1 / 20

Marc Thauront Brussels 30 June 2008

Marc Thauront Brussels 30 June 2008. Basic principle. The document will not redraft the directives which were adopted under the umbrella of the principles developed by the EU treaty.

kayce
Download Presentation

Marc Thauront Brussels 30 June 2008

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Marc Thauront Brussels 30 June 2008

  2. Basic principle The document will not redraft the directives which were adopted under the umbrella of the principles developed by the EU treaty Community policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection… It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay.

  3. GCF: authorisation process

  4. Stakeholders vision(Rotterdam, Venice may 2008) Sulphur Directive + SECA’s Air quality Directive Noise Directive EMS Waterframework Directive Environmental Quality Standards Soil pollution Directive IMO + Marpol (Strategic) EIA Directive Waste Directive GroundwaterDirective Birds and Habitat Directive Ship Waste Directive Energy policy + Climate change policy National Emission Ceiling Directive ICZM IPPC WG: SEA is not EIA, both have integrative an approach

  5. Scheme for studies SEA: plans and programmes, focus on Natura 2000, consider water and biodiversity, potential impacts alternatives and monitoring system, consultations (even transboundary) EIA:direct and indirect effects on fauna, flora (strengthened by HFF art.12), waters, mitigation… Art. 4.7 WFD Art. 6.3 & 6.4 HFF other

  6. Preliminary studies • Plans and programmes (P&P)= • — which are subject to preparation and/or adoption by anauthority at …regional or local level or… • — which are required by legislative, regulatory or administrativeprovisions; • Environmental assessment… for all P&P • which are prepared for …,energy, industry, transport, waste management, watermanagement, …country planning or land use and which set the frameworkfor future development consent of projects listed inAnnexes I and II to EIA Directive • which, in view of the likely effect on sites, have beendetermined to require an assessment pursuant to Article 6or 7 (=SPA) of HFF Directive. Link with 6.3 ?

  7. Preliminary studies • SEA, information to be provided includes: • the relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the plan or programme; the environmental characteristics of areas likely to be significantly affected; • any existing environmental problems…includingthoserelating to any areas… designated pursuant to Nature Dir. • the environmental protection objectives, established at international, Community or MS level…, relevant …and the way those objectives… have beentaken into account…; • the likely significant effects1 on the environment, including on issues such as biodiversity…, fauna, flora, water,… and the interrelationship between the above factors; • Mitigation and alternatives are considered too • (1) These effects should include secondary, cumulative, synergistic, short, medium and long-term permanent and temporary, positiveand negative effects.

  8. GCF: appropriate assessment

  9. Appropriate assessment Demand from both EIA and HFF-art 6.3 Natural value & Conservation objectives Basic needs Potential impacts + = “Significant” = Threshold to be justified depending on conservation objectives “Appropriate” = Basic needs covered + justification proposed

  10. Appropriate assessment Step 1: basic needs Why a project ? (includes first IROPI assessment) Why here ? (includes first alternatives assessment) Potential impacts of such a project (general literature) Preliminary knowledge on the natural value of the area and the conservation objectives Step 2: Project design Technical studies for EIA, including fauna, flora, water Step 3: Legal steps and consultation EIA including HFF art 6 and WFD art 4.7 Step 4: Authorisation and synchronised decision for investments

  11. GCF: alternatives

  12. Alternatives What is an alternative for PRA? Reduced project or project including mitigation/compensation areas ? several locations (geographical scope ?) Not only alternative location but alternative solution

  13. Integrated approach (adapted from Rijkswaterstaat) Alternatives &integrated planning Port related activity 2-ecology 3-landscape 4-water management technical plan ecological plan landscape plan management plan Water plan Alternative designs + costs Communication Project design Realisation

  14. Non-integrated approach (adapted from Rijkswaterstaat) Port related activity Alternatives &integrated planning technical design landscape water ecology alternative designs + costs project design realisation management

  15. GCF: mitigation and compensation

  16. Mitigation or compensationmeasures • EIA: mitigation only, some national laws may refer to compensation (e.g. FR) • Art.6 (WFD): mitigation and compensation • Art 4.7 (WFD): mitigation • Common questions: functionality, cost effectiveness and affordability, after-care of the focused areas • Specific question for biodiversity offsets: how to assess the value of damage to be compensated and the network coherence • Compensation in legal texts versus accompanying measures in ports communication (Corporate social and environmental responsibility concept) • Who has to manage the future of the saved or restored ecological areas and ecosystems services ? Is the cost incurred a complementary compensation ?

  17. Proportionality ? Mitigation or compensationmeasures • Why the size of the project doesn’t fit with the size of the impact ? • How to compare a 1000 ha extension on maize fields and a 100 ha extension on a rare wetland ? • Le Havre 45 M€, Bremerhaven 90 M€: cost incurred by port authorities (project compensation) or by other public authorities (plan compensation)

  18. Mitigation or compensationmeasures Man-made ecosystems: economical stakeholders or regional/local authorities may produce services for the ecosystem: e.g. is management dredging part of ecosystem functioning today ? A key question is probably : is “artificial” maintenance of biodiversity and ecosystems services within a habitat/water body an answer to the pressure? Who has to implement it ?

  19. GCF: indirect impacts

  20. Indirect impacts How to consider indirect and cumulative impacts ? e.g.: increasing of maritime traffic may locally increase road traffic too and create new needs of infrastructures Transshipment evolution and pre and post deliveries by modal transport in Le Havre  Integrated planning and SEA

More Related