Czech Business Today

A proposal amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) discussed in the EP raises numerous concerns. 

The proposal is allegedly aimed at correcting shortcomings, reflecting ongoing environmental and socio-economic changes and challenges and aligning it with the principles of smart regulation. The EIA directive should be implemented flexibly and proportionately; the imperative is to avoid excessive and unnecessary delays throughout the whole chain of approval processes. The proposed amendment of the EIA directive is led by the best intentions to streamline the EIA process and facilitate required investments. Unfortunately, many of the suggested provisions lag behind such intentions and would make things worse. 

The most serious problems are summarised as follows:

• An attempt to graft substantive legal requirements onto the principal process regulatory item: the “new challenges” are the best example how it should not be done.
• The frame of the assessment should, therefore, be limited to those effects which are caused explicitly by the specific project, and exhibit expected significant effects on the environment.
• Scoping can be an interesting instrument for setting the extent of assessment; a point of discussion is if it should be a compulsory provision, perhaps, better, not.
• The addition of monitoring requirements would add additional costs and burdens, as well as complexity. For example, it is not clear what would occur when transferring ownership of land.
• The concept of “reasonable alternatives” is too wide and imprecise. It is likely to increase the number of appeals to the detriment of the legal certainty of the projects.
• The Commission should not be empowered to adopt delegated acts adapting the Annexes II.A, II and IV.

The MEPs should refuse to use the Amendment of the EIA Directive to streamline the existing provisions, and refrain from amendments prepared by the Greens. 

No new obligations should be introduced, and the existing audit programme should not be extended. Ultimately, the Commission proposal and the green amendments would lead to considerable delays of the consent procedures, to increased administration costs and to great legal uncertainties. It bears the risk that due to the even more complex procedures industrial and infrastructural projects will become contestable and finally fail. As the progress blocking provision is the new requirement to subject exploratory works (unconventional energy sources, for instance) to the EIA process! 

Josef Zbořil 
Member, EESC