Anna Marks and Helen Meekings

Transcription

1 Anna Marks and Helen Meekings Anna Marks Ecovision ul. Stanislawa Kostki Potockiego 2B/ Warszawa, Poland Helen Meekings Golder Associates 1 Alie Street London E1 8DE, UK hmeekings@golder.com EIA IN EASTERN EUROPE - ADDING VALUE TO THE SOCIAL ANALYSIS An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a powerful regulatory instrument in the European Union. New Member States in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) make use of the EIA tool in the decision-making process prior to project development. Effective use of the tool should include taking into account social factors and designing the mitigation measures in such a way that public concerns are addressed. A number of EIA cases from CEE countries including Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Romania have been reviewed as part of this research. The main finding is that the reviewed EIAs mention social aspects but rarely proceed to identifying stakeholders or social factors. Recommending mitigation measures with reference to social factors is not a common practice in CEE countries. This paper argues that evaluators themselves can make a tangible difference and proposes a methodology for evaluating which social factors are significant and should be taken into account in the EIA. The proposed methodology, the Strategy Review, might facilitate a better understanding of social aspects in relation to a development project. The methodology draws on experience of EIAs carried out in the UK and can be used by evaluators in CEE. Keywords: EIAs in Eastern Europe, social analysis in EIA 1 Introduction Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is currently established as a mandatory procedure in all European Union (EU) and a number of other countries worldwide. The EIA process is described by some as one of the most successful policy innovations of the twentieth century (Bartlett 1988). It is a powerful regulatory instrument (Council Directive 85/337/EEC) which has the potential to become a tool for improved decision making prior to the development of a project. An EIA is an assessment of the possible impact that a proposed project may have on the surrounding environment in comparison with a do nothing or alternative approach. It is carried out in order to improve how the decision on developing a project is made. A number of approaches to carrying out an EIA are used. Some place more attention to the theory of planning, whereas others focus on traditional analysis or discipline-specific environmental, biological, social and economic studies. Some EIA models place more attention to the analysis of social background. In the case of such models, issues of importance identified by stakeholders are viewed as an integral element of the assessment of environmental impacts (Cashmore 2004). It is recognised that people are an integral part of the environment and the social aspects of a proposal should be analysed as an integral part of an EIA study (UNEP 2004). According to international best practice (IAIA 1999), the EIA process should provide input of communities and industries affected by a proposal, as well as the interested public.

2 This paper analyses EIA case studies to demonstrate how social factors are identified and evaluated in EIAs and presents a methodology for adding value to the social analysis in EIA. The term social factors is referred to in this paper as any areas of importance or concerns that local stakeholders have with respect to the impacts associated with the proposed development. 2 Social Analysis in EIAs This paper argues that social factors should be identified as part of the EIA process in order to assess which of the anticipated environmental impacts are significant and how significant the identified human and community impacts are. EU guidelines provide a list of human and community effects that should be considered as part of an EIA (EC 2001). The EU guidance on types of health and welfare issues of importance is presented in Table 1. Although the Guidance on EIA (EC 2001) provides specific information about the likely human and community effects, it lies within the competence of the evaluator to identify which social effects should be included and prioritised in the EIA report. Table 1. EU guidance on characteristics of the project environment with respect to human or community health or welfare. Is the Project likely to affect human or community health or welfare? The quality or toxicity of air, water, foodstuffs and other products consumed by humans? Morbidity or mortality of individuals, communities or populations by exposure to pollution? Occurrence or distribution of disease vectors including insects? Vulnerability of individuals, communities or populations to disease? Individuals sense of personal security? Community cohesion and identity? Cultural identity and associations? Minority rights? Housing conditions? Employment and quality of employment? Economic conditions? Social institutions? Source: EC (2001) Guidance on EIA. Scoping, p 34 Identification of social factors can be achieved in the EIA process by analysing the following information: Primary sources of information such as results of field surveys and public hearings where the project, its potential impacts and mitigation measures are discussed with the affected communities and other stakeholders; where a feedback loop is established between the developer and the stakeholders; and Secondary sources of information such as results of desk-top research studies, e.g. reviewing relevant publications in the media and scientific/technical literature, officially published statistics, considering priorities identified by the local authorities by analysing available policy statements and development plans, etc. Although reference to secondary data on social factors is acceptable, primary information gathered as a result of site visits/ field surveys and public consultation is a more applicable source of information on the stakeholder views relating to potential impacts and risks of the proposed project (Vanclay 2003). Referring to all primary and secondary information which is available and relevant is likely to greatly improve the social analysis in the EIA.

3 3 Methodology The purpose of this paper is to present how social analysis is carried out as part of the EIA process in CEE and to propose how to enhance social assessment in EIAs. The purpose is achieved by means of a review of EIA case studies and by suggesting a methodology for evaluating the significance of social factors (the Strategy Review). The methodology for analysing the case studies as well as developing the Strategy Review technique is presented in this section. 3.1 The case studies A number of EIA cases from CEE countries have been reviewed as part of this research, including three EIA reports from Poland, two EIA reports from Romania, three EIA reports from Hungary and two EIA reports from the Czech Republic. The cases have been selected based on the availability and relevance of the project documentation. This paper focuses on the EIA reports initiated by developers who are seeking permits from the local authorities in CEE countries. EIAs prepared for the purpose of obtaining a loan from the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) are outside the scope of the paper. The intention was to provide a broad spectrum of approaches to EIA evaluation for local projects, hence 10 local case studies representing 10 different developers have been selected. The EIA reports do not give a full representation of the countries EIA practice. Consequently, the names of the countries are not mentioned when discussing the case studies. The intention of this analysis is to give a general overview on the approach to EIAs in CEE countries. No attempt is made in this paper to assess which CEE country best incorporates social analysis into EIAs. Broader representation of the New Member States EIA practice is provided in literature (EC 2009). The information on the EIA case studies was collected by means of a questionnaire sent to evaluators in CEE countries. The answers to the questionnaire were further discussed with the evaluators during an interview. Most EIA reports analysed in this paper were available in the language of origin (Romanian, Hungarian, Czech and Polish), hence translation and interpretation assistance was required. The greatest limitations imposed on the analysis were the constraints in interpretation. 3.2 The Strategy Review The second part of the paper presents a methodology which can add value to the social analysis in EIA. The methodology (the Strategy Review) was developed by a group of evaluators in the United Kingdom (UK) as part of three permit application submissions. The methodology was developed when preparing social impact assessment chapters of EIA reports in the UK in The methodology draws on experience of EIAs carried out in the UK and argues that it can be used by evaluators in CEE countries. Some assumptions had been made to ensure the correct understanding and use of the suggested methodology. It has been assumed that the suggested methodology, which has been successfully used in the UK, is transferable to other countries. It is assumed that it can be applied in the same way in CEE countries as it was used in the UK. It is also assumed that the strategies analysed as part of the Strategy Review exercise have been derived in a consultative process and they represent genuine priorities of the community in the region, county, town or village. It is assumed that the strategies have been prepared in a systematic way incorporating the elements of public participation. The willingness of communities and other stakeholders including non-governmental organisations

4 (NGOs) to participate and express their opinions when consulted for the purpose of strategy development is assumed to be similarly high in the UK and the CEE countries. The question of the willingness of the local community in CEE countries to participate and express their opinions has to be raised when the applicability of the assumptions above is considered. The social capacity has historically been shaped in a different way in Eastern Europe as compared with Western Europe. The effectiveness of this methodology in CEE circumstances has not yet been proved hence it provides opportunities for future evaluation and research. An analysis of EIAs carried out in Eastern Europe can provide valuable input. 4 Central and Eastern European EIA practice This section shows examples of EIA case studies from CEE countries. The baseline information, assessment categories and types of mitigation measures identified in the EIA case studies are presented in Appendix 1 and further discussed in this section. Qualitative data are provided in the table in Appendix 1 on the types of information presented in the reports. Quantitative data are provided on the number of pages that are dedicated to social analysis as compared to the total number of pages in the EIA report (see Appendix 1). The analysis of the EIA case studies is based on reviewing the content of the reports. The analysis presented in this section has been divided according to elements that are internationally recognised to be key processes of an EIA. Key process elements of an assessment in theory include: 1. project definition; 2. (initial) screening of the project and the scoping of the Assessment process; 3. stakeholder identification and gathering of social and environmental baseline data, where relevant; 4. impact identification and analysis; and; 5. generation of mitigation or management measures and actions (IFC 1997). Social analysis of the EIA case studies is presented below based on the key processes identified above. 4.1 Stakeholder identification and gathering of social and environmental baseline data Although environmental baseline information was extensive in all EIA case study reports, of the EIAs provided a full social baseline analysis. Gathering social baseline data and identifying stakeholders is likely to be more coherent if the area of scope of the project s potential social impacts is identified at first. Based on the case study review, it has been found that a map of the surrounding area was included in all the reports analysed, however only 6 out of 10 reports named the surrounding settlements and labelled them on the maps. Towns and villages within the area of the scope (e.g. 1km radius from the boundary of the proposed development) were referred to in the report text in the case of 4 out of 10 reports. Giving the names of the surrounding settlements and referring to them in the report text does not require additional time or effort from the evaluator during the assessment and report writing. Adding this basic and evident baseline data would provide information on social context applicable in all cases with no additional costs. In the case of the reviewed reports which described the towns and villages (4 out of 10 reports) statistical data for local administrative units were recorded and affected settlements were described (see Appendix 1). The analysis covered elements such as size, infrastructure and employment. The remaining reports did not provide any local statistical data. In addition to the analysis of local statistics, a review of regional data is likely to facilitate better understanding of the settings of the locality within the greater area (e.g. within the region or county). This has partially been completed in 2 out of 10 case studies. In case of

5 the cement plant project and gas production project, the counties where the site is proposed to be located were described. Although the descriptions were provided they did not give a full socio-economic profile of the region. None of the 10 reports gave all important statistical data such as unemployment levels, the age structure of the community in the region, education/literacy, health data or prevalent occupation. This information might be difficult to find at local level however it is usually readily available on regional level and can be enclosed in EIA reports without extensive research carried out by the evaluator. Listing potentially affected parties e.g. neighbouring inhabited areas, local businesses, social services (health, education, leisure), and other interested entities is likely to enhance identification of the social concerns relating to the development. Theoretically, an EIA does not have to provide full stakeholder identification. The national requirements and practice may vary however this purpose is usually fulfilled in the Public Consultation and Disclosure Plan which would normally supplement the EIA report as a separate addendum (IFC 1997). Regardless, stakeholder identification should be an element of the assessment (IFC 1997) and of the analysed reports proved to have undertaken a structured stakeholder identification process. In some cases attempts to identify stakeholders were made e.g. in the marine oil extraction well project EIA; 3 stakeholder parties were identified, namely fishermen, vessel operators and beach users, however there was no consideration of other evident parties such as local coastal communities. If no public consultation took place historically or as part of the EIA process, identifying stakeholders and investigating socio-economic issues and stakeholder concerns can be undertaken by means of a desk review of local newspapers, local community web sites, as well as correspondence submitted to the county council in relation to the proposed development. Such passive methods of identifying stakeholder concerns do not represent good international practice and might provide a bias input. Public hearings/ meetings and focus-group discussions are the most effective methods for identifying stakeholder concerns although more costly. If financial resources for the EIA process are limited, a desktop review is recommended as a minimum resort. Based on the case study review, it has been found that a desktop review of social factors was not carried out in any of the 10 studied assessments. In 2 out of 10 case studies it has been mentioned in the EIA report that correspondence was submitted to the local authority during the consultation process however neither of the 2 reports provides information on what exactly was addressed in the correspondence. Public hearings were organised in the case of 5 out of 10 cases however only in 1 case, the consultation process has been described in the EIA report. In the case of the airport project, the communication process with local residents on noise has been described in the EIA report. In the case of the car manufacturer project, an extensive public consultation took place. It involved communication with NGOs, local groups, regional as well as national authorities. This process was not mentioned in the report at all. The remaining 3 reports did not go into detail on the consultation process. In these cases the fact that the public hearing took place is recorded but no information about the number of participants or the questions they raised is available in the EIA report. Information obtained from the process of public consultation was probably easily available to the evaluators when writing the EIA reports. Little additional effort was likely to have been necessary in order to include the relevant information on social concerns in the EIA reports. It is recommended that the public consultation process is briefed in the EIA report so that information on community concerns is recorded and is available for future reference. 4.2 Impact identification and analysis Based on the case study review, it has been found that social impact information was difficult to find in most reviewed EIA reports because it was dispersed in a number of sections. Only 1 out of 10 case studies had a subsection title referring to a social impact assessment. The

6 golf course EIA report comprised a sub-chapter on the socio-economic (including health) impacts however the subsection was only 1 page long. 3 out of 10 reports had a section on potential conflicts with the community and 2 out of 10 reports had a section on human health impacts. Potential effects on human health are an integral element of a social assessment (see Table 1) however community wellbeing and social effects cannot be undermined in the assessment process. A few impacts were identified in the case of 7 out of 10 EIA reports, however based on the review it is evident that limited consideration and effort were dedicated to the socio-economic evaluation process. None of the reports provided an accurate justification to clarify how social issues were identified or why the social factors mentioned in the EIA report are valid. Below is a disputable justification provided in the EIA report for the oil well project on the insignificance of the impacts on the identified parties in the case of an oil spill: Vessel operators will not be affected by the spill because they can select a different route; Fishermen will not be impacted as it is scientifically proved that a large oil spill has no direct effect on fish. Contamination of fish nets is the only impact that the fishermen might experience. A major oil spill will result in closing the beaches for a period of time hence beaches will not be used. Based on the analysis of this EIA it is clear that not all stakeholders have been identified and that insufficient attention was paid to the impacts affecting the stakeholders. The reviewed reports did not provide a comprehensive assessment of social impacts and information on potential social impacts was dispersed in a number of subsections. 4.3 Generation of mitigation or management measures and actions Identifying mitigation measures is a key element of an EIA. The purpose of an EIA is to provide information on the potential consequences of a project so that appropriate mitigation (or enhancement) measures can be designed (Slootweg et al. 2001). Only 2 out of 10 EIA reports went as far as identifying mitigation measures. In case of the golf course project, high water demand was identified as one of the impacts of the project and the local stakeholders were concerned about water management issues. As a result of the consultation process, a mitigation measure has been agreed on and the developer will contribute to upgrading the local public water supply infrastructure. In case of the car manufacturing project where extensive public consultation took place, two mitigation measures were agreed on due to public concerns on project related noise and pollution. It is recommended that social mitigation measures and actions are included in the assessment as this is likely to be the most important element of the EIA which may add most value to the future decisions made by both the developer and the local authority. Summary A number of EIA cases from CEE countries including Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, and Romania have been reviewed as part of this research. Overall, the EIAs reviewed as part of this study did not undertake a comprehensive socio-economic baseline study, accurate social impact evaluation or mitigation analysis. EIAs carried out in CEE countries tend to be low budget and solely aim to meet national legal requirements. The EIAs touch upon social aspects and health issues but rarely proceed to identifying stakeholders or the issues that are of importance to stakeholders. Identifying social mitigation measures is not a common practice in CEE countries. This paper argues that evaluators in CEE countries themselves can make a tangible difference in how the EIA process is shaped.

7 5 The Strategy Review A method, the Strategy Review, is suggested for evaluators to improve the EIA practice in CEE countries. It is recommended that all key process elements of an assessment as presented in the IFC Guidance (1997) and referred to in section 4 are included in the EIA. However if financial resources are limited and communication with the local stakeholders is restricted, the Strategy Review can add value to the EIA. It is likely to enhance the process of identifying which issues are important for the local community and other stakeholders including NGOs. Once areas of importance are identified, it might be easier for the evaluator to carry out the impact assessment and design the mitigation measures with reference to social sensitivity. When reviewing baseline information and analysing news and NGO positions regarding a proposed development, the evaluator can encounter widely campaigned information on local concerns and views of potential impacts. There is a need to evaluate the significance of all identified areas of importance as opinions presented in the media or advocated by NGOs might not always be representative of the wider community. A deeper understanding of the local priorities and issues of importance can be achieved through the application of the Strategy Review methodology. The Strategy Review is recommended as an additional step accompanying the baseline analysis if public consultation is not envisaged as part of the EIA. The proposed methodology involves reviewing existing strategies, development plans and programs for the area where the proposed development is to take place (see Figure 1). Figure 1. The Strategy Review One of the reasons why the Strategy Review may add value to the EIA process is the fact that strategies and plans are subject to public consultation. The local communities and NGOs are involved in a structured process of prioritising which aspects of community life are important for future development. In this process social factors will be identified regardless which issues are advocated by NGOs and referred to in media. In this section, the proposed methodology of reviewing existing strategies has been broken down into 5 steps in order to provide guidelines for evaluators. The suggested steps of the Strategy Review are: 1. Identification of all strategies developed for the area of scope; 2. Listing of the objectives of the relevant strategies; 3. Identification and listing of common themes for the strategy objectives; 4. Evaluation to prioritise significant objectives; and 5. Listing of significant issues of importance to be used at the impact assessment stage Below is a description of the steps of the Strategy Review.

8 5.1 Identification of all strategies developed for the area of scope First, relevant strategies and plans have to be identified. Examples of strategies that can be taken into account in an EIA are as follows: Economic Strategies, Rural and Urban Development Strategies, Regional Development Strategies and Town Development Plans. The methodology involves identifying the plans and strategies that are valid during the time period of the project and are most relevant to the proposed development. Social development policies such as county-level economic strategies are of primary interest however, health, community, rural development strategies can also be part of the analysis. Selection of strategies depends on what strategies are available and which strategies are relevant to the proposed development and to the area that the development is to take place in. Depending on the specifics of the development project relevant strategies are identified at this stage. It rests with the evaluator s expert decision on which strategies are to be reviewed as part of this study. 5.2 Listing of the objectives of the relevant strategies The next step is listing the objectives or goals of the strategies. Each strategy includes objectives and a set of priorities. As mentioned earlier, these priorities have been set up as a result of consultation with local authorities, communities and other stakeholders including NGOs. 5.3 Identification and listing of common themes for the strategy objectives Every strategy has its own set of objectives. When comparing the list of objectives for a number of strategies developed for a particular region, in some cases strategies have comparable objectives. For example, some objectives might be similar in the Regional Community Strategy and in the Regional Economic Strategy. In this case identifying common themes is possible. In this step broad-spectrum categories are assigned to each objective. 5.4 Evaluation to prioritise significant objectives The list of common themes for the strategy objectives and the names of relevant strategies can be collated in a table e.g. as presented in Table 2. This will provide a visual representation of which broad-spectrum objectives are identified in the strategies most frequently. If the same objective is identified in more than one strategy it is assigned a priority ranking score defined as frequency. Table 2 presents an example of prioritising most frequently identified objectives and assigning a frequency rating.

9 Table 2. Strategic objective ranking based on an EIA project in the UK Objective Preserve local character & environment - built, natural and historic environment Community involvement, preserve community sense of ownership & responsibility Frequency 1 Region XXX Economic Strategy County XXX Strategic Partnership Plan 3/3 X X X 2/3 X X Use resources efficiently (including recycling) 3/3 X X Improve parking & road safety in villages 0/3 Improve access to information to promote communication 3/3 X X X Improve skills and employment opportunities 2/3 X X Increase entrepreneurship, business development and rural economy 0/3 X X Improve transport to and from rural areas 2/3 X X Response to climate change 1/3 X Innovation in technology 1/3 X District XXX Plan The following assumptions have been made for the case presented in Table 2. All strategies were assumed to be of equal importance All objectives within the strategies were assumed to be of equal importance. In some cases greater importance can be assigned to some objectives and needs to be justified by the evaluator. 5.5 Listing of significant issues of importance to be used at the impact assessment stage In the case analysed in Table 2 the following social factors were assigned significant rating: Preserve local character & environment - built, natural and historic environment Improve access to information to promote communication As a result, a list of local and regional areas of importance is derived and identified impacts of the project can be evaluated against these. An example of the impact assessment for two areas of importance identified in Table 2 is presented in Appendix 2. The impacts of the proposed development are assessed in relation to the existing social and against environmental and social impact assessment findings. Appendix 2 also suggests mitigation measures for the identified areas of concern. 1 Frequency - Number of strategies or plans where the objective was mentioned.

10 6 Summary It is recognised that potential human related impacts should be identified and addressed as part of the EIA process. Socio-economic aspects of a development are an integral part of the project hence an EIA should include a social assessment. Based on the research carried out in CEE countries, EIAs rarely provide an adequate social analysis and social factors are seldom identified and evaluated in EIAs. A comprehensive social assessment is more likely to be achieved if socio-economic baseline information is included in the report. The baseline information gathering phase is an important and a necessary step in the assessment process to enable the determination of the potential impacts and risks of a project (IFC 1997). With relevant baseline information, areas of importance for local community and other stakeholders can be identified and an assessment can be undertaken. In order to identify and assess social factors in the EIA process it is recommended that the regional and local socio-economic profile is presented. Both qualitative and quantitative data collection can be used for this purpose and both primary and secondary sources of information can be reviewed. If obtaining primary information on stakeholder concerns is impossible, a desk research of local and regional strategies can be carried out as it can assist in evaluating which social factors are priorities for the community local to the proposed development. The suggested Strategy Review is a methodology for adding value to the social analysis in the EIA. It might enhance social assessment in EIAs by evaluating the significance of the identified social factors. The Strategy Review method cannot substitute direct public consultation where the affected community can express their views and concerns, however it is a method that can be used as an intermediate alternative when the developer has no intention to hold public consultation on the project (given that public consultation is not a mandatory legal requirement). Understanding development priorities provides an opportunity to rank issues and to identify main areas of importance for community and other stakeholders including NGOs. The suggested methodology stands against the commonly acknowledged way of identifying community views however it can be used in cases where public consultation are not planned or are limited. Once a social assessment is included in the EIA, there is a reduced risk of overlooking important issues associated with the project. In this case it is less likely that community concerns are undermined when designing mitigation measures. The suggested methodology helps bring community concerns to the forefront. It provides a better understanding of the complex cause-effect chain of environmental, social and economic factors associated with the proposed development. Social mitigation measures and actions should be an integral part of an assessment as this is likely to be the most important element of the EIA which might affect the decision making process. There is still a long way to go towards social responsibility of small-scale developers however Weaver et al. (2008) argue that it is the responsibility of the EIA practitioners to use the EIA as a tool to maximise opportunities for equal consideration of social, economic and environmental aspects. Evaluators themselves can make tangible differences especially at the local level at the EIA stage for development proposals. The evaluator can encourage the developer to follow international best practice and to incorporate a social analysis in the EIA. Such approach has the potential to raise the awareness of the developer about the local specifics. It can initiate an on-going dialog with the local communities and interest groups. Ultimately, it reduces the overall uncertainty and risk associated with the proposed development.

11 Appendix 1 Table A-1 The case studies: EIA reports from CEE countries 1 Project developer Year Type of developm ent proposal Type of social baseline information provided in the EIA Type of social impact information provided in the EIA Type of social mitigation measures provided in the EIA social analysis vs EIA (number of pages) oil and gas operator 2007 offshore oil well Following social issues identified and assessed as insignificant: sound waves occurring during project development might disturb the crews of vessels in the vicinity of the well increased yet low concentration of hydrocarbons within a 1 km 2 of the development inhaling of the vapour might pose human health risk in the case of a oil spill economic loss for fishermen in case of a spill when nets get contaminated with oil 2 page of social analysis in the 86 page EIA No impact is expected on identified parties. cement manufacturer 2005 cement plant county and municipality is described situation assessment of the 5 affected settlements (size, infrastructure, employment data) brief reference that the project is located in an industrial park. Following social issues identified assessed as insignificant: Air emissions and its related effects on human health. Insignificance justified by the fact that the new cement factory will replace the old cement factory which has old technology. New technology will cause less deterioration in air quality. 3 pages of social analysis in the 50 page EIA airport developer and operator oil and gas operator privatisatio n of existing airport gas production and Brief overview on national economic prospects county is described municipalities are listed situation assessment of 6 Noise is analysed very thoroughly, but only from the point of view of legal compliance, no description of potential social impacts. Following social issues identified and assessed as insignificant: CO and NOx exposition, Noise protection and insulation, restrictions in aircraft movement, etc. analysed only from the point of view of legal compliance 1 page of social analysis in the 45 page EIA 5 pages of social analysis in the 50 page

12 Project developer Year Type of developm ent proposal Type of social baseline information provided in the EIA Type of social impact information provided in the EIA Type of social mitigation measures provided in the EIA social analysis vs EIA (number of pages) wind farm operator and developer 2007 treatment plant wind farm affected villages (size, age groups, number of households, electricity, water, wastewater infrastructure, employment, public institutions, tourism and sport facilities) traffic noise Following social issues identified and assessed as insignificant: intensified road transport, nuisance on site, electromagnetic radiation, visual A section of the report entitled Impacts on human health gives information about the above impacts during development stage and the operation stage. EIA 2 pages of social analysis in the 62 page EIA oil and gas operator GSM mobile operator gas transport pipeline GSM antenna Brief reference that the project is remote and would not be a source of pollution Following environmental issues identified and assessed as insignificant: pollution during construction (caused by vehicle movement) disturbance during construction (caused by digging the ditch for the pipeline) pollution during use and maintenance of the pipeline (caused by water extracted from gas pipes) Following human health issues identified and assessed as insignificant: radiation emitted by GSM antenna estimated to be lower than compliance thresholds in national regulations. Insignificance justified by the height of the emission source from ground level and remoteness of the GSM antenna 1 page in the 117 page EIA 1 page in the 79 page EIA leisure service provider 2008 golf course listed affected settlements are affected land plots are listed Only minor nuisances during the construction phase were identified. The impacts would be positive (promotion of development and extension of the local public water supply 1 page in the 161 page EIA

13 Project developer Year Type of developm ent proposal Type of social baseline information provided in the EIA Type of social impact information provided in the EIA Type of social mitigation measures provided in the EIA social analysis vs EIA (number of pages) Car manufacturer 2006 Automobile engines production plant situation assessment of 1 affected municipality (area, demographics, occupation, public services incl. health care institutions). traffic intensity at the adjacent roads situation assessment the locality (No. of inhabitants living in the locality, description of the settlements, transport & technical infrastructure, agricultural activity) healthy style of living etc.) An appendix on potential human health impacts is part of the EIA report. Noise and air quality issues were subject to extensive assessment as part of an independent analysis which was attached to the EIA report. No significant impact on air was identified Noise increase was identified to be a significant impact network and related facilities (a separate project developed by municipality and co-financed by golf project developer) Noise mitigation (the construction of a wall to protect adjacent settlements from noise) Mitigation to protect residential areas from light pollution (all major outdoor light sources within the factory area must face off the residential area) 3 pages in the 246 page EIA airplane Manufacturer 2007 above ground waste storage tanks Brief reference that the project is located in an industrial park. A section of the report entitled Impacts on human health consists of two sentences stating that no impact on human health or wellbeing will be present. There is no justification given to clarify the statement. 0.5 page in the 23 page EIA 1 The information provided in this table shows examples of EIA case studies however it does not give a full representation of EIAs carried out in the discussed CEE countries hence the names of countries are intentionally not mentioned when discussing the cases.

14 Appendix 2 Table A-2.. Example of the assessment undertaken for objectives identified as priority areas based on an EIA project in the UK Priority Area Impact Duration Score Rational Mitigation Measure Preserve local character & environment Community involvement, preserve community sense of ownership & responsibility Landscape and visual environment impact of buildings associated with the proposed development. Decreased potential for developing local history tourist site due to buildings and infrastructure associated with the proposed development. Construction traffic movements impact associated with the proposed development Operation traffic movements impact associated with the proposed development Community consulted in all stages of the proposed development Long term - Long term During construction Long term Before & during construction, Medium term, Long term X XX X The proposed development will be screened by the existing woodland. The chimney will be visible rising approximately 15 m above the height of the trees. The chimney will be clad in stainless steel to reflect and mirror the surrounding The proposed development might eliminate the surrounding area as potential tourist site for local history. Establishing a Visitors or Education Centre as proposed by Project Sponsor might be beneficial and attract visitors. Increased traffic movements. during construction is anticipated. There will be 390 HGV trips per day over an 18 to 24 month period and 44 car trips per day Increased traffic movements during the operation is anticipated. It is estimated that there will approximately 37 staff using their cars to travel to site. Other transport associated with the site includes visitors to the Visitor and Education Centre with an estimated total of 92 vehicles movements per day. Active participation of representatives of the local organisations in the planning process is present. There is a potential opportunity to develop further engagement of broader representation of the community, business and other stakeholder groups in vicinity of the site. Create grievance and complaints mechanisms. Monitor and evaluate complaints regularly Use during the full project cycle (design, construction and operation). Routine traffic counts and monitoring of air quality and noise to be evaluated Provide feedback to the community; Further maximise positive impact: Regular meetings of the operator with the local community to collect feedback on the operations and monitoring results. The establishment of a liaison group might give a formal ground for communication.

15

16 References: BARLETT, RV. (1988) Policy and impact assessment: an introduction. Impact Assessment Bulletin, 6:73-4 CASHMORE, M (2004) The role of science in environmental impact assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development theory. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24: CEE Council of the European Communities (1985). Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, Official Journal L 175, 05/07/1985 P EC (European Commission) (2009) Study concerning the report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive; COWI A/S Denmark EC (European Commission) (2001) Guidance on EIA. Scoping; Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, IAIA (International Association for Impact Assessment) (1999). Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice; IAIA\P-F\Principles IFC (International Finance Corporation) (1997) Guidance Notes: Performance Standards on Social & Environmental Sustainability; Wold Bank Group SLOOTWEG, R; VANCLAY, F; VAN SCHOOTEN, M. (2001) Function evaluation as a framework for the integration of social and environmental impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 19(1):19-28 UNEP (2004) Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment: Towards an Integrated Approach; Geneva ISBN: VANCLAY, F. (2003) Social impact assessment: international principles. International Association for Impact Assessment, USA WEAVER, A., POPE, J., MORRISON-SAUNDERS A. and LOCHNER, P. (2008) Contributing to sustainability as an environmental impact assessment practitioner. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 26(2),