ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW --- BEST PRACTICES IN EU AND CENTRAL ASIA

1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW---BEST PRACTICES IN EU AND CENTRAL ASIA Regional coordination and support for the European Union – Central Asia enhanced regional cooperation on Environment and Water: WECOOP ------- Regional Seminar “Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment” FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

2. EIA procedure is based on national legislation (Law on Environmental Protection; the Law on Ecological Expertise). Constitution also states the people’s right to healthy environment. • EIA is also mandatory in projects financed by certain international organizations (e.g. ADB, EBRD, WB) – usually the government approves such documentation. • 1) National EIA process ("OVOS“) (by developers, who may be assisted by external, licensed experts) describing the intent and its environmental impacts. • 2) State Environmental (Ecological) Expertise/Review (SEE/SER, an administrative supervision tool) will analyze if a project complies with the national environmental, health and safety standards and regulations (several laws on environment). • Environmental standards include e.g. maximum allowable concentrations (MAC) of pollutants, maximum allowable effluent discharges, emissions and radiation, use of chemicals in agriculture. These will be added to Environmental Permit. • SEE/SER procedure considers also national policy documents (e.g. NEAP) and relevant international conventions. • Question: Natural resources are owned by the state and EIA process also is very much in the hands of the government – how to increase transparency? EIA RELATED LAWS IN CENTRAL ASIAN COUNTRIES FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

3. The EIA Directive (85/337/EEC) is in force since 1985 and applies to public and private projects defined in its Annexes. • Amendments: • • Directive 97/11/EC considering the UN ECE Espoo Convention on EIA in a Transboundary Context. • • Directive 2003/35/EC to align with the Aarhus Convention on public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. • • Directive 2009/31/EC amended the Annexes I and II of the EIA Directive, by adding projects related to the transport, capture and storage of carbon dioxide (CO2). • • Last codified version 2011/92/EU. • 2012 proposal: to lighten unnecessary administrative burdens and make it easier to assess potential impacts, without weakening existing safeguards. The quality of the decision-making process will be reinforced, current levels of environmental protection will be improved, and businesses should enjoy a more harmonised regulatory framework. Emerging challenges: resource efficiency, climate change, biodiversity and disaster prevention will now be reflected in the assessment process. EIA IN THE EU COUNTRIES FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

4. EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) to prevent deterioration, enhance and restore water bodies, achieve good chemical and ecological status and reduce pollution from discharges and emissions of hazardous substances. River Basin Management Plans. • Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) to maintain biodiversity, taking account of economic, social, cultural and regional requirements (incl. Natura 2000 Program). • Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) to protect threatened and all migratory bird species. • EU Waste-water Directive 91/271/EEC (and the amending Directive 98/15/EEC) concerning urban waste-water treatment and the treatment and discharge of waste water from certain industrial sectors. • EU Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC) to protect human health by laying down healthiness and purity requirements which must be met by drinking water. The directive not only aims at protecting human health but also the environment. • The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) requires action programmes for areas threatened by nitrate pollution (usually certain agricultural practices). • Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) on the assessment and management of flood risks and to assess if water courses and coast lines are at risk from flooding. • Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPC, 96/61/EC). Emissions to all the media (water, air, solid) counted together – and regulated as a whole (prevents splitting of emissions to avoid limitations). Other EU Directives related to EIA-SEA and water FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

5. 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 popul.). • Discretion of Member States (screening): for projects in Annex II, the national authorities decide whether an EIA is needed by the "screening procedure”. It determines the effects of projects (thresholds/criteria or a case by case examination). The national authorities must take into account the criteria laid down in Annex III. The projects listed in Annex II are in general those not included in Annex I (railways, roads waste disposal installations, waste water treatment plants), but also other types such as urban development projects, flood-relief works, changes of Annex I and II existing projects…). THE EU EIA DIRECTIVE (85/337/EEC etc.) FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

6. The developer may request the competent authority to say what should be covered by the EIA information to be provided by the developer (scoping); • The developer (usually hired expert team) must provide information on all the environmental impacts foreseen (EIA report – Annex IV); • EIA must identify the direct and indirect effects of a project on human beings, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climate, landscape, material assets and cultural heritage, as well as the interaction between these various elements. • Best Available Technologies (BAT) should be used in the project; • The environmental authorities and the public (and affected other countries) must be informed and consulted; • The competent authority decides, taken into consideration the results of consultations. The public is informed of the decision afterwards and can challenge the decision before the courts; • The proponent (developer) has the responsibility to carry out and finance the EIA study. SUMMARY OF EIA PROCEDURE IN EU FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

7. EIA is a procedure of evaluating the environmental and social impacts of any significant project and identifying ways to improve the project. • EIA aims at avoiding harmful effects on the environment, including natural resources, human health and welfare. • EIA is an important management tool for improving the long-term viability of projects, and its use can help to avoid mistakes that can be expensive and damaging (e.g. cumulative and indirect effects). • EIA should analyse any risks becoming possible due to the project. • EIA procedure is not an obstruction to investment decision rather it is an aid to decision-making (institutionalise environmental debate). • EIA should be conducted and approved before any permission for the project implementation has been awarded. • EIA will define conditions how the project can be conducted in practice and how environmrntal changes must be monitored and reported. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

8. Proponent (incl. consultants and experts representing the proponent) responsible for the project and the EIA study – and also responsible for the implementation of the conditions defined in the EIA and decision documents. Professional EIA consulting firms will conduct the EIA study; • Competent authority (regulator) responsible for EIA decisions (approval, rejection or asking additional studies to be made); • Government authorities providing supporting information (e.g. planning and expert organisations) and assessing the project from their point of view; • Citizen (e.g. inhabitants of the area in question, non-governmental organisations, scientists) participating to scoping, information flows, impact assessments, monitoring, etc. Who are involved in the EIA process? FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

9. To inform people about the characteristics, location, and design of the proposed activity to lessen controversies and anxiety. • To provide means for those who may be affected by the project to provide local expertise and knowledge into the planning, assessment and monitoring of a project. • To determine the scope of the EIA. Those who will be affected by an activity have a role in identifying the important issues or concerns and alternatives to be analysed, and in setting criteria for the EIA. • To acquire information, public perceptions and possible alternatives and options for the implementation of the project. The individuals and communities affected may be a primary source of information for the EIA. • To identify key issues and to obtain critical review of documentation. • To establish mutually agreed rules and procedures for conducting public meetings and consultations. • To mobilise population to monitor and report any misconduct of developer during the construction and afterwards. WHY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS NECESSARY? FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

10. Scoping is the identification of environmental impacts that are most likely to be significant and therefore require investigation during the possible EIA work. The preparation of Terms of Reference for the EIA takes place during the scoping phase. • Many of the impacts of a proposed development may be trivial or of no significance to the decisions which have to be taken. Scoping is designed to identify the main issues and those issues perceived as being of importance in the eyes of the regulatory agencies, interested groups and the local community. • Public involvement in determining the scope of assessments is useful especially for controversial activities. Scoping may identify problems or conflicts, which can be alleviated or solved while the proposed project is still being developed. • Scoping may also be used to co-ordinate actions of the various agencies involved in the assessment and decision-making processes. • An open process while determining the scope of an EIA is also a crucial first step towards building mutual confidence in fair environmental assessment and problem-solving, and ultimately in a fair decision-making process. SCOPING FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

11. EIA – SCOPING TABLE FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

12. KUMTOR GOLD MINE IN KYRGYZSTAN – SCOPING?

13. KUMTOR GOLD MINE - KGZ Canadian company Centerra Gold, owner and operator of Kumtor Mine, the largest gold mine in CA managed by a Western company. 15,000 t of ore and 220,000 t of waste per day (total 89 million tons of tailings). The milling process: crushing, grinding, pyrite flotation and re-grinding of flotation concentrate.   Gold is recovered from the re-ground concentrate and flotation tails by two separate carbon-in-leach (CIL) circuits, while final gold recovery is achieved by electro-winning and refining. The company has been contaminating local waters and glaciers while hiding evidence of such negative impacts from public – this created major riots in the country. Tailings have been piled onto a glacier and melt water is washing the crushed rock materials to the river. It is evident that the EIA and Environmental Permit are too gentle considering the impacts. Now the Government wants to reconsider the EIA and environmental permits of the company. Maybe the country wanted investment so badly that environment was initially ignored – now when money started to flow, it is time to rethink and ask money and environmental protection. In CAR, there are several disputes against foreign mining firms; government takes mining royalties and may give sanctions to firms (e.g. environmental and technical audit; strict legislation on norms). The same probably takes place in oil and gas extraction.

14. Talvivaara Mine (est. 2008): The polymetallic deposits comprise one of the largest known sulphide nickel resources in Europe with 1 121 million tonnes of ore. Talvivaara applies new technology – “bioheapleaching” to extract the metals from ore (no earlier environmental experiences). The ore contains also cobalt, copper and uranium. The extensive EIA was originally well done, but was too optimistic – problems arose when the mine was extended and safety structures were not developed accordingly. Risk Assessment and Dam Safety methods in the EIA were inadequate for the extended volume of mining. Environmental authorities treated the mine gently as it is the biggest employer of the remote area. The mine emits wastewater 1.3 million m3/year (no treatment plant). REASONS FOR AN EIA FAILURE IN EU (FINLAND) FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

15. Due to 1) ”exceptional” rainfall, 2) problems with toxic process (raffinate) waters temporarily discharged to the gypsum sedimentation pond (without permission), and 3) hastily increased dam height due to mine extension, a catastrophic breach in the basin wall took place 2012. C. 10 million m3 water escaped to nature and to emergency ponds which were already full. Several lakes downstream were contaminated with e.g. metals, heavy metals (incl. uranium) and sulphates. EIA authority never understood that the EIA conditions were not followed. The company had not prepared a Water Management Plan as required in EIA. Cont. REASONS FOR AN EIA FAILURE IN EU (FINLAND) Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI FERC

16. Cont. REASONS FOR AN EIA FAILURE IN EU (FINLAND) FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

17. Since that, the situation has been out of control as huge amount of water is in flooding reservoirs. The mine has asked permission from court to continue the uncontrolled discharge, but permission was not given. The situation is still today almost hopeless. Government became to be the biggest owner of the mine as other investors escaped as a result of sinking value of shares. Lesson learnt! Cont. REASONS FOR AN EIA FAILURE IN EU (FINLAND) The company has tried to construct new emergency ponds and several canals to forest as they try to keep the pollution inside their own mining territory. Pollution concentrations are 10 x the allowed also outside of their area. Finnish ”Baia Mare – Tiza? Finland is world leading country in environmental management! Value of shares FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

18. I. Executive Summary • II. Description of General Development Plans • III. Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework • IV. Baseline Conditions in Area Potentially Affected by Development • V. Potential Environmental, Health and Safety Impacts (of each alternative) • A) Impact Prediction - Methodologies shall be relevant and scientifically valid to the issues to be addressed, and shall be capable of: • (i) identifying potential impacts (harmful or beneficial to the environment); • (ii) identifying receivers, habitats or resources which are vulnerable to change; • (iii) defining the project/environment interactions; • (iv) examining the chain of events or "pathways" linking cause with effect; • (v) describing and predicting the reasonable case scenario and/or the worst case scenario, or such scenarios as required in the EIA study brief; • (vi) predicting the likely nature, extent and magnitude of the anticipated changes and effects such that an evaluation, in quantitative terms as far as possible, can be made. CONTENTS OF EIA REPORT FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

19. B) Impact Evaluation - Evaluation of anticipated changes and effects (in quantitative terms as far as possible). Methodologies for evaluating the impact shall address the following: (i) the existing or projected environmental conditions without the project in place; (ii) the projected environmental conditions with the project in place and the sum total of the environmental impacts taking into account all relevant existing, committed and planned projects; (iii) a differentiation between the environmental impact caused by the project and that caused by other projects, and to what extent the project aggravates or improves the existing or projected environmental conditions (cumulative impacts, trends); (iv) the environmental impact during different phases of development of the project; (v) the evaluation of the seriousness of the residual environmental impacts. C) Impact Mitigation - Methodologies proposed for mitigation shall give priority to avoidance of impacts. The assessment methods shall be capable of: (i) identifying and evaluating mitigation measures in order to avoid, reduce or remedy the impacts; (ii) assessing the effectiveness of mitigation measures; and (iii) defining the residual environmental impacts, which are the net impacts remaining with the mitigation measures in place. D) Alternative Analysis Systematic analysis of environmental impacts of different alternatives Environmental costs and benefits for each of the alternatives Cont. CONTENTS OF EIA REPORT FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

20. VI. Risk assessment A. Description of potential risks, their probability and impacts (Risk = Impact x Likelihood) B. Measures to mitigate occurrence of risks (e.g. accidents and non-predictable events) C. Measures to mitigate impacts of potential risks D. Analysis of the overall importance of risks (scenarios) VII. Monitoring A. Description of targets for monitoring (stating what each analyse is telling) B. Monitoring methods, time-table and persons responsible (monitoring program) VIII. Statement of Commitments A. Commitment to minimizing the environmental impact(s) of a proposed project B. Commitments to develop Environment and Environmental Management Plans C. Adherence to authority permitting regulations and procedures IX. Appendices A. Permits issued and pending from environmental authorities / B. Author information C. Related maps, photographs, diagrams / D. Materials, checklists, etc. used for field investigations E. Published data on natural conditions of the area / F. Minutes and records of meetings held as part of EIA, including public hearings and consultations with government and non-governmental organisations / G. Reference bibliography CONTENTS OF EIA REPORT FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

21. The authorities should review the document to determine whether it meets the ToR and is of good quality. • The report should adequately cover all significant environmental consequences of the project and introduce all the viable alternatives or otherwise further environmental work is required. • Important lack of knowledge or data and the uncertainty in impact predictions (risks) resulting from this should be sufficiently indicated. • There might be environmental concerns that suggest that the project should not proceed. • Recommendations (non-binding) or conditions (binding) to further develop the plans can be presented to the proponent. • Possibly specific environmental design, management, mitigation or compensation measures need to be proposed. • The most appropriate design, management and monitoring plan should be required to ensure that the project does not result in unacceptable damage to the environment. The plans should be followed and controlled. DECISION-MAKING IN EIA FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

22. STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SEA ---BEST PRACTICES IN EU Regional coordination and support for the European Union – Central Asia enhanced regional cooperation on Environment and Water: WECOOP ------- Regional Seminar “Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment” FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

23. EU SEA Directive (2001/42/EC) on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes (PP) on the environment is a supplement the EIA Directive. • It requires the environmental effects of a broad range of PPs to be assessed so they can be considered while plans are actually being developed or modified, and in due course adopted. • The authority preparing a PP is responsible for conducting the SEA. • Article 1 of the SEA Directive states: • “The objective of this Directive is to provide for a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of PPs with a view to promoting sustainable development, by ensuring that, in accordance with this Directive, an environmental assessment is carried out of certain PPs which are likely to have significant effects on the environment.” Strategic Environmental Assessment SEA FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

24. Environmental Report should be made as part of an SEA, which identifies, describes and evaluates the likely significant effects on the environment of implementing a plan or program. Environmental authorities should have an opportunity to comment on whether or not they consider significant effects on the environment would be likely to arise. Realistic alternatives should be assessed and presented. • The public must also be consulted on the draft plans and the environmental assessment, and their views must be taken into account. • Making known the decision on adoption of the plan or programme and how SEA influenced the outcome. • Examples: Plans and guidelines for natural resources use, regional planning, overall infrastructure development, energy plans, plans to combat natural hazards & climate change, river basin management plans, industry, etc. • Experiences from the implementation are still rather limited. Governments have not fully employed SEA opportunities. Who have competence in preparing SEAs (governmental process / consultants usually needed)? Strategic Environmental Assessment SEA FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

25. Consider long-term trends and cumulative effects both with and without the proposed PP and avoid ‘snapshot’ analyses (EIA can be inefficient in this). • There are number of strategy documents, international conventions and best practices (and several EU Directives) that can be employed in SEA. • Base your recommendations on the precautionary principle and acknowledge assumptions and limitations of current knowledge. • SEA Directive also requires monitoring of significant environmental effects of the PP in order to identify unforeseen adverse effects at an early stage of PP implementation. • Scenarios are an effective way to deal with the uncertainty inherent in complex systems and imperfect data. Scenarios can be used to present a range of possible outcomes or pathways (e.g. climate change, accidents, population growth). • Consider principles of ”sustainable development”, ”green infrastructure”, ”eco-city”, ”universal urban strategic guidelines”, ”carbon footprint”, ”life-cycle analysis”, ”energy efficiency”, ”sustainable transport”, ”ecosystem services” etc. • SEA can be a significant environmental awareness raising tool. SEA METHODOLOGY FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

26. Policy SEA – (not applied in EU) review of proposed government actions and options at the broadest level; includes potentially wide range of decisions in the form of guidelines, statements, position papers, legislation and strategies relating to specific sectors (e.g. national energy policy) or applying government wide (e.g. privatisation, trade liberalisation); and can be extended to audit or reassessment of long established policies that have adverse environmental effects (e.g. agricultural subsidies). Sector plan and programme SEA – review of a development or investment programme for a particular sector (e.g. waste, energy, transport or agriculture); includes evaluation and comparison of the environmental effects of major alternatives (e.g. demand versus supply measures and mix of fuel sources for power generation); and can be extended to any series of projects that, when grouped together (e.g. by stage of technology), can have potential cumulative effects. Spatial plan and regional SEA – review of multi-sector development or investment programme for a particular region (e.g. river basin, coastal zone or urban area) or a land use plan for an officially designated area; includes evaluation and comparison of the environmental effects of alternative strategies and measures for plan implementation; and can be extended to regional or ecosystem assessment of cumulative effects on resource potentials, biodiversity or other aspects of natural capital stock. (In EU, long-term habitat protection – Natura 2000 program). Sources: adapted from Goodland (1998); World Bank (1993; 1996). SEA – 3 LEVELS – 2 LEVELS IN EU FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

27. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Final Environmental Report: • Severn Trent Water Ltd Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP) • http://www.stwater.co.uk/upload/pdf/Strategic_Environmental_Assessment.pdf • Table of Content similar to EIA. Baseline covers all the basic characteristics of the basin. • The approach is broader considering the whole river basin and all the development activities related to water resources and their utilization. • In scoping, all the pressures affecting water resources (quality and quantity) and all the environmental issues related to water were analyzed and ranked. • Assessment was done for each media – soils, water, air, population, etc. • Future scenarios of development and water related pressures were presented. • The WRMP was developed simultaneously with the SEA. • The strategic options set the framework for the WRMP through the identification of the key areas of improvement, investment or development that are required to fill any predicted deficits in the supply demand balance over the 25 year period (“Management Options”). • Environmental assessment was separately done for each Management Options which include alternative sources of water and institutional development of water management. • Cumulative impacts of different Management Options were assessed. • Monitoring programs and related indicators were drafted. CASE: SEA FOR WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

28. Few proposals for SEA programs: • SEA and River Basin Management Plans in major river basins (not separately for smaller basins) considering climate change and increasing water regulation and consumption upstream; • Wastewater Management Plan (adoption of new treatment and network technologies, remediation of sludge ponds, re-use of sludge; • Protection of lakes, rivers and their ecosystems (controlling water system alterations, pollution and exessive use – developing nature protection); • Etc. • Note: There are many related laws and regulations, but SEA is more practical, process-specific and identifies local characteristics of problems. SEA IN CENTRAL ASIA – NEEDS IN WATER SECTOR FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

29. CASE: CLIMATE CHANGE AND EIA-SEA In CAR, radical impacts caused by climate change (e.g. melting of glaciers, water shortage, floods) should be considered in most EIA-SEA studies. FERC Source: ADB TA-7532; Punkari et al. 2013 Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

30. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT --- PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE IN EU Regional coordination and support for the European Union – Central Asia enhanced regional cooperation on Environment and Water: WECOOP ------- Regional Seminar “Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment” FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

31. Two major benefits related to the EIA procedure have been identified: • • The EIA procedure ensures that environmental considerations are taken into • account in the decision-making processes; • • The EIA procedure ensures transparency in the environmental decision making. • The EIA Directive has facilitated effective EIA procedures, promoted the fundamental rights of public participation in decision-making and hence, added to the consolidation of the democratic development in several of the new Member States. Anyone’s access to challenge administrative EIA decisions has been a new feature creating transparency in many countries. • EIA and SEA have acted as environmental awareness raising tool and many complicated interactions have been understood. • The directives have initiated discussions on common values, ecological services and economic issues related to environment. ADVANTAGES OF EIA IN EU FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

32. Some wider potential policy and institutional benefits from use of SEA: • Mainstreaming environmental objectives (values – people/nature); • Incorporating sustainability principles into policy-making; • ‘Sustainability assurance’ for development proposals and options; • Meeting obligations under international environmental agreements; • Social progress which recognises the needs of everyone (equality); • Instituting environmental accountability in sector-specific agencies; • Greater transparency and openness in decision-making. A problem is that only very few meaningful SEAs have been produced – nobody is asking and financing them and they can be laborous and controversial (= dangerous for politicians). SEA EXPERIENCES FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

33. Most EU countries had an environmental study procedure before the EIA. Adopting a new procedure was laborous. Timing of EIA study before any decisions was new to some countries. • New EU Member States had experience on EIA because of 1) EU Acquis before joining EU, and 2) due to the Espoo and Aarhus Conventions applied by old EU states in their neighboring countries. Also in internationally financed projects EIA was applied. Otherwise the EIA procedure could have been difficult for them to adopt. • The screening mechanisms is problematic as there is a lack of capacity in ensuring sound screening and variations in applying thresholds and case-by-case screening. • Regulatory initiatives are needed against splitting of projects into several sub-projects to avoid EIA; • Public participation has not been properly adopted especially in the new member states. Identification of stakeholders ”public concerned” has not always been understood. The requirement of “early and effective opportunities to participate” rarely allows participation to take place in the scoping procedure. • Some countries have not included representatives from National Health Authorities among the authorities that must be consulted as part of screening as well as scoping decisions. • Transboundary consultation is problematic for many new Member Sates as they do not have common procedures to collaborate with environmental authorities abroad. • Implementation of monitoring has not been effective. The control of monitoring results have been inadequate and even major environmental accidents have taken place without any warning. Project’s monitoring burden has been forgotten after the construction had started (contents and control of environmental permit inadequate?). PROBLEMS IN EIA-SEA IMPLEMENTATION IN EU FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

34. Land-use plans have been done before and they show locations for e.g. industries – small changes are not subject to SEA. It is difficult to restrict development fitting with the approved land-use plan. • EIA-SEA is a collection of data published earlier and the quality of the data is usually unknown. • Especially socio-economic knowledge and data has been insufficient and poor in quality. • The countries have difficulties to know how EIA must be adjusted to SEA outcomes. • There have been difficulties to include IPPC principles into EIA (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control). • Many countries do not know how to consider climate change issues to EIA-SEA. • A main concern is that the quality control of EIA-SEA reports and data used is very different in different countries (quality review needed?). EIA analyses show that quality of EIA reports has been in many EU countries poor. • True or not? • In projects planned by governmental authorities, environmental authorities and EIA-SEA processes have been ignored. • In projects of major national importance, EIA requirements have been eased (e.g. mining projects). • EIA is pretending that environmental problems are solved – this has not been done in practice. • The presented alternatives are just for show. They have been selected with a purpose to show that the pre-planned way of implementing the project is the best one. • The purpose of EIA procedure is to wipe environmental issues away quickly so that they do not disturb the development project anymore. Submission of EIA has been seen as “end of line”. • Major part of the EIA text is same jargon appearing in all the reports compiled by the same author. cont. PROBLEMS IN EIA-SEA IMPLEMENTATION IN EU FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

35. SEA is for public sector (policies), programs and plans >< EIA for (usually private sector) development projects, industries, constructions, etc. Very seldom these processes overlap. Usually sector ministries have PPs e.g. on the future use of natural resources or infrastructure development – such need SEA process – each construction and investment needs EIA. • Why SEA is a separate procedure in land-use planning and sectoral development planning – and not just an essential part of the planning? Will the final situation be that there is always a general SEA and subsequent several EIAs for detailed projects? • Who should conduct and finance extensive SEA projects and when (also River Basin Management Plans, nature inventories, etc.)? Ministries have limited resources (only few countries have EPA). cont. PROBLEMS IN EIA IMPLEMENTATION IN EU FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

36. Environmental authorities do not have capacity and competence to conduct proper SER studies. • There is a possibility that SER studies have been used to create unreasonable financial burden to developers (extra taxation or corruption). • SER has created uncertainties among investors (obstacle to investment) as the system has in some cases misused. SER has been used to control companies more than environmental quality. • SER resolutions become shorter and increasingly focused on procedural issues rather than on substantive recommendations of mitigation measures (in Russia). • Public participation has been minimal in SER process. • Licences required from private researchers have become a method to inappropriately control and tax experts. However, it is necessary to increase capacity building among the EIA experts and maybe accreditation of authorities or consultants can also be used. • SER has been necessary for any projects (no screening) which increased bureucracy and payments. • SER can be developed to act as a review process of EIA (OVOS). • SEA should be adopted and applied more in the NIS countries (as a part of long-term planing). • True or not? • Authorities believe that they know everything best and e.g. alternatives are not even considered. • In economic projects planned by governmental authorities, weaker environmental authorities and EIA-SEA processes have been ignored. • In projects of major national importance, EIA requirements have been eased (e.g. mining projects). EIA VS. SER FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

37. Internet materials and training: • http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/home.htm • http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/sea-legalcontext.htm • http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/ • http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/index_en.htm • http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/scarcity_en.htm • http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/index.htm • http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/adaptation/index_en.htm • Training: http://eia.unu.edu/course/?page_id=173 • http://www.unep.ch/etu/publications/EIAman_2edition_toc.htm ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

38. XX ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI

39. XX ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW FERC Dr. MIKKO PUNKARI