Practical Guidance on the Sea and EIA Directives Training Key Elements

PRACTICAL GUIDANCE ON THE

SEA AND EIA DIRECTIVES TRAINING

KEY ELEMENTS

2013

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations. 3

Introduction. 4

Recommendation on key elements that should be included in SEA training. 7
Overview of SEA.. 7
Definition for plan/programme and scope of the SEA Directive. 10
Screening of plans/programmes. 14
Scoping stage of the SEA process. 17
Baseline information. 18
Consultations during the SEA process. 21
Environmental Report and draft plan/programme. 25
Quality control and assurance. 29
Decision-making. 30
Monitoring of significant effects of plans/programmes. 32
Recommendation on key elements that should be included in EIA training. 36
Overview of EIA.. 36
Screening – projects subject to a requirement for development consent. 38
Scoping stage of the EIA process. 45
Impact analysis. 47
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 49
Public participation and consultations with other competent authorities. 52
Review of EIA process. 58
Decision-making. 59
EIA implementation and follow-up. 62

References. 65

Annexes. 71

ANNEX I 71

List of Abbreviations

BAT	Best Available Techniques
BD	Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds (codified version))
CA	Competent Authority
CAFE	(Directive on Ambient Air Quality and) Cleaner Air for Europe (2008/50/EC)
CJEU	Court of Justice of the European Union
ExEA	Executive Environment Agency
EA	Environmental Assessment
ЕС	European Commission
EIA	Environmental Impact Assessment
EIAD	Environmental Impact Assessment Directive
EIS	Environmental Impact Statement
EMP	Environmental Monitoring Programme
ER	Environmental Report
EU	European Union
GIS	Geographic Information System
HD	Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and wild flora and fauna)
IED	Industrial Emission Directive (2010/75/EU)
LEP	Law on Environmental Protection
MoE	Ministry of Environment
MoEW	Ministry of Environment and Water
MH	Ministry of Health
MS	Member State
N2000	NATURA 2000 Network
NA	National Authority
OP	Operational Programme
P/P	Plans and Programmes
PoM	Plan of Measures
RP	Responsible Person
RBMP	River Basin Management Plan
RHI	Regional Health Inspectorate
LA/RA	Local/Regional Authority
SAC	Special Area of Conservation
SCI	Site of Community Interest
SEA	Strategic Environmental Assessment
SEAD	Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (2001/42/EC)
SG	State Gazette
SPA	Special Protected Area
ToR	Terms of Reference
TFEU	Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
UNECE	United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
UNEP	United Nations Environment Programme
UNU	United Nations University
WGS	World Geodetic System

Introduction

This practical guidance is designed to provide state authorities, environment practitioners, NGOs and other interested groups with concise information on the provisions and the application of the EU SEA and EIA directives and Bulgarian national legislation implementing them.

The guidance provides relevant information about each step of the SEA/EIA procedure from the point of view of the relevant EU directives, of the interpretation developed by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and of the relevant transposing national legislation.

At the outset it should be noted that the guidance reflects the legal situation at the time of its preparation. Hence, its users are strongly advised to read it in conjunction with any legislative changes at EU and national level and to regularly check for new interpretation by the CJEU and national courts.

Role of EIA and SEA

Environmental assessment is a procedure that ensures that the environmental implications of decisions are taken into account before the decisions are made. Environmental assessment can be undertaken for individual projects, such as a dam, motorway, airport or factory, on the basis of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (codified version), also referred to as “the EIA Directive” or “the EIAD” or for public plans or programmes (P/P) on the basis of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (also known as “Strategic Environmental Assessment”, “SEA Directive” or “SEAD”). The common principle of both directives is to ensure that plans, programmes and projects likely to have significant effects on the environment are made subject to an environmental assessment, prior to their approval or authorisation. Consultation with the public is a key feature of environmental assessment procedures.

The directives on environmental assessment aim to provide a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation of projects, plans and programmes with a view to reduce their environmental impact. They ensure public participation in decision-making and thereby strengthen the quality of decisions. The projects and programmes co-financed by the EU (Cohesion, Agricultural and Fisheries Policies) have to comply with the EIA and SEA directives to receive approval for financial assistance. Hence the two directives on environmental assessment are crucial tools for sustainable development.

The EIA procedure was introduced in Bulgaria in 1991 by the Law on Environmental Protection, which was the first law in this area at the beginning of the transitional period in the country. This procedure was widely compatible with the EIA Directive of 1985 and established prevention as general principle of environmental management. The first secondary legislation Ordinance No. 1 was adopted in 1992 and provided for a detailed framework for implementation of the provisions of the LEP. This ordinance was replaced in 1995. In the same year Bulgaria ratified the Espoo Convention on EIA in a Transboundary Context. Hence, several amendments of the national legislation followed addressing the new developments in the EU, implementing the Convention and improving the procedure.

The process of the accession of Bulgaria to the EU and the need for full harmonization of national with EU law lead to the adoption of the new LEP in 2002 (prom. SG 91 of 25 September 2002, as last amend. SG 27 of 15 March 2013). This new Law together with the adopted in 2003 Ordinance on the conditions and the order for implementing environmental impact assessment, adopted by Council of Ministers Decree No. 59 of 7 March 2003 (promulgated SG 25 of 18 March 2003, as last amended SG 94 of 30 November 2012) (hereafter ‘EIA Ordinance’) transposed the EU EIA Directive as amended, by clarifying the projects, which under Bulgarian law are called “investment proposals” that need to be made subject to mandatory EIA, the screening procedure, the competences of the national authorities and the requirements regarding the participation of the public in the EIA decision-making process. Several amendments followed between 2005 and 2012 aiming at full transposition of the EIAD and better implementation at national level.

In view of the implementation of the National Accession Programme and the start of the negotiations on Chapter 22 ‘Environment’ in 2001, the Ministry of Environment and Water undertook the commitment to transpose the SEA Directive. Under the new LEP, the term "EIA of P/P" was replaced by "Environmental assessment of P/P". A special chapter in the Law provides for the general requirements for this type of assessment while emphasizing on the different approach to EA of p/p compared to EIA of investment proposals. This legal framework was complemented by the Ordinance on the conditions and the order for implementing environmental assessment of plans and programmes, adopted by Council of Ministers Decree No. 139 of 24 June 2004 (promulgated SG 57 of 02 July 2004, as last amended SG 94 of 30 November 2012) (hereafter ‘EA Ordinance’). The LEP and the EA Ordinance provide for implementation of the SEAD since 01 July 2004.

Role of EIA and SEA in view of achieving sustainable development

Sustainable development is a key concept that has gained increasing international acceptance. Reducing the burden of environmental impacts is necessary if development is to become sustainable. These impacts are more complex, larger in scale and further reaching in their potential consequences than thirty years ago when EIA was first introduced. As a result, EIA has become of ever increasing importance as a tool for development decision-making. A milestone in this process was the “Brundtland” report”^{^[1]}, which defined it as “Development that meets the needs of today’s generation without compromising those of future generations” (Brundtland definition).

The EU is committed to work for the sustainable development as stated in the Treaties:

Article 3(3) of the Treaty on the European Union:

“The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.”

Article 11 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

“Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Union’s policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development.”

Bulgarian national legislation also makes sustainable development a major principle of the environmental policy (Article 3(1) of the LEP).

The role of the environmental impact assessment as tool to sustainability is formally recognized in Principle 17 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: “Environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent national authority”.

It is important that all those involved understand these foundations and how they promote integrated environment and development decision-making in support of sustainable development.

Moreover, pursuant to the provisions of the Founding Treaties, the EU MSs are obliged to take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union^{^[2]} and harmonize their national legislation with the any directive^{^[3]}, including the SEA and EIA directives and so that they are implemented in a uniform way across the whole Union.

I. Practical guidance on the application of the SEA Directive and the national legislation on environmental assessment

1. Overview of SEA

The objective of this Chapter is to introduce the main concepts and principles of the SEA as implemented in the EU and in Bulgaria, placing it within the framework of sustainable development, to describe the purpose, principles and process of SEA and to present the new developments in the EU and in Bulgaria about SEA, including the Court of Justice of the EU case-law, reports and guidelines issued by or on behalf of the European Commission (ЕС), etc.

SEA is defined as a formalized systematic process for evaluating the environmental consequences of proposed (policy and) P/P in order to ensure they are fully included and appropriately addressed at the earliest appropriate stage of decision-making together with other considerations, like for example the economic and social ones.

The prime purpose of SEA is to integrate environmental considerations into certain P/P adopted by public authorities in order to ensure a high level of protection of the environment. As a tool to aid decision-making, SEA is widely seen as a proactive environmental safeguard that, combined with public participation and consultation, may help to meet the EU's wider environmental objectives and policy principles.

The SEA Directive is the legal instrument regulating SEA at EU level. It applies to a wide range of public P/P (e.g. on land use, transport, energy, waste, agriculture, etc.). It does not refer to policies and legislative measures, this, however, may change in view of the entry into force of the SEA Protocol, also known as the Kiev Protocol on 10 July 2010.

The SEAD aims at supplementing the EIA Directive, by providing for a procedure for an environmental assessment during preparation of P/P and before their adoption. This assessment includes the introduction of an environmental report (detailing among others, the likely significant environmental effects and reasonable alternatives), as well as carrying out consultations (with the public, the authorities with environmental responsibilities and other Member States in the case of significant transboundary effects). The report on the environmental effects and the results of consultations must be considered before the P/P is adopted. Once they are adopted the authorities with environmental responsibilities, the public and any consulted Member State must be informed and the relevant information made available to them. In order to determine any unforeseen adverse effects as early as possible, it is necessary to ensure that the significant environmental effects of the P/P are monitored.

The SEA Directive is transposed and implemented in Bulgarian legislation in Chapter VI of the LEP and in the EA Ordinance. It should be noted at the outset that what is understood internationally as SEA in Bulgaria is called “ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT” or “EA”.

The LEP establishes the general framework on EA by defining the scope of application, the types on P/P covered by its scope, the competent authorities, the scope of the EA report and the main steps of the procedure.

The EA Ordinance supplements the LEP by regulating in details:

the evaluation of the need and scope of environmental assessment of the potential effects of implementation of the P/P, as well as concerning the manner of announcement to the general public of the decision referred to in Article 85 (4) herein;
the obligations of the authorities which initiate or implement the P/P subject to environmental assessment;
the scope, content and form of the environmental assessment report;
the deadlines, terms and a procedure for holding consultations with the public and third parties likely to be affected by the P/P;
the form and content of the evaluation decision and of the opinion of the Minister of Environment and water or of the competent RIEW Director;
the conditions for inclusion of the results of the consultations referred to in Item 4 in the opinion of the Minister of the Environment of Water or of the competent RIEW Director;
the monitoring and control of compliance with the conditions, measures and restrictions set in the evaluation decision or in the opinion of the Minister of Environment and Water or of the competent RIEW Director in the process of implementation of the P/P;
the monitoring and control of the environmental effects upon implementation of the P/P with a view to undertaking measures for prevention or mitigation of the environmental damage likely to occur as a result of the said implementation;
the content and the maintenance of the register containing data about environmental assessment procedures as part of the register referred to in Article 102 herein.

The EA is fully integrated with the existing procedures for preparation and approval of P/P. In general, the EA is prepared as a self-standing report however, if so required by a special law the EA may be made part of the P/P.

The SEA process is presented in the Figure 1

Figure 1. SEA Process

This flowchart is also largely applicable under Bulgarian legislation, however, it should be noted that the EA procedure is defined in more details and includes the following steps:

assessment of the necessity and the scope for the EA;
preparation of an EA report;
consultations with the public, the interested authorities and third parties, when it is likely that they may be affected by the P/P;
consideration of the results of the consultations in the EA report;
defining the measures for supervision and control of the P/P application;
issuing an EA statement;
supervision and control of the plan or P/P.

The developer of P/P is defined in point 21 of the Additional Provisions to the LEP as the person or the authority who or which is empowered to commission the preparation of the said P/P.

The competent authorities for EA of P/P are (Article 4 of the EA Ordinance):

the Minister of Environment and Water for the P/P approved by the central bodies of the executive power and by the Parliament
the director of the respective RIEW or the Minister of Environment and Water within the scope of their competency, as determined in Article 10(2) of the LEP or the respective special law for the P/P, approved by the territorial bodies of the executive power or by the municipal councils.

While executing their powers, the competent authorities are supported by: a commission or by the Supreme Expert Ecological Council to the Minister of Environment and Water, respectively by an Ecological Expert Council (EEC) to the RIEW. These councils act as advisory bodies to the Minister or to the director of the RIEW. In the Commission/Expert Councils there must be mandatory representatives of the MoEW, Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works.

2. Definition for plan/programme and scope of the SEA Directive

Both, P/P, are defined in Article 2(a) of the SEAD as:

“plans and programmes” shall mean plans and programmes, including those co-financed by the European Union, as well as any modifications to them:

which are subject to preparation and/or adoption by an authority at national, regional or local level or which are prepared by an authority for adoption, through a legislative procedure by the MSs national/regional/local parliaments or governments, and
which are required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions.

Bulgarian LEP in point 22 of the Additional Provisions takes the same approach by defining the plans and programmes as following:

“22. "Plans and programmes" shall be plans, programmes, strategies and other similar documents, as well as the amendments thereof, which:

a) are required by statutory, regulatory or administrative provisions;
b) are subject to preparation and/or adoption by a public authority at national, regional or local level or are prepared by a competent authority for adoption according to a procedure approved by the Council of Ministers or the National Assembly.”

The SEAD and the LEP do not provide for individual definitions for a P/P, but references about their content (as scope and scale), and the relation between them (regarding the development concerned). Some definitions can be found in several manuals, handbooks, etc.; an example is given Box 1.

Planning: Priorities, options and measures for resource allocation according to resource suitability and availability, following the orientation, and implementing, relevant sectoral and global policies
Programme: Organized agenda with defined objectives to be achieved during programme implementation, with specification of activities and programmes investments, in the framework of relevant policies and plans^{^[4]}

The SEA Directive and the LEP apply to public P/P (as well as to their amendments) which have been prepared and/or adopted by a competent authority and which are subject to legislative, regulatory and administrative provisions.

The definition for P/P, in particular regarding the requirements for adoption, was already interpreted by the CJEU in Judgement on Case C-567/10, while widening the scope of application to P/P which adoption is not compulsory in all circumstances:

“It must be stated that an interpretation which would result in excluding from the scope of Directive 2001/42 all plans and programmes, inter alia those concerning the development of land, whose adoption is, in the various national legal systems, regulated by rules of law, solely because their adoption is not compulsory in all circumstances, cannot be upheld.

The interpretation of Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/42 that is relied upon by the abovementioned governments would have the consequence of restricting considerably the scope of the scrutiny, established by the directive, of the environmental effects of plans and programmes concerning town and country planning of the Member States.” (paragraphs 28 and 29)

The scope of application is further defined by Article 3 of the Directive:

P/P which are prepared for specific sectors (agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste management, water management, telecommunications, tourism, town and country planning and land use) and which set the framework for development consent of projects under the EIA Directive;
P/P for which an assessment is required under Articles 6 and 7 of the Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC);
P/P which set the framework for future development consent of projects other than those under the EIA Directive (not limited to the sectors listed above) and which MSs have identified as likely to have significant environmental effects. MSs make this determination either through case-by-case examination or by specifying types of plans and programmes or by combining both approaches but based on the criteria listed in Annex II of the Directive.

Minor modifications to P/P and the P/P for small areas at local level, are covered only if they are likely to have significant environmental effects.

The CJEU has already provided interpretation on the P/P covered by the Directive and on the margin of discretion of the MSs (Judgement on Case C-295/10, GenovaitėValčiukienė and Others v Pakruojorajonosavivaldybė and Others).

Whenever the MSs decide on the scope of their national legislation implementing the Directive they should bear in mind that their margin of discretion “pursuant to Article 3(5) of Directive 2001/42 to specify certain types of plans which are likely to have significant environmental effects is limited by the requirement under Article 3(3) of that directive, in conjunction with Article 3(2), to subject the plans likely to have significant effects on the environment to environmental assessment, in particular on account of their characteristics, their effects and the areas likely to be affected” (paragraph 46).

In another judgement the Court stated clearly that national legislation should not create exemptions which are contrary to the objective of the SEA Directive (Judgement on Case C-463/11, L v M)

“31. At the outset, it should be recalled that, as is apparent from Article 1 of the directive, the fundamental objective of that directive is to ensure that plans and programmes which are likely to have significant effects on the environment are subject to an environmental assessment when they are prepared and prior to their adoption (Case C‑295/10 Valčiukienė and Others [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 37, and Case C‑41/11 Inter-Environnement Wallonie and Terre wallonne [2012] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 40).

[…]

Moreover, it is clear from the case-law of the Court that, where a plan, within the meaning of the directive, should, prior to its adoption, have been subject to an assessment of its environmental effects in accordance with the requirements of the directive, the national courts hearing an action for annulment of such a plan are obliged to take all general or particular measures for remedying the failure to carry out such an assessment (see, to that effect, Inter-Environnement Wallonie and Terre wallonne, paragraphs 44 to 46).
Consequently, in the main proceedings, it is for the referring court, within the exercise of its jurisdiction, to apply the provisions of European Union law and to give full effect to those provisions, refusing to apply any provision of the BauGB, in particular Paragraph 214(2a)(1) thereof, which would lead that court to deliver a decision contrary to the directive (see, to that effect, Case 106/77 Simmenthal [1978] ECR 629, paragraph 24, and Case C‑617/10 Åkerberg Fransson [2013] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 45).”

P/P the sole purpose of which is to serve national defence or civil emergency, and financial or budget P/P are not covered by this Directive.

The Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the application of the SEAD of 2009 states that in general, most MSs have not encountered problems in determining the scope of application of the SEA Directive. Most of them report that their model is based on a combined approach, whereby the list of P/P to be assessed is supplemented by a case-by-case approach to determine whether an assessment is needed.

Article 81(1) of the LEP states that environmental assessment shall be conducted for P/P which are in a process of preparation and/or approval by central or local executive authorities, bodies of local self-government and the National Assembly or modifications or extensions thereof, whereof the implementation is likely to have significant effects on the environment.

In compliance with Article 85(1) of the LEP, EA is mandatory for P/P in the areas of agriculture, forestry, fisheries, transport, energy, waste management, water resources management, and industry, including extraction of subsurface resources, electronic communications, tourism, spatial planning and land use, where the said P/P set the framework for future development of any development proposals listed in Annexes I and II of the said law. The scope of Article 85(1) of the LEP is limited by Article 2(1)(1) of the EA Ordinance to P/P listed in Annex I to that Ordinance:

Sector	Legal act requiring the adoption of the plan/programme	Plan/programme
Forestry	Law on Forests	Programme for Accelerated Forestation of the Deforested and Eroded Regions in the Country through Stimulation of Alternative Employment
Fish husbandry	Law on protection of agricultural lands	National Programme for the Fish Husbandry and Aquacultures
Transport	Law on Roads	Medium-term and Long-term Programmes for Development of the Roadways Network
Transport	Law on Railway Transport	Programme for the Development of the Railway Transport and the Railway Infrastructure and Long-term Programme for Development of the Railway Infrastructure and its Safe and Reliable Exploitation, Including Crisis Situations (natural disasters, acts of terrorism and warfare)
Waste management	Law on Waste Management	National Waste Management Programme
Water resources management	Law on Waters	River basin management plans
Spatial planning and land use	Law on Spatial Development	National comprehensive development schemes, Regional planning schemes and General spatial plans
	Law on the Approval and Application of the General Spatial Plan of the City of Sofia	General Spatial Plan of Sofia and Sofia Municipality
	Law on Regional Development	National Operational Programme for Regional Development and Regional development plans

In addition, other P/P are to be made subject to EA, if there is such a requirement the legal act regulating them, e.g. the National Strategy on Tourism Sustainable Development and the strategies for development of the different types of tourism under Article 5(2) of the Law on Tourism, which can only be adopted following a positive EA statement or a decision that EA is not necessary.

Where the above P/P affect small areas at local level and involve modifications of P/P referred above, an EA is required solely where they are likely to have significant effects on the environment.

EAs is also mandatorily performed for the P/P for which it is likely that they may have significant adverse effects on protected areas included in the Network ‘NATURA 2000’ pursuant a decision under Article 20 of the Ordinance on the conditions and order for carrying out compatibility assessment on plans, programmes, projects and investment proposals with the conservation objectives of the protected areas[5] (Article 2(1)(2) of the EA Ordinance).

Article 2(2)(3) and (4) of the EA Ordinance also states that the necessity of performing an EA shall be assessed for P/P and their modifications not included in Annex I and II, which outline the framework for future development of investment proposals under Annex I to Article 92, p. 1 and Annex II to Article 93(1)(1) and (2) of the LEP and for P/P and their modifications outside the scope of Annex I and II, which do not which outline the framework for future development of investment proposals under Annex I to Article 92, p. 1 and Annex II to Article 93(1)(1) and (2) of the LEP and which are likely to have significant impact on the environment and human health when implemented.

In addition, Article 2(3) of the said Ordinance includes P/P, envisaged by an international agreement to which the Republic of Bulgaria is a party. In such a case the EA shall be assigned in accordance the procedure defined by the agreement.

Lastly, for P/P under Article 2(1) and (2), for which under another normative act an assessment of the impacts on the environment is required, based on a written request by the developer, the competent environmental authorities and the authorities for the approval/adoption of the respective P/P, may coordinate the implementation of several procedures and carry out one joined procedure (Article 2(4) of the EA Ordinance).

Paragraph 4 of Article 81 of the LEP excludes from the obligation of EA the P/P elaborated solely for the purposes of national defence or of civil protection, as well as any free-standing financial plans and budgets.

3. Screening of plans/programmes

The aim of the procedure is to assess the necessity for EA and the developer of the P/P to be informed thereof.

For determining if a P/P has to be subject to environmental assessment, the main aspect to be considered is referring to the possibility that it has significant environmental effects. This should be done according to Article 3(5) of the SEAD: “through a case-by-case examination or by specifying types of plans and programmes or by combining both approaches.”

In order to carry out adequately the SEA screening it is important that the version of the P/P offer sufficient information about all those aspects that would facilitate the identification of the potential P/P’s effects on the environment. The authorities involved in the SEA process should consider whether the information received is enough to take and justify the screening decision.

The main steps that are recommended to be followed at P/P SEA screening stage are:

Exclusion of certain P/P:
P/P of which sole purpose is to serve national defence or civil emergency, and financial or budget P/P - according to Article 3(8) of the SEAD;
other programmes, as European Social Fund^{^[6]} programmes, mainly those in the area of training and education, for which there are not requirements for future development consents.
Screening through types of P/P identification, by using the definitions and criteria given in Article 2 and 3 of the SEAD, i.e. an environmental assessment is needed for the following P/P:
P/P prepared for agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste management, water management, telecommunications, tourism, town and country planning or land use and it sets the framework for future development consent of projects listed in Annexes I and II of the EIAD - Article 3(2)(a) of the SEAD;
P/P requiring an assessment pursuant to Article 6 or 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC, in view of their likely effects on protected sites - Article 3(2)(b) of the SEAD. Therefore, an environmental assessment of P/P should be carried out only if P/P has a significant effect on a site, according to Directive 92/43/EEC.

An example in this respect is given in Box 5.

“… Article 3(2)(b) of the SEA Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to make a particular plan subject to an environmental assessment depends on the preconditions requiring an assessment under the Habitats Directive, including the condition that the plan may have a significant effect on the site concerned, being met in respect of that plan. The examination carried out to determine whether that latter condition is fulfilled is necessarily limited to the question as to whether it can be excluded, on the basis of objective information, that that plan or project will have a significant effect on the site concerned.” (paragraph 24)

Screening of P/P through a case-by-case examination, to be performed for the following cases:
P/P determining use of small areas at local level;
minor modifications of P/P that can change the characteristics of the effects and of the area affected as at the time of their adoption;
total or partial repeal of P/P for which it should be taken into consideration the subsequent effects on the environment of the repeal as it may modify the state of the environment as examined at the time of the adoption of the revised P/P;
P/P setting a framework for development consent of future projects (others than the projects listed in Annex I and Annex II of the EIAD).

In compliance with Article 2(2) of the EA Ordinance, the necessity for EA shall be assessed for:

P/P and their modifications under Article 85(1) of the LEP (P/P in the areas of agriculture, forestry, fisheries, transport, energy, waste management, water resources management, and industry, including extraction of subsurface resources, electronic communications, tourism, spatial planning and land use, where the said P/P set the framework for future development of any development proposals listed in Annexes I and II of the LEP), which define the use of small areas at local level and are included in Annex II to the EA Ordinance:

Sector	Legal act requiring the adoption of plan/programme	Plan/programme
Agriculture	Law on Agricultural Land Ownership and Utilization	Plans for the formation of large agricultural land areas and their utilization
	Law on Projection of Agricultural Land	Short-and long-term programmes to improve the performance of agricultural lands and their protection from erosion, pollution, salination, oxidation and creation of marshlands
	Law on Irrigation Co-Operations	Plan for irrigation and water distribution Programme for design, general rehabilitation and reconstruction of the hydro-melioration infrastructure
Transport	Law on Roads	Programmes for development and improvement of the Republican roads
	Civil Air Flights Act	General plan for development of the airport
	Law on Maritime Spaces, Internal Water Ways and the Ports in the Republic of Bulgaria	General plans for construction, reconstruction or enlargement of the ports and the navigation equipment
Waste management	Law on Waste Management	Municipal waste management programmes
Water resources management	Law on Waters	Programmes on reduction of pollution of waters and water bodies Regional master plans of Water and Sewage (ViK) and the investment programmes thereto Master plans for Water and Sewage (ViK) of the agglomerations above 10000 e.p. and the investment programmes thereto
Tourism	Law on Tourism	Municipal programme for tourism development and
Spatial planning and land use	Law on Spatial Development	Detailed spatial plans and Specialized detailed spatial plans
	Law on the Approval and Application of the General Spatial Plan of the City of Sofia	Detailed spatial plan of Sofia and Sofia Municipality
	Law on Regional Development	Municipal development plans

modifications of the above P/P and those likely to have significant adverse effect in N2000 sites;
P/P and their modifications not included in Annex I and II, which outline the framework for future development of investment proposals under Annex I to Article 92, p. 1 and Annex II to Article 93(1)(1) and (2) of the LEP;
P/P and their modifications outside the scope of Annex I and II, which do not which outline the framework for future development of investment proposals under Annex I to Article 92, p. 1 and Annex II to Article 93(1)(1) and (2) of the LEP and which are likely to have significant impact on the environment and human health when implemented.

In order to determine through a case-by-case examination, whether for a P/P should be carried out an environmental assessment, the criteria set out in Annex II of SEAD must be used, as follows:

P/P’s characteristics;
Likely significant effects of the P/P on the environment;
The area likely to be affected by the P/P implementation;

During the screening stage of the SEA process, the authorities which by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities are likely to be concerned by the environmental effects of implementing P/P are consulted.

The results of the P/P screening are communicated in a written form, as a statement; this should contain at least the justification of decision to carry out or to not an environmental assessment for the P/P, by providing the corresponding reasons for the decision (taking into account the legislative, regulatory or administrative, and environmental aspects).

The same approach is adopted by Article 85 of the LEP and Chapter II of the EA Ordinance. It should be noted that under Article 13 of the EA Ordinance, before taking the EA screening decision, the competent authority consults the Ministry of Health (MH) and the respective Regional Health Inspection (RHI), also if deemed necessary the respective municipal authorities. The EA Ordinance (Article 13(5)) also provides for an option for consultations with the body responsible for the implementation of the P/P on the measures for supervision and control of the implementation of the P/P with regards to the environment and human health.

Hence, the EA screening decision is based on the assessment of the likely significant impact on the environment and human health as established by the documentation presented by the developer of P/P, the screening criteria and results of the consultations. The EA screening decision is a mandatory condition for the subsequent approval of the P/P. The authorities responsible for its adoption and implementation must reckon with the decision and with the conditions, measures and restrictions set therein.

Within 3-days term after the pronouncement of the EA screening decision, the competent authority or a duly authorised official:

presents the to the developer of the P/P, while obliging him/her to announce it within 3-days term after the receipt on his/her internet site and/or in another appropriate manner;
provides information on the decision and for the access to it by posting an announcement on its internet site and at an appropriate place at its premises.
submits copy of the decision to the authority for the implementation and authority for the approval/adoption/endorsement of the P/P for information and taking into consideration.

When it is decided that EA should not be carried out and/or the authority for the approval/ adoption/endorsement of the P/P announces the decision also at the time of the announcement of the P/P in compliance with the procedure under the special law, together with the reference under Article 29(1) of the EA Ordinance.

4. Scoping stage of the SEA process

The information to be provided in the environmental report (ER) is set out in Annex I of SEAD but its required level of detail is established at the scoping stage of the SEA procedure.

The provision of the information to be submitted to the responsible authority should refer to certain issues regarding the P/P, such as:

main objectives and priorities, and expected results of the P/P,
the implementation programme of the P/P,
the connection between the P/P and other already approved P/Ps, etc.

Thus, the relevant environmental aspects will be identified, and a proper approach of potential critical issues could be applied.

Steps of the SEA scoping stage:

identification of the authorities, which can be involved in the SEA process due to their responsibilities in the field of environmental protection;
consultations with the above-mentioned authorities to decide how certain requirements can be met, from their point of view, and considering their institutional responsibilities.

If the national legal provisions of a MS lay down obligations for public consultations at the SEA scoping stage, the public can be also consulted regarding the content and level of detail of the environmental assessment.

choosing the appropriate method or technique for scoping, according to the type of P/P;
determining the important issues to be addressed in the ER, taking into consideration the results from the consultations with the authorities.

This will be done by considering the requirements set out in Annex I of the SEAD and, some additional certain aspects, such as:

current state of the environment;
pressures on natural resources;
key environmental legislation;
requirements or constrains due to other approved P/P.

At the scoping stage of SEA, the approved P/P should be taken into consideration, such as:

P/P concerning the same geographical area;
P/P concerning relative similar development sectors, e.g. County Infrastructure and Development Operational Plans, River Basin Management Plan, etc.;
P/P for the same sector, but developed for a more extended region/ area than the area/region of proposed P/P.
preparation of the scoping report or a similar document; the scoping report should set the important aspects to be addressed in the ER.

Some significant aspects to be addressed in the ER:

Identification of the key environmental constraints and opportunities, which have to be examined within the SEA;
Identification the territorial dimension of the likely environmental effects;
Carrying out an appropriate assessment procedure concurrently with the SEA procedure; this will facilitate the proper selection of the P/P alternatives taking into account the recommendations, mitigation measures. If this is the case, the compensatory measures identified within appropriate assessment, will be considered when defining the environmental objectives of the P/P;
Defining of the environmental objectives and targets, which should be assessed during the later stages of the SEA, e.g.: surface and groundwater bodies quality protection for their using as sources of drinking water, minimization of flood risks, ensuring quality of the residential and recreational environment by reducing air and noise pollution, etc.;
Name of the authorities with which consultations will be mandatory during the SEA process;
Recommendations related to the assessment of the significant environmental effects of the preferred strategic option;
Identification of mitigation and monitoring requirements in relation with the P/P.

During the scoping stage, it is recommended to agree on the frame for the main steps and timeline of the planning process considering the need to include the results of the environmental assessment carried out for the P/P. The environmental assessment should take into account the opinions/comments of the authorities and the public (received during the consultations on draft version of the P/P).

Pursuant to Bulgarian national legislation, the EA scoping may be implemented upon the initiative of:

the competent authority when taking the decision that EA would be necessary (optional for the competent authority under Article 14(4) of the EA Ordinance);
the developer of the P/P (mandatory under Article 19a of the EA Ordinance).

Pursuant to the latter provision of the EA Ordinance the developer of the P/P or the experts preparing the EA prepare the terms of reference for determination of the scope of the assessment, which is then consulted with:

the EA competent authorities;
the respective specialised competent authorities, i.e. MH and the respective RHI regarding the content and scope of the assessment of the health-hygiene aspects of the environment and the risk to human health;
other specialised authorities and the interested public.

Once the scope of the EA is endorsed by the competent EA authority it is binding for the developer of the P/P.

5. Baseline information

5.1. Requirements for baseline information

In accordance with Article 5(2) of SEA Directive and Article 17(4) of the EA Ordinance, the ER should include the information that may reasonably be required taking into account current knowledge and methods of assessment, the contents and level of detail in the P/P, its stage in the decision-making process and the extent to which certain matters are more appropriately assessed at different levels in that process in order to avoid duplication of the assessment.

The necessary information in preparing the ER is that one which can be used in different stages of the SEA process. The selection of the baseline information should be focused only on those aspects, which are relevant to the environmental components and could be significantly affected by implementation of the P/P.

The data and information to be collected should address the aspects which:

are relevant to the area/region for which the P/P is developed;
are covering the environmental components of interest for the P/P and could be significantly affected by the P/P implementation;
are relevant for identification of the environmental objectives and indicators of the P/P;
are relevant for identification of the environmental aspects in relation with the “zero alternative”.

The environmental baseline information should refer to the following issues:

current environmental conditions;
trends of current environmental conditions and constrains regarding this aspect;
expected effects of the P/P already being implemented under the specific environmental conditions.

It should be carefully considered what information is required and, which the most appropriate level of detail is. In addition, data and information should be as recent and accurate as possible.

Where there are uncertainties about the available data and information, the P/P developer should choose whether to avoid their use or to use them with an explanation of limitations and gaps.

Criteria for selection of the necessary information:

likely significant effects of the proposed P/P on the environmental components;
geographical area covered by the P/P and the territorial magnitude of the likely environmental effects;
territorial area in relation with the environmental objectives of the P/P;
key environmental aspects which are relevant to the P/P.

Relevant data and information in relation with the P/P could be not available because the area covered by the P/P has not been studied yet. In such case, measurements for qualitative characterization of the environment (e.g. air quality, drinking water quality, soil quality, etc.) should be carried out, and if needed site visits/surveys and investigations, in order to provide the information necessary for determining the likely significant effects.

5.2. Sources of baseline information

During the drafting of a P/P, for the assessment of the environmental situation, and determination of P/P’s objectives and targets it must be examined the current status of the area in relation to the P/P.

The analysis will refer to the environmental aspects but it also it can refer, depending on the P/P’s characteristics, to the results of the interactions between the environmental issues and those related to social and economic issues.

Furthermore, the baseline information will be used for the selection of the alternatives of the P/P and finally for the needs of monitoring activities in relation to the P/P implementation.

Sources of baseline information:

EIA studies carried out for other purposes;
information included in other strategies and P/P(s); where some aspects were assessed at a certain stage of another P/P, using the results to evaluate a new P/P should be done only after their verification and update;
existing and available information from environmental monitoring conducted for research and other purposes;
experts opinions (discussions, questionnaires);
available information from governmental institutions at different levels and in different sectors;
records of monitoring activities conducted during environmental assessment by environmental authorities.

The information will be presented in a way so that it could be clearly understood and interpreted not only by the authorities but also by the public (for example use of maps, charts, diagrams, etc.).

In accordance with Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, the “right of access to environmental information held by or for public authorities” has to be guarantee. In accordance with Article 2(2) ”Public authority’ shall mean:

(a) government or other public administration, including public advisory bodies, at national, regional or local level;

(b) any natural or legal person performing public administrative functions under national law, including specific duties, activities or services in relation to the environment;

and

(c) any natural or legal person having public responsibilities or functions, or providing public services, relating to the environment under the control of a body or person falling within (a) or (b).”

In accordance with Article 3(5), “… Member States shall ensure that:

(a) officials are required to support the public in seeking access to information;

(b) lists of public authorities are publicly accessible; and

(c) the practical arrangements are defined for ensuring that the right of access to environmental information can be effectively exercised, such as:

— the designation of information officers;

— the establishment and maintenance of facilities for the examination of the information required;

— registers or lists of the environmental information held by public authorities or information points, with clear indications of where such information can be found.”

Environmental authorities (EA) produce plans and programmes and hold environmental information that may be relevant to EIA/SEA about environmental issues like scoping, environmental context, and assessment. EAs produce documents related to environment and society's relationship with it.

EAs holds information about strategies, plans, and programs elaborated and about projects that are or were subject to EIA.

EAs should hold environmental information about air quality, biodiversity (flora and fauna), climatic factors, material assets (like geological interest and infrastructure), soil and contaminated land, waste management, water quality and resources, etc. This information could provide the baseline situation or trend in a relevant environmental topic. State of the environment reports are offering a broad view on state of environment at regional and national level.

The environmental information is not always available on the EA website but they could be requested from the EA or other public authorities.

An example of types of data hеld by an MS EA could be consulted on UK Environment Agency website (“Baseline Information and Datasets for Strategic Environmental Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal”, http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/policy/123355.aspx).

Lack of certain data and information during the development of the P/P and accordingly during the preparation of the ER should be distinctly indicated. For those environmental aspects, for which the assessment is incomplete or there are uncertainties, it will be necessary to provide additional data during monitoring of the P/P implementation.

6. Consultations during the SEA process

Several consultations are required in different stages of the SEA process and involve as interested parties both, the authorities and the public.

Consultation process will include:

Identification of interested parties in view of the P/P implementation;
Notification of the interested parties regarding the on-going SEA process for the P/P;
Provision for the information related to the P/P: drafted P/P accessible through printed materials, announcements on radio, TV, web-sites, etc.;

Provision of the opportunity to express opinions through commenting on the information related to the P/P by use internet discussion groups, organizing hearings, meetings, etc.

The consultations should provide for a framework for receiving feedback on the scope and content of the draft P/P and the integrated environmental considerations therein. In addition, the consultations generally reduce the possible conflict through identification of critical aspects in the early stage of the P/P preparation.

6.1. Public participation

Public participation in the SEA procedure is one of the central obligations under EU (environmental) acquis, and as the relevant provisions of the EIA Directive, provides for application of the Union obligations arising from the Aarhus Convention[7]. As an EU Member State and a Party to the Convention this is also relevant and applicable to Bulgaria.

The definition of environmental assessment under Article 2(b) of the Directive places public participation as an integral part of the whole SEA process. It is required at different stages of the procedure (from the screening to the adoption of the P/P). By all means, it is required when the draft P/P and environmental report are already available, but before the submission for adoption of the P/P.

The purpose of informing the public and of the consultations with the public that is likely to be affected, or having an interest in, the decision-making and with the designated authorities is to assist the competent authorities when considering the adoption of the P/P.

The SEAD does not provide for specific procedures for informing and consulting the public and the other stakeholders, but leaves this to MSs to find the appropriate means. Under Bulgarian national legislation the consultations include sending announcements to the central and territorial authorities of the executive power and to the municipal councils, preparing and distributing a leaflet or a brochure with brief information on the P/P, organizing expert or public groups with regards to the scope of the assessment, sending opinions, suggestions, opinions and recommendations to the ER report team and the developer via regular mail or via internet and public hearings (Article 20(3) of the EA Ordinance).

The public and the authorities should have sufficient time to form and express their opinion on the ER and on the P/P. The SEAD does not prescribe what “appropriate time-frames” mean. The CJEU in the Judgement on Case C-474/10 has only confirmed that such periods may be prescribed by law or on a case-by-case basis and made a link between the time needed and obligation of the MSs to provide for effective opportunities to the public and the authorities to express their opinions in good time.

“… Article 6(2) of Directive 2001/42 must be interpreted as not requiring that the national legislation transposing the directive lay down precisely the periods within which the authorities designated and the public affected or likely to be affected for the purposes of Article 6(3) and (4) should be able to express their opinions on a particular draft plan or programme and on the environmental report upon it. Consequently, Article 6(2) does not preclude such periods from being laid down on a case-by-case basis by the authority which prepares the plan or programme. However, in that situation, Article 6(2) requires that, for the purposes of consultation of those authorities and the public on a given draft plan or programme, the period actually laid down be sufficient to allow them an effective opportunity to express their opinions in good time on that draft plan or programme and on the environmental report upon it.” (paragraph 50)

Hence, the MSs can prescribe time frames coherent with their own situation but bearing in mind the objectives and spirit of the Directive and the CJEU case-law and the fact that if properly and transparently applied these consultations lead to a higher acceptance of the P/P, and therefore to the early identification and resolution of conflicts. It is evident that Bulgarian legislation has adopted such an approach by making consultations starting as early as the screening stage, by providing a number of different means for consultations and giving clear legally defined deadlines for expressing views and opinions by all participants.

According to the definition given in the SEAD, ““The public” shall mean one or more natural or legal persons and, in accordance with national legislation or practice, their associations, organisations or groups.” This definition is transposed in point 24 of the Additional Provisions to the LEP.

This will include the public, which may be concerned, being interested or potentially affected by the proposed P/P, relevant non-governmental organisations, professional associations, business associations, and other organisations concerned.

The general framework for public consultation during the EA procedure is given in Article 87 of the LEP, while the details are established by the EA Ordinance.

6.2. Authorities likely to be concerned by the environmental effects of implementing plans/programmes for SEA is carrying out

According to Article 6(3) of the SEAD, MSs have the obligation to designate the authorities which, by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities, are likely to be concerned with the environmental effects of the implementation of a P/P.

Authorities likely to be concerned with the environmental effects of the implementing implementation of a P/P:

Authority that is preparing the P/P;
Authority that is adopting the P/P;
Authorities that are consulted by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities, e.g. environmental authorities, agricultural authorities, planning authorities in relation to land use, architectural or archaeological heritage, water management authorities, health authorities, etc.

In addition, according to Article 7 of SEAD, other Member States’ authorities should be consulted, in the case of transboundary significant environmental effects of a P/P. In the latter case, the designation of the authorities to be consulted will be done according to Article 9 of SEA Protocol.

6.3. Stages of the SEA process when authorities and the public should be consulted and/or informed

During the SEA process, there are several stages of the SEA process when the authorities and the public should be consulted:

SEA stages when authorities and the public should be consulted:

screening stage* - determination whether a P/P requires SEA:
- consultation of the authorities - Article 3(6)
scoping stage - scope and level of detail of the information to be included in the ER:
- consultation of the authorities - Article 5(4)
preparation of the P/P and the ER:
- consultation of the authorities and the public - Article 6(1) and (2);
- consultation of other Member States’ authorities and public, in the case of transboundary significant environmental effects of the P/P – Article 7(1) and (2).

* It has to be noted that the consultation of the authorities at the screening stage of SEA procedure is obligatory, whereas the EIAD does not state that obligation at the corresponding screening stage.

Under Bulgarian national legislation, consultations with the authorities are required at each of the above stages of the EA procedure. As for the consultations with the public, these are not required at the screening stage, but are required at the scoping stage and during the preparation of the P/P. The EA Ordinance provides for a detailed procedure for carrying out the consultations at each stage of the EA procedure. Pursuant to Article 19(3) of the EA Ordinance, the consultations are carried out according to a schedule, prepared by the developer, which contains also the information regarding the way of combining the process of the preparation and adoption of the P/P with the main stages of the EA procedure. The schedule is consulted with the competent authority under Article 4 of the Ordinance and contains information about the methods for carrying out the consultations and the public hearing.

In compliance with Article 20(2) of the EA Ordinance, the consultations with the public, interested authorities and third parties may be performed in one or more of the following manners:

sending announcements to the central and territorial authorities of the executive power and to the municipal councils;
preparing and distributing a leaflet or a brochure with brief information on the P/P;
organizing expert or public groups with regards to the scope of the assessment;
sending opinions, suggestions, opinions and recommendations to the EA report team and the developer via regular mail or via internet;
public hearings.

It should only be noted here that the public consultations on the draft ER can only be initiated if the competent environmental authority has already given a positive assessment of its quality (Article 20(6) of the EA Ordinance).

Public hearings should mandatorily be organised if:

it is required under the provisions of a special law for the draft P/P;
there are more than two motivated negative opinions or suggestions for alternatives, taken into account in the EA report or during the consultations.

The significant comments received during the environmental assessment of the P/P can lead to the resumption of the scoping stage of the SEA process, for example, through the omission of certain environmental aspects, which should have been considered during the preparation of the ER.

Furthermore, the authorities and the public will be informed at several stages of the SEA process and, in the case of uncertainties about the data or incomplete data/information, they can ask for clarifications.

SEA stages when authorities and the public should be informed

screening stage:

information concerning the screening decision – Article 3 (2) and (7)
draft version of the P/P – Article 6(1)
information concerning the P/P as adopted, statement on how comments have been taken into account, the reasons for the decision, (including reasons for choosing the alternative), and monitoring measures – Article 9

preparation of the P/P and the ER:

adoption of the P/P:

In compliance with the LEP and the EA Ordinance, information is provided at all the above stages of the EA procedure.

The consultations will concern, in relation with the draft P/P and ER:

the likely environmental effects of the P/P, including the transboundary impacts, if applicable;
the measures envisaged to prevent/reduce/mitigate the adverse environmental effects.

For adequate consultations, both with the authorities and the public, it should take into account the following:

the preparation of appropriate information regarding the P/P;
provision the access of the consulted parties to all relevant information concerning the draft P/P and the ER at the early stage of SEA process
establishment of appropriate time-frames for the consulted parties to express opinions/comments.

The opinions and comments received from the authorities and the public should be integrated in the ER. It is recommended to describe in the final ER how the opinions/comments received were considered.

In compliance with Article 87(2) of the LEP, the results of the consultations shall be reflected into the environmental assessment report and shall be taken into account in the opinion of the Minister of Environment and Water or the competent RIEW Director. In addition, in the cases when as a result of the consultations it becomes necessary to consider and evaluate other alternatives, opinions or suggestions to the P/P, the developer must assign an amendment to the EA report or assess the need of continuing the consultations, including by organizing a new public hearing. The motives for supplementing or considering the continuation of the consultations are included in the documentation to be submitted by the developer in order to get the statement of the competent environmental authority on the EA.

SEA Implementation for Viennese Waste Management Plan

Vienna, Austria was experiencing significant increases in the volume of waste in the city resulting in bottlenecks at treatment facilities. In order to alleviate the growing waste problem and enhance their management plans, an SEA was undertaken, with the goal of solving their problem by 2010. Within the SEA process, the Vienna City Council engaged a wide range of stakeholders to participate in their Round Table discussions, including relevant authorities, representatives of the “qualified” public and external experts. This strategy group took not only environmental issues into account, but also economic and social aspects. Through the SEA process, the group came up with a plan of waste avoidance as well as the establishment of new waste facilities, including the addition of a fermentation plant for biogas.

This example shows how engaging various stakeholders and experts can lead to an efficient SEA process and achieve results least harmful to the environment. “This cooperative and participative approach should make sure, that the best solution for the management of Vienna’s waste was found on the basis of a broad consensus.” Furthermore, by looking at environmental issues during the planning stage, the EIAs for the new treatment facilities were very efficient and effective, as many questions were already answered in the SEA. By following the SEA guidelines, the decision-making process was improved through constant evaluation. As a result, the Vienna City Council followed the recommendations of the SEA.

Source: Arbter, Kerstin (2001): Wissenschaftliche Begleitstudie zur. Strategischen Umweltprüfung (SUP).

7. Environmental Report and draft plan/programme

Preparation of the ER is part of the environmental assessment carried out for the P/P.

The SEAD requires that the environmental assessment is carried out during the preparation of a P/P and before its adoption or submission to the legislative process (Article 4(1)).

Integration of the environmental assessment procedure into the procedures for preparing of P/P is recommended, and thus, the duplications of assessments at different levels in hierarchies of P/P could be avoided.

Moreover, the authorities and the public are consulted on the draft P/P and, hence for the final version of the ER it is supposed that their suggestions and comments have already been taken into account.

Several aspects of the environmental assessment can influence the development of a P/P in its different stages, such as:

the results of investigations regarding current environmental aspects;
the characteristics of the environment that can be influenced substantially by the P/P implementation;
the likely significant effects of the P/P on the environment;
the environmental protection objectives established at international or national level, which are relevant to the P/P;
the environmental effects evaluation in relation with the proposed alternatives of the P/P;

the effectiveness of the mitigation measures.

The ER reflects the environmental assessment of the P/P; it has to be noted that the elaboration of the ER should cover the entire duration of the preparation of the P/P.

The required information that should be provided in an ER is given in Annex I of the SEAD. However, the Directive does not require a specific format.

As already stated above, under Article 86(4) of the LEP the ER is in general prepared as a separate document, with the exception when under the law providing for the adoption of the P/P it is required that the ER is presented as part of the P/P. In the latter case the P/P contains an environmental part.

The content of the ER is detailed in Article 86(3) of the LEP which is consistent Article 5 and Annex I of the SEA Directive. In addition, Article 17(1)-(3) of the EA Ordinance provides the requirements to the format and to the documents to be provided with the ER:

a list of information sources for the methods used for assessment and forecast of the impact on the environment and reference to the source where the above have been published;
a list of the experts and the leader of the experts who have prepared the EA report; where every person shall certify the part(s) he/she has developed by placing his/her signature;
declarations regarding the eligibility of the experts preparing the ER;
references for the carried out consultations and the opinions and suggestions obtained thereafter as well as the way they have been considered. Here the developer of the EA report and the experts shall describe the accepted or rejected comments, recommendations or suggestions and shall enclose the respective results of the consultations documents (protocols, opinions, enquiries, etc.).
annexes
non-technical summary.

The ER should be submitted in paper and electronic copies, which should be identical.

The ER will address issues that relate to the following:

Description of the P/P:
description of P/P’s main objectives, indicators and targets;

The objectives of a P/P can regard environmental aspects, but they can also refer to the other relevant issues for the P/P, such as social or economic aspects.

description of the territorial area covered by the P/P;
identification of other relevant P/P(s) in the same territorial area with the proposed P/P;
identification of other relevant P/P(s) concerning similar objectives as the proposed P/P, but in different territorial area(s);
identification of the objectives that can derive from environmental protection objectives of other P/P(s);
specification of the position of the proposed P/P in a hierarchy of the approved P/Ps, etc.;
Potentially affected environment and baseline conditions:
the description of the analysis results regarding the current status of the environment based on the information and data, by using the existing database (documents, other P/P(s), environmental strategies, studies, etc.);
identification of sensitive receptors and potentially affected area, and key factors which determine the effects on the environment, e.g.: geographical location, economic development, etc.
Consideration of alternatives:
- description of the alternatives; proposed alternatives should take into account the main objectives and indicators of P/P;
- description of significant effects predicted for the P/P implementation and the territorial areas of the predicted impact, for each alternative considered;
- description of the mitigation measures envisaged for each alternative;

Mid-Wales: Benefits seen from SEA Implementation

The Mid-Wales region in Wales was having difficulties with power failures due to interruptions in power supply. In response to this issue, Scottish Power, the main supplier of electricity in the region, undertook an SEA to find best possible solutions to providing a more dependable electricity service. The first step was to concretise the plan’s objectives with respect to potentially significant environmental implications, including objectives with respect to regional cultural heritage and conservation areas nearby. In co-operation with regional agencies as well as environmental groups, the SEA was able to identify three additional alternatives to the three Scottish Power had initially considered.

Each of the alternatives was analysed with respect to environmental, social and economic impacts. The plan chosen was one of the alternatives identified in the SEA planning process. By analysing every alternative, Scottish Power was able to legitimise its plan decision. Although the final plan did not result in the least number of negative environmental effects, it stayed true to the plan’s initial environmental objectives, namely avoiding impacts to conservation areas. Environmental stakeholders were thus satisfied with the results, making it easier to begin development. This case study is a good example of how the analysis of alternatives can help set priorities with respect to environmental impacts. As the alternative chosen was not one initially proposed by the company, this case study also highlights how an SEA can bring innovation to plans and projects.

Source: Schmidt, Michael; Joao, Elsa; Albrecht, Eike (Eds.). (2005): Implementing Strategic Environmental Assessments.

Series: Environmental Protection in the European Union, Vol. 2. Singer-Verlag: Berlin.

description of criteria used for alternative selection;

Description of the likely significant effects of the P/P:
- identification of the impact;
- determination of the significance of the impact, by taking into account the magnitude of the potential effects, and the value and sensitivity of the receiving environment;
- prediction of cumulative impacts on the receiving environment.

According to Article 5, read in conjunction with Annex I(f) of the SEAD and respectively Article 86(1)(6) of the LEP, the likely significant effects (secondary, cumulative, synergistic, short, medium and long-term permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects) on the environment, including on issues such as biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors should be described and assessed.

For the prediction, identification and assessment of the potential impact on the environment from the implementation of a P/P or its alternatives various methods can be used, for example:

checklists – not very relevant, are is used more for EIA;
trend analyses – useful method for the assessment of the changes, for example an environmental component, over a certain period of time;
GIS - useful method for the assessment of cumulative effects due to the fact that different types of data in relation to a large land area could be processed; as the results of this method depend on the quality of data used, in case of uncertainties or gaps, it is recommended to use, also other complementary methods;
networks and systemic diagrams - are useful for assessing cause-effect correlation, for proper identification of mitigation measures, and for determination of monitoring measures.

Typically the prediction stage involves identification:

of the total impacts on a receptor arising from different components of the strategic action (intra-strategic action impacts), and
of the total impacts of the strategic action in combination with those other activities (inter-strategic action impacts)[8].
Description of the mitigation measures, for example:
- measures for preventing negative impacts;
- measures for reducing negative impacts magnitude;
- measures for reducing the probability of negative impacts occurrence;
- measures to remedy effects after they have occurred;
- measures to compensate to the largest possible extent the adverse effects.

Mitigation measures can be:

fiscal, e.g. congestion charging, carbon tax, higher prices for petrol/water/etc., subsidies for environmentally positive behaviour, hypothecation;
regulatory, e.g. building standards, air quality standards, energy efficiency standards for appliances;
educational, e.g. advertisements, leaflets, training courses;
technical/modal, e.g. requirements for a given % of renewable energy production, sustainable urban drainage systems, wildlife tunnels, bus priority lanes, new infrastructure;
spatial, e.g. density/height of construction, buffer zones, zoning;
further study and assessment during P/P implementation, e.g. environmental impact assessment;

positive 'shadow projects', e.g. green infrastructure[9].

Description of the measures concerning monitoring:
measures for monitoring the achievement of the objectives and targets of P/P;
measures for monitoring of the mitigation measures implementation;
monitoring indicators in relation with the significant effects of the P/P implementation.

For the measures envisaged, the ER will address issues related to the monitoring timescales, frequency of the monitoring, geographical area that is proposed to be monitored, institutional responsibilities for monitoring (e.g.: processing and evaluation of data, information collected through monitoring activities, etc.).

Non-technical summary

Pursuant to Article 17(3) of the EA Ordinance, the non-technical summary is prepared in common language that should be not less than 10% of the EA report. In addition to the text, the NTS contains also the necessary visual materials (maps, photographs, schemes).

The ER must provide evidence regarding the difficulties, uncertainties, and limitations of the information that consist the basis of qualitative and quantitative prediction of the impacts on the environment and of their significance.

Materials useful for better understanding of the environmental assessment results should be included in the ER. They can consist in maps, charts, diagrams, etc. and summary presentation of the information in the form of tables, matrices, etc.

The environmental assessment carried out under the SEAD will consider the environmental issues as air and climatic factors, material assets, population and human health, biodiversity, fauna and flora, cultural heritage, etc., and it would not ignore the environmental concerns as use of renewable and non-renewable energy resources, use or natural raw materials or recycled materials, for example, energy efficiency and adaptation to climate change.

Where an appropriate assessment is carried out for a P/P, as required in compliance with Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) respectively under Bulgarian national legislation[10], this should be part of the environmental assessment; the corresponding alternatives, environmental impacts evaluation and, mitigation and/or compensation measures identified under appropriate assessment must be considered during the preparation of the P/P.

When reviewing the quality of an ER by the environmental authority, the criteria should be focused on the following aspects:

the provision of appropriate information as required at the scoping stage of the SEA process;
the relevance of the baseline information provided in the ER for the environmental assessment of the P/P;
integration of the consultation process into the P/P preparation;
fulfilment of monitoring requirements;
consistency of the data and the information and their presentation in the ER.

8. Quality control and assurance

Unlike the EIA Directive, the SEAD provides for an obligation for quality assurance and control of the environmental assessment. The aim of Article 12(2) of the SEAD is to ensure that the environmental report contains information that is adequate, complete and reliable.

The Directive and the case-law of the CJEU do not provide interpretation on what ‘sufficient quality’ is. The European Commission is of the opinion that since the SEA process and environmental report are both defined by the Directive, a correct transposition and proper application of its provisions, both in content and procedure would appear to meet the requirement for sufficient quality. The Directive does not specify additional measures to ensure that this quality is sufficient. The procedural and substantive requirements of the Directive, if properly implemented and applied, may be envisaged as a ‘minimum standard’ for ensuring the quality of environmental reports. MSs may decide for themselves whether to establish additional measures and, if so, what these should be. There is a wide variety of possible models. Many measures that are used in EIA practice may be adequate and appropriate for the purposes of the SEA Directive^{^[11]}.

In any case the obligation to ensure sufficient quality of the environmental report is on the CA of the MS. This may mean that the CA requires additional information or assessment to be provided, or amendments to the P/P or any other measure considered necessary in view of achieving the objectives of the Directive. Hence, national legislation should provide for powers to the competent environmental authorities to ensure that environmental report and the P/P are compliant with the Directive’s objectives.

Bulgarian national legislation does not provide for many details regarding the assessment of the quality of the ER. Article 20(7) of the EA Ordinance states only that in case of three negative assessments the EA procedure is terminated.

9. Decision-making

In compliance with Article 8 and 9(1) and (2) of the SEAD the decision-makers before putting the P/P in motion must take account of the information in the SEA report and the consultations with the public and the authorities and provide reasons for their decision. The environmental and all other considerations, could direct the process to the adoption or the rejection of the P/P. MS in their national law should establish provision for reflecting the environmental considerations into P/P, for imposing specific conditions or for requiring modifications.

9.1. Article 8 of the SEA Directive

Article 8 requires that the P/P, before being adopted, takes into consideration the SEA report and the opinions expressed during the consultations held under Article 6 and 7.

The obligations in Article 8 reflect the ultimate goal of the Directive to ensure integration of the environmental considerations in the planning process in view of achieving high level of protection of the environment and promoting sustainable development. They form part of the definition for environmental assessment under Article 2(b) and aim at ensuring the environmental considerations are given a due account in the process of adoption of P/P. Last but not least, they also reflect the obligations of the EU arising from the SEA Protocol and the Aarhus Convention, namely that in decisions on P/P pay due account of the outcome of the public participation.

The Directive does not prescribe how the above needs to be done. Hence, it is up to the MS to ensure compliance with this provision of the Directive. It is clear however, that the results of the consultations held need to be properly recorded and analysed and included in the SEA documentation. The authority for the adoption and implementation of the P/P before its adoption must collect, record and analyse the opinions, comments, objections, and proposals made by the public and the consulted authorities and then motivate the acceptance and the rejection of the comments made during the consultations under Article 6 and 7. National law should also provide for a procedure for review the draft P/P in the light of the received comments, if necessary. Special attention should be paid to the cases when other alternatives are proposed during the consultations.

As stated above the LEP requires that the results of the consultations shall be reflected into the environmental assessment report and shall be taken into account in the opinion of the Minister of Environment and Water or the competent RIEW Director. In addition, in the cases when as a result of the consultations it becomes necessary to consider and evaluate other alternatives, opinions or suggestions to the P/P, the developer assigns an amendment to the ER or assesses the need of continuing the consultations, including by organizing a new public hearing. As part of the documents to be submitted so that a statement on the EA is issued, the developer must provide also documentation regarding the results of the public consultations and the consultations with the interested and affected authorities and persons, including a reference summarizing the motives for accepting or not of the received opinions and suggestions, as well as the motives for assigning/refusal to assign the supplementing or decision for continuation of the consultations.

The EA statement is based on the results of the consultations and the way they are taken into consideration. Article 26(1) of the EA Ordinance reads that the competent authority gives a positive statement and thus endorses the P/P when, inter alia:

as a result of the consultations there are not motivated objections in terms of legal compliance received and
the motivated opinion that has been submitted by the specialized competent authorities, i.e. MH and the respective RHI, that there is no significant negative impact or occurrence of risk to human health expected during the implementation of the P/P.

Furthermore, pursuant to Article 26(2)(1) of the EA Ordinance, reads that the statement contains motivation regarding the preferred alternative in terms of the environment, including the consideration of the results of the consultations of the interested bodies and the public.

9.2. Article 9 of the SEA Directive

Pursuant to the definition for environmental assessment the MSs should make a provision for information on the decision. Article 9 defines who and about what should be informed, by it leaving it to the MSs to decide on the necessary arrangements.

Article 9 requires the MS to inform the public and consulted authorities about the P/P as adopted, the consideration of the results from the consultations under Article 6 and 7 and of the motives for choosing the alternative among all other alternatives analysed and last but not least, with about the monitoring measures. The authorities must provide sufficient information about the conditions under which the environmental information is available and how it can be obtained.

The ways of informing the public may be include one or a combination of any the following options: posting of the information under Article 9(1) on the web-site of the authority competent for the implementation of the P/P and on the web-site of the competent environmental authority, or of the local authority(ies) likely to be affected by the implementation of the P/P, announcements in the media, by the establishment of a register of the P/P made subject to SEA, by providing access to the documentation (via the legislation in force on access to documents), etc. It is also possible that MSs apply directly the procedure for providing environmental information established in compliance with Directive 2003/4/EC.

The notification to the public is similar to that in the EIA Directive, namely MSs can make use of this experience or set up different arrangements with the same objective.

The authorities consulted may be informed in the same way as the public, but may also be informed in other ways: like for example specific correspondence. The obligation to inform the authorities is also related to the monitoring requirements under Article 10 of the Directive.

The same applies also to the affected MS that has participated in the transboundary consultations.

Under Bulgarian national legislation, as a general rule, the statement or decision stating that EA would not be required must be made available to the public, the parties affected and concerned, and to any State likely to be affected by the implementation of the P/P. The detailed procedure is provided in the EA Ordinance. Briefly, it requires that the statement is published on the web-site of the issuing authority and of the authority responsible for the adoption of the P/P. Following the adoption, the statement is announced together with P/P in compliance with the procedure for its adoption. Access to the EA/the environmental part of the P/P is provided in compliance with the LEP, namely under the procedure for access to environmental information (Chapter II of the Law). As regards the cases of transboundary EA when the P/P is initiated by Bulgaria, the access procedure is agreed between the states with the agreement under Article 34(3) of the EA Ordinance. In the cases when Bulgaria is an affected country, the Minister of Environment and Water ensures the public access to the presented information on EA under the conditions of Article 20 of the EA Ordinance and sends in due time all opinions on the documentation prior to the decision of the competent authority of the other country.

Unlike the EIA Directive, the SEAD does not provide for a confidentiality clause. The same approach was adopted by Bulgaria. The SEAD, and respectively Bulgarian national legislation, also do not explicitly provide for a right for access to justice. The wording of Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention gives rise for different interpretations so as to whether national laws should provide for legal review of the SEA decisions. The CJEU in its Judgement on Case C-240/09 provided a clarification on whether Article 9.3 of the Convention has direct effect and its conclusion is to the negative, therefore it remains to the EU MSs to comply with the Convention.

“… Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention does not have direct effect in EU law. It is, however, for the referring court to interpret, to the fullest extent possible, the procedural rules relating to the conditions to be met in order to bring administrative or judicial proceedings in accordance with the objectives of Article 9(3) of that convention and the objective of effective judicial protection of the rights conferred by EU law, in order to enable an environmental protection organisation, such as the zoskupenie, to challenge before a court a decision taken following administrative proceedings liable to be contrary to EU environmental law.” (paragraph 52)

10. Monitoring of significant effects of plans/programmes

Article 10 of the SEA Directive makes obligatory the monitoring of the significant environmental effects of P/P covered by the Directive.

In view of the very wide range of P/P, Article 10 of the SEAD is not prescriptive about the way how the significant environmental effects are to be monitored and leaves a lot of flexibility to the MSs. In particular, they are free to determine the authorities/bodies responsible for monitoring, time and frequency of monitoring, the methods they want to use and the consequences of monitoring.

Significant environmental effects are defined as all kinds of effects, including positive, adverse, foreseen and unforeseen ones. They may usually be the effects described in the ER, and may be monitored directly or indirectly (through, for example, pressure factors or mitigation measures).

Valuable information on the implementation of the monitoring obligations under the SEAD may found in the Final Report, IMPEL Project: Implementing Article 10 of the SEA Directive 2001/42/EC[12].

Neither the Directive nor the CJEU give a definition of the term ‘monitoring’. In the Guidance on implementation of Directive 2001/42 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, the Commission takes the view that monitoring can be generally described as an activity of following the development of the parameters of concern in magnitude, time and space. In the context of Article 10 and with regard to the aspect of "remedial action" monitoring may also include an evaluation of the environmental information.

The Guidance defines implementation as not merely the realisation of the projects envisaged in the plan or programme but also other activities (such as behavioural measures or management schemes) which form part of the plan or programme (or its implementation).

The issues posing problems relate to the:

adequate interpretation of the relevant provisions of SEAD;
determination of the scope and the depth of the monitoring;
how should monitoring be organised: responsible authorities, use of information, approaches to monitoring;
setting of monitoring indicators.

10.1. Adequate interpretation of the relevant provisions of the SEA Directive and determination of the scope and the depth of the monitoring

Article 10(1) of the SEAD requires monitoring of the significant environmental effects of the implementation of P/P and the consideration of remedial action, while leaving it to the MSs to define how to monitor and without obliging them to undertake appropriate remedial action. The scope of monitoring is closely linked with the scope of the environmental assessment.

Article 10(2) of the SEAD allow the MSs to use existing monitoring instruments, including those established for needs of other EU environmental acquis (water and air quality monitoring, monitoring of industrial emissions, etc.).

The analyses of the text of the Directive and the practical experience show that the scope and the depth of monitoring are directly linked with the scope of the environmental assessment and with the level of detail of the P/P. It may also be determined by the level of planning (higher level plans (up-stream) tend to be more general compared to those down-stream, i.e. to the more specific ones).

Although not clearly defined in the Directive the IMPEL Report on the implementation of Article 10, comes to the conclusion that in certain cases the monitoring of mitigation measures should also be considered as falling under the scope of the SEAD.

10.2. Organizing the monitoring: responsible authorities, use of information, approaches to monitoring

Monitoring has at least the following three stages:

collection/gathering of data;
processing of the data collected;
evaluation and interpretation.

In some cases consideration of the consequences may also be part of the monitoring process, depending on the national legislation and systems.

The assessment of the situation shows that environmental data collection is an obligation of the environmental authorities, while the monitoring of the P/P implementation is a responsibility of the planning authority. The different countries also apply different approaches when appointing an authority for the evaluation and the interpretation of the collected data, again it would be either the environmental authority or the planning one.

In many cases, monitoring data that are already being collected for other purposes can be used for SEA. For instance, data on the air pollution emissions may be collected as part of integrated pollution control requirements, or wildlife may be monitored for biodiversity action plans. In other cases, specific monitoring schemes will need to be established. There are two general sources of existing information on the state of the environment:

monitoring information collected in view of general environmental monitoring (which may include CORINE, GIS) and
project-related monitoring information collected in view of applying specific acquis: Directive 2008/1/EC on integrated pollution prevention and control, Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste, Directive 2001/80/EC on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants (now all these directives are implemented by Directive 2010/75/EC), Directive 2008/50/EC, Directive 2000/60/EC, Directive 92/43/EEC, etc.

Hence, the MSs are advised to assess to what extent this or any other relevant available information would be sufficient for each P/P, and only where needed to establish additional monitoring mechanisms.

IMPEL Report on the implementation of Article 10 suggests that indicators may also be used for monitoring of environmental effects of the implementation of plans and programmes. The DPSIR[13]-scheme as a methodological background developed by the European Environmental Agency (EEA) may give some ideas about the appropriate factor to be addressed within a cause-effect-chain.

10.3. Monitoring of impact of plans/programmes

Monitoring the actual impacts of a P/P aims to[14]:

test whether the P/P is achieving its objectives and targets/benchmarks;
identify negative impacts - predicted and not predicted - requiring remediation;
help ensure that mitigation measures proposed in the SEA are implemented; and
give feedback to assist in impact predictions for future SEAs.

Monitoring is thus linked to the environmental baseline, impact predictions, and mitigation measures. A typical structure for monitoring is shown below in the Table 3.

SEA objective	Significant environmental impact	Proposed monitoring
To protect and where possible enhance flora and fauna	Permanent loss of inter-tidal habitat due to 'hold the line' coastal protection schemes and on-going coastal squeeze	Monitoring of the quantity of inter-tidal habitat losses and gains using: modelling based on water levels (annual); aerial photography (at least on a 5 yearly basis).
To protect and where possible enhance flora and fauna	Inter-tidal habitat creation	Long-term monitoring through: aerial photography vegetation surveys bird surveys benthic macro-invertebrate surveys
To protect the historic environment	Potential to unearth or damage buried archaeological features	No strategic monitoring required. During preparation of detailed designs, appropriate archaeological assessments and watching briefs will be carried out.

Based on: Environment Agency (2006) Humber Estuary Defence Study, cited by UNU SEA Course

10.4. Supervision and control of P/P implementation under Bulgarian national legislation

In compliance with Article 89 of the LEP, the measures related to monitoring and control of P/P implementation are agreed in consultation between the Minister of Environment and Water or the competent RIEW Director and the authority responsible for the implementation of the P/P.

The EA screening decision should contain, if deemed necessary, measures for supervision and control during the P/P implementation.

The EA statement contains the measures for supervision and control of the P/P implementation, including periodicity for preparing reports on the control and supervision.

The competent environmental authority (under Article 4 of the EA Ordinance), that has issued the statement or the decision on the assessment of the necessity for EA is the competent authority for the supervision and control of the measures as given in the EA statement, during the P/P implementation.

The developer is obliged within 14 days prior to the final adoption or approval of the P/P to send to the above authorities and to the authorities responsible for the P/P implementation a summarized reference, including an analysis of:

the P/P compliance with the main results and recommendations in the EA documentation, with the results from the consultations, with the measures and restriction given in the EA statement or in the decision on the assessment of the necessity for EA;
the P/P compliance with the grounded alternative in the EA statement for reaching the objectives of the P/P;
the extent to which the measures given in the EA statement or in the EA screening decision have been provided for in the P/P.

The developer informs the competent authority under Article 4 EA Ordinance within 14 days following the approval/adoption/endorsement of the P/P.

The developer prepares a report on the supervision and control during the P/P implementation, including the measures for prevention, reduction or remedy of the ecological damages as a result of the P/P implementation in compliance with the periodicity, as determined in the EA statement or in the decision on the assessment of the necessity for EA.

The developer ensures public access to the above report and to the summarized reference.

The institutions that control the funding of the P/P implementation from budget and public finances, notify the authorities competent for the supervision and control of the P/P for any established violations of the requirements for EA implementation as well as for non-implementation of the measures given in the EA statement.

II. Practical guidance on the application of the EIA Directive and the Bulgarian national EIA legislation

The objective of this Chapter is to describe the role and contribution of EIA in the decision-making process and to present the new developments in the EU about EIA, including the CJEU case-law, reports and guidelines issued by or on behalf of the European Commission, and any other relevant guidance documents. In addition, this Chapter provides information about the applicable legal regime in Bulgaria.

1. Overview of EIA

Briefly defined, EIA is a systematic process to identify, predict and evaluate the environmental effects of proposed projects prior to major decisions and commitments being made.

The purpose of EIA is to:

provide information for decision-making on the environmental consequences of proposed actions; and
promote environmentally sound and sustainable development through the identification of appropriate enhancement and mitigation measures.

As already said above, the legal instrument regulating EIA at EU level is the EIA Directive. It aims to protect the environment by ensuring that public is involved and that private projects which are likely to have significant environmental effects by virtue of their nature, size or location are subject to an EIA before the authorization for the implementation of the is granted. The Directive provides for a list of projects that are subject to a mandatory EIA and of projects for which the necessity for EIA needs to be assessed (this assessment is also known as ‘EIA screening’). When it is already clear that an EIA is required, the EIAD establishes a procedure, which briefly covers the following steps: the developer may request the competent authority (CA) to advise him/her what should be covered by the EIA information to be provided (the so called ‘scoping stage’); the developer provides the information on the environmental impact (EIS); the environmental authorities and the public (and affected Member States) are informed and consulted; the CA makes a decision by taking into consideration also the results of consultations. The public is informed of the decision afterwards and is entitled to an access to a review procedure before a court of law.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union the EU Member States are obliged to harmonize their national legislation with this Directive[15] and thus it is implemented in a uniform way across the whole Union[16].

It should be noted that in view of Article 288(3) of the TFEU the obligation to ensure compliance with EU law lays on the MSs, and not the developer of the project. In case of an identified non-compliance, the Commission may initiate an infringement procedure against and MS and if necessary bring it to the CJEU. Therefore, the MS’ authorities should undertake all measures: legislative, administrative, organizational, etc. to ensure compliance with the Directive. This interpretation has been confirmed on a number of occasions by Court. For example in Judgement on Case C-72/95, Kraaijeveld and Others, the Court stated the following:

“… it should be recalled that the obligation of a Member State to take all the measures necessary to achieve the result prescribed by a directive is a binding obligation imposed by the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and by the directive itself (see Case 51/76 Verbond van Nederlandse Ondernemingen [1977] ECR 113, paragraph 22, and Case 152/84 Marshall [1986] ECR 723, paragraph 48). That duty to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, is binding on all the authorities of Member States including, for matters within their jurisdiction, the courts (see Case C-106/89 Marleasing [1990] ECR I-4135, paragraph 8).” (paragraph 55)

According to a Report prepared for the European Commission in 2010, approximately 16,000 EIAs are carried out in the EU-27 MSs, together with around 34,000 screenings, which shows that the EIA is a tool to assess the environmental costs and benefits of specific projects with the aim of ensuring their sustainability and that the Directive has become a key instrument of environmental integration that has also brought environmental and socio-economic benefits.

However, the development of EIA is an evolving process. While ensuring that it is effectively implemented across an enlarged EU, it is also necessary to ensure that the EIA Directive is adapted to the EU and international policy and legal contexts. The Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive (Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directives 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC) of July 2009 indicates areas where improvements are needed (e.g. screening, public participation, quality of the EIA, EIA transboundary procedures, coordination between the EIA and other environmental directives and policies, such as climate change and biodiversity) and presents possible recommendations for action.

As a consequence, the Directive is currently under review and is expected that the amended EIA Directive will be adopted in the coming 2 years. The proposal aims at strengthening the provisions concerning the quality of the EIA so as a high level of environmental protection is achieved. Furthermore, the proposal will enhance policy coherence and synergies with other EU law instruments and simplify procedures, with a view to reducing unnecessary administrative burdens.

NB: The users of this document should bear in mind that the amended EIA Directive is expected to bring some substantial changes compared to the currently acting Directive. Hence, once the amendments to the directive enter into force it will be necessary to adapt this document to the new/amended requirements. Last but not least, whenever the Review of the EIA Directive is mentioned in this document, the users should bear in mind that it reflects the Commission Proposal only. This is due to the timing when this document is prepared.

As said above the EIA Directive in Bulgaria is implemented in the LEP and the Ordinance on the conditions and the order for implementing environmental impact assessment. This legal framework defines the projects that need to be made subject to (mandatory) EIA, the screening procedure, the competences of the national authorities and the requirements regarding the participation of the public in the EIA decision-making process.

Pursuant to Article 81(1) of the LEP, EIA is implemented for investment proposals[17] under Annex I and II of the said Law (Annex I and II of the EIAD, for details, please see below) for construction, activities and technologies or their changes or extensions while significant impacts on environment are likely to occur.

Bulgarian national legislation states that EIA is aimed at integration of the predictions with regard to environment in the process of development as a whole and the introduction of the principle of sustainable development.

EIA determines, describes and assesses in appropriate way and according to each individual case the direct and the indirect impacts of the investment proposals for construction, activities and technologies over man, the biological diversity and its elements, including flora and fauna, the soil, the water, the air, the climate and the landscape, the earth bowels, the material and the cultural – historic heritage and the interaction between them.

Key stages of the EIA procedure

The key stages of the EIA process, as widely recognised in the EU, are:

Project preparation;
Notification to competent authority;
Screening*;
Scoping;
Environmental studies;
Submission of environmental information to competent authority;
Review of adequacy of the environmental information;
Consultation with statutory environmental authorities, other interested parties and the public;
Consideration of the environmental information by the competent authority before making development consent decision;
Informing the public (and the other Member States consulted under Article 7) of the EIA decision;
Post-decision monitoring if project is granted consent.

*The bold text shows which steps are currently obligatory under Directive 2011/92/EU.

In the following sections more detailed information will be provided according to the sequence of the stages of the EIA process.

Bulgarian national legislation legally acknowledges the following stages of the EIA procedure (Article 2(1) of the EIA Ordinance):

Notification of the competent authorities and the affected population;
Assessment of the necessity for EIA (EIA screening);
Consultations; determination of the scope, the content and the format of the EIA report (EIA scoping);
Assessment of the quality of the EIA report;
Public consultation of the EIA report;
Taking the EIA decision;
Control of the compliance with the conditions of the EIA decision or the decision on the assessment of the necessity for EIA;

2. Screening – projects subject to a requirement for development consent

This chapter will identify the general and particular screening aspects in relation with certain project categories and their potential significant impacts on the environment and present practical information for the decision to carry out an EIA or not, so-called “Screening Decision”.

2.1. Information submitted for EIA screening - as part of the application for the development consent

The EIA Directive does not contain requirements regarding the data and information about the project that should be provided by the developer to the competent authority for the needs of the EIA screening.

This issue should be considered especially for the projects listed in Annex II and for those projects for which there are no thresholds or criteria established and for which at the screening stage of the EIA procedure a case-by-case examination is required by Article 4(2) of EIAD. Omissions or lack of data and information can lead to inappropriate screening decision.

The information submitted by the developer for at the EIA screening stage should cover, at least those aspects that should allow for a suitable analysis using the selection criteria set out in Annex III of the EIAD:

description of the project location;
description of the characteristics of the project including an outline of the various components; a brief presentation showing how the proposed project is correlated with existing or envisaged projects;
description of potential effects (positive and negative) on the environment;
description of the measures envisaged to avoid, prevent or reduce any significant adverse effects on the environment;
maps, drawings, plans, etc. identifying the site of the proposed project and project’s characteristics.

The information submitted by the developer should enable the competent authority the evaluation of the potential significant environmental effects of a project on the environment, and to decide on whether an EIA is required or not.

Moreover, on the basis of the information provided by the developer and other relevant data available - that can include also comments or complaints received from the public concern about the proposed project – the environmental authorities determine (at scoping stage of the EIA process) the key issues and potential impacts to be assessed in the EIS.

According to Article 4(1) of the EIA Ordinance, the developer is obliged to notify in writing the competent bodies, i.e. MoEW/RIEW, at the earliest possible stage about his/her investment proposal, while submitting the notification in one paper and two electronic copies (it is for the developer to ensure that the paper and electronic copies with equivalent content).

By virtue of Article 4(3) of the EIA Ordinance, the developer must submit at least the following information with the notification:

data about the developer;
summary of the proposal, including description of the main processes, the capacity, total used surface, if it is for a new investment proposal and/or about extension or modification of the production activity, the necessity for other associated to main activity supporting or auxiliary activities, including use of existing or the need for construction of new technical infrastructure (road/streets, gas-pipe, electricity distribution lines, etc.); envisaged digging activities, use of explosives;
relation with other existing and approved with a spatial or another plan activities within the range of impact of the subject of the investment proposal, necessity for issuing coordination/permit documents pursuant to a special law (lex specialis), the authority for the approval/permitting of the investment proposal under a procedure of a special law.
location of the site, i.e. urban area, municipality, residential area, land plot reference number, geographic coordinates (if possible WGS, 1984), ownership, proximity to or impact on protected areas, sites for protection of cultural heritage, expected transboundary impact, scheme of change of existing road infrastructure;
natural resources, planned to be used during the construction and exploitation, envisaged water intake for drinking, industrial and other needs, i.e. through public water supply (Water and Sewage or other network) and/or surface waters, and/or groundwater, the quantities needed, the existing facilities and the necessity for construction of new ones;
waste which is expected to be generated and projections for their treatment;
expected quantities and type of waste waters (domestic/industrial), envisaged method for their treatment, i.e. treatment facility/plant, discharge into the sewage system/water body, own pit or other, seasonality, etc.

2.2. Project categories listed in Annex I of the EIAD

For the projects listed in Annex I of the EIAD, which are considered as having significant effects on the environment, EIA is obligatory.

Annex I of the EIAD provides a list of projects with an indication of scale, in the form of a quantified threshold, which identifies the projects requiring an EIA.

Projects as defined in Article 1(2)(a) of EIAD: “…the execution of construction works or of other installations or schemes; …other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape including those involving the extraction of mineral resources” must be correlated with certain definitions.

The same wording is also used in point 17 of the Additional Provisions to the LEP to define the notion “investment proposal”.

In this respect, the EIAD provides several references to certain definitions as stated in:

EU Directives and in Bulgarian national legislation:

EU Directives	Transposing Bulgarian legislation
Directive 2008/98/EC: for waste disposal installations	Law on Waste Management (prom. SG 53 of 13/07/2012)
Directive 91/271/EEC: for waste water treatment plants	Law on Waters (prom. State Gazette 67 of 27/06/1999, as last amended State Gazette 82 of 26/10/2012); Ordinance No. 6 of 9 November 2000 on the emission values of admissible content of harmful and dangerous substances in waste waters discharged in water bodies (prom. State Gazette 97 of 28/11/2000, amended State Gazette 24 of 23/03/2004); Ordinance No. 2 of 8 June 2011 on the issuing of permits for the discharge of waste waters in water bodies and setting individual emission restrictions to point pollution sources (prom. State Gazette 47 of 21/06/2011, amended and supplemented State Gazette 14 of 17/02/2012); Ordinance No. 7 of 14 November 2000 on the terms and procedure for discharge of industrial waste waters in the settlements sewerage systems (prom. State Gazette 98 of 01/12/2000)
Directive 2009/31/EC: for storage sites on the geological storage of carbon dioxide and for installations for the capture of CO₂ streams for the purposes of geological storage	Law on Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide (prom. SG 14 of 17/02/2012, as amended and supplemented SG 82 of 26/10/2012)

Other documents:

1944 Chicago Convention setting up the International Civil Aviation Organisation ratified by Bulgaria by Decree No. 596 of 04/08/1966: (Annex 14) for an airport definition;
European Agreement on Main International Traffic Arteries of 15 November 1975, ratified by Bulgaria by Decree No. 940 of 14/06/1977, in force for the country as of 15/03/1983: for an express road definition.

Some other projects can be identified by using the definitions set out in other EU directives and in BREFs, and the rulings of the CJEU:

Other directives as implemented in Bulgarian national legislation, for example:

Directive 2000/60/EC Water Framework Directive and the Law on Waters: e.g. “river basin”;
Directive 2008/98/EC Waste Framework Directive and the Law on Waste Management: e.g. “hazardous waste”.

BREFs definitions

It is useful to define a project type/category by means of BREFs definitions, but it should be avoided the confusions taking into account that exist differences between the thresholds set out for the project type/activity as listed in Annex I of Directive 2010/75/EU (Industrial Emissions Directive), and those set out for project type as listed in Annex I in EIAD.

The rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union

Clarifications about the meaning of certain project definitions can be found in “Guidance on Interpretation of definitions of certain project categories of annex I and II of the EIA Directive”, European Commission/Directorate General Environment – 2008.

“… point 7 of Annex I to Directive 85/337 must be understood to include the doubling of an already existing railway track.

A project of that kind can have a significant effect on the environment within the meaning of that directive, since it is likely to have lasting effects on, for example, flora and fauna and the composition of soil or even on the landscape and produce significant noise effects, inter alia, so that it must be included in the scope of the Directive. The objective of Directive 85/337 would be seriously undermined if that type of project for the construction of new railway track, even parallel to existing track, could be excluded from the obligation to carry out an assessment of its effects on the environment. Accordingly, a project of that sort cannot be considered a mere modification to an earlier project within the meaning of point 12 of Annex II to the Directive.

… that conclusion is all the more obvious when, as in the present case, the execution of the project at issue involves a new track route, even if that applies only to part of the project. Such a construction project is by its nature likely to have significant effects on the environment within the meaning of Directive 85/337.” (CJEU, Judgement on Case C-227/01, Commission v. Spain, paragraphs 48-50)

Annex I Waste disposal

“The concept of waste disposal for the purpose of the EIA Directive is an independent concept which must be given a meaning which fully satisfies the objective pursued by that measure, which, as is clear from Article 2(1) of the directive, is that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location should be made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects. Accordingly, that concept, which is not equivalent to that of waste disposal for the purpose of Directive 75/442[18], must be construed in the wider sense as covering all operations leading either to waste disposal, in the strict sense of the term, or to waste recovery.

As a result, an establishment, which generates electricity from the incineration of biomass and combustible materials derived from waste and which has a capacity exceeding 100 tonnes per day, comes into the category of disposal installations for the incineration or chemical treatment of non-hazardous waste in point 10 of Annex I to the EIA Directive. As such, before being authorised, it should have undergone the environmental impact assessment procedure, since the projects which fall within Annex I must undergo a systematic assessment under Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of that directive.” (CJEU, Judgement on Case C-486/04, Commission v. Italian Republic, paragraphs 44-45)

2.3. EIA Screening for projects listed in Annex II of EIAD

As regards the meaning of definitions, the interpretation of certain project categories that are listed in Annex II of the EIAD should be done in a similar way as presented above regarding the project categories, which fall under Annex I of the Directive (BREF definitions, rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union, etc.).

In order to determine if a project listed in Annex II requires an EIA, the EIAD does not provide specific thresholds. According to Article 4(2) of the EIAD, the determination of whether an EIA is required or not can be done through a case-by-case examination or through the establishment of thresholds or criteria by the MS. Particular cases that are stemming from these approaches:

in the national legislation thresholds and criteria are specified:
decision to carry out /to not carry out EIA if the project characteristics fall above/below given thresholds or meet/do not meet specific criteria (applying the procedure referred to in Article 4(2)(b));
decision to carry out EIA even if project characteristics fall below given thresholds, because there is a likelihood of significant effects on the environment by reference to the nature or location of the project (applying both procedures referred to in Article 4(2)(a) and (b) together with the selection criteria under Annex III).

The provisions of Article 2(1) of the EIAD and Article 81(1)(2) of the LEP shall not be ignored whatever procedure is used for the determination whether a project listed in Annex II of the EIAD, respectively in Annex II of the LEP, is made subject to an EIA.

An example in this respect is the CJEU Judgement on Case C-392/96, Commission v. Ireland:

A Member State which, on the basis of Article 4(2) of the EIA Directive, has established thresholds and/or criteria taking account only the size of projects, without taking into consideration all the criteria listed in Annex III [i.e. nature and location of projects], exceeds the limits of its discretion under Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of the EIA Directive. (paragraphs 65, 72)

The same approach was adopted by the Court also in Cases C-66/06, Commission v. Ireland, paragraph 64; C-255/08, Commission v. Netherlands, paragraphs 32-39)^{^[19]}.

In the national legislation thresholds and criteria are not adopted: at the screening stage of the EIA procedure, a case-by-case determination is performed, using the selection criteria listed in Annex III (applying the procedure referred to in Article 4(2)(a)).

According to Annex III of the EIAD, respectively Article 93(4) of the LEP, the relevant selection criteria refer to:

Characteristics of projects;
Location of projects;
Characteristics of the potential impact.

The decision of the CA whether to carry out or not an EIA for a project should be justified according to the provisions of the EIAD and Article 93(5) of the LEP and Article 8(4) of the EIA Ordinance, and made available to the public.

“A decision by which the national competent authority takes the view that the project’s characteristics do not require it to be subjected to an assessment of its effects on the environment 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.” (CJEU, Judgement on Case C-87/02, Commission v. Italian Republic, paragraph 49)

2.4. EIA Screening for projects concerning associated/ancillary and rehabilitation works

For the application of the EIAD to associated/ancillary works, will consider the EC guidance document “Interpretation suggested by the Commission as regards the application of EIA Directive to associated/ancillary works”[20]. It should be noted that according to Article 82(3) of the LEP: “Where implementation of the development proposal requires pursuit of other subsidiary or supporting activities connected with the principal subject of assessment, the said activities shall likewise be included in the requisite assessment, irrespective of whether the said activities in themselves fall within the scope of Annexes 1 or 2 hereto. If the subsidiary or supporting activities in themselves are subject to EIA as development proposals, all assessments shall be integrated and a single joint procedure shall be conducted.”

When deciding whether such works should be making subject to EIA, the following aspects could be taken into account:

Associated works
- if listed in Annex I of the EIAD, an EIA should be carried out;
- if listed in Annex II of the EIAD, these should be made subject to EIA screening.
Connection between the associated works (listed in Annex I or Annex II of the EIAD) and the works of the main project requiring EIA:
- associated works are inextricably linked to the main works: an EIA should be carried out for the whole project;
associated works are independent from the main project: individually subject to the requirements of EIAD.

If it appears that the associated works are inextricably linked to the main works, their approval and initiation should be considered as an initiation of the project. Thus, where the main project requires an EIA, the approval and/or physical execution of the associated works prior to the undertaking on an EIA would constitute a breach of the EIA Directive. These works could only start once the EIA for the whole project (main and associated) was carried out.

If it appears that the associated works are independent from the main project intervention, they should be subject individually to the requirements of EIA Directive and could start after the finalization of their own EIA, if required, or screening procedure^{^[21]}.

Annexes I and II of the EIAD contain in their lists of project categories with reference to “change to or extension of projects”:

Annex I, point 24 of the EIAD, respectively point 38 of Annex I to the LEP: “Any change to or extension of projects listed in this Annex where such a change or extension in itself meets the thresholds, if any, set out in this Annex”;
Annex II, point 13(a), respectively Article 93(1)(3) of the LEP: “Any change or extension of projects listed in Annex I or this Annex, already authorised, executed or in the process of being executed, which may have significant adverse effects on the environment (change or extension not included in Annex I)”.

Some rehabilitation works of existing projects can be considered as projects consisting in works for “change to or extension of projects“, and by accomplishing the above stated conditions, they should be subject of EIA procedure.

The decision, as to whether a project concerning rehabilitation works falls under scope of Annex I or under Annex II of the EIAD, should be made considering:

the quantified thresholds for the project that is subject to rehabilitation works - as defined for projects listed in Annex I, points 1-23;
a case-by-case examination, using the selection criteria set out in Annex III of the EIAD.

Annex II (13) Any change or extension of projects listed in Annex I or Annex II, already authorized, executed or in the process of being executed, which may have significant adverse effects on the environment;

In case C-72/95, Kraaijeveld and others, the Court found that the expression canalization and flood-relief works in point 10(f) of Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC (before amendments by Directive 97/11/EC) should be interpreted as including not only construction of a new dyke but also modification of an existing dyke involving its relocation, reinforcement or widening, replacement of a dyke by constructing a new dyke in situ, whether or not the new dyke is stronger or wider than the old one, or a combination of such works. (paragraph 42)

For the rehabilitation works concerning landfills for which, in the initial permitting procedure, EIA was not required, Directorate General Environment of the EC, highlights the need of determination whether such a project should be made subject to an EIA:

“The European Commission is of the opinion that the rehabilitation of landfills has in certain cases significant effects on the environment, (for example through the construction of physical installations, the generation of leachates or the production of methane and other gases). These effects should normally be included in the EIA report prepared as part of the original authorisation of the landfill. If the EIA Directive was not applicable at that time, or if an EIA was not considered necessary, then either a screening or full EIA procedure should be carried out before the rehabilitation takes place.”^{^[23]}

2.5. Demolition works

Pursuant to Judgement of the CJEU of 2011, demolition works should also be considered as works falling under the scope of the notion “project” and hence under the scope of the EIA Directive.

“97 As regards the question whether demolition works come within the scope of Directive 85/337, as the Commission maintains in its pleadings, or whether, as Ireland contends, they are excluded, it is appropriate to note, at the outset, that the definition of the word ‘project’ in Article 1(2) of that directive cannot lead to the conclusion that demolition works could not satisfy the criteria of that definition. Such works can, indeed, be described as ‘other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape’.

98 That interpretation is supported by the fact that, if demolition works were excluded from the scope of that directive, the references to ‘the cultural heritage’ in Article 3 thereof, to ‘landscapes of historical, cultural or archaeological significance’ in point 2(h) of Annex III to that directive and to ‘the architectural and archaeological heritage’ in point 3 of Annex IV thereto would have no purpose.

99 It is true that, under Article 4 of Directive 85/337, for a project to require an environmental impact assessment, it must come within one of the categories in Annexes I and II to that directive. However, as Ireland contends, they make no express reference to demolition works except, irrelevantly for the purposes of the present action, the dismantling of nuclear power stations and other nuclear reactors, referred to in point 2 of Annex I.

100 However, it must be borne in mind that those annexes refer rather to sectoral categories of projects, without describing the precise nature of the works provided for. As an illustration it may be noted, as did the Commission, that ‘urban development projects’ referred to in point 10(b) of Annex II often involve the demolition of existing structures.

101 It follows that demolition works come within the scope of Directive 85/337 and, in that respect, may constitute a ‘project’ within the meaning of Article 1(2) thereof.”

2.6. EIA Screening of the projects likely to have significant effects on another Member State

Determination of the potential negative transboundary environmental impact is done at the screening stage of the EIA procedure.

The Espoo Convention[24] defines the transboundary impact as “any impact, not exclusively of a global nature, within an area under the jurisdiction of a Party caused by a proposed activity the physical origin of which is situated wholly or in part within the area under the jurisdiction of another Party.”

The projects likely to have significant effects on the environment in another Party or a Party is likely to be significantly affected, for which an EIA is undertaken prior to a decision to authorize or undertake them, are listed in Espoo Convention Appendix I.

During the EIA screening procedure, the project category should be clearly defined. In order to avoid confusions due to project identification, it is recommended that Annex I of the EIAD and Appendix I of the Espoo Convention be used in parallel.

For those activities (with potentially transboundary impacts) which are not listed in Appendix I of Espoo Convention it will be used the general criteria to determine the environmental significance of activities, which are referred in Appendix III of the Convention.

These shall include projects or activities, which by their nature and/or location are likely to cause adverse impacts beyond the administrative boundaries of the country where they are proposed to be implemented.

Criteria to determine potential negative transboundary environmental impacts can include:

design characteristics of the project and the activities that shall be undertaken during and after the development of the project;
area of land, air and water that may be affected;
types and quantities of materials that will be used during project construction and operation;
possible products and by-products, including wastes generated by the project.

In addition, it should be taken into consideration whether the project in combination with other envisaged or already implemented projects is likely to have negative transboundary impacts.

When a project is partially on the territory of another state, its potential transboundary impact is considered at the screening stage of the EIA procedure. A relevant example in that sense is Judgement of the CJEU on Case C-205/08, Umweltanwalt von Kärnten[25].

“Projects listed in Annex I to the EIA Directive which extend to the territory of a number of Member States cannot be exempted from the application of the Directive solely on the ground that it does not contain any express provision in regard to them. Such an exemption would seriously interfere with the objective of the EIA Directive. Its effectiveness would be seriously compromised if the competent authorities of a Member State could, when deciding whether a project must be the subject of an environmental impact assessment, leave out of consideration that part of the project which is located in another Member State. That finding is strengthened by the terms of Article 7 of the EIA Directive, which provide for inter-State cooperation when a project is likely to have significant effects on the environment in another Member State.”^{^[26]} (paragraphs 54-56)

2.7. Exemptions

According to Article 1(3) of the EIA Directive and Article 81(4) of the LEP, the projects serving national defence purposes, can be subject of exemption for the EIAD, if it so provided under national law.

An important aspect in applying the provisions of Article 1(3) and Article 81(4) of the LEP is the determination of the project category (if the project is listed in Annex I or Annex II of the EIAD and LEP) and its characteristics, so that a clear justification that it mainly serves national defence is provided.

A relevant example in that sense is Judgement of the CJEU on Case C-435/97, WWF and Others.

“The Directive, as stated in Article 1(4), does not cover `projects serving national defence purposes'. That provision thus excludes from the Directive's scope and, therefore, from the assessment procedure for which it provides, projects intended to safeguard national defence. Such an exclusion introduces an exception to the general rule laid down by the Directive that environmental effects are to be assessed in advance and it must accordingly be interpreted restrictively. Only projects which mainly serve national defence purposes may therefore be excluded from the assessment obligation.

It follows that the Directive covers projects, such as that at issue in the main proceedings which, as the file shows, has the principal objective of restructuring an airport in order for it to be capable of commercial use, even though it may also be used for military purposes.

Article 1(4) of the Directive is to be interpreted as meaning that an airport which may simultaneously serve both civil and military purposes, but whose main use is commercial, falls within the scope of the Directive.” (paragraphs 65-67)

As regards the projects referred in Article 1(4) of the EIAD, it should be noted in view of the wording of the Directive and relevant CJEU case-law it should be concluded, that indeed such projects may be exempted from the provisions of the EIA Directive if the following minimum conditions are complied with:

the project is adopted pursuant to a specific legislative act which includes all the elements which may be relevant to the assessment of the impact of the project on the environment;
the legislative process has enabled the objectives pursued by the EIA Directive, including that of supplying information, to be achieved, and the information available to the parliament at the time when the details of the project were adopted was equivalent to that which would have been submitted to the competent authority in an ordinary procedure for granting consent for a project.

This interpretation is supported by a number of judgements of the CJEU, like for example: judgements on Cases C-435/97, WWF and Others, C-128/09, Boxus and Others, C-287/98, Linster, C-182/10, Solvay and Others.

“Article 1(5) [now Article 1(4)] of Council 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 Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that only projects the details of which have been adopted by a specific legislative act, in such a way that the objectives of that directive have been achieved by the legislative process, are excluded from the ambit of that directive. It is for the national court to verify that those two conditions have been satisfied, taking account both of the content of the legislative act adopted and of the entire legislative process which led to its adoption, in particular the preparatory documents and parliamentary debates. In that regard, a legislative act which does no more than simply ‘ratify’ a pre-existing administrative act, by merely referring to overriding reasons relating to the general interest without a substantive legislative process enabling those conditions to be fulfilled having first been opened, cannot be regarded as a specific legislative act for the purposes of that provision and is therefore not sufficient to exclude a project from the ambit of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35.” (paragraph 58.1)

Under Article 81(7) of the LEP, EIA procedure under that Law is not carried out when according to a procedure established by a special law, the investment proposals are subject to approval in a procedure including a similar assessment and provided that public access to the relevant information is ensured.

3. Scoping stage of the EIA process

Scoping is an important stage of the EIA process bearing in mind that it represents the starting point of the EIA, when the issues to be addressed in the EIS are identified, and then at the subsequent stage, it ensures a sound basis for the decision-making.

In addition, the application of this procedural step minimizes the cases of request of further information at the later stages of the EIA process.

References to this stage are provided in Article 5 of the EIAD:

the information supplied by the developer in compliance with the requirements of Annex IV of the EIAD – Article 5(1);
consulting the developer and other authorities concerned by the project by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities regarding the information to be supplied by the developer – Article 5(2);
definition of the information to be provided in a EIS - Article 5(3).

It should be noted that although scoping is an optional step under the EIAD, it is considered a good practice and represents a mandatory step of the EIA process under Bulgarian national legislation.

At the scoping stage, the competent authority defines the content of the EIS by addressing priority issues to be taken into account of during the EIA process, and to be presented in details in the EIS:

consideration of the relevant baseline conditions;
potential effects on the environment and which of these effects are the most important, and therefore need a deeper analysis in the EIS;
consideration of the outcomes of consultations (with the public and other authorities);
consideration of the alternatives.

3.1. Tools for scoping

In order to determine the scope of the EIA of a specific project, a minimum information should be available to the competent authority, and this will include: the description of the location and land use for project area, description of activities at the pre-construction, construction and operation phases of the project, key activities and likely associated pollutants, etc.

A proper scoping of a project takes into consideration the specific activity of the project, and site-specific details in relation to the project location.

At the scoping stage of the EIA, can be used (individually or combined):

checklists;
matrices;
network diagrams;
baseline studies;
handbooks and/or guidelines developed for similar activities;
consultation with experts with environmental and other relevant technical expertise;
consultations with environmental authorities, general public, other interested organizations.

The consultations with the different parties (experts, environmental authorities, public) will be done by through the following steps:

identification of the parties to be consulted, and which can be interested in the project;
provision of the information about the project in an appropriate form to the consulted parties;

analysing the comments and/or suggestions received from the consulted parties, and including them in the EIA of the project.

It has to be noted that in case of a project likely to have transboundary impact, the affected Member State should be consulted at scoping stage of the EIA.

3.2. Scoping document

A written report on the results of the EIA scoping stage is not required by all EU MSs, however, it has to be noted that this is good EIA practice, since the CA provides the developer with a useful document for the EIS preparation.

The structure of the scoping document can be similar with that of the EIS.

The content of the scoping document should provide information on the proposed coverage (scope) of the EIA, and, if applicable, the outcomes of the consulted parties (authorities, public, and other interested organizations).

Issues to be covered by a scoping document:

information regarding the developer;
relevant data and information about the project, which should be considered during the EIA, and the preparation of the EIS: project description, timescales, ancillary works, plans/ maps/chart/diagrams;
environmental baseline conditions to be considered for the EIA of the project;
alternatives of the project that should be assessed and, which can refer to: design alternatives, locations, processes/technologies, construction methods/techniques;
connection of the proposed project with approved development plans and other (related) projects;
recommendations about the methodologies to be applied for the EIA;
key impacts (positive and negative) to be addressed in details in the EIS, and corresponding mitigation measures;
requirements for the environmental monitoring to be included in the in the EIS;
name of the authorities that should give their opinion in relation with the project (opinions which will be considered in the EIA);
stakeholders involved in the EIA process;
schedule of the EIA process: formal procedures, further consultations envisaged, completion date for the submission of the EIS, etc.

In the case of identification of any gaps in the information related to baseline conditions, at the scoping stage, the CA can require environmental surveys and/or investigations to be carried out as part of the EIA.

In addition, if according to Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, an appropriate assessment has already been carried out for the project area, the scoping document should provide recommendations how to incorporate the main aspects identified by appropriate assessment report into the EIS of the proposed project. It also possible that the national legislation of a MS allows for coordinated/joined procedures when both EIA and appropriate assessment are required. In this case, the scoping document should provide recommendations to both assessments by taking into consideration their specific subjects and elements of assessment.

3.3. Scoping procedure under Bulgarian national legislation

Bulgarian national legislation, and in particular Article 95 of the LEP and Chapter III of the EIA Ordinance provide for the following procedural steps:

In view of the characteristics of the investment proposal the developer determines with which specialised authorities and representatives of the affected public to carry out the consultations for the determination of scope of the EIA.

Article 95(3) of the LEP states that consultations should be on the following aspects:

the specific characteristics of the proposed construction, activities or technologies, level of development of the design solution and its inter-relation with existing or other planned construction, activities or technologies;
the characteristics of the existing environment and all environmental media thereof;
the significance of the eventual impacts;
the terms of reference for the scope and content of the EIA;
the scope of study connected to the EIA;
the alternative development proposals;
7. the affected population's interests and opinions;
the sources of information;
the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment;
measures for mitigation of the eventual adverse impacts on the environment.

These consultations may take the form of:

announcement in the mass media;
sending messages to the local authorities;
preparation and dissemination of a prospect or brochure with brief information about the investment proposal;
dissemination of letters or questionnaires to interested organisations or persons, living in immediate proximity, with request for information and comments on the investment proposal;
placing information boards or posters;
organising of expert or public groups on the scope of the assessment;
organising meetings with the affected population.

The developer is obliged to provide sufficient information to the consulted parties. Following the completion of the consultations, the developer prepares summarized reference about the implemented consultations and the motives for the accepted and non-accepted comments and recommendations.

The developer then prepares the terms of reference (ToR) for the determination of the scope of EIA, while using the information acquired during the consultations. Article 10(3) of the EIA Ordinance defines the content of this ToR:

characteristic of the investment proposal, including:

description of the physical characteristics of the investment proposal and necessary areas (as reclaimed terrains, agricultural land, forest areas, others) during the phase of construction and the phase of exploitation;
description of the basic characteristics of the production process, e.g. type and quantity of the used raw resources and materials;
determination of the type and the quantity of the expected waste and emissions (pollution of waters, air and soils; noise; vibrations; radiations, i.e. light, heat; radiation, etc.) as a result of the exploitation of the investment proposal;

alternatives for implementing the investment proposal;
characteristic of the environment, in which the investment proposal will be implemented and prognosis of the impact;
significance of the impacts on the environment, definition of the unavoidable and durable impacts on environment by the construction and exploitation of the investment proposal’s subject which may be significant and which should be considered in details in the EIA report.
structure of the EIA report with description of the expected content of the items, included therein (as regards the content and description of the health and hygiene aspects of the environment and the risk to public health, the developer consults in particular the specialised competent authorities of the Ministry of Health);
list of the necessary annexes, lists, etc.;
stages, phases and deadlines for preparing the EIA report;
other conditions or requirements.

The developer then consults the ToR with the EIA competent authority which may recommend additional consultations to be organized. At this stage the developer should also declare whether the application of the BATs will be integrated with the EIA procedure in compliance with Article 99a of the LEP (if applicable).

4. Impact analysis

During the EIA process, it must be identified and evaluated the effects of proposed project implementation on (Article 3 of the EIA Directive and Article 81(4) of the LEP):

human being, fauna and flora;
soil, water, air, climate and the landscape;
material assets and the cultural heritage;
the interaction between the factors referred to in above.

Central point of directive is the question about which environmental impacts must be assessed. These can vary in:

type - biophysical, social, health or economic;
nature - direct or indirect, cumulative, etc.;
magnitude or severity - high, moderate, low;
extent- local, regional, transboundary or global;
timing - immediate/long-term;
duration - temporary/permanent;
uncertainty - low likelihood/high probability;
reversibility - reversible/irreversible;
significance* - unimportant/important.

* Impact significance is not necessarily related to the impact magnitude. Sometimes very small impacts, such as the disturbance of the nest of a pair of endangered birds, may be significant. When determining the significance of the potential impacts of a proposal, all of the above factors should be taken into consideration.

Pursuant to Article 5 and Annex IV of the EIAD and Article 96 of the LEP and Article 12 of the EIA Ordinance, the EIS should provide information, inter alia, on the likely significant effects of the proposed project on the environment resulting from: (a) the existence of the project; (b) the use of natural resources; (c) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of waste. The wording of the Directive shows that this description should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short-, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the project. The CJEU has clarified on a number of occasions that it are an obligation of the MSs to ensure that each EIA provides for an assessment of all impacts and that if any of these effects is not assessed, the EIA should not be considered as compliant with the Directive. In the boxes below as an example two Court judgements are presented.

“… the EIAD adopts an overall assessment of the effects of projects or the alteration thereof on the environment. It would be simplistic and contrary to that approach to take account, when assessing the environmental impact of a project or of its modification, only of the direct effects of the works envisaged themselves, and not of the environmental impact liable to result from the use and exploitation of the end product of those works…” (paragraph 39).

“the Court declared that by failing to assess the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the project (modification of Route M-01), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 2(1), Article 3, 4(1)(2) and Article 5 of the EIAD” (paragraph 106).

The assessment of the project impacts on the environment is done by addressing the issues on three steps:

identification of the impacts;
prediction of the characteristics of the impacts;
assessment of the significance of the impacts.

The impact analysis must address both to construction and for operation phases of the project.

An adequate impact analysis comprises of consideration of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed project on environmental components.

The prediction of impacts depends on the consistency of the knowledge of the baseline environmental conditions and their evaluation, including the tendency of change in the future and, on the consideration of the implementation/non-implementation of the proposed project.

The availability of resources for data and information for defining current environmental baseline conditions should be evaluated at the early stage of the EIA process (at EIA scoping stage). If the data and information available does not cover all aspects necessary for a proper evaluation of the effects on the environmental components, which can arise from the proposed project implementation, the developer should conduct additional environmental surveys and/or investigations. The results of the additional environmental surveys and/or investigations, compiled with data and information previously identified, could constitute a solid base for impacts analyse.

The identification of the likely significant effects of a proposed project on the different environmental components is done mainly at screening stage of the EIA process. During the subsequent stages of the EIA process, the prediction of the characteristics of impacts and the evaluation of their significance is done by using certain methods and techniques:

checklists, matrices, and sectoral guidelines that are used usually for the prediction of the direct effects, but less for the prediction of the indirect and cumulative impacts and for evaluation of impact significance;
networks, which are useful for the prediction of direct and indirect impacts, but the result of evaluation of impact significance is poor;
quantitative mathematical models, of which their results offer the possibility to position the effects within a scale that is established, e.g.: based on environmental standards, particular thresholds, etc.;
case studies as analogues or references are helpful mainly for the same type of projects, but need further evaluation according to the environmental baseline conditions in the project area.

The intensity dimension of the impact will be determined taking into account the implementation of certain mitigation measures for reducing the predicted impact.

Where significant adverse effects are identified, recommendation for suitable measures to avoid, reduce, or remedy these effects must be provided.

The consequences of the impact after mitigation measures implementation constitute the residual impact and it should be addressed in details, including aspects like:

description of the impacts, including cumulative impacts;
sources of adverse impacts ;
environmental components affected;
location of occurrence;
significance of the impact.

It is recommended to combine several methods and techniques for a comprehensive evaluation of the impacts significance.

Criteria often used for evaluation of the impacts on environmental components include:

spatial dimension of the impact: site, local, regional, or national/international;
temporal dimension of the impact: short-, medium-, or long-term;
intensity dimension of the impact: negligible, minor, moderate, major.

For determining the significance of the impacts, all the above mentioned criteria must be considered.

5. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

The EIS is defined as a document containing the information as required under Article 5 and Annex IV of the EIAD[27] and Article 96 of the LEP and Article 12 of the EIA Ordinance.

The preparation of the EIS is usually the responsibility of the project developer and, according to Article 3 of the EIAD and Article 81(4) of the LEP must contain the description of direct and indirect effects of a project on the factors as human beings, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climate, landscape, material assets and the cultural heritage, and the interaction between them.

The EIS should follow the elements listed in Annex IV of the EIAD and Article 96 of the LEP and Article 12 of the EIA Ordinance, which include:

information regarding the project characteristics and its location;

presentation of the main alternatives studied, comparison of the alternatives and reasons for the selection of the current alternative for the proposed project.

The alternatives studied by the developer can include alternatives considering location, and/or design/technologies, for the main project components. Moreover, it is recommended to consider the baseline scenario for a project assessed under EIAD.

The EIS will contain the justification for the chosen alternative by using more criteria, such as:

environmental criteria: a low adverse environmental impact (considering the impact characteristics as duration, significance, magnitude, etc.);
technical criteria: performance of design, enhanced processes/technologies proposed;

financial and economic criteria: investments, cost of the materials and used, repair, and maintenance costs.

The Proposal for the Review of the EIAD[28] now emphasizes further on the assessment of the baseline scenario, i.e. “the relevant aspects of the existing state of the environment and the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the project”. The baseline scenario is proposed to become an integral part of the EIS and element of the EIA decision.

Description of the current environmental conditions (baseline conditions):
description of the physical environmental components refers to the data and information, which is relevant to the project area, and can be used for the assessment of environmental impact. It is recommended to provide in the EIS a summary of the description of the physical environmental components, and studies, records, etc., to be added in an appendix of the EIS;
detailed consideration of the baseline conditions will help the developer to adequately evaluate and predict the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. Moreover, the data collected could provide a sound basis for the environmental assessment, and for the further stage, i.e. for the monitoring;
data and information regarding baseline conditions can often be already available from public information and data concerning the environmental conditions in the project area, concerning regional/local monitoring, research and other strategies or plans. In addition, for some aspects of the environment it may be needed to carry out field surveys for the required data collection so that the information is compiled with the above mention information for the proposes of the EIS.
Description of the likely significant environmental effects of the proposed project (associated with all phases of the proposed project) and of the forecasting methods used for assessing those effects:
description of quantitative and qualitative effects on the environmental components;
quantitative estimation of the future conditions of the environmental factors by using predictive tools and methods and evaluation of impact significance;
identification of residual effects on the environmental components.

The assessment of the adverse environmental effects should address the direct and indirect effects on the environmental components and, and the interaction between them. This requirement of the EIAD is highlighted in the Judgement of CJEU on Case C-2/07 (Abraham and Others).

„The list laid down in Article 3 of the EIA Directive of the factors to be taken into account, such as the effect of the project on human beings, fauna and flora, soil, water, air or the cultural heritage, shows, in itself, that the environmental impact whose assessment the EIA Directive is designed to enable is not only the impact of the works envisaged but also, and above all, the impact of the project to be carried out.” (paragraph 44)

Mitigation and impact management

During the EIA process, the adverse effects of a proposed project on the environment should be identified taken into consideration the construction and operation phase of the project. As required under the EIA Directive, Bulgarian national legislation in Article 96(1)(6) of the LEP requires the EIS to contain “a description of the measures envisaged to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects on the environment, as well as a plan for implementation of the said measures”. The latter provision is supplemented by Article 14(1)(5) of the EIA Ordinance which states that the assessment of the quality of the EIA is made, inter alia on the basis of “the proposal of measures for prevention or reduction of the significant adverse impacts so that compliance with the normative provisions for environment are complied with and placed in a table-format plan for implementation of the measures as per the template under Annex IIA”.

This table-format looks as following:

TEMPLATE FOR A PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MEASURES
No.	Measures	Period/Phase of the implementation	Result

For those impacts that can be significant, it will be proposed mitigation measures to prevent or to reduce the impact to acceptable levels.

The recommendations for certain mitigation measures will be done considering the:

baseline environmental conditions:

sensitivity of certain environmental components;
trends for change of certain environmental components;
design characteristics;
techniques, equipment, materials used;
benefits to the environment and population around the project area.

technical characteristics of the project and the associated activities including those associated with the construction:

expected results of the project implementation:

The choice of a suitable mitigation measure has to be done in the following order of actions:

application of preventive measures - avoidance of adverse impacts;
minimisation or reduction of adverse impacts.

An example of how undertaking an EIA can reduce environmental impacts to an acceptable level is presented in Box 26.

Finland Highway project[29]

Highway 1, which is part of the TEN-T network 8 and links Nordic capitals to Russia and Central Europe, was not fulfilling capacity requirements and considered unsafe due to current road design. Interest in building a new motorway to solve these problems resulted in an EIA in order to assess different options. By undertaking an EIA, the developers were able to compare two options, to build a new road or to upgrade the existing one. An EIA was required because the road passes through important natural areas, and any modification could result in significant environmental impacts.

Through the examination of potential environmental impacts, the developers were able to identify their chosen design, which was to build a new motorway, and to mitigate negative environmental impacts. Modifications to the project design included building a tunnel to save an important recreation area, small changes to the design in order to reduce impacts on flying squirrel habitat, groundwater areas were protected, terrain modification for noise control, and limitations on construction during the fish spawning season and nesting season for birds. Since an EIA was conducted, the project design was accepted with fewer reservations by stakeholders, and the plan had little opposition. This case study is a good example of how undertaking an EIA can reduce environmental impacts to an acceptable level.

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/pdf/05_24_02_eai_case.pdf.

Remediation of unavoidable residual adverse impact – impact compensation

Where the residual adverse impacts of a project cannot be avoided, compensation measures should be recommended. An example in this respect is given in Box 27.

Development of a new quarry in Germany

The impact on water resources including surface and groundwater was assessed during the EIA procedure. The EIA 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 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).[30]

The measures for prevention, mitigation, and/or remediation of the adverse environmental impacts will be clearly addressed by specifying for each one of them: the location, duration, details about techniques, equipment (if this is the case).

For all measures envisaged, a plan for monitoring their implementation, should be prepared, and will address, at least, the following aspects:

phase of the project for which each measure is envisaged;
description of the measures and of the adverse impact which it addresses;

responsibilities for the implementation of each measure.

6. Public participation and consultations with other competent authorities

Public participation in the EIA procedure is one of the central obligations under EU and national legislation and provides for adequate application of the obligations of the Union arising from the Aarhus Convention.

The purpose of public participation is to:

inform the stakeholders (the authorities concerned and public) about the proposal and its likely effects;
collect their opinions, comments, objections and proposals; and
take account of the information and views of the stakeholders in the EIA and decision-making (UNEP Manual).

The consultations should be held when there is sufficient information about project and its impacts on the environment but before the decision is made. The CJEU has confirmed that public participation is part of the EIA process and development consent procedure and that its role is to support the CA before the decision is taken. Hence, the public should be given an opportunity to effectively participate in this process at the early stages of the EIA procedure. In Judgement on Case C-332/04 (Commission v. Spain) the Court stated that consultations are part of the EIA procedure, that they should take place mandatorily before the consent is granted and aim at assisting the competent authority in the decision-making.

“While Article 6(1) and (2) of the EIA Directive require Member States to hold a consultation procedure, in which the authorities likely to be concerned by the project and the public are invited, respectively, to give their opinion, the fact remains that such a procedure is carried out, necessarily, before consent is granted. Such opinions - and further opinions which Member States may stipulate - form part of the consent process and are aimed at assisting the competent body’s decision on granting or refusing development consent.” (paragraph 54)

In another judgment (on Case C-263/08, Djurgarden) the Court clarified the scope of the right of the public to participate in the EIA decision-making and the right to a legal review once the EIA procedure is completed:

“… Article 6(4) of Directive 85/337 guarantees the public concerned effective participation in environmental decision-making procedures as regards projects likely to have significant effects on the environment.

[…]

… the right of access to a review procedure within the meaning of Article 10a of Directive 85/337 does not depend on whether the authority which adopted the decision or act at issue is an administrative body or a court of law. Second, participation in an environmental decision-making procedure under the conditions laid down in Articles 2(2) and 6(4) of Directive 85/337 is separate and has a different purpose from a legal review, since the latter may, where appropriate, be directed at a decision adopted at the end of that procedure. Therefore, participation in the decision-making procedure has no effect on the conditions for access to the review procedure.” (paragraphs 36 and 38)

The Commission Report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive of July 2009 indicated that despite increasing public participation in the decision-making process there is still no standard practice across the EU.

Therefore, the Review of the EIAD proposes amendments to Article 6 reinforcing the role of environmental authorities and defining concrete time-frames for the consultation phase on the environmental report so that the authorities referred to in Article 6(1) and the public concerned to prepare and participate effectively in the environmental decision-making.

6.1. Informing the public and consultation with the competent authorities at the screening stage

The decision under Article 4(2) may require an EIA or may state that the project does need to be assessed. In both cases the decision need to be motivated. Following the adoption of the screening decision, independently of its nature, the CA is required to announce it to the public together with the determinations therein. The means to do so could be a publication of the decision and the determinations on the web-site of the CA, posting an announcement and/or the decision at the premises of the CA and/or of the local authority(-ies), where the project is planned to be implemented or that are likely to be affected, press releases, announcements in the media (television, radio, newspapers), establishment of a publicly available register, giving access to the decision and its determinations in compliance with the nationally established procedure for implementation on Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC or a combination of these options.

Some MSs require consultations at the screening stage of the EIA process, so that the CA can take a better informed decision on the likely significant effects of the project and if the project should be made subject to EIA or not. In some cases it may appear even at this early stage that, for example, due to the specific environmental characteristics of the location of the project, it cannot be implemented because of lack of compatibility between the project’s impacts and area’s environmental objectives or should be implemented but under some specific constraints, which would determine the screening decision of the CA and respectively the next stages of the EIA/development consent procedure.

Under Bulgarian national legislation, Article 4(2) of the EIA Ordinance, simultaneously with the notification to the competent authority the developer is obliged to inform in writing the mayor(s) of the respective municipality(s), districts(s) and mayoralty(s) and the affected population through the mass media and/or in another appropriate way. When the investment proposal is for a linear project (road, pipeline, electricity distribution line, etc.) and it is located on the territory of more than 3 municipalities, the developer informs only the respective municipalities and districts.

In addition, in cases when the investment proposal envisages or it is linked to water intake from surface or groundwater, discharge of waste waters into surface water bodies, which may cause danger for pollution of the groundwater or it is directly linked to water intake and/or use of water body within the meaning of the Law on Waters Article 4a of the EIA Ordinance obliges the CA to send the notification under Article 4 to the director of the respective river basin directorate for opinion under the Law on Waters regarding the admissibility of the investment proposal with regard to the regimes defined in the approved river basin management plans the and the flood risk management plan. Within 7 working days the director of the respective river basin directorate sends his/her opinion which contains the following:

conclusion on the admissibility of the investment proposal in respect to the measures for achieving good water status as defined in the approved river basin management plan, and in case of conclusion for inadmissibility the specific measures with restrictions and prohibitions are provided;
the prohibitions and the restrictions envisaged by the Law on Waters regarding that specific type of investment proposals;
information on the existing or permitted effects on the water body in the area, which should be taken into account at the subsequent EIA procedure under Chapter VI of the LEP;
information about the free water resources in the part of the respective groundwater body (through existing or new facilities), the danger for pollution of groundwater during the construction of new pipe (drilling) wells and requirements to the prevention of pollution;
motivated assessment of the significant impact on waters and water ecosystems.

In compliance with Article 6 of the EIA Ordinance, for the assessment of the necessity for EIA of the proposals under Article 93(1) of the LEP, the developer submits a written request to the competent authority under Article 93(2) and (3) of the LEP and encloses the information under Annex II in one paper and two electronic copies, together with information concerning the public interest of the investment proposal if such was manifested under the procedure of Article 9 of the EIA Ordinance. In the cases when the assessment of the best available techniques (BATs) is integrated with the EIA (Article 118(2), read in conjunction with Article 99a of the LEP) the CA sends the separate annex to the request with the assessment of the application of the BATs for each of the installations under Annex IV of the LEP to the Executive Environment Agency (ExEA) for carrying out the consultations regarding the confirmation/non-confirmation of the best available technics and defines a deadline of 14 days for response. In compliance with Article 6(9) of the EIA Ordinance:

“In order to clarify the public interest under paragraph 1 the developer provides for public access to the information under Annex II and not later that the simultaneous submission of the request under paragraph 1, presents a paper and electronic copy to the respective municipality/district/mayoralty under Article 5(2), places an announcement on his/her internet site and/or in another appropriate way, for not less than 14 days regarding the access to the information and for expression of opinions by the interested persons. Within 3 days after the receipt of the information the respective municipality/district/mayoralty provides for public access to the information for not less than 14 days, by placing an announcement on its internet site (if it has such) and at a commonly accessible place regarding the access to the information and for expression of opinions by the interested persons. Within 3 days after the expiry of the defined time-frame the respective municipality/district/mayoralty sends ex officio the results from the public access, including the way how it has been provided, to the respective competent authority.”

Following the pronouncement of the EIA screening decision, the CA:

announces the decision by an announcement for a period of 14 days at a commonly accessible place at the premises of the MoEW and/or RIEW, on its internet site, through which it also ensures access to the content of the decision;
informs in writing about the decision taken the respective municipality(s) and the respective river basin directorate, in which territory the investment proposal is envisaged to be implemented, and/or to the Agency for Exploration and Maintenance of the Danube River, the respective RIEW, and/or to the directorate of the national/nature park and/or to the ExEA;
informs in writing the respective authority for the approval/permitting the investment proposal by providing it with a copy of the pronounced decision so that compliance with Article 82(5) of the LEP is ensured.

6.2. Informing the public and consultation with the competent authorities at the scoping stage

Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the EIAD, public participation at the scoping stage is limited to the authorities that are likely to be concerned by the project by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities and which are designated either in general terms or on a case-by-case basis.

Hence, in most cases the MS include in their legislation a list of authorities that are consulted in all cases and make a flexible provision for consultation of other authorities depending on the specific project. The determination of the authorities to be consulted will be made on the basis of their legally and administratively established responsibilities (at national/regional and local level), the information and expertise they have for the implementation of the EIAD. These may include the local authority(-ies) where the project is planned to be implemented or that are likely to be affected, the health authorities, the authority delivering the development consent, other environmental authorities (for example, the environmental inspectorate). In addition, when defining the authorities to be consulted attention should be paid to the requirements of other relevant to the project EU environmental acquis, requiring an assessment, e.g. the Habitats Directive (Article 6 and 7), Industrial Emission Directive (application of the BATs), Water Framework Directive (Article 4(7)), the Air Quality Directive (Article 24), Directive 2002/49/EC on assessment and management of environmental noise, etc.

By all means the purpose of the consultations with these authorities is to provide relevant input (opinions, comments, objections, suggestions, other valuable information about relevant aspects that need to be assessed, etc.) that would assist the CA and the developer to define the scope of the EIA and the information to be presented in the EIS.

In addition, when the EIA is implemented together with other environmental assessments (e.g. appropriate assessment), the CA should obtain the opinions of the respective authorities before defining the scope of the EIA.

Consulting the authorities is usually a task for the competent EIA authority, namely it is done ex officio. Hence, in compliance with the national procedure for consulting other authorities or in compliance with a procedure for consultations specifically established for the needs of the EIA Directive, the consulted authorities are provided with the relevant information and are required to give their input.

Under Article 9 of the EIA Ordinance the developer according to the characteristics of the investment proposal determines with which specialised authorities and representatives of the affected public to carry out the consultations for the preparation of the ToR of the EIA. Other parties must be consulted if interest has been expressed. During the consultations the developer provides sufficient information and time for clarifying his/her intentions and time for expressing an opinion to the competent authorities and the affected public. These consultations may take any of the following forms:

announcement in the mass media;
sending messages to the local authorities;
preparation and dissemination of a prospect or brochure with brief information about the investment proposal;
dissemination of letters or questionnaires to interested organisations or persons, living in immediate proximity, with request for information and comments on the investment proposal;
placing information boards or posters;
organising of expert or public groups on the scope of the assessment;
organising meetings with the affected population.

The results of these consultations are summarized by the developer. The latter then uses them for the preparation on the ToR of the EIA.

Next the developer consults the draft ToR with the competent EIA authority, which may recommend that the developer to carry out consultations with other interested persons and authorities apart from those already consulted. The developer consults the MH regarding the content and the scope of the assessment of the health-hygiene aspects of the environment and risk to human health.

6.3. Consultations of the EIS at national level

Article 6 of the EIAD provides for public participation at this stage of the EIA procedure. Briefly, consultations are organized:

with the competent authorities that are likely to be concerned by the project by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities and which are designated either in general terms or on a case-by-case basis

Article 1(2)(f) of the EIA Directive defines the notion ‘competent authority’ as:

“authority or those authorities which the Member States designate as responsible for performing the duties arising from this Directive.”

Furthermore, Article 6(1) of the Directive obliges the MS to designate either in general terms or on a case-by-case basis authorities which in view of their specific environmental responsibilities should be consulted at the different stages of the EIA procedure.

Consulting the authorities is usually a task for the competent EIA authority. Hence, in compliance with the national procedure for consulting other authorities or in compliance with a procedure for consultations specifically established for the needs of the EIA Directive, the consulted authorities are provided with the relevant information and are required to give their input.

The notion ‘authority’ has been defined by the CJEU as “body, whatever its legal form, which has been made responsible, pursuant to a measure adopted by the State, for providing a public service under the control of the State and has for that purpose special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations between individuals” (paragraph 22).

authorities that are likely to be concerned by the project by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities and which are designated either in general terms or on a case-by-case basis

for carrying out the assessment of the quality of the report regarding the given therein analysis and assessment of the significance of the positive and negative impacts on human-beings and the likely health risk from the construction and the exploitation of the investment proposal, the competent authority or a duly authorized official requires an opinion on the EIA report from:

the respective RHI depending on the location of the investment proposal for the EIA reports which are to be reviewed by the Expert Ecological Councils at the RIEW;
the MH for the EIA reports which are to be reviewed by the Supreme Expert Ecological Councils at the MoEW;

The opinion of the MH and RHI is sent ex officio to the RIEW or the MoEW within 14-days term after the receipt of the request. When the opinion of the Ministry of Health and RHI is not received within the prescribed deadline, it is deemed that there are no comments, including that significant adverse impact and risk to human health are not expected to occur. In case of a negative opinion of the specialized authorities, the latter sets forth the motives based on criteria approved by an order of the Minister of Health in coordination with Minister of Environment and Water and give specific instructions for supplementing and redrafting of the report regarding the assessment of the health risk therein.

It should be noted here that under Article 14 of the EIA Ordinance consultations with competent authorities are also organized at the stage of the assessment of the quality of the EIA report and the supporting documentation. The MH/RHI are always consulted. In case of integration of the assessment of the application of the BATs with the EIA, the ExEA is consulted.

by informing the public regarding the project, of possible decisions or, where there is one, the draft decision, an indication of the availability of the information gathered pursuant to Article 5, an indication of the times and places at which, and the means by which, the relevant information will be made available and about the details of the arrangements for public participation

The starting point of the consultation is informing the public. The public to be informed is defined by Article 1(2)(d) of the EIAD, respectively point 24 of the Additional Provisions to the LEP:

“(d) "public" means one or more natural or legal persons and, in accordance with national legislation or practice, their associations, organisations or groups;”

The CA is obliged to ensure that the public is informed in an appropriate way. The Directive gives an unexhausted list of means of informing the public and it is up to the MS to define those that are appropriate. It is up to the MS to define if the information should be provided by the developer or by the CAs, or by both the developer and the CA. In many countries informing the public is an obligation of the developer. In that sense, either the legislation of the MS provides for a list of measures that the developer should comply with, or the CA provide him with directions or a combination of these approaches is applied. In the countries where the scoping and the assessment of the quality of the EIA are mandatory, the CA very often instructs the developer about the way the public is to be informed and consulted. Again, there are different options: posting the required information on the web-site of the CA, of the local authority(-ies), of the developer, providing access to the EIS for specific period of time at a place easily accessible to the public, press releases, announcements in mass media (television, radio, newspapers, etc.) and a combination of these approaches. Before granting the decision the CA should check if and how effectively the public has been informed.

Under Bulgarian national legislation the public is consulted only in case of a positive assessment of the quality of the EIA report.

The consultations procedure is provided for in Article 97 of the LEP and Chapter V of the EIA Ordinance (Articles 16 and 17). All natural and legal persons concerned may participate in the consultations, including representatives of the authority competent to make an EIA decision, the local executive administration, public organizations and citizens.

Briefly, it is as following:

Together with the positive assessment of the EIS the competent EIA authority defines the affected municipalities, districts and/or mayoralties, with which the developer is to organise public consultations on the EIA report and its annexes.

Then the developer provides each of the above authorities with a copy of the EIS and its annexes. Simultaneously submits a written request to these authorities, proposing a venue, a date and an hour of the meeting/meetings for public hearings, the place for public access to the EIA documentation and for expression of observations, with the date of the first meeting being not later than sixty days from the date of submission of the request. The authorities confirm in writing the proposal within seven days after submission of the request or shall make an alternative proposal for the same 60-day time limit.

by providing the following to the public: all the information gathered at the scoping stage and for the drafting of the EIS, other reports and any other relevant information

Article 6(3) of the EIAD requires that this more detailed information is provided to the ‘public concerned’, as defined in Article 1(2)(e):

(e) “"public concerned" means the public affected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest in, the environmental decision-making procedures referred to in Article 2(2). For the purposes of this definition, non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection and meeting any requirements under national law shall be deemed to have an interest;”

The definition for public concerned is given in point 25 of of the Additional Provisions to the LEP:

“"public concerned" shall be the public referred to in point 24, which is affected or is likely to be affected by, or which has an interest in, the procedures for approval of plans, programmes, development proposals, and in the decision-making process on the issuance or updating of permits according to the procedure established by this Act, or in the conditions set in the permits, including the non-governmental organizations promoting environmental protection which are established in accordance with national legislation.”

Hence, in addition to the information that has been provided to the wider public, the public concerned should have access to this more detailed information.

The identification of the public affected or likely to be affected, or having interest, shall be on the basis of the information gathered during the previous stages of the EIA procedure.

Again the same arrangements may be used, but adapted to the specific needs and the role of the public concerned.

And again, before granting the decision the CA should check if and how effectively the public has been informed.

Pursuant to the relevant provisions of the LEP and the EIA Ordinance, the interested parties, namely those already identified and other parties considered by the developer, are then informed about the time and place of the public consultations via mass media or by other appropriate means. This announcement is made at least 30 days before the hearings. Within this period public access is allowed to the EIA documentation, namely the EIS and its annexes and the non-technical summary.

The meeting(s) for the public hearing is managed by the developer or by a person, authorised by him who make the present people make acquainted in brief with the investment proposal.

A record is kept of the public hearing by an official, determined by the mayor of the municipality (district, mayoralty), on which territory the meeting is conducted. The record is signed by the developer and by the minutes-keeper and the written statements, submitted in advance or during the discussion, are attached to it.

by giving the opportunity to the public to effectively participate in the decision-making process through comments, opinions, etc.

The CJEU in its Judgement on Case C-263/08, Djurgarden stated that Article 6(4) of Directive 85/337 guarantees the public concerned effective participation in environmental decision-making procedures as regards projects likely to have significant effects on the environment.

The Court also made it clear that while the MSs have certain margin of discretion when establishing the procedure in their national law, they are still bound to the obligation to ensure access of the public to the EIA decision-making process. An interesting case was the Irish case (C-216/05, Commission v. Ireland) concerning, among others, the issue whether levying a fee for public participation should be considered as non-compliance with the EIA Directive. In its judgment the Court reaffirmed the public should be given opportunities to exercise its right to participation, but acknowledged that fee can be fixed if compatible with the principles of the Directive:

“The levying of an administrative fee is not in itself incompatible with the purpose of the EIA Directive. It is apparent from the sixth recital in the preamble to the EIA Directive, as it is from Article 6(2) of that directive, that one of the directive’s objectives is to afford the members of the public concerned the opportunity to express their opinion in the course of development consent procedures for projects likely to have significant effects on the environment. In that regard, Article 6(3) allows Member States to place certain conditions on participation by members of the public concerned by the project. Thus, under that provision, the Member States may determine the detailed arrangements for public information and consultation and, in particular, determine the public concerned and specify how that public may be informed and consulted.

A fee cannot, however, be fixed at a level which would be such as to prevent the directive from being fully effective, in accordance with the objective pursued by it. This would be the case if, due to its amount, a fee were liable to constitute an obstacle to the exercise of the rights of participation conferred by Article 6 of the EIA Directive. The amount of the fees at issue here, namely 20€ in procedures before local authorities and 45€ at the Board level, cannot be regarded as constituting such an obstacle.” (paragraphs 37-38, 42-45)

In compliance with the LEP and EIA Ordinance, the public submits their opinions in writing at the public hearing meeting or sends them to the authority competent to make an EIA decision not later than 7 days after the hearing.

Within 7-days term after the meeting(s) for the public hearing the developer presents to the competent authority the record(s) and all the submitted written opinions. Within 10-days term after the meeting/the last meeting for the public hearing the developer submits to the competent authority and to the respective municipalities/districts/mayoralties written statement on the proposals, the recommendations, the opinions and the objections as a result of the public hearing. The respective municipalities/districts/mayoralties provide for public access to the statement to the interested persons or organizations and to the movers of the proposals, the recommendations, the opinions and the objections as a result of the public hearing.

When as a result of the public hearing other possible ways for implementing the investment proposal are proposed in writing, the developer on his discretion assigns the supplementing of the EIA report and organises new public hearing following the above procedure. The assessment not to assign the supplementing of the EIA report together with the motives thereto is included in the above statement.

When the CA establishes that information has been received during the public hearings regarding the subject and objectives of the protected areas and/or the expected extent of their damage which is different from the one submitted with the report on the extent of the impact, enclosed to the EIA report, the competent authority gives instruction for undertaking additional studies as per the Ordinance on the conditions and order for carrying out compatibility assessment on plans, programmes, projects and investment proposals with the conservation objectives of the protected areas.

Bulgarian national legislation provides for a wide public participation in the EIA process and does not envisage any fees or other restrictive provisions.

6.4. Transboundary consultations

6.4.1. Transboundary consultations pursuant to Article 7 of the EIA Directive

Transboundary consultations are regulated by Article 7 of the EIAD, which implements the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo Convention)[31], and are required where a MS is aware that a project is likely to have significant effects on the environment in another MS or where a MS likely to be significantly affected so requests. In such cases the MS in whose territory the project is intended to be carried sends to the affected MS information covering a description of the project, together with any available information on its possible transboundary impact and the nature of the decision which may be taken. If the affected MS decides to participate in the environmental decision-making, the MS of origin provides also the information that it provides to its own public. The affected MS is then required to enable its public to participate effectively in the environmental decision-making by making all the information available and to consult its authorities designated in general for the needs of EIA or for the specific case. After collecting the results of the public consultations regarding, inter alia, the potential transboundary effects of the project and the measures envisaged to reduce or eliminate such effects the affected MS forwards them to the MS of origin.

The CJEU in its Judgement on Case C-205/08 (Umweltanwalt von Kärnten) reaffirmed that projects should be assessed as a whole irrespectively of their transboundary nature and that the role of Article 7 of the EIA Directive is to provide for cooperation among the MSs when a project is likely to have significant effects on the environment in another Member State:

“…the EIA Directive adopts an overall assessment of the effects of projects on the environment, irrespective of whether the project might be transboundary in nature.

[…]

It follows that projects listed in Annex I to Directive 85/337 which extend to the territory of a number of Member States cannot be exempted from the application of the Directive solely on the ground that it does not contain any express provision in regard to them.

Such an exemption would seriously interfere with the objective of Directive 85/337. Its effectiveness would be seriously compromised if the competent authorities of a Member State could, when deciding whether a project must be the subject of an environmental impact assessment, leave out of consideration that part of the project which is located in another Member State (see, by analogy, Case C-227/01 Commission v Spain [2004] ECR I-8253, paragraph 53).

…that finding is strengthened by the terms of Article 7 of the EIA Directive, which provide for inter-State cooperation when a project is likely to have significant effects on the environment in another Member State.” (paragraphs 51, 54-56)

The considerations given above regarding the consultations with the competent authorities and public apply to the MS participating in the decision-making process.

The detailed arrangements for the transboundary consultations may be made by the MSs in the form of bilateral agreements. In that sense such agreements concluded for the need of the Espoo Convention can be adapted for the needs of the application of Article 7 of the EIAD.

These arrangements should assist the countries to overcome the difficulties regarding the stage of the consultations, language differences, time-frames, financial aspects, etc.

Valuable guidance and examples are given in the Guidance on Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment, in the guidance titled “Transboundary Context the Espoo Convention: Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment: Practical Guide for citizens and NGOs” and on the web-site of the Espoo Convention.

6.4.2. Transboundary consultations pursuant to Bulgarian national legislation

Pursuant to Bulgarian national legislation, the EIA for investment proposals with transboundary impact is implemented according to the requirements of the LEP, of this Ordinance and the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, unless an international agreement between the Republic of Bulgaria and an affected state or states provides otherwise.

Competent authority for the procedure for EIA in transboundary context is the Minister of Environment and Water. The other authorities under Article 10 of the LEP[32] are obliged to provide on time the received information about the conducted procedures and to render the necessary co-operation to the Minister of Environment and Water and the developers.

The EIA Ordinance defines the country of origin and the affected country as following (points 1 and 2 of the Additional Provisions):

“1. ”Country of origin” is a contracting party or a party in the Convention on EIA in a Transboundary Context, as well as any other state under which jurisdiction implementation of the investment proposal is proposed, when during its construction and implementation of transboundary impact is likely.

“Affected country’ is a contracting country or a country in the Convention on EIA in a Transboundary Context as well as any other state, which can be affected by transboundary impact from the investment proposal.”

When Bulgaria is the country of origin, the transboundary EIA procedure is as following:

notification of the competent authorities and the affected public under Chapter II of the EIA Ordinance;
in case of indication for significant impact on the environment in the territory of another country or countries the Minister of Environment and Water notifies the affected country or countries and defines a deadline for response if the respective (affected) country would participate in the procedure; to the notification a description of the investment proposal and information available (which is not confidential in accordance with the Law on the Protection of the Classified Information) regarding an eventual transboundary impact on the environment, as well as information on the character of the decision, which is supposed to be taken:

upon a negative answer on behalf of the affected country the further procedure shall entirely follow the sequence of the EIA procedure as defined in Article 2(1) of the EIA Ordinance;
upon a positive answer on behalf of the affected country and declaring of its wish to participate in the procedure, the further sequence of the EIA procedure is transformed and adapted with regard to the consideration of the transboundary aspects, while informing the public is envisaged regarding the application of a procedure in transboundary context;

consultations between the two states: whether the procedure, established by the national legislation, will be followed; if the proposal is not included in Annex I of the Convention on EIA in a Transboundary Context, but is included in Annex II of the LEP; providing of information about the main requirements of the legislation; the time for consultations shall be determined between the states on a case-by-case basis;
determining of the scope of information, which the developer should include in the EIA report, while paying particular attention to the aspects with transboundary impact and to the measures for their prevention and reduction;
preparation of an EIA report; the developer is obliged to present to the competent authority additional copy of the report, translation of the whole report or part of it, if this is agreed between the competent authorities of the two countries, as well as translation of the non-technical summary;
assessment of the quality of the EIA report; in addition to all the requirements under Chapter IV of the EIA Ordinance, the competent authority pays particular attention to the transboundary impacts and to the measures for their prevention and reduction;
sending the EIA report (its translation if agreed) and the translation of the non-technical summary to the competent authority of the affected country and giving the opportunity for conducting of consultations about: the potential transboundary impacts and the measures for prevention or reduction of the impact; the possible proposed alternatives of the investment proposal; other issues of mutual interest;
providing the developer with the received documentation from the conducted consultations;
public hearing of the EIA report with opportunity for direct participation of a representative of the affected country and its public;
taking of decision on EIA after considering the comments and the proposals, made by the affected country, participating in the EIA procedure;
announcement of the EIA decision and notification of the decision to the affected country;
control on the implementation of the decision; upon explicit preliminary agreement the competent authority of the country of origin notifies the competent authority of the affected country about the implemented control measures and the findings made.

When Bulgaria is the affected country, the transboundary EIA procedure is as following:

upon receipt of a notification regarding an investment proposal, which will be implemented of the territory of another state and which can be expected to have significant impact on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria, within the time-frame, determined in the notification the Minister of Environment and Waters notifies the country of origin about its decision to participate or not in the EIA procedure:

upon expressed consent for participation the national procedure of the country of origin is followed, if it is not otherwise provided in an international agreement;
the Minister of Environment and Water ensures public access to the presented information about EIA and sends on time all opinions on the documentation before the decisions are by the competent authority of the other state;

in case the notification has not been received from the country of origin about investment proposal under Appendix I of the Convention on EIA in a Transboundary Context, which can have significant impact on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria, the Minister of Environment and Water takes the necessary steps before the competent authority of the country of origin for conducting of consultations for participation in the procedure.

6.4.3. Reasonable time-frames for the transboundary consultations

Article 6 of the EIAD requires the MS to make the information available to public as soon as it is available and can be reasonably provided. Reasonable time-frames for the different phases shall be provided, allowing sufficient time for informing the public and for the public concerned to prepare and participate effectively in environmental decision-making. The decision on what should ‘reasonable time-frames’ mean is to be made by the MSs.

The Review of the EIAD envisages that the time-frames for consulting the public concerned will be between at least 30 and no more than 60 days.

As mentioned above Bulgarian national legislation provides for a wide public participation in the EIA at each step of the procedure. Sufficient time-frames are envisaged for the public to have access to the EIA documentation and make comments and submit opinions.

In the cases of Article 7 of the Directive (transboundary consultation) the information on the nature of the project and of the decision and the other available information of the likely transboundary effects should be presented:

when it is available;
not later than the moment when the public of the MS of origin is informed;
while giving reasonable time the other MS to make a decision if it wishes to participate in the EIA procedure.

These conditions should be adequately accommodated in the legislation of the MS of origin and of the affected MS and the CAs of both countries should make the necessary to ensure that they complied with.

The Guidance on Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context recommends “that the notification allow adequate time for consultation within the affected Party’s administration before that Party responds. If it responds positively to an invitation to take part in the EIA procedure, it is recommended that the authority in the affected Party should provide information to the authority in the Party of origin about the way(s) in which public participation may most effectively be carried out in the affected Party.” “The concerned Parties should provide for early public participation in a transboundary EIA, when all options are open and effective public participation can take place;”

Under Article 25(1) of the EIA Ordinance the affected party is informed about the investment proposal at the initial stage of the EIA procedure, i.e. at the time of the first notification.

The Directive further requires that reasonable time frames are to be provided for the consultations with the authorities and public in the likely affected country, which means that sufficient time for contact with States concerned, the identification and consultation of the public and environmental authorities in the affected State, and consideration of the resulting comments by the appropriate authorities in the State of origin would be needed. Practical matters such as the need to prepare translations may also lengthen the process.

Due to the lack of unified time-frames, the Review of the EIA Directive proposes that the time-frames as proposed for implementing the consultations at national level become a basis for the detailed arrangements to be concluded by the MSs for implementing Article 7.

As regards the time-frames for public participation in case of transboundary EIA, Article 25(2)(b) of the EIA Ordinance states that the EIA procedure is adapted so as to allow adequate public participation in the affected country.

6.5. Results of the public consultations

Article 8 of the EIAD requires the MSs’ CA to take into consideration in the development consent procedure the results and information gathered from the consultations at the scoping stage and public consultations under Article 6 and the transboundary consultations under Article 7.

Consultations may in some cases bring new information, which may lead to changes in the project and thus to its likely significant effects. These, depending on the situation, may require changes in the project design or way of operation. In any case the CA must ensure that the decision takes into consideration the results from the public consultations.

Following the decision to grant or refuse the development consent the public needs to be informed.

Last but not least, the MSs must make the necessary provisions so that the pubic concerned, which meets the requirements of Article 11(1) of the Directive is also informed about the available procedures for access to administrative and judicial review.

In compliance with Article 99 of the LEP within seven days after holding the public hearing, the developer submits to the CA the results of the said hearing, including the opinions and the minutes. The CA makes an EIA decision within 45 days after conduct of the public hearing, taking into account the results thereof. This legal framework is supplemented by Article 18(1)(2)-(4) of the EIA Ordinance:

the documentation and the opinions, required and/or presented in the course of the procedure, including the supplement under Article 17(6) and the additional studies;
the opinions of the other specialized persons, authorities, organizations and structures which have entrusted competences by a normative act in the field of the components and the factors of the environment, human health and cultural-historical heritage;
the results of the public consultations, including the developer’s statement;

7. Review of EIA process

Directive 2011/92/EU does not envisage such an obligation. However, worldwide and also in the EU it is considered as a best practice and is legally binding in many EU MSs.

In its Proposal for amendment of the EIAD, the Commission proposed to introduce amendments at strengthening the quality of the EIAs:

mandatory scoping and quality control of EIA information;
specify the content of the EIS (mandatory assessment of reasonable alternatives, justification of final decisions, mandatory post-EIA monitoring of significant adverse effects);
specify the requirements to the persons preparing the EISs;
adapt the EIA to challenges (i.e. biodiversity, climate change, disaster risks, availability of natural resources)
verification of the quality of the EIS

The review of the EIA process should consider the completion of all procedural steps, including the preparation of the EIS.

Main aspects to be taken into account during the review of the quality of the EIA process, according to the sequence of EIA stages:

Screening stage:
identification of projects requiring EIA;
consultation of concerned authorities;
whether the information about the screening decision was provided to the concerned authorities and the public.
identification of the relevant impacts;
consultations with the relevant authorities;
establishment of reasonable alternatives;
report/guidelines or other document containing recommendations of the competent authority regarding the issues to be addressed in the EIS (e.g. scoping report);
information from/to the authorities and the public.
Impact analysis performed and mitigation measures identified:
- assessment of the impacts and evaluation of their significance;
- impact mitigation;
- preparation of the EIS;
EIA decision;
Public information regarding the EIA decision.

Scoping stage:

Review the quality of the information regarding the project and the corresponding impact assessment – information addressed in the EIS;
Consultations with the concerned authorities and the public regarding the impact assessment, mitigation measures, etc. - information addressed in the EIS;

The EIS must contain the information specified in Annex IV of EIAD, focused on the issues highlighted and required at the scoping stage of the EIA process.

Moreover, the information provided by the EIS will be presented in details the assessment of certain aspects regarding the project, as the technical characteristics, location, and effects on the environment.

Aspects to be considered in EIS review

it reflects the outcomes of the scoping stage and of the consultations performed as part of the EIA process;
it takes into account the comments of the public;
it contains a proper description of the project;
the alternative selection is done considering the environmental criteria;
the description of relevant baseline conditions is adequate for prediction of the impact on the environment;
likely significant effects of the project on the environment are identified and their description is comprehensive;
the reasonable mitigation measures are addressed to the adverse effects on the environment;
the information content in the Non-Technical Summary is adequately presented to communicate to the public the EIS findings.

The assessment of the quality of the EIA report and its annexes is a mandatory step of the EIA procedure in Bulgaria (Article 96(6) of the LEP and Chapter IV of the EIA Ordinance). The criteria for the assessment are given in Article 14(1) of the EIA Ordinance:

the compliance with the prepared terms of reference under Article 10;
the consideration of the results of the consultations held;
the equivalent description, analysis and comparison of the alternatives;
the assessment of the significance of the impacts; description of: the direct and indirect; cumulative; short-, medium- and long-term; permanent and temporary; positive and negative impacts on human-beings and the environment by the construction and exploitation of the investment proposal;
the proposal of measures for prevention or reduction of the significant adverse impacts so that compliance with the normative provisions for environment are complied with and placed in a table-format plan for implementation of the measures as per the template under Annex IIA;
existence of graphic material, i.e. maps, schemes, sketches, diagrams etc.;
the non-technical summary does not contain technical terminology.

Following the consultations with the other competent authorities, the competent EIA authority decides on whether to give a positive or a negative assessment of the quality of the EIA report and its annexes.

8. Decision-making

This Chapter focuses on the relationship of EIA and decision-making process. A broad view of the decision-making as an on-going process extending from project inception to implementation is presented. In that context, particular emphasis will be given to the stage of final approval and authorisation of a proposal.

The UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual defines decision-making is a process of:

political choice between alternative directions;
weighing the benefits and costs;
negotiation, bargaining and trade-offs;
balancing economic, social and environmental factors.

It should be reminded that EIA is part of the larger decision-making process for a project. The place of the EIA in the overall process is presented in the figure below.

Source: United National University, EIA Course Module: http://eia.unu.edu/course/?page_id=99

8.1. The concept of “development consent”

Article 1(2)(c) of the EIAD defines the “development consent” as:

“the decision of the competent authority or authorities which entitles the developer to proceed with the project;”

Article 2(1) of the EIAD obliges the MSs to ensure that, before the consent is given, projects under Article 4 likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects. This approach is also adopted by Bulgarian national legislation.

The concept of “development consent” was interpreted by the CJEU on several occasions. In Judgement on Case C-290/03 (The Queen, on the application of Diane Barker v London Borough of Bromley) the Court stated that when assessing if a decision represents or not development consent, the MSs should make this on the basis of their nation law and EU legislation. In case of a multi-stage procedure the EIA may be carried out at the stage following the principle decision if this the moment when it is identified that the project is likely to have significant effects on the environment:

“… classification of a decision as a ‘development consent’ within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 85/337 must be carried out pursuant to national law in a manner consistent with Community law.

[…]

… Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of Directive 85/337 are to be interpreted as requiring an environmental impact assessment to be carried out if, in the case of grant of consent comprising more than one stage, it becomes apparent, in the course of the second stage, that the project is likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue inter alia of its nature, size or location.” (paragraphs 41 and 49)

The same approach was also applied by the Court in Judgements on Case C-2/07 (Abraham and Others) and Case C-201/02 (Delena Wells), where the Court took the same line.

Although Bulgarian national legislation does not define the notion “development consent”, the link between the EIA decision and this consent is evident by the wording of Article 20a and 21(1) of the EIA Ordinance:

“Article 20a (New, SG 3/2011) The competent authority or a duly authorized official announces the EIA decision following the procedure under Article 99(4) of the LEP and sends a copy of the issued decision for taking it in consideration to the respective competent authority which by virtue of a special law approves/permits the implementation of the investment proposal.

Article 21 (amend. SG 3/2006, suppl. SG 3/2011) The EIA decision under Article 19(1) or a decision by which it is assessed that EIA should not be carried out is an element of the factual components of the procedure of:

(amend. SG 94/2012, in force as of 30/11/2012) the issuance of the act for approval/permitting the investment proposals under the order of a special law according to Article 82(5) of the LEP and is an annex, i.e. an integral part of the administrative act for approval/permitting which is necessary for the implementation of the investment proposal;”

8.2. Article 8 of the EIA Directive

It has already been emphasized above that Article 8 of the EIAD requires the MSs’ CA to take into consideration in the development consent procedure the results and information gathered from the consultations carried out within the EIA process.

The Directive is clear that all information gathered at each stage of the EIA procedure and results should be taken into consideration. It is up to the MS to ensure compliance with this provision of the Directive. However, it is clear that this includes the opinions, the suggestions and the comments, the objections, suggested alternatives, accepted and rejected by the developer, the changes made as a result of the consultations, etc. Therefore, the results of the consultations held need to be properly recorded and analysed and then included in the EIA documentation and finally provided to the CA.

The provision of Article 8 is expected to be further strengthened following the adoption of the review of the EIAD. Firstly, a time-frame is set for the conclusion of the environmental impact assessment procedure. Secondly, the competent authority is required to include in the development consent decision itself some items substantiating the decision; this reflects the case-law (e.g. C-50/09). Thirdly, mandatory ex-post monitoring is introduced only for projects that will have significant adverse environmental effects, according to the consultations carried out and the information gathered (including the environmental report), with the purpose of assessing the implementation and effectiveness of mitigation and compensation measures. Some Member States already require such monitoring, which should not duplicate that which may be required by other Union legislation (e.g. on industrial emissions or water quality), and it is appropriate therefore to establish common minimum requirements. This new obligation is cost-effective, as it may help to avoid adverse impacts on the environment and public health and costs of reparation, and is relevant for addressing impacts related to new challenges such as climate change and disaster risks. Fourthly, the competent authority is required to verify that the information of the environmental report is up to date, before deciding to grant or refuse development consent.

As already said above pursuant to Article 99 of the LEP and Article 18(1)(2)-(4) of the EIA Ordinance the CA makes an EIA decision, taking into account the results consultations with the other authorities and public.

8.3. Article 9 of the EIA Directive

It is evident that the EIA Directive in Article 9 does not give any other specific requirements to the decision-making process, but is focused on providing access to the public and in case of transboundary consultations, also to the consulted MSs. The CJEU is also interpreting Article 9 in the same light:

[under Article 9 of the EIA Directive] “the public is to be informed once the decision to grant or refuse development consent has been taken. The purpose of issuing this information is not merely to inform the public but also to enable persons who consider themselves harmed by the project to exercise their right of appeal within the appointed deadlines.

It follows from the foregoing that the publication by a Member State of an environmental impact statement issued by a competent administrative authority in environmental matters, an action not required under Community law, is no substitute for the obligation, under Article 9 of Directive 85/337/EEC as amended, to inform the public of the granting or refusal of consent to proceed with a project under Article 1(2) of the Directive.

This interpretation is supported by the purpose of Directive 85/337/EEC, in its original version, which is, according to the first recital, to prevent the creation of pollution or nuisances at source, rather than subsequently trying to counteract their effects. This purpose was confirmed by Directive 97/11/EC, which recalls, in its second recital, that, pursuant to Article 130r(2) of the EC Treaty (Article 174(2) in the amended Treaty), Community policy on the environment is based on the precautionary principle and 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.

By imposing, in Article 9, the obligation on Member States to inform the public when a decision granting or refusing development consent is adopted, the amended Directive 85/337/EEC is intended to involve the public concerned in supervising the implementation of these principles. Informing the public only of the content of the opinion which is to be taken into account by the competent authority before adopting its decision is a less effective way of involving the public in supervision than informing the public of the final decision which concludes the consent procedure.

Inasmuch as national law does not require the publication of the decision to grant or refuse consent for the project, Article 9(1) of Directive 85/337/EEC as amended has not been correctly implemented.” (paragraphs 55-59)

As long as the EIAD does not provide for specific provisions about the means of informing the public, it is up to the MS to decide which would be most appropriate way to do so. In this case the wider public, as defined in Article 1(2)(d) of the Directive, must be informed. The ways of informing the public about the decision for granting or refusing the development consent may be similar to those used for informing the public under Article 6, i.e. posting of the content of the decision and any conditions, the main reasons and considerations on which the decision is based, including information about the public participation process and description, where necessary, of the main measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset the major adverse effects of the project, on the web-site of the CA, of the local authority(ies) likely to be affected by the implementation of the project, of the developer, providing access to this information at the premises of the permitting, of the competent environmental authority or of the local authority, press releases, announcements in the mass media and a combination of these approaches. It also possible that MSs apply directly the procedure for providing environmental information established in compliance with Directive 2003/4/EC.

The authorities consulted may be informed in the same way as the public, but may also be informed in other ways: like for example specific correspondence. The appropriate means to inform the consulted authorities may need to be defined in a flexible way in view of the specific projects. For example, the authorities that will be further involved in the enforcement of the EIA decision or in environmental monitoring should be given all the necessary information. A particular case would be when the application of the BATs has been assessed together with the EIA, then the competent authority to issue the integrated permit, should be informed accordingly.

The same applies also to the affected MS that has participated in the transboundary consultations.

The provision of Article 9 is also expected to be further strengthened following the adoption of the review of the EIAD, where the main modification to Article 9 is the inclusion of a description of the monitoring arrangements in the information provided to the public when development consent is granted.

According to Article 99(4) and (5) of the LEP:

“(4) Within seven days after delivery of the EIA decision, the competent authority or an official empowered thereby shall:

(supplemented, SG No. 77/2005) provide the EIA decision to the initiator of the proposal referred to in Item 2 of Article 81 (1) herein;
(supplemented, SG No. 77/2005, amended, SG No. 52/2008) make public the EIA decision through the national mass communication media, the Internet site thereof and/or another appropriate manner.

(5) (Supplemented, SG No. 77/2005, SG No. 46/2010, effective 18.06.2010, SG No. 32/2012, effective 24.04.2012) The competent authority referred to in Paragraph (1) or an official empowered thereby shall ensure access to the content of the EIA decision following the delivery thereof, including access to the annexes to the said decision through the Internet site thereof and according to the procedure established by the Access to Public Information Act.”

In addition and pursuant to Article 20a of the EIA Ordinance, the competent authority sends a copy of the issued decision for taking it in consideration to the respective competent authority which by virtue of a special law approves/permits the implementation of the investment proposal.

The only limitation to the scope of the information to be made publicly available, provided by the Directive and respectively by the LEP, is the case of confidentiality if justified by law or accepted legal practices with regard to commercial and industrial confidentiality, including intellectual property, and the safeguarding of the public interest.

9. EIA implementation and follow-up

There is no formal requirement for follow-up in the EIAD but is considered a good practice.

Once an EIA is carried out for a project, the determination of its outcomes is done by the EIA follow-up, being considered as a linkage between pre-decision and post-decision of the EIA process, thus covering the duration of project implementation, from construction to the operation phase.

Follow-up is a very useful tool in the case of any uncertainty of the impact prediction and evaluation on EIA process.

The objectives of EIA implementation and follow up

Verification of the adequate implementation of the project taking into consideration the approved conditions as per the EIA decision/development consent;
Verification of the effects of the environmental protection and mitigation measures to ensure that the impacts are within the predicted or permitted limits;
Identification of unanticipated impacts or unforeseen changes occurrence and undertaking corrective measures;
Optimise environmental benefits through good practice;

Learn from experience in order to improve the EIA process and future practice.

There are several aspects that need to be mentioned regarding the EIA follow-up:

Monitoring:

data collection to establish the baseline conditions;
data collection for impact monitoring – data in relation with the activities;
sampling and specific analyses for assessing project discharges e.g. to air, water and groundwater, soil, solid waste, noise, etc. and checking the compliance with the environmental standards, for the construction and operation phase of the project;
key aspects of the operational processes and activities;
materials and chemical substances used for the activities of the project carried out (during the construction and operation phase of the project);
types and quantities of waste resulting from the project implementation (for each phase).

The abovementioned issues related to monitoring can be included in the Environmental Monitoring Programme (EMP).

Evaluation:

conformity with standards, predictions or expectations;
appraisal of the environmental performance of the activity.

Management:

adoption of decisions for taking appropriate corrective action to handle and solve the problems arising from non-compliance with legal requirements, environmental standards;
adoption of decisions for taking appropriate action to improve project activities implementation.
informing the stakeholders about the results from the EIA follow-up.

Communication:

The parties involved in the EIA follow-up are the developer of the project, the environmental authorities involved in the EIA process, other authorities involved in monitoring of the environment, for example, and other stakeholders.

The main aspects regarding EIA implementation and follow-up can be included in the EMP, which is elaborated by the project developer. The EMP is usually submitted as a separate document accompanying the EIS.

As mentioned before, the EIAD does not provide for such a plan. Respectively, its content and format is to be decided by the MSs. However, the practice shows that some of the results of EIA are used on its preparation.

Common components included in an EMP:

information regarding the developer;
description of the proposed activity, including information and data regarding the construction and operation phase of the project;
description of project location;
summary of the critical activities leading to impacts with medium to high significance;
relevant legal requirements, standards, etc. that apply for the project;
regulatory documents (already granted or have to apply for) regarding the construction and operation phase of the project;
programme of measures for prevention or mitigation of the adverse environmental effects;
it is recommended to address the design, construction, and operation phases of the project, specifying the mitigation measures for the environmental adverse impacts identified for each phase and responsibilities for implementing the mitigation measures;
it is recommended to address the construction and operation phases of the project by covering aspects related to: on-site inspections, emissions of pollutants (to air, water, soil, etc.), generation of waste, institutional capacity for implementing the monitoring programme, format, and frequency of reporting the results of the monitoring;
schedule for the EMP implementation and reporting - showing the sequence and timing (including frequency and duration) of the management and monitoring activities under the EMP.

As said above, the LEP and the EIA Ordinance require a plan of prevention and mitigation measures to be made part of the EIA report. This plan should be based on the identified impacts and most appropriate measure for prevention and mitigation.

References

Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0042:EN:NOT);

Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:026:0001:0021:EN:PDF);

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 (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/COM-2012-628.pdf);

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Result.do?T1=V1&T2=1992&T3=43&RechType=RECH_consolidated&Submit=Search);

Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Result.do?arg0=2009%2F147&arg1=&arg2=&titre=titre&chlang=en&RechType=RECH_mot&idRoot=13&refinecode=LEG*T1%3DV112%3BT2%3DV1%3BT3%3DV1&Submit=Search);

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Result.do?T1=V1&T2=2000&T3=60&RechType=RECH_consolidated&Submit=Search);

Council Directive of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (91/676/EEC) (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Result.do?T1=V1&T2=1991&T3=676&RechType=RECH_consolidated&Submit=Search);

Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Result.do?T1=V3&T2=2001&T3=81&RechType=RECH_consolidated&Submit=Search);

Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Result.do?arg0=2008%2F50&arg1=&arg2=&titre=titre&chlang=en&RechType=RECH_mot&idRoot=16&refinecode=LEG*T1%3DV112%3BT2%3DV1%3BT3%3DV1&Submit=Search);

Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Result.do?arg0=2002%2F49&arg1=&arg2=&titre=titre&chlang=en&RechType=RECH_mot&idRoot=16&refinecode=LEG*T1%3DV112%3BT2%3DV1%3BT3%3DV1&Submit=Search);

Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directive 96/82/EC (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Result.do?arg0=2012%2F18&arg1=&arg2=&titre=titre&chlang=en&RechType=RECH_mot&idRoot=16&refinecode=LEG*T1%3DV112%3BT2%3DV1%3BT3%3DV1&Submit=Search);

Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Result.do?arg0=2003%2F4&arg1=&arg2=&titre=titre&chlang=en&RechType=RECH_mot&idRoot=6&refinecode=LEG*T1%3DV112%3BT2%3DV1%3BT3%3DV1&Submit=Search);

European Commission Guidance on implementation of Directive 2001/42 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);

Environmental indicators:Typology and overview Technical report No 25/1999 (http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/TEC25);

Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo Convention) (http://www.unece.org/env/eia/about/eia_text.html);

Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention)(http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf);

Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the application and effectiveness of the Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment (Directive 2001/42/EC) of 2009 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52009DC0469:EN:NOT);

Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the SEA Directive (2001/42/EC), June 2009 (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/study0309.pdf);

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

Relationship between the EIA and the SEA Directives, Final Report to the European Commission, Imperial College London Consultants, 2005 (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/final_report_0508.pdf);

Final Report, IMPEL Project: Implementing Article 10 of the SEA Directive 2001/42/EC, 2002(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/impel_final_report.pdf);

Land-Use Planning Guidelines, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, 2006 (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/seveso/pdf/landuseplanning_guidance_en.pdf);

Web-site of the ECJ (http://curia.europa.eu/);

Other guidance and interpretation documents, studies and reports issued by or on behalf of the European Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-support.htm);

UNEP Environmental Impact Assessment Training Resource Manual, Second Edition: (http://www.unep.ch/etu/publications/EIAman_2edition_toc.htm);

Sadler B (1999) A Framework for Environmental Sustainability Assessment and Assurance. In Petts J (ed.) Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment (Vol. 1, pp.12-32). Blackwell Science Ltd, London, UK.

Sadler B (2001) A Framework Approach to Strategic Environmental Assessment: Aims, Principles and Elements of Good Practice. In Dusik J (ed) Proceedings of International Workshop on Public Participation and Health Aspects of Strategic Environmental Assessment in the UN/ECE Region (pp. 11-24). Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe, UNECE, WHO Europe, Szentendre, Hungary.

Sadler B and Brook C (1998) Strategic Environmental Appraisal. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London, UK.

Sadler B and Verheem R (1996) Strategic Environmental Assessment: Status, Challenges and Future Directions. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, The Hague.

Therivel R, Wilson E, Thompson S, Heaney D and Pritchard D (1992) Strategic Environmental Assessment. Earthscan, London.

UK Department of the Environment (1993) Environmental Appraisal of Development Plans: A Good Practice Guide. HMSO, London.

UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (1998) Policy Appraisal and the Environment. Policy Guidance. HMSO, London.

UNECE, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (1992) Application of Environmental Impact Assessment to Policies, Plans and Programmes. UNECE Environmental Series No. 5, Geneva.

Verheem R and Tonk J (2000) Strategic Environmental Assessment: One Concept, Multiple Forms. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 18(3): 177-182.

World Bank (1993) Sectoral Environmental Assessment. Environmental Assessment Sourcebook Update Number 4. Environment Department, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

World Bank (1996) Regional Environmental Assessment. Environmental Assessment Sourcebook Update Number 15.

Eseryel Deniz (2002), Approaches to Evaluation of Training: Theory & Practice, Educational Technology & Society 5 (2) ISSN 1436-4522

Miller Janice A., Osinski Diana M., 2002, TRAINING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (http://www.ispi.org/pdf/suggestedReading/Miller_Osinski.pdf )

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

European Commission, DG ENV , 2009, Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, Final report ,June 2009 (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/eia_study_june_09.pdf )

DANIDA, Environmental Impact Assessment Training Resource Manual, (2001), http://www.inforse.dk/doc/Final%20EIA%20Training%20Resource%20Manual%20%28a%29.pdf

Justice & Environment Network, 2008; Good Examples of EIA and SEA Regulation and Practice in five European Union Countries (http://www.justiceandenvironment.org/_files/file/2009/06/eia-sea_good_examples.pdf )

Partidário Maria Rosário, STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA) current practices, future demands and capacity-building needs- Course Manual, International Association for Impact Assessment, Portugal, Lisbon (http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/EIA/SEA/SEAManual.pdf )

Therivel Riki, Glasson John, Partidário Maria Rosário, Bina Olivia, Wood Chris, Sadler Barry; 2006, Strategic Environmental Assessment- Course Module (http://sea.unu.edu/course/?page_id=92 )

Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe, 2007, Strategic Environmental Assessment - Training Manual for South Eastern Europe, REC (http://documents.rec.org/publications/SEA_Manual_Aug2007_eng.pdf )

BMT Asia Pacific Limited, 2008, Collection of the World’s Latest Practice on Environmental Evaluation and Strategic Environmental Assessment for Urban Development – Final Report; (http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/SEA/eng/file/No8English.htm )

Implementation of SEA Directive (2001/42/EC): Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment Guidelines for Regional Authorities and Planning Authorities (2004), Government of Ireland, http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,1616,en.pdf

Development of Strategic Environmental Assessment Methodologies for Plans and Programmes in Ireland: Synthesis Report (2003) Environmental Protection Agency/ERM Ireland Ltd. [The fuller Final Report can be downloaded from the EPA website: www.epa.ie

“Implementation of Directive 2001/42 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment” (September 2003) European Commission. www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment

“Heritage appraisal of Development Plans: A methodology for planning authorities” (2000) Heritage Council. www.heritagecouncil.ie

“A Draft Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive” (July 2004) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (UK) www.odpm.gov.uk

Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo Convention): http://www.unece.org/env/eia/about/eia_text.html

Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention): http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf

Report “Collection of Information and Data to Support the Impact Assessment Study of the Review of the EIA Directive” (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/collection_data.pdf);

Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive (Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directives 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC) (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0378:FIN:EN:PDF);

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

Guidance on EIA Screening (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-guidelines/g-screening-full-text.pdf);

Guidance on EIA Scoping (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-guidelines/g-scoping-full-text.pdf);

Guidance on EIA EIS Review (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-guidelines/g-review-full-text.pdf);

Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects - Rulings of the Court of Justice (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/eia_case_law.pdf);

Web-site of the ECJ (http://curia.europa.eu/);

Other guidance and interpretation documents, studies and reports issued by or on behalf of the European Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-support.htm);

International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment (“Sadler Report”) (http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/Content/2/B/7/2B7834CA-7D9A-410B-A4ED-FF78AB625BDB/iaia8_e.pdf);

UNEP Environmental Impact Assessment Training Resource Manual, Second Edition: (http://www.unep.ch/etu/publications/EIAman_2edition_toc.htm);

Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development “Our Common Future” (“Brundtland Report”)(http://conspect.nl/pdf/Our_Common_Future-Brundtland_Report_1987.pdf)

Further reading

Bailey J and Dixon J (1999) Policy Environmental Assessment. In Petts J (ed) Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 251-272). Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford.

Handbook on Environmental Assessment of Regional Development Plans and Structural Funds http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/home.htm

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18 (3), 2000. Special issue on strategic environmental assessment, planning and policy-making (W Thiessen, guest editior).

Mikulic N, Dusik J, Sadler B and Casey-Lefkowitz S (eds.) (1998) Strategic Environmental Assessment in Transitional Countries: Emerging Practices. Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe, Szentendre, Hungary.

SEA of District and Territorial Development Plans in Hong Kong SAR. http://www.info.gov.hk/epd

SEAN process to formulate sustainable development plans and strategy. http://www.seanplatform.org

Canter L (1996) Environmental Impact Assessment. McGraw-Hill, New York.

EIA Centre (1995) EIA in Developing Countries. EIA Leaflet Series L15, EIA Centre, University of Manchester, UK.

Glasson J, Therivel R and Chadwick A (1999) Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment. UCL Press, London.

Goodland R. and Mercier J-R (1999) The Evolution of Environmental Assessment in the World Bank: From “Approval” to Results. Environment Department papers No. 67, World Bank, Washington D.C.

Petts J (1999) Environmental Impact Assessment - Overview of Purpose and Process, in Petts J (ed) Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment (Vol.1) pp. 3-11. Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, UK.

Petts J (1999) Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice: Fulfilled Potential or Wasted Opportunity, in Petts J (ed) Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment (Vol. 2) pp. 3-9. Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, UK.

World Bank (1991) Environmental Assessment Sourcebook. (Vol.1) Environment Department, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

World Bank (1996) The Impact of Environmental Assessment: The World Bank”s Experience. (Second Environmental Assessment Review) Environment Department, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Annexes

ANNEX I

LIST OF JUDGEMENTS OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EU ON THE SEA DIRECTIVE

Judgement on Case C-54/06: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62006CJ0054:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-159/06: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62006CJ0159:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-43/10: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62010CJ0043:EN:HTML

Judgement on Case C-77/06: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62006CJ0077:EN:HTML

Judgement on Case C-376/06: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62006CJ0376:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-40/07: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007CJ0040:EN:HTML
Judgement on Cases C-105/09 & C-110/09: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009CJ0105:EN:HTML

Judgement on Case C-295/10: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62010CJ0295:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-474/10: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62010CJ0474:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-567/10: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62010CJ0567:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-41/11: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62011CJ0041:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-177/11: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62011CJ0177:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-463/11: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62011CJ0463:EN:HTML

REMARK: The list above is not exhaustive and the users of this Practical Guidance should check regularly for new relevant case-law of the Court.

ANNEX II

LIST OF JUDGEMENTS OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EU ON THE EIA DIRECTIVE

Judgement on Case C-81/96: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61996CJ0081:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-392/96: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61996CJ0392:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-150/97: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61997CJ0150:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-387/97: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61997CJ0387:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-435/97: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61997CJ0435:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-96/98: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61998CJ0096:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-287/98: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61998CJ0287:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-474/99: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61999CJ0474:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-230/00: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62000CJ0230:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-366/00: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62000CJ0366:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-227/01: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62001CJ0227:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-319/01: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62001CJ0319:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-348/01: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62001CJ0348:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-53/02: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62002CJ0053:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-87/02: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62002CJ0087:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-117/02: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62002CJ0117:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-127/02: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62002CJ0127:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-201/02: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62002CJ0201:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-217/02: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=49069&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3629794
Judgement on Case C-280/02: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62002CJ0280:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-416/02: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62002CJ0416:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-421/02: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=49314&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3629997
Judgement on Case C-83/03: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62003CJ0083:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-98/03: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62003CJ0083:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-121/03: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62003CJ0121:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-290/03: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62003CJ0290:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-459/03: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62003CJ0459:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-508/03: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62003CJ0508:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-531/03 (not available in English): http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=54108&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3629997
Judgement on Case C-98/04: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62004CJ0098:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-199/04: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62004CJ0199:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-209/04: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62004CJ0209:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-332/04: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62004CJ0332:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-418/04: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62004CJ0418:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-486/04: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62004CJ0486:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-37/05: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62005CJ0037:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-69/05: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62005CJ0069:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-183/05: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62005CJ0183:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-216/05: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62005CJ0216:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-255/05: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62005CJ0255:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-66/06: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62006CJ0066:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-215/06: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62006CJ0215:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-247/06: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62006CJ0247:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-354/06: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62006CJ0354:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-2/07: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007CJ0002:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-69/07: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007CJ0069:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-93/07: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007CJ0093:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-142/07: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007CJ0142:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-247/07: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007CJ0247:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-427/07: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007CJ0427:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-473/07: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007CJ0473:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-75/08: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008CJ0075:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-205/08: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008CJ0205:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-226/08: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008CJ0226:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-255/08: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008CJ0255:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-263/08: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008CJ0263:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-495/08: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62008CJ0495:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-560/08 (not available in English): http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=116688&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3631825
Judgement on Case C-50/09: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009CJ0050:EN:HTML
Judgement on Cases C-105/09 & C-110/09: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009CJ0105:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-115/09: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009CJ0115:EN:HTML
Judgement on Joined Cases C‑128/09 to C‑131/09, C‑134/09 and C‑135/09: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009CJ0128:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-204/09: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009CJ0204:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-240/09: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009CJ0240:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-275/09: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009CJ0275:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-378/09: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009CJ0378:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-404/09: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009CJ0404:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-435/09: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009CJ0435:EN:HTML
Judgement on Case C-538/09: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009CJ0538:EN:HTML

Judgement on Case C-43/10: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62010CJ0043:EN:HTML

[1]Link to the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development “Our Common Future” (“Brundtland Report”): http://conspect.nl/pdf/Our_Common_Future-Brundtland_Report_1987.pdf

[2]Article 4(3)(2^nd sub-paragraph) of the Treaty on the European Union

[3]Article 291 of the TFEU

[4] Course Manual STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA) current practices, future demands and capacity-building needs by Maria Rosário Partidário

[5] Ordinance on the conditions and order for carrying out compatibility assessment on plans, programmes, projects and investment proposals with the conservation objectives of the protected areas (adopted by Council of Ministers Decree № 201 of 31 August 2007, prom, SG 73 of 11 September 2007, in force as of 11 September 2007, as last amended SG 94 of 30 November 2012)

[6] European Social Fund

[7] UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention): http://www.unece.org/env/pp/treatytext.html

[8] Course Module UNU: Strategic Environmental Assessment: http://sea.unu.edu/course

[9] Course Module UNU: Strategic Environmental Assessment: http://sea.unu.edu/course

[10] The relevant legislation includes the LEP, the EA Ordinance, the Law on Biological Diversity and the Ordinance on the conditions and order for carrying out compatibility assessment on plans, programmes, projects and investment proposals with the conservation objectives of the protected areas

[11] Source: Guidance on implementation of Directive 2001/42 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, European Commission

[12] The Report is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/impel_final_report.pdf

[13] DPSIR is a causal framework for describing the interactions between society and the environment. The abbreviation stands for: “D”: Driving forces, “P”: Pressure, “S”: States, “I”: Impacts, “R”: Responsibilities.

[14] Source: UNU, SEA Course Module: http://sea.unu.edu/course/?page_id=74

[15]Article 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

[16] Judgement of Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-287/98

[17] Pursuant to Bulgarian national legislation “projects” as defined by the EIAD, are referred to as “investment proposals”.

[18] Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste repealed Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste (the codified version of Directive 75/442/EEC as amended)

[19] Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects -Rulings of the Court of Justice, European Commission -2010

[20] Link to the EC guidance document “Interpretation suggested by the Commission as regards the application of EIA Directive to associated/ancillary works”: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/Note%20-%20Interpretation%20of%20Directive%2085-337-EEC.pdf

[21] “Interpretation suggested by the Commission as regards the application of EIA Directive to associated/ancillary works” (03/05/2012)

[22] Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects -Rulings of the Court of Justice, European Commission -2010

[23] 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 on the environment to the rehabilitation of landfills - European Commission - Directorate General Environment (21/01/2010).

[24] Ratified by Bulgaria by Law, prom. SG 28/1995, as corrected SG 89 of 12/10/1999

[25] Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects -Rulings of The Court of Justice, European Commission -2010

[26] Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects -Rulings of The Court of Justice, European Commission -2010

[27] Guidance documents on EIA (Screening, Scoping and EIA Review)- Directorate General for Environment of the European Commission June 2001

[28] COM(2012) 628 final, Commission 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

[29] Horizontal Environmental EC Legislation A Short Policy Guide (2007), prepared for C by the Institute for International and European Environmental Policy

[30] Collection of information and data to support the Impact Assessment study of the review of the EIA Directive–A study for DG Environment, September 2010: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/collection_data.pdf

[31]Link to the Espoo Convention: http://www.unece.org/env/eia/about/eia_text.html

[32] These authorities are the executive director of the ExEA, the directors of the RIEWs, the directors of the river basin directorates, the national parks directors, the mayors of the municipalities and region governors in Bulgaria.

documents

.doc Task_4.1._Key_Elements_for_TS_adapted_to_BG_EN_FINAL
Download

Prevention