Quantcast
Channel: 環境資訊中心 - 點擊之間 創造環境大不同
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 19876

歐盟修改環境影響評估法

$
0
0
摘譯自2012年10月31日ENS比利時,布魯塞爾報導;林雅玲編譯;蔡麗伶審校

英國一個建設計畫,照片來源:布里頓(Ian Britton),FreeFoto.com目前歐盟正進行「環境影響評估」(EIA)的修法,首次讓政府在審查可能會影響環境的大型計畫時,納入氣候變遷、生物多樣性、災難預防和能源效率考量。

EIA指令是1985年開始實施的,但是現行指令從1997年後就沒有更動。新法規的目標在於改正缺失,以及反映過去25年來政策、法規和技術的演變,同時也希望能讓EIA指令跟上歐盟執委會(European Commission)所稱的「智慧型管理」(Smart Regulation)原則。

在審視科學研究以及諮詢利害關係人和公眾後,一個為期兩年的計畫顯示EIA指令有三個關鍵的問題,包括審查程序的不當運作、評估分析的品質不佳,以及EIA程序本身和其他法規之間不一致的風險。

目前整個歐盟對於決定一個計畫(例如基礎建設、水壩、工業工廠或採石場)是否要進行EIA分析的審查程序本身,存在相當大的差異。

歐盟27個會員國裡有部份國家進行很多EIA分析,但是有些計畫對環境影響不大,因此分析本身製造了不必要的行政負擔。而其他會員國裡對環境影響甚大的計畫,卻避開了EIA分析。

「無法正確執行審查程序,是最主要且一再發生的問題,歐盟執行委員會處理的侵權案件中,它們佔了很高的比率。」歐盟執行委員會(歐盟的行政分支)提到,「我們必須填補這個漏洞,以確保所有影響環境的計畫,確實進行所需的評估。」

另一個問題是國家當局拿到的EIA報告中的資訊品質,「常常是不足或者是品質很差的數據和分析(包括氣候變遷、災難風險或生物多樣性等新的環境議題),使得政府在資訊不足的情況下做決定。」歐盟執行委員會表示,「反過來說,好的數據和決定會增加社會對計畫的接受度,避免計畫延宕造成的花費和訴訟。」

最後,1997年後EIA指令就沒有經過調整,因此可能會和其他歐盟法規要求的的評估重疊,導致開發者和主管當局重複花費。而且現行法規沒有明訂審查程序個別步驟的時間架構,執行EIA評估的時間差距甚大,目前一個評估案平均要花5~27個月。

建構中的建築物,位於英國蘇格蘭格拉斯哥。照片來源布里頓(Ian Britton),FreeFoto.com

公眾諮詢時間太短的時間架構,可能會阻礙社會對計畫的接受度,而太長的則會製造額外花費。對商業和政府當局來說,這些歧異可能會造成顯著的不確定性、社會經濟成本和不必要的行政負擔。

歐盟執委會表示,歐盟已有符合法令的架構,因此EIA指令必須升級。僅僅在國家層次改變可能會增加差異,阻礙國際市場發揮功能。

提升到歐盟的規格也帶來額外好處,因為環境議題和計畫具有跨國界的性質,例如能源和運輸領域。

環保團體很歡迎歐盟執行委員會提出修訂計畫,不過他們表示需要有更多公眾參與這個過程。

代表140個歐洲團體的「歐洲環境聯合會」(EEB)以及歐洲環境法規組織的匯流「環境與正義組織」(J&E),也認為儘管有些許改善,在很多方面該提議還是違反「奧胡斯公約」(Aarhus Convention )。

  當案件正在法院審理時沒有任何法規可以停止計畫,聯合會表示這是不被接受的,也違背公約。

EEB的秘書長瓦特司(Jeremy Wates)表示:「多年來,開發者為了避免計畫評估結果對環境有影響,會將計畫切割成小計畫。」EEB很高興看到,目前的提議將檢視相同或不同開發者的許多計畫累積下來的影響。」

不過瓦特司也認為,要讓指令符合21世紀的標準,還有很多要做的,他說:「這個提案並無意處理特殊的狀況,也就是計畫開發者沒有義務保證在計畫啟動前,已經執行EIA評估。」

一個計畫是否需要進行EIA的標準,目前已經更加明確。提議的內文新增了關注的面向,例如對氣候改變的影響,以及對環境影響做更全面的分析。

一旦計畫開始進行,該提議可以做為監控環境影響的根據,不過這還不是執行所有計畫的必要條件。

J&E的主席阿爾吉(Thomas Alge)表示:「在通向正義或公眾參與的層面,這個提議沒有任何改進,即使歐洲法院(European Court of Justice)的判例法和聯合國歐洲經濟委員會(Compliance Committee of the UN-ECE)奧胡斯公約的遵約委員會,都認為這些是必要的。」

「我們無法接受非政府組織(NGO)沒有明確參與和質疑計畫審查程序的權利。」阿爾吉表示,「這代表公眾參與權還是與歐盟和其會員國的國際義務背道而馳。」

Europe Updates Environment Impact Assessment Law
BRUSSELS, Belgium, October 31, 2012 (ENS)

A modernization of Europe’s environmental impact assessment law now underway will enable governments, for the first time, to take into account climate change, biodiversity, disaster prevention and resource efficiency when considering big projects that may affect the environment.

The current EIA Directive came into force in 1985 and has not been altered since 1997. The new law aims to correct shortcomings and reflect developments in policy, law and technology over the past 25 years. It is intended to align the Environmental Impact Assessment, EIA, Directive with the principles of what the European Commission calls “smart regulation.”

Three key problems with the existing EIA Directive emerged from a two-year review process that included scientific studies and consultation with stakeholders and the public: insufficient operation of the screening process, insufficient quality and analysis of assessments and risks of inconsistencies within the EIA process itself and in relation to other legislation.

Currently, there are big differences across the European Union in the screening process that determines whether or not an environmental impact assessment is required for projects such as infrastructure, dams, industrial plants or quarries.

In some of the EU’s 27 Member States many EIAs are carried out, sometimes for projects with minor environmental impacts, creating unnecessary administrative burdens. In other Member States, projects with major environmental impacts escape the EIA requirement.

“Failures to correctly apply the screening process constitute the most significant and recurring problem, as they represent a high percentage of infringement cases initiated by the Commission,” said the European Commission, the executive branch of the EU government. “This loophole has to be fixed to ensure that all projects that affect the environment do get the assessment they need.”

Another problem is that quality of the information used in the EIA reports, when left to the national authorities “often results in a lack or poor quality of EIA data and analysis (including on new environmental topics such as climate change, disaster risks, or biodiversity), which make their way into the EIA reports and lead to ill informed decisions,” the Commission said. “Good data and decisions, by contrast, increase the social acceptance of projects, avoiding costly delays and litigation.”

Finally, as the EIA Directive has not been adapted since 1997, there are risks of overlaps with assessments required under other EU laws, which can lead to a duplication of costs for developers and public authorities. As the present law does not specify time-frames for the individual steps of the process, the time spent in carrying out the assessments may vary greatly – the average duration of an assessment now ranges from five months to 27 months.

Too short time-frames for public consultation may hinder social acceptance of projects and too long ones may generate additional costs. These divergences can generate significant uncertainties, socio-economic costs and unnecessary administrative burdens for business and public authorities.

As the legal framework already exists at EU level, it has to be updated at EU-level, the Commission said. Action solely at the national level could increase discrepancies and hamper the functioning of the internal market.

Action at EU level also brings added value because of the transboundary nature of environmental issues and projects, for example in fields like energy and transport.

Environmental groups have welcomed the European Commission proposal for a revision, but they say more public involvement in the process is needed.

The European Environmental Bureau, EEB, which represents 140 member groups across Europe, and Justice & Environment, J&E, a European network of environmental law organizations, agree that despite some improvements, in many aspects the proposal remains in contravention of the Aarhus Convention.

There is no provision to halt projects while court cases are pending, something the federations say is both unacceptable and in breach of the Convention.

Jeremy Wates, EEB Secretary General said, “For years, developers have got away with avoiding having the environmental impact of projects taken into account by splitting up projects into small parts; otherwise known as ‘salami slicing.’ The EEB is happy to see that today’s proposal deals with this by examining the accumulation of impacts of multiple projects by the same or different developers.”

But he said more remains to be done to bring the directive into the 21st century. “This proposal makes no attempt to deal with the bizarre situation whereby the project developer is under no obligation to guarantee that the EIA is carried out before the project starts,” said Wates.

The criteria for whether or not a project should have an EIA are now more specific. The proposed text includes new aspects to be taken into account, such as impacts on climate change, and more comprehensive analysis of environmental impacts.

Once the project is under way, the proposal then provides for monitoring of the environmental impact, though this is still not a requirement for all projects.

“This proposal lacks any improvement regarding access to justice or public participation even though the case law of the European Court of Justice and the Compliance Committee of the UN-ECE Aarhus Convention both found that it should do”, said Thomas Alge, who chairs Justice and Environment.

“Among other things it is not acceptable that NGOs are not explicitly entitled to participate and challenge screening procedures for projects,” said Alge. “This means public participation rights remain in breach of the international obligations of the EU and its Member States.”

※ 全文及圖片詳見:ENS


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 19876

Trending Articles



<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>