in  each 
Member  State.  The  involvement  of  national  experts  guarantees  the  reliability  and 
comparability  of  data.  The  data  will  be  collected  by  Member  States  and  reported  to  the 
Commission  on  a  regular  basis  (every  6  years  following  the  transposition  of  the  new 
Directive)  via  periodic  surveys  covering  all  Member  States.  As  a  minimum,  the  following 

221  

E.g. monitoring would be required for a 3-year instead of a 5-year period and it could be related only to 
projects having significant negative effects; the number of alternatives to be assessed would be limited. 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
                                                 
parameters will be monitored in each Member State: a) number of EIAs carried out per year; 
b) number of Annex I and Annex II projects subject to EIA; c) breakdown of EIAs according 
to  the  project  categories  of  Annexes  I/II;  d)  breakdown  of  EIAs  undertaken  by  type  of 
developer (including SMEs); e) number of screenings performed per year; f) duration of the 
EIA  process  (including  duration  per  stage);  g)  average  cost  of  EIAs  (for  developers  and 
authorities). The above parameters, which are relevant for evaluating the impacts of most of 
the  amendments  analysed,  are  relatively  easy  to  collect  with  a  sufficient  level  of  reliability. 
The  Commission  will  ensure  monitoring  and  evaluation  via  implementation  reports  every  6 
years. Beyond these core parameters, monitoring would include additional parameters, which 
are  more  specifically  related  to  the  implementation  and/or  the  impacts  of  some  of  the 
amendments within the Member States. Those specific parameters are described in Annex 15. 

Specific objectives  Operational objectives 

Indicators of progress  

Parameters monitored 

Table 17: Links between objectives and progress indicators/monitoring 

Extent to which the EIA contributes to 
correctly assessing and addressing  the 
environmental impact of projects 

Qualitative judgement of national 
authorities 

Introduce and/or 
strengthen the quality 
related elements of the 
Directive  

Specify the content and 
justification of the screening 
decision 

Evolution in the harmonisation of EIA 
processes across the Member States 

Extent to which unnecessary 
administrative burdens are reduced  

Specify the content of the EIA 
report and of the final 
decision 

Adjust the Directive to the 
new environmental issues  

Extent to which the EIA contributes to 
correctly assessing and addressing  the 
environmental impact of projects 
Evolution in the harmonisation of EIA 
processes across the Member States 
Extent to which new environmental 
challenges are integrated into future 
EIAs. 
Extent to which the EIA contributes to 
correctly assessing and addressing  the 
environmental impact of projects 

Enhance policy coherence 
and synergies with other 
EU/international law and 
simplify procedures 

Streamline environmental 
assessments  

Extent to which unnecessary 
administrative burdens are reduced  

Specify time-frames for the 
various steps of the EIA 
process 

Extent to which unnecessary 
administrative burdens are reduced  
Evolution in the harmonisation of EIA 
processes across the Member States 

- Annual number of EIAs carried out 
- Annual number of screenings carried 
out 
- Breakdown of EIAs according to the 
project categories of Annexes I/II 
- Number of Annex I and Annex II 
projects subject to EIA  
- Breakdown of EIAs undertaken by 
type of developer (including SMEs) 

- Annual number of EIAs carried out 
- Qualitative judgement of national 
authorities 
- Average cost of EIAs 

- Qualitative judgement of national 
authorities 
- Breakdown of EIAs according to the 
project categories of Annexes I/II  

Number of environmental assessments 
coordinated or integrated 
 Duration of the EIA process (as a whole 
and per stage) 
Average cost of EIAs 

- Average cost of EIAs 
- Duration of the EIA process (as a 
whole and per stage) 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
 
9. 

GLOSSARY 

Consultation 

It is the stage of the EIA process where the environmental authorities 
and  the  public  (including  from  affected  Member  States,  where 
appropriate)  are  entitled  to  express  comments  and  opinions  on  a 
project.  

Developer 

The company or public authority which initiates a project and applies 
for authorization. 

Development 
consent 
(authorization) 

The  decision  of  the  competent  authority  or  authorities  which  entitles 
the developer to proceed with the project. It is the end of the decision-
making process.  

EIA 

Environmental Impact Assessment for public and private projects 

Habitats 
Directive 

Directive  92/43/EEC  on  the  conservation  of  natural  habitats  and  of 
wild fauna and flora 

IED 

Directive  2010/75/EU  on  industrial  emissions  (integrated  pollution 
prevention and control)  

Mitigation 
measures 

Measures aimed at minimising or even cancelling the negative impact 
of a project, during or after its completion. 

Scoping 

Screening 

(Negative) 
screening 

(Positive) 
screening 

SEA 

SME 

WFD 

It  is  the  stage  of  the  EIA  process  that  determines  the  content  and 
extent  of  the  matters  to  be  covered  in  the  environmental  information 
to be submitted to a competent authority by the developer. 

It  is  the  part  of  the  EIA  process  that  determines  whether  an  EIA  is 
required for projects listed in Annex II of the Directive. The screening 
is  carried  out  through  a  case-by-case  examination  or  based  on 
thresholds  or  criteria,  in  accordance  with  the  criteria  listed  in  Annex 
III of the Directive.  

A  screening  that  does  not  result  in  an  EIA,  because  the  competent 
authority  considers  that  a  project  is  not  likely  to  have  significant 
environmental effects. 

A  screening  that  results  in  an  EIA,  because  the  competent  authority 
considers  that  a  project  is  likely  to  have  significant  environmental 
effects. 

Strategic  Environmental  Assessment  for  certain  public  plans  and 
programmes, which is carried out according to Directive 2001/42/EC  

Small and Medium Enterprises 

Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
10. 

ANNEXES 

10.1.  Annex 1: Information on the EIA Directive 

The  EIA  Directive  has  been  in  force  since  1985  and  applies  to  a  wide  range  of 
defined public and private projects, which are described in its Annexes I and II: 

•  Mandatory  EIA:  All  projects  listed  in  Annex  I  are  considered  as  having 
significant  effects  on  the  environment  and  require  an  EIA  (e.g.  long-distance 
railway  lines,  motorways  and  express  roads,  airports  with  a  basic  runway 
length ≥ 2100 m, installations for the disposal of hazardous waste, installations 
for  the  disposal  of  non-hazardous  waste  >  100  tonnes/day,  waste  water 
treatment plants > 150.000 p.e.). 

• 

Discretion  of  Member  States  (screening):  For  projects  listed  in  Annex  II,  the 
national authorities have to decide whether an EIA is needed. This is done by 
the ‘screening procedure’, which determines the effects of projects on the basis 
of  thresholds/criteria  or  a  case  by  case  examination.  However,  the  national 
authorities  must  take  into  account  the  criteria  laid  down  in  Annex  III  of  the 
Directive.  The  projects  listed  in  Annex  II  include  for  example  urban 
development  projects,  flood-relief  works,  changes  of  Annex  I  and  II  existing 
projects, etc. 

The Directive adopted in 1985 has been amended in 1997, in 2003 and in 2009: 

• 

• 

• 

Directive  97/11/EC  brings  the  Directive  in  line  with  the  UN  ECE  Espoo 
Convention  on  EIA  in  a  Transboundary  Context.  The  Directive  of  1997 
widened  the  scope  of  the  EIA  Directive  by  increasing  the  types  of  projects 
covered, and the number of projects requiring mandatory EIA (Annex I). It also 
provided for new screening arrangements, including new screening criteria (at 
Annex  III)  for  Annex  II  projects,  and  established  minimum  information 
requirements. 

Directive  2003/35/EC  aligns  the  provisions  on  public  participation  with  the 
Aarhus  Convention  on  public  participation  in  decision-making  and  access  to 
justice in environmental matters. 

Directive  2009/31/EC  amends  Annexes  I  and  II  of  the  EIA  Directive,  by 
adding projects related to the transport, capture and storage of carbon dioxide 
(CO2). 

The  initial  Directive  of  1985  and  its  three  amendments  have  been  codified  by 
Directive 2011/92/EU of 13 December 2011. 

The  EIA  procedure  can  be  summarised  as  follows:  the  developer  may  request  the 
competent authority to describe what should be covered by the EIA information to be 
provided  by  the  developer  (scoping  stage); the  developer  must  provide  information 
on the environmental impact (EIA report – Annex IV); the environmental authorities 
and  the  public  (and  affected  Member  States)  must  be  informed  and  consulted;  the 
competent authority then makes a decision, taking into consideration the findings of 
the EIA report and the results of consultations. The public is informed of the decision 
afterwards and can challenge the decision before the courts.  

EN 

59 

   EN 

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

The  inter-service  Impact  Assessment  Steering  Group  (IASG)  was  established  in 
November 2009 and met 7 times between December 2009 and February 2012. 

The first meeting of the IAGS (on 9 December 2009) discussed the draft roadmap 
and the draft questionnaire for the public consultation. 

The second meeting (on 4 May 2010) focused on the policy options for the review of 
the EIA Directive. 

The  third  meeting  (on  24  June  2010)  discussed  the  Directives  and  provisions 
potentially  affected  by  the  introduction  of  a  coordinated/joint  EIA  in  relation  to 
sectoral  assessments  and  permits  required  by  other  environmental  Directives  (‘one 
stop shop’). 

The  fourth  meeting  (on  19  October  2010)  discussed  the  results  of  the  public 
consultation. 

The fifth meeting (on 7 July 2011) discussed the skeleton of the IA report. 

The sixth meeting (on 23 November 20011) discussed the findings of the draft IA 
report prepared by an external contractor. 

The seventh meeting (on 3 February 2012) reviewed the final draft of the IA report. 

10.3.  Annex 3: Main sources and studies used 

10.3.1.  Legislation 

Directive  85/337/EEC  of  27  June  1985  on  the  assessment  of  the  effects  of  certain 
public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directives 97/11/EC, 
2003/35/EC and 2009/31/EC 

Espoo  Convention  of  25  February  1991  on  environmental  Impact  Assessment  in  a 
transboundary context Decision III/7 – Second amendment to the Espoo Convention, 
adopted in 2004 

Protocol  on  Strategic  Environmental  Assessment 
environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context, 2003 

to 

the  Convention  on 

Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of 
wild fauna and flora 

Aarhus Convention of 25 June 1998 on Access to Information, Public Participation 
in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters 

Directive  2001/42/EC  of  27  June  2001  on  the  assessments  of  the  effects  of  certain 
plans and programmes on the environment 

Directive 2004/35/EC of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the 
prevention and remedying of environmental damage 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
Directive  2008/56/EC  of  17  June  2008  establishing  a  framework  for  community 
action  in  the  field  of  marine  environmental  policy  (Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive) 

Directive  2010/75/EU  of  24  November  2010  on  industrial  emissions  (integrated 
pollution prevention and control)  

10.3.2.  Commission documents 

COM(2001)264,  A  Sustainable  Europe  for  a  Better  World:  A  European  Union 
Strategy for Sustainable Development 

COM(2005)670, Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources 

COM(2006)216, Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 – and beyond; Sustaining 
ecosystem services for human well–being 

SEC(2006)621,  Annexes  to  the  Communication  from  the  Commission  halting  the 
loss of biodiversity by 2010 – and beyond, Sustaining ecosystem services for human 
well–being (COM(2006)216) 

COM(2007) 135, Communication from the Commission - Trans-European networks: 
Towards an integrated approach  

SEC(2007)374, Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to 
the  Communication  from  the  Commission  Trans-European  Networks:  Toward  and 
integrated approach COM(2007)135 

COM(2007)225,  Mid-term  review  of  the  Sixth  Community  Environment  Action 
Programme 

COM(2008)791,  Roadmap  for  Maritime  Spatial  Planning:  Achieving  Common 
Principles in the EU 

COM(2009)147,  White  Paper,  Adapting  to  climate  change:  Towards  a  European 
framework for action  

COM(2009)378,  Report  on  the  application  and  effectiveness  of  the  EIA  Directive 
(Directive 85/337/EEC) 

COM(2009)469,  Report  on  the  application  and  effectiveness  of  the  Directive  on 
Strategic Environmental Assessment (Directive 2001/42/EC) 

COM(2010)265,  Communication  on  Analysis  of  options  to  move  beyond  20  % 
greenhouse gas emission reductions and assessing  the risk of carbon leakage 

COM(2011)112,  A  roadmap  for  moving  to  a  competitive  low  carbon  economy  in 
2050 

COM(2011)244,  Communication  on  our  life  insurance,  our  natural  capital:  an  EU 
biodiversity strategy to 2020 

COM(2011)571, Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
10.3.3.  Guidance documents and studies 

European  Commission  (1996),  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  in  Europe  -  A 
Study on Costs and Benefits, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/sea-support.htm  

European  Commission  (1999),  Guidelines  for  the  Assessment  of  Indirect  and 
Cumulative 
Interactions, 
well 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-studies-and-reports/guidel.pdf 

Impacts 

Impact 

as 

as 

European  Commission 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-guidelines/g-screening-full-text.pdf 

(2001),  Guidance  on  EIA 

-  Screening  –  2001, 

– 
European 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-guidelines/g-scoping-full-text.pdf 

Commission 

Guidance 

(2001), 

EIA 

on 

Scoping, 

European  Commission  (2003),  Implementation  of  Directive  2001/42/EC  on  the 
assessment  of  the  effects  of  certain  plans  and  programmes  on  the  environment 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/030923_sea_guidance.pdf 

European Commission (2006), Clarification of the application of Article 2(3) of the 
EIA Directive, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/eia_art2_3.pdf 

European  Commission  (2008),  Interpretation  of  definitions  of  certain  project 
categories 
Directive, 
the 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/interpretation_eia.pdf 

annex 

EIA 

and 

of 

of 

II 

I 

European  Commission  (2010),  Application  of  Council  Directive  85/337/EEC  of  27 
June 1985 as amended on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private 
projects 
landfills, 
to 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/eia_landfills.pdf 

rehabilitation 

environment 

the 

the 

on 

of 

European  Commission  (2011),  Main  ECJ  rulings  regarding  the  EIA  Directive, 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/eia_case_law.pdf 

European Commission (2011), Guidance on undertaking new non-energy extractive 
requirements, 
with 
activities 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/neei_n2000_g
uidance.pdf 

accordance 

Natura 

2000 

in 

European  Commission,  JRC  (2010)  The  Use  of  Spatial  Data  for  the  Preparation  of 
Environmental 
Europe, 
http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/SDI/publications/JRC_technical%20report_2009%
20EIA-SEA%20survey.pdf 

Reports 

in 

10.3.4.  Literature 

Almer H.L., & T.M. Koontz, Public hearings for EIAs in post-communist Bulgaria: 
do they work? , in Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24 (2004), p.473-493 

Arts  E.  J.,  EIA  Follow-up,  On  the  Role  of  Ex  Post  Evaluation  in  Environmental 
Impact Assessment, PhD thesis, Geo Press, Groningen (1998) 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
Roland  Berger  Strategy  Consultants  (2011),  Permitting  procedures  for  energy 
recommendations 
infrastructure  projects 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/infrastructure/studies/doc/2011_ten_e_permitting_report.p
df 

the  EU:  evaluation  and 

legal 

in 

BIO  Intelligence  Service  (2010),  Study,  Impacts  of  Innovation  on  the  Regulatory 
Costs of Energy-using Product Policy, Final Report for DEFRA, p.21 

BIO Intelligence Service (2006), Cost and benefits of the implementation of the EIA 
directive in France (Appendix IIB to the IVM report of 2007 on Costs and benefits of 
the EIA Directive) 

CGEDD Conseil Général de l’Environnement et du Développement Durable (2011), 
Compétences et professionnalisation des bureaux d’études au regard de la qualité des 
études 
environnementales), 
http://portail.documentation.developpement-
durable.gouv.fr/documents/cgedd/007411-01_rapport.pdf 

(évaluations 

d’impact 

Christensen  P,  Kørnøv  L  and  Nielsen  E.H.  (2003),  The  advantages  of  EIA—
Evaluation of EIA in Denmark, (Udbyttet af VVM—Evaluering af VVM i Denmark, 
hovedrapport) Ministry of the Environment, Denmark Landsplanafdelingen 

COWI  (2009),  Study  concerning  the  report  on  the  application  and  effectiveness  of 
the EIA Directive, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/eia_study_june_09.pdf 

De  Mulder  Jan,  EIA  quality  issues  in  a  broader  decision  making  perspective, 
Presentation  for  the  Conference  for  the  25th  Anniversary  of  the  EIA  Directive, 
Leuven, 18-19 November 2010 

Dipper, B., C. Jones and C. Wood, Monitoring and Post-Auditing in Environmental 
Impact Assessment: A Review, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 
41 (6), November 1998 

Conference ‘25th Anniversary of the EIA Directive: Successes, Failures, Prospects’, 
18-19 November 2010, Leuven, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/conference.htm 

EWEA – European Wind Energy Association (2010), Wind Barriers: Administrative 
and 
power, 
barriers 
http://www.windbarriers.eu/fileadmin/WB_docs/documents/WindBarriers_report.pdf 

access 

wind 

grid 

to 

GHK  (2008),  Evaluation  of  EU  legislation  -  Directive  85/337/EEC  (Environmental 
Impact Assessment, EIA) and associated amendments, Report for DG Enterprise and 
Industry, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/Evaluation%20of%20EIA.pdf 

GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the 
review 
ENV, 
EIA 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/collection_data.pdf 

Directive, 

Report 

DG 

the 

for 

of 

Hokkanen P. et al., Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment in Finland – 
Presentation of the EFEIA Project, 2004, Paper presented at the 25th IAIA Annual 
Conference, Boston, Massachusetts, 31 May-3 June 2005 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
IAIA International Organisation for Impact Assessment, Principles of environmental 
impact assessment best practice, 1999, http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-
publications/Principles%20of%20IA_web.pdf  

Impel  Network,  Interrelationship  between  IPPC,  EIA,  SEVESO  Directives  and 
1998, 
EMAS 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-studies-and-reports/impel-full-text.pdf 

Regulation, 

December 

report, 

Final 

IVM  –  Institute  for  Environmental  Studies  (2011),  Wind  energy  and  the  review  of 
the EIA directive 

IVM, BIO, IEEP, IEP and Ecologic (2007), Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive, 
ENV, 
Report 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/Costs%20and%20benefits%20of%20the%20
EIA%20Directive.pdf 

DG 

for 

Jendrośka  J.,  Quality  of  the  EIA  process:  issues  of  concern  and  ways  for 
improvement,  Presentation  for  the  Conference  for  the  25th  Anniversary  of  the  EIA 
Directive, Leuven, 18-19 November 2010 

Kelbie P., Eco-friendly golf course to open in Scotland, The Telegraph, 10/10/2008, 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3353152/Eco-friendly-golf-course-to-
open-in-Scotland.html 

Marshall  R.,  Environmental  impact  assessment  follow-up  and  its  benefits  for 
industry, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 23 (3, 2005), pp.191-196 

Ministry  of  Environment  in  Germany,  Kammer  für  Angestellte  und  Arbeiter  zu 
Wien, Die UVP auf dem Prüfstand: Zur Entwicklung eines umkämpften Instruments, 
2008 

Morrison-Saunders  A.  and  Arts  J.,  Exploring  the  Dimensions  of  EIA  Follow-up, 
2004, Presented at: IAIA’04 Impact Assessment for Industrial Development Whose 
Business  Is  It?  (IA  Follow-up  stream),  24th  annual  meeting  of  the  International 
Association for Impact Assessment, 24-30 April 2004, Vancouver, Canada 

Morrison-Saunders  A.,  Arts  J.  and  Baker  J.,  Lessons  from  practice:  towards 
successful follow-up, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, volume 21 (1) 2003, 
pp.43–56 

Morrison-Saunders A., R. Marshall and J. Arts, 2007 EIA Follow-Up - International 
Best 
2007, 
http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/SP6.pdf 

Series  No.6, 

Publication 

Principles, 

Practice 

Special 

Nielsen  H.,  Christensen  P.  and  Kornov  L.,  EIA  screening  in  Denmark:  a  new 
regulatory 
instrument?  Journal  of  Environmental  Policy,  Assessment,  and 
Management, vol. 7 (1, 2005), pp.35-49 

Palframan  L.,  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  and  sustainability  appraisal, 
Submission for the proposed Planning White Paper, Royal Society for the Protection 
of Birds, UK, 2007, p.3 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
Radnai  A.  and  Z.  Mondok,  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  Implementation  in 
Hungary,  In:  Bellinger,  E.,  et  al.  (eds.)¸  Environmental  Assessment  in  Countries  in 
Transition. CEU Press, 2000, Budapest, pp.57-62 

Sommer Andreas, Land Salzburg, One Stop Shop – Conclusions from the Austrian 
experience  with  Consolidated  Procedures  and  Integrative  Assessment,  Presentation 
for  the  Conference  for  the  25th  Anniversary  of  the  EIA  Directive,  Leuven,  18-19 
November 2010 

Sundberg S. and T. Söderqvist (2004), The economic value of environmental change, 
Naturvårdsverket; 
http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-
5360-4.pdf 

UK  Communities  and  Local  Government,  Evidence  review  of  scoping 
in 
environmental  impact  assessment,  EIA  Centre,  University  of  Manchester,  DCLG, 
London, 2006 

UK  Communities  and  local  government,  The  Town  and  Country  Planning 
(Environmental  Impact  Assessment)  Regulations  2010,  Consultation  on  draft 
regulations, 2010 

Willis K. et al., Social & Environmental Benefits of Forests in Great Britain, 2003, 
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/sebreport0703.pdf/$FILE/sebreport0703.pdf 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
10.4.  Annex 4: Detailed information on the key parameters related to the application 

of the EIA Directive 

In order to evaluate the different impacts – environmental, economic and social – of 
possible  changes  to  the  EIA  Directive,  it  is  necessary  to  estimate  beforehand  the 
likely evolution of key variables under the baseline scenario. Three main sources of 
information  were  used  to  obtain  estimates:  the  GHK  study  of  2010,  the  replies  to 
questionnaires  from  national  authorities  and  the  results  of  the  public  consultation. 
The  absence  of  a  formal  reporting  mechanism  under  the  EIA  Directive  (i.e.  no 
obligation  of  Member  States  to  collect  and  report  data)  hinders  the  collection  of 
specific  data  (in  particular  breakdown  of  EIAs  per  type  of  project  and  per  type  of 
developer). 

In  the  baseline  scenario  for  each  of  these  key  variables,  impacts  are  considered 
according to three time horizons: current situation, medium-term horizon (2017) and 
long-term horizon (2037). Hence, the baseline scenario is not only based on historic 
data  but  also  on  prospective  scenarios  under  the  assumption  that  no  changes  to  the 
EIA Directive would be made. In that sense, the baseline scenario is a ‘business as 
usual’ scenario. 

10.4.1.  Number of EIAs processed 

One of the main drivers of the total administrative burden of each policy option is the 
number of EIA procedures that have to be carried out. For instance, if a legislative 
change  lowers  the  thresholds  for  projects  to  be  subject  to  an  EIA,  the  number  of 
projects subject to an EIA will increase, causing more work for both developers and 
authorities. 

In order to estimate the number of EIAs, the first and second sources of information 
were  used  in  this  report.  The  third  source  (public  consultation  results)  was  used  to 
test the validity of the data provided in the first two sources but it was not used as a 
basis for calculation. The available data per source and the results of the calculation 
per data source are discussed below: 

Data source 1: Number of EIAs based on the GHK study (2010) 

The GHK study provides estimates for the total number of EIAs undertaken by each 
Member  State  for  the  period  2005-2008.  Significant  differences  in  the  numbers  of 
EIAs  can  be  observed  between  Member  States  of  similar  sizes,  which  can  be 
explained  by  large  differences  in  the  way  the  EIA  Directive  has  been  transposed 
across the Member States (see the problem definition in Section 3.2). According to 
GHK, approximately 15.800 EIAs are conducted each year in the EU. 

However, this result is subject to high uncertainty due to the fact that missing data 
for  eight  Member  States  were  estimated  by  GHK  using  a  correlation  between  the 
number of EIAs and population counts; establishing such a correlation is not justified 
since the main reason for differences in the number of EIAs across Member States is 
the way the EIA Directive has been transposed. 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
Table 18: Average numbers of screenings and EIAs according to the GHK study 

Member 
State 

Average number of screenings/year (2005-2008) 

Average number of EIAs/year 
(2005-2008) 

96 
2.337 (+) 
1,031 
58 
1.610 (+) 
2.200 (+) 
2.500 (+) 
830 (+) 
2.236 (+) 
36 
0 
1.146 
613 (+) 
928 
2.695 (+) 
895 
802 
710 
62 
1.312 
4,400 
1.127 (+) 
1.476 (+) 
1.081 
851 
476 
2.745 (+) 
34.253 

23 (-) 
AT 
183 
BE 
249 
BG 
96 
CY 
117 (-) 
CZ 
1.000 
DE 
125 (+) 
DK 
80 (+) 
EE 
1.054 (+) 
ES 
38 
FI 
3.867 (+) 
FR 
425 
GR 
152 (+) 
HU 
197 
IE 
1.548 (+) 
IT 
142 
LT 
70 
LU 
11 
LV 
10 
MT 
123 
NL 
4.000 
PL 
323 (+) 
PT 
596 
RO 
288 
SE 
108 
SI 
670 
SK 
598* 
UK 
EU-27 
16.093 
The white cells show numbers reported by the Member States to GHK, while the shaded cells contain numbers 
estimated by GHK based on population size. 
*: After the publication of the GHK study, the UK reported figures for 2005-2008 of 724, 544, 505 and 482 
respectively. The figures for several sets of EIA Regulations were however not available for 2006-2008. The 
number of EIAs is estimated to be short by 30-60 EIAs. 
(+/-)  The  number  of  screenings/EIAs  in  the  GHK  data/estimates  is  of  the  same  order  of  magnitude  as  the 
reported number of screenings or EIAs in the public consultation. 
(+) The number of screenings/EIAs in the GHK data/estimates is higher than the reported number of screenings 
or  EIAs  in  the  public  consultation.  No  conclusion  can  be  drawn  since  we  have  no  information  on  the 
completeness of the public consultation data. 
(-)  The  number  of  screenings  or  EIAs  in  the  GHK  data/estimates  is  lower  than  the  reported  number  of 
screenings or EIAs in the public consultation. This could indicate that the GHK data is an underestimation. 

For the definition of a baseline scenario, the  evolution  in  the  number  of  EIAs  over 
time also has to be estimated. For this purpose, it is assumed that the number of EIAs 
in the EU will grow in proportion to EU population numbers222. Application of the 
population growth rates drawn from Euro stat projections to the 2005-2008 average 
numbers  of  EIAs  results  in  a  gradual  rise  from  approximately  15.800  EIAs/year 
(average  for  the  period  2005-2008)  to  approximately  16.500  EIAs/year  in  2037,  as 
shown in the Figure 3 below. 

222 

While  the  ratio  number  of  EIAs/number  of  inhabitants  is  very  different  from  one  Member  State  to 
another,  a  correlation  can  be  assumed  between  the  total  number  of  EIAs  at  EU  level  and  the  total 
number of EU inhabitants over the years. 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 3: Projected number of EIAs per year for the EU (2008-2037) 

Data source 2: Number of EIAs based on data reported in the questionnaires of 
the GHK study 

An  alternative  method  to  estimate  the  number  of  EIAs  for  EU  is  to  calculate  an 
average number of EIAs/year per Member State, based on values provided by the 16 
Member States that replied to this question, and multiply this average number of EIA 
per Member State by 27223. This results in 25.650 EIAs/year on average at EU level, 
for the same period (against 15.800 EIAs/year reported by GHK). 

Data source 3: Number of EIA reported in the public consultation 

Two hundred public authorities responded to the public consultation on the review of 
the  EIA  Directive  in  2010,  which  included  questions  on  the  number  of  EIAs  and 
screening  decisions.  The  main  issue  with  these  data  is  that  it  is  unclear,  which 
fraction of public administrations involved in EIAs replied. In some Member States, 
the screening decisions and EIAs are considered by a central administration, in other 
Member  States  these  are  addressed  at  the  regional  or  provincial  level.  For  some 
Member States specialised administrations or authorities, such as water agencies are 
also  involved  in  screening  decisions  and  EIAs.  Some  of  these  administrations  give 
advice during an EIA procedure or apply for a decision, themselves, as initiator of a 
project. It is not clear which of the 202 respondents act as leading public authorities 
in an EIA process, which as advisors in some stages of the EIA process or which as 
initiators of projects. Therefore, the risk exists that a significant amount of the EIAs 
reported  in  the  consultation  are  in  fact  double  counts  of  the  same  EIA,  which 
prevents any extrapolation of these figures. The consultation results were not used as 
a data source for calculations in this study, however it gives an idea of the reliability 
of the data provided in the GHK study. 

Conclusion: Based on the analysis of the three data sources, a plausible range for the 
average  number  of  EIAs  for  the  period  2005-2008  in  the  EU  is  15.000  to  26.000 
EIAs  per  year.  It  is  not  possible  to  compare  this  range  of  values  with  the  total 

223 

It is assumed that the number of EIAs per Member State is entirely dependent on the transposition of 
the EIA Directive in each Member State and not correlated to any socio-economic characteristics of the 
Member State (population, GDP, etc.). 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
number of development consent delivered in the EU, as there are no data available on 
the latter aspect (which is not subject to EU legislation). 

10.4.2.  Number of screenings undertaken 

Under the current system, Member States are required to ensure that no project likely 
to have significant impacts on the environment escapes an EIA and the flexibility and 
discretion provided by the Directive is not  to undermine this (see  for example  ECJ 
case  C-435/97).  Screening  is  carried  out  for  Annex  II  projects  only  on  the  basis  of 
the criteria listed in Annex III. The number of screenings undertaken is an important 
variable  since  part of  the administrative burden for authorities depends on the time 
required to conduct these screenings. Some of the amendments analysed are likely to 
have an impact on the number of screenings, e.g. an increase in the number of Annex 
II projects or a shift of projects from Annex II to Annex I or a modification of Annex 
III criteria would increase or decrease the number of screenings to be carried out by 
the authorities. 

In  the  baseline  scenario,  no  changes  are  assumed  to  be  made  to  the  screening 
procedures or the project categories. Member States would be free to add new project 
categories to the Annexes as well as to set stricter criteria for projects to require an 
EIA.  The  process  would  be,  as  so  far,  guided  by  Commission  guidance  and  ECJ 
rulings. 

It is worth noting that the flexibility that currently exists within the EIA Directive on 
screening  does  not  provide  a  tangible  baseline,  to  the  extent  that  some  current 
practices  in  Member  States  are  already  similar  to  those  that  are  considered  here  as 
new  amendments  for  the  EIA  Directive.  For  instance,  consultation  of  the  public 
and/or  environmental  authorities  at  the  screening  stage  is  mandatory  in  several 
Member States, even if it is not a requirement of the EIA Directive. 

It  has  been  observed  that  Member  States  tend  to  implement  national  requirements 
going beyond the EIA Directive, for example by adding more projects to their list in 
annexes than required in the EIA Directive. This is done by either moving Annex II 
projects in the EIA Directive into Annex I list in national legislation or by lowering 
the thresholds for mandatory EIA projects in Annex I compared to the threshold of 
the  corresponding  project  type  in  the  EIA  Directive.  These  national  additional 
requirements may have both costs and benefits. 

Data source 1: Number of screenings based on the GHK study (2010) 

Average numbers of screenings per Member State have been estimated by GHK for 
the period 2005-2008. Similar to the case of EIA numbers, significant differences in 
the  numbers  of  screenings  can  be  observed  between  Member  States  of  comparable 
sizes,  due  to  differences  in  the  way  the  EIA  Directive  has  been  transposed. 
According  to  GHK,  approximately  33.800  screenings  were  conducted  each  year  in 
the  EU,  for  the  period  2005-2008.  For  the  same  reasons  as  above,  this  result  is 
subject to high uncertainty. 

Based  on  these  data  and  the  forecast  on  the  number  of  EIAs  presented  above,  an 
extrapolation  of  the  number  of  screenings  was  made  up  to  2037,  as  illustrated  in 
Figure 4. This results in an average number of screenings of 36.000 per year in 2036 
in the EU. 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
Figure 4: Projected number of screenings per year for the EU (2008-2037) 

Data  source  2:  Number  of  screenings  based  on  data  reported  in  the 
questionnaires of the GHK study 

According  to  data  on  the  number  of  screenings  reported  by  11  Member  States,  the 
average number of screenings per Member State can be estimated at 1,054 per year, 
for the period 2005-2008. An extrapolation of this average value to the EU gives a 
total of 27.400 screenings per year. 

Conclusion: On the basis of the results provided by the two different data sources, a 
plausible  average  range  of  values  for  the  EU  can  be  given  as  27.400  to  33.800 
screenings per year for the period 2005-2008. 

10.4.3.  Share of positive and negative screening decisions 

This  parameter  is  also  related  to  Annex  II  projects  only.  During  the  screening 
process,  competent  authorities  have  to  decide  whether  an  EIA  is  required,  on  the 
basis  of  thresholds  or  on  a  case-by-case,  taking  into  account  the  criteria  listed  in 
Annex III of the Directive. A positive screening decision is the one requiring an EIA 
for a project. Based on the calculations using the data sources available, the number 
of positive screenings is estimated between 5 and 10 % of all screenings, i.e. between 
1.370 and 3.380 per year. 

Data source 1: Number of positive screenings (GHK study (2010)) 

The  average  share  of  screenings  requiring  EIAs  (‘positive  screenings’)  per  year  is 
only reported for 12 Member States in the GHK report. Plotting the share of positive 
screenings  and  the  total  number  of  screenings  for  the  12  Member  states  for  which 
data is available leads to the following observations: 

– 

– 

A  decreasing  relationship  seems  to  exist  between  the  share  of  positive 
screenings and the total number of screenings (see Figure 5). 

The relationship is not linear but most likely log-linear. 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
 
– 

Poland  and  Cyprus  can  be  considered  as  outliers,  the  first  with  an  extremely 
large  number  of  screenings  and  the  latter  a  very  large  share  of  positive 
screenings. 

Figure 5: Share of positive screenings based on data from the GHK study (2010) 

Based  on  these  observations,  several  tests  were  carried  out  in  order  to  estimate  the 
relationship  between  the  share  of  positive  screenings  and  the  total  number  of 
screenings. The best fit for the respondents (excluding Cyprus and Poland) is a log-
linear relationship, as illustrated in Figure 6. 

Figure 6: Relationship between the share of positive screenings and the total number 
of screenings per year 

Based  on  this  relationship,  the  share  of  positive  screenings  for  Member  States  that 
did not report such data in the public consultation has been estimated for the period 
2005-2008:  it  amounts  to  5 %  of  the  total  number  of  screenings  or  some  1.610 
positive  screenings  per  year,  excluding  Poland  (and  11 %,  or  some  3.800  positive 
screenings per year if Poland is included). 

The small percentage of positive screenings could indicate a high level of uncertainty 
from  authorities  and  developers  on  when  an  EIA  is  actually  required.  It  could  also 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
 
 
mean that the screening process is actually used to modify the project plan in a way 
that an EIA would no longer be required. 

Estimates  of  the  numbers  of  positive  screenings  and  Annex  I  projects  for  each 
Member State are presented in Annex B. 

The  projection  of  the  number  of  positive  screenings  for  the  period  2008-2037  is 
made by applying the share of positive screenings in 2005-2008 to the projected total 
number  of  screenings.  This  projection  results  in  approximately  1.900224  to  4,000 
positive screenings for 2036225. 

Data  source  2:  Number  of  positive  screenings  based  on  data  reported  in  the 
questionnaires of the GHK study 

Only  five  Member  States  provided  data  on  the  total  number  of  screenings  and  the 
number  of  positive  screenings.  They  reported  that,  on  average,  10 %  of  the  total 
number  of  screenings  result  in  an  EIA.  Extrapolating  this  figure  to  the  EU  gives 
2.791 positive screenings per year for the period 2005-2008. 

If we also take into account the data of the Member States that solely stated a number 
for the positive screenings, the average is 50 positive screenings per Member State. 
For the EU this would amount to 5 % or 1.371 positive screenings per year for the 
period 2005-2008. 

Conclusion:  Based  on  the  calculations  using  the  two  data  sources,  the  number  of 
positive screenings is estimated between 5 and 10 % of all screenings, i.e. between 
1.370 and 3.380 per year. 

10.4.4.  Average duration of the EIA process 

In the current situation, the EIA Directive does not specify a maximum time-frame 
for  the  overall  EIA  process.  With  regard  to  public  participation,  the  Directive 
requires  that  ‘reasonable  time-frames’  for  the  different  consultation  phases  be 
provided (Article 6(6)). This provision seems to be interpreted in different ways by 
the  Member  States:  durations  for  the  public  consultation  vary  considerably  among 
Member States, from two weeks up to two-three months. 

Table 19: Average duration of the EIA process per stage 

Stage of EIA process 
Screening 
Scoping 
Environmental information (report) 
Consultations (public, authorities, other Member States…) 
Final decision 

Average duration 
1.2 months  
1.3 months 
5.5 months 
1.6 months 
2 months 

According  to  GHK  estimates,  the  average  duration  of  an  EIA  process  is 
11.6 months226. This is illustrated in the Table 19, which also provides a breakdown 

224 
225 
226 

Based on the ratio of positive screenings to the total number of screenings excluding Poland, i.e. 5 %. 
Based on the overall ratio including Poland. 
GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive. 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
                                                 
according to the main stages of an EIA process. The assumption used here is that the 
average duration of the whole EIA process as well as the average duration of each of 
the  key  stages  of  the  EIA  process  would  remain  the  same  over  the  forecasting 
horizon, in the baseline scenario. 

10.4.4.1. Efforts required for each step of the EIA process 

The GHK study only give case-by-case information on the breakdown of costs and 
efforts for authorities and for developers. 

• 

Efforts for authorities 

In general, most of the efforts are related to the review of environmental information 
and the final decision-making. The case studies show a relatively large effort during 
the  scoping  stage  proved  to  require  relatively  less  effort  during  the  stage  of  final 
decision-making.  Based  on  information  from  the  case  studies,  the  following 
assumptions were made for the purposes of this report: 

– 

– 

– 

Screening: 3 % of total EIA cost 

Scoping: 8 % of total EIA cost 

Review of information on environmental impacts and decision-making: 89 % 
of total EIA cost. 

• 

Efforts for developers 

The GHK study contains more information on the cost incurred by developers than 
by authorities. The case studies show that developers put most of their effort in the 
preparation of the EIA report. In some cases, effort is also put in preliminary studies 
(rather  limited)  and  in  additional  technical  assessments  after  the  decision  phase. 
These additional technical assessments and the development of mitigating measures 
can  be  significant  and  often  surpass  the  entire  EIA  budget  borne  by  the  developer. 
This  information  is  used  during  the  impact  assessment  of  the  various  policy 
scenarios, but costs related to additional  assessments are not taken into  account  for 
the breakdown of costs. Table 20 illustrates the assumptions made for the purposes 
of the report, on the basis of the breakdown of costs reported by GHK. 

Table 20: Costs of the EIA process per stage 

Stage of the EIA process 

Share of total EIA cost* 

Cost (€) per EIA 
stage** 

Preliminary studies  
(prior to the initiation of the EIA) 
Screening and scoping 
Information on environmental impacts 
Revision of EIA report (if needed) 

1 % 

2 % 
80 %227 
17 % 
100 % 

425 

850 
32.715 
7.010 
41.000 

* Median values were then adjusted to give a total of 100 %. 
**The total cost of an EIA for developers is further discussed in Section 3.1.3. 

227 

According  to  a  study  (JRC  (2010),  The  Use  of  Spatial  Data  for  the  Preparation  of  Environmental 
Reports in Europe), the average time needed by environmental consultants to complete an EIA report is 
between 1 and 3 months. 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
10.4.4.2. Main categories of projects subject to EIA 

‘development’ 

(covering  urban  and 

The GHK study provides a breakdown of projects into three broad categories, for 11 
Member  States228:  ‘infrastructure’  (covering  energy,  transport,  water  management 
and  waste  management); 
industrial 
development);  and  ‘other’  (covering  everything  else).  This  is  illustrated  in  below. 
These  results  were  then  extrapolated  by  GHK  in  order  to  estimate  missing  data229. 
According to the GHK analysis, the results appear to suggest that the new Member 
States  and  some  Cohesion  Member  States  (Greece  and  Portugal)  are  undertaking  a 
significantly higher proportion of infrastructure-based projects. The analysis suggests 
that  around  35-55 %  of  EIAs  conducted  within  the  ‘newer’  Member  States  are  for 
infrastructure  projects.  This  contrasts  with  the  older  Member  States,  which  mainly 
exhibit  higher  rates  of  development  projects  relating  to  urban  and  industrial 
development.  It  was  not  possible  to  find  a  more  detailed  breakdown  of  EIAs  by 
project category nor to identify the share of projects subject to requirements of both 
the EIA Directive and the IED230. 

10.4.5.  Number and size of actors involved in EIA processes 

Public authorities 

The number of authorities involved in the EIA process can have an influence on the 
level  of  efforts  required  to  transpose  new  or  modified  EU  legal  requirements  into 
domestic legislation, to train civil servants dealing with EIAs, etc. According to the 
GHK study, the average number of staff employed by the Member States to process 
EIAs is 52 persons231 (based on responses from 10 Member States). Hence the total 
number  of  persons  affected  by  a  modification  of  the  Directive  can  be  estimated  at 
some 1.400 persons at EU level. However, the GHK study does not specify whether 

228 

229 

230 

231 

The 11 Member States for which data were available are: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, 
Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Slovakia. 
This was done using a NordRegio study for DG Regional Policy in 2009. This grouped each of the 27 
Member States into one of six ‘development paths’. 
It  is  known  that  most  activities  covered  by  the  IED  are  also  covered  by  the  EIA  Directive,  but  the 
annual number of EIAs concerning projects that are also subject to the EID remains unknown. 
GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive, p.17. 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
this figure is measured in terms of Full Time Equivalents or just in terms of persons 
involved  in  the  process.  The  large  deviation  on  this  parameter  suggests  that 
respondents  may  have  interpreted  this  question  in  a  different  way,  for  example  by 
answering  the  question  for  their  organisation  and  not  for  the  Member  State  as  a 
whole. Hence, it has to be used and interpreted with caution. 

Developers 

Developers can be private parties or the public authority (e.g.  in the case  of public 
infrastructure).  The  number  of  developers  involved  in  EIA  processes  can  have  an 
influence on economic impacts of a change to the EIA Directive (e.g. on the overall 
costs  incurred  by  those  developers  to  be  trained  on  the  application  of  new  or 
modified provisions of the EIA Directive). However, no data is available on the total 
number of developers involved in EIAs.  

The only information reported by GHK is a breakdown of EIAs undertaken by type 
of developer (SME, large companies or public authorities), available for 6 Member 
States, as presented in Table 21. However, GHK concluded that no specific pattern 
could be derived from these values232. 

Table 21: Breakdown of EIAs undertaken by type of developer in six Member States 
Share of EIAs per type of developer (2008) 

Member State 

FI 
LV 
SK 
BE (FL)* 
CY 
GR 

SME  
(0-249 employees) 
30 % 
67 % 
18 % 
n/a 
76 % 
10 % 

Large company 
(> 250 employees) 
50 % 
33 % 
47 % 
n/a 
8 % 
5 % 

Public authority 

20 % 
n/a 
35 % 
14 % 
16 % 
85 % 

*No  information  provided  for  the  other  Belgian  regions.  Flanders  region  stated  that  13  of  96  EIAs 
were undertaken by public authorities, but did not provide any further detail. 

Environmental consultancy firms 

The number of environmental consultancy firms involved in EIA processes can have 
an  influence  on  economic  impacts  of  a  change  to  the  EIA  Directive  (e.g.  on  the 
overall costs to obtain a possible accreditation for preparing EIA reports), however 
no data is available on the total number of these firms at EU level. 

According  to  a  study  by  JRC233,  it  appears  that  the  majority  of  consultancies 
involved  in  EIA/SEA  reports  across  Europe  are  medium-sized  companies,  whose 
annual turnover is normally below € 100.000; only a few  outliers were noted, with 
annual turnover over € 1 million. The majority of these organisations carry out up to 
5  EIAs  or  SEAs  per  year.  The  same  study  showed  that  such  consultancies  usually 
employ  less  than  5  full  time  equivalent  (FTE)  staff  involved  in  the  preparation  of 
EIAs/SEAs. 

232 

233 

GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive, p.16. 
JRC (2010), The Use of Spatial Data for the Preparation of Environmental Reports in Europe. 

EN 

75 

   EN 

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

The identification of the specific aspects of the problem is based on the information 
contained in the Communication Reports on the application and effectiveness of the 
EIA  Directive  (in  particular  the  one  published  in  July  2009),  the  COWI  report  and 
the  outcomes  of  the  public  consultation  on  the  review  of  the  EIA  Directive.  Each 
specific aspects of the problem may have one or several underlying causes, some of 
them  being  common  to  several  problems.  The  listing  of  specific  problems  is  not 
primarily  organised  by  types  of  underlying  causes  (drivers).  Instead  the  specific 
problems  have  been  categorised  in  the  following  areas:  (a)  issues  related  to 
screening; (b) issues related to quality and completeness of information for the EIA 
process; (c) issues related to consistency with other policies and legal requirements; 
(d)  issues  related  to  public  participation  and  timing  of  EIA  processes.  The  chosen 
categorisation appears to be more suitable for presenting the specific aspects of the 
problem the review of the EIA Directive is supposed to tackle, as it corresponds to 
the main phases of the EIA process. 

Each  problem  may  have  one  or  several  underlying  causes,  some  of  them  being 
common  to  several  problems.  The  listing  of  specific  problems  is  not  primarily 
organised by types of underlying causes (drivers). Instead the specific problems have 
been  categorised  in  the  following  areas:  (a)  issues  related  to  screening;  (b)  issues 
related to quality of the EIA process; (c) issues related to consistency with other legal 
requirements; (d) issues related to the time-frames of the EIA process. An overview 
of the problem issues per problem area is presented below in the Table 22 below: 

Table 22: Overview of the general and specific problems 

General problem 

Problem area 

Specific issue  

Screening 

Regulatory failures 

Quality of the EIA 
process 

Risks of 
inconsistencies 

Inconsistency with 
other policies and 
legal requirements 

Time-frame of the 
EIA process  

Issue n°1: Discrepancies in screening 
procedures 
Issue n°2: Salami-slicing/cumulative effects 
Issue n°3: Poor quality of information and 
analysis 
Issue n°4: Poor consideration of project 
alternatives 
Issue n°5: Unclear justification of final 
decision  
Issue n°6: Insufficient post-EIA impact 
monitoring 
Issue n°7: Incomplete scope of EIA reports 

Issue n°8: Overlaps in information and 
procedural requirements 

Issue n°9: Inconsistency with other 
legislation/international conventions 
Issue  n°10:  Unclear  time-frame  for  public 
consultation 
Issue 
processes 

decision-making 

Lengthy 

n°11: 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10.5.1.  Issues related to screening 

Failures to correctly transpose or apply the requirements of the EIA Directive with 
regard to the screening process provide for one of the most significant problems. On 
the  basis  of  the  Commission’s  experience  in  the  implementation  of  the  EIA 
Directive,  screening  appeared  to  be  a  problem  in  69 %  of  the  infringement  cases 
initiated by the Commission and related to the EIA Directive (incorrect transposition 
or bad application). This represents a total of 178 cases to date. Most of these cases 
were  solved  without  any  referral  to  the  Court,  however,  in  some  cases  the 
Commission decided to bring the matter before the Court. Data shows that 80 % of 
the  infringement  cases  brought  before  the  ECJ  by  the  Commission  concerning  the 
EIA Directive were related to the screening provisions234. 

10.5.1.1. Issue n°1: Discrepancies in screening procedures 

(a)  Description 

The  screening  procedure,  i.e.  the  decision  to  require  an  EIA  for  a  project  listed  in 
Annex  II  or  not,  is  not  implemented  in  a  harmonised  way  among  Member  States. 
Screening criteria are interpreted in various different ways by competent authorities. 
Implementation  and  case-law  show  that,  when  establishing  thresholds,  Member 
States often exceed their margin of discretion, either by taking account only of some 
selection  criteria  in  Annex  III  or  by  exempting  some  projects  in  advance.  This 
practice results in large differences in the total number of EIAs carried out from one 
Member State to another: from fewer than 10 to 4000 per year even when comparing 
Member States of a similar size. 

It  is  therefore  likely  that,  in  some  Member  States,  certain  projects  with  significant 
environmental  impacts  escape  the  EIA  requirement,  leading  to  the  absence  of 
mitigation  measures  for  significant  environmental  impacts  and  a  lack  of  a  well 
informed  decision process.  On the  contrary, in  other Member States, some  projects 
with minor environmental impacts may be subject to EIAs, while the benefits of such 
EIAs  are  limited  when  compared  to  the  administrative  burden  generated  for 
developers and authorities. 

The  existence  of  such  a  margin  for  interpretation  in  the  screening  procedure  also 
generates  a  lack  of  certainty  for  developers.  It  also  results  in  excessive  litigation 
cases  where  screening  decisions  made  by  competent  authorities  are  challenged  by 
developers or third parties: currently the vast majority of infringements resulting in 
court ruling with regard to the EIA Directive’s implementation are related to projects 
covered by Annex II categories but for which competent authorities did not require 
an EIA. 

(b)  Potential drivers 

The EIA Directive gives Member States broad scope to determine whether an EIA is 
required  for  projects  listed  in  Annex  II,  while  the  screening  criteria  provided  in 

234 

The above figures are based on a research in the Commission’s Infringement Database, which includes 
the  investigations  carried  out  by  the  Commission  services  concerning  compliance  with  the  EU 
legislation (date of search: 8/8/2011). 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex  III  are  not  very  specific.  This  process,  which  is  based  on  the  principle  of 
subsidiarity, has resulted in a wide variation in the types and levels of thresholds or 
criteria set by Member States. The degree of decentralised implementation of some 
Member States can be an additional factor leading to wider variation, even within the 
same country. In addition, the definitions of certain project categories are not clear, 
e.g. ‘integrated chemical installations’235. 

Guidance  was  issued  by  the  EC  (guidance  on  screening  in  2001;  guidance  on 
interpretation of definitions of certain project categories in 2008), but no significant 
improvement of the situation has been observed. The cause of the problem therefore 
seems  to  be  more  related  to  the  design  of  the  EIA  Directive  itself  than  its 
implementation and transposition. 

10.5.1.2. Issue n°2: Salami-slicing/cumulative effects 

(a)  Description 

Some projects with significant environmental impacts (e.g. infrastructure and larger 
construction projects) escape the EIA requirement by being divided into two or more 
separate  entities  or  sub-projects  to  avoid  thresholds  that  would  trigger  an  EIA 
(‘salami-slicing’  practices).  This  can  happen  through  splitting  of  territory,  dividing 
the  project  into  sub-projects  where  developers  are  nonetheless  closely  related, 
stretching  activities  over  time  or  doing  several  smaller  rounds  of  project 
modifications.  This  problem has been to a  certain degree overcome  in old Member 
States,  as  several  court  rulings  in  Member  States  have  ruled  this  practice  to  be 
unacceptable. However, it is still frequently observed in new Member States, where 
in the majority of cases respective national regulations to prevent this practice is not 
in  place  or  where  respective  regulation  and  guidance  is  not  properly  followed  on  a 
local level236. 

(b)  Potential drivers 

Annex  III  of  the  EIA  Directive  requires  that  cumulative  effects  with  other  projects 
should be taken into account. The Commission has also issued a guidance document 
on how to assess cumulative impacts of projects237 and relevant court rulings exist. 
Despite  these  ‘salami-slicing’  is  still  frequent  in  new  Member  States,  although  the 
magnitude  is  difficult  to  assess.  Causes  are  both  a  lack  of  specific  provisions  in 
national  law  transposing  the  EIA  Directive  and  inadequate  enforcement  of  existing 
provisions, which may also be influenced by insufficient capacities and skills on the 
side of responsible public authorities238. 

235 

236 

237 

238 

COWI (2009), Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, 
June 2009. 
COWI (2009), Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, 
June 2009 (see Table 7-7, which contains various examples). 
EC  (1999)  Guidelines  for  the  Assessment  of  Indirect  and  Cumulative  Impacts  as  well  as  Impact 
Interactions.  
COWI (2009), Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, 
June 2009. 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
                                                 
10.5.1.3. How would the situation evolve without policy changes? 

In the absence of future policy changes, issue n°1 is unlikely to be solved as it mostly 
relates to the design of the EIA Directive. Future interpretation issues will continue 
to  trigger  legal  proceedings.  Without  modifications  to  the  EIA  Directive,  the 
jurisprudence  will  continue  to  develop  and  the  Directive  will  be  more  and  more 
difficult to interpret, which would probably enlarge the screening problem. 

With  regard  to  issue  n°2,  improvements  could  occur  in  the  future  as  a  result  of 
increased experience gained in the new Member States and better enforcement of the 
Directive. Improved guidance from the Commission, as requested by some Member 
States  could  contribute  to  limiting  the  extent  of  the  problem  without  however 
resolving it. The implementation experience shows that the use of guidance can not 
completely solve problems. 

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

10.5.2.1. Issue n°3: Poor quality of information and analysis 

(a)  Description 

As  reported  by  previous  studies  and  the  public  consultation,  poor  quality  of 
information  and  analysis  is  one  of  the  main  criticisms  made  by  EIA  experts  from 
Member  States  as  well  as  NGOs.  EIAs  are  often  found  to  be  too  descriptive  and 
lacking  focus.  Moreover,  there  appears  to  be  a  frequent  problem  with  interpreting 
what  is  meant  by  ‘significant’  environmental  effects  (Article 2(1)  of  the  EIA 
Directive).  Some  EIAs  also  lack  relevant  quantitative  data  to  characterise 
environmental impacts. 

For  instance,  although  Article  3  of  the  EIA  Directive  refers  to  both  ‘direct  and 
indirect’ effects of a project, in practice the environmental impacts described in EIAs 
are mostly related to direct impacts (e.g. emissions of pollutants and wastes from the 
construction and operational phases of the project), while indirect impacts and life-
cycle impacts are rarely covered in detail (e.g. depletion of natural resources due to 
the  use  of  certain  products  and  materials,  greenhouse  gas  emissions  from 
transportation  activities  induced  by  the  project,  environmental  impacts  of  products 
manufactured or services provided). 

As a result, the decision-making process is not properly informed and environmental 
concerns are sidelined. However, the ability to make valid decisions depends on the 
quality of the information used in the EIA documentation and the quality of the EIA 
process. Quality is therefore a crucial element for the effectiveness of the Directive. 

Furthermore, a poor information quality can lead to additional administrative burden 
and  increasing  costs  for  authorities,  stakeholders  and  developers  alike.  This  is 
particularly  the  case  when  additional  information  needs  to  be  requested  from 
developers  and  new  versions  of  the  report  need  to  be  reviewed  again.  The  time 
needed for these procedural iterations increases costs for all concerned parties; such 
extra costs could be avoided through a better following of EIA reporting guidelines, 
which  could  be  incentivised  through  clearer  guidance  and  better  enforcement 
options. 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
(b)  Potential drivers 

The  EIA  Directive  lays  down  essentially  procedural  steps;  it  does  not  establish 
obligatory  environmental  standards.  The  competent  authorities  are  obliged  to  take 
into  consideration  the  results  of  consultations  and  the  information  submitted  by 
developers and to provide specific information at the end of the development consent 
procedure  (Articles  8  and  9),  but  they  are not  obliged  to  draw  specific  conclusions 
from the findings of the EIA. Ensuring quality control in an EIA is largely left to the 
national competent authorities. 

Drivers of the problem identified seem to be both related to the content of the EIA 
Directive itself as well as its practical application by national authorities (e.g. see the 
case C-50/09) and by developers and consultants. 

With regard to the content of the EIA Directive, no quality standards are imposed by 
the  EIA  Directive  in  terms  of  the  environmental  information  to  be  submitted  by 
developers.  In  addition,  the  scoping  procedure,  which  could  streamline  the 
information to be submitted, is only optional under the EIA. This leads to significant 
discrepancies  in  the  quality  of  reports  submitted  by  developers.  In  some  Member 
States, improper scoping processes have a knock-on effect in terms of preventing a 
more  focused  approach  targeting  the  main  environmental  issues.  Several  Member 
States  also  reported  that  competent  authorities  may  in  some  cases  be  reluctant  to 
provide  clear  decisions  on  the  content,  extent  and  methods  of  the  environmental 
assessment;  this  may  result  in  the  development  of  EIA  procedures  without  any 
distinction between significant impacts and trivial impacts. 

The guidance on scoping239 includes several checklists which are supposed to serve 
the  function  of  quality  insurance  tools.  The  guidance  is  being  applied,  although 
Member States argue that it needs updating. 

Some Member States consider that the lack of adequate technical skills of the authors 
of EIA reports may be an obstacle to good quality EIA reports. Additionally, in some 
of the new Member States, a lack of human resources among competent authorities 
to review EIA reports has been noted, as well as a lack of experience of authorities 
and developers in the application of the EIA requirements. To address these issues, 
Member states have implemented mandatory accreditation procedures for authors of 
EIA reports (e.g. Belgium) or created organisations in charge of quality control (e.g. 
independent  agency  in  the  Netherlands  or  internal  committees  in  France,  Italy  and 
recently Greece). 

Some  of  the  quality  issues  may  also  result  from  the  difficulty  for  developers  and 
consultants to access reliable data required to prepare an EIA report. According to a 
survey  of  the  JRC240,  between  11  and  20  different  types  of  spatial  data  are  used  in 
order to prepare an EIA or SEA report and practitioners undertaking EIAs in Europe 
still  face  difficulties  in  finding  and  accessing  data  of  the  quality  needed  for  their 
purpose.  The  availability  and  accessibility  of  environmental  data  is  an  issue  which 

239 

240 

EC  (2001),  Guidance  on  EIA  - Scoping (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-guidelines/g-scoping-
full-text.pdf).  
JRC (2010), The Use of Spatial Data for the Preparation of Environmental Reports in Europe. 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
                                                 
affects the implementation of the EIA Directive, however it is a much broader issue 
which cannot be solved only through a modification of the EIA Directive. 

10.5.2.2. Issue n°4: Poor consideration of project alternatives 

(a)  Description 

In  most  of  the  Member  States  there  is  a  legal  obligation  to  consider  alternatives, 
taking  into  account  the  envisaged  objectives  of  the  project  subject  to  the 
development  consent241.  However,  the  number  and  types  of  alternatives  assessed 
vary significantly across the Member States and, in many cases, project alternatives 
are not described and assessed in detail by the developers and there is no cost-benefit 
analysis  to  justify  the  final  choice.  This  does  not  properly  inform  the  decision 
process  for  delivering  consents  and  does  not  provide  the  opportunity  to  adjust  the 
project in its early development stages in order to minimise environmental impacts. 
As  reported  in  a  case  study  reviewed  by  GHK242,  the  ability  to  assess  different 
alternatives of a project is seen as the main added value of an EIA process, especially 
for infrastructure projects, because it makes a real comparison possible. 

At present time, this part of the EIA tends to be considered more as a formality than 
a  real  opportunity  to  adjust  the  project  design.  However,  non-consideration  of 
reasonable  project  alternatives  can  lead  to  delays  with  the  overall  project 
implementation  as  failing  to  account  for  reasonable  alternatives  often  leads  to 
resubmission of EIA reports and court litigation. 

Besides, the lack of a systematic and detailed assessment of reasonable alternatives 
induces some inconsistencies with the SEA Directive (where it is also applicable to 
the project) and with the text of the Espoo Convention243. 

(b)  Potential drivers 

The EIA Directive only requires ‘an outline of the main alternatives studied by the 
developer’ (Article 5 and Annex IV) and there is no guidance specifying on the types 
of  alternatives  to  be  studied,  which  leaves  a  lot  of  discretion  to  the  competent 
authorities, as well as to the developers. 

In  the  absence  of  more  specific  provisions  in  the  EIA  Directive,  competent 
authorities  do  not  tend  to  require  further  assessment  of  alternatives  from  the 
developers. 

10.5.2.3. Issue n°5: Unclear justification of final decision  

(a)  Description 

241 
242 

243 

EC (2003), Report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive. 
GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive, Annex 7, Britned Connector, Netherlands. 
Article 5 of the SEA Directive requires that "reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives 
and the geographical scope of the plan or programme, are identified, described and evaluated", while 
Appendix II of the Espoo Convention requires the assessment of the "zero alternative". 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Certain  projects  where  the  EIA  demonstrates  significant  adverse  environmental 
impacts  are  granted  development  consent  with  no  clear  justification  of  the  reasons 
and  the  conditions  associated  with  the  decision.  In  such  instances,  it  is  difficult  to 
ensure  that  the  decision  process  has  been  well  informed  and  that  a  high  level  of 
environmental protection is warranted once the project is developed. This increases 
the risk of court proceedings from third parties challenging the authorities’ decision. 

(b)  Potential drivers 

Currently Article 8 only requires the results of the consultations (with the public and 
the  authorities)  and  the  information  gathered  to  be  taken  into  consideration  in  the 
development  consent  procedure.  This  requirement  is  not  specific  enough  to  ensure 
environmental  protection  is  warranted  especially  when  projects  with  significant 
adverse environmental effects are granted development consent. 

10.5.2.4. Issue n°6: Insufficient post-EIA impact monitoring 

(a)  Description 

The  issue  of  projects  generating  more  significant  environmental  impacts  and 
damages  than  what  was  initially  assessed  in  the  EIA,  because  of  erroneous 
assumptions  and  predictions  and/or  because  mitigation  measures  described  in  the 
EIA report have not been put in place by the developer, has been widely discussed in 
EIA-related  literature.  This  situation  contravenes  the  overarching  goal  of  the  EIA 
Directive which is to ensure environmental considerations are taken into account in 
project development. 

Competent  authorities  often  do  not  engage  in  proper  ex-post  impact  monitoring, 
hence the actual implementation and effectiveness of measures described in the EIA 
report  is  not  systematically  checked  by  the  authorities.  This  issue  is  of  particular 
relevance  for  projects  that  are  not  already  subject  to  environmental  monitoring 
requirements  (e.g.  under  the  Directive  on  Industrial  Emissions  (IED)  or  as  part  of 
voluntary environmental management systems). 

(b)  Potential drivers 

The key reason for the lack of systematic ex-post impact monitoring is the lack of an 
appropriate regulation in the EIA Directive itself. Procedures imposed by the current 
EIA  Directive  do  not  require  authorities  to  take  into  account  the  management  of 
impacts  once  the  development  consent  is  granted.  Another  reason  is  that  such  a 
systematic monitoring is resource-intensive. Responsible authorities, and particularly 
those in the new Member States, do not always have sufficient means to undertake 
such monitoring in the absence of clear requirements from the EIA Directive. 

10.5.2.5. Issue n°7: Incomplete scope of EIA reports 

(a)  Description 

The  required  scope  for  EIA  reports  is  not  adequately  considering  environmental 
issues  which  have  arisen  over  the  last  20  years.  Projects  can  be  identified,  which 
have  a  strong  potential  for  adverse  effects  in  relation  to  those  issues  but  are  not 
incorporated in the EIA Directive yet. This is in conflict with the policy objectives of 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
legislation.  This  concerns 

EU 
in  particular  climate  change,  disaster  risks, 
biodiversity,  the  marine  environment  and  the  use  of  natural  resources.  The  EIA 
Directive  is  seen  as  an  important  policy  instrument  available  to  achieve  EU 
environmental goals related to these five key issues. However, while the potential for 
adverse  effects  in  relation  to  these  issues  can  be  significant  when  projects  are 
developed or modified, they are not sufficiently covered in current EIA reports. This 
restricts  the  potential  for  the  EIA  Directive  to  contribute  to  achieving  EU’s 
environmental goals with regard to these five key issues. 

Impacts related to climate change 

At present, EIA reports do not look at the contributions from projects to the causes of 
global climate change (in terms of directly and indirectly inducing GHG emissions) 
as well as the contributions to impacts from a changing climate on human-wellbeing 
(health  concerns),  environment  (i.e.  water  scarcity,  floods,  droughts,  etc.)  or  key 
infrastructures  and  economic  activities  in  sectors  (urban  infrastructure,  transport 
infrastructure,  agriculture  energy,  etc.).  With  the  adoption  of  the  ‘Climate  and 
Energy Package’, the EU has committed to transforming itself into a highly energy-
efficient,  low  carbon  economy.  In  a  Communication  from  26  May  2010244,  the 
Commission has stated that ‘arresting the rise in global temperature remains one of 
the  biggest  challenges  facing  this  generation’.  Accordingly,  the  Commission  has 
proposed  a  new  long-term  roadmap  for  moving  towards  a  low-carbon  Europe’s 
economy245. 

Adaptation to climate change is also a significant challenge, as climate change poses 
new threats to project activities in various economic sectors; the EU approach in this 
regard  is  presented  in  the  White  Paper  on  Adaptation246,  which  recognises  that 
‘climate  change  will  lead  to  significant  economic  and  social  impacts  with  some 
regions  and  sectors  likely  to  bear  greater  adverse  effects’  and  that  adaptation 
measures are  needed. As climate change is  being  mainstreamed  in  EU  policies  and 
cooperation  programmes  and  the  EU  adaptation  strategy  is  being  developed, 
systematic climate risk assessment (such as climate variability, hazard forecasting) or 
‘climate proofing’ is important in this regard. 

Transportation is a significant aspect in the fight against climate change and is also 
an important aspect of many projects subject to EIAs. The EU’s vision for 2020, as 
stated in the EC Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, 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’. 

Impacts related to disaster risks  

Recent years have witnessed marked increase in the number and severity of natural 
and  man-made  disasters  which  have  underlined  the  importance  of  effective  risk 
prevention  and  preparedness  measures  to  avoid  and  reduce  potential  economic  and 
environmental damages and raise public awareness. 92 % of disasters last year were 

244 

245 
246 

COM(2010) 265,  Analysis  of  options  to  move beyond  20  %  greenhouse  gas  emission  reductions  and 
assessing the risk of carbon leakage. 
COM (2011)112, A roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy. 
COM(2009)147,White paper - Adapting to climate change : towards a European framework for action. 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
                                                 
climate-related  and  the  current  policy  approaches  and  actions  for  adaptation  and 
disaster prevention are complementary. On the other hand, there are other natural and 
man-made disasters which can have impacts on projects, but are not climate-related 
such as earthquakes, technological and industrial accidents. The EU risk prevention 
policy  is  framed  in  the  2009  Communication  ‘A  Community  approach  on  the 
prevention  of  natural  and  man-made  disasters’247  which  points  to  ‘progressively 
growing  vulnerability  to  disasters  partly  as  a  consequence  of  increasing  intensive 
land use, industrial development, urban expansion and infrastructure construction’. 

Disaster risks are not considered in the current EIAs, although projects are among the 
underlying drivers for the increasing vulnerability of the associated factors (material 
assets, human beings, flora, fauna etc.). At the same time, they can be also exposed 
to serious disaster risks (e.g. earthquakes, floods, technological hazards) which could 
significantly  impede  the  activities  and  objectives  of  the  project  and  have  adverse 
effects.  In  the  2009  Prevention  Communication,  the  Commission  has  committed 
itself  to  mainstream  disaster  prevention  concerns  in  the  EU  legislation  and  in 
particular  in  the  EIA  Directive.  It  is  important  to  ensure  that  new  projects  and 
investments are disaster-proof through procedures which require risk assessment and 
risk  management  of  potential  hazards,  as  envisaged  in  the  EU  Internal  Security 
Strategy248 aiming to "increase the security and build resilience to natural and man-
made disasters". 

Impacts of projects on biodiversity 

At present, the analysis of Member States’ experience in implementing Article 6 of 
the Habitats Directive249 shows that the protection of biodiversity under the Habitats 
Directive  only  covers  projects  that  directly  have  a  negative  impact  on  Natura  2000 
sites,  whereas  biodiversity  in  general  may  not  be  efficiently  covered  by  EIA 
requirements outside Natura 2000 sites250, but the information base is thin. EIAs are 
quite  often  not  based  on  appropriate  methodologies  to  account  for  the  impacts  of 
projects on biodiversity, and are not coordinated with relevant biodiversity policies. 
The EU has missed its 2010 target of halting biodiversity decline and it is recognised 
that  efforts  to  protect  biodiversity  should  be  enhanced.  The  new  EU  Biodiversity 
Strategy251  has  reiterated  the  target  of  halting  biodiversity  loss  by  2020  and 
recognises  that  biodiversity  loss  is  "the  most  critical  global  environmental  threat 
alongside climate change". 

Impacts of projects on marine environment and on maritime issues 

The marine environment holds economic opportunities in a wide range of sectors and 
provides  key  ecosystem  services;  pressures  on  these  systems,  including  from  the 
discharge  into  the  sea  of  pollutants  in  freshwater,  are  still  severe252.  Following 

247 
248 
249 

250 

251 
252 

COM(2009)82. 
COM(2010)673. 
Article  6(3)  requires  that  any  plan or project  likely  to  have  a  significant  effect  on  a  Natura 2000  site 
should be subject to an “appropriate assessment“. 
COWI (2009), Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, 
June 2009. 
COM(2011)244, ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’. 
COM(2011)571, ‘Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe’ (Chapter 4.7). 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
                                                 
adoption  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (2008)253,  some  projects 
within  the  marine  territory  have  become  subject  to  EIA,  therefore  impacts  on  the 
marine  environment  will  become  an  important  aspect  of  in  EIAs  of  such  projects. 
The  Roadmap  to  a  Resource  Efficient  Europe254  recognises  "the  lack  of  coherent 
management of sea space which is already affecting our possibilities to benefit from 
maritime activities". The EU’s objective is to achieve ‘good environmental status of 
all EU marine waters by 2020. In this light, there is a need for a better coordination 
between  the  requirements  of  the  EIA  Directive  and  the  marine  and  maritime  EU 
policy. 

Impacts  of  projects  on  the  use  of  natural  resources  (depletion  risks,  resource  use 
considerations) 

The EIA  Directive does  not  require  a  systemic checking for impacts of projects  on 
the  overall  use  and  depletion  of  natural  resources.  However,  the  EU  has  started  to 
develop a comprehensive approach to the sustainable use of natural resources, which 
needs to be better reflected in the EIA Directive. 

The  Thematic  Strategy  on  the  Sustainable  Use  of  Resources255  points  out  that  ‘if 
current  patterns  of  resource  use  are  maintained  in  Europe,  environmental 
degradation  and  depletion  of  natural  resources  will  continue’  and  emphasises  the 
importance  of  integrating  environmental  concerns  into  other  policies  that  affect 
environmental impacts of natural resources use. The need to address the challenge of 
the  unsustainable  use  of  resources  has  been  recognised  in  several  high  level  policy 
documents  (Sixth  Environment  Action  Programme256,  EU  2020  Strategy257,  EU 
Sustainable  Development  Strategy258,  Thematic  Strategy  on  the  Sustainable  Use  of 
Natural Resources259). This issue is also identified as a priority in the Roadmap to a 
Resource  Efficient  Europe260;  the  roadmap  itself  contains  an  objective  for  the 
Commission to ‘include broader resource efficiency considerations in the review of 
the EIA Directive’ (Chapter 4.6 of the roadmap). 

(b)  Potential drivers 

Since the adoption of the EIA Directive 25 years ago, new environmental challenges 
have  arisen,  which  are  not  specifically  covered  by  the  Directive,  as  they  have  not 
been taken on board in previous rounds of revision of the Directive. This concerns in 
particular  climate  change, 
intensity  of  disasters, 
biodiversity,  marine  protection  and  the  efficient  use  of  natural  resources.  These 
issues are not expressly referred to in the list of environmental topics covered by the 
Directive  (Article  3  and  Annexes  III  and  IV).  ‘Climate’  is  mentioned  in  Article  3 
however it does not specifically refer to ‘global climate change’. Effects of projects 
on  ‘human  beings,  (...),  material  assets,  etc.’  are  mentioned  in  Article  3,  but  the 

increased  frequency  and 

253 

254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 

Directive 2008/56/EC of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of 
marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). 
COM(2011)571, ‘Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe’. 
COM(2005) 670, ‘Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources’ 
Decision 1600/2002/EC. 
COM(2010)2020. 
COM(2001) 264. 
COM(2005) 670. 
COM(2011)571 final, ‘Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe’. 

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
                                                 
specific  risks  due  to  the  changing  climate  and  other  man-made  or  natural  disasters 
are  not  specifically  mentioned.  Article  3  also  mentions  ‘fauna  and  flora’;  however 
this  is  more  restrictive  than  the  concept  of  ‘biodiversity’  that  is  now  widely  used. 
Hence,  there  is  little  incentive  for  developers  and  competent  authorities  to  account 
for the impacts of their projects in these areas. 

With  regard  to  biodiversity,  the  analysis  of  Member  States’  experience  in 
implementing  Article  6  of  the  Habitats  Directive  shows  that  the  protection  of 
biodiversity  under  the  Habitats  Directive  only  covers  projects  that  directly  have  a 
negative  impact  on  Natura  2000  sites,  whereas  biodiversity  may  not  be  efficiently 
covered by EIA requirements outside Natura 2000 sites261. 

10.5.2.6. How would the situation evolve without policy changes? 

In the absence of policy changes at EU level, the quality and completeness of EIA 
reports may continue to improve across the EU, due to several factors: 

– 

– 

Increased experience in EIA in the new Member States. 

Possible  future  strengthening  of  national  EIA  legislation  which  may  occur  in 
some Member States (e.g. in France, opportunities for developing accreditation 
criteria for EIA consultants have been explored recently). 

– 

Updated guidance documents issued by the Commission. 

However,  it  is  unlikely  that  future  improvements  would  be  significant  enough  to 
address the issues related to quality and completeness. Even if the situation improves 
in  some  Member  States,  significant  discrepancies  across  the  EU  would  probably 
remain and would probably lead to an unequal implementation of the Directive. This 
situation would adversely affect EIAs for transboundary projects in particular. 

As regards issue n°7, increased environmental awareness of stakeholders involved in 
EIAs,  in  particular  with  regard  to  additional  environmental  issues  (climate  change, 
disaster risks, biodiversity, marine environment, resource use) may be expected, but 
discrepancies would still remain. 

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

10.5.3.1. Issue n°8: Overlaps in information and procedural requirements 

(a)  Description 

At  EU  and  Member  State  levels,  various  legislative  acts  set  forth  requirements 
related  to  environmental  assessment.  Legal  requirements  often  overlap  but  are  not 
synchronised,  leading  to  a    duplication  of  efforts  (and  associated  costs)  for 
developers and for public authorities, as similar information may have to be provided 
up  to  three  times  to  the  authorities.  Additionally,  synergies  between  these  various 
environmental assessments are not necessarily exploited (e.g. conclusions from one 
type  of  environmental  assessment  may  reinforce  the  conclusions  of  another 

261 

COWI (2009), Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, 
June 2009. 

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
                                                 
assessment).  The  most  significant  issues  raised  by  previous  studies  and  the  public 
consultation are as follows: 

– 

– 

– 

Some of the information required to be submitted in EIAs is also needed as part 
of  permit  application  files  required  by  the  Industrial  Emissions  Directive 
(IED). 

Some of the information required to be submitted in EIAs is also needed 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. 

Moreover, different permitting and reporting requirements under different Directives 
also lead to a fragmentation of administrative responsibilities in the Member States, 
as  different  authorities  deal  with  different  Directives.  In  the  absence  of  measures 
aiming  to  streamlining  administrative  procedures  under  the  EU  environmental  law, 
this  can  increase  uncertainty  and  costs  for  developers  as  they  have  to  deal  with 
different authorities and need to invest time to sort out competencies. 

(b)  Potential drivers 

Article  2  of  the  EIA  Directive  suggests  the  possibility  to  implement  a  single 
procedure to fulfil the requirements of the EIA and IED Directives ("Member States 
may provide for a single procedure..."); however to date most Member States have 
not  followed  this  suggestion  and  have  not  improved  the  coherence  of  their  policy 
implementation.  Article  12(2)  of  the  IED  makes  it  clear  that  where  information 
supplied in accordance with the EIA Directive (or a safety report under the Seveso 
Directive) or other information produced in response to other legislation fulfils any 
of  the  permit  application  requirements,  such  information  can  be  included  in  or 
attached to the permit application. 

Some  Member  States  have  linked  the  EIA  Directive  and  the  Habitat  Directive 
requirements  in  their  national  approaches  to  environmental  assessment,  sometimes 
formally,  sometimes  informally  through  standards  of  good  administrative  practice. 
Some  Member  States  have  established  both  informal  and  formal  links  between  the 
EIA  Directive  and  the  Habitats  Directive  (adopted  in  1992),  however  the  EIA 
Directive  does  not  specifically  require  that  the  assessment  under  the  Habitats 
Directive be included in EIAs. 

Part  of  the  problem  is  that  the  requirements  of  the  EIA  Directive  have  not  been 
harmonised with the respective requirements for environmental assessment in other 
relevant Directives, particularly the SEA Directive (adopted in 2001) and the IED. 

10.5.3.2. Issue n°9: Inconsistency with other legislation/international conventions 

(a)  Description 

For  some  activities  listed  in  both  the  EIA  Directive  and  the  Industrial  Emissions 
Directive  (IED),  thresholds  differ,  resulting  in  a  lack  of  overall  coherence  in  the 
legislation.  For  example,  the  threshold  for  thermal  power  stations  in  the  EIA 
Directive (Annex I) is 300 MW, while in the IED it is 50 MW. However, as indicated 

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
in  the  Commission’s  proposal  for  the  IED  made  in  2007  and  its  accompanying 
impact assessment, combustion plants with a rated thermal input of 50 MW or higher 
are significant contributors to pollution and must therefore be covered by a permit to 
operator and to control emissions accordingly. The difference in the thresholds used 
maybe explained by the different approaches and requirements laid down by the two 
Directives. 

Additional  activities  have  been  added  to  the  Espoo  Convention  through  its  2004 
amendment262  as  well  as  the  ratification  of  the  SEA  Protocol263;  however,  these 
activities are not listed in the EIA Directive, resulting in a possible lack of coherence 
between  the  EIA  Directive  and  the  latest  modifications  to  the  Espoo  Convention. 
This  concerns  deforestation  of  large  areas,  offshore  hydrocarbon  production  and 
major installations for the harnessing of wind power for energy production. 

For some projects, often related to land use, there may be some doubts for developers 
and competent authorities as to whether either an EIA or a SEA, or both, are required 
(e.g. large projects made up of sub-projects; projects that require changes to land use 
plans;  plans  and  programmes  which  set  binding  criteria  for  the  subsequent 
development consent of projects; hierarchical linking between SEA and EIA). 

Certain  types  of  projects  tend  to  become  more  frequent  in  the  EU  and  may  be 
associated  with  significant  environmental  impacts,  for  example  solar  farms,  and 
desalination  plants.  They  are  not  explicitly  covered  by  the  current  EIA  Directive, 
therefore  their  potential  environmental  impacts  may  not  be  systematically  assessed 
and mitigated, which may represent a threat for the environment. 

(b)  Potential drivers 

The  project  categories  of  the  EIA  (Annexes  I  and  II)  have  not  been  significantly 
adapted since 1997264. In the meantime, a number of policy and technical evolutions 
have emerged, such as: 

– 

– 

– 

The thresholds for projects subject to an EIA are not harmonised with the ones 
of  the  IED.  However,  this  could  be  partly  explained  by  the  differences  in 
approaches between the two Directives. 

The  modifications  to  the  Espoo  Convention  (second  amendment  adopted  in 
2004, SEA Protocol entered into force in July 2010) have not been taken into 
account. 

Some new types of projects which are becoming more and more frequent and 
may have adverse environmental effects are not explicitly covered by the EIA 
Directive. 

262 

263 

264 

EN 

amendment 

III/7  –  Second 

Decision 
to 
(http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/eia/documents/legaltexts/2nd_amendment_en.pdf).  
Espoo 
on 
(http://live.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/eia/documents/legaltexts/protocolenglish.pdf).  
The  only  exception  is  the  addition  of  projects  related  to  the  transport,  capture  and  storage  of  carbon 
dioxide in 2009 by the Directive 2009/31/EC. 

the  Espoo  Convention, 

Environmental 

Convention, 

Assessment 

in  2004 

Strategic 

Protocol 

adopted 

88 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Besides, the definitions of certain project categories, which often relate to land use, 
are not clear and this might create confusion with the SEA Directive’s requirements 
(e.g. although the Court provided clarification in cases C-295/10 and C-43/10). 

10.5.3.3. How would the situation evolve without policy changes? 

Without  policy  changes  at  EU  level,  it  is  unlikely  that  the  issue  n°8  would  be 
addressed  in  the  future.  In  Member  States  where  some  environmental  assessment 
processes  are  already  conducted  jointly  (e.g.  EIA  and  IED-related  processes  in 
France), national legislation is likely to be modified in the future to take into account 
any  changes  to  EU  legislation  concerning  environmental  assessments  and  any 
possible  synergies.  However,  in  Member  States  where  environmental  assessment 
processes have not been coordinated to date, there is no evidence why the situation 
would change. 

Concerning  the  issue  n°9,  the  EU  has  ratified  the  SEA  Protocol  to  the  Espoo 
Convention  as  well  as  the  second  amendment  of  the  Espoo  Convention.  Both  texts 
form an integral part of the legal order of the EU and take precedence over secondary 
legislation.  The  Member  States  are  therefore  bound  by  the  above  Conventions  and 
have  to  take  all  necessary  measures  to  comply  with  them.  Hence,  the  risks  of 
incoherence  with  the  Convention  are  more  limited  and  there  is  no  urgent  need  to 
reflect these changes in the Directive. 

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

10.5.4.1. Issue n°10: Unclear time-frame for public consultation 

(a)  Description 

Durations for the public consultation vary considerably among Member States, from 
2 weeks in certain Member States up to 2-3 months in others. Two weeks does not 
seem to be a reasonable time-frame for public participation, as it seldom does enable 
the public to familiarise itself with the consultation documents and hence effectively 
participate  in  the  project-related  decision-making  process.  This  may  contravene  the 
aim  stated  by  the  EIA  Directive  and  the  Aarhus  Convention  to  give  the  public 
"effective  opportunities  to  participate  in  the  environmental  decision-making 
process". On the other hand, a very long duration for the public consultation phase 
may generate additional costs and uncertainties for the developer. 

Besides,  unspecified  durations  for  public  consultation  in  the  EIA  Directive  may 
prevent  a  good  coordination  with  other  processes  carried  out  in  parallel,  such  as 
environmental  assessments  required  by  other  Directives,  and  in  the  case  of 
transboundary  EIAs.  This  may  generate  additional  burden  and  costs  for  developers 
and public authorities. 

(b)  Potential drivers 

The EIA Directive states that ‘reasonable time-frames’ for the different consultation 
phases  should  be  provided,  but  it  does  not  regulate  them  further.  This  provision  is 
interpreted  in  different  ways  by  the  Member  States.  Most  Member  States  have 
chosen to set forth defined time limits (often by way of minimum requirements) for 
participation.  Other  Member  States  have  employed  similar  qualitatively  defined 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
criteria in legislation and thus leave it to the competent authority to decide what the 
‘reasonable’ time limit is in individual cases. Overall, this results in a very incoherent 
approach to organising the time available for public consultation in EIA process. 

10.5.4.2. Issue n°11: Lengthy decision-making process 

(a)  Description 

In some cases, the time taken by the authorities to issue their decisions on screening 
and on the development consent generates significant uncertainty and delays for the 
developers,  which  may  lead  to  additional  costs.  The  average  duration  of  an  EIA 
procedure was estimated to be 11.3 months but figures range from 5 to 27 months265. 

(b)  Potential drivers 

The analysis of case studies266 shows that lengthy EIA processes are due to various 
factors, including in particular: the complexity, large scale and/or sensitive location 
of  some  projects;  the  transboundary  nature  of  some  projects;  the  difficulty  in 
collecting  environmental  data;  the  poor  quality  of  information  submitted  by  the 
developer (resulting in requests for additional information by the authorities); issues 
raised by local stakeholders; as well as excessive time taken by the authorities in the 
decision-making  process.  Overall,  it  appears  that  the  responsibility  for  delays  is 
shared between the authorities involved in the EIA process, the developers and other 
possible actors, such as local stakeholders, or is due to other external factors. 

In  the  case  of  delays  attributable  to  public  authorities,  various  drivers  were 
identified267 such as: political unwillingness to consider the project; inadequate staff 
resources of the competent authority; uncertainty over the applicability of thresholds 
as  part  of  the  screening  process;  and  lack  of  agreed  timetables  and/or  failures  to 
respect  agreed  timetables  for  different  stages.  With  regard  to  the  last  driver 
identified, the EIA Directive does not specify a maximum time-frame for each of the 
steps of the EIA process nor for the whole EIA decision process, which may result in 
lengthy  decision-making  processes  in  some  instances,  and  also  delay  the  general 
development consent (permitting) process. 

10.5.4.3. How would the situation evolve without policy changes? 

In the absence of policy changes at EU level, the situation is unlikely to change in the 
future  and  the  above  issues  (n°10-11)  are  unlikely  to  be  addressed.  This  would 
adversely affect EIAs for transboundary projects in particular. 

265 

266 

267 

GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive. 
GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive. 
GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive, Chapter 3.3.4. 

EN 

90 

   EN 

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

10.6.1.  Non-regulatory options 

Non-regulatory  policy  options  are  not  adequate  and  consistent  with  the  main 
objectives  (i.e.  harmonisation  of  national  measures)  of  the  EIA  Directive.  The 
implementation  of  the  EIA  shows  the  inadequacy  of  means  other  than  the  current 
regulatory  ones.  Non-regulatory  measures  are  not  appropriate  given  the  variety  of 
industries affected by  the EIA  and  the variety  of projects and environmental issues 
covered. The existing framework has already resulted in different EIA regimes in the 
Member  States  (e.g.  as  regards  the  screening).  Hence,  a  greater  prescriptiveness  of 
the  EIA 
lesser 
prescriptiveness is likely to increase it. Non-regulatory options would result in even 
greater  deviation  of  practice  in  EIA,  leading  to  potential  distortions  of  the  internal 
market and negative consequences for Europe’s environment, thus generating greater 
costs than savings. In addition, the use of non-regulatory options would increase the 
risk  of  non-compliance  of  the  EU  with  its  international  obligations.  For  these 
reasons, such options have been discarded from the analysis. 

this  deviation,  whereas  a 

to  reduce 

legislation 

likely 

is 

10.6.2.  Merging the SEA and EIA Directives – Option 3 

This option would aim to redefine the borders of assessment both at plan/programme 
and  project  levels  and  would  imply  the  amendment  of  both  Directives.  A  sole 
assessment of plans and projects would address the problems related to the quality of 
the EIA process, which would benefit from several amendments (e.g. assessment of 
reasonable  alternatives,  monitoring  of  significant  effects,  consideration  of 
environmental issues at an early stage); in addition, a joint assessment of plans and 
projects would strongly simplify the permitting procedures and would accelerate the 
implementation  of  projects.  However,  this  option  is  not  feasible  for  the  following 
reasons: 

Firstly, although joint assessments procedures are allowed by the SEA Directive268, 
the  information  available269  shows  that  joint  assessment  procedures  of  plans  and 
projects  are  not  used  in  the  Member  States.  A  vast  majority  of  Member  States 
underlined that the SEA and the EIA processes should be distinguished, as these are 
related but complementary processes that should not be directly linked. 

Secondly, merging the two Directives at this stage is not a viable option, due to the 
specificities  of  the  EIA  and  SEA  processes  and  the  limited  experience  in  applying 
SEA270.  The  reports  conclude  that  better  coordination  and  coherence  could  be 
achieved  by  covering  the  inconsistencies  between  the  provisions  of  the  two 

268 

269 

270 

According to Article 11(1) and (2) of the SEA Directive, Member States may provide for coordination 
and  joint  procedures  in  situations  where  an  obligation  to  carry  out  assessments  of  the  effects  on  the 
environment  arises  simultaneously  from  the  SEA  Directive  and  other  Community  legislation.  Hence, 
the  Member  States  can  choose  to  coordinate  SEA and  other  assessments  or  introduce  a  form  of  joint 
procedure with one single assessment fulfilling the requirements of both Directives. 
COWI (2009), Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, 
June 2009. 
See  the  Commission  reports  on  the  application  and  effectiveness  of  the  EIA  and  the  SEA  Directives 
(COM(2009)378 and COM(2009)469). 

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Directives  and by clarifying  the  definitions of problematic project  categories  in the 
EIA Directive.  

Thirdly,  a  merger  of  both  Directives  would  also  require  a  full  revision  of  the  SEA 
Directive.  This  would  entail  significant  institutional  and  procedures  changes  in  the 
Member  States  for  a  Directive  which  applies  as  from  July  2004.  Member  States 
stressed that more experience is needed before amending the SEA Directive. Hence, 
such an option is not efficient. 

Fourthly,  such  an  option  would  not  solve  the  problems  related  to  the  screening 
criteria  and  the  scope  of  the  EIA,  as  it  would  be  difficult  to  assess  the  concrete 
environmental  effects  of  projects  at  a  strategic/planning  level.  Hence,  the 
effectiveness of such an option is quite limited.  

Fifthly,  this  option  is  not  favoured  by  any  of  the  categories  of  stakeholders.  The 
public consultation found 29 % being in favour of this option, 50 % against and 21 % 
not having an opinion. 

Based on the above, this option will not be taken forward as part of this assessment, 
as  it  is  not  a  feasible  and  efficient  one.  However,  some  aspects  of  the  possible 
impacts  of  merging  the  EIA  and  SEA  Directives  will  be  addressed  as  part  of  the 
coordinated  or  joint  procedures  for  the  EIA  process  and  other  environmental 
assessments. 

10.6.3.  Adopting new legislation on environmental assessment – Option 4 

the  provisions  and 

This option would aim to tackle all the problems identified, since the EIA Directive 
would be repealed and a new piece of legislation would be developed, to harmonise 
implementation  of 
integrate  environmental  assessment 
requirements  resulting  from  the  different  instruments  (e.g.  IED,  Habitats  Directive, 
SEA  Directive,  etc.)  and  therefore  ensure  a  level  playing  field.  This  option  would 
further  require a thorough evaluation  and fitness test of the existing legislation and 
would  inevitably  involve  repealing  and  replacing  assessments  and/or  permit 
provisions  included  in  other  environmental  legislation.  All  the  amendments 
described in Annex 10 would be envisaged as part of this policy option. 

However, while such an option could potentially bring certain benefits, the objective 
of reconsidering  all  environmental assessments  and  permitting processes embedded 
in other EU legislation goes beyond the scope of the EIA Directive revision. Such an 
initiative would require various and considerable changes in the scope and content of 
a number of other relevant pieces of EU legislation, and the merger of some of them, 
and would certainly lead to important institutional and administrative changes in EU 
and national procedures. Such an option ideally would have to be developed through 
transparent  discussion,  using  appropriate  processes  allowing  for  time  progressivity. 
However, this would postpone the benefits of actions possible under the other policy 
options  (e.g.  options  1  and  2).  Instead  of  this  far-reaching  option,  the  inclusion  of 
provisions  for  better  coordination/integration  with  other  legislation,  which  is 
envisaged under option 2, appears as more realistic and practical, at this stage.  

A  broad  change  of  existing  EU  legislation  in  the  context  of  the  present  initiative 
would be disproportionate especially in view of the fact that some of the Directives 
which  would  need  to  be  modified  have  been  adopted  very  recently  (e.g.  the  IED 

EN 

92 

   EN 

 
adopted  in  November  2010  following  a  long  revision  and  discussion  process);  it 
would be counterproductive to trigger a revision of these legislative pieces at present 
without a solid justification. For example, the ongoing implementation process of the 
IED  in  Member  States  would  be  put  into  question  thereby  creating  not  only  legal 
uncertainty but most likely also having negative financial repercussions. The public 
consultation found that, of all respondents, 26 % were in favour of this option271. 

Based  on  the  above  analysis,  this  option  has  not  been  taken  forward,  as  it  goes 
beyond the objectives of the revision of the EIA and is not feasible at this stage, but 
should rather be considered in the context of a future and more strategic initiative.  

10.6.4.  Transforming the EIA Directive in a Regulation  

As some of the challenges in the application of the EIA Directive can be attributed to 
the  wide  margin  of  discretion  allowed  for  Member  States,  the  use  of  a  Regulation 
could  be  a  relevant  instrument.  In  general,  a  Regulation  has  advantages  over  a 
Directive272 and is often used to achieve a high degree of harmonisation of legislation 
at  national  level.  However,  to  achieve  its  potential,  a  Regulation  should  contain 
sufficiently  clear,  specific  and  precise  provisions,  which  would  limit  the  margin  of 
discretion of Member States and would not require national implementing measures. 
It is uncertain that the use of a Regulation in the case of the EIA would achieve the 
added  value  that  this  instrument  provides  because  of  the  following  specific 
considerations: 

–  Member States have already transposed the EIA Directive in a variety of ways 
into  their  national  legislation  (often  at  regional  and  local  levels).  These 
differences  are  not  the  cause  of  the  earlier  mentioned  deviations,  but  rather  a 
choice  by  the  Member  States  to  transpose  the  EIA  Directive  in  a  way  that 
corresponds  best  to  the  overall  nature  of  their  political,  institutional  and 
administrative 
transposition 
arrangements, in particular the integration of the EIA into the wider permitting 
procedures, is also likely to limit the harmonisation objective. 

traditions.  The  variety  of 

systems  and 

– 

– 

The variety of environmental issues to be considered is a factor which would 
impede reaching a high degree of harmonisation. For instance, the absorption 
capacity of the natural environment, the existing land use or the considerations 
on climate change and disaster risks vary from one Member State to another or 
even between regions within the same Member State. 

The  multiplicity  of  projects  and  the  diversity  of  project-related  circumstances 
(geographic,  demographic,  social,  economic,  political  and  technological) 
justify, to some extent, the degree of flexibility granted to Member States. In 
this regard, a Directive is the most logical choice. 

271 

272  

61  %  were  against  and  13  %  had  no  opinion.  Individual  citizens  and  public  authorities  provided  the 
greatest support for this option (31 % and 29 % respectively); NGOs and businesses/private companies 
were strongly opposed (only 15 % and 17 % respectively were in favour of this option).  
No  transposition  needed,  direct  applicability  and  effect,  speed  of  application,  efficient  and  consistent 
implementation, level playing field. 

EN 

93 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Transforming  the  EIA  Directive  in  a  Regulation  would  take  considerable  time  to 
determine  the  scope,  the  detailed  level  and  the  ambit  of  the  provisions  of  the  new 
framework  which  should  cope  with  national  conditions  and  needs,  and  also  be 
suitable  for  effective  implementation  (e.g.  defining  EU  screening  thresholds  to 
determine  for  Annex  II  projects).  An  EIA  Regulation  would  also  require 
considerable changes by Member States in order to adapt their national systems. A 
Regulation  in  the  case  of  the  EIA  would  very  likely  require  national  implementing 
measures  (often  at  regional  and  local  levels),  such  as  the  reorganisation  of 
responsibilities  between  competent  authorities,  and  would  generate  high  costs.  The 
use of an EIA Regulation would therefore create a situation where already existing 
national  legislation  on  EIA  would  be  repealed,  potentially  creating  more  confusion 
on  the  implementation  of  the  EIA  legislation.  This  is  also  not  consistent  with  the 
proportionality principle. In addition, in those Member States having transposed the 
Directive  in  a  more  stringent  way,  a  (binding  in  its  entirety)  Regulation  could 
possibly  lead  to  withdrawing  the  previously  higher  environmental  standards.  It  is 
questionable  whether  the  benefits  of  replacing  the  EIA  Directive  with  an  EIA 
Regulation  heavily  outweigh  the  benefits  that  can  be  achieved  with  a  revision  and 
better  implementation  of  the  EIA  Directive.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  64 %  of 
respondents to the public consultation were against such a change273. 

Taking into account the objectives of the EIA revision and the specific circumstances 
linked  to  the  implementation  of  the  EIA,  at  this  stage,  a  Directive  would  be  better 
suited  than  a  Regulation  (e.g.  for  providing  Member  States  with  the  possibility  to 
coordinate  and  integrate  various  environmental  assessment  procedures  as  some  of 
them have already done). 

Consequently,  the  use  of  an  EIA  Regulation  will  not  be  considered  further,  as  it  is 
not the most appropriate instrument for the present initiative, which has started with 
a  simplification  initiative,  i.e.  the  codification  of  four  Directives.  Instead,  the 
inclusion  of  provisions  aiming  at  a  higher  degree  of  harmonisation  will  be  further 
analysed under the following section. 

273 

23 % were in favour and 13 % had no opinion (based on all responses). Only 14 % of businesses/private 
companies supported this option; the greatest support (31 %) comes from individual citizens. 

EN 

94 

   EN 

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

All Member States have established comprehensive legal frameworks and implement 
the  EIA  in  a  manner  which  is  largely  in  line  with  the  Directive’s  requirements.  In 
many cases, Member States have built on the minimum requirements of the Directive 
and have gone beyond them, by introducing more stringent provisions (on the basis 
of  Article  193  of  the  EU  Treaty),  which  aim  to  ensure  better  environmental 
protection  and  more  transparency.  Many  Member  States  have  also  developed  their 
own guidance on good practice on specific project categories and issues. 

The  EIA  Directive  has  also  brought  overall  environmental  benefits  by  giving 
environment  a  higher  standing  and  clearer  position  in  the  decision-making  process 
when determining development consent. It contributes to environmental awareness 
of  the  population  and  has  raised  the  profile  of  the  environment,  which  may  also 
indirectly  result  in  better  environmental  protection  at  a  larger  scale.  The  overall 
positive  role  played  by  the  EIA  directive  is  confirmed  by  the  results  of  the  public 
consultation on the review of the EIA Directive274. 

Environmental benefits cover a wide range of areas, in line with the main aspects 
listed in Article 3 of the Directive: population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climate, 
landscape,  material  assets  and  the  cultural  heritage.  Environmental  aspects  to  be 
described  in  an  EIA  cover  in  particular  those  resulting  from:  the  existence  of  the 
project,  the  use  of  natural  resources  and  the  emission  of  residues  and  pollutants 
resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed project, the creation of 
nuisances and the elimination of waste (see also Annex IV). 

terms  of 

the  environmental  benefits  (in 

Previous studies and surveys related to EIA costs and benefits have not quantified 
or  monetised 
the  environmental 
improvement  or  prevention  of  environmental  damage)  that  can  be  attributed  to  the 
EIA  procedure.  Nevertheless,  there  is  widespread  consensus  that  the  EIA  Directive 
has already provided significant environmental benefits, even if these do not carry an 
explicit price tag275. Responses to the GHK survey in 2010 indicate that all Member 
States  believe  there  are  significant  environmental  benefits  from  the  EIA  Directive. 
Moreover,  during  the  public  consultation  on  the  review  of  the  EIA  Directive, 
respondents  agreed  on  the  fact  that  the  EIA  Directive  is  an  efficient  instrument  to 
address environmental concerns in the design of projects276. 

The  major  benefit  of  the  current  implementation  of  the  EIA  Directive  is  that  it 
ensures environmental considerations are taken into account as early as possible 
in  the  decision-making  process277.  This  contributes  to  making  projects  more 
compensating 
sustainable  by  preventing,  mitigating  or 
environmentally 

274 

275 
276 
277 

Almost  all  respondents  (97  %)  agreed  on  the  fact  that  the  EIA  Directive  contributes  to  effective 
protection of the environment and the quality of life. 
IVM, BIO, IEEP, IEP and Ecologic (2007), Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive. 
This is always or often the case for 63 % of the respondents and this is sometimes the case for 34 %. 
Commission Report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive (COM(2009) 378); GHK 
(2010), Collection of information and data to support the IA study of the review of the EIA Directive. 

EN 

95 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
environmental damages278. Benefits also include the enabling of detailed modelling 
and evaluation of impacts to be undertaken. 

Environmental benefits can result from decisions taken by developers: 

– 

– 

During the EIA process, through discussions with authorities, consultants and 
the public consultation; and/or 

Prior to the application, by anticipation of the EIA requirements. 

With regard to changes made during the EIA process, the literature reviewed in the 
IVM study of 2007 shows that project modifications are very frequent. For example, 
Denmark reported that according to an evaluation of the work related to EIA in the 
Danish counties for the Ministry of Environment (2003)279, it is found that more than 
90 % of projects submitted for an EIA are altered in favour of the environment. The 
evaluation  also  concludes  that  the  EIA  screening  mechanism  is  flexible  and  that 
many  project  changes  are  introduced  prior  to  the  application  of  or  during  the 
screening  process.  Benefits  are  identified  in  terms  of  e.g.  higher  standards  of 
mitigation  and  project  relocation  or  re-design  to  spare  environmentally  sensitive 
areas. 

Benefits (and costs) of the screening procedure for projects listed in Annex II of the 
EIA Directive were investigated by Nielsen et al280. Even though only 3 % of these 
projects  are  actually  subject  to  an  EIA,  the  screening  instrument  is  considered 
effective in terms of securing an environmental optimisation of the projects. Almost 
half  of  the  investigated  projects  were  changed  and  the  changes  were  primarily 
preventive measures. Effectiveness was judged by not only the capacity of screening 
to change the project, but also by the fact that the authorities use very few resources. 

Environmental improvements decided prior to the application are likely to be more 
substantial than those decided during the EIA process, however they are much more 
difficult to identify. Having been in force for more than 25 years, the requirements of 
the  EIA  process  are  now  well  known  by  many  developers  who  tend  to  anticipate 
these requirements before submitting their file. The Commission’s experience from 
the  assessment  of  projects  co-funded  under  the  EU  Regional  Policy,  in  particular 
major  projects,  shows  that  EIAs  have  improved  the  projects’  design  from  an 
environmental perspective reference281. 

As  reported  by  IVM,  at  least  in  Germany  the  sole  existence  of  EIA  leads  to  an 
anticipation  of  its  requirements  early  on  in  project  planning  so  that  project 
modifications due to the EIA are very rare. Therefore, using the number or extent of 

278 

279 

280 

281 

For instance, through changes in the technical design and spatial design of projects (e.g. route selection 
for transportation infrastructure, location selection for industrial facilities) or through implementation of 
mitigation and compensation measures. 
Christensen  P.,  Kørnøv  L.  and  Nielsen  E.H.  (2003)  The  advantages  of  EIA  –  Evaluation  of  EIA  in 
Denmark,  (Udbyttet  af  VVM—Evaluering  af  VVM  i  Denmark,  hovedrapport)  Ministry  of  the 
Environment, Denmark Landsplanafdelingen. 
Nielsen, E., P. Christensen, and L. Kørnøv (2003), Are screening processes effective instruments and 
what are the environmental benefits? Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University. 
See the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive (COM(2009) 378). 

EN 

96 

   EN 

 
                                                 
project  modifications  as  an  indicator  to  assess  environmental  benefits  is  clearly 
limited.  

A  Danish  study282  reveals  that  the  screening  mechanism  of  the  EIA  procedure  in 
itself  seems  to  have  a  positive  effect  on  projects  that  are  screened  out  of  the  EIA 
procedure.  The  study  examined  a  vast  number  of  screening  decisions  searching  for 
data  on  whether  the  applicant  did  in  fact  change  his/her  project  in  the  light  of 
screening requirements. The study found that a majority of the projects were in fact 
changed  already  prior  to  the  screening  procedure  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  the 
project  being  subjected  to  the  EIA  procedure  as  a  result  of  a  screening  decision. 
Thereby  documentation  is  produced  so  that  even  the  screening  procedure  in  itself 
may  have  environmental  protection  as  a  built-in  feature  regardless  of  whether 
screening results in a negative decision or not. 

Some  examples  of  environmental  benefits related  to  EIAs,  as  identified  in  the  case 
studies of the GHK study, are provided below: 

Examples of environmental benefits related to EIAs based on case studies: 

1. Transmission line of 400 kV between Hévíz and Szombathely, Hungary (Case Study 
5): Measures included the minimisation of possible harm on local forests, rivers and streams 
(e.g.  planting  new  forests)  and  the  local  landscape;  the  protection  of  local  birds  and  other 
protected species (e.g. setting up artificial nests); and taking extra care during construction in 
Natura 2000 areas. 

2. D1 Highway – Section Prešov West-Prešov South), Slovakia (Case Study 8): The EIA 
recommended  44  measures  to  avoid,  minimise  or  compensate  for  environmental  damage. 
This  included:  installing  noise  barriers,  emissions  capture  devices  and  a  closed  drainage 
system, employing technology and construction methods to minimise soil erosion and risk of 
soil  collapsing,  fencing  to  keep  animals  away,  timing  of  construction  works  to  minimise 
impact on animals and other living species, waste management during construction. 

3. High-pressure gas pipeline, Germany: Protected areas where no environmental impacts 
are  allowed  (e.g.  Natura  2000)  were  seen  to  significantly  influence  routing  decisions  (e.g. 
decision  to  circumvent  these  areas  unless  exemptions  can  be  made).  Conditions  on 
construction  methods  (horizontal  directional  drilling  rather  than  cut-and-burial  techniques) 
were also set to achieve prevention and mitigation of environmental aspects. 

4.  Development  of  a  new  quarry,  Germany:  The  impact  on  water  resources  including 
surface and groundwater was assessed during the procedure. In this area the EIA was seen to 
have  had  the  main  impact  because  it  led  to  the  preservation  of  a  watercourse,  which  was 
rerouted. The impacts on nearby residential developments were a particular issue and formed 
a significant part of the consultation and decision-making process; this included noise, dust 
and vibrations from explosions, which were addressed through conditions on the operations 
of the quarry (e.g. restricted hours during which explosions can take place). Because of its 
location in an area of environmental and recreational value, impacts on nature and landscape 
were another important part of the assessment; these were addressed through mitigation and 
compensation  measures,  covering  recreational  use  of  areas  around  the  quarry,  e.g.  through 
changes in the pathway systems and planting of trees. 

282 

Nielsen  H.  et  al.  (2005),  EIA  screening  in  Denmark:  a  new  regulatory  instrument?,  Journal  of 
Environmental Policy, Assessment, and Management, vol. 7 no. 1. 

EN 

97 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5. Planned unit development in Le Garoussal, France: The development of the area was 
expected to lead to a rise in impermeable surfaces of up to 20 %. The problem of run-off was 
planned to be resolved through the creation of retention tanks. 

6.  Reconstruction  of  Wyszkow  Ring  Road,  Poland:  The  construction  project  included 
environment protection facilities, among which: passages for animals under the road; storage 
and filtering reservoirs with installations for pre-treatment of rain water including separators; 
parking  lots  outside  forest  areas;  a  durable  game  fence  visible  for  animals,  isolating  road 
from the forest; and non-transparent noise screens. 

There are, however, a number of limitations to those environmental benefits: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

It  may  be  argued  that,  in  a  number  of  cases,  changes  to  the  project  mostly 
consist in adding mitigation/compensation measures rather than reviewing the 
design  of  the  project  in  order  to  prevent  the  impacts  from  occurring,  which 
would  be  much  more  beneficial  from  an  environmental  point  of  view. 
Although  Annex  IV  of  the  Directive  mentions  that  measures  to  be  described 
shall include ‘measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset 
any  significant  adverse  effects  on  the  environment’,  it  does  not  specify  any 
hierarchy between these different options (i.e. it is not specified that prevention 
should be preferred over mitigation). 

In some Member States, the EIA process is considered by developers more like 
an  administrative  formality  than  an  opportunity  to  integrate  environmental 
impacts  into  the  project’s  design.  Some  project  developers  tend  to  use  EIAs 
more  as  juridical  insurance  than  as  decision-making  tools283.  Literature 
reviewed  during  the  IVM  study  shows  that  project  modifications  during  the 
EIA  application  are  very  often  identified  but  most  of  the  changes  seem  to  be 
minor.  For  example,  according  to  a  Danish  study284,  changes  were  made  to 
90 % of projects subject to EIA reviewed in the study, but only 15 % of those 
changes  could  be  considered  as  major  or  radical  changes  resulting  in 
significant mitigation of environmental impacts; such major changes are often 
observed in infrastructure projects. 

The extent of environmental benefits is partly linked to the quality of the EIA 
report  and  of  the  EIA  process  (in  particular,  the  levels  of  capacity  and 
competence  of  public  authorities  to  advise  and  negotiate  during  the  EIA 
process  and  the  quality  of  the  public  consultation).  As  there  is  no  clear 
framework  defined  in  the  EIA  Directive,  quality  is  considered  very  unequal 
from one EIA to another and there is room for improvement285. 

It is very difficult to evaluate the actual environmental benefits once the project 
has  been  developed,  due  to  a  lack  of  post-EIA  monitoring  activities  in  most 
cases (as this is not required by the EIA Directive). 

283 
284 

285 

See for example the French case study in the IVM report. 
Christensen  et  al.  (2003)  The  advantages  of  EIA  –  Evaluation  of  EIA  in  Denmark,  main  report 
(Udbyttet  af  VVM—Evaluering  af  VVM  i  Denmark,  hovedrapport)  Ministry  of  the  Environment, 
Denmark Landsplanafdelingen. 
See also the problem definition in Section 3.2.2. 

EN 

98 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  When  the  EIA  Directive  was  adopted  25  years  ago,  certain  environmental 
issues such as climate change, disaster risks, resource efficiency or biodiversity 
were not yet identified as priority issues. As a consequence, EIAs tend to focus 
on ‘traditional’ environmental topics (e.g. emissions to air/water/soil and waste 
management),  while  these  more  recent  topics  are  addressed  in  a  superficial 
manner. 

– 

It is difficult to distinguish between the environmental benefits resulting from 
the EIA Directive itself and from the need to comply with other environmental 
legislation which has to be taken into account in the planning process. The EIA 
Directive  does  not  provide  environmental  performance  standards  but  gives 
strong  incentives  to  developers  to  anticipate  possible  compliance  issues  with 
other environmental legislation at an early stage. 

EN 

99 

   EN 

 
10.8.  Annex 8: Methodology for calculating direct administrative costs in the baseline 

scenario for public authorities and developers 

The  administrative  costs  per  EIA  for  public  authorities  can  be  measured  by  the 
effort in terms of number of hours to process an EIA multiplied by the average gross 
labour cost. The GHK study286 shows that the average number of days to process an 
EIA  is  estimated  at  32  man-days.  There  is,  however,  a  large  deviation  between 
Member States (e.g. ranging from 5 days in Czech Republic to 100 days in Denmark) 
and between types of projects. 

The  EU  Standard  Cost  Model  contains  average  costs  for  administrative  work,  the 
costs  being  calculated  according  to  the  full  cost  principle.  These  hourly  wages  are 
based  on  standardised  ESTAT  data  (the  four-yearly  labour  cost  survey  and  the 
annual updates of labour cost (ALC) statistics). They cover both wage and non-wage 
labour costs. They reflect 2006 prices and include a standard proportion of so-called 
overheads  costs  (i.e.  25 %)  linked  with  individual  employees  and  borne  by 
organisations  but  not  included  in  their  salaries:  fixed  administration  costs  such  as 
premises,  telephone,  heating,  electricity  and  IT  equipment.  The  2006  prices  were 
corrected for inflation using the Labour Cost Index published by Eurostat. For some 
Member  States  these  data  are  missing,  in  which  case  a  general  inflation  rate  was 
used: the harmonised inflation rate based upon the harmonised consumer price index 
(HICP, published by Eurostat to compare inflation in European countries). 

The total cost of the entire EIA process per Member State depends on the labour cost 
and the number of EIAs processed by each Member State. 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 mil

lion in 2010 for the EU287. 

The  GHK  study  does  not  take  into  account  time  spent  on  negative  screenings  (i.e. 
screenings that do not result in an EIA). Assuming that a negative screening takes on 
average 1 hour (including time for informing the parties concerned)288, the additional 
cost would amount to € 0.45 to 1.2 million per year for the EU289. This is therefore 
negligible compared with the cost associated with the other steps of the EIA process. 

In order to check the validity of the above estimates, these results  were  confronted 
with  quantitative  data  on  the  number  of  staff  involved  in  the  EIA  process  in  the 
Member States. The GHK study states that on average 52 persons per Member State 
are  employed  by  the  authorities  to  deal  with  the  screenings  and  EIA  dossiers.  This 
means that, in the EU, 1.404 staff members (not necessarily full time equivalents) are 
involved in the EIA process. 

286 

287 

288 
289 

GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive, Table 2-8. 
The low estimate is based on the GHK study, while the high estimate is based on questionnaires of the 
GHK study. 
Based on verbal information provided by UK authorities in charge of EIA Directive’s implementation. 
The low estimate is based on the GHK study, while the high estimate is based on questionnaires of the 
GHK study. 

EN 

100 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
If  the  outcome  of  both  calculation  models  is  divided  by  the  number  of  staff,  this 
results  in  an  average  full  cost  (both  wage  and  non  wage  costs  and  including  25 % 
overhead)  of  approximately  €  105.000–  €  153.000  per  administrative  staff  member 
This  outcome  seems  to  be  realistic  and  indicates  that  the  above  range  is  a  good 
estimate  of  the  actual  situation.  Taking  into  account  the  increase  in  the  number  of 
EIAs and the outlook for inflation290, these figures will evolve in future, as illustrated 
in the Table 23. 

Table 23: Estimation and projection of administrative costs for public authorities 

Administrative burden for authorities to process EIA dossiers in EU 

2010 
Medium-term (2017) 
Long-term (2037)291 

146 to 215 million €/year 
173 to 255 million €/year 
269 to 396 million €/year 

The average cost for developers depends on the size of the project and is estimated 
at 1 % of the total project cost or approximately € 53.550 per EIA292, corresponding 
to  the  average  of  values  reported  by  12  Member  States.  The  total  annual  cost  for 
developers can first be calculated by multiplying this average cost of € 53.053 by the 
total number of EIAs. Since there are two outliers (SK, NL), an alternative method is 
to use the median value of costs reported for these 12 respondents, which  gives an 
estimate of approximately € 35.000 per EIA. Also, when extrapolating data from the 
respondents to Member States that did not respond as part of the GHK study, the use 
of  the  median  or  average  cost  of  an  EIA  for  the  EU  does  not  take  into  account 
differences in wages across Member States. If figures were adjusted for differences 
in  wages,  the  average  cost  for  developers  would  be  approximately  €  41.000  per 
EIA. 

Table 24: Estimation and projection of administrative costs for developers 

Method 1  
(based on an average 
cost of € 53.053 per 
EIA)  

Administrative costs for developers 
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 

Medium-
term 
(2017) 
Long-term 
(2037) 

Overall costs 
for EU 
(€/year) 
Cost per EIA 
(€) 
EU (€/year) 
Cost per EIA 
(€) 
EU (€/year) 
Cost per EIA 
(€) 

845.727.456 

557.941.322 

654.236.265 

53.053 

35.000 

41.041 

902.144.249 

595.166.570 

669.662.757 

55,541 

36.642 

41.228 

1.365.337.126 

900.746.211 

1.029.144.373 

82.531 

54.448 

62.209 

290 

291 

292 

Based on International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, April 2011 for the period 
2011-2016 and based on the assumption that for the period 2017-2037 the inflation remains constant at 
2 % per year. 
A long term forecast using method 2 cannot be made due to the uncertainty about a reliable forecast for 
the evolution of the number of EIA (method 2 is based on the assumption that there is no correlation 
between the number of EIA and socio-economic parameters such as GDP). 
GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive, Table 2-8. 

EN 

101 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
The results of these different calculation methods used are given in the Table 24. It is 
considered that the most likely values are obtained by the third calculation method. 
Overall, the EIA costs for EU developers are estimated at € 558 to 846 million per 
year.  This  means  that  the  average  cost  for  an  EIA  procedure  is  about  four  times 
higher for the developers than for the authorities. 

EN 

102 

   EN 

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

The wider socio-economic impacts associated with the current implementation of the 
EIA Directive cover in particular: 

(1)  Economic  impacts  (functioning  of  the  internal  market  and  competition; 
competitiveness,  trade  and  investment  flows;  costs  related  to  legal  disputes; 
avoided  risk  of  environmental  damages  and  cost  savings  through  better 
integration of environmental aspects; costs related to delays). 

(2)  Social  impacts  (employment  and  labour  markets;  governance,  participation, 
good administration and access to justice; public health, safety and the quality 
of life). Other social impacts were considered (e.g. on poverty or distribution of 
incomes), but no significant impacts are expected. 

Given  the  nature  of  these  impacts,  the  information  presented  here  is  essentially  of 
qualitative nature but is accompanied by illustrative examples when possible. 

10.9.1.  Functioning of the internal market and competition 

While  the  implementation  of  the  EIA  Directive  has  contributed  to  harmonising 
environmental  assessment  practices  among  the  Member  States  (compared  with  the 
situation  prior  to  1985),  the  Directive  gives  significant  flexibility  to  the  Member 
States  with  regard  to  implementation.  Consequently,  after  more  than  25  years  of 
implementation, a wide range of practices can be observed across the Member States. 
In particular, many Member States have implemented requirements going beyond the 
minimum provisions of the Directive. Differences in the practical implementation of 
the EIA Directive from one country to another, or even from one region to another in 
the same country, can be an obstacle to the proper functioning of the internal market 
and may create unfair competition in certain cases. 

Beyond  the  overall  administrative  costs  for  developers  and  authorities  to  comply 
with  the  EIA  Directive,  these  costs  weigh  differently  on  small  and  medium 
developers (SMEs) and on larger companies involved in the development of projects, 
thus  potentially  creating  an  uneven  playing  field  between  companies.  The  GHK 
study293  indicates  that  in  several  countries  there  are  general  costs  for  developers 
which  can  be  regarded  as  fixed  costs  of  complying  with  the  EIA  procedure.  The 
higher the share of fixed costs in overall costs related to EIAs, the higher the relative 
impact on SMEs compared to larger developers. Therefore, smaller developers, with 
limited  financial  capacity  compared  with  large  developers,  are  likely  to  be  more 
vulnerable to an increase in procedural requirements or a change in the scope of the 
Directive (for example, lowering thresholds leading to a higher proportion of small 
and medium size projects in the total number of EIAs). In the baseline scenario, as no 
change  is  assumed  in  the  Directive,  both  the  proportion  of  small  and  medium 
developers  and  the  share  of  EIA  related  costs  in  overall  project  development  costs 
will remain stable over the horizon of this impact assessment. 

293 

GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive. 

EN 

103 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
10.9.2.  Competitiveness, trade and investment flows 

By  obliging  developers  to  assess  environmental  impacts,  the  EIA  Directive 
contributes  to  improving  the  environmental  profile  of  the  project  initiator.  As  put 
forward  by  a  study  commissioned  by  the  European  Commission  in  1996294, 
significant  benefits  related  to  the  enhancement  of  the  developer’s  environmental 
credibility can be observed. A good environmental reputation can have a positive 
influence  on  the  perceived  value  of  the  company  and  may  contribute  to  increasing 
the attractiveness for potential clients (potentially resulting in higher market shares). 

Although these positive impacts are very likely and can be confirmed by market or 
consumer surveys, in a qualitative way, the magnitude of these benefits is difficult, if 
not  impossible,  to  quantify.  In  this  baseline  scenario  it  is  safely  assumed  that  the 
level of environmental awareness among consumers and producers will continue to 
increase gradually over the horizon of the impact assessment. This is likely to have 
two  contradictory  effects  on  the  benefits  for  developers  related  to  environmental 
reputation.  On  the  one  hand,  a  rise  in  environmental  awareness  means  that  clients 
(national  and  local  authorities,  companies,  households,  etc.)  will  attribute  a  higher 
value to the companies that comply with environmental regulations, thus increasing 
the  potential  benefits  that  developers  might  obtain  from  increased  environmental 
credibility.  On  the  other  hand,  assuming  no  changes  to  the  EIA  Directive’s 
requirements, both in terms of content and scope, the value that the society allocates 
to the meeting of specific environmental regulations would decrease as expectations 
of the society regarding environmental protection rise. As a result, it is reasonable to 
assume  for  the  baseline  scenario  that  reputational  benefits  related  to  environmental 
credibility  and  profile  of  developers  brought  by  the  EIA  Directive  would  remain 
broadly the same. 

Through  the  obligation  to  anticipate  environmental  impacts  of  their  projects  and 
identify measures to prevent and mitigate these impacts, the EIA Directive provides 
incentives for developers to find innovative and implement design and pollution 
abatement  technologies  and  processes.  Innovation  may  also  influence  the  choice 
between  different  alternatives,  in  particular  when  exploring  different  technologies 
and  project  designs  come  into  play  from  the  developer.  Increased  innovation  and 
research295  is  in  turn  likely  to  translate  into  higher  competitiveness  for  companies 
that  benefit  from  more  cost-effective  production  processes  thus  contributing  to 
Europe  2020,  by  promoting  Resource  Efficiency  and  low-carbon  economy 
objectives. This potential increase in R&D and innovation together, with related co-
benefits  and  spill-over  effects  for  the  rest  of  the  economy,  can  lead  to  economic 
benefits  in  terms  of  improving  the  competitive  position  of  EU  developers  on 
international  markets,  everything  being  held  equal  (especially  environmental 
regulations in foreign countries). The potential increase in innovation due to policy 
intervention can be illustrated by looking at, for example, the policy area of energy 
using products (EUPs) in the EU in which policy intervention has caused an increase 
in the degree of innovation for these types of products296. This can also be illustrated 

294 
295 

296 

EC (1996), Environmental Impact Assessment in Europe - A Study on Costs and Benefits. 
This  impact  falls  under  a  separate  category in  the  IA Guidelines  but  since  innovation  and research  is 
closely related to competitiveness, grouping these categories seemed appropriate. 
Impacts  of  Innovation  on  the  Regulatory  Costs  of  Energy-using  Product  Policy,  Final  Report  for 
DEFRA (2010), p. 21. 

EN 

104 

   EN 

 
                                                 
by a case study of the GHK study concerning a German high pressure gas pipeline297 
project  in  which  specific  technical  design  and  construction  methods  have  been 
implemented as part of the EIA process. It must be noted, however, that in the light 
of this case, it is generally difficult to distinguish genuine innovation from the use of 
already  existing  technologies  ENTR  particularly  those  not  mainstreamed.  It  is  also 
difficult  to  distinguish  the  extent  to  which  innovation  is  the  result  of  the  EIA 
Directive  itself  or  whether  it  is  driven  by  other  environmental  legislation  that  the 
developer has to comply with. 

Again, as no change in the EIA Directive is assumed in the baseline scenario, it can 
be  assumed  that  benefits  brought  by  the  Directive  in  terms  of  increased  innovation 
and research and its effect on competitiveness would remain the same. In this light, a 
difference  must  be  noted  between  businesses/developers  in  the  old  and  the  new 
Member States regarding the level of innovation or process improvement due to the 
incentives given by the EIA Directive. For businesses in the new Member States it 
can  be  presumed  that  the  incentive  to  innovate  as  a  result  of  the  obligations  laid 
down  in  the  EIA  Directive  is  higher  due  to  the  fact  that  these  countries  have  been 
exposed  to  the  Directive  for  a  shorter  period  of  time  and  there  is  more  to  gain  in 
terms  of  innovation  and  efficiency.  This  is  less  the  case  for  businesses  in  the  old 
Member States, as they have been exposed to the EIA Directive, therefore incentives 
for  further  innovation  mainly  come  from  more  recent  and  more  stringent 
environmental legislation. 

At  present,  costs  to  comply  with  the  EIA  Directive  are  not  likely  to  affect  the 
competitiveness of EU developers: it was demonstrated that EIA costs only represent 
1 %  on  average  (between  0.01 %  to  2.37 %  in  some  exceptional  cases)  of  the  total 
costs of projects, i.e. a relatively modest part of total development costs298. 

10.9.3.  Costs related to legal disputes 

The EIA Directive, through its multiple requirements and provisions, gives ground to 
legal disputes on the basis of environmental aspects linked with project development. 
These  legal  proceedings  can  involve  multiple  stakeholders  such  as  the  public 
authorities from different administrative entities, developers and the general public. 

The  implementation  of  the  EIA  Directive  has  given  rise  to  a  significant  number  of 
court  proceedings.  A  large  share  of  the  disputes  is  related  to  screening  decisions 
made by the authorities and challenged by developers or third parties299. Such costs 
may affect public authorities and developers as well as third parties. No statistics on 
national  EIA-related  court  proceedings  are  available,  however  a  search  of  the 
European  Commission’s  Infringement  Database  revealed  that  at  least  18 %  of 
existing  compliance  dossiers  with  environmental  Directives  (representing  1.486 
dossiers  starting  from  1984)  relate  to  the  ‘Impact’  sector  which  includes  the  EIA 

297 

298 

299 

GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive – Annex 7. 
GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive. 
Based on previous studies and data from the Commission’s Infringement Database. 

EN 

105 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Directive,  as  amended,  and  the  SEA  Directive300  (other  dossiers  concern  sectoral 
environmental legislation on nature, waste, etc. which may also include some EIA-
related issues). Of these 1.486 dossiers related to the ‘Impact’ sector, approximately 
17 %  gave  rise  to  an  EIA-related  infringement  procedure  initiated  by  the 
Commission  (i.e.  the  Commission  decided  that  there  was  a  problem  of  incorrect 
transposition or bad application linked with the EIA Directive), 69 % of which were 
related  to  screening.  Most  of  these  cases  were  solved  without  referral  to  the  ECJ 
(because the Member State changed its legislation (national/regional) or because an 
ex-post-EIA  was  carried  out  or  because  the  project  was  abandoned);  however,  in 
some cases, the Commission decided to bring the matter before the Court. Of the 258 
infringement cases concerning the EIA, 45 were brought before the Court, 80 % of 
which  were  related  to  screening.  Numbers  of  EIA-related  infringement  procedures 
was  stabilised,  but  it  started  increasing  after  the  2004  enlargement  and  the 
amendments introduced by the 2003/35/EC Directive (applicable as from 2005). 

The costs of legal proceedings primarily include the court fees and the fees for legal 
representation.  It  is  difficult  to  give  a  clear  overview  of  these  costs  at  a  European-
wide level as the court fees that have to be paid to bring a case before a judge differ 
substantially from one Member State to the other301. 

In  addition  to  average  fees  related  to  procedures,  an  overall  quantification  of  costs 
and benefits regarding this aspect for the baseline scenario would require information 
on the number of court proceedings related to EIAs in the EU as well as on the length 
of  these  procedures.  As  such  information  is  largely  unknown,  no  reliable 
quantification of overall procedural costs can be given at this stage. 

In the baseline scenario, it is assumed that both the proportion of court proceedings 
per EIA and the proportion of costs related to legal disputes in overall project costs 
would remain stable over the horizon of this impact assessment. This assumption is a 
compromise  between  two  contradictory  effects:  on  the  one  hand,  increased 
awareness  for  environmental  protection  is  likely  to  lead  to  more  legal  disputes;  on 
the  other  hand,  as  no  change  to  the  Directive  is  assumed,  both  developers  and 
authorities would get more and more used to the legal environment surrounding the 
Directive  and  would  improve  their  practical  understanding  of  its  requirements, 
leading to reduced risk of legal disputes. 

10.9.4.  Avoided risk of environmental damages and cost savings  

The  EIA  Directive  contributes  to  reducing  the  risk  of  significant  damages  to 
environment  and  human  beings,  which  can  be  valued  in  economic  terms  through 
avoided costs of reparation by operators or public authorities. Such reparation costs 
can be very significant in the case of heavy contamination of soil and groundwater 
(up to several million Euros for certain ‘orphan contaminated sites’) or in the cases 

300 

301 

This  database  includes  the  investigations  carried  out  by  the  Commission  services  concerning 
compliance  with  the  EU  legislation.  Figures  from  this  database  can  be  used  as  an  indicator  of  the 
Commission’s experience in the implementation of the EIA Directive. Date of search: 8/8/2011. 
For example, in Sweden the court fees in first instance for natural persons do not exist whereas in Spain 
the fee for bringing a case before a judge in first instance starts at €120 and can go up depending on 
certain variables (Justice&Environment, 2009). In the UK, the hourly wage for legal representation is in 
the  order  of  £60  in  certain  cases  related  to  EIA  (The  Town  and  Country  Planning  (Environmental 
Impact Assessment) Regulations 2010, UK Department for Communities and Local Government). 

EN 

106 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of  damages  to  material  assets  caused  by  large  natural  or  man-made  disasters.  They 
can – to a certain extent – be avoided or reduced by integrating prevention measures 
in  the  design  of  the  project,  such  as  proper  storage  and  handling  conditions  for 
hazardous substances and restrictions in the amounts of hazardous substances to be 
used. The EIA Directive contributes to such benefits, together with other legislation 
such  as  the  Industrial  Emissions  Directive  (2010/75/EU)  or  the  Environmental 
Liability  Directive  (2004/35/EC).  For  Member  States,  the  costs  of  undertaking  an 
EIA  are  seen  as  ‘negligible’  in  comparison  with  the  potentially  high  costs  of 
unanticipated environmental issues or liabilities which may arise at a later stage. In 
this context, the EIA Directive can be seen as a cost-effective instrument in the field 
of environmental policies. In the baseline, these benefits would remain the same over 
the horizon of the impact assessment, in line with our assumption of no change to the 
EIA Directive. 

When  environmental  considerations  are  taken  into  account  early  in  the  project 
development  and  when  prevention  measures  are  given  priority  over  end-of-pipe 
solutions, environmental benefits may translate into additional cost savings, although 
these  are  difficult  to  quantify  due  to  methodological  limitations.  Potential  cost 
savings may include in particular: 

– 

– 

– 

Resource savings (materials, water, energy) for developers and operators of the 
projects; 

Reduced waste management costs for developers and operators of the projects, 
due  to  reduced  waste  quantities  produced  and  identification  of  options  to 
recover valuable waste materials; 

Reduced urban wastewater treatment costs for municipal authorities, resulting 
from a reduced level of pollutants emitted by the projects. 

10.9.5.  Costs related to delays 

Delays  caused  by  lengthy  EIA  processes  are  one  of  the  main  issues  raised  by 
developers. During the public consultation on the review of the EIA Directive, about 
21 % of respondents (all categories) found that the EIA ‘always’ causes considerable 
delays  in  the  approval  of  projects  and  about  25 %  found  that  it  ‘sometimes’  causes 
considerable delays. 

The IVM study (2007)302 concludes,  however,  that estimates of  the  costs related to 
possible delays in the EIA process vary widely but are in general not very significant. 
It also appears that delays in the development of projects can occur for many reasons 
unrelated  to  the  EIA  process  itself303.  However,  where  environmental  data  is  not 
sufficiently available, or where several authorities requesting additional information 
oblige the project developer to initiate new assessments, for instance when specific 
vegetation periods have to be covered, delays may occur. In general, delays are more 
likely  to  occur  in  the  case  of  transboundary  projects  and  in  relation  to  the  public 
consultation  stage  of  the  EIA  process.  Costs  of  delays  are  primarily  felt  by  the 

302 
303 

IVM, BIO, IEEP, IEP and Ecologic (2007), Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive. 
EC (1996), EIA in Europe – A study on costs and benefits; GHK (2010), Collection of information and 
data to support the IA study of the review of the EIA Directive.  

EN 

107 

   EN 

 
                                                 
project initiators and developers themselves in the form of capital costs and revenues 
foregone. 

10.9.5.1. Delays in transboundary projects 

In  transboundary  projects,  the  obligation  to  provide  information  to  foreign 
authorities, and potentially to translate the documents, may cause delays in the EIA 
procedure and additional expenses for the developer (and possibly for the authorities 
involved too). Delays make up for an increase in costs, which at the same time means 
a  loss  in  revenue  for  developers  (direct  negative  influence  on  business  operations) 
and  also  results  in  opportunity  costs304.  The  argument  of  opportunity  costs  would 
also be valid for the authorities involved in the EIA procedure as they have to devote 
their time to inform the foreign authority on the EIA project and related issues. This 
prevents  authorities  to  deal  with  other  administrative  tasks.  The  number  of 
transboundary  EIAs  in  the  EU  is  estimated  at  around  0.1 %  of  the  total  number  of 
EIAs305, i.e. 173 EIAs for 2008. 

Furthermore,  transboundary  EIAs  can  bring  about  extra  costs  due  to  additional 
requirements  or  different  (legal)  procedures  which  relate  to  differences  in  national 
EIA procedures306, differences in the time-frames for public consultation between the 
Member  States.  Member  States  that  are  smaller  and/or  are  land-locked  may  be 
disproportionally  affected  by  this,  as  their  share  of  EIAs  that  have  a  transboundary 
character  may  be  much  higher  than  in  coastal  Member  States  or  in  Member  states 
with larger territories. This impact can be seen as a distributional impact between the 
different  Member  States  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  smaller/landlocked  Member 
States. 

In  the  baseline  scenario,  the  proportion  of  transboundary  projects  is  assumed  to 
remain  at  the  current  level.  The  additional  costs  associated  with  these  projects  in 
proportion  to  overall  EIA-related  costs  would  also  remain  stable.  These  costs  are 
included in the overall administrative cost estimates provided in Section 3.1.3. 

10.9.5.2. Delays due to the public participation process 

The  average  duration  of  public  consultation  during  the  EIA  procedure  is 
approximately  1.6  months  according  to  the  GHK  study  findings.  These  public 
consultation  procedures  may  result  in  delays  in  the  EIA  procedure,  leading  to 
additional  costs  for  public  authorities  and  developers.  One  case  study  analysed  by 
GHK,  concerning  the  development  of  a  German  quarry  in  the  Ruhr  conurbation, 
which  was  delayed  due  to  a  lengthy  public  participation  process307,  is  a  good 
illustration. These costs lead to an increase in the direct administrative burden related 
to the EIA Directive but also to wider, more indirect, socio-economic costs such as 
increase  in  opportunity  costs  for  developers.  Given  the  projected  growth  in  the 
number  of  EIAs  and  the  growing  population  of  the  EU27,  and  assuming  that  the 

304 

305 

306 
307 

Opportunity  costs  usually  relate  to  a  loss  of  revenues  due  to  the  fact  that  a  business  cannot  create 
revenues from working on other projects. 
GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive.  
Report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive (COM(2009) 378). 
GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive, Annex 7. 

EN 

108 

   EN 

 
                                                 
public  participation  process  would  remain  unchanged,  the  potential  number  of 
stakeholders  involved  in  the  public  participation  process  of  EIAs  would  probably 
increase in the baseline scenario. It is assumed that the potential number of conflicts 
and additional costs related to delays would also increase in the baseline scenario (it 
must be noted that conflicts do not necessarily entail court proceedings as conflicts 
may also include issues that are solved via administrative appeal). It is not possible, 
however, to give an order of magnitude of this likely increase in delays-related costs, 
given the lack of precise information. 

10.9.6.  Employment and labour markets 

Member State 

Belgium 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Ireland 
Latvia 
Malta 

Poland 
Slovakia 
Average for 
respondents 

Number of days to 
process an EIA 
22 
5 
100 
25 
- 
8 
10 
30 
7-35 
30 
80 

- 

- 

32 

Number of staff (national 
and regional levels) 
30 
80 
45 
19 
15 
- 
- 
160 
- 
22 
3 
290 
(50 at national and 240 at 
regional level) 
90 

75 

Number of EIAs per staff 

6 
1 
3 
4 
3 
- 
- 
3 
- 
6 
3 

- 

7 

4 

The implementation of the EIA Directive provides benefits in terms of employment 
in the field of environment. The average number of staff working on  EIA issues on 
behalf  of  the  authorities  was  estimated  at  approximately  75  by  the  GHK  study308, 
with  a  large  variation  across  Member  states  (for  example,  in  Poland,  up  to  290 
persons  are  involved  in  the  EIA  process).  It  must  be  noted  that  these  people 
mentioned do not necessarily work full-time on EIA matters.  

In  order  to  comply  with  the  requirements  of  the  EIA  Directive  concerning  the 
preparation  of  EIA  reports  in  particular,  technical  and  legal  expertise  is  generally 
required.  This  has  led  to  the  creation  or  to  the  preservation  of  jobs  in  public 
authorities  to  conduct  screenings  and  to  process  EIA  dossiers  as  well  as  jobs  in 
environmental  consultancy  companies  to  provide  support  to  developers  in  the 
preparation  of  EIA  reports  (this  includes  environmental  consultants  and  possible 
specialised contractors in charge of conducting environmental measurements such as 
air/water  sampling,  noise  monitoring,  ecological  assessment,  etc.).  In  the  case  of 
large  developers,  specific  jobs  dedicated  to  EIAs  may  also  have  been  created 
internally. The jobs that have been created as a result of the EIA Directive are mostly 
high-skilled  jobs.  In  the  baseline  scenario,  it  can  be  assumed  that  these  benefits 
would  probably  remain  similar  (in  new  Member  States,  productivity  gains  within 
public authorities, developers and consultancies for tasks related to the EIA Directive 

308 

GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive, section 2.5. 

EN 

109 

   EN 

 
                                                 
could  be  expected  as  more  experience  is  gained  over  the  years;  however, 
environmental legislation is becoming increasingly stringent which tends to increase 
the  complexity  of  EIA  reports  that  have  to  be  produced).  Again,  in  the  absence  of 
quantified  information,  for  example  on  the  evolution  of  the  number  of  persons 
involved in the EIA process, it is not possible to provide a quantitative estimate. 

It  can  however  be  argued  that,  in  some  cases,  the  implementation  of  the  EIA 
Directive  may  lead  to  delays  in  the  creation  of  employment  associated  with  new 
projects, due to long and burdensome EIA processes. 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). 

10.9.7.  Public health, safety and the quality of life 

Environmental  benefits  from  the  current  implementation  of  the  EIA  Directive,  as 
described above, also result in health benefits due to avoided emissions of pollutants 
and avoided nuisances, e.g. noise, odours, vibrations, dust (some concrete examples 
were  presented  in  Annex  7).  The  associated  costs,  in  terms  of  avoided  health 
damages  for  the  general  population  and  for  the  population  living  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  projects,  are  likely  to  be  significant;  however  such  costs  are 
difficult to quantify and no data is available at present. 

Besides,  assessing  the  impacts  of  projects  on  human  health  as  part  of  EIAs  is  a 
requirement  in  most  Member  States.  In  some  Member  States,  formal  guidance 
documents and methodologies to cover this aspect have been developed and National 
Health  Authorities  are  consulted  as  part  of  the  EIA  process.  For  some  types  of 
projects  (e.g.  chemical  industry)  and  in  some  Member  States  (e.g.  France), 
assessment of human health impact can represent a significant part of the EIA report. 

Other  social  benefits  include  the  preservation  of  quality  of  life  through  the 
preservation of landscape and cultural heritage, avoided nuisances, etc. These might 
be important concerns for the public, especially in the case of major projects, such as 
transport  or  energy  infrastructure  construction  (road  construction,  high-speed 
railways, wind turbines, etc.) The benefits brought by the EIA Directive are difficult 
to  quantify  but  are  likely  to  be  present,  given  the  reference  values  that  can  be 
associated  with  these  different  environmental  externalities.  The  avoided  impact  on 
the quality of life can be illustrated by looking at the willingness to pay (WTP) for 
specific environmental aspects and ecosystem services. For example, the value given 
in the specific case of woodlands in the UK was estimated to be around € 2.1 million 
on an annual basis309. Another example is the value people in Sweden have given to 
the preservation of the wolf, which ranged between € 70 and € 90310. This indicates 
that  there  is  a  cultural  benefit  of  taking  these  considerations  into  account  in  the 
current EIA Directive as the society values the preservation of the environment. 

In the baseline scenario, the impacts on public health, safety and quality of life from 
the  current  EIA  Directive  are  expected  to  remain  the  same  over  time.  However,  in 

309 
310 

Willis et al. (2003), Social & Environmental Benefits of Forests in Great Britain. 
Sara  Sundberg  and  Tore  Söderqvist,  Swedish  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Naturvårdsverket 
2004. 

EN 

110 

   EN 

 
                                                 
absolute  terms  the  benefits  (avoided  costs)  would  increase  as  the  number  of  EIAs 
would also increase as it has been stated earlier on. 

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

10.9.8.1. Public participation 

There  are  several  provisions  on  public  participation  laid  down  in  the  EIA 
Directive311, according to which Member States shall inform and consult the public 
about  projects  that  fall  under  the  EIA  procedure  and  give  the  public  the  right  to 
challenge  final  decisions  made  by  the  authorities  concerning  the  delivery  of 
development consents. 

These  provisions  were  strengthened  by  the  introduction  of  Directive  2003/35/EC 
whose  provisions  derived  from  Articles  6  and  9  of  the  Aarhus  Convention312. 
Minimum  requirements  for  the  public  participation  procedure  were  set,  leaving  the 
adoption  of  more  detailed  wide-ranging  and  innovative  national  measures  to  the 
Member States. Some guidance as to how this may be done is set out in examples, 
such as giving information by bill posting or publication in local newspaper, ensuring 
consultation  by  receipt  of  written  submissions  or  by  the  holding  of  public  enquiry. 
However,  the  Directive  requires  that  reasonable  time-frames  shall  be  provided 
allowing sufficient time for each of the different stages of participation provided in 
the Directive. 

Time-frames for public consultation in the current situation are described in detail in 
the  COWI  report313.  The  majority  of  the  Member  States  have  laid  down  specific 
time-frames in their legislation. Other Member States use the unspecified phrasing of 
the Directive (or a phrasing with a corresponding meaning) such as ‘reasonable time-
frames’,  ‘sufficient  time’  or  ‘in  good  time  and  to  an  appropriate  extent’.  A  third 
group of Member States uses a combination of both. The stipulated time-frames set a 
minimum  time-frame  for  public  consultation.  The  time-frames  applied  in  the 
Member States in the consultation phase on the EIA information range from 14 days 
as  the  shortest  time-frame  (Bulgaria,  Estonia)  to  60  days  as  the  longest  time  frame 
(Italy). Most Member States apply a time-frame of 30 days. 

As  shown  in  the  previous  paragraph,  public  consultation  can  lead  to  potentially 
costly  delays  and  in  some  cases  to  legal  disputes.  Even  if  these  economic  costs  do 
exist and may be significant in specific cases, it is likely that they are outweighed by 
potential  benefits.  The  review  conducted  by  IVM  (2007)314  shows  that  benefits  of 
EIA in terms of public involvement and participation in decision-making procedures 
relating  to  projects  with  potentially  significant  environmental  impacts  are  widely 
mentioned in the literature. Evidence of such benefits is also reported from countries 
that used to have a tradition of little transparency (such as Bulgaria), so that EIA may 
be said to have contributed to the development of ‘civil society’315. However, IVM 

311 
312 

313 
314 
315 

Article 6 (2) to (5), Article 8, Article 9 and Article 10a. 
UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to 
Justice in Environmental Matters, 25th of June 1998. 
COWI (2009), Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive. 
IVM, BIO, IEEP, IEP and Ecologic (2007), Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive. 
Almer  and  Koontz  (2004)  Public  hearings  for  EIA  in  post-communist  Bulgaria:  do  they  work? 
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24, pp. 473-493, as cited by IVM (2007). 

EN 

111 

   EN 

 
                                                 
also  mentions  that  in  some  cases  the  civil  society  participation  through  the 
institutionalised  EIA  procedure  is  not  without  problems:  a  Finnish  case  study316 
shows that only a few active groups participated in the EIA process and there were 
signs of ‘elitist political networks’. During the public consultation on the review of 
the EIA Directive, a large majority of respondents agreed with the fact that the EIA 
Directive  contributes  to  the  support  of  projects  by  the  civil  society317  and  that,  in 
practice,  the  opinions  expressed  by  the  public  influence  the  final  design  of  the 
project318. 

It is expected in this baseline scenario that benefits related to public participation will 
continue  to  be  observed.  Given  the  nature  of  these  benefits  and  the  lack  of 
quantitative information, a quantitative estimate, even partial, cannot be provided. 

10.9.8.2. Good administration 

The Commission’s experience from the assessment of projects co-funded under the 
EU Regional Policy, in particular major projects, shows that EIAs have improved the 
decision-making process. In particular, the participation of environmental authorities 
and  the  involvement  of  the  public  has  led  to  an  increased  transparency  in 
environmental  decision-making  and,  consequently,  social  acceptance319  of  the  EIA 
procedure. The EIA process also formalises public participation, allowing the public 
to contribute to the design of the project, which generally increases the acceptability 
of large-scale  projects. Eventually,  this also limits the potential  for  conflicts and/or 
court proceedings at a later stage (issues can be discussed and possibly resolved at an 
earlier stage), as explained previously. 

Additional positive impacts related to good administration can result from the higher 
level  of  cooperation  between  national  authorities  of  different  Member  States  in  the 
case  of  transboundary  EIAs.  The  cooperation  between  authorities  can  improve  the 
procedure for forthcoming EIAs. As the number of transboundary EIAs is expected 
to  increase  in  line  with  the  total  number  of  EIAs,  so  will  the  opportunities  for 
cooperation between authorities from different Member States, potentially leading to 
better governance and administration of environmental regulations. This higher level 
of  cooperation  would  also  result  in  additional  benefits  from  cooperation  related  to 
other  issues  than  EIAs  (positive  spill-over  effects).  This  impact  can  be  related  to 
good  administration  and  increased  efficiency  in  other  bureaucratic  procedures,  as 
both national authorities will benefit from closer cooperation. 

10.9.8.3. Access to justice 

With the implementation of the EIA Directive, the public has had a legal instrument 
at its disposal that allows third parties to challenge the legality of decisions made by 
the authorities. This ability enhances legal certainty and reinforces the rights of the 
public.  This  right  to  have  access  to  justice  has  been  reinforced  by  the  ECJ  in  the 

316 

317 
318 
319 

Hokkanen P et al. (2004) Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment in Finland – Presentation 
of the EFEIA Project (paper presented at the 25th IAIA Annual Conference, Boston, Massachusetts, 31 
May-3 June, 2005). 
84 % of all respondents agreed with this statement. 
92 % of all respondents agreed with this statement. 
Report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive (COM(2009) 378). 

EN 

112 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Djurgården  (C-263/08)  and  the  Trianel  (C-115/09)  rulings,  in  which  the  ECJ 
confirmed  that  the  members  public  concerned  are  to  have  access  to  a  review 
procedure. In the baseline scenario, the assumption is that access to justice related to 
the EIA procedure would remain the same, i.e. as defined by the jurisprudence of the 
Djurgården and the Trianel rulings. 

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

The thirteen possible amendments considered for analysis are listed in Table 25. The 
table  illustrates  how  each  of  the  possible  amendments  is  linked  with  the  problems 
identified and the objectives of the review. 

Table 25: List of possible amendments and their links with problems and objectives 

Possible amendments 

Corresponding problems 

Link with objectives 

Introduce and/or 
strengthen the 
quality related 
elements of the 
Directive  

Enhance policy 
coherence and 
synergies with other 
EU/international law 
and simplify 
procedures 

Adaptation of Annexes I and II 

Alternative procedure for Annex II 
projects  
Modification of Annex III  

Justification of negative screening 
decisions 
Mandatory scoping 

Quality control of the EIA 
information 
Mandatory assessment of reasonable 
alternatives 
Justification of final decision 

Mandatory post-EIA monitoring 

Additional environmental issues 
(climate change, disaster risks, 
biodiversity, marine environment, 
resource use) 
Specific time-frame for public 
consultation 
Maximum time-frame for decision-
making on screening and EIA 
decision 
Coordinated or integrated/joint 
procedure (EIA ‘one-stop shop’) 

Projects with significant environmental impacts 
escape EIA 
Projects without significant environmental impacts 
are subject to EIAs 
Projects with significant environmental impacts 
escape EIA 

No justified decisions on screenings 

EIA reports not focusing on the most significant 
impacts 
EIA reports with poor quality of environmental data 
and analysis 
EIA reports with poor quality of environmental data 
and analysis 
Insufficient consideration of impacts of project 
alternatives 
No justified decisions on development consent 

Potential gaps between predicted and actual impacts 

EIAs do not cover new environmental topics 

Too short or too long public consultation 

Excessive time for the processing of EIAs by public 
authorities 

Overlaps with other EU environmental assessments  
Inconsistencies between EIA and other EU laws  

10.10.1. Adaptation of Annexes I and II 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

As  demonstrated  in  the  problem  definition,  the  whole  screening  mechanism  should 
be simplified and clarified. It has also been acknowledged that the project categories 
are  in  need  of  an  update  as  they  do  not  sufficiently  cover  projects  with  significant 
impacts on biodiversity and climate change. There is also a legal obligation for the 
project categories to reflect those established in the SEA Protocol, such as those of 
deforestation of large areas and offshore hydrocarbon production. 

EN 

113 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Changes to the content of the Annexes covered under this option include:  

– 

– 

Changing  thresholds  and  project  categories  for  Annex  II  projects  to  become 
Annex I projects 

Adding  new  projects  to  Annex  I  and  Annex  II,  including  project  categories 
addressing impacts on biodiversity, resource consumption, marine environment 
and climate change to Annexes I and II. 

On the basis of information received from Member States, a previous report for DG 
ENV  already  suggested  a  number  of  categories  that  ought  to  be  included  to  or 
removed  from  Annex  I  and  Annex  II320.  It  is  safe  to  assume  that  these  suggestions 
are either based on practical experience or reflect well-researched topics, and hence it 
is  likely  that  additional  information  on  the  possible  impacts  of  these  additions  is 
available for an indicative, qualitative assessment. It is  not within the scope of this 
study  to  suggest  specific  categories  to  be  included  or  removed  or  additional 
thresholds to be set. 

This  option  would  also  address  potential  overlaps  and  the  needs  for  improved 
coordination between screening criteria and other environmental legislation, such as 
the  IED  Directive,  which  could  become  more  closely  interlinked.  For  instance  in 
Romania EIA legislation ensures that projects meeting the thresholds provided for by 
the IED are automatically subject to an EIA321. 

10.10.2. Alternative procedure for Annex II projects 

This option involves the introduction of alternative procedures for Annex II projects, 
such  as  having  to  conduct  a  ‘mini  EIA’  for  projects  instead  of  going  through  the 
screening  process.  A  number  of  Member  States  have  adopted  alternative  EIAs  for 
small-scale  projects  and  activities322,  which  are  often  carried  out  by  SMEs.  Some 
examples  are  presented  below.  These  tend  to  be  used  in  combination  with  moving 
Annex II projects to Annex I and at the same time wanting to ensure that no projects 
with potential environmental impacts escape an EIA.  Hence, these alternative EIAs 
can  be  required  for  projects  well  below  the  thresholds  and  criteria  for  Annex  II 
projects, such as the approach taken in Greece. 

Examples of alternative Annex II procedures in the Member States 

In  Italy  there  are  separate  procedures  for  State  EIAs  and  Regional  EIAs.  However,  the 
regional  screening  criteria  for  Annex  II  projects  go  beyond  the  provisions  of  the  EIA 
Directive. It includes all modifications or extensions that have ‘significant negative effects’ 
and does not set a threshold for the size of modifications of extensions for screening.  

320 

321 

322  

COWI (2009), Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, 
June 2009, p.103-106. 
COWI (2009), Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, 
June 2009. 
Of the 12 project categories listed in Annex II, 9 are related to industrial activities (e.g. in the field of 
extraction, energy, and production and processing of metals, minerals, chemicals, food, rubber, textile, 
wood). 

EN 

114 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In Austria there is a simplified procedure (which meets all criteria of the EIA-Directive) for 
some types of projects that usually might cause impacts on just a few environmental media. 

In Denmark, an electronic model has been developed for intensive animal farming projects 
in which the developer simply, by inserting required data in a calculation sheet,  may get a 
clear  picture  of  whether  the  proposed  project  will  result  in  an  EIA  procedure  or  not.  The 
model  even  encourages  developers  to  alter  their  entries  for  the  purpose  of  trying  out  what 
particular elements in their projects that may be altered with the effect that an EIA procedure 
is no longer relevant. It is noted that this Danish example has previously been reviewed by 
the European Commission and Member States and was found to be of limited applicability to 
the circumstances in other Member States. However, it could be argued that the idea of the 
model and its principles could be subject to further development in other Member States for 
the purpose of assessing the sustainability of idea and principles. 

Sweden adopted an approach where it is decided whether Annex II projects require an EIA 
according to the EIA Directive, or a ‘mini EIA’. The argument for the ‘mini EIA’ is that one 
does  not  know  whether  an  EIA  is  needed  until  the  EIA  is  done.  The  main  criterion  for 
deciding  if  a  ‘mini  EIA’  or  a  proper  EIA  is  required  is  the  potential  for  significant 
environmental  impacts.  There  are  thousands  of  ‘mini  EIAs’  taking  place  but  there  is  no 
detailed information on the costs and benefits of these. However, it seems that many of the 
‘mini-EIAs’  are  just  pro-forma  exercises  with  marginal  benefits  for  the  environment. 
Sweden  is  currently  revising  its  EIA  and  SEA  legislation  and  considering  removing  the 
requirement of ‘mini EIAs’323. 

Within  the  context  of  this  study  it  is  not  possible  to  develop  and  specify  criteria 
(thresholds,  etc.)  for  an  alternative  procedure  for  each  of  the  Annex  II  project. 
However,  similar  approaches  being  undertaken  by  Member  States  provide  useful 
information. For instance, in Denmark, an electronic model has been developed for 
intensive  animal  farming  projects  in  which  the  developer  simply,  by  inserting 
required data in a calculation sheet, may get a clear picture of whether the proposed 
project will result in an EIA-procedure or not. Also a majority of the EU-10 Member 
States  employ  a  combination  of  ad-hoc  screening  and  adopted  thresholds.  The 
combination  of  these  two  approaches  is  often  employed  in  a  manner  where 
applications  falling  below  adopted  thresholds  are  subjected  to  an  ad-hoc  screening 
decision324. 

This option primarily addresses concerns related to the efficiency of the EIA process, 
as it simplifies the existing procedures. Such an amendment would ensure that EIAs 
are  carried  out  only  for  projects  that  would  have  significant  environmental  effects, 
for  small-scale  projects.  This 
avoiding  unnecessary  administrative  burden 
amendment  also  needs  to  be  considered  in  parallel  with  the  amendment  of  setting 
maximum time-frames for authorities to make their final decisions. 

10.10.3. Modifications of Annex III 

Annex  III  defines  the  criteria  on  which  thresholds  and/or  case  by  case  assessments 
are to be set by Member States for Annex II projects. This amendment would update 
the  set  of  criteria  along  the  same  lines  as  the  update  of  criteria  for  Annex  I  and 

323 

324 

Correspondence  with  Professor  Lars  Emmelin,  Chair  of  Environmental  Assessment  at  the  Swedish 
School of Planning, Blekinge Institute of Technology (October 2011). 
COWI (2009), Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, 
June 2009. 

EN 

115 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex  II  projects  (see  Section  3.3.1.1),  i.e.  setting  criteria  that  better  consider  the 
impacts of projects on biodiversity, the marine environment, climate change, disaster 
risks  and  resource  consumption,  as  well  as  the  impacts  of  a  changing  climate  and 
disasters on projects. 

This  amendment  is  closely  linked  to  other  amendments  discussed  in  this  section, 
such  as  the  alternative  procedure  for  Annex  II  projects  as  well  as  moving  projects 
from Annex II to Annex I. The only case of national modification of Annex III is the 
case of Hungary, which has set more detailed selection criteria than in Annex III. 

This  amendment  would  reinforce  the  effectiveness  of  the  EIA  process  and  would 
improve its coherence with other environmental policies. This option was supported 
by 44 % of all respondents to the public consultation.  

10.10.4. Justification of negative screening decisions 

So far, only the decisions, but not their reasoning has to be made publicly available. 
Authorities do not need to include the reasoning behind the decision itself and are not 
obliged  to  link  their  decision  to  the  relevant  Annex  III  used.  This  constraint  is  not 
coherent with the spirit of the EIA Directive, which aims to increase the transparency 
of  decision-making.  Hence,  this  option  requires  public  authorities  to  make  the 
reasoning  behind  negative  screening  decision  public,  similarly  to  Article  3.7  of  the 
SEA Directive. 

Such  an  option  remains  disputed.  The  ECJ  (Case-C-75/08)  recently  ruled  that  the 
reasons for a negative decision do not have to be made publicly available. However, 
the  ECJ  also  concluded  that  the  public  authority  should  make  this  information 
available  to  the  public  if  a  particular  request  is  being  forwarded.  In  addition,  the 
Court (Case C- 87/02) further stated that a negative screening decision must contain 
or  be  accompanied  by  all  the  information  that  makes  it  possible  to  check  that  it  is 
based on adequate screening, carried out in accordance with the requirements of the 
EIA Directive. 

This amendment would primarily contribute to the effectiveness of the EIA process. 
It can only be realised via the amendment of Article 4(4). This option was supported 
by 62 % of all respondents to the public consultation. 

10.10.5.  Mandatory scoping procedure 

The scoping stage sets the coverage and level of detail of the EIA report, based on 
the information specified in Annex IV. Scoping evaluates which impacts and issues 
should  be  consider  and  to  what  level  of  detail  they  should  be  analysed,  so  that  the 
EIA report provides all the relevant information. This option requires the competent 
authority  to  specify  in  writing  what  information  is  required  for  submitting  an 
appropriate application for development consent, regardless of any requests from the 
developer.  By  having  this  information  available,  the  developer  can  avoid  potential 
delays  later  on  in  the  process  as  well  as  ensure  a  better  quality  assessment. 
Information  which  has  not  been  requested  by  the  authority  within  the  scoping 
procedure  could  only  be  requested  to  the  developer  under  significantly  new 
circumstances. 

EN 

116 

   EN 

 
This  option  requires  amending  Article  5(2)  of  the  EIA  Directive  to  introduce  a 
mandatory scoping procedure. This would also involve the update and improvement 
of  the  existing  Commission  guidance  on  scoping325,  which  includes  in  particular 
several  check  lists  supposed  to  serve  the  function  of  quality  insurance  tools  (this 
assumption  is  already  part  of  the  baseline  scenario).  The  mandatory  scoping 
procedure  would also  require  that  the  competent  authority  takes  initial  advice from 
other  authorities  involved  in  the  EIA  process  to  identify  all  relevant  information 
needed for the EIA. In particular, the mandatory scoping process will have to ensure 
that the following aspects are specified in writing to the developer: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

impacts  of 

Environmental 
that  should  be  considered  as 
‘significant’,  for  which  a  detailed  analysis  is  required  and  a  monitoring  plan 
should be proposed 

the  projects 

Reasonable project alternatives to be considered 

Specific  methodologies  for  the  analysis of  possible  new  environmental  issues 
to be covered by the EIA Directive (impacts on and from climate change and 
disasters, impacts on biodiversity, impacts on natural resources) 

Suggestions on public data sources that may be useful in the preparation of the 
EIA report (based on the initial consultation with other authorities involved in 
the EIA process). 

In accordance with  the  above  points, mandatory scoping has strong links with 
other amendments, in particular the ones related to ‘Assessment of reasonable 
alternatives’ and ‘Additional environmental issues’. 

In  approximately  half  of  the  Member  States,  the  competent  authority  is  required  to 
provide  this  information  regardless  of  any  requests  from  the  developer  (mandatory 
scoping)  and  public  consultation  occurs  during  the  scoping  stage326.  Scoping  is 
mandatory in EU-10 Member States with the exception of Cyprus and Slovenia. In 
some Member States, scoping is only mandatory for certain types of projects (e.g. in 
Poland,  scoping  is  obligatory  for  Annex  I  projects  which  are  likely  to  have 
significant transboundary effects and for all Annex II projects). 

Mandatory scoping is primarily linked to the objective of an improved quality of the 
EIA, but it can also improve the coherence with other policies (e.g. those related to 
additional  environmental  issues)  and  streamline  the  EIA  process,  as  the  developer 
can rely on having appropriate information at hand early on in the process. 

37 %  of  all  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  supported  mandatory  scoping, 
which  was  also  a  highly  recommended  measure  to  optimise  EU  permitting 
procedures in a recent study carried out for DG ENER327. 

325 
326 

327 

EC Guidance for EIA - Scoping. June 2001. 
COWI (2009), Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, 
June 2009. 
Roland Berger Strategy Consultants (2011) Permitting procedures for energy infrastructure projects in 
the EU : evaluation and legal recommendations. 

EN 

117 

   EN 

 
                                                 
10.10.6. Quality control of the EIA information 

Many Member States point the fact that lack of sufficient quality in data employed in 
EIA  reports  and  poor  data  analysis  is  a  problem.  In  general,  the  quality  of  EIA 
reports is uneven and may lead to the granting of development consent on the basis 
of  inadequate  information.  It  is  also  recognised  that  the  level  of  complexity  in  the 
preparation  of  EIA  reports  is  continuously  increasing,  partly  because  of  the 
increasing complexity of environmental challenges that need to be taken into account 
(e.g.  biodiversity)  and  the  increasing  complexity  of  environmental  legislation  that 
needs to be well understood when assessing possible mitigation measures. 

In order to take into account the various quality control measures that have already 
been  put  in  place  in  some  Member  States  and  to  allow  some  flexibility  in  the 
implementation of such changes, two main possibilities are envisaged in this study: a 
relatively  easy-to-implement  sub-option  (use  of  accredited  consultants)  and  a  more 
complex  one  (‘quality  control  committee’  at  the  national  level).  Besides,  these  two 
possibilities  could  be  implemented simultaneously with the aim to  achieve an even 
greater level of quality in EIA reports. 

Use of accredited consultants 

A  first  possibility  to  address  the  issue  of  poor  quality  is  therefore  to  require  EIA 
reports  to  be  prepared  or  verified  by  accredited  consultants  able  to  demonstrate  a 
minimum  level  of  expertise  in  the  subject  areas.  Under  this  sub-option,  developers 
would need to hire an accredited consultant either to prepare their report or to verify 
the  report  they  would  have  prepared  themselves.  In  practice,  a  large  majority  of 
developers  already  hire  specialised  consultants  to  prepare  EIA  reports  given  the 
technical  and  specialised  nature  of  this  work.  Only  some  of  the  larger  developers 
have internal staff dedicated to the preparation of EIA reports. 

This  requirement  already  exists  in  some  of  the  old  Member  States  (e.g.  in  the 
Flanders region of Belgium, where the accreditation is valid for 5 years328, as well as 
in  other  Belgian  regions)  or  is  being  envisaged  (e.g.  in  France,  a  recent  report 
prepared  for  the  Ministry  of  Environment  recommended  that  criteria  for  a  future 
certification of environmental consultants involved in EIAs be developed329). 

In practice, even in the absence of an accreditation process in a number of Member 
States,  some  competent  authorities  have  established  unofficial  ‘black  lists’  of 
consulting companies having produced poor quality reports in a recurrent manner; at 
the  request  of  developers,  some  of  them  also  provide  lists  of  ‘recommended’ 
consultants  to  prepare  EIA  dossiers.  An  accreditation  process  would  be  a  way  to 
officialise  such  practices  and  would  help  developers  in  the  selection  of  adequate 
contractors. 

328 

329 

GHK  (2010)  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive, Report for DG ENV- Annex 6, Case study 1. 
Conseil Général de l’Environnement et du Développement Durable CGEDD (2011) Competencies and 
professionalisation  of  consultancies  with  regard  to  EIAs  –  Report  for  the  French  Ministry  of 
Environment, 
http://portail.documentation.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/documents/cgedd/007411-
01_rapport.pdf (in French). 

EN 

118 

   EN 

 
                                                 
While  this  option  would  require  an  accreditation  process  to  be  put  in  place  at  the 
national level, the details of the qualification criteria for obtaining the accreditation 
could  be  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  Member  States  (e.g.  based  on  CV,  past 
experience, references, evaluation test, etc.). 

Other possible mechanisms for quality control 

Another  way  to  address  the  concerns  about  quality  of  EIA  reports  is  to  have  an 
expert committee at national level in charge of checking the quality of EIA reports 
and  providing  advice  to  the  competent  authority  before  this  competent  authority 
issues its final decision. Different examples currently exist in some Member States. 
In the 12 new Member States, it is a legal requirement that a competent authority or 
an  expert  committee  is  responsible  for  evaluating  the  quality  of  the  EIA 
documentation; different processes have been implemented for this purpose330. 

France:  An  environmental  authority  (‘Autorité  Environnementale’)  was  created  in 
2009  to  provide  advice  on  the  quality  of  certain  EIA  reports,  when  the 
project/programme  developer  is  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment  or  a  public 
organisation under its supervision (e.g. large infrastructure projects) or when the final 
decision  is  taken  by  the  Ministry  itself  (e.g.  nuclear  installations)331.  The  main 
purpose  of  this  measure  was  to  provide  a  guarantee  for  impartiality  but  also  a 
guarantee for quality and transparency towards the public. This authority includes 17 
persons,  12  of  which  are  part  of  the  evaluation  services  of  the  Ministry  of  the 
Environment (CGEDD) and 5 are external qualified experts. 

Italy:  A  technical  EIA  consultation  committee  was  created  in  2007  to  review  the 
quality  of  EIA  reports  (Commissione  Valutazione  Impatto  Ambientale).  It  is 
comprised of 50 members nominated by the Ministry of Environment332. 

Greece:  A  quality  control  committee  within  the  Ministry  of  Environment  was 
recently created. 

Netherlands:  A  specific  agency,  the  Netherlands  Commission  for  Environmental 
Assessment  (NCEA),  which  is  independent  from  the  Ministry  of  Environment, 
provides  advice  to  the  competent  authority  on  the  quality  of  EIA  reports,  upon 
request  from  the  competent  authority333.  The  NCEA  is  composed  of  a  pool  of  700 
experts,  working  for  governmental  organisations,  research  institutes  or  universities 
and  private  companies.  They  are  hired  on  a  project-by-project  base.  For  every 
EIA/SEA, a working group is created, usually counting 3-6 experts. The Commission 
for EIA is lump sum funded by central government. 

Both variants would primarily contribute to the objective of an improved quality of 
the  EIA  process.  The  implementation  of  a  mechanism  to  ensure  the  quality  of  the 

330 

331 
332 

333 

EN 

COWI (2009), Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, 
June 2009. 
More information at: http://www.cgedd.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/presentation-r169.html. 
Further 
website: 
http://www.minambiente.it/home_it/menu.html?mp=/menu/menu_ministero/&m=Comitati_e_Commiss
ioni.html|Commissione_Valutazione_Impatto_Ambientale.html&lang=it 
Further information available at: http://www.eia.nl/netherlands/default.asp?type=en_process. 

information 

following 

available 

the 

at 

119 

   EN 

 
                                                 
environmental information supplied by the developer was supported by 53 % of all 
respondents to the public consultation. 

10.10.7. Mandatory assessment of reasonable alternatives 

This amendment requires a mandatory assessment of, at least, the ‘zero alternative’ 
and one ‘reasonable’ alternative, based on an appropriate approach to assessing the 
costs and benefits of project alternatives. The ‘reasonable’ alternative(s) could be of 
a technical or spatial nature or could be related to the timescale for construction and 
operation. This goes beyond the current provisions of the EIA Directive, which only 
require  ‘an  outline’  of  the  main  alternatives  studied.  In  this  context,  the  impact  of 
technological, spatial and ‘zero-alternatives’ would need to be part of the appraisal. 

Mandatory assessment of reasonable alternatives should be clearly specified so as to 
avoid diverging interpretations between Member States and achieve a level-playing 
field.  Accordingly,  the  EIA  Directive  would  be  updated  to  include  information  on 
what is to be considered as a ‘reasonable’ alternative for different types of projects 
(in terms of technological alternatives and/or also more structural options related to 
different  project  designs  and  planning,  etc.)  and  the  degree  to  which  the 
environmental  impacts  of  that  reasonable  alternative  need  to  be  considered. 
Respective  stipulations  of  the  EIA  Directive  would  need  to  be  underpinned  by 
appropriate guidance by the Commission in the form of suitable documents (which is 
already assumed in the baseline scenario). 

Half  of  the  Member  States  have  already  introduced  a  legal  obligation  to  consider 
specific  alternatives  (including  the  ‘zero-alternative’  in  some  cases):  BG,  DE,  DK, 
EE,  ES,  GR,  FI,  IT,  LT,  NL,  PL,  RO,  SK;  however,  the  assessment  of  these 
alternatives by developers generally remains of poor quality334. 

Introducing  a  requirement  to  assess  reasonable  alternatives  would  imply  the 
amendment  of  Annex  IV,  as  well  Article  5(3)  of  the  EIA  Directive  (to  make  the 
assessment mandatory). 

This  amendment  would  primarily  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  EIA  process, 
while  also  improving  coherence  with  the  SEA  Directive  and  with  the  Espoo 
Convention.  This  option  was  supported  by  55 %  of  all  respondents  to  the  public 
consultation. 

10.10.8. Justification of final decisions 

Article 8 of the EIA Directive only requires the results of the consultations and the 
information  gathered  pursuant  to  Articles  5,  6  and  7  to  be  taken  into  consideration 
but there are no structured requirements on how this might be done. Existing studies 
provide little information on whether such types of requirements have already been 
implemented in some Member States. In France, a recent law (2010)335 introduced a 
similar requirement as the one proposed in this option.  

334 

335 

COWI (2009), Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, 
June 2009, as well as the Commission Reports on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive 
(in 1997 and 2003). 
‘Grenelle 2’ law no 2010-788 of 12 July 2010. 

EN 

120 

   EN 

 
                                                 
This  amendment  is  primarily  reinforce  the  effectiveness  of  the  EIA  process  and 
would  have  to  be  implemented  in  conjunction  with  options  on  ‘Mandatory 
assessment of reasonable alternatives’ and ‘Mandatory monitoring’, since it refers to 
both of these additional requirements. 

10.10.9. Mandatory post-EIA monitoring  

This  requirement  is  linked  with  the  policy  option  concerning  the  modification  and 
reinforcement of Article 8 of the EIA Directive. 

Monitoring  of  significant  impacts  identified  and  predicted  in  EIA  reports  is  first 
relevant to ensure that the impacts from the construction and operation of projects do 
not  exceed  impacts  initially  predicted  in  the  EIA  report,  take  account  of  additional 
relevant  information  on  the  impact,  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  some  consistency  with  Article  10  and  Annex  I  of  the  SEA  Directive.  The 
International  Association  for  Impact  Assessment (IAIA) indeed considers  that  ‘EIA 
has little value unless follow-up is carried out because without it the process remains 
incomplete  and  the  consequences  of  EIA  planning  and  decision-making  will  be 
unknown’336. 

Monitoring is the first component of what is usually referred to as ‘EIA follow-up’. 
EIA follow up is a wider concept which consists of 4 main stages: 

–  Monitoring (collection of activity and environmental data) 

– 

Evaluation  (appraisal  of  the  conformity  with  standards,  predictions  or 
expectations as well as the environmental performance of the activity) 

–  Management  (making  decisions  and  taking  appropriate  action  in  response  to 

issues arising from monitoring and evaluation activities) 

– 

Communication (informing the stakeholders about the results of EIA follow-up 
in  order  to  provide  feedback  on  project/plan  implementation  as  well  as 
feedback on EIA processes). 

For  this  amendment  the  term  ‘monitoring’  implicitly  includes  evaluation  and 
management aspects as defined above. 

This  option  first  involves  that  suggestions  for  monitoring  measures  covering 
significant  environmental  impacts  of  the  project  be  described  in  the  information 
submitted  by  the  developer  (i.e.  in  the  EIA  report),  taking  into  account  monitoring 
requirements arising from other legislation applicable to the project (e.g. EID and/or 
sectoral legislation on air, water, etc.) or from other standards and best practice codes 
that the developer aims to comply with. Discussions with authorities at the scoping 
stage would inform the design of these monitoring measures. All possible synergies 

336 

EN 

IAIA 
http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/SP6.pdf.  

International 

Follow-Up 

(2007) 

EIA 

– 

Best 

Practice 

Principles, 

121 

   EN 

 
                                                 
with  monitoring  requirements  arising  from  other  EU  or  national  legislation  and 
guidance as well as voluntary initiatives should be taken advantage of, especially in 
relation to potentially lengthy phases such as data collection and the development of 
indicators. Based on the monitoring measures proposed in the EIA report, monitoring 
requirements for developers are to be set by the competent authorities and defined in 
the  development  consent  (e.g.  requirement  to  be  added  to  Art.  9  of  the  Directive). 
Developers  and/or  project  operators  will  only  be  required  to  monitor  the  negative 
significant environmental impacts of projects identified during the EIA process, once 
projects are implemented, and to keep the results available for competent authorities. 
They  will  be  required  to  evaluate  the  results  and  take  any  measures  required  to 
correct deviations from the expected effects. The monitoring procedure (parameters, 
frequency, methods, etc.) will be specified in the development consent. Monitoring 
results  will  also  be  evaluated  by  the  competent  authorities  (e.g.  during  random 
inspections)  and  any  remedial  action  considered  necessary  will  be  imposed  to  the 
developer of the project. The public will have the right, upon request, to access the 
monitoring results and any information on possible decisions made by the competent 
authorities following the evaluation of the results. 

The  types  and  number  of  environmental  parameters  to  monitor  and  the  monitoring 
frequency would be defined by the authorities on a case-by-case basis, depending on 
the  expected  environmental  impacts  of  the  project,  the  level  of  uncertainty  on 
predictions made in the EIA report, the sensitivity of the local environment, etc. 

In  practice,  the  EIA  reports  often  propose  monitoring  as  a  mitigation  measure  and 
such requirements are included in the development consent. Furthermore,  a number 
of  projects  requiring  an  EIA  are  already  subject  to  mandatory  monitoring 
requirements on the basis of other EU or national legislation, or voluntarily as a good 
practice: 

– 

– 

– 

Projects  also  subject  to  the  IED  have  mandatory  monitoring  requirements  as 
part of their permitting conditions337. 

Projects  with  significant  effects  on  biodiversity,  where  monitoring  is  usually 
carried out as a standard good practice, in accordance with several Commission 
guidance documents338. 

Projects  where  it  is  planned  to  implement  an  Environmental  Management 
System  (e.g.  to  obtain  ISO  14001  or  EMAS  certification),  as  environmental 
monitoring activities are part of such management systems. 

337 

338 

No information was available on the actual share of EIAs concerning projects that are also subject to the 
IED,  at  EU  level.  However,  a  significant  proportion  of  EIA  project  categories  in  Annexes  I  and  II 
overlaps  with  the  IED  (see  the  IMPEL  report  on  the  interrelationship  between  IPPC,  EIA,  SEVESO 
Directives  and  EMAS  Regulation,  1998,  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-studies-and-
reports/impel-full-text.pdf). 
Guidance 
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/guidance_art6_4_en.pdf); 
EU  Guidance  on  wind  energy  development  in  accordance  with  the  EU  nature  legislation 
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/Wind_farms.pdf);  EC  Guidance 
on  undertaking  new  non-energy  extractive  activities  in  accordance  with  Natura  2000  requirements 
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/neei_n2000_guidance.pdf). 

‘Habitats  Directive’ 

on  Article 

92/43/EEC 

document 

6(4) 

the 

of 

EN 

122 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Hence,  the  monitoring  requirements  would  only  apply  to  those  projects  where 
monitoring  is  not  already  foreseen  as  a  disguised  mitigation  measure,  or  is  not 
already  legally  required  by  other  EU  or  national  legislation,  or  is  carried  out 
voluntarily as a good practice. In the absence of adequate data, it is not possible to 
estimate  accurately  the  proportion  of  projects  that  would  be  concerned  by  this 
mandatory monitoring option. However, given the above considerations and for the 
purpose  of  this  impact assessment, it has been  roughly  estimated,  on  the  basis  of  a 
conservative assumption, that approximately 50 % of projects subject to EIA would 
be  concerned  (as  they  would  not  otherwise  be  subject  to  any  other  monitoring 
requirements). 

Monitoring  must  be  commensurate  with  the  anticipated  environmental  effect.  As 
each project is unique in terms of specific design, location and affected stakeholders, 
monitoring  programmes  should  also  be  tailored  to  the  proposed  activity,  its  stages 
and dynamic context. Monitoring results can be benchmarked against the EIA report 
expectations, consent decision specifications and legal standards. 

Ideally, the monitoring would require a harmonised approach to indicators, not only 
for  EIAs  but  also  for  SEAs,  enabling  a  streamlined  approach  to  monitoring,  data 
availability and the use of this information for broader evaluation purposes. 

The  extent  of  these  benefits  is  dependent  on  the  effective  implementation  of  the 
monitoring procedure, especially: 

– 

– 

– 

The definition of relevant and sufficiently ambitious targets in the EIA report 
and their validation by the competent authority 

The  existence  (at  reasonable  cost)  of  appropriate  data  and  methodologies  to 
construct  relevant  monitoring  impact  indicators  on  which  to  base  the 
assessment (this can be challenging with regard to biodiversity impacts) 

The possibility to implement effective mitigating measures, at reasonable cost, 
once  the  project  has  been  developed.  For  some  projects  –  e.g.  large 
infrastructure  projects  –  profound  and  potentially  very  costly  mitigation 
measures  are  likely  to  be  needed  to  reduce  significantly  the  overall 
environmental impacts. 

Monitoring  data  collection  and  evaluation  activities  should  be  sufficiently  frequent 
such that the information generated is useful to stakeholders, but not so frequent as to 
be a burden to those implementing the process. For the purposes of this study, it has 
been  assumed  that  monitoring  would  be  required  on  an  annual  basis  during  the  5 
years  following  the  development  of  the  project,  covering  1  or  2  key  environmental 
parameters. 

Only  the  Netherlands  are  known  to  have  implemented  mandatory  monitoring 
requirements339.  In  France,  a  recent  law  (adopted  in  2010)340  introduced  a 
requirement  for  EIAs to include  a  description of how the effectiveness of the main 
preventing/mitigating/offsetting measures would be monitored; it also introduced the 

339 
340 

IVM, BIO, IEEP, IEP and Ecologic (2007), Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive. 
‘Grenelle 2’ law, n°2010-788 of 12 July 2010. 

EN 

123 

   EN 

 
                                                 
possibility for developers to be inspected in order to check that such measures have 
actually been implemented. 

Introducing  a  comprehensive  monitoring  approach  will  require  adding  a  specific 
article  on  monitoring  to  the  EIA  Directive  and  modifying  Annex  IV.  This 
amendment would make the EIA process more effective, would reinforce links with 
other  policies  (i.e.  related  to  new  environmental  issues)  and  would  improve 
coherence with the SEA Directive. It was supported by 47 % of all respondents to the 
public consultation. 

10.10.10. 

Additional environmental issues 

This option consists in adding the following issues to the list of environmental topics 
to  be  covered  by  EIA  reports:  impacts  on  global  climate  change;  impacts  on  the 
severity  of  natural  or  man-made  disasters  (e.g.  by  increasing  exposure  and 
vulnerability to disasters); impacts due to climate change (on materials assets, human 
beings, flora and fauna); impacts due to increased frequency and intensity of natural 
or man-made disasters (on materials assets, human beings, flora and fauna); impacts 
on  biodiversity;  impacts  on  the  marine  environment;  impacts  on  the  availability  of 
natural  resources.  At  present,  these  issues  are  not  specifically  mentioned  in  the 
relevant sections of the EIA Directive (Article 3, Annexes III and IV)341. 

Article  5(1)  stipulates  that  information  listed  in  Annex  IV  is  to  be  provided  by 
developers only as far as the Member State considers it relevant to a given stage of 
the  consent  procedure,  to  the  characteristics  of  the  proposed  project  and  to  the 
environmental features likely to be affected, and reasonable having regard to current 
knowledge  and  methods  of  assessment.  Thus,  the  extent  of  information  to  be 
provided  depends  on  national  law,  subject  to  the  minimum  requirements  set  out 
above.  Member  States  can  either  lay  down  uniform  guidelines  or  provide  some 
discretion to competent authorities as to exactly how much information they require 
a developer to provide. This practice will be harmonised under this option, building 
on the different experiences made in the Member States. 

With regard to climate change, a climate risk assessment would be included into the 
EIA  procedure  covering  both  mitigation  and  adaptation  measures.  At  present,  such 
assessments tend to cover only impacts of projects on climate change, therefore the 
scope of current assessments would be extended to cover adaptation issues as well. 
In particular: 

Article  3  of  the  Directive  would  also  address  ‘direct  and  indirect  effects  of  climate 
change  on  a  project’.  Article  5  could  be  also  modified  as  an  option  to  ensure  that 
important information on climate change risks is required from the developer. Annex 
IV  would  clearly  describe  what  information  has  to  be  provided  on  climate  risk 
assessments.  This  would  include  information  on  impacts  on  greenhouse  gas 
emissions and climate change impacts on a project. Annex III of the Directive would 
explicitly  address  climate  change  as  one  of  the  screening  criteria.  For  example, 
characteristics of projects could include greenhouse gas emissions and vulnerability 

341 

Article 3 refers to environmental factors to be considered in EIAs, Annex III provides screening criteria 
while Annex IV contains an indicative list of information to be provided by the developer. 

EN 

124 

   EN 

 
                                                 
to climate change risks. Location of projects could include exposure of geographical 
areas to climate change risks. 

With regard to disaster risks, an assessment of the potential natural and man-made 
disaster risks would be included in the EIA procedure, covering also appropriate risk 
management  planning  and  preparatory  measures  for  emergencies  to  ensure 
compliance with existing minimum prevention standards. 

With regard to biodiversity, the scope of the assessment to be carried out as part of 
EIAs  would  be  slightly  extended  as  it  would  not  only  cover  ‘fauna  and  flora’  (as 
required by the current EIA Directive) but would consider biodiversity as a whole. 

With regard to the marine environment, EIAs are currently required for a number 
of  projects  subject  to  Maritime  Spatial  Planning342  but  the  use  of  Maritime  Spatial 
Planning is expected to increase in the future, in particular in offshore cross-border 
areas. By better covering impacts to the marine environment in EIAs, the coherence 
with  Maritime  Spatial  Planning  will  be  improved.  Coherence  with  the  EU’s 
Integrated  Maritime  Policy  and  with  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive 
would also be improved. 

The EIA Directive would, however, not define the level of assessment required and 
the methodologies to be used to cover each of these additional issues. This should be 
specified  by  the  competent  authorities  at the  scoping  stage  as  it  is  too  complex  for 
being  regulated  at  the  EU  level.  Guidance  would  be  provided  by  the  competent 
authorities on how to assess climate risks. Several guidelines are also foreseen at the 
EU  level  including  guidance  on  addressing  climate  change  in  the  EIA  process, 
guidance on climate proofing vulnerable investments and other. 

Introducing additional environmental issues into Annexes III and IV could be done 
through  technical  adaptation  (only  to  some  extent)  or  amendments  of  the  main 
provisions (Articles 3, 5(1) and 5(3) of the EIA Directive). This amendment would 
make the EIA process more effective and more coherent. 

10.10.11. 

Specific time-frame for public consultation  

As  previously  mentioned,  durations  for  the  public  consultation  vary  considerably 
among Member States, from two weeks up to two to three months. Under this option, 
the  Directive  would  be  amended  to  include  specifications  of  a  minimum  and  a 
maximum  time-frames  for  the  public  consultation  phase,  based  on  Member  States’ 
experiences. As reported by GHK343, the average duration of the public consultation 
phase  is  estimated  at  1.6  months.  The  proposed  time-frames  associated  with  this 
policy  option  are  a  minimum  duration  of  1  month  and  a  maximum  duration  of  2 
months (as a cumulated duration for all stages of the consultation process, in cases 
where it is split into several stages). However, these new provisions would allow the 

342 

343 

Maritime  Spatial  Planning  is  a  tool  for  improved  decision-making.  It  provides  a  framework  for 
arbitrating between competing human activities and managing their impact on the marine environment. 
Its objective is to balance sectoral interests and achieve sustainable use of marine resources in line with 
the  EU  Sustainable  Development  Strategy  (EC  Roadmap  for  Maritime  Spatial  Planning:  Achieving 
Common Principles in the EU, COM(2008)791). 
GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive. 

EN 

125 

   EN 

 
                                                 
competent  authorities  to  extend  this  time-frame  provided  that  this  is  duly  justified; 
this could be the case of projects requiring the assessment of complex environmental 
issues, as in such cases the public may need more time to gain sufficient knowledge 
of the environmental stakes. 

The  aim  would  be  to  ensure  an  effective  opportunity  to  participate  is  given  to  the 
public,  while  avoiding  delays  caused  by  lengthy  consultation  processes  for 
developers.  Another  advantage  of  having  a  clear  time-frame  is  the  possibility  to 
better coordinate with other processes carried out in parallel, such as environmental 
assessments required by other Directives, and in the case of transboundary EIAs. 

This  amendment  would  contribute  to  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  the  EIA 
process; it requires an amendment of Article 6 of the EIA Directive. 

During  the  2010  public  consultation  on  the  EIA  Directive’s  review,  respondents 
generally  favoured  the  introduction  of  minimum  and  maximum  time-frames  for 
public consultation344. 

10.10.12. 

Maximum time-frame for decision-making on screening and EIA decision 

This amendment would specify a maximum duration for the two main stages where 
delays are reported to most problematic for developers: the screening stage and the 
final decision stage. The Directive would therefore specify a maximum duration for 
the  competent  authorities  to  issue  their  screening  decision  and  their  final  decision, 
once  all  the  required  information  has  been  submitted  by  the  developer,  mainly  the 
information identified at the scoping stage. 

According  to  the  GHK  report345,  the  average  duration  of  the  screening  stage  is  1.2 
month (based on 13 Member States replies) but this can range from 0.1 to 3 months 
depending on the Member State; the average duration for issuing the final decision is 
2 months, ranging from 1 to 3 months depending on the Member State. 

The following time-frames could be established: 

– 

– 

1.5  month  for  the  screening  stage  (from  the  moment  that  all  relevant 
information has been submitted by the developer) 

2 months for the final EIA decision stage (from the moment that all necessary 
information  as  identified  in  the  scoping  stage  has  been  provided  by  the 
developer and the public consultation is completed). 

An  extension  of  the  time-frames  could  be  possible,  when  new  circumstances  arise 
and  provided  that  adequate  justification  is  given  (e.g.    in  order  to  make  sure  that  a 
lack of resources would not jeopardise the capacity of competent authorities to make 
a well-informed decision). 

The aim of this option would be to reduce uncertainty and delays for the developers – 
when  such  delays  are  deemed  to  be  the  responsibility  of  public  authorities  –  and 

344 
345 

Maximum timeframes: 51 % yes vs. 43 % no; minimum timeframes: 49 % yes vs. 46 % no.  
GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive. 

EN 

126 

   EN 

 
                                                 
reduce any costs associated with such delays. This could also provide an incentive to 
public authorities to better coordinate their internal consultation processes during the 
EIA procedure. 

Another advantage of having a clear time-frame is the possibility to better coordinate 
with  other  processes  carried  out  in  parallel,  such  as  environmental  assessments 
required by other Directives, and in the case of transboundary EIAs. 

The maximum time-frame for screening is closely linked with other amendments of 
the screening process, as improving clarity would help decrease the decision-making 
time for the authorities. This amendment would strongly contribute to the efficiency 
of  the  EIA  process.  The  introduction  of  a  maximum  time-frame  for  the  screening 
decision  was  supported  by  69 %  of  all  respondents  to  the  public  consultation.  A 
similar  policy  measure  was  also  recommended  as  a  highly  relevant  measure  to 
optimise EU permitting procedures in a recent study for DG ENER346. 

10.10.13. 

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

To  address  the  recognised  need  to  better  coordinate  the  assessment  related 
requirements  under  EU  law,  this  option  aims  to  strengthen  the  coordination  and 
integration of the EIA process with the requirements of other relevant EU legislation. 
Under  this  option  Member  States  are  supposed  to  develop  and  implement  a 
coordinated  administrative  procedure  to  deal  with  environmental  assessment 
requirements required under the EIA Directive and other Directives (IED, Habitats, 
etc.).  In  an  advanced  format  this  can  also  take  the  form  of  an  integrated/joint 
procedure  (EIA  ‘one-stop  shop’).  This  procedure  can  be  designed  in  a  soft,  rather 
optional  format  (‘EU  Member  States  may  create  a  coordinated  administrative 
procedure’) or in a more binding, obligatory format (‘EU Member States shall create 
a coordinated administrative procedure’). 

This  option  has  a  strong  horizontal  element,  since  there  are  opportunities  for 
addressing potential overlaps and inconsistencies between environmental assessment 
legislation in several of other possible amendments. 

However, the main focus of this study is the sort of ‘EIA one-stop shop’, that is the 
co-ordination  or  integration  of  information  flows  related  to  these  environmental 
assessment legislations and avoiding possible inconsistencies. 

All amendments are relevant to enable better coordination, but the format of an EIA 
one-stop shop offers distinct advantages in terms of administrative simplification and 
streamlining of processes compared to a formless coordination approach. In a similar 
vein  and  in  light  of  the  observed  discrepancies  in  Member  States  with  regard  to 
implementing  key  requirements  of  the  EIA  Directive,  an  approach  that  enables  a 
more  coherent  implementation  in  Member  States  via  a  more  binding  provision  for 
the set-up of administrative procedures appears more promising in view of reaching 
the  objectives  of  the  EIA  Directive’s  review.  As  part  of  the  EIA  one-stop  shop  we 
are  looking  at  the  options  of  coordinating  or  integrating  the  EIA  and  the  other 
environmental assessments. 

346 

Roland Berger Strategy Consultants (2011), Permitting procedures for energy infrastructure projects in 
the EU: evaluation and legal recommendations. 

EN 

127 

   EN 

 
                                                 
EN 

128 

   EN 

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

This annex provides further details the methodology followed to assess the impacts 
of policy options for the review of the EIA Directive. 

10.11.1. Geographical scope of the assessment 

The  geographical  scope  of  the  assessment  is  the  European  Union  consisting  of  27 
Member  States  (referred  to  as  the  EU).  While  it  is  possible  that  the  number  of 
Member States may continue to increase over the time period used for the analysis 
and that enlargement of the EU would have an impact on several cost drivers (such 
as the number of authorities and EIAs to be performed), these costs and benefits can 
be  seen  as  an  impact  of  the  enlargement  and  not  as  an  impact  of  a  change  in  the 
current environmental legislation. 

10.11.2. Available data for the impact assessment 

The assessment was based on existing information collected through previous studies 
as well as during the public consultation. The main sources of information available 
for this study are as follows: 

• 

• 

• 

A report by COWI (2009) on the implementation of the EIA Directive347. This 
the 
report  provides  an  assessment  of  strengths  and  weaknesses 
implementation  of  the  EIA  Directive.  It  also  describes  approaches  in  the 
Member States going beyond EU requirements and corresponding to some of 
the  ‘amendments’  analysed  in  the  present  study  (e.g.  mandatory  scoping).  It 
provides qualitative information on the impacts associated with such additional 
requirements in some Member States. 

in 

A report by GHK (2010) on ‘Collection of information and data to support the 
IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA  Directive’  for  DG  ENV348.  This  report 
provides estimates of key parameters (number of EIAs, number of screenings, 
costs for developers, etc.), based on data obtained from several Member States 
and some  extrapolations. The report  also includes several case studies, which 
provide additional data and information on case proceedings, hourly costs for 
different  categories  of  staff  involved  and  qualitative  information  of  specific 
aspects of the process. 

A report by IVM, BIO, IEEP, IEP and Ecologic (2007) on ‘Costs and benefits 
of  the  EIA  Directive’  for  DG  ENV349.  This  report  summarises  available 
information on costs and benefits in the current status. The study is based on a 
broad literature study and on interviews with experts in several Member States. 
The  report  contains  estimates  on  the  costs  for  authorities  to  process  EIA 

347 

348 

349 

COWI,  2009,  Study  concerning  the  report  on  the  application  and  effectiveness  of  the  EIA  Directive, 
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/eia_study_june_09.pdf). 
GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive, (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/collection_data.pdf). 
IVM, BIO, IEEP, IEP and Ecologic (2007), Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive. 

EN 

129 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
dossiers and the costs for developers to prepare an EIA report, however the rest 
of the information is mostly of qualitative nature. 

• 

The  results  from  the  public  consultation  on  the  review  of  the  EIA  Directive 
carried out in 2010350, in the context of the Impact Assessment procedure. The 
consultation covered aspects such as: number of EIAs, number of screenings, 
cost  of  EIA  process,  duration  of  EIA  process  and  opinions  on  problems  with 
the  current  EIA  Directive  and  on  possible  policy  options  to  revise  the  EIA 
Directive. 

In addition to the above sources, a number of reports addressing specific aspects of 
the EIA process in some Member States have been reviewed. They are referenced in 
the text of the present report and in Annex 3. 

Existing data can be found on key variables, such as: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

The  average  annual  number  of  EIAs  undertaken  in  each  of  the  27  Member 
States: part of this data has been collected through the consultation of Member 
States and part has been estimated by GHK (2010). 

The  average  annual  number  of  screening  decisions  in  each  of  the  Member 
States  (raw  and  estimated  data)  and  the  average  annual  share  of  screenings 
requiring an EIA (from GHK study, 2010). 

A  sectoral  breakdown  of  EIAs  (development/infrastructure):  raw  data  and 
estimates for most of the Member States (from GHK study, 2010). 

A  breakdown  of  the  EIAs  undertaken  by  type  of  developers  (SMEs,  large 
companies  and  public  authorities)  for  6  Member  States  (from  GHK  study, 
2010). 

Regarding  information  on  costs  and  potential  proxies  of  costs  for  developers 
and  authorities,  data  has  been  gathered  for  a  significant  number  of  Member 
States on: the average number of days to process an EIA; the average cost for 
developers for the whole process; the average number of staff involved in the 
process; the average duration of the entire EIA process, broken down according 
to  the  main  steps  of  the  procedure  (screening,  scoping,  environmental 
information preparation and review, public consultation and final decision). 

10.11.3. Data limitations 

General data issues 

There  are  a  number  of  limitations  in  the  accuracy  and  completeness  of  the  IA 
conducted  in  this  study,  due  to  some  issues  related  to  data  availability  and  quality. 
The main issues encountered as are as follows: 

– 

Some  data  is  lacking  (e.g.  data  has  not  been  provided  in  previous  studies  for 
each Member State). 

350 

All results are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/eia.htm. 

EN 

130 

   EN 

 
                                                 
– 

– 

– 

– 

Data from different sources is contradictory or there is a lot of deviation from 
the  mean  in  several  instances,  indicating  very  different  situations  across  the 
Member States without clear reason for such differences. 

In  studies  and  reports,  data  sources  are  not  completely  documented, 
consequently  the  data  source  cannot  be  checked  for  its  validity  and  thus  may 
not be reliable. 

Data  that  is  available  is  often  reported  for  different  years  or  is  based  on 
different calculation methods or definitions. 

There are some general uncertainties related to the extrapolation of past trends 
to estimate future data. 

Different impacts across Member States 

The impact of amendments to the current EIA will differ across Member States. This 
is  due  to  differences  in  political,  legal  and  administrative  contexts  which  have 
influenced the speed and quality of the transposition and implementation of the EIA 
Directive.  The  way  authorities  in  Member  States  have  organised  the  EIA  process 
differs  across  Member  States.  It  was  not  possible  to  find  data  regarding  the 
application of the EIA at regional level. 

These  differences  have  an  impact  on  the  investment  costs  that  are  necessary  to 
implement  a  certain  amendment.  For  instance,  some  Member  States  have  already 
integrated  different  types  of  assessments  or  have  conferred  on  the  regions  the 
responsibility  for  giving  effect  to  the  EIA.  Hence,  the  Member  States  will  not  be 
impacted in the same way by changes to the EIA Directive. 

The  transposition  of  a  Directive  into  domestic  law  does  not  necessarily  require  the 
provisions of the Directive to be enacted in precisely the same words in a specific, 
express provision of national law and a general legal context may be sufficient if it 
actually ensures the full application of the Directive in a sufficiently clear and precise 
manner.  International  benchmark  studies  (Ramboll  Management,  2006)  of  the 
administrative  burden  of  the  application  of  a  number  of  EU  Directives  in  various 
Member  States  indicate  that  the  administrative  burden  can  also  vary  significantly 
between  Member  States,  according  to  the  way  EU  legislation  has  been  transposed 
into  national  legislation  (this  phenomenon  is  also  referred  to  as  ‘gold-plating’). 
Member  States  have  large  discretion  when  implementing  EC  Directives  related  to 
environmental  issues.  They  may  increase  reporting  obligations,  add  procedural 
requirements, or apply more rigorous penalty regimes. 

EN 

131 

   EN 

 
10.12.  Annex 12: Detailed description of the environmental impacts 

10.12.1. Adaptation of Annexes I and II 

Such modifications would imply moving Annex II projects to Annex I and/or adding 
project  categories  to  Annexes  I  or  II.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  extent  of  the 
environmental impacts will depend on the one hand on the implementation of Annex 
III (for Annex II projects) and, on the other hand, on the quality of the EIA process 
(for  Annex  I  projects).  Consequently,  this  amendment  is  somehow  subordinated  to 
other  amendments  related  to  the  screening  procedure  and  the  quality  of  the  EIA 
process. 

•  Moving project categories of Annex II to become Annex I 

A higher level of mandatory assessments of Annex II projects would have a positive 
impact on the environment. However, the concrete degree of change is dependent on 
the  details  of  the  proposed  changes.  Given  that  there  is  a  very  diverse  approach 
among  Member  States  in  their  transposition  of  Annex  I  and  Annex  II  projects  into 
their  national  legislation,  many  Member  States  already  have  moved  project 
categories  of  Annex  II  to  Annex  I,  considering  that,  on  the  basis  of  the  national 
circumstances,  such  projects  are  likely  to  have  significant  negative  environmental 
effects. Hence, the EIA Directive revision would only consolidate this practice and 
would  lower  positive  environmental  impacts.  The  Box  below  presents  such 
examples. 

National approaches to transposing Annex I and II 

For  instance  the  new  Member  States  are  divided  as  to  whether  they  apply  thresholds  (Hungary, 
Lithuania,  Latvia,  Malta,  Poland,  Slovakia,  Slovenia  and  Czech  Republic)  or  a  case-by-case 
evaluation  (Hungary,  Lithuania,  Latvia,  Malta,  Cyprus,  Romania,  Czech  Republic,  Poland,  Bulgaria 
and Estonia) or a combination of both in order to determine whether a project shall be made subject to 
an  EIA.  Seven  new  Member  States  use  exclusive  thresholds  for  certain  project  categories  (Cyprus, 
Estonia,  Latvia,  Malta,  Poland,  Slovakia  and  Slovenia),  three  use  indicative  thresholds  (Czech 
Republic,  Malta,  Slovakia)  and  three  Member  States  use  a  combination  of  both  approaches  to 
determine  whether  a project shall  be  made subject  to  an EIA  (Latvia, Malta  and Slovakia).  Ireland 
has  set  mandatory  national  thresholds  for  each  of  the  project  classes  in  Annex  II.  These  thresholds 
were set with due account of the particular Irish circumstances, including the general nature, size and 
location of projects as well as the conditions of the environment. Thresholds are reported to be set at a 
quite  low  level  leaving  the  relevance  of  carrying  out  EIAs  for  projects  below  the  thresholds  set 
virtually not relevant. A National Guidance document was designed to assist authorities in deciding 
screening procedures for sub-level development projects. In terms of Annex III criteria, the guidelines 
emphasise that all criteria should be taken into consideration in the specific context of each case, but 
that much depends on the exercise of best professional judgment. 

In  Denmark  some  of  projects  listed  under  Annex  II  of  the  Directive  are  listed  under  the  Danish 
Annex I. In addition, 48 % of screenings between 1999 and 2002 where for livestock farming projects, 
which led Denmark to develop specific legislation for livestock farming (Annex II of the Directive) 
and to address their mostly unified impacts. 

As shown in the Box, there is a wide range of approaches to transposition of Annex I 
and  Annex  II  projects  and  many  Member  States  already  treat  Annex  II  projects  as 
Annex  I  projects  in  their  national  legislation.  The  type  of  project  categories  where 

EN 

132 

   EN 

 
 
voluntary  mandatory  EIA  have  been  set  nationally  also  reflects  national 
circumstances, as shown in the case of livestock farming in Denmark. The variation 
in  the  type  of  projects  subject  to  EIA  in  Member  States,  an  overview  of  which  is 
shown  in  Annex  4,  will  also  have  an  influence  in  assessing  any  impacts  of  adding 
new project categories. 

Consequently, there are a several issues, as discussed above, that needs to be taken 
into consideration when assessing the environmental impacts of moving some or all 
project categories from Annex II to Annex I. 

• 

Adding new projects to Annexes I and II 

Concrete environmental impacts of adding new projects to Annex I and Annex II are 
difficult  to  assess,  as  it  depends  on  the  final  selection  of  projects  and  the  level  of 
implementation. Moreover, the fact that the EU Member States have already added 
new  project  categories  in  the  Annexes,  limits  the  environmental  impacts  of  this 
amendment. Consolidating and expanding the provision of the EIA Directive in this 
regard will help to ease pressures on the environment nonetheless. 

The  majority  of  Member  States  have  already  added  a  number  of  additional  project 
categories  to  the  Annexes  (mainly  Annex  II),  such  as  installations  working  with 
Genetically  Modified  Organisms  (GMOs),  golf  courses,  masts  for  radio  and 
telecommunications,  underground  electricity  cables,  etc.  The  number  of  additional 
project categories is also high in the new Member States. The inclusion of additional 
project  categories  to  the  Annexes  will  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  environment. 
For example in Scotland there are examples where the EIA has contributed towards 
eco-friendly golf courses351. 

10.12.2. Alternative procedure for Annex II projects 

As  shown  in  Annex  10,  there  are  several  versions  of  alternative  procedures,  which 
have  evolved  from specific  national circumstances and are also dependent on other 
aspects of the EIA Directive, such as how Annex II projects have been transposed. 

For  example,  in  Denmark,  an  electronic  model  has  been  developed  for  intensive 
animal farming projects in which the developer simply, by inserting required data in 
a calculation sheet, may get a clear picture of whether the proposed project will result 
in  an  EIA  procedure  or  not.  The  model  even  encourages  developers  to  alter  their 
entries  for  the  purpose  of  trying  out  what  particular  elements  in  their  projects  that 
may be altered with the effect that an EIA procedure is no longer relevant. It is noted 
that this Danish example has previously been reviewed by the European Commission 
and Member States and was found to be of limited applicability to the circumstances 
in other Member States. However, the idea of the model and its principles could be 
subject to further development in other Member States for the purpose of assessing 
the sustainability of idea and principles. In Sweden, many of the ‘mini-EIAs’ carried 
out  were  reported  to  be  just  pro-forma  exercises  with  marginal  benefits  for  the 

351 

EN 

The  Telegraph,  10  October  2008,  Eco-friendly  golf 
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3353152/Eco-friendly-golf-course-to-open-in-
Scotland.html). 

to  open 

course 

in  Scotland 

133 

   EN 

 
                                                 
environment  (Sweden  is  currently  revising  its  EIA  and  SEA  legislation  and 
considering removing the requirement of ‘mini EIAs’352).  

During  the  Conference  on  the  25th  Anniversary  of  the  EIA,  such  alternative 
procedures  were  presented  and  it  has  been  concluded  that  they  can  be  very 
relevant353. 

The  actual  environmental  impact  of  any  uniform  alternative  EIA  procedure  for  all 
Member  States  would  also  depend  on  what  other  aspects  are  required  or  not.  On 
balance, it is estimated that the environmental impact of this option would be more or 
less neutral. 

10.12.3. Modifications of Annex III 

Annex  III  sets  the  criteria  based  on  which  thresholds  and/or  case-by-case 
assessments are to be set by Member States for Annex II projects. This amendment 
is crucial as it has a major impact on whether an EIA will be carried out for a 
project.  The  effects  of  the  other  options  related  to  screening  will  depend  on  the 
clarity, specificity and adequacy of the Annex III criteria. 

A  Danish  study354  examined  a  vast  number  of  screening  decisions  in  Denmark, 
searching for data on whether the applicant did in fact change his/her project in the 
light of screening requirements. The study found that a majority of the projects were 
in fact changed already prior to the screening procedure for the purpose of avoiding 
the project being subjected to the EIA procedure as a result of a screening decision. 
Hence  the  screening  mechanism  of  the  EIA  procedure  in  itself  seems  to  have  a 
positive effect on projects that are screened out of the EIA procedure. 

As  the  modification  of  Annex  III  criteria  would  address  the  issue  of  salami-slicing 
and  the  assessment  of  cumulative  effects,  this  will  have  positive  environmental 
impact.  Any  update  to  Annex  III,  that  improves  the  consideration  of  projects  on 
biodiversity, the marine environment, climate change and resource consumption, as 
well as the impacts of a changing climate and other types natural and man-made of 
disasters on projects, will inevitably have additional positive environmental impact. 

10.12.4. Justification of negative screening decisions 

This  option  may  have  a  positive  environmental  impact  by  avoiding  negative 
screening  decisions  that  may  not  be  fully  justified.  This  requirement  would  restrict 
the number of cases where the knowledge of the lack of transparency, in not having 
to  justify  a  negative  screening  decision,  would  influence  authorities  to  make  a 
negative screening decision. 

352 

353 
354 

Correspondence  with  Professor  Lars  Emmelin,  Chair  of  Environmental  Assessment  at  the  Swedish 
School of Planning, Blekinge Institute of Technology  (October 2011). 
All presentations are available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/conference.htm.  
Holm  Nielsen,  et  al.  in  Journal  of  Environmental  Policy,  Assessment,  and  Management,  vol.7  no.1 
March 2005. 

EN 

134 

   EN 

 
                                                 
10.12.5. Mandatory scoping 

The  overall  majority  of  the  new  Member  States  considers  scoping  as  an  important 
feature  of  an  adequate  EIA  regime  and  beneficial  in  improving  the  quality  of  the 
EIA355. For those Member States where scoping is not yet mandatory (approximately 
half  of  them356),  introducing  such  a  policy  option  would  likely  result  in 
environmental benefits. 

By  clarifying  what  environmental  issues  should  be  covered  by  the  EIA  report, 
identifying  which  environmental  impacts  are  likely  to  be  the  most  significant, 
specifying  preferred  methodologies  for  the  assessment  of  impacts  and  advising  on 
relevant  information  sources,  the  EIA  report  is  likely  to  be  of  better  quality,  i.e. 
providing  robust  and  complete  evidence  for  future  decision-making.  Mandatory 
scoping  would  prevent  any  significant  gaps  in  the  environmental  information 
provided  to  the  authorities,  would  ensure  an  adequate  level  of  detail  for  those 
impacts considered to be the most significant and could also lead to more robust and 
comparable assessments. 

10.12.6. Quality control of the EIA information 

The impacts of this option would concern some of the old Member States. Indeed, all 
new Member States have already implemented provisions in this regard, as a means 
to ensure better quality of EIA reports and better informed decisions. 

Use of accredited consultants 

Use  of  accredited  consultants  to  prepare  EIA  reports  or  to  verify  EIA  reports 
prepared  by  developers  could  bring  environmental  benefits,  by  ensuring  that  EIA 
reports  are  prepared  or  verified  by  staff  having  sufficient  experience  and  expertise. 
The assessment of environmental issues and the evaluation of measures required to 
prevent,  mitigate  or  offset  the  impacts  would  be  more  robust  and  objective.  In 
practice,  external  consultants  hired  by  developers  to  prepare  their  EIA  reports  also 
provide developers with useful advice on how to minimise environmental impacts of 
their projects and how to comply with legal requirements. 

However, it could be argued that public authorities, developers and consultants in old 
Member States have more practical experience in the preparation and review of EIAs 
than in new Member States357, therefore the need for such an accreditation process or 
other  mechanism  for  quality  control  would  probably  be  less  critical  in  the  old 
Member States than in the new Member States. 

In  addition,  the  extent  to  which  this  option  would  provide  environmental  benefits 
depends  on  the  quality  of  the  accreditation  procedure  itself  and  its  capacity  to 
discriminate  truly  experienced  and  qualified  consultants  from  the  others.  In  this 
sense,  detailed  accreditation  criteria  would  have  to  be  established  (most  likely  at 
Member  State  level,  since  some  Member  States  have  already  developed  such 
criteria),  as  well  as  some  provisions  on  the  duration  of  its  validity  and  some 

355 
356 
357 

COWI (2009), Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive.  
COWI (2009), Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive.  
As suggested by the COWI report (2009). 

EN 

135 

   EN 

 
                                                 
cancellation criteria (e.g. if several EIA reports of poor quality are identified by the 
authorities, they could recommend the cancellation of the accreditation). 

In  the  Walloon  region  of  Belgium,  the  accreditation  procedure  seems  to  have  been 
effective in improving the overall quality of EIAs. Even if not all EIAs are of good 
quality,  the  process  works  well  at  cancelling  or  modifying  the  accreditation  of 
consultants which would have produced unsatisfactory work358. 

For  the  most  complex  projects,  it  is  unlikely  that  one  single  consultancy  company 
would  have  the  expertise  to  cover  all  types  of  environmental  aspects.  In  practice, 
certain  parts  of  the  EIA  are  often  subcontracted  to  specialists,  e.g.  biodiversity 
experts or noise/vibration experts. It would probably be relevant for the accreditation 
requirement  to  only  concern  consultancy  companies  in  charge  of  coordinating  and 
managing  the  preparation  of  EIAs,  allowing  for  some  aspects  of  the  EIA  to  be 
subcontracted  to  specialist  companies  under  the  supervision  of  the  coordinating 
consultancy. 

National ‘quality control committees’ 

Similarly, the review of EIA reports by national ‘quality control committees’ would 
bring  environmental  benefits,  as  it  would  involve  a  panel  of  environmental 
assessment experts able to provide a critical and objective opinion on the quality of 
EIA reports. 

10.12.7. Mandatory assessment of reasonable alternatives 

A  more  complete  assessment  of  project  alternatives, 
including  reasonable 
alternatives and the zero option, would provide better information for future decision 
making  and  reinforce  the  quality  of  the  EIA  process.  If  the  assessment  includes  a 
cost-benefit  analysis  considering  the  potential  costs  of  environmental  and  public 
health damages that may be associated with different project alternatives, this would 
provide more objective insight into the overall costs for society in different scenarios. 
The requirement to assess costs and benefits associated with the zero option would 
oblige developers to assess (even in a very rough manner) aspects such as the value 
of ecological services of undeveloped areas for example, and this would contribute to 
better  environmental  awareness  of  the  general  public  and  would  improve  the  final 
decision. The assessment of the risks the project could be vulnerable to (as part of the 
additional  environmental  issues  to  be  considered359)  could  also  better  inform  the 
analysis  and  the  assessment  of  the  reasonable  alternatives.  In  the  longer  term,  this 
requirement is likely to induce improvements in the environmental design of projects 
at  an  early  stage  (even  before  EIA  application),  through  increased  awareness  of 
developers. 

358 

359  

EN 

the  French  Ministry  of  Environment 

CGEDD  (2011)  Competencies  and  professionalization  of  consultancies  with  regard  to  EIAs  –  Report 
(http://www.cgedd.developpement-
for 
durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/007411-01_rapport_cle28ab54.pdf). 
See section 10.12.10. 

(in  French) 

136 

   EN 

 
                                                 
10.12.8. Justification of final decisions 

This  option  is  likely  to  have  a  positive  environmental  impact  by  avoiding  final 
decisions  that  may  not  be  duly  and  fully  justified.  This  requirement  would  oblige 
public  authorities  to  better  motivate  the  decisions  granting  development  consent  to 
projects with significant negative effects and demonstrate how consultations and the 
findings of the EIA information were taken into consideration in a concrete manner. 

10.12.9. Mandatory monitoring  

The  environmental  benefits  of  post-EIA  monitoring  have  been  widely  discussed  in 
EIA-related  literature,  mainly  in  generic  terms360.  Ultimately  it  is  not  the  predicted 
impacts,  but  rather  the  real  effects  of  projects  that  are  relevant  for  protecting  the 
environment. Monitoring enables EIA practitioners and stakeholders to move from a 
mainly theoretical perspective on a proposal to the actual understanding and knowing 
of the real situation once projects are implemented. 

This  requirement  would  provide  a  higher  level  of  environmental  protection,  by 
checking  whether  actual  impacts  are  similar  to  impacts  predicted  in  the  EIA  report 
and by enabling learning  from  experience to  occur.  For  new  types  of  projects,  it  is 
sometimes  difficult  for  developers  to  estimate  the  magnitude  of  environmental 
impacts and various assumptions have to be made which may not be fully robust. In 
the  event  of  actual  impacts  being  more  significant  than  expected,  monitoring 
activities  would  enable  early  identification  of  the  problem,  thus  allowing  better 
mitigation of environmental damages. 

Such  a  requirement  would  also  contribute  to  improved  quality  of  EIA  reports,  by 
incentivising developers to make sure impact predictions are reliable enough and by 
identifying which impact assessment methodologies are sufficiently robust to predict 
actual impacts from future projects. In specific cases, knowledge gathered or lessons 
learnt  through  EIA  follow-up  may  be  transferred  into  future  developments,  as 
illustrated by a case study in the UK361 (see box below). 

Case study on the benefits of EIA follow-up at BaT windfarm, UK 

The Beinn an Tuirc (BaT) windfarm, situated on Scotland’s Mull of Kintyre, is now one of the UK’s 
most productive windfarms. However, initial scoping studies established that this upland site formed 
part  of  a  golden  eagle’s  range.  To  mitigate  against  the  risk  of  eagle  collision  and  to  improve  the 
overall  prey  availability  for  the  eagles,  Scottish  Power  designed,  through  the  EIA  process,  an 
innovative  habitat-management  plan  that  sought  to  increase  prey  availability  at  alternative  sites, 
diverting the eagles from the windfarm’s terrain. 

360 

361 

For  example  see:  Dipper,  B.,  C.  Jones  and  C.  Wood  (1998)  Monitoring  and  Post-Auditing  in 
Environmental Impact Assessment: A Review. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 41 
(6),  November;  Arts  J  (1998)  EIA  Follow-up.  On  the  Role  of  Ex  Post  Evaluation  in  Environ-mental 
Impact  Assessment.  PhD  thesis,  Geo  Press,  Groningen;  Morrison-Saunders  A,  Baker  J  and  Arts  J 
(2003) Lessons from practice: towards successful follow-up. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 
volume 21, number 1, pages 43–56; Morrison-Saunders A and Arts J (2004) Exploring the Dimensions 
of  EIA  Follow-up.  Presented  at:  IAIA'04  Impact  Assessment  for  Industrial  Development  Whose 
Business Is It? (IA Follow-up stream), 24th annual meeting of the International Association for Impact 
Assessment, 24-30 April 2004, Vancouver, Canada. 
Marshall,  R.  (2005)  Environmental  impact  assessment  follow-up  and  its  benefits  for  industry.  Impact 
Assessment and Project Appraisal 23 (3), pp. 191-196. 

EN 

137 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Scottish  Power,  in  its  analysis  of  EIA  ecological  data  pre-  and  post-construction,  recognised  the 
singular  value  of  EIA  follow-up  at  BaT  and  its  future  application  in  developing  other  upland 
windfarm  sites.  The  decision  was  therefore  made  to  extend  ecological  and  eagle  EIA  follow-up 
monitoring  programmes  for  an  additional  five  years.  The  BaT  windfarm  has  effectively  become  an 
extensive  open-air  laboratory,  with  the  BaT  EIA  follow-up  data  now  directing  the  siting  and 
development of new schemes. 

10.12.10. 

Additional environmental issues 

Providing  additional  information  in  EIA  reports  on  projects’  impacts  on  global 
climate  change,  on  disaster  risks,  on  biodiversity,  on  marine  environment  and  on 
natural resource use, as well as on impacts from climate change and other disasters 
on  projects,  would  increase  the  quality  of  EIA  reports  and  allow  better  decision 
making. Adequate prevention, mitigation and offsetting measures would have to be 
considered.  This  is  likely  to  contribute  to  a  reduction  in  greenhouse  gas  emissions, 
resilience to disasters, a reduction of environmental damages due to climatic events, 
a  reduction  in  the  loss  of  biodiversity,  an  increased  protection  of  the  marine 
environment  and  savings  in  the  use  of  natural  resources.  In  the  longer  term,  these 
new  environmental  issues  would  be  better  taken  into  account  at  an  early  stage  of 
project  design  (before  EIA  application).  This  amendment  would  also  contribute  to 
these 
increased  overall  environmental  awareness  of 
environmental issues. More specific benefits per policy area are presented below: 

the  public  concerning 

Climate change 

Integrating  a  climate  assessment  in  EIA  reports,  with  proposals  for  adequate 
mitigation  and  adaptation  measures,  would  oblige  developers  to  better  anticipate 
climate  risks  and  decide  on  possible  measures  to  address  them.  In  this  sense,  this 
amendment would – to some extent – contribute to the achievement of EU objectives 
of  becoming  a  ‘highly  energy-efficient,  low  carbon  economy’,  of  reducing 
greenhouse  gas  emissions  by  20 %  by  2020362  and  by  80-95 %  by  2050363  and  of 
improving ‘the EU’s resilience to deal with the impact of climate change’364. 

As part of the climate assessment, depending on the character of the project, in some 
cases  not  only  direct  greenhouse  gas  emissions  (e.g.  from  on-site  combustion  of 
fossil fuels) would have to be assessed, but also indirect impacts of the projects on 
climate change. For example, for transport infrastructure this could include increased 
or  avoided  carbon  emissions  associated  with  energy  use  for  the  operation  of  the 
project,  as  well  as  costs  of  pollutions  and  nuisances  and  possible  benefits  for  the 
society  at  large365;  for  a  commercial  development  this  could  include  carbon 
emissions  due  consumer  trips.  Member  States  have  legally  binding  greenhouse  gas 
reduction  targets  and  many  Member  States  have  also  defined  greenhouse  gas 
reduction targets at the local level (main cities, regions, etc.), so the EIA could assess 
to  what  extent  projects  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  these  targets  and  could 

362 

363 

364 
365 

Member  States  have  committed  themselves  to  reducing  greenhouse  gas  emissions  (GHG)  by  20  %, 
increasing  the  share  of  renewables  in  the  EU's  energy  mix  to  20  %,  and  achieving  the  20  %  energy 
efficiency target by 2020 (EU Climate and Energy Package, 2008). 
Greenhouse  gas  reductions  by  80  to  95  %  by  2050  (COM(2011)112,  A  roadmap  for  moving  to  a 
competitive low carbon economy in 2050). 
COM(2009) 147, White Paper, Adapting to climate change: Towards a EUropean framework for action. 
For example, such a requirement is already included in the French legislation concerning EIAs. 

EN 

138 

   EN 

 
                                                 
identify  relevant  mitigation  and/or  offsetting  measures  that  would  need  to  be 
implemented.  It  could  also  help  identify  possible  measures  to  better  exploit  some 
opportunities  offered  by  the  natural  environment  e.g.  use  of  a  locally  abundant 
source of renewable energy. Such information is especially important for the projects 
that will not be covered by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). 

The  climate  risk  assessment  would  also  cover  impacts  of  a  changing  climate  on 
projects.  Outputs  of  a  climate  assessment  could  include  information  on:  types  of 
climate  related  hazards  that  a  project  is  exposed  to,  scenarios  of  climate  change 
impacts on a project and foreseen adaptation measures to prevent these impacts. This 
would  involve  assessing  the  impacts  of  more  severe  and  more  frequent  extreme 
weather  events  (floods,  droughts,  storms,  etc.),  as  well  as  slower  climate  change 
impacts (such as temperature and sea level rise, etc.), on the project’s infrastructure 
and  the  associated  consequences  for  the  environment,  the  neighbouring  population 
and  the  economy.  The  EIA  would  also  assess  the  extent  to  which  the  proposed 
project  may  contribute  to  an  increase  or,  on  the  contrary,  reduction  of  the  overall 
population’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change. Vulnerability, hazard and 
risk  maps  could  be  developed  and  adaptation  measures  would  need  to  be  foreseen. 
Where needed, adaptation measures could include for example: 

–  Measures  to  strengthen  the  project’s  and  project  partners’  adaptive  capacity 
e.g.  building  early  warning  and  disaster  risk  reduction  mechanisms, 
diversification  of  income  sources,  improved  access  to  financial  services 
including insurance, capacity-building 

–  Measures to improve the project’s ability to operate under identified constraints 
e.g. choice of most water-efficient or energy-efficient production options. 

Disaster risks 

The need to build ‘resilience to natural and man-made disasters’ and invest in risk 
prevention  is  envisaged  in  several  EU  strategies  and  proposals366.  An  integrated 
assessment  of  the  major  disaster  risks  and  hazards  that  the  project  could  be 
vulnerable  to  (both  natural  and  man-made,  e.g.  earthquakes,  floods,  landslides, 
technological  hazards)  would  ensure  that  the  project  is  disaster-proof  and  resilient.  
This  multi-risk  approach  should  also  cover  the  climate  related  hazards  discussed 
above in the climate change topic. 

The  disaster  risk  assessment  will  help  identify  the  potential  risks  and  their  impacts 
and  thus  inform  the  decision-making  on  the  possible  prevention  measures  or  the 
reasonable alternatives the developer has to provide (e.g. choice of project location to 
reduce exposure to natural disasters). The assessment of the risks could also raise the 
awareness  of  the  developers  as  to  the  expected  future  impacts  of  the  project  and 
contribute to the monitoring activities following the implementation of project. 

After  the  major  natural  and  man-made  risks  have  been  identified  and  assessed,  
measures  to  control  and  manage  their    significant  impacts  should  be  taken,  e.g.  to 

366 

E.g.  the  EU  Internal  Security  Strategy  COM(2010)673,  the  Commission's  proposal  for  the  Cohesion 
fund  for  2014-2020  COM(2011)612,  the  Commission's  Communication  on  the  prevention  of  natural 
and man-made disasters COM(2009)82. 

EN 

139 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ensure compliance with existing minimum prevention standards, safety requirement, 
building  codes,  improved  land  use  planning  etc.  These  could  be  integrated  into  a 
coherent  risk  management  plan,  including  also  sufficient  preparedness  and 
emergency planning measures to ensure an effective response to disasters or the risks 
of accidents. 

Overall,  this  requirement  would  ensure  a  higher  level  of  environmental  protection 
and  it  would  contribute  to  a  more  sustainable  growth  since  disasters  can  have  very 
detrimental consequences for the environment, human life and the economy. At the 
same  time,  by  reducing  or  avoiding  the  potential  risks  developers  will  generate 
economies of preventive action instead of post-disaster damages and losses and avoid 
risks that could hamper the smooth and successful implementation of the project. 

Biodiversity 

At  present,  EIAs  tend  to  cover  impacts  on  Natura  2000  sites  while  the  species 
protection provisions tend to be neglected. Obliging developers to assess impacts on 
biodiversity  (rather  than  just  the  impacts  on  fauna  and  flora  and/or  the  impacts  on 
Natura  2000  sites),  would  be  in  line  with  some  of  the  actions  of  the  2006  EU 
Biodiversity  Action  Plan367  requiring  that  ‘all  EIAs  should  take  full  account  of 
biodiversity concerns’. It should contribute to reducing biodiversity loss at the local 
level,  and  therefore  also  contribute  to  achieving  the  objective  of  the  new  EU 
Biodiversity Strategy368 which has reiterated the target of halting biodiversity loss by 
2020. 

Marine environment 

Integrating the marine environment into the scope of the EIA, in an explicit manner, 
would  contribute  to  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive369, i.e. reaching a good environmental status of the EU’s marine waters by 
2020, ensuring that the capacity of marine ecosystems to respond to human-induced 
changes is not compromised while enabling the sustainable use of marine goods and 
services by present and future generations. This would be of particular relevance for 
projects such as offshore energy infrastructure, which are becoming more and more 
frequent. 

Specific  criteria  defining  a  good  environmental  status  of  marine  water  have  been 
specified by a Commission Decision in 2010370; such criteria could be used as a basis 
for  the  assessment  of  impacts.  These  include,  in  particular:  biological  diversity, 
minimal impacts of non-indigenous species, fish population characteristics, quality of 
marine  food  webs,  minimisation  of  eutrophication,  sea-floor  integrity,  minimal 
concentrations  of  contaminants  in  water  and  in  fish,  quantities  of  marine  litter  and 
lack of nuisance from energy input including underwater noise. 

Resource use 

367 
368 
369 

370 

SEC(2006)621.  
COM(2011)244, ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’. 
Directive 2008/56/EC of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of 
marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). 
Commission Decision 2010/477/EU of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on 
good environmental status of marine waters. 

EN 

140 

   EN 

 
                                                 
By  assessing  impacts  of  projects  on  the  availability  of  natural  resources  and  by 
identifying  ways  of  improving  an  effective  and  efficient  resource  use,  the  risks 
related  to  the  degradation  and  depletion  of  natural  resources  would  be  better  taken 
into  account  in  decision-making.  This  would  contribute  to  the  EU  objectives  of 
improving  resource  efficiency  and  reducing  the  negative  environmental  impact  of 
resource use371. 

10.12.11. 

Clear time-frame for the public consultation process 

In Member States where the public consultation phase can be considered as being too 
short to ensure ‘effective public consultation’, an increase in the minimum duration 
of this consultation phase could provide environmental benefits. Indeed, this would 
give additional time for debating on potential environmental impacts of projects, on 
possible alternatives and on possible mitigation measures. Moreover, this would lead 
to  better  integration  of  environmental  considerations  in  the  project’s  development 
while ensuring the final decision of the authorities is well informed. 

According to available information, if the minimum time-frame is set at 1 month for 
the consultation on the EIA information submitted by the developer, this will mean 
an increase in the minimum duration of public consultation phase for in six Member 
States (EE, LT, LV, MT, PL, UK). 

10.12.12. 

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

As  long  as  this  amendment  provides  a  possibility  to  extend  the  maximum  standard 
duration of the final decision stage (i.e. 2 months) in the case of particularly complex 
projects, no negative environmental impacts are expected. 

10.12.13. 

Better coordination/integration with other legislation 

In  Austria,  all  projects  requiring  a  permit  (such  as  those  covered  by  the  IED,  the 
Habitats  Directive  or  the  water,  waste  and  air  legislation)  undergo  an  integrated 
assessment procedure. The environmental coordination and integration of EIAs and 
other environmental assessments and permits is likely to have a positive impact on 
the  environment  as  it  has  enabled  a  more  comprehensive  information  base  for 
decision-making.  Also,  the  provisional  authority  responsible  for  permitting  is  also 
responsible for the different stages of the EIA procedure. This is to ensure that the 
coordinated  or  joint  assessment  procedures  do  not  become  detached  from  the  EIA 
process  itself,  something  identified  as  a  problem  in  Sweden,  where  responsibilities 
are dispersed between different authorities. 

10.12.14. 

Summary of environmental impacts 

Based on the qualitative description of environmental impacts presented in the above 
sections,  a  comparative  overview  of  environment  impacts  associated  with  the 
different  amendments  is  presented  in  Table  26.  For  each  of  the  four  groups  of 
amendments,  all  environmental  impacts  identified  are  actually  positive  or  neutral. 
The analysis does not distinguish between short term and long-term impacts, as there 
is  no  reason  why  environmental  impacts  would  differ  significantly  over  time,  once 

371 

COM(2005) 670, ‘Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources’. 

EN 

141 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the  amendments  are  in  place.  The  levels  of  benefits  (limited,  moderate,  high)  are 
based on the qualitative assessment contained in this chapter. 

Table 26: Summary of environmental benefits of the possible amendments 

Environmental benefits 
Limited to High*  
Limited 
High 
Limited 
Environmental benefits 
Moderate 
Moderate 
High 
Moderate 
High 

Amendments related to screening 
1) Adaptation of Annexes I and II 
2) Alternative procedure for Annex II projects  
3) Modification to Annex III criteria  
4) Justification of negative screening decisions 
Amendments related to quality and completeness of EIAs 
5) Mandatory scoping 
6) Use of accredited consultants or mechanism for quality control 
7) Mandatory assessment of reasonable alternatives 
8) Justification of final decisions 
9) Mandatory post-EIA monitoring 
10) Additional environmental issues (climate change, disaster risks, 
biodiversity, marine environment, resource use) 
Amendments related to time-frames 
11) Specific time-frame for public consultation 
12) Maximum time-frame for decision-making on screening and EIA 
decision 
Amendments related to better coordination/integration with other 
EU legislation  
13) Coordinated or integrated/joint procedure (EIA ‘one-stop shop’) 
*Depending on the nature of changes performed (e.g. number and types of projects moved from Annex II to 
Annex I, new thresholds, new projects added to Annexes, etc.) and the Member States concerned (the effects will 
be limited for those Member States which imposed stricter criteria and have gone beyond the classification of the 
Directive and high for those Member States which have not gone beyond the classification of the Directive). 

Environmental benefits 
Limited 

Environmental benefits 

Limited 

High 

Zero 

EN 

142 

   EN 

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

The  present  annex  assesses  the  changes  in  administrative  burden  between  the 
baseline  scenario  and  the  situation  after  the  amendment  has  been  implemented. 
Orders of magnitude of the estimates provided for each amendment can be compared 
with costs for conducting EIAs in the baseline scenario, i.e. 146 to 215 million €/year 
for  public  authorities  and  558  to  846  million  €/year  for  developers  in  2010  (see 
Section 3.4). 

The  type  and  size  of  the  project  is  an  important  factor  determining  the  cost  of  the 
EIA process. In addition, the analysis of the baseline scenario showed that there are 
considerable differences between Member States in the way they have transposed the 
EIA  and  have  organised  the  EIA  process.  These  factors  undoubtedly  lead  to 
significant  differences  in  administrative  burden  between  Member  States,  even  for 
comparable  projects.  In  some  countries  (e.g.  Germany,  Belgium,  Austria,  Italy  and 
Spain)  differences  might  even  occur  between  regions.  These  differences  between 
regions  and  Member  States  are  difficult  to  quantify  due  to  the  lack  of  data  in  the 
information sources for this study. Therefore, quantification of administrative burden 
only provides orders of magnitude of the potential impacts of an amendment at EU 
level; it can however be used to rank the impact of different amendments. 

The fact that Member States have transposed the EIA in different ways also means 
that  some  amendments  analysed  in  this  study  are  already  in  place  (partially  or 
completely) in some of the Member States; hence, for those Member States there will 
be  no  additional  administrative  burden.  This  is  taken  into  account  when  estimating 
the overall impact of amendments at EU level. 

For each of the amendments, the impacts on direct administrative costs for affected 
parties  are  discussed  below.  Quantitative  estimates  provided  in  the  sections  below 
correspond to long-term costs and benefits associated with the implementation of the 
amendments (i.e. not taking into account possible one-off costs for the transposition 
and implementation of the legislative changes). Given the limited data available, the 
possible  evolution  of  impacts  over  time  has  only  been  assessed  in  a  qualitative 
manner, where relevant. 

10.13.1. Adaptation of Annexes I and II 

A  shift  of  projects  from  Annex  II  to  Annex  I  would  decrease  the  number  of 
screenings to be carried out. Under the assumption that only the projects most likely 
to  be  subject  to  an  EIA  would  be  subject  to  the  shift  from  Annex  II,  it  would  not 
significantly affect the number of EIAs. Consequently, there would be no impact on 
the total cost for authorities and developers reported in the baseline scenario, as the 
effort for positive screenings was already included in this baseline cost. 

Additional thresholds or additional types of projects to be included in Annexes I and 
II would cause an increase in costs for both authorities and developers, unless: 

–  Member States have already imposed similar thresholds and similar additional 

project categories. 

– 

Such projects were already subject to a positive screening and an EIA. 

EN 

143 

   EN 

 
The  voluntary  inclusion  of  golf  course  as  part  of  Annex  II  in  Scotland  can  be 
mentioned  as  an  example.  There  have  been  11  EIA  applications  for  golf  courses 
between  1994  and  2004  based  on  data  compiled  in  2006.  There  is  no  exact 
information on the specific costs that the introduction of golf courses to Annex II has 
had  in  Scotland.  However,  the  Scottish  Government  has  estimated  that  direct  EIA 
costs falling to the developer for EIA applications generally range between £ 30.000 
- £ 150.000 for a project requiring planning permission.  

The  average  marginal  cost  of  processing  one  extra  EIA  in  those  Member  States 
which  did  not  impose  any  thresholds  so  far  is  in  the  order  of  € 11.000  for  the 
authorities and € 41.000 for developers. It is difficult to calculate the overall impact 
of  this  amendment  without  specifying  in  detail  which  types  of  projects  would  be 
concerned  and  what  new  thresholds  would  be  imposed.  If  10 %  of  the  projects 
undergoing a screening are moved to Annex I and are subject to an EIA, the costs for 
public  authorities  and  developers  would  be  quite  high  compared  to  the  baseline 
(approximately  17-20 %)372;  the  costs  can  be  very  high,  if  15-20 %  of  the  projects 
undergoing a screening are subject to an EIA.  

Whilst the costs of undertaking EIA are expected to represent a small proportion of 
the overall project budget, the relative burden of costs is likely to be proportionately 
higher  for  smaller  scale  developers  (SMEs),  which  may  include  golf  courses. 
Additional costs associated with screening, scoping, and reviewing of Environmental 
Statements  fall  to  the  decision-making  authority  and  statutory  consultation  bodies, 
which are more difficult to quantify373. 

10.13.2. Alternative procedure for Annex II projects 

A  number  of  Member  States  have  adopted  alternative  procedures  for  small-scale 
projects of Annex II. Such procedures are therefore particularly relevant for SMEs. 
For example, in Austria, approximately half the projects submitted to the authorities 
undergo a ‘simplified’ EIA procedure. The  duration of such  a simplified process is 
estimated  to  be  50 %  of  the  duration  of  a  normal  procedure374.  Besides,  any  IT 
approaches  making  the  screening  process  clearer/more  accessible  would  provide 
additional socio-economic benefits. There are no data available about the impact of a 
simplified EIA on the effort per EIA step for authorities and developers. 

The overall impact of this amendment can only be calculated on a case-by-case basis 
per Member State and would also depend on what other aspects are required, such as 
moving  more  Annex  II  projects  to  Annex  I  or  modifying  Annex  III  criteria.  As  an 
example,  thousands  of  ‘mini  EIAs’  for  Annex  II  projects  are  conducted  in  Sweden 
but there exists no detailed information on their costs and benefits375. 

372  

373 
374 

375 

If  these  the  average  costs  of  processing  one  extra  EIA  (€  11.000  for  the  authorities  and  €  41.000  for 
developers) are multiplied by 10 % of the average number of screenings (2.740-3.380), the costs would 
be  for  €  30.140.000  to  €  37.180.000  for  public  authorities  and  €  112.340.000  to  € 138.580.000  for 
developers.  
Correspondence with Cara Davidson, Scottish Government, October 2011. 
Kammer für Angestellte und Arbeiter zu Wien (2008) Die UVP auf dem Prüfstand, Zur Entwicklung 
eines umkämpften Instruments. 
Correspondence  with  Professor  Lars  Emmelin,  Chair  of  Environmental  Assessment  at  the  Sweedish 
School of Planning, Blekinge Institute of Technology (October 2011). 

EN 

144 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Given  the  incomplete  information  that  is  currently  available,  only  a  theoretical 
estimate of potential impacts can be made. In 2008, Annex II projects represented on 
average  7.6 %  of  the  total  number  of  projects  submitted  to  the  authorities376. 
Assuming  that,  on  average,  at  EU  level,  50 %  of  these  Annex  II  projects  could  be 
carried  out  with  20 %  less  effort  due  to  the  introduction  of  a  simplified  procedure, 
the  impact  would  be  in  the  order  of  €  3.8  million  annual  savings  for  authorities 
and almost € 21.4 million a nnual savings for developers. This estimate takes into 
account  the  fact  that  some  Member  States  already  have  a  simplified  procedure  in 
place. Given the Austrian example, the 20 % time savings assumption in the case of a 
simplified  procedure  (compared  to  the  baseline  scenario),  can  be  considered  as  a 
conservative assumption. 

In  the  short  term,  authorities  would  also  need  time  to  get  familiar  with  the 
methodology related to the alternative procedure (it is assumed that guidance would 
be developed by the Commission), which may lead to slightly higher costs in the first 
few years of implementation. 

10.13.3. Modifications of Annex III 

More  specific  criteria  in  Annex  III  are  expected  to  reduce  the  time  spent  by 
authorities during the screening, since there would be fewer margin for interpretation 
in  making  the  decision  of  whether  or  not  an  EIA  is  required.  In  the  absence  of 
information  from  Member  States’  experience,  it  is  roughly  assumed  that  screening 
time could be reduced on average by 10 to 20 % at EU level. The associated annual 
savings for the authorities would be in the range of € 0.5 to 1.5 million377. 

10.13.4. Justification of negative screening decisions 

If  authorities  have  to  justify  negative  screening  decisions  this  will  require  time  to 
formally write down the reasons for the decision. On the other hand, it will save time 
because  there  will  be  less  queries  and  informal  discussions  linked  to  the  screening 
decision.  This  amendment  has  been  subject  to  an  impact  assessment  in  the  UK378. 
Based on a consultation with local planning authorities, this impact assessment came 
to  the  conclusion  that  on  average  the  net  effect  of  this  change  is  an  increase  in 
screening  time  equivalent  to  one  working  hour  per  negative  screening  decision379. 
Applied  to  the  EU,  the  impact  for  public  authorities  would  be  €  0.96  to  1.2 
million in 2010380. This is a yearly recurrent cost. 

376 

377 

378 

379 

380 

GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive. 
Assuming a total screening cost (i.e. efforts to conduct positive and negative screenings) estimated at 
4.8-7.7 million €/year (time spent by authorities at conducting positive screenings is assumed to account 
for 3 % of total time to process an EIA file – see section 3.4 and Annex 6). 
UK  Communities  and  local  government  (2011),  The  Town  and  Country  Planning  (Environmental 
Impact Assessment) Regulations 2010, Consultation on draft regulations. 
This is a net impact, also taking into account the time savings from an expected decrease in the number 
of queries and informal discussions with developers and other parties involved. 
For 24,660 to 32,110 negative screening decisions per year. Hourly rates for public authorities are taken 
from the EU Standard Cost Model. 

EN 

145 

   EN 

 
                                                 
10.13.5. Mandatory scoping 

In approximately half of the Member States scoping is already mandatory. This cost 
is already included in the total cost for the baseline scenario. Average times spent by 
authorities and developers on the scoping step of the EIA process were estimated in 
Section  3.1.2.  Based  on  these  average  values,  the  introduction  of  a  mandatory 
scoping  procedure  in  all  Member  States  which  do  not  have  the  mandatory  scoping 
procedure  in  place  is  estimated  to  be  in  the  order  of  €  6.4  million  per  year  for 
authorities and € 14.8 million per year for developers in 2010. 

On the other hand, scoping is generally seen as a useful way of reducing the costs of 
an  EIA  procedure381.  According  to  a  recent  survey  in  the  UK  with  Local  Planning 
Authorities (where scoping is not mandatory), a majority of authorities (67 %) think 
that  scoping  yields  beneficial  effects  on  the  quality  of  the  EIA  report  subsequently 
submitted382. The experience in Hungary383 shows that ignoring scoping can lead to 
EIA reports containing a lot of unnecessary or unimportant information. In France, it 
is  noticed  that  some  project  developers  produce  extensive  EIA  reports  on  some 
topics (e.g. air pollution) which would not have necessarily been the case if scoping 
had been done correctly; the reason is that project developers tend to use EIAs more 
as  juridical  insurance  than  decision-making  tools384.  This  extra  time  needed  for 
authorities to undertake mandatory scoping is therefore expected to be largely offset 
by  the  fact  that  EIA  reports  would  be  of  better  quality  and  more  focused,  hence 
authorities  would  spend  less  time  requesting  further  information  to  developers, 
reviewing  lengthy  EIA  reports  and  asking  for  successive  modifications  of  these 
reports.  For  developers,  the  extra  cost  is  also  likely  to  be  offset  by  time  savings 
during  the  drafting  of  the  EIA,  as  the  analysis  of  irrelevant  information  would  be 
avoided. It was previously estimated that, when an EIA report needs to be revised by 
the  developer  to  address  comments  made  by  the  authorities,  the  revision  step  can 
represent up to one third of the total EIA cost for the developer (and approximately 
17 %  of  the  total  costs,  on  average).  This  step  of  the  process,  which  represents  a 
significant share of  the total  EIA cost  for developers,  could probably be reduced if 
mandatory scoping was put in place. This would be beneficial in particular for SMEs, 
which are more vulnerable due to their limited financial capacity. 

Given  the  above,  overall,  this  option  is  likely  to  have  zero  net  impact  on 
administrative burden for authorities and developers. 

10.13.6. Use of accredited consultants or mechanism for quality control 

In  this  section,  only  the  costs  of  the  first  variant,  i.e.  the  use  of  accredited 
consultants, have been estimated, as this variant is considered as the easiest way to 
address quality issues in those Member States which do not yet have a mechanism in 
place to achieve a good quality of EIA reports. The second variant, i.e. the creation 

381 
382 

383 

384 

IVM, BIO, IEEP, IEP and Ecologic (2007), Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive. 
UK Communities and Local Government (2006), Evidence review of scoping in environmental impact 
assessment, EIA Centre, University of Manchester, DCLG, London. 
Radnai  and  Mondok  (2000),  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  Implementation  in  Hungary,  in: 
Bellinger, E., et al. (eds.)¸ Environmental Assessment in Countries in Transition. CEU Press, (p.57-62). 
BIO Intelligence Service (2006), Cost and benefits of the implementation of the EIA directive in France 
(Appendix IIB to the IVM report of 2007 on Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive). 

EN 

146 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of a ‘quality control’ committee at national level, which is already in place in some 
Member States, is considered as a more costly variant for public authorities. 

Requirements to use accredited consultants or to have a quality control mechanism of 
EIA reports are already in place in at least 17 Member States. 

For  those  Member  States  that  do  not  have  any  of  these  requirements,  the  use  of 
accredited consultants would generate some costs for the authorities that would have 
to  organise  the  accreditation  process  and  enforce  the  requirements.  Impact 
assessments  show  that  the  cost  for  the  authorities  in  a  decentralised  state  is  higher 
than in a centralised state (only one authority dealing with accreditation)385. Due to 
the fact that there will have to be an open market of service providers, also smaller 
Member  States  and/or  Member  States  with  a  small  number  of  EIAs  would  have  to 
put  efforts  in  the  accreditation  process.  However,  the  extra  cost  for  authorities  is 
likely to be offset by an improved quality of EIA reports, leading to less time being 
spent  at  requesting  further  information  from  developers  and  at  reviewing  revised 
versions of EIA reports. It is therefore assumed that there would be no net impact for 
public authorities. 

For consultants, this amendment would involve costs for obtaining and maintaining 
accreditation.  No  information  could  be  found  on  the  range  of  costs  encountered  in 
Member  States  having  already  this  requirement  in  place.  In  the  absence  of  such 
information, a rough estimate can be developed based on the assumption that, in the 
concerned Member States, each environmental consultancy firm would need to have 
2  experts  accredited  and  that  2-3  days  per  person  would  be  spent  at  obtaining  this 
accreditation (via training). Taking into account a regular turnover in staff and new 
people  to  be  trained,  it  is  assumed  that  this  cost  would  be  incurred  each  year.  The 
training  would  only  be  accessible  for  consultants  having  minimum  qualification 
criteria  (based  on  CV,  past  experience,  references,  etc.).  The  total  number  of 
environmental  consultancy  firms  in  the  EU  is  unknown  but  market  research  shows 
that  e.g.  in  UK  some  611  environmental  consultancy  firms  are  registered  on  a 
national  level.  If  we  assume  that  half  of  these  environmental  consultancy  firms  are 
involved  in  EIA  activities  and  if  we  apply  the  ratio  of  ‘EIA  consultancy  firms  per 
EIA report produced in the UK’386 to those Member States that do not yet have any 
requirement in place, this equals an average cost of approximately € 2 to 3 million 
per year387. It is assumed that half of this cost would be passed on to developers (via 
an increase in the cost of EIA-related services). 

For  developers,  the  cost  of  preparing  an  EIA  report  might  increase  due  to  the  fact 
that  accredited  consultants  may  be  more  expensive  to  hire  than  using  internal 
resources.  However,  only  a  small  share  of  developers  currently  has  dedicated  staff 
working on EIAs and those which have internal staff are usually large companies or 
public entities. The main impact for developers comes from the possible increase in 

385 

386 
387 

Nationales  Zentrum  für  Bürokratiekostenabbau  (2010),  Expert  Opinion  on  the  Assessment  of 
Administrative  Burdens,  Arising  in  connection  with  the  Proposal  of  the  European  Commission  for  a 
Directive of the EUropean Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the protection of 
soil (COM(2006)232) from 22 September 2006 (draft Soil Protection Directive), and taking account of 
the proposed compromise of the Czech Presidency submitted on 5 June 2009. 
338 EIAs in 2010 in the UK. 
The cost per hour in each of the concerned Member States is taken from the EU Standard Cost Model, 
for Category 1 staff. 

EN 

147 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the  costs  of  EIA-related  services  charged  by  environmental  consultants  (as 
mentioned above, it is assumed that half of the accreditation costs would be passed 
on to developers). 

10.13.7. Mandatory assessment of reasonable alternatives 

For developers, additional information will have to be provided at the scoping stage 
and additional alternatives will have to be taken into account when preparing the EIA 
report and will therefore be subject to consultation. These additional alternatives will 
include, at least, a ‘no development’ option and a ‘reasonable alternative’ option. In 
this  cost  assessment,  it  is  assumed  that  this  amendment  would  be  implemented  in 
conjunction  with  the  ‘mandatory  scoping’  option,  since  the  scoping  stage  would 
greatly facilitate its implementation. 

As  mentioned  previously,  thirteen  Member  States  have  already  introduced  a  legal 
obligation to  consider specific  alternatives  (including the ‘zero-alternative’ in some 
cases). Although the quality and level of detail of these assessments would need to be 
improved in some of these countries, the incremental effort induced by a change in 
the text of the EIA Directive is considered to be minimal for these countries. 

For  the  remaining  fourteen  Member  States,  this  new  requirement  will  increase  the 
number  of  man-days  required  to  be  spent in the EIA process, especially during the 
scoping  and  EIA  report  preparation  phases.  The  effort  required  for  each  of  the 
additional  scenarios  will  be  smaller  than  the  effort  put  in  the  main  scenario,  but 
sufficient  information  will  need  to  be  provided  in  order  to  properly  inform  future 
decisions. On the other hand, this requirement may reduce the time needed to answer 
further requests from authorities and issues raised during the public consultation (at 
present,  issues  raised  often  concern  possible  alternatives  not  studied  in  detail  by 
developers).  Besides,  in  the  case  of  projects  which  are  part  of  larger  plans  or 
programmes subject to the SEA Directive, the incremental work would be minimal 
since  reasonable  alternatives  would  have  already  been  assessed  in  accordance  with 
the SEA Directive’s requirements (Article 5). 

Although  the  assessment  of  ‘reasonable  alternatives’  is  already  required  under  the 
SEA  Directive  and  other  EU  Directives  (e.g.  Industrial  Emissions,  Habitats  and 
Water  Framework  Directives),  no  information  is  available  on  the  impact  of  this 
requirement on developers and on public authorities. No impact-related information 
from  the  Member  States  is  available  either.  In  the  absence  of  such  data,  it  is  not 
possible to accurately estimate the costs associated with this option. It should also be 
noted that costs would widely differ from one type of project to another. However, as 
a very rough estimate, it could be assumed that such a requirement would involve 15-
20 % extra work for consultants/developers, on average, at EU level (compared with 
the average time currently spent in the whole EIA process). This would correspond 
to  €  41.9  to  55.8  million  per  year .  This  cost  may  decrease  in  the  long  term,  as 
developers and consultants gain more experience in the methodology for identifying 
and assessing alternative scenarios. 

For  public  authorities,  additional  time  would  be  required  to  validate  alternatives  at 
the scoping stage and review their assessment in the EIA report. On the other hand, it 
may reduce the time needed to deal with issues raised during the public consultation. 
As  a  very  rough  assumption,  it  could  be  assumed  that,  on  average,  5 %  extra  time 

EN 

148 

   EN 

 
would have to be spent in the EIA process, corresponding to € 3.8 to 5.6 million per 
year at EU level. In the short term, authorities would also need time to get familiar 
with  the  methodology  for  defining  and  assessing  the  alternative  scenarios  (it  is 
assumed  that  guidance  would  be  developed  by  the  Commission),  leading  to  higher 
costs in the first few years of implementation. 

10.13.8. Justification of final decisions 

For  public  authorities,  the  requirement  to  specify  the  reasons  underlying  the  final 
decisions and the conditions attached to it may result in a small increase in the time 
spent during the last stage of the EIA process. However, this would likely be offset 
by  reduced  time  needed  to  justify  any  decisions  that  might  be  challenged  by 
stakeholders  at  a  later  stage.  Overall,  this  option  is  unlikely  to  have  a  significant 
impact  on  administrative  burden.  This  amendment  is  closely  linked  with  the 
option  concerning  mandatory  monitoring;  administrative  burden  related 
to 
mandatory monitoring itself is discussed below. 

10.13.9. Mandatory monitoring  

The  administrative  burden  related  to  this  option,  for  public  authorities  and  for 
to  monitoring 
developers,  would  only  affect  projects  not  already  subject 
requirements  arising  from  other  EU  or  national  legislation  (e.g.  IED),  from  EU  or 
national  guidance  (e.g.  guidance  on  the  assessment  of  projects  with  impacts  on 
biodiversity) or from voluntary initiatives (e.g. ISO 14001 or EMAS) or carried out 
as  a  disguised  mitigation  measure.  No  data  could  be  found  on  the  share  of  EIAs 
corresponding  to  IED  activities  and  the  share  of  projects  where  environmental 
monitoring  is  conducted  on  a  voluntary  basis  or  as  a  mitigation  measure.  In  the 
absence of such data, it is roughly assumed that a mandatory monitoring requirement 
would create additional burden in 50 % of projects subject to EIA; this corresponds 
to a conservative assumption. 

Developers  would  need  time  to  identify  the  relevant  monitoring  measures  to  be 
proposed in the EIA report (this is considered as negligible compared to the overall 
time  needed  to  prepare  an  EIA  report)  and  to  conduct  monitoring  activities  in 
compliance with the requirements of the authorities’ final decision. 

No  quantitative  information  is  currently  available  concerning  the  costs  of  existing 
post-EIA  monitoring  activities  and  the  efforts  required  are  likely  to  vary  from  one 
project  to  another.  As  assumed  in  the  description  of  amendments,  the  types  and 
number of environmental parameters to monitor and the monitoring frequency would 
be defined by the authorities on a case-by-case basis. The scope of the monitoring is 
described in Annex 10. 

In the absence of data from Member State’s experience and given the wide range of 
monitoring  procedures  that  could  be  established,  only  theoretical  estimates  can  be 
made.  In  order  to  obtain  an  order  of  magnitude  of  possible  costs,  the  following 
assumptions are made: additional monitoring would be required on an annual basis 
during  3  years  following  the  development  of  the  project,  this  requirement  would 
apply to 50 % of projects being developed each year (considering that a number of 
projects are already subject to monitoring) and the time requirements would be 5 to 
10 man-days of environmental expert covering the monitoring and evaluation of 1 or 

EN 

149 

   EN 

 
2  key  environmental  parameters  per  project  per  year.  Based  on  these  assumptions, 
the cost of this amendment is estimated at € 22.8 to 45.7 million per year  in total 
for  developers,  however  it  would  be  incurred  by  different  developers  each  year, 
since monitoring would only be conducted during the first 3 years of the project388. 
For each new project, the cost of this option would amount to 1.100 to 2.200 €/year 
on average, at EU level. This represents a total of 3.300 to 6.600 € per new project 
for the 3 year-period, i.e. between 8 % and 16 % of the average cost of an EIA. 

Public  authorities  would  need  additional  time  to  review  the  monitoring  measures 
(this  is  considered  as  negligible  compared to  the  overall  time  needed  to  review  the 
EIA report) and to enforce monitoring requirements (e.g. via random inspections of 
facilities  and  evaluation  of  monitoring  results).  In  the  absence  of  quantitative  data 
based on Member State experience, only a theoretical estimate can be made. For the 
purposes of this study, it is assumed that authorities would inspect each year 10 % of 
projects having received a consent in the previous year and would spend 1 to 2 man-
days for each inspection, which leads to an additional cost in the order of € 0.46 to 
0.92 million per year389. In addition, authorities will need time to get familiar with 
the new monitoring requirements (it is assumed that guidance would be developed by 
the Commission) and this may lead to slightly higher costs in the first few years of 
implementation. 

10.13.10. 

Additional environmental issues 

Developers will need to assess a slightly broader scope of impacts, but this will vary 
depending on the type of project. Projects that are likely to be affected by this new 
requirement  include  those  with  significant  impacts  on  greenhouse  gases  emissions, 
on biodiversity, on the marine environment and/or resource use, as well as projects 
with  high  vulnerability  to  a  changing  climate  or  to  other  man-made  or  natural 
disasters.  Except  for  the  direct  impacts  on  greenhouse  gas  emissions  and  the 
inventory of fauna and flora species (which are already well covered by EIA reports), 
methodologies  for  assessing  these  impacts  are  not  yet  very  well  established,  so  it 
may  take  more  time  in  the  first  few  years  of  implementation  as  developers  and 
consultants would need to gain experience. 

In  order  to  accurately  assess  the  potential  impacts  of  this  amendment,  it  would  be 
necessary to have an estimate of the proportion of projects likely to have significant 
impacts  on  each  of  the  additional  issues  (climate  change,  biodiversity,  marine 
environment, use of natural resources) or to be significantly affected by a changing 
climate  or  disaster  risks.  For  example,  the  need  to  further  describe  impacts  due  to 
indirect  greenhouse  gas  emissions  or  impacts  from  a  changing  climate  is  likely  to 
concern a majority of projects being developed, while the need to describe impacts 
on  the marine environment would  only concern a small number of projects  located 
near  or  within  marine  territories.  With  regard  to  biodiversity,  only  certain  types  of 

388  

389  

Cost  calculated  for  2010,  covering  25  MS  (it  is  considered  that  NL  and  FR  already  have  similar 
requirements  in  place).  The  calculation  takes  into  account  the  average  number  of  EIAs  per  Member 
State and the average cost per hour in each Member State given by the EU Standard Cost Model (staff 
category 1). It is assumed that the cost of monitoring equipment is included in the hourly rates used in 
the calculation. 
The calculation takes into account the average number of EIAs per Member State and the average cost 
per hour in each Member State given by the EU Standard Cost Model (staff category 1). 

EN 

150 

   EN 

 
                                                 
projects  with  significant effects on biodiversity (e.g. large-size projects) or  projects 
located  within or near sensitive areas would be concerned by the new requirement, 
which would involve going beyond the usual fauna and flora species inventory. With 
regard  to  the  use  of  natural  resources,  only  projects  likely  to  cause  significant 
pressure  on  natural  resources  would  be  concerned  by  the  new  requirement.  At  EU 
level there are no available statistics on the number of EIAs performed in relation to 
each  project  category  as  defined  in  Annexes  I  and  II  and  by  type  of  location.  It  is 
therefore difficult to estimate the impact of this option. 

For public authorities, there would also be a slight increase in the time needed during 
the scoping phase and during the review of the EIA report, depending on the type of 
project as explained above. Time will also be needed to develop specific guidelines 
for  assessing  these  additional  types  of  impacts.  For  the  same  reasons  as  mentioned 
above, more time may be needed in the first few years of implementation. 

The cost of this amendment for public authorities depends not only on the number of 
competent authorities involved in the EIA process in the EU but also on the number 
of  authorities  involved  in  processes  related  to  the  issues  that  will  be  integrated  or 
added  to  the  EIA.  To  give  an  illustration  of  the  possible  magnitude  of  costs,  an 
impact  assessment  of  policy  options  for  the  draft  Soil  Framework  Directive  states 
that an amendment of the EIA Act in Germany to incorporate soil aspects into Annex 
2 of the EIA Act would cost € 27 million annually to the public sector390. The cost of 
this amendment for Germany is mainly driven by the fact that 3.000 local authorities 
or administrative entities are involved due to delegation of tasks in the areas set forth 
in Article 3 of the draft Soil Directive Framework. However, due to the specificities 
of each Member State, it is difficult to extrapolate these German data to the EU in the 
case of our amendment. The impacts would need to be examined on a case-by-case 
basis. 

The overall additional costs of this option, at EU level, are likely to be moderate to 
high  for  public  authorities  and  developers.  However,  most  projects  will  require 
further assessment only in relation to one or two additional environmental issues (i.e. 
only  the  ones  corresponding  to  significant  effects)  and  very  few  projects  will  be 
concerned  by  all  the  additional  environmental  issues  proposed  in  this  option. 
Moreover, in the case of climate change and disaster risks to projects, it has already 
been demonstrated that the avoided damage costs to population, materials assets, the 
economy and the environment largely outweigh the costs of adequately assessing and 
preventing  such  risks  (this  is  further  discussed  in  the  section  on  wider  socio-
economic impacts). 

390  

Nationales  Zentrum  für  Bürokratiekostenabbau  (2010),  Expert  Opinion  on  the  Assessment  of 
Administrative  Burdens,  Arising  in  connection  with  the  Proposal  of  the  European  Commission  for  a 
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the protection of 
soil (COM(2006)232) from 22 September 2006 (draft Soil Protection Directive), and taking account of 
the proposed compromise of the Czech Presidency submitted on 5 June 2009. Additional environmental 
aspects  to  be  taken  into  account  include:  erosion  by  water,  erosion  by  wind,  organic  matter  decline, 
compaction, salinisation, risk of mudslides and acidification. 

EN 

151 

   EN 

 
                                                 
10.13.11. 

Amendments related to time-frames 

Both options related to time-frames (specific time-frame for public consultation and 
maximum  time-frames  for  decision-making  on  screening  and  EIA  decision)  will 
influence  the  duration  of  the  EIA  procedure  but  will  not  have  a  direct  impact  on 
administrative  burden.  However,  there  are  significant  positive  wider  socio-
economic impacts for developers, as explained in Section 6.3 and Annex 14. 

10.13.12. 

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

Case studies show that better coordination of different types of assessment can result 
in  economic  benefits;  they  also  show  that  it  requires  further  integration  in  local 
planning procedures. Examples of integrated/joint procedures assessment procedures 
can be found at least in Austria and France. 

In  Austria,  regional  agencies  are  responsible  for  an  integrated  assessment  and 
permitting  procedure  in  each  of  the  nine  regions.  These  provisional  authorities 
correspond  to  the  regional tier  of  a  system  including  also  a  national  and  a  regional 
tier.  In  this  integrated  procedure,  the  EIA  has  been  combined  with  the  IED,  the 
Habitats  Directive,  the  national  legislation  on  water,  air  and  waste  licensing,  etc. 
However,  EIAs  for  federal  roads  and  railways  are  not  part  of  this  consolidated 
process but dealt with by the Ministry of Transport. Also, SEAs are not part of this 
consolidated  process  as  SEAs  are  seen  to  be  part  of  the  responsibility  of  planning 
authorities, not permitting authorities. In this integrated approach, the developer only 
needs to fill in one application for all permits with the possibility of assistance from 
the  provisional  authority,  even  in  the  form  of  meetings.  According  to  the  Austrian 
authorities391, such an one-stop shop approach, which is required by law, has reduced 
the  administrative  burden  for  developers  compared  to  an  approach  where  the 
permitting responsibilities were allocated to several separate agencies. It is estimated 
that  the  increase  in  administrative  costs  for  the  provisional  authorities  are  still  less 
than  if  this  burden  would  have  been  divided  between  several  of  permitting 
authorities. There is currently no hard evidence regarding this, however, the Court of 
Accounting is scheduled to provide more detailed information on the one-stop shop 
approach in Austria in a report to be published by mid 2012. 

For public authorities, in the long term this option will avoid duplication of efforts at 
the  various  stages  of  the  EIA  process  and  is  therefore  expected  to  reduce 
administrative burden. More time may need to be spent at the EIA scoping stage in 
order  to  identify  all  areas  where  synergies  can  be  found  with  other  applicable 
legislation in terms of information collection and analysis, but the other steps of the 
EIA process could be shortened. It may also be necessary for the authorities to spend 
extra time checking the relevance and validity of previous information submitted by 
the developer to comply  with  other legislation, in order to decide whether or not it 
can  be  ‘re-used’  as  part  of  the  EIA  process.  However,  this  option  could  require  a 
reorganisation  of  the  administration  in  some  Member  States  and,  in  the  short  term, 
such  reorganisation  may  be  particularly  costly  in  the  more  decentralised  Member 
States. 

391  

Interview with Waltraud Petek, Austrian Ministry of the Environment, October 2011. 

EN 

152 

   EN 

 
                                                 
For developers, this option is expected to reduce environmental assessment costs in 
general,  including  EIA-related  costs,  as  a  single  environmental  assessment  report 
would  be  prepared  in  order  to  comply  with  the  EIA  Directive’s  requirements  and 
with  other  environmental  assessment  requirements,  thus  avoiding  a  duplication  of 
efforts.  Cost  savings  will  be  particularly  significant  in  Member  States  where  such 
coordination procedures are not yet in place and for certain types of projects, e.g.: 

– 

– 

Projects related to industrial activities also subject to the IED. 

Projects with significant impacts on biodiversity (e.g. infrastructure projects392; 
quarries and mines; projects related to agriculture, silviculture and aquaculture; 
tourism and leisure projects). 

In order to assess the potential cost savings for public authorities and developers, it 
would be necessary to have an estimate of the percentage of projects for which there 
are  overlapping  information  requirements  between  the  EIA  Directive  and  other  EU 
legislation, such as in particular the SEA Directive, the IED, the Habitats Directive 
and the Birds Directive. In the absence of such data, it is difficult to quantify the 
economic impacts of this option. 

10.13.13. 

Summary of direct administrative costs 

Impacts  in  terms  of  administrative  burden  for  each  of  the  amendments  are 
summarised  below,  on  the  basis  of  the  qualitative  description  and  the  rough 
quantitative  estimates  presented  in  this  chapter.  Impacts  are  expressed  as  direct 
savings  or  incremental  costs  per  year  with  regard  to  the  baseline  scenario  (i.e.  no 
policy  change  option).  The  levels  of  costs  and  benefits  (zero,  negligible,  limited, 
moderate, high, very high) correspond to the estimated order of magnitude of costs or 
savings with regard to the costs for conducting EIAs in the baseline scenario, i.e. 146 
to  215  million  €/  year  for  public  authorities  and  558  to  846  million  €/year  for 
developers in 2010 (see Section 3.4). The assessment presented below in Table 27 
should  also  be  considered  in  the  light  of  wider  socio-economic  costs  and  benefits 
(which are discussed in Section 6.3). 

Table 27: Summary of impacts in terms of administrative burden  

Amendments  

Adaptation of Annexes I and II 
Alternative procedure for Annex II projects  
Modification of Annex III criteria  
Justification of negative screening decisions 
Mandatory scoping 
Quality control of the EIA information 
Mandatory assessment of reasonable alternatives 
Justification of final decisions 
Mandatory post-EIA monitoring 
Additional environmental issues (climate change, 
disaster risks, biodiversity, marine environment, 
resource use) 

Net impact for public 
authorities  
High to very high costs 
Limited savings 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
Limited costs 
/ 
/ 

Net impact for 
developers 
High to very high costs 
Limited savings 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
Moderate costs 
/ 
Moderate costs 

Moderate to high costs 

Moderate to high costs 

392  

According to GHK study (2010), in new Member States most projects are infrastructure related projects 
(up to 80 % in Greece, whereas in old Member States this is not always the case (only 20 % in France). 

EN 

153 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Specific time-frame for public consultation 
Maximum time-frames for decision-making 
Coordinated or integrated/joint procedure (EIA 
‘one-stop shop’ procedure) 

/ 
/ 

/ 
/ 

Moderate savings 

Moderate savings 

/ : Zero or negligible costs/savings, i.e. +/- 0-1 % with regard to baseline scenario 
Limited costs/savings: +/- 1-5 % with regard to baseline scenario 
Moderate costs/savings: +/- 5-10 % with regard to baseline scenario 
High costs/savings: +/- 10-25 % with regard to baseline scenario 
Very high costs/savings: > +/- 25 % with regard to baseline scenario 

EN 

154 

   EN 

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

Some  of  the  wider  socio-economic  impacts  are  very  similar  for  all  amendments; 
hence they are described in a first section (impacts on the functioning of the internal 
market and competition; impacts on competitiveness and trade; impacts due to better 
integration of environmental aspects; and impacts on public health and safety). Other 
types  of  impacts,  which  may  differ  significantly  from  one amendment to the other, 
are described separately in the remainder of this chapter. The wider socio-economic 
impacts  described  in  this  section  correspond  to  indirect,  long-term  impacts  of  the 
amendments. Other social impacts were considered (e.g. on poverty or distribution of 
incomes), but no significant impacts are expected. 

10.14.1. Impacts common to most of the amendments 

10.14.1.1. 

Functioning of the internal market and competition 

A  level  playing  field  has  to  be  ensured  in  order  for  fair  competition  to  take  place 
within  the  EU.  There  is  an  uneven  playing  field  when  there  are  barriers  to 
competition,  which  negatively  affects  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market  and 
reduces its efficiency. 

• 

Increased harmonisation 

All  the  policy  options  analysed  in  this  impact  assessment,  except  the  ‘do-nothing’ 
option, tend to set higher minimum standards for different stages of EIA process and 
thus  contribute  to  harmonising  practices  between  Member  States  having  already 
implemented  the  option  in  question  and  those  which  have  kept  the  minimum 
requirements of the current EIA Directive. For example, this is the case of mandatory 
scoping, which has already been implemented in most of the new Member States but 
not in all the older ones. 

In  general  terms,  increasing  harmonisation  between  Member  States  contributes  to 
improving  the  functioning  and  efficiency  of  the  internal  market,  as  developers 
benefit  from  a  more  level  playing  field  and  less  distorted  market  conditions.  For 
example,  the  differences  in  the  overall  duration  of  EIAs  across  the  Member  States 
can  provide  an  indication  of  the  discrepancies  in  terms  of  the  EIA  procedures,  the 
level of requirements imposed by national authorities to developers and the ability of 
developers to submit receivable EIA reports: as shown by GHK study393, the average 
duration of the EIA process is approximately  11  months,  ranging  from  as  low  as  5 
months  (Slovenia,  Estonia)  to  as  high  as  27  months  (Spain),  with  a  standard 
deviation of more than 6 months. 

The competitive edge will differ between Member States, depending on the specific 
changes  that  will  be  made.  Those  Member  States  that  have  already  put  these 
provisions  in  place  voluntarily  would  benefit  from  these  more  than  those  Member 
States that have not. 

393  

GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive. 

EN 

155 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
The  result  that  most  amendments  contribute  to  improving  harmonisation,  with 
varying  degrees  (amendments  of  time-frames  only  marginally  affect  market 
conditions,  whereas  mandatory  scoping  and  mandatory  assessment  of  reasonable 
alternatives, for example, have a more significant impact), is however conditional on 
the assumption made in the baseline scenario that national environmental legislations 
remain as they are today (i.e. no additional measures taken to go beyond the current 
Directive).  This  is  a  necessary  but  strong  assumption,  as  acknowledged  in  the 
description of the baseline scenario. Indeed, one can reasonably assume that Member 
States  will  continue  to  strengthen  their  environmental  legislations  including  with 
regard to EIA. For example, several Member States are currently reviewing their EIA 
legislation, but it is difficult to know what future provisions may look like at present. 
As  a  result,  the  degree  to  which  harmonisation  and  market  conditions  will  be 
improved  as  a  result  of  the  introduction  of  the  different  amendments  is  difficult  to 
assess and clear-cut conclusions should be avoided. 

• 

Transboundary projects 

Increased  harmonisation 
is  especially  relevant  for  projects  with  significant 
transboundary impacts, as developers and authorities of different Member States are 
required by the  EIA  Directive  to exchange information  and  comply  with  (some  of) 
their respective – and often differing – requirements. 

Developers  involved  in  transboundary  projects  would  be  the  first  to  benefit  from  a 
harmonisation  of  practices  within  the  EU  in  relation  to  EIAs.  The  gap  between 
national  projects  and  transboundary  ones,  in  terms  of  administrative  and  wider 
economic costs, would be reduced. 

10.14.1.2. 

Competitiveness, trade and investment flows 

EU initiatives have an impact on competitiveness when they affect at least one of the 
following:  (a)  Cost/price  competitiveness  (capacity  to  produce  products  at  a  lower 
cost and/or offer them at a more competitive price); the cost of enterprise operations 
includes  the  cost  of  inputs  (including  resources  and  energy)  and  factors  of 
production,  which  may  be  affected  by  the  proposal.  (b)  Innovative  competitiveness 
(the quality or the originality of a sector’s supply of goods or services). (c) Effective 
market  competition  and  undistorted  access  to  external  markets  including  those  of 
inputs  and  materials,  of  public  procurement,  etc.  (d)  The  sector’s  market  shares  on 
the  international  markets.  The  present  revision  is  not  relevant  for  all  the  above 
aspects of competitiveness; it refers mostly to effective market competition and – to 
some extent – to innovative competitiveness. 

Most of the policy options and amendments would result in improved clarity in the 
legal requirements  of the EIA Directive  and less margin for interpretation. Most of 
the  options  would  therefore  contribute  to  reducing  uncertainties  and  delays  for 
developers,  as  well  as  avoiding  lost  business  opportunities  and  any  costs  related  to 
delays.  As  mentioned  in  the  baseline  scenario,  delays  caused  by  lengthy  EIA 
processes  are  one  of  the  main  issues  raised  by  developers394.  A  more  certain 

394  

During  the  public  consultation  on  the  review  of  the  EIA  Directive,  about  22  %  of  respondents  (all 
categories) found that the EIA ‘always’ causes considerable delays in the approval of projects and about 
25 % found that it ‘sometimes’ causes considerable delays. 

EN 

156 

   EN 

 
                                                 
regulatory environment and clear time-frames for certain steps of the EIA process are 
beneficial  to  attract  private  investment;  intra-EU  investment  could  be  favoured,  as 
developers from one Member States would be less reluctant to carry out projects in 
other Member States, as well as extra-EU investments. 

These benefits would be particularly significant for the following options: alternative 
procedure  for  Annexes  II  projects;  revision  of  Annex  III  criteria;  justification  of 
negative  screening  decisions;  specified  time-frames  for  public  participation;  and 
maximum time-frames for final decisions on the screening and EIA decisions. 

Administrative  costs  associated  with  possible  changes  to  the  EIA  Directive  are 
unlikely to affect the competitiveness of EU developers. In the present situation, EIA 
costs only represent between 0.01 % to 2.37 % of the total costs of projects (1 % on 
average),  i.e.  a  relatively  modest  part  of  total  development  costs395.  Most  of  the 
amendments  considered  have  no  or  limited  administrative  costs  for  developers  or 
provide savings in comparison to the baseline scenario. Concerning the more costly 
amendments  for  developers  (alternatives,  monitoring  and  additional  environmental 
issues), the incremental costs are not expected to exceed 25 % of baseline costs. 

10.14.1.3. 

Avoided  risk  of  environmental  damages  and  cost  savings  through  better 

integration of environmental aspects 

Most  of  the  options  analysed  are  expected  to  bring  various  types  of  environmental 
benefits,  as  described  in  Section  6.1.  These  environmental  benefits  also  lead  to  a 
number  of  socio-economic  benefits,  in  terms  of  avoided  risk  of  environmental 
damages and cost savings through better integration of environmental aspects. These 
benefits  would  be  particularly  significant  for  the  following  options:  adaptation  of 
Annexes I and II; revision of Annex III criteria; additional environmental issues to be 
included in EIAs; assessment of reasonable alternatives; and mandatory monitoring. 

More specifically in the case of climate change and disaster risks to projects, it has 
been demonstrated that the avoided damage costs to population, materials assets, the 
economy and the environment largely outweigh the costs of adequately assessing and 
preventing such risks. As an illustration, draft estimates for inland flooding from the 
ClimateCost project396 suggest the following: 

– 

– 

– 

EU costs of inaction: 20 billion per year by 2020 and 46 billion by 2050 

EU costs of adaptation: 2.4 billion per year by 2020 and 5.7 billion per year by 
2050 

EU avoided costs (benefits): 8 billion per year by 2020 and 20 billion per year 
by 2050. 

395  

396  

GHK  (2010),  Collection  of  information  and  data  to  support  the  IA  study  of  the  review  of  the  EIA 
Directive. 
http://www.climatecost.cc/  

EN 

157 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  European  Environmental  Agency  (EEA)  also  reports  €  414  billion  of  overall 
economic  losses  and  108.000  fatalities  due  to  natural  hazards  between  1980  and 
2009397. 

10.14.1.4. 

Public health and safety and quality of life 

For most of the options, positive impacts are expected in terms of public health and 
safety and quality of life, for similar reasons as those mentioned in the assessment of 
environmental  impacts  (see  Section  4.1).  These  benefits  would  be  particularly 
significant  for  the  following  options:  modification  of  content  to  Annexes  I  and  II; 
revision  of  Annex  III  criteria;  additional  environmental  issues  to  be  included  in 
EIAs; assessment of reasonable alternatives; and mandatory monitoring. The avoided 
adverse impacts on public health, safety and quality of life are potentially significant 
for  infrastructure  projects,  especially  in  the  transport  sector,  which  generate 
important  amounts  of  local  air  pollutants  and  are  a  source  of  other  negative 
externalities (noise, congestion, etc.). 

10.14.2. Other impacts specific to each amendment 

10.14.2.1. 

Adaptation of Annexes I and II 

• 

Costs related to legal disputes 

As  already  mentioned  in  this  report,  screening  is  the  most  common  cause  for  legal 
disputes.  Reducing  the  number  of  Annex  II  projects  by  moving  them  to  Annex  I 
would  reduce  the  amount  of  legal  disputes  as  the  amount  of  projects  requiring 
screening would be reduced. For the introduction of any new project categories the 
impact  could  be  more  diverse,  with  some  Member  States  being  able  to  be  more 
familiar  with  these  than  others.  It  also  depends  on  whether  these  new  project 
categories would be introduced as Annex I and/or Annex II projects. 

10.14.2.2. 

Alternative procedure for Annex II projects 

No  significant  wider  socio-economic  impacts,  other  than  those  common  to  all 
options, are expected. 

10.14.2.3.  Modification to Annex III criteria 

• 

Costs related to legal disputes 

Revising  the  screening  criteria  of  Annex  III  would  reduce  the  amount  of  legal 
disputes as more certainty would be provided. 

10.14.2.4. 

Justification of negative screening decisions 

• 

Costs related to legal disputes 

397  

Presentation  by  EEA  at  the  Conference  on  prevention  and  insurance  of  natural  catastrophes,  October 
2011,  Brussels, 
(http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/insurance/docs/natural-catastrophes/conference-
20111018/jol_en.pdf) 

EN 

158 

   EN 

 
                                                 
As a result of greater transparency, the proposed change would help reduce the risk 
of legal challenge and the associated financial and time costs for public authorities, 
developers and third parties.  

• 

Indirect savings for developers 

In  the  impact  assessment  carried  out  in  England  for  the  introduction  of  a  similar 
amendment, it is considered that it will bring ‘greater transparency of circumstances 
in  which  an  EIA  is  not  required  for  developers  to  gain  a  better  understanding  of 
EIAs’. A reduction in average EIA costs for developers might be anticipated in the 
long-term, due to a reduction in time spent in queries and information requests, and a 
better understanding of the EIA requirements. 

• 

Governance, participation, good administration and access to justice 

This  policy  option  would  have  a  strong  positive  effect  on  governance  and 
participation, by providing greater transparency in the decision-making process.  

10.14.2.5.  Mandatory scoping 

• 

Costs related to legal disputes 

The introduction of mandatory scoping would contribute to reducing the number of 
legal disputes, as there would be more clarity and transparency about the information 
that is requested and the methodologies to be employed, with a written record of it. It 
would  be  more  difficult  for  developers  or  third  parties  to  complain  about  the 
requirements imposed by public authorities at a later stage in the process. 

• 

Costs related to delays 

Mandatory  scoping  is  likely  to  reduce  the  overall  duration  of  EIA  processes,  by 
avoiding additional requests for missing information that are frequently made by the 
authorities  when  the  EIA  report  is  incomplete.  The  positive  and  significant  role  of 
mandatory scoping on reducing the duration of EIA processes is also highlighted in a 
recent study on EU permitting procedures carried out for DG ENER398. 

By  reducing  the  overall  duration  of  EIA  processes,  mandatory  scoping  may  also 
contribute  to  reducing  unexpected  delays.  In  the  case  of  transboundary  projects, 
where  significant  delays  can  be  observed  due  to  differences  in  the  procedural 
requirements from one Member State to another, a mandatory scoping process may 
have a positive impact by reducing such delays and possible associated costs. When 
all the scoping procedures are harmonised and are mandatory, the synchronisation of 
possible  procedural  steps  can  be  considered  a  benefit399.  This  becomes  clear  by 
looking at Article 7(3) of the EIA Directive, which requires that information should 
be  made  available  to  the  authorities  directly  involved  in  the  EIA  procedure  in  the 
neighbouring Member State in order to give this authority the opportunity to express 

398  

399  

Roland Berger Strategy Consultants (2011), Permitting procedures for energy infrastructure projects in 
the EU: evaluation and legal recommendations. 
Jerzy Jendrośka, Quality of the EIA process: issues of concern and ways for improvement, Presentation 
for the Conference for the 25th Anniversary of the EIA Directive, Leuven, 18-19 November 2010. 

EN 

159 

   EN 

 
                                                 
its  opinion  on  the  information  supplied  by  the  developer.  However,  a  reduction  in 
delays  would  also  require  that  scoping  is  performed  in  a  harmonised  way  between 
the Member States (e.g. based on improved guidance documents) and scoping time-
frames are also harmonised. 

• 

Governance, participation, good administration and access to justice 

Scoping  allows  a  more  efficient  and  effective  EIA  process  by  providing  adequate 
information  to  developers  in  a  timely  way,  thereby  reducing  potential  delays  and 
costs  in  future  stages  of  the  process.  In  this  sense,  it  can  be  said  that  mandatory 
scoping favours good administration and transparency in the decision process. 

10.14.2.6. 

Use of accredited consultants or mechanism for quality control 

• 

Indirect impacts from accreditation 

Certain  small  environmental  consultancies  may  not  able  to  fulfil  the  accreditation 
criteria (e.g. in terms of technical capabilities, years of experience, EIA track record). 
Hence,  this  requirement  may  generate  a  loss  of  revenues  for  these  small 
consultancies.  For  those  consultancies  having  obtained  the  accreditation,  the 
requirement could lead to an increase in revenues as there would be less competition 
due to a smaller number of actors present on the market. 

• 

Costs related to legal disputes 

This option can potentially reduce the number of disputes that arise due to third party 
complaints  over  poor  quality  of  EIA  reports.  Such  conflicts  may  lead  to  legal 
proceedings, hence a reduced number of disputes would translate into reduced legal 
proceeding costs both for developers and authorities.  

• 

Costs related to delays 

The use of accredited consultants to prepare EIA reports may contribute to reducing 
the  overall  duration  of  EIA  processes,  by  avoiding  poor  quality  reports  that  are 
rejected  by  public  authorities  and  have  to  be  revised  one  or  several  times  by 
developers. 

In  the  case  of  EIA  reports  prepared  by  developers  and  verified  by  accredited 
consultants  before  their  submission  to  the  authorities,  an  additional  step  would  be 
introduced in the EIA procedure, with a risk of additional delays. Such delays might 
occur due to the late identification of gaps in the EIA report during the verification 
process, with could lead to extra costs for developers having prepared EIA reports of 
insufficient quality. 

In the case of national ‘quality control committees’, their involvement may introduce 
an additional step in the EIA procedure, with a risk of additional delays. However, as 
this  measure  would  also  provide  greater  impartiality  and  transparency  to  the 
decision-making process, this risk of delays would be offset by a reduced occurrence 
of conflicts between public authorities, developers and/or other stakeholders. 

• 

Employment and labour markets 

EN 

160 

   EN 

 
Additional  jobs  may  be  created  within  environmental  consultancies,  as  more 
developers subcontract the preparation of their EIA reports. This would mainly affect 
the  larger  consultancy  companies,  while  some  jobs  may  be  lost  in  some  of  the 
smaller ones that are not able to meet the criteria for accreditation. 

• 

Governance, participation, good administration and access to justice 

As  mentioned  above,  the  creation  of  national  ‘quality  control  committees’  would 
provide greater impartiality and transparency to the decision-making process. Indeed, 
in  most  Member  States  where  such  committees  have  been  put  in  place,  their 
conclusions concerning the quality of EIA reports are publicly available. 

10.14.2.7.  Mandatory assessment of reasonable alternatives 

• 

Costs related to delays 

The mandatory assessment of reasonable alternatives may contribute to reducing the 
overall duration of EIA processes, by avoiding poor quality reports that are rejected 
by  public  authorities  and  have  to  be  revised  one  or  several  times  by  developers. 
When an EIA report needs to be revised by the developer to address comments made 
by the authorities or the public, the revision step can represent up to one third of the 
total  EIA  cost  for  the  developer  (and  approximately  17 %  of  the  total  costs,  on 
average).  This  step  of  the  process,  which  represents  a  significant  share  of  the  total 
EIA  cost  for  developers,  could  probably  be  avoided  or  reduced  if  the  issue  of 
alternatives  was  adequately  addressed.  This  would  be  beneficial  in  particular  for 
SMEs, which are more vulnerable due to their limited financial capacity. 

• 

Costs related to legal disputes 

The  identification  of  additional  alternatives  to  be  studied  might  lead  to  more 
conflicting views and more disputes at an early stage of the EIA process and during 
the public consultation. However, given the opportunity for third parties and public 
authorities  to  influence  in  a  more  significant  way  the  selection  of  options  for  the 
project, this new provision may lead to fewer proceedings from third parties against 
the final decisions made by public authorities. Overall, both effects would probably 
compensate each other. 

• 

Employment and labour market 

The introduction of this option would increase the workload of the experts carrying 
out  EIAs,  whether  external  consultants  or  developers’  internal  staff  dedicated  to 
EIAs, and workload of competent authorities. In Section 6.2, it was roughly assumed 
that  this  new  requirement  would  generate  15-20 %  extra  EIA-related  work  for 
consultants/developers  and  5-10 %  extra  EIA-related  work  for  authorities,  on 
average,  at  EU  level.  This  might  lead  to  new  jobs  being  created  mainly  within 
consultancies  and  developers,  although  the  impact  on  employment  would  probably 
remain limited. 

10.14.2.8. 

 Justification of final decisions 

• 

Costs related to legal disputes 

EN 

161 

   EN 

 
A  better  argued  decision  may  prevent  legal  disputes  from  occurring  related  to  the 
step  in  the  EIA  process  described  in  Article  8.  Besides,  criteria  that  would  be 
included in Article 8 would help developers anticipate the breadth of the information 
that  they  would  be  required  to  provide.  This  amendment  would  also  improve  the 
transparency  regarding  the  environmental  criteria  on  which  the  decision  regarding 
development  consent  is  based  upon,  therefore  reducing  the  risk  of  confusion  and 
misinterpretation  that  often  leads  to  legal  disputes.  Costs  associated  with  legal 
disputes would be reduced, for developers, public authorities and third parties. 

• 

Governance, participation, good administration and access to justice 

Reinforcing  Article  8  would  favour  good  administration  as  the  regulatory  process 
would  become  more  transparent,  effective  and  predictable.  By  specifying,  in 
accordance with the objectives of the Directive, the criteria on which the decision has 
to  be  based,  this  amendment  also  brings  some  more  coherence  between  the 
objectives  set  forth  in  the  Directive  and  the  actual  environmental  outcomes  of  the 
projects for which development consent has been granted. 

10.14.2.9.  Mandatory post-EIA monitoring 

• 

Costs related to legal disputes 

Monitoring  should  enable  an  earlier  identification  of  issues  (e.g.  environmental 
releases  exceeding  estimates  presented  in  the  EIA  report),  thereby  decreasing  the 
likelihood for legal disputes concerning discrepancies between predicted and actual 
impacts of projects. 

Conflicts may arise between developers and authorities concerning the interpretation 
of monitoring results by the authorities and the possible mitigation actions imposed. 
However, such conflicts would probably occur anyway in cases where the EIA report 
would  have  underestimated  the  project’s  impacts;  in  the  absence  of  mandatory 
monitoring,  such  conflicts  would  just  occur  at  a  later  stage,  once  environmental 
damage is noticeable. 

• 

Employment and labour markets 

The  introduction  of  mandatory  monitoring  would  lead  to  an  increase  in  the  overall 
workload  of  environmental  consultants  (monitoring  experts)  and  public  authorities. 
In Section 6.2, it was roughly assumed that additional monitoring would be required 
on  an  annual  basis  during  3  years  following  the  development  of  the  project,  this 
requirement would apply to 50 % of projects being developed each year and the time 
requirements  would  be  5  to  10  man-days  of  environmental  expert  per  project  per 
year;  this  represents  approximately  187.500  to  650.000  man-days  of  environmental 
experts per year in total across the EU. This may lead to an increase in jobs in the 
field of environmental monitoring (water/air monitoring, noise surveying, ecological 
surveying, etc.). 

For  public  authorities,  it  was  roughly  assumed  that  additional  monitoring  would 
require  1  to  2  man-days  per  project  and  would  cover  10 %  of  projects  receiving 
consent  each  year;  this  represents  1.500  to  5.200  man-days  per  year  in  total  across 
the EU, which may also require new jobs to be created. 

EN 

162 

   EN 

 
• 

Governance, participation, good administration and access to justice 

Mandatory  post-EIA  monitoring  would  increase  transparency,  legitimacy  and 
effectiveness  of  the  EIA  process,  thereby  improving  environmental  governance.  In 
particular,  documented  evidence  would  be  available  concerning 
the  actual 
environmental  impacts  of  projects  and  the  public  would  have  the  right  to  request 
information on the monitoring results and on possible subsequent measures imposed 
by the authorities. Overall, this would increase the credibility of the EIA process. 

10.14.2.10.  Additional environmental issues  

• 

Employment and labour markets 

The additional workload resulting from this option may lead to job creations within 
environmental consulting companies as there will be an increased need for experts in 
climate  change,  disaster  risks,  biodiversity,  marine  environment  and  natural 
resources. However, there is insufficient data to estimate the magnitude of possible 
impacts on employment. 

10.14.2.11. 

Specific time-frame for public consultation 

• 

Costs related to delays 

Approximately 15 % of Member States allow more than two months for  the  public 
consultation to take place. In the case of France, for example, this process may last 
up to four months. While sufficient time has to be allowed for the public consultation 
to take place effectively, especially for sensitive projects such as major transport or 
infrastructure  projects,  too  many  delays  and  lengthy  processes  increase  opportunity 
costs  for  developers.  Setting  minimum  and  maximum  durations  for  public 
consultation  would  therefore  increase  visibility  for  developers  on  the  length  of  the 
overall  EIA  procedure,  incentivise  developers  and  authorities  to  plan  ahead  and 
optimise the process and limit the number of avoidable delays. 

Overall, such an amendment would reduce the costs related to delays, but as public 
participation for most projects is completed within the envisaged maximum length of 
two months400, these avoided costs are likely to remain moderate. It would also make 
investments  happen  by  providing  a  stable  legal  framework,  making  it  possible  for 
investors to plan their investments. 

• 

Governance, participation, good administration and access to justice 

Setting  clear  time-frames  for  public  participation  increases  the  transparency  of  the 
overall  EIA  process  and  improves  the  visibility  of  developers.  In  this  sense,  this 
option will improve governance and foster good administration. 

400  

Based  on  the  sample  of  15  Member  States  for  which  data  is  available  on  the  length  of  the  public 
participation  process  (GHK,  2010):  in  approximately  30  %  of  countries  the  duration  of  the  public 
participation  process  is  below  1  month,  while  only  approximately  15  %  report  an  average  duration 
exceeding two months.  

EN 

163 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In addition, setting a minimum length for the public participation process ensures an 
appropriate  consultation  of  the  public,  allowing  sufficient  time  for  opinions  and 
suggestions to be made and incorporated early enough in the process. 

10.14.2.12.  Maximum time-frames for decision-making (screening-EIA decision) 

• 

Competitiveness, trade and investment flows 

As  general  rule,  the  lengthier  the  EIA  process,  the  higher  the  opportunity  costs 
incurred by developers. Ensuring that screening and the final decision phase do not 
exceed  respectively  1.5  month  and  2  months  on  average  would,  everything  being 
held equal, reduce by around 0.5 month the time required to complete all the steps of 
the  EIA  process.  This  modest  reduction  (equivalent  to  -5 %  approximately)  would 
not  translate  into  significant  direct  competitiveness  gains  for  developers  but 
nevertheless constitutes a step in the right direction. 

Generally  speaking,  setting  maximum  time-frames  improves  overall  visibility  over 
the  EIA  process  and  helps  developers  better  forecast  the  whole  duration  of  the 
project  lifecycle,  reducing  the  likelihood  of  unforeseen  delays.  This  contributes  to 
improving  the  overall  economic  environment  for  developers  and  constitutes  a 
positive sign for investment. 

• 

Costs related to delays 

Expected  benefits  are  similar  to  those  described  for  the  previous  option  analysed 
(‘Clear time-frame for the public consultation process’). The positive and significant 
role of legally defined target durations on reducing the duration EIA processes and 
reducing  possible  delays  is  also  highlighted  in  a  recent  study  on  EU  permitting 
procedures carried out for DG ENER401. 

• 

Governance, participation, good administration and access to justice 

Impacts on governance and good administration are similar to those of the previous 
option analysed (‘Clear time-frame for the public consultation process’). 

10.14.2.13.  Coordination and integration with other legislation (EIA ‘one-stop shop’) 

• 

Governance, participation, good administration and access to justice 

Based on the experience from the Austrian approach, it seems that the coordinated or 
integrated  procedures  for  the  EIA  process  and  other  environmental  assessments 
enable  an  easier  access  to  documents,  as  information  of  different  permitting 
procedures is compiled under one Agency. 

• 

Costs related to delays 

The  length  of  the  EIA  process  in  Austria,  where  a  joint  procedure  for  the  EIA 
process and other environmental assessments is in place, ranges from 9 to 15 months 

401  

Roland Berger Strategy Consultants (2011), Permitting procedures for energy infrastructure projects in 
the EU: evaluation and legal recommendations. 

EN 

164 

   EN 

 
                                                 
and  hence  corresponds  to  the  average  length  of  an  EIA.  However,  within  the  same 
time period all the other permitting requirements will also be addressed and hence it 
is  likely  that  this  coordinated  approach  will  reduce  the  costs  of  delays,  not 
necessarily from the EIA itself, but also from those arising from other permits. 

10.14.3. Summary of wider socio-economic impacts 

Based  on  the  qualitative  description  of  wider  socio-economic  impacts  associated 
with each amendment, a comparative overview of these impacts is presented in the 
Table  28.  For  each  group  of  amendments,  the  analysis  demonstrated  that  the  vast 
majority  of  such  impacts  are  either  positive  or  neutral  for  the  main  stakeholders 
(authorities, developers, consultants), with a few exceptions that did not appear to be 
significant.  The  levels  of  benefits  (limited,  moderate,  high)  are  based  on  the 
qualitative assessment contained in this chapter. 

Table 28: Summary of wider socio-economic benefits 

Possible 
amendments 

Internal 
market 

Competit
iveness  

Wider economic benefits 
Avoided 
damages and 
wastage, risk 
prevention 

EU economic actors 

Developers 
and society 

Decrease in 
costs on 
delays 

Governan
ce 

Wider social benefits 
Health, 
safety, 
quality of 
life 

Jobs 
creation 

Developers 

Civil 
society 

Society at large  

Decrease 
in costs 
on legal 
disputes 
Public 
authorities 
Developers
society 

Adaptation of Annexes 
I and II 

Alternative procedure 
for Annex II projects  
Modification of Annex 
III   
Justification of 
negative screening 
decisions 
Mandatory scoping 

Mechanism for quality 
control 
Mandatory assessment 
of reasonable 
alternatives 
Justification of final 
decisions 
Mandatory post-EIA 
monitoring 
Additional 
environmental issues 
Specific time-frame for 
public consultation 
Maximum time-frames 
for decision-making  
Coordinated or 
integrated/joint 
procedure (EIA ‘one-
stop shop’) 

Moderate 

Limited 

Limited to 
high 

Moderate 

Moderate  Moderate 

/ 

/ 

Moderate  Moderate 

High 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Limited 

Limited 

Limited 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

Moderate 
to high 

/ 

High 

High 

Limited 

Moderate  Moderate  Moderate 

Moderate  Moderate 

Moderate 

Moderate 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

Moderate 

Limited 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Limited 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Limited 

Moderate 

Limited 

High 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Limited 

Limited 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Limited 

High 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Limited 

High 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

Limited 

High 

Limited 

High 

Moderate 

/ 

/ 

/ 

High 

Limited 

High 

Limited 

Moderate  Moderate 

Limited 

Moderate  Moderate 

Moderate 

Limited 

Moderate  Moderate 

/ 

Moderate  Moderate 

Limited 

/ 

/ 

High 

Moderate 

/ 

High 

Limited 

Limited 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/: zero or negligible impact 

EN 

165 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10.15.  Annex 15: Specific monitoring parameters 

Amendments 

Adaptation of Annexes I and II 

Alternative procedure for Annex II 
projects 

Modification of Annex III criteria 

Justification of negative screening 
decisions 

Mandatory scoping 

Quality control of the EIA 
information 

Mandatory assessment of reasonable 
alternatives 

Justification of final decisions 

Mandatory post-EIA monitoring 

Additional environmental issues 

Specific time-frame for public 
consultation 

Maximum time-frames for decision-
making 

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

Examples of relevant parameters to be monitored (in 
each Member State) 

Average duration of the screening process 
Average number of man-days required by authorities to conduct 
screening 
Average cost of an EIA for developers 
Number of alternative procedures/year 
Average duration of the screening process 
Average number of man-days required by authorities to conduct 
screening 
Average cost of an EIA for developers 
Breakdown of EIAs undertaken by type of developer  
Average duration of the screening process 
Average number of man-days required by authorities to conduct 
screening 
Average duration of the screening process 
Average number of man-days required by authorities to conduct 
screening 
Nature of justifications given (could be analysed for a sample of 
EIAs) 
Qualitative judgment from competent authorities on the level of 
quality of EIA reports (e.g. on a 5-level scale), covering the quality 
and relevance of data used and the quality of the data analysis  
Number of accredited consultants  
Average accreditation costs for consultants  
Average cost of an EIA for developers 
Qualitative judgment from competent authorities on the quality of 
the assessment of reasonable alternatives (e.g. on a 5-level scale) 
% EIAs where the assessment of reasonable alternatives has resulted 
in substantial changes to the initial project in order to obtain a 
development consent (could be analysed for a sample of EIAs) 
Average cost of an EIA for developers 
Nature of justifications for negative final decisions (could be 
analysed for a sample of EIAs) 
Nature of conditions attached to final decisions (could be analysed 
for a sample of EIAs) 
Types of environmental parameters monitored 
Average cost of monitoring for developers 
% projects inspected each year by the authorities 
Number and types of actions required by the authorities following 
the inspection activities 
Qualitative judgment from competent authorities on the coverage of 
these additional issues (e.g. on a 5-level scale) 
Average cost of an EIA for developers 
% EIAs where the public consultation has resulted in substantial 
changes to the initial project in order to obtain a development 
consent (could be analysed for a sample of EIAs) 
Average man-days required by the authorities to carry out each step 
of the EIA process 
Level of integration of environmental assessment processes 
Average duration of each step of the EIA process 
Average number of man-days required by authorities to conduct 
each step of the EIA process 
Average cost of an EIA for developers  

EN 

166 

   EN 

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

Opinion of the Impact Assessment Board 
of 19 March 2012 

Changes made  

(1) Strengthen the problem definition and improve the baseline scenario 

The report should present a more comprehensive 
overview of the application of the current EIA 
directive indicating the magnitude of the practical 
application difficulties and illustrating problems 
observed in the Member States. It should then give a 
much more explicit definition and description of the 
concrete problems and shortcomings to be addressed 
and should demonstrate in a clearer way their 
relevance and magnitude, their underlying drivers and 
why there is a need to act now. This should include the 
presentation of a detailed problem tree and an 
explanation of differences in the application by 
Member States (e.g. concerning the screening exercise, 
number of EIAs).  

Chapter 3 has been appropriately revised. Firstly, it 
now provides a description of the main features of the 
EIA Directive and an overview of its application across 
the EU (including information on key parameters, e.g. 
number of EIAs, duration, administrative costs). 
Secondly, it presents the strengths and weaknesses of 
the EIA (including environmental and wider socio-
economic benefits). The analysis closely refers to the 
application of the EIA in the Member States, when data 
are available. Thirdly, it describes the specific problems 
encountered when applying the EIA and their drivers, 
with appropriate information and relevant examples 
(from the public consultation, studies and literature) 
demonstrating the relevance and magnitude of the 
problems. The problem tree has been revised and 
moved into the main text from the Annexes.  

The report should present a detailed overview of the 
gaps in implementation and of infringements relevant 
to the application of the directive. 

Sections 3.2 and 3.3 refer to the implementation 
experience (i.e. main implementation gaps on the basis 
of the infringements/complaints) 

The report should strengthen the baseline scenario by 
clearly outlining the weaknesses of the existing 
directive and by showing how the situation would 
evolve if no further EU action is taken. It should then 
present this strengthened baseline as a real reference 
for the comparison of the options.  
The report should clarify potential overlaps with other 
(environmental) legislation. 

Section 3.4 has been thoroughly revised. It now focuses 
on the evolution of impacts if no EU action is taken and 
presents a realistic reference for the comparison of the 
different options examined.  

This is one of the specific problems described now with 
more detail (section 3.3).  

(2) Establish a clear intervention logic and objectives 

The report should strengthen the intervention logic by 
clearly connecting the problems/problem drivers and 
the objectives, and by linking the latter directly to 
corresponding policy options to substantiate the 
proportionality of the measures.  
The report should specify in more detail if and in 
which way the initiative is related to other policy 
initiatives. 
The objectives should be presented in a more explicit 
and ‘SMART’ way by breaking them down into 
general, specific and operational objectives, to allow 
the options to be compared in terms of effectiveness 
and efficiency. 

The problem tree has been revised and moved into the 
main text. The drivers/problems, objectives, 
amendments and policy options are clearly linked (see 
chapters 4 and 5). 

Section 4.3 refers to the links with other policy 
initiatives (Europe 2020, Resource Efficient Europe, 
energy policy, cohesion policy). 
Although the EIA is essentially a process driven 
Directive, which does not set specific and measurable 
environmental standards, operational objectives have 
been defined and made explicit. Furthermore, the 
general and specific objectives have been reformulated. 

(3) Better present the content of the options 

The report should improve the presentation of the 
options by including a more detailed description of the 
content of the feasible options, with a clearer 
differentiation between options 1 and 2 and sub-
options 2a-2c, by avoiding a bias towards the preferred 
option. 
The justification for discarding certain options should 
be provided up-front in a separate sub-section (with a 
more detailed analysis in an annex). 

Chapter 5 has been restructured with a view to 
describing in detail the content of the feasible policy 
options (0+, 1, 2a, 2b and 2c). In this regard, additional 
tables have also been included. 

The justification for discarding certain options is 
summarised in the main text, while a more detailed 
analysis of has moved to Annex 6. 

(4) Better assess and compare impacts 

EN 

167 

   EN 

 
The report should considerably reinforce the analysis 
of impacts and should include clear explanations if 
certain impacts cannot be analysed, e.g. due to a lack 
of data. If impacts cannot be quantified then the report 
should at least include some information on the 
general magnitude of the expected impacts for the 
different options on the basis of reasonable 
assumptions. To accomplish this, the report should 
move relevant information from the annexes 12-14 to 
the main text. The report should assess more 
thoroughly the impacts on business, particularly SMEs 
and on sector competitiveness, as well as wider socio-
economic impacts. 

The report should describe the major impacts in terms 
of administrative burden in a more proportionate 
manner, by analysing the different (sub-) options on an 
equal basis, avoiding a bias towards the preferred 
option, and by including the underlying methodology 
and assumptions.  

The report should also provide a more differentiated 
assessment of the impacts by Member States.  

The report should compare the options explicitly 
against the baseline scenario in terms of effectiveness, 
efficiency and coherence. 

The analysis of the environmental and wider socio-
economic impacts was reinforced. In particular, 
relevant information was moved from the annexes into 
the main text (mainly the assessment of impacts from 
the various amendments). When no data was available, 
this was highlighted.  
This has allowed providing a more robust and clearer 
assessment of the magnitude of environmental and 
wider socio-economic impacts (sections 6.1 and 6.3). 
The report (in chapters 3 and 6) contains specific and 
detailed analysis on the impacts of the options on 
competitiveness and business/SMEs. 

The basic assumptions and methodologies used are 
explained, with emphasis on those regarding direct 
administrative costs.  

The administrative costs are first analysed per specific 
amendment and then per policy option. The analysis is 
proportionate and more attention is given to 
amendments likely to have high costs.  
This has been done when data and information are 
available; however, due to lack of data it was not 
possible to provide a differentiated assessment per 
region. 

This has been done in chapter 7 (see table 16). 

(5) Clarify the future monitoring and evaluation arrangements. 

The report should provide more developed monitoring 
and evaluation arrangements, including a set of robust 
progress indicators that are clearly linked to the 
preferred option and operational objectives. 

Chapter 8 was amended in order to:  
-  include  additional  monitoring  parameters  (which  are 
linked 
the 
amendments of the preferred option). 
- detail the evaluation arrangements that will be put in 
place.  

the  operational  objectives  and 

to 

(6) Procedure and presentation 

The report should aim to achieve a better balance in 
the distribution of relevant information between the 
different annexes and the main text. The report should 
be shortened while retaining the most relevant 
information in the main text. 

This has been done by using of references, by inserting 
new tables and footnotes and by moving relevant 
information from the Annexes into the main text; this 
taken into account the need for complying with the 
recommendations 1 and 4. 

The report should be streamlined in terms of language 
to allow the non-expert reader to fully understand the 
presentation and analysis. 

The report should present stakeholder views more 
systematically throughout the text. 

A summary of the EIA Directive process was moved 
from the Annex to section 3.1.1. A glossary was also 
added. 
The views of stakeholders and the findings of the 
public consultation are presented for the main issues 
(either in the main text or in the footnotes), mainly for 
the problem definition, the policy options and when 
analysing the impacts from the possible amendments. 

EN 

168 

   EN