Member States are required to comply with the directive by 3rd. July 198S. At present, the only guides to future implementation are the public pronouncements by governments and the stances adopted during negotiations on the directive.
Eetween 1980 and 1985, some member states, such as Germany, indicated a high priority to the adoption of the EIA directive. It can be assumed, therefore, that the directive will be implemented quickly and smoothly within such countries.
In countries with a small constituency for environmental issues, EC legislation already provides a ma ior impetus for domestic reform and the same is likely to be true of EIA. In the case of Belgium, for example, the EC requirement for EIA is likely to force uniform actions by the regions. Lee and Wood <1985) consider that Eire may need to broaden its EIA provisions in order to comply with the directive. The system for EIA developed in the Netherlands appears to be in conformity with the directive (Brouwer 1986). Some member states, however, particularly Greece and Italy, seem to have practical difficulties and sometimes even apparent reluctance, in incorporating EC provisions into domestic legislation, which may lead to delays-in implementation of the directive.
p a g e 22
The case of the UK needs special consideration because of the protracted opposition of government to the directive. In addition, some elements of a UK response are beginning to emerge which appear to conform to a pattern previously seen in the implementation of other EC directives.
Cartain facets of t he direct i vs may ys t prove "hostages to fortune" with respect to its implementation within the UK.
Thus, the provisions designed to exempt projects "...adopted by a specific act of legislation", may provide an opportuity to circumvent the requirements of the directive in at least one important case. There appears to be a commitment on the part of the UK government to push the Channel Tunnel project through to fruition as quickly as possible. The UK Transport Minister is already committed there being no planning inquiry for this development. Under the terms of the EC EIA directive, participation would be obligatory. The project, however, is likely to be approved using the Parliamentary device previously used to approve the Uindscale reprocessing plant, a hybrid bill, thereby placing the most important UK civil engineering project of this decade outside the scope of the EIA directive.
An essential feature of all EC directives is that detailed imp 1ementaion is left. to the member states.
Consequently, shortly before the EIA directive was adopted, the DOE established a working group to oversee implementation, but only with respect to developments covered by planning law. The initial remit of the group was to draw up guidelines concerning the type of information to be covered in an environmental assessment and to determine pre-and post- assessment procedures for handling an appraisal.
p a g e 2 3
The results of the group’s deliberations will be published as a consultative document.
When the group was established in April 1985, it was anticipated that the consultative document would be available i n ate Autumn”, 1985. The group met for the last time in November 1985, but difficulties were encountered
subsequently. Thus, on 30 January 1986, a Minister at the DOE indicated that "there are one or two points that we are still considering (Waldegrave 1986). When this chapetr was written (mid April 1986) the document still had not been pub Ii s hed.
The working group comprised some twenty members drawn from government departments, local authority associations, the planning profession and industry as well as one member from an amenity society. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) refused to participate in the group apparently on the grounds that most agricultural practice is outside the scope of planning legislation and, therefore, not affected by the directive.
It should be noted that the farming lobby, powerful and effective within the UK, has successfully withstood all attempts to bring agriculture under town and country planning law since its initial enactment in 1947. MAFF’s stance is an attempt to maintain the status q u o . The directive is a threat to this position, as poultry and pig-rearing installations and the intensive cultivation of semi-natural areas are included in Annex 11 of the directive. A recent
proposal to bring intensive livestock units under planning control following a recommendation of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution has been restricted to those that are
p a g e 24
close to residential areas, which constitute, therefore, a public nuisance rather than an environmental hazard. This again indicates a policy of containment on the part of agricultural interests. A blanket exemption of agricultural projects in Annex II or of those not subject to planning law would do much to reduce the potential of the directive. This appears to be M A F F ’s objective.
The second issue which is of note is the controversy which has arisen over public participation. D O E ’s original proposal was to introduce a formal requirement that public consultation should commence prior to the submission of a planning application, arguing that this would help define the scope of an appraisal. Industrial representatives within the working group opposed this suggestion. In the draft consultative document prepared by this group it was proposed that a new notification system should be adopted. This would require developers to notify the planning authority of the intention to submit a planning application for a development for which an environmental assessment would be necessary.
This should occur at least two months, but not more than five years, before submission of the planning application.
Subsequently, the environmental assessment would have to be submitted with the planning application. This modification to present practice would require an amendment of UK statutory procedures, but it remains to be seen whether the Minister will accept this change.
The greatest controversy in the UK, however, is likely to attach to the treatment of Annex II projects. The civil servant chairing the working party has stated that it was understood in the UK that "...it would be open to the
p a g e 25
Government not to make Assessment compulsory for Annex 11 it
projects (Fuller 1986). The unpublished draft consultative document prepared by the working group goes further and states categorically that "... the Government has decided that no such extension.. . "of mandatory provisions to Annex I I projects should be made. A senior official of the EC Commission indicated in Septmber 1985 that Annex II is not considered by the Commission to be optional and that any decision by a member state to exclude all types of project listed in Annex II would contraven both the letter and spirit of the directive. Therefore, it seems that this issue will only be resolved when the UK government officially notifies the EC Commission of the measures taken to implement the d i recti ve.
The final recommendation included in the final draft consultative document relates to the consideration of alternatives; a very restrictive viewpoint has been adopted.
A developer only has to include reference to alternative sites in an environmental appraisal, and need not mention, for example, other ways of achieving the same objectives.
Thus, within the UK it appears that an attempt is being made merely to absorbs the EIA directive into current practice, with few substantive changes in approach. The directive could have provided a vehicle for reform of the UK planning system with, for example, mandatory requirements for the assessment of agricultural and forestry developments, an objective of the environmental lobby for many years. What is likely to be achieved will be far more modest. Undoubtedly, some classes of Annex 1 project, such as waste disposal facilities, are likely to be subject to more detailed
p a g e 26
scrutiny than previously. Yet, having substantially reduced the potential of the EIA directive prior to its adoption, the UK government appears to be continuing to nullify its impact
i n f o i"mu 1 a t i n g the i mp 1 emen tat ion procedures . This approach to containment, however, is nothing new. It has also been been adopted, for example, with the shellfish directive (Young and Uathern 1984) and the less favoured areas directive (Wathern et al. 1986).
In most member states, the EIA directive will have beneficial effects. For some, it will provide a means of overhauling land-use planning systems which are fragmentary.
To a large extent, however, its impact, as in the UK, will depend upon domestic political interests. Without the pr eventat i ve ant i c i patory
necessary commitment to
environmental policy, individual member states may do no more than just formally comply with the directive. Considering the fate of these relatively modest provisions for project assessment which already exists in some guise or other in most member states, the prognosis for the aspiration that there should be further directives concerned with plan and policy appraisal is bleak.
CONCLUSIONS
A series of directives requiring environmental impact assessment not only for projects, but also for plans and policies would do much to advance the cause of preventative environmental policy within Europe. After a decade of deliberations, however, the EC has been able to adopt only the most meagre of provisions for project assessment which do
p a g e 2 7
no more than tormaiise those that already exist in most member states. For Belgium. Greece. Italy and Spain the need to c o m p l y w i t h the d i r e c t i v e m a y be a spur to f o r m u l a t i n g
national legislation. but for the remainder little material change is likely. This is not totally unexpected, however, as some member states, particularly the UK, certainly approached the discussions over the EIA directive intent on containing its potential effects. The need for the Council of Ministers to be unanimous in a decision to adopt legislation ensures that Community policy represents those minimal provisions acceptable to each member state.
A directive is a. relatively ineffective means for introducing EC environmental policy, primarily because formulation of the detailed implementation provisions is left to individual member states. The result is that policy may be applied unevenly across the Community further underlining the wide discrepenoies which are evident in the priority afforded to envi ronmenta1 protection in different member states.
Sufficient discression over the directive remains with member states to ensure that compliance can be achieved with widely varying implementation procedures. From detailed consideration of the situation in the UK, it is clear that at.
least one member state has ensured that the directive will not impinge upon domestic environmental policy. Yet, this has been achieved without the UK being in breach of the directive except, perhaps, over the Annex 11 projects.
UK government treatment of major development proposals, however, gives an even stronger indicator of intent concerning EIA. The Channel Tunnel proposal is the first
p a g e 28
Annex I project. in the UK since the EIA directive was a d op ted, Therefore, it s h o u 1d require mandatory environmental impact assessment under the terms of the directive. By taking the proposal out of the established development control procedures, however, the UK government has placed it beyond the scope of the directive in order to avoid the protracted public consultations which almost certainly would accrue.
From UK experience, it is clear that the national percept i on of pr ioriti.es concer n ing deve 1 opment and the environment is likely to be the major factor in applying E1A, rather than the existence of an EC directive.
Furthermore, those who look to EIA as a means of balancing the legitimate, but competing, demands of development and the environment, particularly when government has a pre-stated interest in the outcome, have been afforded little encouragement by the provisions of the EC directive.
p a g e 29
REFERENCES
Anon (.1978) Interview avec M.L. Dhoore. Environmental Policy and L a w , 4, 42-45.
Anon (1980) Redrafting the EEC Contnissions's draft directive on E1A. E N D S , 4 4 , 17-18.
Anon (1985a) Bad environmental science - or impoverished scientists? E N D S , 126, 2.
Anon (. 1985b) Environmental assessment directive adopted at last ENDS. 125, 9-11.
Anon (1986) Environment Minister encourages public to d i scuss draft of new envir onmenta1 law.
International Environmental Reporter, 9, 124.
Brouwer, H.C.G.M. (1986) Experience in Implementing
Environmental Impact Assessment in the Netherlands.
Paper to the CEMP Conference on the EEC
Environmental Assessment Directive, 30-31 January 1986, London.
I* It
Bunge, T. (1984) Zur U m v e 1tvertragiichkeitsprufung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland - eine Zwischenbilanz.
Zeitschrift fur U m w e 1t p o 1itik, 4, 405-424.
Catlow, J. and Thirlwall, C.G.C1976) Environmental Impact Ana lysis. DOE Research Report No. 11, Department of the Environment, London.
Clark, B.D., Chapman, K . , Bisset, R. and Wathern, P.
(1976) The Assessment of Maior industrial
Applications - A Manual. DOE Research Report No.13, Department of the Environment, London.
Clark, B.D., Chapman, K . , Bisset, R . , Wathern, P. and
Commission of the European Communities (1980) Proposal for a Council directive concerning the assessment of environmental effects of certain public and private projects. Official Journal of the European
Communi t ies, c 169, 9.7.80.
Council of the European Communities (1977) Second programme of action on the environment.
Official Journal of the European Commun i t i e s , c!34, 13.6.77.
Council of the European Communities (1985) On the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Official
Journal of the European Communities, L175, 28.5.85.
Dalas, W.G. (1984) Experiences of environmental impact assessment procedures in Ireland. In Roberts, R.D.
and Roberts, T.M. (Eds), Planning and Ecology.
Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 389-395.
Foster, B.J. (1984) Environmental impact assessment in the UK. Zeitschrift fur U m w e 1tpo1itik. 4, 389-404.
Fuller, G.I. (1986) The Environmental Assessment.
P r o p o s a l s for Implementation. Paper to the CEMP Conference on the Environmental Assessment
Directive, 30-31 January 1986, London.
p a g e 30
Haigh, N. (1983) The EEC directive on envionmental assessment of development projects. Journal of Planning and Environmental L a w . Sept 1983. 585-595.
Ha i g h . N . (1934') EEC Environmental Policy & Britain.
Environmental Data. Services Ltd., London.
House of Lords (1981) Environmental Assessment of
Projects. 11th Report of the Selecct Committee on the European Communities, H.M.S.O., London.
Jones, M.G. (1980) Developing an EIA process for the Netherlands. Environmental Impact Assessment Rev iew. 1_, 167-180. impact assessment within the European Economic
Community. Journal of Environmental Management, 2 1 . 271-186.
Macrory, R. and Lafontaine, M. (1982) Pub lie inquiry and Enquete Publique. Environmental Data Services Ltd., London.
Monbailliu, X. (1983) Role of environmental impact assessment in plans and policies. In PADC (Eds), Environmental impact Assessment, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, pp. 95-101.
Prieur, M. (1984) Les Etudes d ’impact en droit franpais.
Zeitschrift fur U m w e 1tpoIitik, 4, 367-388.
Waldegrave, W. (1986) The EEC Environmental Assessment Directive. Keynote speech to the CEMP Conference on
the Environmental Assessment Directive. 30-31 January 1986, London.
Wathern, P., Brown, I.W., Roberts, D.A. and Young, S.N.
(1983) Some Effects of EEC Policy. Report to the Directorate General for the Environment, Consumer Protection and Nuclear Safety, Commission of the directive in Wales. Water Science and Technology, 17, 1199-1209.
p a g e 31