Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive

Final report for DG Environment under specific agreement no.

07010401/2006/447175/FRA/G1

Frans Oosterhuis

Report number
May 2007
This report was commissioned by: European Commission, DG Environment

IVM
Institute for Environmental Studies
Vrije Universiteit
De Boelelaan 1087
1081 HV Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel. ++31-20-4449 555
Fax. ++31-20-4449 553
E-mail: info@[Link]

Copyright © 2007, Institute for Environmental Studies

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy-
ing, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the copyright holder.
Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive i

Contents

Preface 1

Executive summary 2

Executive summary 2

1. Introduction 3

2. Findings from existing studies 7

2.1 Method and approach followed 7
2.2 Costs of EIA 7
2.2.1 Overall costs 7
2.2.2 Costs of performing an EIA 7
2.2.3 Costs to public administrations 9
2.2.4 Costs of delays and procedural requirements 10
2.3 Benefits of EIA 11
2.3.1 Environmental benefits 11
2.3.2 Other benefits 13
2.4 Comparing benefits and costs 15

3. Conclusions with possible EU relevance 17

3.1 Costs 17
3.1.1 Introduction 17
3.1.2 Cost categories 17
3.1.3 Distribution of costs 17
3.1.4 Differences between Member States and with non-EU countries 18
3.2 Benefits 18
3.3 Balance and trade-offs between costs and benefits 19

4. Gaps in knowledge and recommendations for further studies 21

4.1 Identifying and quantifying costs 21
4.2 Identifying benefits 22
4.3 Opportunities for improvements in the benefit/cost balance 22

Appendix I. Literature summaries 27

Appendix II. Additional information on selected countries 74

Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 1

Preface

This report was written for the European Commission, DG Environment, within the
framework of specific agreement no. 07010401/2006/447175/FRA/G1 under Framework
Contract no. ENV.G.1/FRA/2004/0081. Contributions for the review of existing studies
were provided by Cécile des Abbayes (BIO), Tjasa Bole (IVM), Alena Dodoková (IEP),
Peter Hjerp (IEEP) and Anneke von Raggamby (Ecologic).
Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 1
2 Institute for Environmental Studies

Executive summary

The EU’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive has been in operation for
over 20 years. The present study presents the results of a review of existing studies
which can contribute to identifying the costs and benefits associated with the implemen-
tation of the Directive.
The costs of performing an EIA (usually borne by the developer) are mostly less than 1%
of overall (investment) costs of the project, but vary widely. Their relative importance
tends to decrease with project size. Other project characteristics influence the height of
EIA costs as well.
EIA costs incurred by public administrations mainly consist of man-hours. These are of-
ten not specified separately. Where estimates do exist, they show a wide range (from a
few hours to several months per EIA).
Whereas in some countries no significant costs in terms of delays due to EIA are re-
ported, in other cases it is argued that such delays are a major cost item. However, at-
tempts to avoid delays may sometimes lead to other costs or reduce the benefits of EIA.
EIA benefits occur in many guises: improved project design, improved decision making,
better information disclosure, more public involvement, better co-operation, smoother
processes etc.. High information quality in EIA is a prerequisite for these benefits to ma-
terialize. Radical changes in projects due to EIA seem to be rare, but this can in part be
explained by the higher environmental awareness that EIA creates among project devel-
opers, making them incorporate environmental concerns in project design from the out-
set.
Even though most benefits of EIA can not be expressed in monetary terms, there is
widespread agreement that the benefits outweigh the costs. Nevertheless, there may still
be opportunities for further increases in benefits and decreases in costs. The following
areas seem to be worth a closer exploration:
• Harmonisation of criteria and procedures for screening and scoping;
• Applying EIA in an earlier stage of decision making, when the range of alternatives
(e.g. for siting and technology options) is still wide;
• The use of models and standard elements, where appropriate, possibly supplemented
by location specific tailored research;
• Streamlining and integration of EIA with other types of assessment and procedures
(e.g. cost-benefit analyses; project assessments under the Habitats Directive);
• A requirement for competent authorities to specifically address the results of the EIA
in their decision, and to mention explicitly the considerations underlying this deci-
sion with respect to these outcomes.
Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 3

1. Introduction

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (85/337/EEC, as amended by

Directives 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC) entered into force in 1985. Over the more than 20
years of its existence, numerous projects in the EU Member States have been subject to
the EIA procedure.
EIA entails costs as well as benefits, both private and public. The costs include, among
others, the direct costs involved in preparing the EIA, possible delays in the project’s
progress, and the costs for the competent authorities, e.g. to process the information,
check its quality, and use it in decision making. There may also be costs due to e.g. legal
procedures that would not have occurred if there had been no EIA procedure.
The primary benefits are the improvements in environmental quality (with ensuing
avoided damage to health, nature etc.) that may occur if the EIA has led to a more ‘envi-
ronmentally friendly’ decision than would have been taken in its absence. Other benefits
may include, for instance, a smooth and streamlined permitting process, with less resis-
tance due to better stakeholder involvement and information disclosure (avoiding legal
procedures), and improvements in project design due to the emergence (in an early
stage) of alternatives that would not have been considered otherwise. Table 1.1 summa-
rises the main cost and benefit categories of EIA.

Table [Link] costs and benefits of EIA

Costs Benefits
For the developer: For the developer:
Performing the EIA Smoother process; less conflicts
Possible delays (Early) awareness of environmental impacts
and possible project alternatives
For the competent authorities: For society at large:
Managing the EIA procedure More stakeholder involvement and informa-
tion disclosure; less conflicts
Processing, checking and using the informa- Well-founded decision making
tion from the EIA
Better environmental quality

To what extent the benefits of the EIA Directive outweigh its costs is largely unknown.
Ten years ago, a report by the European Commission (1996a) presented some evidence,
but since that time there has been no systematic evaluation of the costs and benefits of
the EU’s EIA legislation and its implementation in the Member States.
The present report presents the results of a review of existing studies 1 which can con-
tribute to identifying the costs and benefits associated with the implementation of the

1
Appendix I contains summaries of all studies reviewed. Some supplementary infor-
mation gathering has been done in France, Spain and the Czech Republic. The results
4 Institute for Environmental Studies

EIA Directive 2 . The review focuses on studies from EU Member States and the other
three EEA countries, but some potentially relevant studies from other countries are in-
cluded as well. A synopsis of these studies is given in chapter 2, in general terms as well
as by types of costs and benefits. Based on this review, findings which may be of EU-
wide relevance are highlighted (chapter 3). In chapter 4, areas where studies carried out
so far have not produced conclusive results are identified, and recommendations are
given for areas that should be investigated further.

are presented in Appendix II, which also contains two more extensive summaries on a
Norwegian and a Czech study.
2
The scope is limited to EIA; publications on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA, the
subject of EU Directive 2001/42) are therefore not considered.
Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 5
Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 7

2. Findings from existing studies

2.1 Method and approach followed

For practical reasons (available time, staff and language capabilities) the review of exist-
ing studies has been confined to publications in English, German, French, Italian, Span-
ish, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Finnish, Czech, Slovak and Polish.
In order to ensure the completest possible coverage, several different approaches have
been followed to identify potentially relevant studies. In addition to ‘standard’ literature
and internet searches (using several combinations of possibly relevant keywords, and us-
ing different search engines, including scientific ones), recent volumes of EIA related
journals have also been browsed. Furthermore, publications by EIA institutions were
screened for cost and benefit elements. In France, Spain and the Czech Republic, EIA
experts have been contacted directly, to compensate for the apparent lack of any relevant
published studies in these countries. In Germany, an interview was held with researchers
who are currently evaluating the German EIA system because they do not have any pub-
lishable results yet.
A number of publications that were reviewed appeared in the end not to contain any
relevant information on costs or benefits of EIA. The present chapter does not refer to
these publications, but they are nevertheless included in Appendix I, as they may still
contain interesting information on other EIA related issues. Appendix I also mentions
some potentially relevant publications that could not be obtained and are therefore not
summarized.

2.2 Costs of EIA

2.2.1 Overall costs

Several studies contain general statements on the costs of EIA. For example, Lee et al.
(1994) reported that in the majority of the 50 (UK) cases in their sample, any cost in-
creases associated with the EA process had been minor. In interviews, the initiators of
projects in Sweden stated that the costs of an EIA were reasonable in relation to their
projects (Naturvårdsverket, 2001).
Based on a large survey of senior mining company executives in Australia and Canada,
Annandale and Talin (2003) found that companies see environmental approvals regula-
tion (mainly EIA) as an encouragement to development rather than as an impediment.
According to the authors, this refutes the idea that EIA is ‘burdensome’ to private firms,
at least in relation to the mining sector.

2.2.2 Costs of performing an EIA

In Table 2.1, statements on the estimated costs of carrying out an EIA that could be
found in the literature are summarized. In most cases, these costs are expressed as a per-
centage of the total (investment) costs of the project. The range of estimates ia quite
8 Institute for Environmental Studies

broad, even though the ‘rule of thumb’ that these costs tend to be in most cases below
1% seems to be broadly confirmed.

Table [Link] on the costs of performing an EIA according to various sources

Source Cost estimate (range) Geographical coverage
As a percentage of total (investment) costs of the project
Garner and O’Riordan (1982) Rarely > 0.6% UK
Coles et al. (1992) 0.000025 - 5 % UK
DoE (1996) ≥ GBP 5,000 UK (20 cases)
European Commission (1996a) In a majority of cases < 0.5%; EU
exceptionally > 1%
Zetter (1997) 0.1 to 0.5% UK
Athanassopoulou (2001) Around 1% Greece
Wood (2003) Usually < 1% Not specified
Haraldsson and Guđmundsdóttir 0.5 – 3% Iceland (road projects)
(2003)
Miljøverndepartementet (2003) Normally < 0.1 – 0.5% Norway
Kessel et al. (2003) Usually < 1% Netherlands
Njål et al. (2005) 0.1 – 2.2% Norway (11 cases)
BIO (2006a) 2.5% (with large variations) Spain

In absolute amounts
Sadler and Verheem (1997) Mostly < USD 100,000 Not specified
DETR (1997) Median: GBP 35,000 UK (new regulations)
Obroučka et al.(2005) EUR 6,600 – EUR 21,700 Czech Rep. (industrial
projects in Category I)
BIO (2006b) EUR 5,000 to > 100,000 France

In time spent
DoE (1996) 22 person-days to 3-4 person- UK (20 cases)
months

As a percentage of total cost, the EIA component becomes smaller the larger the project
(EC, 1996a; Wood, 2003). Accordingly, the Swiss EIA evaluation (Sager and Schenkel,
2003) found that the cost issue was less of an issue with big projects than with smaller
ones.
According to BIO (2006b) the size of the project, is an important factor determining the
costs, but other factors play a role as well. Generally speaking, EIAs will be relatively
expensive for:
• ‘linear’ projects (like routes and electricity lines);
• nuclear or industrial activities;
• projects where health impact assessments are required;
• projects related to the marine environment;
• big companies or administrations.
Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 9

Obroučka et al.(2005) studied the costs of EIA in the Czech Republic, and found that
these costs are dependent on the type of project, the location and the competent author-
ity. The highest costs are found for industrial production projects in Category I.
A study of eight EIAs in the extractive industry (Pritchard et al., 1995) found that devel-
opers felt that ‘the preparation of the ES had cost them too much time and money’, but
did not specify any amounts.
Even though the overall evidence suggests that in general the costs of preparing an EIS
are limited, further cost reductions might be achieved. Kessel et al. (2003) suggest to use
models and standard elements (as is done in Canada and Australia), possibly supple-
mented by location specific tailored research. Ruijgrok and Bel (2004) argue that costs
can be saved in cases where both EIA and cost benefit assessment (CBA) procedures
have to be performed, by using the same information sources as much as possible. Führ
et al. (2007) see opportunities for cost reductions in the integration of EIA with other
types of assessments (e.g. for the Habitats Directive) and in setting up more clearly de-
fined criteria for screening.

2.2.3 Costs to public administrations

There is little specific information on the costs of EIA for the authorities. This can be
explained by the fact that EIA always takes place in parallel with other administrative
procedures for the same project, e.g. licensing. Authorities will often not be able to dis-
entangle the costs that are due to EIA from the costs of the other procedures.
According to DoE (1996), many planning officers in the UK felt that dealing with the
EIS and the planning application were one and the same and “just part of the job”. Esti-
mates for reviewing the EIS and associated consultations ranged from five hours to 6-8
months of staff time. In the 20 case studies, the time spent by consultees on EIA ranged
from four hours to one-and-a-half days for statutory consultees, and from one hour to
two weeks for non-statutory consultees.
Leu et al. (1995) presented figures on the costs of hiring consultants to help local au-
thorities in the UK in assessing EISs (which only 30.5% of the surveyed authorities actu-
ally did). In more than 50% of the cases, the costs were less than GBP 5,000. In 5% of
the cases they exceeded GBP 20,000.
According to the BIO (2006b) report on France, an EIA will add about half a day of
work to an authorisation procedure; in specific cases this may be more.
Athanassopoulou (2001) notes that in the case of Greece there is no official information
on the costs of environmental impact assessments. Costs are incurred in the public sector
primarily in the form of the time of administrative personnel.
A.A.A. (2006) identifies some areas in which there may be costs inefficiencies in EIA
practice in Italy. These include difficulties in assessing national and regional competen-
cies, administrative inefficiencies, limited public participation, heavy administrative bur-
den due to lack of harmonisation with other instruments (SEA, IPPC, Seveso,…), etc..
Several studies find that there may be ‘learning’ and ‘scale’ effects in the authorities’ ac-
tivities concerning EIA. For example, Arts (1998) mentions a Dutch case where ex-
10 Institute for Environmental Studies

penses had been incurred because of the limited experience in carrying out EIA evalua-
tion.
Arts (1998) pays some attention to the costs of ex-post EIA evaluation (an element of
EIA that is required in the Netherlands, but not in EU EIA legislation). It is stated that
the authorities can avoid many of such (potential) costs by linking up with other evalua-
tive activities, e.g. activities stemming from environmental permits and their enforce-
ment or from environmental management systems. It appears that most of the EIA
evaluation costs are man-hour costs.

2.2.4 Costs of delays and procedural requirements

Just like the costs of performing an EIA, estimates of the costs in terms of the time that is
required for an EIA and the possible delays that the procedure may cause differ widely.
Coles et al. (1992) estimated for the UK the average duration of the entire EIA process at
62 weeks, of which 25 weeks for the EIS preparation. According to the EC (1996a) re-
port, EIAs are usually completed in under 2 years, but there is considerable variation
from project to project. Sadler and Verheem (1997) stated that internationally, most EIA
reports are processed in less than 18 months. Kørnøv et al. (2003) found that in Denmark
an EIA takes on average approximately 22 months. Industry cases can be handled in 13
months, while infrastructure cases can take up to 2½ years.
Some sources argue that EIA does not cause any major project delays. For instance, ac-
cording to the study by Lee and Brown (1992) on the UK, EIA seemed to have a neutral
influence on the length of the decision making process. About half of the officers they
interviewed felt that EIA had not influenced how long it took to reach a decision; the rest
were about evenly split between those who felt that the EIA had speeded up or slowed
down the process. Likewise, the DoE (1996) report found that in the UK EIA does not
necessarily slow things down: “The more organised approach makes it more efficient
and in some cases it allows issues to be picked up earlier. The EIS can thus speed up the
system”. Zetter (1997) also concludes (with respect to the UK) that “generally […]
longer timescales are unlikely to be significant”.
In Norway, Miljøverndepartementet (2003) found no documented project delay for pro-
jects that are assessed according to the EIA provisions. For Austria, Klaffl et al. (2006)
found insignificant costs of EIA in Austria in terms of its influence on the project and the
procedure. Kessel et al. (2003) state that in the Netherlands the EIA procedure usually is
not the main cause of lengthy procedures, even though better streamlining and better
‘embedding’ the EIA procedure in other procedures may contribute to reducing their
length. 3
Other studies, however, do find delays arising from EIA procedures. Wood (1999, 2003)
notes that the main cost of EIA is the delay which EIA may sometimes cause. In France,
when an EIA has to be performed, the procedure to obtain the authorisation to launch the
corresponding project is always longer (BIO, 2006b). For example, public participation

3
Führ et al. (2007) also suggest that cost savings are possible by integrating EIA with other
procedures.
Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 11

can add from 1 to 6 additional months to the procedure. 4 The risk of procedural delays in
the case of transboundary projects was also noted.
According to Naturvårdsverket (2001) in Sweden large indirect costs are involved in the
time lags that the EIA procedure sometimes creates, mainly due to a lack of resources at
the authorities. It is recommended to investigate the differences in costs and time in-
volved in different types of projects and between the different authorities in different
parts of the country.
Weston (1995) reported that some UK consultants felt that EIA slows down the decision-
making process, imposes additional costs on developers and is a means through which
local planning authorities can make unreasonable demands on developers to provide de-
tailed information on issues “which are not strictly relevant to the planning decision”.
In their Dutch EIA evaluation, Kessel et al. (2003) state that where EIA is a major cause
of delay, this is usually related to projects for which an EIA is discretionary (Annex II
projects) and the decision that an EIA has to be performed is taken in a late stage.
According to the EC (1996a) report, delays can occur for many reasons unrelated to the
EIA process itself.
Even if EIA may cause delays in certain cases, this does not mean that attempts to reduce
those delays will always result in a reduction of overall net costs (or larger net benefits).
For example, Pieters (2004) points to the fact that time savings by reducing the opportu-
nities for public participation (which at present in the Netherlands are more extensive
than required by the EU Directive) may be offset by the additional court procedures that
will follow. Androulidakis and Karakassis (2006) notice that in Greece authorities in
charge are principally interested in conformity with formal requirements rather than in
reliable predictions and in overall quality of the EIA procedure. One of the reasons for
such an approach is the time pressure due to running expenses of the project. In other
words, they attempt to reduce the costs of delay, but this may imply a loss of benefits
due to low-quality EIAs. A similar experience is reported from Hungary, where Radnai
and Mondok (2000) noted that tight administrative deadlines for the authorities led to a
lack of in-depth analysis of issues and often resulted in too general or superficial terms
of reference for the detailed assessment.

2.3 Benefits of EIA

2.3.1 Environmental benefits

In our survey we have not encountered any studies trying to estimate the environmental
benefits of EIA in terms of the (quantified or even monetized) environmental improve-
ment (or prevention of environmental damage) that can be attributed to the EIA proce-
dure. Nevertheless, there is widespread consensus that EIA can contribute to significant
environmental benefits, even if these do not carry an explicit price tag.
A substantial amount of literature deals with the quality of EIA. Obviously, a good EIA
procedure and a good EIS can be seen as a prerequisite for any environmental benefits to

4
The financial costs of public participation are estimated at about € 3,200 per EIA.
12 Institute for Environmental Studies

emerge, as confirmed by the French experts interviewed by BIO (2006b) Lee and
Dancey (1993) assessed and compared the quality of EISs produced in Ireland and the
UK. In both countries, high percentages of EISs were unsatisfactory in the late 1980s
but, subsequently, considerable improvements had been achieved. More recent examples
of studies dealing with EIA quality include Barker and Wood (1999), Bechmann and
Steitz (2004), Canelas et al. (2005), EC (1996b), Glasson (1999), Johansson and Hed-
lund (2006), Pölönen (2006). Perhaps not surprisingly, the picture emerging from these
different studies is rather mixed, but there still seems to be a tendency for EIA quality to
improve over time. This tendency is also confirmed by the specific study on France
(BIO, 2006b). Nevertheless, Ross et al. (2006) state that the quality of EISs still leaves
much to be desired. In some countries, low-quality EIAs appear to be related particularly
to time pressure and tight deadlines (Androulidakis and Karakassis, 2006; Radnai and
Mondok, 2000). To assess the quality of EIA also is the starting point for the German
evaluation (Führ et al., 2007). However, the researchers argued that it is impossible to
prove the correlation of environmental benefits to EIA due to methodological problems.
First there are too many factors influencing the environmental situation and second EIA
requirements have proved to be already considered early on in project planning (see be-
low).
Many publications refer to the usefulness of EIA for environmental decision making (e.g.
Canelas, 1989; Cashmore et al., 2004; DoE, 1996; De Valk, 1997; Feldt, 2003; Hok-
kanen and Kojo, 2003; Lee et al., 1994; Leknes, 2000; Miljøverndepartementet, 2003;
Piper, 2000; Wood and Jones, 1997). Though the details may differ, all of them seem to
confirm the conclusion from the case studies in the EC (1996a) report, that the EIA
process results in benefits in terms of a better information base and framework for analy-
sis for decision making. A dissenting view is presented by Pritchard et al. (1995), who
found that developers in the extractive industry felt that the large amounts of work in-
volved in EIA often yielded “few tangible benefits in terms of the actual planning deci-
sion reached”. Tennoi et al. (2006) argue that more emphasis should be given to improv-
ing the communication of uncertainty in EIA predictions and to making the prediction
processes more transparent in order to improve EIA as a decision-aiding tool.
A key area of benefits relates of course to the extent to which EIA affects the design of
projects and leads to modifications, mitigation of negative environmental impacts or the
choice of more environmentally benign options. Indeed, Wood (2003) states that these
are the main direct benefits of EIA. The general picture emerging from the literature con-
firms that this kind of benefits does occur, although they are seldom specified and never
quantified (see e.g. Cashmore et al., 2003, 2004; Hokkanen and Kojo, 2003; Hokkanen,
2004; Kessel et al., 2003; Lee, 1995; Lee et al., 1994; Miljøverndepartementet, 2003;
Sager and Schenkel, 2003; Wende, 2001, 2002). In a majority of the cases reviewed in
the EC (1996a) study, benefits were identified in terms of e.g. higher standards of miti-
gation and project re-siting or re-design to spare environmentally sensitive areas. Strong
evidence for project modifications as a result of EIA was also found in the Danish EIA
evaluation (Christensen et al., 2003a;b; 2005), even though most of the changes were
minor. In a similar vein, Kobus and Lee (1993) found that about half of the projects in
their sample were modified by the decision to prepare an EIS and hold consultations, but
most changes were minor. Piper (2000) shows that taking into account the cumulative ef-
fects of different projects may result in some changes in the original project proposals
Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 13

and additional mitigation measures, which would not have occurred if the projects had
been assessed separately. Wende (2001, 2002) determined that EIAs tend to cause spatial
modifications to a project, but do not significantly impact decisions surrounding emis-
sions and water restrictions.
The interview in Germany (Führ et al., 2007) revealed some methodological complica-
tions regarding the measurement of EIA benefits in terms of project modifications. At
least in Germany the sole existence of EIA leads to an anticipation of its requirements
early on in project planning so that project modifications due to the EIA are very rare.
Therefore, using the number or extent of project modifications as an indicator to assess
environmental benefits is clearly limited.
In the study by Weston (1995), about three quarters of the consultants surveyed felt that
EIA had brought about at least some improvements in environmental protection, primar-
ily through the incorporation of mitigation measures early in project design and the
higher regard given to environmental issues. However, other consultants felt that the sys-
tem is “often a sham with EISs full of platitudes”. Woloszyn (2000) considered the Pol-
ish EIA system to be rather ineffective, as it focused on its role in environmental analysis
and had little opportunity to influence planning or project design and management.
However, improvements had been introduced by new legislation in 1997. According to
Führ et al. (2007), modifications of projects in response to the EIA are rather rare in
Germany. EIA requirements are being anticipated and incorporated in the project plan-
ning from the beginning
In any case, it seems unlikely that EIA leads to radical changes in the proposed project,
that would lead to fundamentally different (lower) environmental impacts. For example,
Lund and Hvelplund (1997) argue that EIA does not support technological change, be-
cause it is implemented on a restricted, regional basis. The (Danish) law does not require
alternatives to be assessed that extend geographically beyond the boundaries of a re-
gional authority. Thus, there is no certainty of serious analysis of cleaner technology al-
ternatives to (in this case) large coal-fired power stations. Likewise, the BIO (2006b) re-
port on France states that EIA’s benefits could improve if performed earlier in the proc-
ess. Presently, its role is more to optimise the project from an environmental point of
view thanks to mitigation measures, rather than to help choose the best solution from the
beginning. Furthermore, according to experts interviewed by BIO (2006b), the benefits
of EIA could increase if the follow-up on mitigation measures was more systematic.
Some stakeholders said that this is a weakness of the Directive, which asks project de-
velopers to produce mitigation measures, whose implementation is then not compulsory.

2.3.2 Other benefits

Many studies mention benefits of EIA in terms of public involvement and participation
in decision making procedures relating to projects with potentially significant environ-
mental impacts (see e.g. BIO, 2006b; Chaytor, 1995; Huhtinen, 2006; Miljøverndepar-
tementet, 2003; Palerm, 1999; Stookes, 2003). Evidence of such benefits is also reported
from countries which used to have a tradition of little transparency (such as Bulgaria), so
that EIA may be said to have contributed to the development of ‘civil society’ (Almer
and Koontz, 2004). Hokkanen (2004), however, found that the civil society participation
through the institutionalised EIA procedure is not without problems. In his (Finnish)
14 Institute for Environmental Studies

case study, only a few active groups participated in the EIA process and there where
signs of “elitist political networks”.
According to Wood (2003), indirect EIA benefits widely observed include increased
awareness and knowledge.
Radnai and Mondok (2000) found that in several cases in Hungary the EIA procedure
has promoted better co-operation among the concerned authorities and the proponent.
EIA may also contribute to higher acceptance of the proposed project and less conflicts,
as noticed in the Austrian EIA evaluation (Klaffl et al., 2006) and in the French study
(BIO, 2006b). On the other hand, Haunhorst et al. (2001) report on a German case in
which EIA tended to aggravate the existing controversy around the project and thus
could hardly be said to be beneficial in this respect.
Time savings (in fact the mirror image of the potential delays mentioned under ‘costs’)
as a result of EIA are noticed in a number of studies (e.g. DoE, 1996; Garner and
O’Riordan, 1982). Such benefits may for instance be due to a better streamlining of the
process, more efficient information flows, and standardisation (stakeholders know what
an EIA procedure entails; routines can be developed, etc.).
Benefits are also observed in terms of improvements in the environmental profile of the
project initiator. For example, the EC (1996a) report recorded significant benefits related
to the enhancement of the developer’s environmental credibility.
Benefits may occur if the EIA leads to the prevention of costs that might have occurred
in its absence, such as those of compensatory measures. The investigations made for the
EIA may also reveal information that lead to cost savings in the project design (see BIO,
2006b).
Nielsen et al. (2003) investigated the benefits (and costs) of the screening procedure for
projects listed in Annex II of the EIA Directive. Even though eventually only 3% of
these projects actually is subjected to an EIA, the screening instrument is considered ef-
ficient in terms of securing an environmental optimisation of the projects. Almost half of
the investigated projects had been changed and the changes had primarily been preven-
tive measures. Efficiency was judged by not only the capacity of screening to change the
project, however, but also by the fact that the authorities use very few resources.
The specific benefits of scoping have been addressed by the Environment Agency
(2002), Haldorsson and Sigurdardottir (2006), Kessel et al. (2003) and Wood (2006).
Scoping is generally seen as a useful way of reducing the costs of an EIA procedure. The
experience in Hungary (Radnai and Mondok, 2000) shows that ignoring scoping can lead
to EISs containing a lot of unnecessary or unimportant information. In BIO (2006b) it is
noticed that in France some project developers request extensive impact assessments on
some topics (e.g. air pollution) which would not have necessarily been the case if scop-
ing had been done correctly. The reason is that project developers use EIAs more and
more as juridical insurance, more than decision-making tools.
Dipper et al. (1998) highlighted several benefits to EIA performance that could arise if
the results of post-auditing (assessing the accuracy of predictions made in the EIA) were
effectively used. In practice, however, they found that post-auditing activities were not
widespread. This is confirmed by the findings of Arts (1998).
Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 15

2.4 Comparing benefits and costs

A number of studies and other documents contain statements on the overall balance be-
tween benefits and costs of EIA, often without specifying any details on the components
of the items on both sides of the scales.
A survey in the UK revealed that both planning officers and developers/consultants,
when asked whether EIA was a net benefit or cost, overwhelmingly responded that it had
been a benefit (Jones, 1995). Only a small percentage of both respondents felt that EIA
had been a drawback. Lee (1995) cites the EU’s 1993 EIA evaluation, saying that “the
benefit had been achieved at relatively low EIA process and mitigation costs and without
significantly affecting the overall timescale of implementing projects.” Sadler (1996)
found that according to a majority of international EIA practitioners, the benefits of EIA
tend to outweigh the costs of application.
Ten Heuvelhof and Nauta (1997) investigated whether EIAs in the Netherlands had a
‘net beneficial impact’, i.e. if the efforts, costs and time involved were compensated for
by the impact achieved. According to respondents (including initiators, authorities and
independent experts) there was a net beneficial impact impact in 69% of the cases. In
Bellinger et al. (eds., 2000), discussing EIA systems in central and eastern European and
former Soviet Union countries, it is stated that “the general consensus is that, whilst the
benefits of [EIA] developments have been greater than the costs of their implementation,
there is still considerable scope for further improvement.”
Wood (1999) compared eight EIA systems (USA, California, UK, The Netherlands,
Canada, Australia, Western Australia and New Zealand). Despite the differences in each
of these systems, there appears to be virtual unanimity of view that the benefits of all
eight EIA systems outweigh their costs. This is confirmed in a later publication by the
same author (Wood, 2003), in which also experience from South Africa was included.
In six of the seven EIA projects addressed in Njål et al. (2005), the benefits were deemed
to outweigh the costs (based on interviews with and questionnaires to different actors).
Moreno (2006) considers EIA to have led to “more effective and efficient environmental
protection throughout the European Union”.
More implicitly, the issue of net benefits is included in some other studies as well. For
example, Pölönen (2006) concludes that in its current state, EIA legislation in the EU
does not guarantee that the assessment results filter into decision-making. This implies
that there is uncertainty on the net benefits: you can be sure that there will be costs if an
EIA is done, but you are not sure that there will be any benefits in terms of better deci-
sion making.
Some European countries have performed (or are currently performing) comprehensive
evaluations of their national EIA systems, in which costs as well as benefits are usually
addressed (e.g. Austria: Klaffl et al., 2006; Denmark: Christensen et al., 2003a; Ger-
many: Führ et al., 2007; the Netherlands: Kessel et al., 2003; Switzerland: Sager and
Schenkel, 2003). But even such evaluations tend to draw conclusions in rather general
terms and do not confront costs with benefits directly in money terms.
Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 17

3. Conclusions with possible EU relevance

3.1 Costs

3.1.1 Introduction
After more than 20 years of experience with EIA in the EU, there seems to be a broad
consensus that the costs of EIA are generally reasonable and not disproportionate. In this
chapter we will try to summarize the main findings from the literature and draw some
general conclusions.

3.1.2 Cost categories

The main components of EIA costs can be categorized under three headings:
1. The costs of performing the assessment and preparing the EIS. Estimates of these
costs suggest that they may vary considerably, depending (among others) on the type
of project and the procedure. Most sources arrive at figures below 1% of total project
(or investment) costs, but the range is very broad. The lowest percentages are re-
corded for the largest projects. The absolute amounts range between a few thousand
and more than 100,000 euros.
2. The costs that have to be made for EIA within the public authorities (mainly man-
hours). Quantitative information on these costs is scarce, as it is difficult to isolate
the costs of EIA from the costs that are related to other tasks, which would be in-
curred anyway. The differences between countries and authorities seem to be consid-
erable. There are some indications that these costs may decrease as the authorities’
experience with EIA grows.
3. The costs of possible delays as a result of EIA. Here again the general impression is
that these costs are on average not very big, but substantial variation exists and it is
difficult to disentangle the delay caused by EIA from other causes. The exceptional
cases where the EIA itself is the main cause of lengthy procedures related to projects
for which an EIA is discretionary (Annex II projects) and the decision that an EIA
has to be performed is taken in a late stage. Lack of resources at the authorities may
be another cause. On the other hand, some sources suggest that EIA may even con-
tribute to shorter procedures (e.g. due to less court procedures) and thus imply a
benefit in this respect.

3.1.3 Distribution of costs

The costs of carrying out an EIA are generally borne by the project developer. The litera-
ture review did not reveal any cases in which these costs were covered by other sources.
Costs incurred by the public administration are generally covered by the public budget.
Costs of delays are primarily felt by the project initiators and developers themselves in
the form of capital costs and revenues foregone.
18 Institute for Environmental Studies

3.1.4 Differences between Member States and with non-EU countries

It has been noted above that substantial differences exist between different countries in
the costs of EIA. To a certain extent, these differences could be related to differences in
the interpretation and implementation of the EIA Directive, which actually leaves a sub-
stantial amount of discretion to the Member States.
In countries with a federal or highly decentralized administrative structure, such as Spain
(and possibly also Germany and Belgium) the regional authorities can impose additional
requirements on top of the national EIA legislative framework. This leads to differences
between the regions (including differences in costs), but it is not clear whether the over-
all costs of EIA in those countries differ significantly from those in Member States with
a more centralized government.
Another important difference between Member States is the way in which they use their
discretion with respect to Annex II activities. In France, for example, the national legis-
lation defines precise criteria and thresholds determining whether or not a project should
be subjected to EIA. Obviously, this means that there are no costs of screening in France.
On the other hand, the benefits of screening (in terms of avoided costs for projects that
do not really need an EIA) are also foregone.
In other countries, the competent (permit issuing) authorities have significant compe-
tence to determine whether or not a project should be subject to EIA. In the Netherlands,
for example, the number of actual EIAs is relatively small, but the number of screened
projects is high, and the screening may sometimes be quite substantial, even leading to
an impact assessment that is comparable to a full EIA (Kessel et al., 2003).
There are some indications that costs decrease as the experience with EIA grows. This is
another factor that might explain some of the differences between Member States, espe-
cially between the ‘old’ 15 and the ‘new’ 12 ones, although this hypothesis cannot be
substantiated by the avaliable literature.
There is little evidence of significant differences between the costs of EIA in the EU and
in other countries, even though EIA legislation and practice in these countries may be
quite different. Generally speaking, the data on EIA costs for non-EU countries appear to
be within the wide range of costs observed within the EU.

3.2 Benefits
Even though quantification and monetization are generally not feasible, EIA has a num-
ber of real benefits. The main types include:
1. Better information on the environmental impacts of a project. The value of these
benefits depends strongly on the quality of the EIA. The general picture is that
considerable improvements in EIA quality have been achieved over time, even
though there may be room for further [Link]-quality EIAs may sometimes
be related particularly to time pressure and tight deadlines.
2. Better decision making. This type of benefit is of course closely related to the
previous one. A majority of analysts agrees that EIA contributes to the quality of
the decision making process.
Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 19

3. Reduced negative environmental impacts, through redesign and modification of

projects, mitigation of impacts or the choice of more environmentally benign op-
tions. Arguably, these are the core benefits of EIA, and the available evidence
shows that they do actually occur, but the changes are rarely substantial or radi-
cal. To a certain extent, this can be explained by the fact that initiators of projects
that are subject to EIA take the environmental impacts already into account in an
early stage of project design. Such environmental awareness and pro-active ap-
proach among developers may have been stimulated by the existence of EIA.
This would imply that the ‘invisible’ benefits of EIA might be much larger than
the ‘visible’ ones.
4. Benefits in terms of public involvement and acceptance, participation, and con-
flict mitigation. The evidence on this kind of benefits is mixed. Moreover, these-
benefits can probably not only be ascribed to the EIA Directive. In recent years
(following the Århus Convention), provisions for public participation have been
introduced in a number of other Directives as well 5 , and greater involvement of
citizens in environmental decision making can also to a large extent be an
autonomous, national process.
5. Benefits of screening and scoping. Some studies address specifically the costs of
particular elements of the EIA process, such as screening and scoping. As noted
above, the costs of screening may substantial, but they may still be offset by the
cost savings that can be achieved by avoiding unnecessary EIAs. Clearly defined
criteria for screening might be useful in this respect. Similarly, adequate scoping
may reduce the effort (and costs) spent on providing irrelevant information.

3.3 Balance and trade-offs between costs and benefits

A number of studies reveal that pressure to save costs or time may result in low-quality
EIAs, which implies lower (potential) benefits. Furthermore, low costs in terms of staff
and resources devoted to EIA may result in high costs in terms of delays.
The majority of sources addressing the issue of the balance between costs and benefits of
EIA points towards net benefits. But this conclusion is usually based on a qualitative as-
sessment rather than on a formal analysis of costs and benefits.

5
For instance by Directive 2003/35/EC.
Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 21

4. Gaps in knowledge and recommendations for further

studies

4.1 Identifying and quantifying costs

There are large differences in costs between EIAs. The larger the project, the higher the
costs in absolute terms, but relative costs (as a percentage of total project costs) tend to
decrease with size. Costs are probably also strongly related to the nature of the project.
For example, an EIA for a unique project will be (much) more expensive than for a ‘rou-
tine’ or standardized case. Obviously, the location of the proposed activity will also be
an important factor. Empirical evidence to support these presumptions is largely lacking.
A systematic (quantitative) analysis of the main factors determining the costs of an EIA
would therefore be justified.
In addition to the costs per EIA, the total cost of the EIA system may be relevant infor-
mation. Calculating these costs would require knowledge of the number of EIAs per-
formed. As can be seen from Figure 4.1, the annual number of EIAs per Member State,
taking into account the size of its population, varies widely: between 2 per million in-
habitants in Austria and 389 in Sweden.

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
g

en
nd
nd

ce

n
k

K
ria

ga
nd
ar

ur
ec

ai

U
an

ed
la
a
st

rtu

Sp
m

bo

rla
re
nl

Ire
Au

Fr

Sw
en

Fi

Po
m

he
D

xe

et
Lu

Figure 4.1: Number of EIAs per year for 12 Member States, per million inhabitants (cal-
culated on the basis of post-1999 figures in EC (2002?), Table 9).

Even though the numbers reported by some Member States do not reflect the full picture,
it is clear that there are substantial differences in the size of EIA efforts, and thus costs.
Such differences even occur within one Member State, as the Swedish example shows
(Naturvårdsverket, 2001). These differences may be explained by differences in interpre-
tation of Annex I and II, by the wide variety in thresholds for Annex II projects and in
22 Institute for Environmental Studies

the discretion the authorities may have to determine whether or not an EIA is obligatory
for such projects, as well as by differences in economic activity. Obviously, a reliable es-
timate of the costs of EIA in the EU can only be obtained if reliable information on the
number and nature of EIAs is available for all Member States. At present, this informa-
tion is lacking for several countries, esepcially those with a federal structure (including
Germany; Führ et al., 2007). Some kind of EU-wide system of standardized reporting on
EIA practice, including the cost and time spent on it, would therefore be recommend-
able. Such a system should also provide a better insight into the main components of
EIA costs, such as: preparing the EIS; administrative effort; and possible delays.

4.2 Identifying benefits

The available information on benefits of EIA is mainly of a qualitative nature. However,
it seems doubtful whether closer investigations into EIA benefits would reveal more (re-
liable) quantitative information or even monetary values. Such analyses would depend
on highly hypothetical and even speculative assumptions concerning the counterfactual,
i.e. ‘what would have happened if no EIA had been done’, and its results would be
methodologically questionable. Moreover, the valuation of environmental impacts is
fraught with difficulties, especially if the impacts are site-specific, as is often the case in
projects that are subject to EIA.
A more promising way of making the benefits of EIA (and its components) better ‘visi-
ble’ might be to compare countries with different EIA systems. Such a comparison could
identify any systematic differences in decision making regarding similar kinds of pro-
jects. For example, in some countries (such as the Netherlands) the EIA legislation re-
quire to include a ‘most environmentally benign’ alternative in the assessment. The
benefits of such a requirement could be revealed by checking whether the decision mak-
ing in these countries tends to favour more environmentally benign alternatives than in
countries that do not apply such an obligation. Likewise, the specific benefits of screen-
ing and scoping procedures might be highlighted by analysing the differences in ap-
proaches between Member States and the results in terms of cost savings and relevance
of information.

4.3 Opportunities for improvements in the benefit/cost balance

The available literature suggests that most EIA practitioners are convinced that EIA
brings about net benefits in general. Nevertheless, opportunities seem to exist for reduc-
ing the costs of EIA without significant losses in benefits, and for higher benefits at low
additional cost. More in-depth analysis would be needed to get a clear picture of these
potential efficiency gains. The following areas seem to be worth a closer exploration:
• Harmonisation of criteria and procedures for screening and scoping;
• Applying EIA in an earlier stage of decision making, when the range of alternatives
(e.g. for siting and technology options) is still wide;
• The use of models and standard elements, where appropriate, possibly supplemented
by location specific tailored research;
• Streamlining and integration of EIA with other types of assessment and procedures
(e.g. cost-benefit analyses; project assessments under the Habitats Directive);
Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 23

• A requirement for competent authorities to specifically address the results of the EIA
in their decision, and to mention explicitly the considerations underlying this deci-
sion with respect to these outcomes.
Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 25
 Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 27

Appendix I. Literature summaries

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Almer, H.L., Public hearings for EIA in post- 2004 Environmental Impact Assessment The paper starts with a critique of public hearings as a form of citizens’ partici-
Koontz, T.M. communist Bulgaria: do they Review 24, pp. 473-493 pation with respect to legal, administrative and representation problems, which
work? are then applied to three cases of public hearings in Bulgaria. On the other hand,
the indirect effect of the public hearing aspect of the EIA process is shown to
have contributed to an increased public demand for transparency in the adminis-
trative affairs of post-communist Bulgaria, which can be seen as a beneficial de-
velopment in Bulgarian civil society.
Andreou, Development of the IEA Proc- 2001 Impact Assessment and Project Ap- This paper evaluates the Cyprus EIA provisions and makes a number of sugges-
A.G., and ess in Cyprus praisal 19 (3), p. 223-233. tions and recommendations as to how the Cyprus EIA process may be improved.
C.E. Jones No specific reference to costs or benefits.
Androulida- Evaluation of the EIA system 2006 Environmental Impact Assessment The paper reviews a sample of Greek EIA and assigns a degree of sufficiency of
kis, I., performance in Greece, using Review 26, pp.242-256 examination of a number of attributes examined in the EIAs. It concludes that
Karakassis. I. quality indicators the authorities in charge still have little experience in coping with the increasing
bulk of project submissions and are principally interested in conformity with
formal requirements rather then in reliable predictions and in overall quality of
the EIA procedure. One of the reasons for such an approach is the time pressure
due to running expenses of the project.
Annandale, Is environmental impact as- 2003 Environmental Impact Assessment This article reports on a research project that focused on the impact that envi-
D., and R. Ta- sessment regulation a ‘burden’ Review 23 (3), pp. 383-397 ronmental approvals regulation (predominantly environmental impact assess-
plin to private firms? ment, EIA) has on proposed new development in the international mining sector.
Based on a large and externally valid survey of senior mining company execu-
tives in Australia and Canada in the late 1990s, the research indicated that a sig-
nificant majority of firms consider the environmental approvals process to be an
important determinant of investment strategy. The somewhat surprising conclu-
sion that companies see environmental approvals regulation as important, but as
 28 Institute for Environmental Studies

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
an encouragement to development rather than as an impediment, goes against
much previous industry and academic comment and, at least in relation to the
mining sector, refutes the idea that EIA is “burdensome”.
Arts, J. EIA Follow-up. On the Role of 1998 PhD thesis, Geo Press, Groningen Pays some attention to the costs of ex-post EIA evaluation (an element of EIA
Ex Post Evaluation in Environ- that is required in the Netherlands, but not in EU EIA legislation). It is stated that
mental Impact Assessment the authorities can avoid many of the potential costs related to EIA evaluation by
linking up with other evaluative activities, e.g. activities stemming from envi-
ronmental permits and their enforcement or from environmental management
systems (p. 222-223). From the cases investigated it appears that most of the EIA
evaluation costs are man-hour costs. In one case, extra expenses had been in-
curred because of the limited experience in carrying out EIA evaluation (start-up
expenses) (p. 224).
Associazione Acts of the national 2002 Quaderni di Valutazione The acts of the conference present a series of short papers dealing with different
Analisti conference ‘The quality of Ambientale – Atti 4 issues related to the quality of environmental impact studies undertaken in the
Ambientali environmental impacts context of EIA and Environmental Management Systems. None of them identi-
(A.A.A.) studies in the evolution of fies specifically cost and benefits of EIA, but weaknesses and strengths are in
environmental governance’ some cases highlighted. Among these, the papers mention: the usefulness of EU
(‘La qualità degli studi di guidelines but the need to integrate them with national/regional regulations, the
impatto ambientale heterogeneity of regional regulations, the lack of clear indications on monitoring
nell’evoluzione del governo - which need to be integrated with IPPC, Seveso and EMAS provisions, etc.
dell’ambiente’)- Milan, 24-
25 January 2002
 Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 29

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Associazione Environmental Analysts Asso- 2006 Available at The document analyses the Italian provisions on EIA and SEA, highlights key
Analisti ciation’s analysis and proposals [Link] problematic issues and suggests proposals for improvement, in light of the revi-
Ambientali on Environmental Assessment ocumen- sion of a national framework regulation (law 152/06) dealing with, among oth-
(A.A.A.) governance in Italy (Analisi e ti/associazione/AAA_Posizionamen ers, environmental assessments. The document does not contain specific refer-
proposte dell’associazione to%20su%20riordino_VA_061112. ence to costs and benefits. Nevertheless, by discussing the main weaknesses of
analisti ambientali sul governo doc EIA current practice, it identifies the areas in which there may be costs ineffi-
della valutazione ambientale in ciencies, such as: difficulties in assessing national and regional competencies,
Italia) administrative inefficiencies due to inadequate length of procedure (too short for
national EIA), limited public participation, heavy administrative burden due to
lack of harmonisation with other instruments (SEA, IPPC, Seveso,…), etc
Athanas- The Implementation of EIA in 2001 In: [Link], [Link], [Link], “There is no official information on the costs of environmental impact assess-
sopoulou, E. Greece and [Link], editors, European ments in Greece. Costs are incurred in the public sector primarily in the form of
Union Environment Policy and the time of administrative personnel. Deveopers have to pay for the costs of the
New Forms of Governance. Ash- EIA study. On average, these are estimated to cost around 1 percent of the total
gate, Aldershot, UK, pp. 295-307 investment.” (p. 300)
Atkinson, P., Developing a framework to as- 2005 Environmental Impact Assessment This paper presents some early thinking as to how the costs and benefits of HIA
and A. Cooke sess costs and benefits of Health Review 25 (7-8), p. 791-798. might be assessed. After considering previous work it uses a comprehensive HIA
Impact Assessment in Dulwich, SE London as a case study to highlight the possibilities and difficul-
ties of collecting necessary data on costs and benefits. It then sets a context for
developing a cost–benefit framework for analysis. The framework is viewed
alongside the major types of economic evaluation. The paper concludes with a
review of outstanding issues and considers how evidence on cost and benefit
might make a difference in the application of HIA.
 30 Institute for Environmental Studies

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Barker, A., An evaluation of EIA system 1999 Environmental Impact Assessment An evaluation of the quality of environmental impact assessment (EIA) reports,
and C. Wood performance in eight EU coun- Review 19 (4), pp. 387–404 modifications to projects as a result of EIA, and the influence of changes to EIA
tries procedures in the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Denmark,
Greece, Ireland, and Portugal is reported. The overall proportion of “satisfac-
tory” EIA reports sampled increased from 50% to 71% between 1990–1991 and
1994–1996. Several modifications to projects occurred as a result of the EIA
process, but there was no apparent trend over time relating to the number or sig-
nificance of modifications. All the eight Member States had taken major or mi-
nor measures to modify EIA procedures and these either have already improved
the quality of EIA practice or are expected to do so. A series of recommenda-
tions to improve the performance of the EIA process is presented.
Bechmann, UVP-Entwicklung und Ver- 2004 UVP-report 18 (2+3), p.123-126. Increasingly, an integration of concepts of knowledge and quality management
A.; Steitz, M. waltungsmodernisierung - takes place in both: the further development of EIA instruments and the mod-
Synergieeffekte nutzen ernisation of the administration. During the last three decades, a parallel can be
drawn between the development of EIA and the one of the administration. Fur-
thermore, as EIA was integrated into the existing administrative procedures, the
quality of EIA practice highly depends on the administration. Against the back-
ground of the poor quality of EIA in practice, the modernisation of EIA and of
the administration are closely linked. The authors argue for the usage and further
development of EIA quality management systems with the help of which EIA
could set an example to the administration. This would not only improve EIA
practice but also the acceptance of EIA as a modern instrument. At the same
time, EIA practice should be improved by making use of the willingness to mod-
ernise administrative structures.
 Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 31

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Bellinger, E., Environmental assessment in 2000 CEU Press, Budapest, Hungary Contains a description of EA systems and developments in 19 central and eastern
N. Lee, C. countries in transition European and former Soviet Union countries. Some general findings and conclu-
George and A. sions are also presented. States that “the general consensus is that, whilst the
Paduret (eds.) benefits of [EA] developments have been greater than the costs of their imple-
mentation, there is still considerable scope for further improvement.” (p. 8)
BIO Cost and benefits of the imple- 2006a BIO Intelligence Service, Decem- On average, the cost of the individual EIA studies in Spain represent around
mentation of the EIA directive ber 2006 (unpublished document, 2.5% of the overall capital cost of the project, although this figure varies largely
in Spain prepared specifically for the present depending on the characteristics of the specific project. On top of the basic na-
study; see Appendix II A) tional legislation, regional authorities may impose additional requirements im-
plying additional costs.
BIO Cost and benefits of the imple- 2006 BIO Intelligence Service, Decem- Contains the results of a number of discussions with French EIA stake-
mentation of the EIA directive b ber 2006 (unpublished document, [Link] costs of carrying out an EIA in France are supported by the project
in France prepared specifically for the present developer. Expert estimates of these costs range from € 5,000 to more than €
study; see Appendix II B) 100,000, depending on (a.o.) the size of the project. Low-cost EIAs may also
have a low quality. Estimates of the costs (duration) of the different EIA steps
are presented. Differences in EIA costs between types of projects are noted; e.g.
EIAs for ‘line’ projects are more expensive than for ‘point’ projects. Further-
more, EIAs related to nuclear or industrial activities, or where health impact as-
sessments will be required, will on average be very expensive. The costs of pub-
lic participation were estimated at about € 3,200 per EIA.
There was consensus tha EIA brings benefits, although it may be difficult to at-
tribute specific environmental benefits to EIA. The quality of EIAs has improved
over its 30 years of existence in France.. EIA’s benefits could improve if per-
formed earlier in the process. The experrts generally support the statement EIAs
of good quality lead to better environmental protection. They also agree that
EIAs improve communication between the various stakeholders and reduce so-
cial conflicts. EIA may furthermore lead to cost savings. The benefits of EIA
could increase if the follow-up on mitigation measures was more systematic.
 32 Institute for Environmental Studies

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Brandl, Klara 10 years of EIA in Austria. A 2005 Paper presented at the 25th IAIA After 10 years of EIA practice in Austria, an evaluation of the quality and effi-
and Good Reason for an EIA Annual Conference, Boston, Mas- ciency of this meanwhile recognized instrument of sustainable environmental
Merl, Astrid Evaluation sachusets, 31 May-3 June, 2005. policy seems appropriate. The legal, technical and procedural adjustments of the
past 10 years, as well as the advancements in decision
[Link] quality, point to an “added value” for the environment, which was identified in
Confer- the process of a discussion initiated in 2004. Those participating in the discus-
ence/IAIA05/Publications/05%20A sion were competent authorities, ombudsmen for the environment, planners, pro-
[Link] ject applicants and interest groups under the moderation of the Federal Ministry
of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management. In this context,
theories were developed which are now the starting point for our present study.
The approach to the examination is a multi-disciplinary one, the object of inves-
tigation is examined from a legal, technical and political perspective. The theo-
ries mainly deal with the core questions of process quality / quality of procedure,
technical quality and decision quality, namely who adds quality (project appli-
cant, authority, public) and which stage of the procedure is especially important
in terms of quality assurance. After a statistical analysis of all EIA procedures
completed by the end of 2004 in Austria, selected cases will be evaluated by way
of a qualitative document analysis of the EIA documents. To support this analy-
sis, there will also be oral and written inquiries.
Braniš, M., Mandated monitoring of post- 2005 Environmental Impact Assessment The aim of the analysis was to find and characterize conditions prescribing to the
and S. Chris- project impacts in the Czech Review 25 (3), pp. 227-238 developer to perform ex-ante and ex-post monitoring of potential impacts of pro-
topoulos EIA jects submitted for approval.
 Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 33

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Canelas, L., et Quality of Environmental Im- 2005 Environmental Impact Assessment Application of EIS Review Criteria to a set of 46 recent EIS (1998–2003), from
al. pact Statements in Portugal and Review 25 (3), pp. 217-226 Portugal and Spain, indicated that 18 years after publication of Directive 85/337,
Spain there is still a significant percentage of EIS — about 22% for Portugal and 30%
for Spain — containing “weak provision of information with gaps and weak-
nesses which hinder the decision process but require only minor work to com-
plete”’ and that about 4% in Spain contains “very poor provision of information
with major gaps or weaknesses which would prevent the decision process pro-
ceeding and require major work to complete”. The percentage of EIS qualified as
providing “full information with no gaps or weaknesses’’ is only 9% in Spain
and 0% in Portugal. On the positive side it should be pointed out that the per-
centage of higher grades in Portugal and Spain seems to be growing in recent
years.
Canelas, L. First Environmental Impact as- 1989 Environmental Impact Assessment This paper analyzes the first EIA process applied to a new highway in Portugal.
sessment of a highway in Por- Review 9, pp. 391-397 The main steps in the process and methodology, prediction and evaluation of
tugal: Repercussions of the significant impacts, mitigation measures, and positive and negative aspects are
European economic community analyzed and suggestions for future improvements are provided. The paper con-
directive cludes that despite its clear shortcomings, the EIA process proved to be highly
useful.
 34 Institute for Environmental Studies

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Cashmore, Enhancing the ‘substantive’ ef- 2003 In: T. Hilding-Rydevik and Á. This research critically reviewed current knowledge on the substantive outcomes
M., D. Cobb, fectiveness of EIA Hlökk Theodórsdóttir (ed.), Plan- of EIA (i.e. its contribution to design and consent decisions, and sustainable de-
A. Bond, and ning for Sustainable Development – velopment) to identify future research priorities. There is remarkably little em-
R. Gwilliam the practice and potential of Envi- pirical research on the substantive outcomes of EIA, but it indicates that EIA is
ronmental Assessment. Proceedings generally perceived to exert a ‘moderate’ influence on both design and consent
from the 5th Nordic Environmental decisions. When assessed against specific, result orientated criteria (e.g. its con-
Assessment Conference, Reykjavik, tribution to minimising adverse impacts), however, the outcomes of EIA appear
Iceland, 25-26 August 2003. limited. It is suggested that greater research attention should be devoted to ana-
Nordregio, Stockholm, 2004, pp. lysing decision processes and decision-makers’ needs (broadly defined) in the
157-181.. development of a decision-orientated theory of EIA. The research agenda must
[Link] also address more adequately the plurality of substantive outcomes of EIA: in-
[Link] cluding, its contribution to institutional capacity development and to changing
value systems.
Cashmore, The interminable issue of effec- 2004 Impact Assessment and Project Ap- An analysis of studies of the outcomes of environmental impact assessment
M., Gwilliam, tiveness: substantive purposes, praisal 22 (4), pp295-310 (EIA) indicates that its role in consent and design decisions is limited, due
R., Morgan, outcomes and research chal- primarily to passive integration with the decision processes it is intended to in-
R., Cobb, D., lenges in the advancement of form. How much EIA helps sustainable development is largely unknown,
Bond, A. environmental impact assess- but it is hypothesised that it is more than is typically assumed, through a plethora
ment theory of causes, including emancipation of stakeholders and incremental
change in the bureaucracy, companies and scientific institutions. To enhance the
effectiveness of EIA, research should focus more on theory about the nature and
operation of diverse causal processes, even though the concepts, methods and
analytical challenges would be substantial. The paper contains a good overview
of the EIA’s contribution to decision making in several countries.
 Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 35

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Chadwick, A. Socio-economic impacts: are 2002 Journal of Environmental Planning The paper discusses the treatment of social and economic impacts within the UK
they still the poor relations in and Management 45 (1), pp. 3–24. EIA. Socio-economic effects have an uncertain status in the EIA, guidance on
UK environmental statements? their assessment is limited and their treatment is often partial and of poor quality.
The paper presents the results of a recent review of the socio-economic compo-
nent of UK environmental statements, which provides information on the extent,
scope, balance and quality of socio-economic impact treatment. The review re-
veals that, although most ES include some information on socio-economic is-
sues, coverage tends to be narrowly focused on a small number of- primarily
beneficial economic – impact types. Quantification of socio-economic impacts is
also rarely attempted. The review findings are compared with those of similar
studies undertaken in the mid-1990, and the paper concludes with some recom-
mendations for EIA practitioners relating to the treatment of socio-economic im-
pacts.
Chaytor, B. The potential of EIA procedures 1995 Environmental Impact Assessment Another paper promoting the EIA as a channel for public participation with its
to enhance public participation Review 15, pp. 507-515 benefits for sustainable development; the focus is on the relationship between the
in trade decision-making EIA and international trade agreements.
Cherp, A. EA legislation and practice in 2001 Environmental Impact Assessment The paper describes the main directions and the outcomes of the reform of EA
Central and Eastern Europe and Review 21 (4), pp. 335-361 legislation in practice in 27 former socialist countries in the 1990s. No specific
the former USSR. A compara- reference to costs and benefits.
tive analysis
 36 Institute for Environmental Studies

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Christensen, The advantages of EIA— 2003a Ministry of the Environment, Den- The study consisted of three main aims:
P., K. Elsborg, Evaluation of EIA in Denmark, mark · to assess to what extent the Danish EIA system has a holistic approach re-
L. Kørnøv, main report (Udbyttet af Landsplanafdelingen quired by the EIA Directive;
E.H. Nielsen, VVM—Evaluering af VVM i ISBN 87-601-9843-5 (Internet) · to assess the environmental benefits of the EIA process; and
J. Schmidt Denmark, hovedrapport) · to assess how the EIA Directive have been implemented and the administrative
and H. procedure.
Stensen Chris- We will focus on the sections assessing the environmental benefits. Of the 96
tensen projects going through the screening phase, 45 per cent the screening process re-
sulted in changes in the EIA procedure. For those 36 projects requiring an EIA
the percentage was 90 per cent. The number of changes to the project, as a con-
sequence of the EIA process, is used as evidence that the EIA process is benefi-
cial to the environment. The EIAs assessed have not tried to quantify these bene-
fits.
Christensen, The Outcome of EIA 2003 Department of Development This report is designed, at the request of the European Commission, to present
P., L. Kørnøv, b and Planning, Aalborg Univer- the key conclusions drawn from the evaluation of Danish EIA rules to a broader
and E. Nielsen sity European audience. As part of the evaluation of EIA projects the authors looked
[Link] in detail at the impact of EIA in terms both of direct and indirect effects, i.e. the
/pdf/eia_outcome.pdf actual EIA process and report and the deliberations between applicant and con-
sultant prior to that stage. On the basis of the surveys carried out, it was possible
to conclude that applicants' knowledge of EIA rules results in improvements to
projects in environmental terms. On that basis, and given the scale of the
changes made in various cases, the report states that EIA results in a lessening of
projects' environmental impact and that this is mainly achieved by means of tra-
ditional mitigating measures. The environment benefits from a large number of
improvements such as reduced noise, the protection of natural and man-made
environments and reduced discharges of nutrients. Improvements for the envi-
ronment are achieved both before projects are submitted to the authorities and
during the EIA procedure itself.
 Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 37

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Christensen, EIA as regulation: does it work? 2005 Journal of Environmental Planning Since its introduction into Danish planning in 1989, Environmental Impact As-
P., L. Kørnøv, and Management 48 (3), pp. 393– sessment (EIA) has been widely discussed. Although, in principle EIA offers a
and E.H. Niel- 412 holistic and proactive methodology, it does not seem to lead to a more holistic
sen and proactive regulation which covers more ground than traditional planning and
environmental regulation. In an evaluation of Danish experiences, this study has
looked more closely at the effects of EIA. Three types of effects on projects have
been examined: changes occurring prior to the formal application; changes dur-
ing the EIA process; and the mitigation measures that are demanded of projects.
The general conclusion is that EIA does generate a significant number of
changes to projects. In approximately half of the cases studied, modifications are
made prior to the formal application. During the formal EIA process, modifica-
tions were made in more than 90% of the cases. However, most of these could be
considered as minor. EIA is characterized by being based upon a broad concept
of the environment. It was found that a progressive narrowing of the concept of
environment takes place during the course of the EIA process.
Coles, T.F., Practical experience of envi- 1992 Proceedings of Advances in Envi- The authors found that an EIS generally costs between 0.000025 and 5 per cent
K.G. Fuller, ronmental assessment in the UK ronmental Assessment Conference. of project costs. In terms of the delay caused to planning decisions, the entire
and M. Slater London: IBC Technical Services EIA process took 62 weeks, the EIS preparation taking 25 weeks (cited in Glas-
son et al., 2005, p. 233-234).
Department of Consultation paper: implemen- 1997 London: HMSO Suggested GBP 35,000 as an appropriate median figure for the cost of undertak-
Environment, tation of the EC Directive ing an EIA under the new Regulations (cited in Glasson et al., p. 234).
Transport and (97/11/EC) – determining the
the Regions need for environmental assess-
(DETR) ment
 38 Institute for Environmental Studies

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Department of Changes in the quality of envi- 1996 London: HMSO A study of 20 EISs showed EIS preparation to vary from 22 person-days at a
the Environ- ronmental impact statements cost of GBP 5,000 to 3-4 person-months with additional work contracted out.
ment (DoE) The report also found that EIA does not necessarily slow things down: “The
more organised approach makes it more efficient and in some cases it allows is-
sues to be picked up earlier. The EIS can thus speed up the system”. Many plan-
ning officers felt that dealing with the EIS and the planning application were one
and the same and “just part of the job”. Estimates for reviewing the EIS and as-
sociated consultations ranged from five hours to 6-8 months of staff time. In the
20 case studies, the time spent by consultees on EIA ranged from four hours to
one-and-a-half days for statutory consultees, and from one hour to two weeks for
non-statutory consultees.
On the benefits side, EIA is seen by competent authorities as a way to focus the
mind, highlight important issues, reduce uncertainty, consider environmental
impacts in a systematic manner, save time by removing the need for planning of-
ficers to collect the information themselves and identify problems early and di-
rect them to the right people. One planning officer noted: “when the system first
appeared I was rather sceptical because I believed we had always taken these
matters into account. Now I am a big fan of the process. It enables me to focus
on the detail of individual aspects at an early stage”.
Consultees broadly agree that EIA creates a more structured approach to han-
dling planning applications, and that an EIS gives them “something to work from
rather than having to dig around for information ourselves”. However, when is-
sues are not covered in the EIS, consultees are left in the same position as with
non-EIA applications: some of their objections are not because the impacts are
bad but because they have not been given any information on the impacts or any
explanation of why a particular impact has been left out of the assessment. Con-
sultees feel that an EIA can give them data on sites that they would not otherwise
be able to afford to collect themselves, and that it can help parties involved in an
otherwise too often confrontational planning system to reach common ground.
(Cited in Glasson et al., 2005, p. 233-235).
 Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 39

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
De Valk, Th. Het milieu tot besluit, een 1997 PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit Am- Compares the importance of the environmental issues in decision making in
W. evaluatie van de Nederlandse sterdam cases with and without EIA. Concludes that EIS have a positive, albeit not very
regeling milieu-effectrapportage high, effect on the decisions by the competent authority, but not on the decisions
by the initiator..
Dipper, B., C. Monitoring and Post-Auditing 1998 Journal of Environmental Planning EIA post-auditing seeks to assess the accuracy of predictions made in the EIA.
Jones and C. in Environmental Impact As- and Management 41 (6), November The paper argues that the focus on pre-decision stages of EIA, and the neglect of
Wood sessment: A Review post-decision monitoring and auditing stages, has severly constrained the matu-
ration of EIA systems worldwide. A literature review examines the need for
post-auditing, highlighting several benefits to EIA performance that could arise
if the results were effectively used. This reveals that, in practice, post-auditing
activities are not widespread, and suggests reasons why it is so. An overview of
post-audit findings from a survey of published studies is then presented and it is
concluded that there is much scope for raising the profile of post-auditing in EIA
worldwide. Preliminary results from a UK post-auditing study based on eight
projects are described.
Emmelin, L. Evaluating environmental im- 1998 Scandinavian Housing and Plan- Addresses the problems of evaluating the functioning of EIA through an ap-
pact assessment systems. Part I: ning Research 15, pp. 129-148 proach relating EIA to professional and organisational cultures in management
Theoretical and methodological and planning.
considerations
Environment A Handbook for Scoping Pro- 2002 Environment Agency, Bristol (UK) Box 2 in Chapter 3 (p. 13) highlights the benefits of scoping.
Agency jects: Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA)
 40 Institute for Environmental Studies

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
European Environmental Impact Assess- 1996a Report prepared for the European This report contains the findings of a research study which has examined the
Commission ment in Europe - A Study on Commission, DG XI, by Land Use relative costs and benefits associated with implementation of Environmental Im-
Costs and Benefits Consultants in association with pact Assessment in selected countries within the European Union. The study has
Eureco and Enviplan. been undertaken in two parts; the first dealing with Project EIA and the second
ISBN 92-828-3572-3 (Volume 1- relating to Strategic Impact Assessment.
Main report) Some of the main findings on project EIA include the following:
ISBN 92-828-3573-1 (Volume 2- - in a majority of cases, costs of EIA amounted to less than 0.5% of the
Detailed case studies) overall capital cost of the project. Costs in excess of 1% are the excep-
Summary on: tion;
[Link] - as a percentage of total cost, the EIA component becomes smaller the
/eia-studies-and-reports/eia-costs- larger the project;
[Link] - EIAs are usually completed in under 2 years, but there is considerable
variation from project to project. Delays can occur for many reasons un-
related to the EIA process itself;
- in a majority of cases, benefits were identified in terms of e.g. higher
standards of mitigation and project re-siting or re-design to spare envi-
ronmentally sensitive areas;
- significant benefits were also recorded related to the enhancement of the
developer’s environmental credibility;
- in many cases major benefits were achieved through the contribution
which EIA makes in helping to define and confirm the conditions and
formal agreements which form part of development consents;
- in all cases the EIA process had resulted in benefits in terms of a better
information base and framework for analysis for decision making.
European Evaluation of the Performance 1996 European Commission, Brussels (2 Assesses the quality of EIAs using a sample of 112 EIAs from 8 EU Member
Commission of the EIA Process b volumes) States. Volume 2 contains the 8 Member State reports.
[Link]
/eia-studies-and-
reports/[Link]
 Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 41

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
European Report from the Commission to 2002 [Link] This is the third review by the Commission of the implementation of the EIA Di-
Commission the European Parliament and (?) /pdf/report_en.pdf rective in the Member States, and the first one since the amendments of Direc-
the Council on the Application tive 97/11. It addresses, inter alia, srengths, weaknesses and quality of EIA prac-
and Effectiveness of the EIA tice in the EU, but does not refer explicitly to costs and benefits.
Directive (Directive
85/337/EEC as amended by Di-
rective 97/11/EC) - How suc-
cessful are the Member States
in implementing the EIA Direc-
tive.
Feldt, W. UVP-Probleme bei Offshore- 2003 UVP-report, 17 (5), p.237-241. This article deals with offshore wind energy parks. According to the Ordinance
Windenergieparks in der on Offshore Developments (Seeanlagenverordnung), the EIA act applies to pro-
AWZ. jects requiring a consent according to Seeanlagenverordnung, section 2, and fal-
ling under the definition of project according to the EIA act, section 3. The case
study of the offshore windpark Butendiek illustrates the practice of EIA for pro-
jects falling under the Seeanlagenverordnung. Furthermore, it is examined
whether the decision on the location of offshore windparks is improved from the
point of view of environmental precaution.
 42 Institute for Environmental Studies

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Figge, F., and Value-oriented impact assess- 2004 Journal of Environmental Planning Environmental Impact Assessment has gained a prominent position as a tool to
T. Hahn ment: the economics of a new and Management 47 (6), p. 921 evaluate the environmental effects of economic activities. However, all ap-
approach to impact assessment proaches proposed so far use a burden-oriented logic. They concentrate on the
different environmental impacts in order to ascertain the overall environmental
damage caused by economic activity. This paper argues that such a burden-
oriented view is (a) hampered by a series of methodological shortcomings which
hinders its widespread use in practice; and (b) is analytically incomplete. The
paper proposes a value-oriented approach to impact assessment. For this purpose
an economic analysis of the optimal use of environmental and social resources is
conducted from both a burden-oriented and a value-oriented standpoint. The ba-
sic logic of a value-oriented impact assessment is explained, as well as the result-
ing economic conditions for an optimal use of resources. In addition, it is shown
that value- and burden-oriented approaches are complementary to achieve opti-
mality. Finally, the paper discusses the conditions under which the use of bur-
den- or value-oriented impact assessments is appropriate, respectively.
Fischer, Th. Benefits arising from SEA ap- 1999 Environmental Impact Assessment This article seeks to determine the extent to which current assessment practice of
B. plication—a comparative re- Review 19 (2), pp. 143-173 transport infrastructure-related policies, plans, and programs (PPPs) results in
view of North West England, certain benefits of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) in three European
Noord-Holland, and Branden- Union regions. It is concluded that current assessment practice indeed results in
burg-Berlin certain SEA benefits, although to differing extents. It appears that there is more
SEA-“related” experience in the European Union than is frequently anticipated
in the academic literature. It is observed that case studies that were reviewed on a
number of previous occasions and those that are included in this analysis do not
necessarily appear to be “good practice” cases.
 Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 43

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Führ, M., K. Evaluation des UVPG des 2007 Sonderforschungsgruppe Institu- This is an ongoing research project. The project evaluates the German law im-
Bizer, and A. Bundes. Auswirkungen des tionenanalyse, Darmstadt, in coop- plementing the EIA Directive. The final report, expected to be published in
Mengel UVPG auf den Vollzug des eration with the universities of Göt- 2007, will include a cost-benefit analysis of EIA, recommendations for the fur-
Umweltrechts und die tingen and Kassel ther development of the German EIA law and measures for leaner administra-
Durchführung von Zulas- tion.
sungsverfahren See Appendix II C for further information (based on an interview by Ecologic
with the researchers).
Fürst, D, and Handbuch Theorien + Metho- 2001 Institut für Landesplanung und This paper analyses EIAs with respect to methods and indicators used, as well as
F. Scholles den der Raum- und Umwelt- Raumforschung: Dortmund various ways to evaluate projects. Within the section, “Bewertungsmethoden”,
planung cost-benefit analysis is discussed. Aspects such as definition with respect to
EIAs, aim, actual process of, including characteristics, and problems associated
with cost benefit analysis are discussed. A case study of a Danube River project
is used to further explore the aspects of cost-benefit analysis.
Garner, J.F., Environmental Impact Assess- 1982 The Geographical Journal 148 (3), Lists a number of advantages of the (then proposed) EU EIA Directive in terms
and T. ment in the Context of Eco- pp. 343-361 of developmental cost saving. States that EIAs rarely cost more than 0.6 per cent
O’Riordan nomic Recession of final development costs but may speed up the application-permission process.
Glasson, J. The first 10 years of the UK 1999 Planning Practice & Research 14 The paper argues that there is an “implementation deficit” in the EU environ-
EIA system: Strengths, Weak- 93), pp. 363-375 mental policy (more policy than action). It also describes quality criteria for the
nesses, Opportunities and EIA process and for the EIS, tracks changes in EIA quality in the UK pre- and
Threats post-1991 with objectivity of the EIA as the main issue of concern. Some of the
strengths and weaknesses from the SWOT analysis could be translated into di-
rect benefits and costs of the EIA directive.
Glasson, J., R. Introduction to environmental 2005 3rd edition. Routledge, London and Section 8.6 discusses costs and benefits of EIA, based on existing literature (see
Therivel and impact assessment New York separate entries in this survey).
A. Chadwick
 44 Institute for Environmental Studies

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Haldorsson, EIA in Iceland 1994-2005 - The 2006 Poster presented at the 26th IAIA Formal EIA pratice in Iceland started in 1994 with the enactment of an EIA act,
O., and H. Impact of the Introduction of Annual Conference, Stavanger, based on EU-directive 85/337. The EIA act in Iceland has been revised twice
Sigurdardottir the Scoping Process Norway, 23-26 May 2006 since, first in the year 2000 and later in 2005. The main innovation in 2000 was
[Link] the introduction of a formal procedure at the scoping level. This study focuses on
Confer- the impacts of the introduction of the scoping document and the following pro-
ence/IAIA06/abstracts%20volume cedure, which was meant to improve the EIA process in terms of quality, focus,
%20final%20from%[Link] efficiency and cost reductuion.
One of the aims of this study was to answer the question how successful the re-
vision in year 2000 was in fulfilling this goal. To answer this question adminis-
trative cost of reviewing scoping documents and EIS's (by the National Planning
Agency in Iceland) was used as an indicator of the overall outcome of the legis-
lative change in 2000 in terms of efficiency and time/cost reduction. Different
methods were used in the study. The main effort was put into a comprehensive
review of all published scoping documents in Iceland and all EIS's published be-
tween 2000-2005 and calculations of working hours spent in the review of scop-
ing documents.
 Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 45

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Hanssen, M. Norwegian EIA Research 2006 Paper presented at the 26th IAIA The paper presents an abridgement of the EIA research in Norway over the last
Annual Conference, Stavanger, 25 years, including the 9 years preceding the introduction of regulations in
Norway, 23-26 May 2006 1990. In the early years of the research, there was a focus on the implications for
[Link] Norway of introducing the principles of EIA. During the first years of the regula-
Confer- tions, the EU-directive and Espoo convention were still not implemented, and
ence/IAIA06/abstracts%20volume some research was directed towards what an implementation would imply. The
%20final%20from%[Link] first comprehensive study covered the first 6 years of the regulations, and has
since been followed by a number of smaller issue specific studies. Just recently
ended, we have seen a common project between the “Environmental Institutes”
in Norway which has included theoretical involvement in analysing scoping,
vulnerability, valuing, predictions and uncertainty, and common data needs in
EIA and SEA.
The paper presents the results of most of these studies and one ongoing of the re-
form of the EIA-regulations from 1 April 2005. None of these are really relevant
for costs and benefits.
Haraldsson, The Environmental Impact As- 2003 In: T. Hilding-Rydevik and Á. Contains information on the costs of EISs for road projects in Iceland. Between
H., and Á. sessment of Icelandic road pro- Hlökk Theodórsdóttir (ed.), Plan- 1994 and 2002, 77 EISs have been prepared for 74 road projects, at a total cost
Guđmunds- jects ning for Sustainable Development – of about EUR 4.5 mln, or EUR 56,000 per EIS on average. The range of costs
dóttir the practice and potential of Envi- was between EUR 8,900 and EUR 56,000. On average, the costs were estimated
ronmental Assessment. Proceedings as:
from the 5th Nordic Environmental - 2-3% of the construction cost for smaller projects;
Assessment Conference, Reykjavik, - 1-2% of the construction cost for medium projects;
Iceland, 25-26 August 2003. - 0.5-1% of the construction cost for larger projects.
Nordregio, Stockholm, 2004, pp.
247-254..
[Link]
[Link]
 46 Institute for Environmental Studies

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Haunhorst, The EIA Case Studies in Ger- 2001 In Heinelt et al. (eds, 2001), pp. 71- Analyses 4 German EIA cases. In the most controversial one (relating to the
K.H., H. many 106 deepening of the Ems river), the EIA procedure appeared to worsen the situation
Heinelt and J. instead of defusing it.
Taeger
Hedlund, An- EIA/SEA – A Challenge to De- 2005 Paper presented at the 25th IAIA The purpose of EIA and SEA is to assure that environmental aspects are taken
ders and cision-making, Planning and Annual Conference, Boston, Mas- into account in planning and decision-making. But there is more to it: the proce-
Söderbaum, Policy-Making? sachusets, 31 May-3 June, 2005. dures of EIA and SEA both have certain characteristics which are
Peter of interest from perspectives of ethics and science as well as planning theory and
[Link] decision-making philosophy. The authors claim that EIA/SEA stands for an in-
Confer- terdisciplinary, open-ended, disaggregated learning process with participation
ence/IAIA05/Publications/05%20A and interaction between actors, stakeholders and the public as key activities. The
[Link] focus is to identify and assess significant negative impacts caused by an actual
plan, programme or project. In this way, EIA/SEA supports planning and deci-
sion-making in cases when complex and adverse impacts are at stake. In itself
EIA/SEA is not, and should not be, a planning tool or an instrument to imple-
ment overriding plans and policies. In practise, however, EIA/SEA tends to play
an ambivalent role. At least in Sweden EIA/SEA sometimes is a closed process
focusing on the assessment of compliance with environmental policy, objectives
for environmental protection, and comprehensive plans and programmes. By this
there is a risk that EIA/SEA becomes a instrument of top-down policy-making –
at the expense of an open, transparent process and participative qualities. The au-
thors believe that EIA/SEA, by putting emphasis on its characteristics, offers an
approach that can significantly influence planning and decision-making to make
it both more transparent and democratic and more compatible with
sustainable development. In this paper, underlying ethical and scientifical per-
spectives (and ideologies and philosophies) are illuminated in order to under-
stand prerequisites and mechanisms for effective and effiecient use of
EIA/SEA. EIA/SEA is also discussed in relation to cost-benefit analysis, multi-
criteria approaches and positional analysis.
 Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 47

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Heinelt, H., et European Union environment 2001 Ashgate, Aldershot Case study countries: Germany, Greece, UK (see separate chapter entries else-
al. (eds.) policy and new forms of gov- where in this table).
ernance : a study of the imple-
mentation of the environmental
impact assessment directive and
the eco-management and audit
scheme regulation in three
member states
Hildén, M. Myths and Reality in EIA and 1999 Proceedings from the 3rd Nordic The report examines some commonly held beliefs and stories as well as existing
SEA EIA/SEA Conference 22 - 23 No- practices and institutions and it analyses facts and events related to environ-
vember 1999 mental impact assessment. Nothing on costs and benefits.

Hokkanen, P Ympäristövaikutusten 2003 Ministry of the Environment, This report studies the influence of environmental impact assessment (EIA) pro-
and Kojo, M arviointimenettelyn Finland cedures on decisionmaking in three projects. These are studied with a view of
vaikutus päätöksentekoon [Link] formulating of alternatives. The decision-making process was divided into three
asp?contentid=5412&lan=fi time periods (prior to, during and after the EIA), and a comparison between
these made it possible to pinpoint changes in the alternatives. In addition to the
results of the EIA the study took into account the main factors influencing the
decision-making. The report includes a brief discussion on how costs and bene-
fits affect and frame the selection of alternatives but this is not elaborated on any
further.
 48 Institute for Environmental Studies

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Hokkanen, P., Effectiveness of Environmental 2005 Paper presented at the 25th IAIA Despite their innovative aspects, Finnish EIA legislation and practices contain
Pölönen, I., Impact Assessment in Finland – Annual Conference, Boston, Mas- several gaps that weaken the preventive effect of the instrument. The main objec-
Kuitunen, M., Presentation of the EFEIA Pro- sachusets, 31 May-3 June, 2005. tive of the EFEIA project is to analyze and improve the effectiveness of envi-
Hirvonen, K. ject ronmental impact assessment. An additional objective is to provide structured in-
[Link] formation about the legal framework and case law related to the environmental
Confer- impact assessment. Further, the aim is to increase the understanding of the
ence/IAIA05/Publications/05%20A mechanisms and the functions of the instrument and provide a comprehensive
[Link] overview of the various effects of the EIA. EIA is seen in this study as a modern
environmental policy instrument, which means that the role played by EIA in the
field of environmental policy control will be located and analyzed. The approach
to be used in the research is multidisciplinary, since the research subject will be
approached from the perspectives of the legal, political and natural sciences. The
core task of the EFEIA project will be to define the problems of EIA and to ad-
dress these problems by means of versatile measures that draw on all three of the
environmental sciences. The foundation of the environmental impact assessment
is multidisciplinary. The effectiveness of the instrument is not based solely on
the legal-administrative regulation but also essentially on the other factors as
well, which are in part related to the transparency and participatory functions of
the EIA process. Only applying a diversified methodology and a multidiscipli-
nary approach can identify these factors and mechanisms. The research will pro-
duce a new kind of comprehensive information on the mechanisms and effec-
tiveness of EIA. The outcomes of the EFEIA project will together form an exten-
sive scientific basis for more effective EIA legislation and assessment practises
to improve quality of the environment.
 Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 49

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Hokkanen, P. Ympäristövaikutusten 2004 Licenciate thesis, Tampere Univer- The study assessed the participatory aspects of EIA based on empirical research
Arviointimenettely politiik- sity and the EIA procedure for the nuclear waste storage in Posiva. The study found
kaverkostona-tapaustutkimus [Link] that the civil society participation through the institutionalised EIA procedure is
Kansalaisosallistumisesta ydin- [Link] not without problems. Only a few active groups participated in the Posiva EIA
jätteiden loppusijoitushank- process and there where signs of “elitist political networks”. In the end the im-
keessa pact of the Posiva EIA on decision-making was marginal as most of the deci-
sion-making context was framed by the requirements of the nuclear waste legis-
lation.
Huhtinen, K. Hankkeiden ympäristövaikutus- 2006 Master’s thesis, Helsinki University The aim of the thesis is to explain how Finland and Denmark have implemented
ten [Link] the EIA Directive. The study also examines EIA from the perspective of Plan-
arviointimenettely Suomessa ja o/bioja/pg/huhtinen/[Link] ning theories and the relationship between EIA consultation and participation as
Tanskassa part of the planning process. The study found that the EIA Directive had
changed the participatory practices in the planning system in both Finland and
Denmark. Not really relevant in terms of costs and benefits but a good descrip-
tion of the EIA process in Denmark and Finland
Hylding- Planning for Sustainable Devel- 2003 Proceedings from the 5th Nordic
Ridevik, T., opment – the practice and po- Environmental Assessment Confer-
and Á. Hlökk tential of Environmental ence, Reykjavik, Iceland, 25 – 26
Theodórs- Assessment August 2003
dóttir [Link]
[Link]
 50 Institute for Environmental Studies

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Johansson, V., Quality in EIA: The Swedish 2006 Paper presented at the 26th IAIA One of the Swedish EIA characteristics is the extensive use of EIA. Another fea-
and A. Hed- Case Annual Conference, Stavanger, ture is the proponents’ responsibility for the EIA process. The influence of au-
lund Norway, 23-26 May 2006 thorities in the process is limited. No evaluations have been made of neither the
[Link] quality of EIAs nor the EIA-process in Sweden since the Council Directive on
Confer- environmental assessment was implemented in Swedish legislation in the 1990’s.
ence/IAIA06/abstracts%20volume However, several studies (the Swedish National Audit Office 1996, the Board of
%20final%20from%[Link] Housing and Planning 2003, Emmelin & Lerman 2004) have indicated that there
might be some problems with the EIA quality and the EIA-process in Sweden.
In order to investigate these possible problems a webquestionnaire was distrib-
uted by the Swedish EIA Centre in December 2005. The focus of the question-
naire was to investigate how proponents, consultants, decision-makers, reviewers
and researchers consider the aim, function, quality and effective use of EIA. The
questionnaire covered five areas i.e. aim, function, quality and actor relations. It
was sent to approximately 1500 persons and 342 answers were received. The re-
sult of the questionnaire shows deficiencies in several areas, both concerning
legislation and the application of the legislation as well as regarding competence
and organisation matters.
Jones, C.E. The effect of environmental as- 1995 Report, special edition, October, Competent authorities generally feel that projects and the environment benefit
sessments on planning decisions pp. 5-7 greatly from EIA. When asked whether EIA was a net benefit or cost, “the over-
whelming response from both planning officers and developers/consultants was
that it had been a benefit. Only a small percentage of both respondents felt that
EIA had been a drawback” (cited in Glasson et al., 2005, p. 235-236).
Jones, C., C. Environmental assessment in 1998 Town Planning Review 69, pp. 315- Only one-fifth of developers and consultants felt that there had been no benefits
Wood, and B. the UK planning process 319 associated with EIA (cited in Glasson et al., 2005, p. 235).
Dipper
Kanning, H.; Verbesserung der Ökoeffek- 2003 UVP-report 17 (1), p.34-38. Analysis methods, basic determination; Environmental audit of operating results;
Wulfert, K. tivität betrieblichen Um- Landscape planning for building zoning plan.
weltmanagements durch Bei-
träge der Landschaftsplanung
 Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 51

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Karr, K. Environmental Impact Assess- 1997 Ashgate, Aldershot This book is based on PhD research undertaken at the University of Manchester.
ment in the United Its aims are threefold: to compare EIA practice for wastewater treatment plants
Kingdom and Germany. A in the United Kingdom and Germany within its cultural and institutional context;
Comparison of EIA Practice for to explain similarities and differences; and to suggest improvements to both EIA
Wastewater Treatment systems.
Plants
 52 Institute for Environmental Studies

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Kessel, H. J. Evaluatie m.e.r. 2003 2003 Novio Consult, Nijmegen This is the third evaluation of the Dutch EIA system. Its objectives are:
B. A. van, T. - to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of EIA and to identify opportunities
J. Boer, for improvement and simplification;
B.G.M. - to give insight in the possibilities for further improvement of the cohesion be-
Roelofs en K. tween (and possible integration of) the government’s impact assessment instru-
A. Klein Ko- ments.
erkamp The report contains a section (4.7) on “Costs and benefits of EIA”. It distin-
guishes a number of cost items (for the project developer, the authorities and for
the management of the EIA system), which can only partly be quantified in fi-
nancial terms. It states that international research shows that the direct expenses
for studies and the EIS are usually less than 1% of the project costs. This is con-
firmed by the experience of Rijkswaterstaat (one of the biggest executors of EIA
in the Netherlands). Other project developers confirm that EIA costs are limited
in comparison with the investment costs of the project. Higher and more serious
costs occur if a project is postponed due to the EIA process (e.g. in case of ac-
tivities for which EIA is discretionary). The costs of EIA can be reduced and its
efficiency improved by means of various measures, including better scoping (re-
stricting the EIA to information that is relevant for the decision) and the use of
models and standard elements (as applied in Canada and Australia), possibly
supplemented by location specific tailored research.
On benefits, the evaluation states that these are even harder to quantify than
costs. As direct benefits of EIA it mentions the sparing of sensitive areas, mitiga-
tion of negative impacts, more support for a project, and more environmental
awareness among parties involved.
 Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 53

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Kempenaar, Quality in control? An evalua- 2005 Paper presented at the 25th IAIA A common complaint about Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is that EIA
Christa tion of the quality, costs and Annual Conference, Boston, Mas- studies are considered costly, lengthy, outdated and suffer from information
time of Dutch EIA-studies for sachusets, 31 May-3 June, 2005. overload. This issue is acknowledged by the Dutch Ministry of Transport – one
road projects. of major players in the EIA field in the Netherlands, being responsible for the
[Link] development of the majority of EIA road projects. In order to keep EIA fit-for-
Confer- purpose for the 21st century, the Ministry has carried out a research programme.
ence/IAIA05/Abstract%20Submissi The research addressed such questions as: What are the costs of EIA-studies?
ons/view_abstracts1.asp What time period is needed for preparing them? What is the quality of the result-
ing studies? How are these three dimensions related? And, how to control them
better? By the way, the research programme focused on the EIA-studies not on
the road development projects themselves. The research included the analysis of
documents and management data, surveys and interviews. In order to get a bal-
anced view from both inside and outside the Ministry of Transport, a variety of
parties have been consulted in the research: project managers, political adminis-
trators of the Ministry as well as the independent EIA Commission and commer-
cial consultancies. This paper provides an overview of the main conclusions on
quality, costs and time of EIAs for road projects. First an analysis is given of the
actual costs and time of the EIA studies and the factors that influence the quality,
costs and time (efficiency and effectiveness). Subsequently, the relationships and
trade-offs between these three dimensions are discussed. Then, the paper ad-
dresses ways for controlling the quality as well as the costs and time in future
EIA-studies. One of the major conclusions is that a careful time management of
projects provides the Ministry a useful control mechanism for managing the
costs and quality of EIA-studies.
 54 Institute for Environmental Studies

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Klaffl, I., et UVP-Evaluation. Evaluation 2006 Report REP-0036, Umweltbunde- This study aimed at assessing the quality and effectiveness of EIA in Austria and
al. der Umweltverträglich- samt, Vienna at checking if EIA brings ‘value added’to the environment. It highlights various
keitsprüfung in Österreich [Link] benefits of EIA (including e.g. higher acceptance of the proposed project and
ead- less conflicts), but does not contain any attempts to quantify or monetise these
min/site/publikationen/[Link] benefits. Likewise, the costs of EIA are addressed in terms of their influence on
f the project and the procedure; this influence appears to be insignificant, but the
costs are not quantified.
Kobus, D., The role of environmental as- 1993 Project Appraisal 8 (3), pp. 147- Provides some information on the influence of EIA on project modification (and
and N. Lee sessment in the planning and 156 hence on possible benefits of EIA). Within a sample of 22 projects, about half
authorisation of extractive in- were modified by the decision to prepare an EIS and hold consultations. Most
dustry projects changes, however, were minor.
 Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 55

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Kørnøv, L., P. Mission Impossible: 2003 Department of Development To evaluate the experiences of EIA so far, Aalborg University was asked to
Christensen, Does EIA secure a Holistic Ap- and Planning, Aalborg Univer- evaluate existing EIA practice in Denmark under the heading: “What do we get
and E. Nielsen proach to the Environment? sity out of EIA?” The evaluation was performed for the Ministry of the Environment
[Link] during the period 2001 – 2003.
15/[Link] The results are based upon in-depth studies of 36 EIA cases. The case studies
cover three different types of projects: Industry, infrastructure and livestock pro-
jects.
On average, an EIA takes approximately 22 months. Industry cases can be han-
dled in 13 months, while infrastructure cases can take up to 2½ years. The report
points out that even if this may seem a long time, one has to remember that the
EIA process includes public hearings as well as political processes. There also
has to be time to carry out a comprehensive analysis, which is based upon a dia-
logue with the applicant and other stakeholders and which is very broad and ho-
listic in nature.
The report also found that contrary to the positive use of a broad concept of the
environment is that considerations of socioeconomic aspects are seldom taken
into consideration. Moreover, the assessment of cumulative aspects never takes
place. Socio-economic impacts are described in 82% of infrastructure cases, 50%
of industry cases, and only 15% of livestock projects cases.
Lee, N. Environmental Assessment in 1995 Project Appraisal 10 (2), pp. 77-90 The main reference to costs and benefits in this article is based on the European
the European Union: a Tenth Commission’s 1993 evaluation. “It was found that […] in some Member States,
Anniversary “there is clear evidence that project modifications have been, and are, taking
place, due to the influence of the EIA process”.[…] Further, it was concluded
[…] that the benefit had been achieved at relatively low EIA process and mitiga-
tion costs and without significantly affecting the overall timescale of implement-
ing projects.”
 56 Institute for Environmental Studies

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Lee, N., and Quality control in environ- 1992 Project Appraisal 7 (1), pp. 41-45 About half of the officers interviewed felt that the EIS had not influenced how
D. Brown mental assessment long it took to reach a decision; the rest were about evenly split between those
who felt that the EIA had speeded up or slowed down the process (cited in Glas-
son et al., 2005, p. 234).
Lee, N., and The Quality of Environmental 1993 Project Appraisal 8 (1), pp. 31-36 The quality of EISs produced in Ireland and the UK is assessed and compared,
R. Dancey Impact Statements in Ireland using the same Environmental Statement Review Package. In both countries,
and the United Kingdom: a high percentages of EISs were unsatisfactory in the late 1980s but, subsequently,
Comparative Analysis considerable improvements have been achieved.
Lee, N., F. Assessing the Performance of 1994 Project Appraisal 9 (3), pp. 161- Based on a sample of some 50 projects in the UK, this article concludes that the
Walsh, and G. the EIA Process 172 Environmental Assessment (EA) process has contributed to environmental im-
Reeder provements of varying levels of significance, through project modifications, in
approximately half the cases which have been investigated. EA has also made an
observable contribution, although possibly in a minority of cases, to better in-
formed and more balanced project appraisal and decision-making. In the major-
ity of cases, any cost increases associated with the EA process have been minor
and there is some evidence that the time taken to process planning applications,
subject to EA, may have been falling, particularly when satisfactory Environ-
mental Statements (ESs) have been submitted. However, whilst the EA process
has brought tangible benefits in those cases where it has operated reasonably ef-
fectively, the full potential benefits have not been realised because, in a signifi-
cant number of other cases, deficiencies in overall environmental effectiveness,
cost-effectiveness and decision-making have still occurred. There is considerable
variability in the quality of ESs, in the length of time devoted to the pre-ES sub-
mission phase, and in the use made of the ES in reaching decisions.
Leknes, E. The role of EIA in the decision- 2000 Environmental Impact Assessment The focus of this paper is to clarify the role the EIA can have in the decision
making process Review 21, pp.309-334 making process. Three common decision theoretical perspectives are used to il-
lustrate the decision-making process. By using examples from the Norwegian
petroleum sector it shows how the importance of the EIA in decision-making
varies across different typologies of issues.
 Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 57

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Leu, W.-S., An evaluation of the implemen- 1995 Project Appraisal 10 (2), pp. 91- Contains figures on the costs of hiring consultants to help local authorities in as-
W.P. Wil- tation of environmental assess- 102 sessing EISs (which only 30.5% of the surveyed authorities actually did). In
liams, and ment by UK local authorities more than 50% of the cases, the costs were less than GBP 5,000. In 5% of the
A.W. Bark cases they exceeded GBP 20,000.
Lund, H. and Does environmental impact as- 1997 Environmental Impact Assessment According to the Danish implementation of the directive, an EIA must review a
Hvelplund, F. sessment really support techno- Review 17, pp.357-370 project’s main alternatives and the environmental consequences of the alterna-
logical change? Analyzing al- tives. If this were done properly, EIAs could assist Denmark in meeting its CO2
ternatives to coal-fired power reduction goals. However, because EIA is implemented on a restricted, regional
stations in Denmark basis, it does not support technological change. Responsibility for the prepara-
tion of the EIA is given to the regional authorities through a law which does not
require alternatives to be assessed that extend geographically beyond the
boundaries of a regional authority. Thus, there is no certainty of serious analysis
of cleaner technology alternatives to large coal-fired power stations. This conclu-
sion is based on examination of three case studies using a participatory research
method.
Marr, K., and A comparative analysis of EIA 1996 International Planning Studies 1 This article reports the findings of an investigation of the practice of EIA for
C. Wood practice for wastewater (2), pp. 217-228 wastewater treatment plants in the UK and Germany. It demonstrates that both
EIA systems have a number of common deficiencies bu that the differences be-
tween the practice of EIA in Britain and Germany are considerable. These indi-
cate that onde of the objectives of the European Directive – to harmonize envi-
ronmental controls – has not been met. No reference to costs or benefits.
 58 Institute for Environmental Studies

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Marshall, R. Environmental impact assess- 2005 Impact Assessment and Project Ap- Applying follow-up within environmental impact assessment (EIA) is no longer
ment follow-up and its benefits praisal 23 (3), pp. 191-196 an option but a sound precaution and a proactive measure in today’s heavily
for industry regulated industrial environment, where the announcement of new development
is treated with dismay and opposition by local residents. Increasingly, successful
development is viewed in terms of its final result — its operational environ-
mental performance, its acceptance by stakeholders, its contribution to sustain-
able development, and, critically, the scale or magnitude of environmental im-
pact over all life-cycle phases. For astute proponents, the evidence suggests that
EIA follow-up has a valuable role to play in good developmental practice. It can
also encourage integration of environmental perspectives into developmental
programmes, the systematic implementation of mitigation and the triggering of
environmental risk responses posed through construction activities. This paper
shares experience with EIA follow-up from an industry practitioner’s viewpoint
to assist with learning from experience and capacity building. Seven perceived
functions of EIA follow-up are examined alongside specific case studies.
Messner, Ansätze zur Bewertung von 2005 In: Elsner, W.; Biesecker, A.; This paper analyses regional development projects and their impacts on the envi-
Frank Naturqualitäten im regionalen Grenzdörffer, K. (Hrg.): ronment and the people who live in proximity to these projects. It discusses the
Entwicklungsprozess Ökonomische Bewertungen in various criteria to evaluate conflicts between economic development and natural
gesellschaftlichen Prozessen: Markt resource protection, using gravel and sand extraction projects as an example.
– Macht – Diskurs, Centaurus The paper discusses using cost-benefit analyses to measure the welfare effects of
Verlag, Herbolzheim, S. 189-216. projects, such as the monetary profits and losses to persons in the surrounding
area.
Michel, P. L’étude d’impact sur 2001 BCEOM, pour le Ministère de See BIO report on France (Appendix II)
l’environnement l’Ecologie et du Développement
Durable
 Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 59

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Miljøvernde- Environmental impact assess- 2003 [Link] “Evaluation studies of the Norwegian EIA process show that EIA creates an or-
partementet ment derly planning process, enhances the role of the public concerned in the planning
(Norwegian and decision making process and produces a broader knowledge base for deci-
Ministry of sionmaking. More specifically, EIA functions as a uniform process that struc-
the Environ- tures the co-operation between developer, relevant governmental bodies at the
ment) appropriate levels, and the public. The studies also show that the early phase is
important. Especially the study programme is an important element of the EIA
process, as it contributes to focus on the crucial issues to be addressed in the EIA
report. EIA provides knowledge and consciousness of environmental impacts,
and also leads to a more thorough planning process. It helps to achieve altera-
tions in design and implementation of projects in order to enhance environmental
performance. The cost of EIA varies, but does not normally exceed 0.1 - 0.5 %
of the total project costs. There is no documented project delay for projects that
are assessed according to the EIA provisions.” (p. 6)
Moreno, A.- Environmental Impact Assess- 2006 In: R. Macrory (ed.), Reflections on Discusses a number of (legal) weaknesses of Directive 85/337. Nevertheless, the
M. ment in EC Law : a Critical 30 years of EU environmental law : author considers EIA to have led to “more effective and efficient environmental
Appraisal a high level of protection? Europa protection throughout the European Union” (p. 58).
Law Publishing, Groningen, pp. 41-
59.
Naturvårds- MKB under utveckling. Tidiga 2001 Report no. 5150, Swedish Envi- Reports on the early experiences with the new Swedish EIA system. In inter-
verket erfarenheter av MKB enligt mil- ronmental Protection Agency, views, the initiators of projects stated that the costs of an EIA were reasonable in
jöbalken och förslag på fortsatt Stockholm relation to their projects. However, large indirect costs are involved in the time
utvärdering lags that the EIA procedure sometimes creates, mainly due to a lack of resources
at the authorities. It is recommended to investigate the differences in costs and
time involved in different types of projects and between the different authorities
in different parts of the country.
 60 Institute for Environmental Studies

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Nielsen, E., P. Are screening processes ef- 2003 Department of Development and During 2001-2003, the counties (county councils) in Denmark have conducted
Christensen, fective instruments and what Planning, Aalborg University around 2000 screening decisions for project categories listed in Annex II of the
and L. Kørnøv are the environmental bene- [Link] EIA directive. Approximately 3% of these decisions lead to an EIA. The Minis-
fits? 22/[Link] try of the Environment asked Aalborg University to conduct an evaluation of the
Danish experience with EIA. The evaluation tries to assess if the screening proc-
esses is a cost-effective instrument and to what extent are the environmental
benefits for this large number of projects covered by the screening regulation?
The report found that the screening instrument is considered efficient in terms of
securing an environmental optimisation of the projects. Almost half of the pro-
jects have been changed and the changes have primarily been preventive meas-
ures. Efficiency is judged by not only the capacity of screening to change the
project, however, but also by the fact that the authorities use very few resources.
This instrument seems to be an "eye-opener" for the developers, furthermore,
one that signals many opportunities for adjustment and optimisation of project
from an environmental point of view.
According to the consultants and developers, changes in projects will lead to less
pollution than the project as originally planned. Changes in livestock projects
will mean a reduction in nitrogen emissions, less impact on nature-protected ar-
eas and landscapes, and minimisation of environmental impacts on neighbours.
Nieslong, C. An Evaluation of the effective- 2004 Cordula Nieslong: Master’s Thesis This paper, using German EIAs as a case study, discusses the creation of a sus-
ness of Environmental Impact tainability appraisal tool in the context of environmental impact assessment.
Assessment in promoting Sus- Through a survey, various EIA stakeholders were asked to define sustainable de-
tainable Development. velopment within the EIA context as well as discuss the potential implementa-
tion of sustainable development ideas within EIAs. Furthermore, stakeholders
were asked to analyse the effectiveness of the current EIA process. In addition
to the survey, three EIAs from Germany were analysed, including an analysis of
costs. This analysis included a discussion of direct costs of doing an EIA, i.e.
paying for experts, as well as the costs of mitigation measures.
(No more empirical data available)
 Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 61

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Njål, A, Nytte og ressersbruk ved 2005 A report by Civitas The main aim of this study is to:
Asbjørg, N konsekvensutredninger, Studie • Assess the costs and benefits of selected EIAs
and Rolv, L av et utvalg • Assess whether the resources used in the EIA are comparable to the
konsekvensutredninger etter benefits
plan-og bygningslovens The study consists of seven EIAs focusing on the process, benefits and resource
bestemmelser use and eleven complementing EIAs with a greater focus on costs. A table shows
an estimation of the total costs, the costs of the EIA, EIA costs compared to the
total costs in per cent and for starting the EIA to its completion. The EIA costs
vary mostly between 0.1 and 2.2 per cent of the total costs. The time spent on the
EIA ranges from 18 to 70 months.
The report found it difficult to distinguish the costs from a road project from the
municipal plan, as these tend to develop in parallel. It was estimated that the EIA
costs for the E39 Gartnerlokka – Klepland road were 33 per cent of the total
municipal plan costs.
The benefits (to different actors) of the EIA were based on interviews and ques-
tionnaires. So for instance the different actors were asked to answer to the ques-
tion “What was the benefit of the EIA in relation to costs?”, on a scale from -2 to
+2. Of the seven EIA projects in six the benefits were deemed to outweigh the
costs. The benefits have not been monetized.
(See Appendix II D for more extensive summary)
 62 Institute for Environmental Studies

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Obroučka, K., Economic evaluation of eco- 2005 Final report to the project carried Includes an estimate of EIA costs for a representative sample of projects in the
et al. logical risks of EIA and IPPC out with the National Research and Czech Republic. The costs are dependent on:
procedures Development Programme – VaV a. Type of the project (a key criterion)
750/01/03. University of Manage- b. Location of the project (sensitive location versus existing industrial
ment, Ostrava premises)
c. Competent authority (larger cities have higher standards).
Category I investments are 5.4 times more costly than Category II investments.
The highest costs are found for industrial production projects in Category I; these
range from € 6,600 to € 21,700.
(See Appendix II E for more extensive summary)
Palerm, J.R. Public participation in environ- 1999 Impact Assessment and Project Ap- Each of the 17 Spanish autonomous communities can define their own environ-
mental impact assessment in praisal 17 (4), pp. 259-271. mental impact assessment (EIA) legislation. This paper examines three case
Spain: three case studies evalu- studies, falling under different legislation, and making use of different public
ating national, Catalan and participation mechanisms.
Balearic legislation
Palerm, J.R., Environmental impact assess- 1996 European Environmental Law Re- Describes the EIA systems of the Czech Republic and Romania, and compares
and W.R. ment in Central and Eastern view, pp. 15–22 them to the UK and Spain. No reference to costs or benefits.
Sheate Europe: lessons from the Czech
Republic and Romania
Petts, J. (ed.) Handbook of Environmental 1999 Blackwell Science, Oxford See separate entries on chapters elsewhere in this list.
Impact Assessment. Volume 2:
Environmental Impact Assess-
ment in Practice: Impact and
Limitations
 Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 63

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Pieters, S. Milieueffectrapportage op de 2004 Milieu & Recht 31 (1), pp. 24-25. Challenges the proposals by the Dutch government to eliminate the provisions in
Herijkingshelling? Dutch EIA legislation that go beyond the minimum required by the EU Direc-
tive. The author argues that the proposals fail to take into account the benefits of
the present Dutch EIA system. Moreover, he expects that the cost savings may
be less than expected. Even if a simplification of the EIA procedure would lead
to time savings, these may be offset by the additional court procedures that will
follow due to the reduced public participation.
Piper, J.M. Cumulative effects assessment 2000 Journal of Environmental Planning Assesses the costs and benefits associated with CEA (a specific type of EIA, tak-
on the Middle Humber: Barriers & Management 43 (3), pp. 369- ing into account the cumulative effects of several projects in the same area),
overcome, benefits derived 387; cited in Glasson et al. (2005), drawing on interviews with those involved in the process.
pp. 272-275 Three of the four developers felt that the CEA process had increased their under-
standing of the estuary and the potential impacts of the proposed developments.
Other benefits identified included the development of local relationships; the es-
tablishment of a consistent basis for mitigation and monitoring; the opportunity
to share the costs of monitoring; and (for one of the developers) the fact that the
CEA process had facilitated the rapid achievement of planning approval. The
CEA process resulted in some changes in the original project proposals and addi-
tional mitigation measures, which would not have occurred if the projects had
been assessed separately. Views differed about whether the CEA process had re-
sulted in a saving or loss of time in obtaining consent for the proposed schemes.
The authorities also identified a number of benefits from the CEA process,
mainly in terms of awareness of the impacts
 64 Institute for Environmental Studies

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Pölönen, Ismo Quality control and the substan- 2006 Environmental Impact Assessment This paper focuses on the challenges concerning the quality assurance of envi-
tive influence of environmental Review 26, pp. 481-491 ronmental impact statements (EIS) in Finland and the European Union. More-
impact assessment in Finland over, the linkage between environmental impact assessment and decision-
making is examined from a legal point of view. In addition, the paper
includes some comparative remarks concerning the content requirements of ex-
amination of alternatives. The study reveals that a significant problem of the
Finnish EIA system is the lack of efficient access to a judicial procedure to chal-
lenge the quality and completeness of an EIS. Another pitfall is the fact that in
certain permit procedures, environmental consideration is so limited that only a
minor part of the EIA can be taken into account. In its current state, EIA legisla-
tion in the EU and in Finland does not guarantee that the assessment results filter
into decision-making. From the national point of view, the shortcomings can be
addressed by amending current legislation concerning licensing procedures so
that authorities have the competence and the duty to take environmental matters
widely into account in the permit consideration. At the European level, a legisla-
tive alternative could be to strengthen the substantive element of the EIA Direc-
tive (85/337/EEC). This would increase the weight of EIA related arguments in
the national appellate procedures and contribute, in some cases significantly, to
the substantive influence of EIA in decision-making.
Pritchard, G., The effect of environmental as- 1995 Mineral Planning 65 (December), This study of eight EIAs found that developers felt that ‘the preparation of the
C. Wood, and sessment on extractive industry pp. 14-16 ES had cost them too much time and money, and that the large amounts of work
C.E. Jones planning decisions involved in EA often yielded few tangible benefits in terms of the actual plan-
ning decision reached” (cited in Glasson et al., 2005, p. 234).
 Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 65

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Radnai, A., Environmental Impact Assess- 2000 In: Bellinger, E., et al.(eds.)¸ Envi- A new EIA system was introduced in Hungary in 1993. “The establishment of
and Z. Mon- ment Implementation in Hun- ronmental Assessment in Countries the necessary legal, administrative and educational arrangements took place
dok gary in Transition. CEU Press, Budapest more or less simultaneously with the adoption of the regulation. At the beginning
(p. 57-62) of application particularly it was confusing and slowed down the procedure. An-
other efficiency decreasing factor was very tight administrative deadlines for the
authorities. This meant a lack of in-depth analysis of issues and it often resulted
in too general or superficial terms of reference for the detailed assessment. It also
occurred that either the authorities have demanded unnecessary data or measures,
or the submitted EIS contained a vast amount of unimportant information. As
well as the previously mentioned reason, this is partly due to the intention of
both authorities and proponents to ‘simplify’ the procedure, which actually
means ignoring scoping.
On the other hand, in several cases the EIA procedure has promoted better co-
operation among the concerned authorities and the proponent. Where regular
contacts took place among the concerned parties the EIA was properly focused
and it was easier to identify a mutually acceptable solution. The introduction of
the new EIA regulation has produced beneficial impacts in several sectoral plan-
ning systems, enforcing broader consideration of environmental factors and also
giving impetus to elaborate sectoral environmental guidelines.”
 66 Institute for Environmental Studies

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Ross, W.A., Common sense in environ- 2006 Impact Assessment and Project Ap- Reviews of environmental impact assessment (EIA) practice, particularly by in-
Morrison- mental impact assessment: it is praisal 24 (1), pp. 3-22 dustrial proponents, have highlighted common shortfalls. EIA would benefit
Saunders, a., not as common as it should be from more ‘common sense’, which is not very common. For example, issue
Marshall, R. scoping usually includes too many inconsequential factors, and issues not di-
rectly affecting project decisions. There is special emphasis on the problem of
regulators’ unwillingness to be decisive on what matters are to be addressed
through EIA. Consideration of significance is often vague, misleading or incon-
sistent and the criteria for significance are often poorly explained, contradictory
or insufficiently assessed. Quality of environmental impact statements (EISs)
leaves much to be desired, with EIS documents of little use to stakeholders. EIA
guidance is a possible solution but is not always focused or applied sensibly. The
article suggests more effective signals from government EIA regulators to pro-
ject proponents to overcome these difficulties, with the primary intention to
evoke discussion and provoke practitioners to take up the fight to improve the
quality and integrity of EIAs.
Ruijgrok, E., Kostenbesparing door samen- 2004 KenMERken 11 (5), October 2004, Argues that costs can be saved in cases where both EIA and cost benefit assess-
and D. Bel werking pp. 8-11 ment (CBA) procedures have to be performed, by using the same information
sources as much as possible. This requires co-operation between the EIA and
CBA teams.
 Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 67

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Saarikosi, H. Environmental Impact Assess- 2000 Environmental Impact Assessment The study points to the EIA as a learning and civic discovery process where
ment as collaborative learning Review 20, pp. 681-700 people can act together and find new solutions. During the process, the par-
process ticipants are able to reflect on their preferences and factual beliefs and create
a previously unconsidered strategy. These insights are based on the collabo-
rative problem-solving approach that was applied to environmental impact
assessment of regional waste management strategy in Pirkanmaa, Finland.
Various actors—interest groups, authorities, and experts—were invited to
engage in joint fact finding and to exchange their views on the goals of al-
ternative waste management strategies.
The potential for learning and finding mutually acceptable solutions de-
pended, however, on the legitimacy and institutional settings of the process:
to what extent different perspectives were considered in the process, not only
included, and how EIA was connected to a political decision-making process.
Sadler, B. Environmental assessment in a 1996 Final report. International study of EIA is seen as contributing directly to sustainability by leading to the withdrawal
changing world: evaluating the effectiveness of environmental of environmentally unsound proposals and the mitigation of environmental im-
practice to improve perform- assessment, CEAA, Hull, Quebec pacts. The indirect benefits are also important. EIA is a learning process, provid-
ance ing important benefits beyond informing decision makers, such as the promotion
of greater awareness of environmental and social concerns, upgrading of porfes-
sional capabilities, and promoting public involvement in decision making (p. ii-
iii; quoted in Wood, 1999).
According to a majority of EIA practitioners, the benefits of EIA tend to out-
weigh the costs of application (“always”: 17 per cent; “often”: 32 per cent;
“sometimes”: 31 per cent) (quoted in Emmelin, 1998, p. 138, figure 2 and note
7).
 68 Institute for Environmental Studies

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Sadler, B. Ex-post evaluation of the effec- 1998 In: Porter, A.L. and Fittipaldi, J.J., This paper provides a brief review of approaches and methods for ex-post
tiveness of environmental as- Editors, 1998. Environmental evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the Environmental Assessment (EA)
sessment. methods review: retooling impact process and describes recent examples of their application. It identifies six types
assessment for the new century, or categories of effectiveness review:
The Press Club, Fargo, ND, pp. 30– ▪ auditing and reporting for EA systems;
40. ▪ implementation review and follow up studies;
▪ effects monitoring and impact auditing;
▪ review of EIS quality;
▪ decision-centered analysis;
▪ post-project analysis.
Includes a number of recommendations for improvement of effectiveness re-
views. No specific reference to costs or benefits.
Sadler, B., Country Status Reports on En- 1997 Environmental Impact Assessment Internationally, most EIA reports cost less than USD 100,000 and are processed
and R. Ver- vironmental Impact Assessment Commission, Utrecht, The Nether- in less than 18 months (p. 14; quoted in Wood, 1999).
heem lands
Sager, F., and Evaluation der Umweltver- 2003 Bern This evaluation examines the effects of EIAs on the implementation of en-
W. Schenkel. träglichkeitsprüfung vironmental protection regulations and develops concrete proposals for im-
provements using relevant case studies. The study discusses the effects of the
EIAs on projects themselves, as well as effects on procedure. The study found
that EIAs positively impact projects with respect to environmental concerns. At
the building phase, the study determined that effects from construction were bet-
ter clarified when an EIA was undertaken than when no EIA was done. Fur-
thermore, in some cases negative effects from building were more mitigated un-
der the EIA process than without an EIA. Cost-benefit analysis was undertaken
in the case studies used in this publication and is discussed in terms of long-term
and short-term monetary values; however, cost-benefit analysis was not a central
theme of the study. The study found that the cost issue was less of an issue with
big projects than with smaller ones. The study also identifies weaknesses of the
current EIA process.
 Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 69

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Stookes, P. Getting to the real EIA 2003 Journal of Environmental Law 15 The paper discusses mostly the benefits and circumstances of the public partici-
(2), pp. 141-152 pation element of the EIA process, with a focus on the situation in the UK. Costs
and benefits are mentioned but only as a summary of the results of the EC study
on costs and benefits of the EIA (1996).
Ten Heuvel- The effects of environmental 1997 Project Appraisal 12 (1), pp. 25–30 Summarizes the results of the second evaluation of the Dutch EIA system. In
hof, E., and C. impact assessment in the Neth- 79% of the cases studied, EIA appeared to have had a direct [Link] decision
Nauta erlands making. It was also investigated whether EIAs had a ‘net beneficial impact’, i.e.
if the efforts, costs and time involved were compensated for by the impact
achieved. According to respondents (including initiators, authorities and inde-
pendent experts) there was a net beneficial impact impact in 69% of the cases.
Tennoi, A., Uncertainty in environmental 2006 Impact Assessment and Project Ap- Uncertainty is almost unavoidable in environmental impact assessment (EIA)
Kværner, J., impact assessment predictions: praisal 24 (1), pp. 45-56 predictions, for complex and manifold reasons. In this paper, evidence is pre-
Gjerstad, K.I. the need for better communica- sented that decision-makers and other stakeholders are often not made aware that
tion and more transparency such uncertainty exists. Also, they are given only limited access to information
about input data and the assumptions underlying predictions. It is argued that
more emphasis should be given to improving the communication of uncertainty
in EIA predictions and to making the prediction processes more transparent in
order to improve EIA as a decision-aiding tool. The discussion is based on a
study including 22 cases.
Varma, A. Costs and benefits of the EIA 2007? GHK consulting GHK consulting is commissioned by DG Enterprise to write a study on costs and
Directive benefits of the EIA Directive.
Wattage P.; Integrating environmental im- 2000 Impact Assessment and Project Ap- The article calculates the costs and benefits of river quality improvement and
Smith A.; pact, contingent valuation and praisal, 18 (1), pp. 5-14 does not consider costs and benefits of the EIA process itself.
Pitts C.; cost–benefit analysis: empirical
McDonald A.; evidence for an alternative per-
Kay D spective
Weaver, A., Environmental Impact Assess- 1999 In: Petts (ed., 1999), chapter 18, pp. Lists the potential benefits of EIA for mining projects to different stakeholders,
and P. Cald- ment for Mining Projects 377-403 without substantiating evidence or any attempt to quantify them.
well
 70 Institute for Environmental Studies

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Wende, W. Praxis der Umweltverträglich- 2001 Berlin This book analyses 145 projects undertaken in Germany to evaluate the effec-
keitsprüfung und ihr Einfluss tiveness of EIAs. By using projects where EIAs were not done as well as pro-
auf Zulassungsverfahren jects where EIAs were undertaken, the author establishes that EIAs have a posi-
tive effect on potentially significant environmental impacts surrounding devel-
opment. The author uses the extent of spatial modifications after an EIA is done
to determine the effectiveness of an EIA. The study determined that EIAs cause
more spatial modifications to a project than a project that has no EIA. However,
the study determined that EIAs do not significantly impact decisions surrounding
emissions and water restrictions. See summary below for other determinations
of the study.
Wende, W. Evaluation of the effectiveness 2002 Impact Assessment and Project Ap- This study uses empirical research of 145 projects on environmental impact as-
and quality of environmental praisal 20 (2), pp. 93-99(7) sessment (EIA). The researchers generated and tested hypotheses based on ques-
impact assessment in the Fed- tions about the effectiveness and quality of EIA. By means of EIA, aspects of
eral Republic of Germany proactive thinking have entered into procedural decisions more than previously
presumed and modifications in the spatial dimensions of projects have played an
especially prominent role. The three most important factors affecting the scale of
general project modifications are: the degree to which the subject matter and
methodological aspects of a study are prescribed by §5 of the EIA Act (Scop-
ing); the early, intense involvement of authorities, experts, and third parties in
the scoping; and the degree to which the project’s effects and impacts are ana-
lyzed and forecast in the environmental impact study (EIS). EIA and EIS prac-
tice has moved beyond the ‘experimental phase’ and routines have now emerged
for certain parts of the procedure. The study concludes that EIAs in Germany are
improving in quality, as the percentage of elaborate EISs has increased over
time, while the percentage of superficial EISs has declined.
 Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 71

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Weston, J. Consultants in the EIA process 1995 Environmental Policy and Practice Some consultants feel that EIA slows down the decision-making process, im-
5 (3), pp. 131-134 poses additional costs on developers and is a means through which local plan-
ning authorities can make unreasonable demands on developers to provide de-
tailed information on issues “which are not strictly relevant to the planning deci-
sion”. On the benefits side, about three quarters of the consultants surveyed felt
that EIA had brought about at least some improvements in environmental protec-
tion, primarily through the incorporation of mitigation measures early in project
design and the higher regard given to environmental issues. However, other con-
sultants felt that the system is “often a sham with EISs full of platitudes” (cited
in Glasson et al., 2005, p. 234-235).
Woloszyn, W. Environmental impact assess- 2000 In: Bellinger, E., et al.(eds.)¸ Envi- Considers the Polish EIA system to be rather ineffective. “…EIA in Poland is
ment in Poland ronmental Assessment in Countries focused on its role in environmental analysis and it has little opportunity to in-
in Transition. CEU Press, Budapest fluence planning or project design and management.” (p. 102). However, im-
(p. 95-104) provements have been introduced in the amendment of the Environmental Pro-
tection Act (adopted by Parliament on 30 June 1997).
Woloszyn, W. Evolution of environmental im- 2004 Impact Assessment and Project Ap- This paper examines the evolution of the concept and legal framework for the
pact assessment in Poland: praisal 22 (2), pp. 109-119 EIA process in Poland and their potential influences on an effective EIA practice
problems and prospects in the country. No specific reference to costs or benefits.
Wood, C. Comparative Evaluation of EIA 1999 In: Petts (ed., 1999), pp. 10-34 Compares 8 EIA systems (USA, California, UK, The Netherlands, Canada, Aus-
Systems tralia, Western Australia and New Zealand). Despite the differences in each of
these systems, there appears to be virtual unanimity of view that the benefits of
all 8 EIA systems outweigh their costs. Delay rather than cost is themain criti-
cism in most EIA systems.
 72 Institute for Environmental Studies

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Wood, C. Environmental Impact Assess- 1995; Pearson, Harlow (UK) Chapter 18 is entitled: “Benefits and costs of EIA systems”. It contains informa-
ment: A Comparative Review 2nd tion on benefits and costs in the USA, UK, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New
ed.: Zealand and South Africa. Generally, the main direct benefits of EIA are related
2003 to modifications to the proposed project as a result of the EIA (e.g. change in
project design or mitigation of negative environmental impacts). In addition, in-
direct benefits widely observed include increased awareness and knowledge.
Costs are usually below 1% of total project costs (the percentage tends to de-
crease with the size of the project). The main cost, however, (not included in this
figure) is the delay which EIA may sometimes cause. Nevertheless, in all coun-
tries concerned the majority of stakeholders appears to agree that the benefits of
EIA outweigh its costs.
Wood, C., and The Effect of Environmental 1997 Urban Studies 34, pp. 1237-1257. Environmental assessment (EA) is intended to ensure that environmental consid-
C.E. Jones Assessment on UK Local Plan- erations are properly weighed in the decisions made by local planning authorities
ning Authority Decisions (LPAs) on planning applications. This paper analyses whether, to what extent,
and how, EA has influenced LPA decisions. Forty case studies were analyzed by
examining relevant documentation and conducting interviews with participants
in the EA process. EA appears to have had a gradual rather than a revolutionary
effect on decision -making. Its main benefits have been the enhanced provision
of environmental information and, to a lesser extent, assistance in setting condi-
tions and in modifying proposals. However, these benefits are not occurring in
all cases, and changes are needed if the expected advantages of EA (better inte-
gration of environmental considerations into project planning and decision-
making) are to be fully realized in the UK.
 Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive 73

Author(s) Title Year Publisher, journal, report no. etc. Short description
Wood, G. EIA Scoping in England Wales: 2006 Environmental Impact assessment Based on a survey of EIA practitioners this study provides a detailed empiri-
Practitioners Approaches, Per- Review 26, pp. 221-241 cal investigation and assessment of recent scoping activity in England and
spectives and Constraints Wales, in the context of evolving European Union (EU) regulations. Concep-
tual and contextual issues associated with scoping are outlined prior to the
presentation of key findings, including: approaches to scoping; time spent for
scoping; the assessment of significance; characteristics and influence of con-
sultation; and perceived constraints to scoping. The paper concludes with an
overview of findings, possible explanatory factors, and recommendations for
future practice.
Zetter, J. Environmental Impact Assess- 1997 In: J. Holder (ed.), The Impact of Refers to ‘unpublished research’, suggesting that the costs of EIA range from 0.1
ment: Has it had an Impact? EC Environmental Law in the to 0.5% of total development costs (acknowledging that these costs are difficult
United Kingdom. John Wiley and to disentangle from the total costs of the planning procedure). Concludes that
Sons, Chichester, pp. 257-266. “generally costs and longer timescales are unlikely to be significant”.
74 Institute for Environmental Studies

Appendix II. Additional information on selected countries

A. BIO (2006): Cost and benefits of the implementation of the EIA directive in Spain
B. BIO (2006): Cost and benefits of the implementation of the EIA directive in France
C. Ecologic: Interview notes with researchers on EIA evaluation in Germany (Führ et al.,
2007)
D. Extensive summary of Njål et al. (2005) on Norway
E. Extensive summary of Obroučka et al. (2005) on the Czech Republic