AQE V4

Transcription

AQE V4

ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY
OF THE ENVIRONMENT
IN THE V4 COUNTRIES
editor: Slávka Gałaś
2014
OF THE ENVIRONMENT
IN THE V4 COUNTRIES
Project AQE V4 team
Slávka Gałaś
AGH University of Science and Technology, Krakow, Poland
Andrzej Gałaś
AGH University of Science and Technology, Krakow, Poland
Martina Zelenáková
Technical University of Košice, Slovakia
Lenka Zvijáková
Technical University of Košice, Slovakia
Jitka Fialová
Mendel University in Brno, the Czech Republic
Hana Kubícková
Miloslav Šlezingr
Judit Házi
Hungarian Biological Society, Hungary
Károly Penksza
Hungarian Biological Society, Hungary
OF THE ENVIRONMENT
IN THE V4 COUNTRIES
2014
Published by AGH University of Science and Technology Press, Krakow, Poland
© Wydawnictwa AGH
Krakow 2014
ISBN 978-83-7464-678-9
Editor-in-Chief: Jan Sas
Editorial Committee:
Zbigniew Kąkol (Chairman)
Marek Cała
Borys Mikułowski
Tadeusz Sawik
Mariusz Ziółko
Reviewers: doc. RNDr. Katarína Pavličková, CSc., Comenius University in Bratislava
dr inż. Janusz Bohatkiewicz, Lublin University of Technology
Editing and printing financed by the International Visegrad Fund as a part of the project
“Assessment of the Quality of the Environment in the V4 Countries”
Translated by: Marek Niemiec
Desktop Publishing: Wydawnictwo JAK
Cover design: Alchemy Creative Studio
All publications and documents
created as a part of the project are available
on the project website: www.environ.agh.edu.pl
Publisher Office
Wydawnictwa AGH
Tel. +48 12 617 32 28, tel./fax +48 12 636 40 38
e-mail: [email protected]
http://www.wydawnictwa.agh.edu.pl
Contents
Wstęp................................................................................................................................
7
Introduction .....................................................................................................................
11
1.
Importance of the Environmental Impact Assessment System
in Environmental Management ............................................................................
S. Gałaś, A. Gałaś
15
2.
Process of Environmental Impact Assessment in the V4 Member Countries ... 22
S. Gałaś, A. Gałaś, M. Zeleňáková, L. Zvijáková, J. Fialová, H. Kubíčková, J. Házi
3.
Comparing the Phase of Screening in the Fields of Tourism and Recreation,
Water Management and Mining in the V4 Countries ........................................ 33
4.
Research Methodology the Survey “Assessment of the Quality
of the Environment in the V4 Countries” ............................................................ 51
5.
Analysis and Evaluation of the Survey in the V4 Member Countries .............. 58
6.
Analysis of Phenomena Correlation .....................................................................
7.
Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................... 104
8.
Conclusions and Recommendations in Language of Each V4 Country ............ 109
87
Annex 1. Glossary of Basic Concepts Related to the EIA Procedure ......................... 127
Annex 2. The Methods Applied to the EIA Process in Poland, Slovakia
and the Czech Republic ......................................................................................... 131
Annex 3. The Questionnaires in Language of Each V4 Country ............................... 135
Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 161
List of Figures .................................................................................................................. 164
List of Tables.................................................................................................................... 166
5
Wstęp
Ocena oddziaływania na środowisko (ang. Environmental Impact Assessment – EIA)
należy do najważniejszych instrumentów w zarządzaniu środowiskiem. W procedurze, w której
biorą udział zarówno instytucje, specjaliści, jak i społeczeństwo, po latach udoskonaleń proces
oceny doczekał się systemowych rozwiązań i przejrzystej formy. W Unii Europejskiej (UE)
stosowane są podobne rozwiązania, co pozwala przewidzieć negatywne wpływy na środowisko
planowanych przedsięwzięć, w tym i transgraniczne oddziaływania, a także im przeciwdziałać.
W poszczególnych krajach wypracowano również wyraźne kryteria ocen oddziaływania na
obszarach należących do Europejskiej Sieci Ekologicznej Natura 2000. Mimo wielu zalet
procedur w niniejszej monografii starano się wskazać problemy, które można rozwiązać lepiej, wykorzystując doświadczenia zdobyte w krajach Grupy Wyszehradzkiej (V4): Polsce,
Słowacji, Czechach oraz na Węgrzech.
O konieczności zmian w procedurze EIA świadczyć może stanowisko przedstawione
w Sprawozdaniu Komisji dla Rady Parlamentu Europejskiego, Europejskiego Komitetu
Ekonomiczno-Społecznego i Komitetu Regionów w sprawie stosowania i skuteczności dyrektywy EIA – dyrektywa 85/337/EWG, zmieniona dyrektywami 97/11/WE, 2003/35/WE
(Report from the Commission..., 2009) oraz 2009/31/WE. Jedną z kwestii poruszanych w tym
sprawozdaniu są trudności w funkcjonowaniu procedury transgranicznej EIA. Wynikają one
przede wszystkim z różnic w krajowych procedurach dotyczących klasyfikacji przedsięwzięcia do obligatoryjnego przeprowadzenia postępowania EIA, w etapach procesu planowania
przedsięwzięcia, jak i w czasie trwania poszczególnych etapów. Oczywiście należy brać też
pod uwagę bariery językowe.
Na problemy pojawiające się przy wdrażaniu dyrektywy EIA, dotyczące procesu preselekcji przedsięwzięć, niewystarczającej jakości dokumentacji oraz udziału społeczeństwa,
wskazuje też „Wniosek dyrektywy Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady” dotyczący proponowanej
zmiany dyrektywy 2011/92/EU w sprawie oceny skutków wywieranych przez niektóre przedsięwzięcia publiczne i prywatne na środowisko naturalne (Proposal for a directive..., 2012).
W opracowaniu starano się uwzględnić te zagadnienia oraz zaproponować rozstrzygnięcia
odpowiednie dla państw V4 (i opcjonalnie pozostałych krajów UE) na podstawie przykładów
rozwiązywania problemów w innych krajach.
Niniejsza monografia prezentuje wyniki empirycznych badań realizowanych w ramach
projektu międzynarodowego “Assessment of the Quality of the Environment in the V4 Countries (AQE V4)”, współfinansowanego przez Międzynarodowy Fundusz Wyszehradzki.
7
Assesment of the Quality of the Environment in the V4 Countries
Celem projektu jest ułatwienie i promowanie współpracy między krajami Grupy Wyszehradzkiej: Polską, Słowacją, Czechami oraz Węgrami w działaniach naukowych, badawczych,
praktycznych oraz edukacyjnych w zakresie ocen oddziaływania na środowisko. W procedurze
ocen oddziaływania kluczową rolę odgrywa znajomość zasobów, walorów, stanu środowiska
oraz jego wrażliwości na antropopresję. W szczególnych przypadkach EIA powinna obejmować
wielokierunkową oraz kompleksową analizę oraz ocenę istniejącego stanu środowiska (jakości
środowiska) oraz jakości życia człowieka i jego bezpieczeństwa. Określenie jakości środowiska
w tzw. stanie zerowym, a więc przed rozpoczęciem realizacji planowanego przedsięwzięcia,
pozwala właściwie ocenić znaczenie oddziaływania. W analizie porealizacyjnej umożliwia
faktyczną ocenę zmian stanu środowiska, a dodatkowo służy określeniu odpowiedzialności
za poszczególne negatywne skutki. Na podstawie tej oceny można wskazać działania minimalizujące negatywny wpływ przedsięwzięć na środowisko lub działania kompensacyjne.
Uwzględniając wymienione kwestie oceny stanu środowiska, do głównych zadań projektu
zaliczono poprawę procesu oceny oddziaływania na środowisko i wymianę dobrych praktyk
w funkcjonowaniu tego procesu pomiędzy państwami V4, a także poszerzenie współpracy
między specjalistami w tej dziedzinie. Współpraca ta ma na celu udoskonalenie transferu
wiedzy i doświadczeń między krajami partnerskimi.
Głównym koordynatorem projektu realizowanego w latach 2012–2013 jest dr inż. Slávka
Gałaś z Akademii Górniczo-Hutniczej w Krakowie, Polska (PL), a kierownikami zespołów
partnerskich projektu są odpowiednio: dr hab. Martina Zeleňáková z Uniwersytetu Technicznego w Koszycach, Słowacja (SVK), dr hab. Miloslav Šlezingr z Uniwersytetu im. Mendla
w Brnie, Czechy (CZ) oraz dr Károly Penksza z Węgierskiego Towarzystwa Biologicznego, Węgry (HU). W ramach współpracy odbyły się trzy spotkania robocze wykonawców
partnerów, połączone z międzynarodowymi naukowymi konferencjami w Starej Leśnej na
Słowacji, w Budapeszcie na Węgrzech oraz w Brnie w Czechach. Spotkania służyły przede
wszystkim przedstawieniu cząstkowych wyników oraz uzgodnieniu dalszych działań według
harmonogramu projektu. W ramach tych spotkań ustalono między innymi treść kwestionariusza stanowiącego część badania ankietowego, realizowanego równocześnie we wszystkich
krajach V4. Wyjaśniano także szczegółowe różnice w przebiegu procesu EIA w poszczególnych państwach. Wszystkie dokumenty powstałe w ramach realizacji projektu dostępne są
na stronie internetowej projektu: www.environ.agh.edu.pl.
Praca podzielona jest na osiem rozdziałów. W pierwszym rozdziale omówiono znaczenie procedury EIA w zarządzaniu środowiskiem, w kontekście obszarów Natura 2000 oraz
w ramach transgranicznej oceny oddziaływania na środowisko. Przedstawiono też podstawy
prawne działania EIA w krajach V4. Drugi rozdział przedstawia szczegółowo różnice w procedurze EIA, wynikające z zapisów w krajowych ustawach, w poszczególnych państwach V4.
W trzeciej części pracy dokonano oceny etapu screeningu pod względem stosowanych progów
i limitów w wybranych przedsięwzięciach z zakresu górnictwa, gospodarki wodnej oraz turystyki i rekreacji. Czwarty rozdział przedstawia metodykę pracy dotyczącą przygotowania,
realizacji oraz przetworzenia zebranych danych badania ankietowego. Do rozdziału dołączono
kwestionariusz ankiety. W piątym i szóstym rozdziale dokonano analizy i oceny wyników
ankietowania uzyskanych w poszczególnych państwach, ogólnie jako całej grupy V4 oraz
za pomocą analizy statystycznej pod względem określenia wzajemnych relacji pomiędzy
8
Wstęp
wybranymi badanymi zmiennymi (we współpracy z panią Justyną Stefaniak z firmy Data
Management and Statistical Analysis) we wszystkich państwach Grupy Wyszehradzkiej.
Ostatni rozdział pracy przedstawiono także w ojczystych językach krajów V4. Obejmuje on
podsumowanie, wnioski i zalecenia wynikające z przeprowadzonych analiz oraz ocen procesu EIA. W formie zaleceń przedstawiono dobre praktyki wypracowane przez poszczególne
kraje. Na końcu monografii zamieszczono słownik podstawowych pojęć procesu EIA oraz
kwestionariusze w językach ojczystych krajów V4.
Praca nad projektem pozwoliła na wymianę myśli i wiedzy pomiędzy specjalistami
z różnych krajów. Uzyskane wyniki projektu „AQE V4” oraz przewidywane zmiany obowiązujących uregulowań prawnych EIA są dla wykonawców projektu i autorów niniejszej
monografii bodźcem do dalszych prac i kontynuowania współpracy w zakresie między
innymi wypracowania wspólnej metodyki postępowania transgranicznego oraz w innych
aspektach EIA.
***
Realizatorzy projektu AQE V4 pragną serdecznie podziękować wszystkim uczestnikom
badania internetowego w Polsce, na Słowacji, w Czechach i na Węgrzech za przekazanie swoich spostrzeżeń, doświadczeń i opinii dotyczących procesu EIA, które tworzą podstawę tego
opracowania. Podziękowania należą się ekspertom, którzy poświęcili swój czas na konsultacje
i wyjaśnienia szczegółów dotyczących procesu i procedury EIA w poszczególnych państwach,
przede wszystkim panu Zdenkowi Skoumalowi z Uniwersytetu im. Mendla w Brnie.
Szczególne podziękowania należą się doc. RNDr. Kataríne Pavličkovej, CSc., oraz
dr. inż. Januszowi Bohatkiewiczowi za niezwykle rzetelne recenzje redakcyjne oraz udostępnione materiały, które wpłynęły na wartość merytoryczną niniejszej pracy.
Podziękowania składane są również Międzynarodowemu Funduszowi Wyszehradzkiemu
za udzielone wsparcie finansowe projektu, a tym samym przyczynienie się do pogłębienia
współpracy oraz rozwoju państw należących do grupy V4.
Kierownik projektu oraz główny autor
Slávka Gałaś
AGH Akademia Górniczo-Hutnicza im. S. Staszica w Krakowie
Polska
Introduction
The process of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) is one of the most important
instruments applied for environmental management. After several years of improvements, it
has become a procedure which involves institutions, experts and the public and which has
become a system solution with a transparent form. It is used in a similar manner throughout
the European Union (EU), which allows to predict and prevent negative impacts on the environment of the planned projects, including the ones with the cross-border environmental
impact. Clear criteria for impact assessment in areas belonging to the European Ecological
Network Natura 2000 have also been developed. Despite many advantages there are still
some weaknesses of the procedure. This study has been an attempt to identify such problems
and to show how they can be improved by using the experience gained in the four Visegrad
countries (V4): Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary.
The position presented in the Report from the Commission... which was submitted to
the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and
the Committee of the Regions on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive
– Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directives 97/11/EC, 2003/35/EC (Report from
the Commission..., 2009) and 2009/31/EC proves the necessity of changes in the EIA procedure. Comments on difficulties related to the cross-border application of the EIA were one
of the issues raised in the report. Those difficulties have mainly resulted from differences in
national procedures which classify whether a given project should be the subject to the mandatory EIA procedure at the planning stages of the said project as well as in the given time
intervals of each stage. Of course language barriers should also be taken into consideration.
The Proposal of the Directive of the European Parliament and the Council concerning
the proposed amendment to the Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the impact on
the environment of certain public and private projects (Proposal for a directive..., 2012) also
indicated problems in implementation of the EIA Directive concerning the pre-selection
process, insufficient quality of documentation and the public participation. The present
study, by providing examples how such problems have been solved in different countries,
tries to face those issues and to suggest solutions appropriate to the V4 countries and optionally to the other EU countries.
This monograph presents the results of empirical research studies which have been
conducted in the framework of the international project “Assessment of the Quality of
the Environment in the V4 Countries (AQE V4)”, co-financed by the International Visegrad
11
Fund. The aim of the project was to facilitate and promote cooperation between the Visegrad
Four countries: Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary, in scientific, research,
practical and educational activities in the field of the environmental impact assessment.
Knowledge about resources, values, state and sensitivity of elements of the environment plays
the crucial role in the procedure of impact assessment. In some particular cases, EIA should
include multi-directional, complex analysis and assessment of the actual state – quality of
the environment as well as human life quality and safety. Determination of the environment
quality at so called initial stage which is prior beginning of the project enables to determine
significance and importance of the impact. It also allows to assess real environmental impact
and additionally to determine responsibility for particular negative impacts. The assessment
can be the base for finding measures minimising the negative impact of the project and
to find compensation activities. The main tasks of the project which relate to the above
mentioned aspects of the assessment include: improvement of the process of environmental
impact assessment and exchange of good practices in the functioning of the procedure
among the V4 countries as well as expanding cooperation among specialists in the field.
The co-operation is supposed to improve the transfer of knowledge and experience among
the partner countries.
Slávka Gałaś from the AGH University of Science and Technology, Krakow, Poland
(PL) has been the main coordinator of the project, which has been carried out in the period
of 2012/2013 and Martina Zeleňáková from the Technical University of Košice, Slovakia
(SVK), Miloslav Šlezingr from the Mendel University in Brno, the Czech Republic (CZ)
and Károly Penksza from the Hungarian Biological Society, Hungary (HU) have been
the leaders of the project partner teams. As a part of the study cooperation, three working meetings combined with scientific conferences were held in Stará Lesná, Slovakia, in
Budapest, Hungary and in Brno, the Czech Republic. The meetings, supported by email
correspondence, were mainly used to present and confront partial results and to agree on
further actions according to the project schedule. Contents of the questionnaire for the survey, which was carried out simultaneously in all V4 countries had been prepared during
the meetings. Differences in the EIA procedures in each country were also explained in
details. All documents prepared within the frame of the project are available on the project
website: www.environ.agh.edu.pl
The study has been divided into eight basic parts. The first chapter discusses the importance of the EIA in environmental management both in relation to Natura 2000 sites
and considering cross-border impact assessment. The section also includes the legislatives
related to the EIA procedures in the V4 countries. The second chapter refers to the above
mentioned issues and presents in detail the differences in the EIA procedure resulting from
regulations of the national laws in each V4 country. In the third part of the study the screening stage has been evaluated in relation to the applicable thresholds and limits for selected
projects in the field of mining, water management, tourism and recreation. The fourth
chapter presents the work methodology related to preparation, execution and processing of
the collected survey data and the enclosed survey questionnaire. In the fifth and the sixth
chapters, the obtained survey results from each country and generally from the whole V4
group have been analysed. The results have also been statistically analysed and evaluated
12
Introduction
to determine relations between the selected (in cooperation with Mrs. Justin Stefaniak from
the Data Management and Statistical Analysis), investigated variables in all V4 countries.
The last chapter of the study contains a summary, conclusions and recommendations arising
from the analyses and the evaluation of the EIA procedures. The contents are presented in
the native languages of all V4 countries. The good practices implemented in each country
are presented in the form of recommendations. The study is completed with a glossary of
basic concepts related to the EIA procedure and the questionnaire in the native language
of each V4 country.
The project, that has been carried out, helped to establish mutual ways of exchanging
ideas and knowledge between professionals from different countries. The obtained results of
the “AQE V4” project and the planned changes in the existing EIA regulations have provided
motivation for the project team members and the authors of this monograph for further work
and further cooperation in such areas as developing a mutual methodology of the cross-border
procedures and other aspects of the EIA.
***
The members of the AQE V4 project team would like to thank all the respondents who
participated in the Internet survey in Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary,
for providing their insights, experiences and opinions on the EIA procedures, which gave
them the base for the study. Thanks should also go to the experts who devoted their time to
consult and explain the details of the EIA processes and procedures in particular countries,
especially dr. eng. Zdeněk Skoumal from the Mendel University, Brno, the Czech Republic.
Special thanks are due to doc. RNDr. Katarína Pavličková, CSc., and dr. eng. Janusz
Bohatkiewicz for extremely diligent editorial reviews and providing materials which significantly influenced the contents of the monograph.
Additional thanks go to the International Visegrad Fund for the financial support given to
the project, thus contributing to deepening cooperation and development of the V4 countries.
Project coordinator and lead author
Slávka Gałaś
AGH University of Science and Technology
Krakow, Poland
1. Importance of
the Environmental Impact Assessment System
in Environmental Management
The idea for a system of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was established in
the early 1970’s in the United States, where it was decided that all investments at the federal
level would be preceded by an environmental impact assessment (National Environmental
Policy Act – NEPA). The adopted name of this assessment was Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the environmental effects of certain public
and private projects and it was enacted in the European Union in 1985. The main objective
of the EIA was to determine the impact of the planned economic activity on the environment
and to avoid irreversible effects, loss of resources, hazards to human health. The EIA development coincided with a new philosophy of further economic development in the world. The
effects of environmental changes, reports on environmental disasters presented at the United
Nations conference in Stockholm in 1972 prompted the creation of an idea of sustainable
development. The basic idea of the trend was to take into consideration all natural resources
in economic activities and to take care of the environment and human health. Ever since, it
has found its way in the legislation of many countries, within both industrial and developing
regions of the world.
At that time, Poland (PL), Slovakia (SVK), the Czech Republic (CZ) and Hungary
(HU), the countries which currently comprise the Visegrad Group (V4), were the members
of the Communist Block, where economic development was achieved inter alia at the expense of nature. Industrial development based on extraction and processing of raw materials
caused expansion which covered more and more new areas at the beginning of the 1970’s.
This resulted in rapid degradation of ecosystems and sometimes led to ecological disasters.
Although the problem was recognized in all the countries, the threat to the environment and
protection issues were regarded as ones of secondary or even tertiary importance. Dissolution of
the Communist Block in 1989 brought a breakthrough in the implementation of environmental
protection. Political and economic changes forced development of the EIA methodology,
but joining the European Union by V4 countries and ratification of the Council Directive
85/337/EEC of 27th June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment, changed by the Directive of the Council 97/11/EC and Directives of the European Parliament and the Council 2003/35/EC, 2009/31/EC became a real
milestone. The original EIA Directive and its three subsequent revisions had been combined
to create a more compact, clearly translated and user-friendly version which came into force
on 17th February 2012 – EIA Directive 2011/92/EU (Directive EIA).
15
Preparation of planning documents, plans and programs, strategies, policies preceded
by a procedure called a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) remained as tools helping to achieve sustainable development. That also applied to changes made in the accepted
documents. Qualification to the procedure results from the Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment of the effects of Certain Plans and
Programmes on the environment. Strategic assessment of environmental impact was derived
from the system of environmental impact assessment carried out for single projects. The
work, based on partial results and experience of specialists, focuses on the general estimation
of the EIA process in V4 countries with special interest in processes related to individual
projects. Estimation and comparison of the SEA process in V4 countries, due to its scope,
will need further thorough analysis.
Currently, the EIA is one of the most important instruments for environmental management, in particular it allows to implement preventive environmental protection in the European Union and thus in the V4 countries. The record of the activities of the state to protect
the environment and to take responsibility for its condition appeared in the sets of fundamental
principles (the Constitution) in all V4 countries. Creation of the European Ecological Network
Natura 2000 became an opportunity to adopt similar criteria for environmental assessment and
designation of areas of special protection of birds in the V4 countries (Directive 79/409/EEC
replaced by Directive 2009/147/EC) and special protection of habitats (Directive 92/43/EEC).
The creation of the Natura 2000 sites in the V4 countries meant the possibility to finance
their protection by EU funds. It also led to the necessity to adapt the EIA process, procedure
patterns and competence of the bodies dealing with the environmental protection.
The Legal System of the EIA in the V4 Countries
In accordance with the current legal regulations, the EIA procedure in V4 is consistent,
in vast majority, with Council Directives: 2011/92/EU, 2001/42/EC, Protocol SEA (2003),
Directive 92/43/EEC and Directive 2009/147/EC. Additionally, it is complemented by
ratification of the Convention of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe signed
in Espoo (1991) on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context called
The Espoo Convention, Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context and the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in
Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters signed in Aarhus in 1998,
called the Aarhus Convention.
Initially it was expected that the EIA would apply only to investments, which meant
new objects, and changes of the objects bringing tangible profits. Much later the terminology
was adapted to the needs of implementation of environmental policy and instead of investment a word project is currently used. In accordance with the law (Directive 2011/92/EU)
a project means execution of construction works or other installations or systems and also
other interference with the natural surrounding and landscape including those involving
extraction of mineral resources.
In accordance with the regulations it is expected that such project shall be the subject
to the EIA procedure (Directive 2011/92/EU) which:
– may always have a significant effects on the environment (group I, annex I to the Directive EIA),
16
1. Importance of the Environmental Impact Assessment System in Environmental Management
– may have a potentially significant effects on the environment if they are qualified to
conduct the EIA (group II, annex II to the Directive EIA).
Additional group III of projects which may have significant impact on Natura 2000 areas
has been introduced in Poland due to the law which is in effect there (Nature Protection Act).
The projects are different than the ones from group I and II but they are not directly related to
protection of the area or they do not result from their protection. Habitat assessment limited
to investigation of the project impact on Natura 2000 area is carried out in case of projects
from the group III.
Thanks to the European Union, investors in the Member States, including the Slovak
Republic, the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary, have to meet certain minimum requirements considering the aspects including types of projects, obligations of the contractors,
the scope of the EIA, participation of the administrative bodies and the public in the procedure.
Approval of the Law on Environmental Protection and Management in 1980 which
regulated the investment process of constructions, which could have a negative impact on
the environmental elements can be assumed as the beginning of the EIA process in Poland.
Appointing of the Commission for Environmental Impact Assessment at the Ministry of
Environmental Protection in 1990 initiated a period of adjustment of the Polish law to
EU standards provided for the EIA. In 1994–1995 and further in 2001, the EIA became
a part of the environmental protection law. The Environmental Protection Law (1998)
introduced obligation to inform the public about projects that may have negative impact
on the environment. In 2008 the legislation was replaced by the new law on access to
environmental information and public participation in environmental impact assessment,
which has become a basic source of the current legislation applying to the EIA. The Law
was supplemented by the Order of the Council of Ministers of 2010 (amended in 2013)
on projects that may have significant impact on the environment. The Order defined division of projects into group I (the ones which may always have a significant impact on
the environment) and group II (the ones which may potentially have a significant impact
on the environment) (The Act of 27 April 2001, The Act of 3 October 2008, The Regulation
of the Council of Ministers of 9.11.2010 in later wording).
Environmental impact assessment was first introduced in Slovakia based on the Environment Law of 1992. The practice in EIA started developing shortly after the Law No.
127/1994 Coll. in later wording Act No. 391/2000 came into force. This Law revised in
detail the process of assessing the impacts of buildings, equipment and other activities on
the environment. The Law also regulated impact assessment of proposals for key development
concepts, land-planning documentation and general land-use law (Strategic Environmental
Assessment, internationally abbreviated SEA). Nowadays Law No. 24/2006 on Environmental
Impact Assessment and its amendments have been ordinarily in force since 1st February 2006
and regulate assessment of environmental impacts, assessment of strategic documents and
impact assessment of buildings, equipment and other activities on the environment (Act No.
24/2006 Coll., Act No. 408/2011 Coll. in later wording).
The EIA process was implemented into the legal system of the Czech Republic on 1st July
1992, upon the entry into force of the Czech National Council Act No. 244/1992 Coll., on
environmental impact assessment. The process constituted both an important element in
17
the system of preventive environmental protection instruments and, simultaneously, a significant
component of environmental policy. As of 1st January 2002, the Czech National Council Act No.
244/1992 Coll., namely its section pertaining to impact assessment of projects, was superseded
by Act No. 100/2001 Coll., on environmental impact assessment and amending some related
regulations. At present the EIA in the Czech Republic is regulated by Act No. 38/2012 Coll.,
amending Act No. 100/2001 Coll., on EIA (Act No. 100/2001 Coll., Act No. 38/2012 Coll. in
later wording).
A comprehensive regulation of the EIA came into force in Hungary in 1993. The first
explicit requirement for the EIA in Hungary was provided by the Government Decree on
the Provisional Regulation of the Environmental Impact Assessment of Certain Private and
Public Projects No. 86/1993. In Hungary the Government Decree No. 314/2005 (XII 25) on
environmental impact assessment and the integrated environmental permit stipulates the necessity of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Government Decree 86/1993, Government
Decree No. 314/2005, XII 25, in later wording).
The Objectives of the EIA
The Environmental Impact Assessment is in theory a part of the preparatory process for
implementation of certain types of projects (investments, modernization of existing facilities,
or other types of interference with the environment), which enables:
– identification of significant environmental impacts that could arise or are likely to arise
at any stage – “life cycle” – of the action (construction, operation and decommissioning),
– introduction of, at the stage of planning and designing and further implementation of
the project, appropriate measures to eliminate (prevent) any negative environmental
impacts, or at least minimizing them, if the complete exclusion thereof is not possible.
Environmental impact assessment is a systematic, comprehensive manner of conduct,
whose aim is to: identify possible consequences of human activities on the environment, and
an indication of any possible action capable of reducing the negative effects.
The EIA is used as a basis for environmental management and administrative decisions.
However, conducting an EIA is not equivalent to obtaining a permit for the project. If the EIA
procedure ends with issuing a decision indicating possibility and required conditions of
the project, it opens the way to apply for an appropriate permission, e.g. a building permit.
If it has been found, when conducting the EIA, that the project may violate the environment
condition or cause serious hazard to human health, the permission to carry on the project
is refused. That means that the investor needs to implement changes in the project and to
re-initiate the EIA.
An important objective of the EIA is also dialogue with the public. Usually interference
with the environment arouses concern in case of the health risks, loss or change of the property
value, etc. The environmental authorities inform the public of the pending proceedings and
planned methods of public consultation. The EIA provides an opportunity to share information, to guarantee satisfactory solutions for each party and to avoid social conflicts. The active
participation of citizens and environmental organizations gives them a sense of influencing
the decision-making process in their surroundings.
18
Environmental Impact Statement
One of the most important elements of the EIA is an environmental impact statement that
supplies data on the impact of the proposed activity on the environment and on human health.
It contains detailed information about the possible locations, technological variants, ways to
minimize the negative impacts and environmental monitoring. It should include information
on the impact of the project or enterprise at all stages of its existence (during construction,
operation and decommissioning). The choice of the variant of the project to be carried out
should be based on the comparison of potential impacts of all the alternatives.
The scope of the report is determined by regulations, but the environmental authority
may decide to expand it by the aspects related to the nature of the project or natural resources.
In the same way the range can be reduced. It is always required to prepare a summary in
non-technical language and in case of cross-border impact in the language of the neighbouring country.
The EIA Directive does not specify whether the authors of the EIA documentation must
have special permissions. Introduction of a function of an authorised EIA specialist is on of
the considered changes in the assessment Directive (Proposal for a directive..., 2012). Such
permissions are necessary in the Czech Republic and Hungary, they have been abandoned in
Poland and such permissions have never been necessary in Slovakia. However, it is always
assumed that the authors should possess significant knowledge of the methodology of the assessments, technologies used in the project and resources of the environment as well as health
problems of the people who will be subjected to the influence of the project. The credibility
of the conclusions and recommendations presented in the statement will depend on their
sensitivity assessment and proper valuation of those resources, places of cultural values and
historical buildings valuable to society. Therefore, teams of specialists, whose expertise approach should ensure proper quality of environmental studies, are built to prepare the reports.
The studies are the basis for the further process of issuing administrative decisions, including
location of the project, a building permit or planned development of the area.
EIA in the Context of the Natura 2000
European Ecological Network Natura 2000 aims to protect endangered valuable habitat
types and species in Europe. This is the action to maintain biodiversity on the continent. This
is done in accordance with the laws and rules enacted in two directives:
– The Birds Directive – Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conservation of wild birds – defines the criteria determining the refuge for
endangered bird species,
– The Habitats Directive – The Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora – establishes rules for protection of other species
of animals and plants and natural habitats and procedures to protect areas particularly
sensitive in nature.
EU member states are obliged to designate areas (SPA – protection of birds and SAC –
habitat protection) in the event of the occurrence of habitats and species listed in the annexes
to the Directives.
19
It is worth noting that the Natura 2000 network in addition to the protection of biodiversity is to provide opportunity for sustainable development. At the core of this idea there was
a clear difference between Natura 2000 sites and the previously created forms of protection
as national parks, nature reserves and other protected areas designated under appropriate
laws in the Member States. The latter sets the boundaries within which there is strict prohibition to carry on certain economic activities. The boundaries of Natura 2000 sites are not at
the same time the barriers to business investment. In fact, all activities can be carried out in
the Natura 2000 areas, providing that they do not interact with the object of protection, such
as documented species and habitats.
The Natura 2000 network in Poland consists of 983 Natura 2000 sites (845 Sites of
EC importance and 146 special bird protection areas) covering 19.76% of the land area
of the country (Natura 2000 Barometer, 2013). Similar numbers occur in Hungary, where
the Natura 2000 network created 525 areas, covering the area of 19.94 km2, which comprises 21.39% of the country (Natura 2000 Barometer, 2013). In Slovakia, Natura 2000
covers the largest part of the country comparing to its area 29% of the country, 420 areas
(www.sopsr.sk, last visit in September 2013). It is significantly different in the Czech Republic
where Natura 2000 network occupies only 14% of the country, divided into 41 special protection areas for birds and 1082 habitat areas (www.nature.cz, last visit in September 2013).
All projects and plans whose implementation may have a negative impact on habitats and
species in the Natura 2000 areas must be the subject of screening. In case of potential impacts
on the Natura 2000 (on species or protected habitats) a natural inventory is necessary. Only
thorough knowledge of the resources of the protected area allows to analyse the potential
impact. At this stage the principle of precaution is applied, in any doubtful case the EIA
procedure is always initiated.
In case of projects which may always have a potential significant impact on Natura 2000
areas, the EIA is expanded by a separate evaluation of habitats in the report. In other cases,
only assessment of habitats is performed. The main aspect of the analysis is the state of protection and integrity of the area. When analysing the state of the conservation, the emphasis
is placed on determination of the impact on the number of protected species and the range
of protected species. In case of habitats, the state of protection means the range and the area
covered. The impact on the integrity is considered on the basis of the system structures and
processes that ensure stability and functioning of the habitats and populations of species of
plants and animals. Defined cumulative impacts, direct and indirect ones, as well as fragility
of the species and the habitats are precisely determined in the habitat assessment. Finally,
a statement is issued whether the project has or does not have any significant impact on
the Natura 2000 area (Engel, 2009).
Assessment of Transboundary Environmental Impact
If the proposed project is likely to affect the environment of a neighbouring country,
the procedure for transboundary environmental impact is carried out. The issues are regulated
by ratification of the Espoo Convention (1991) in force from 1997. The convention has
been ratified by the all countries of group V4. The authorities responsible for the conduct
of the proceedings usually correspond to the central level. Both EIA and SEA (according to
20
SEA protocol, 2003) can be carried out. In both cases, the role of cross-border consultations
is the most important (Florkiewicz & Kawicki, 2009; Kistowski & Pchałek 2009; Poradnik...,
1999; Zvijáková et al., 2013). This can be done by submitting the report or prediction of
the environmental impact assessment to the affected country. The law does not specify what
language should be used in the documentation. Exchange of views is usually directed at
measures to prevent and ultimately reduce the transboundary impact.
In 2010 the European Commission started to work towards the improvement of the current EIA procedures. At the first stage, consultations with all members of the EU were held
and deficiencies and inconsistencies of the current EIA Directive were assessed. The main
weakness were pointed out, among them the failure to ensure the quality of information and
operation and socio-economic costs associated with the implementation of the Directive
(Proposal for a directive..., 2012). In accordance with the priorities of the EU on amending the Directive, the issues of biodiversity, natural resources usage, climate changes and
natural disasters risk were taken into consideration. The proposal also required the projects
to be treated with consideration of the cumulative impacts with other projects or activities.
As far as the pre-selection procedure is concerned, the application aimed to ensure that
only the projects that have a significant impact on the environment would be the subject to
the EIA, according to the specific information that the contractor should submit to the competent authority. The Commission also proposed to expand the list of selection criteria and to
determine the time necessary to make a decision at three months. With regard to the quality
of studies, the Commission proposed that the competent authorities would determine, after
consultation with the contractor, the scope and the level of precision of the information that
should be included in the environmental report (scoping phase). Furthermore, it introduced
a mandatory assessment of real alternatives to the project and monitoring the completion of
the EIA in case of projects having a significant negative impact on the environment. In terms
of administrative simplification, the Commission proposed to establish a clear time frame for
all stages of environmental impact assessment to determine the minimum and maximum time
periods for public consultation and the final decision and to introduce in all Member States
one point of complex service for EIA procedures to coordinate all procedures required by
other environmental legislation acts such as the Directive on industrial emissions, the Water
Framework Directive and the Habitats Directive (Engel, 2009). The proposed amendments
also ensure that the report on the environmental impact can be validated by experts who are
absolutely independent and technically properly qualified in the field of environmental protection. Amendment to the assessment directive is being prepared in the European Commission.
2. Process of Environmental Impact Assessment
in the V4 Member Countries
The EIA process in the analysed V4 countries comprises steps which have been derived from
the European Union EIA Directive. Despite the different legal prescriptions around the world,
EIA consists of a rather standard set of logically organized stages (Figs 2.1–2.5) that lead to
the generation of a formal document, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The steps in
bold must be followed under Directive 2011/92/EU. The steps which are not highlighted form
part of good practice in EIA and have been formalised in some Member States (Figs 2.1–2.5).
The stages have been individually adapted by each country depending on the environmental conditions of a particular country and the distribution of projects in terms of their
impact on the environment. This monograph presents a simplified and modified version
of the stages of the EIA process in Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary to
compare the processes in the V4 countries (Figs 2.1–2.5). The fundamental importance for
the EIA procedure is constituted by the types of activities that may require environmental
impact assessment (Zvijáková, Zeleňáková, 2013; Zvijáková et al., 2013).
Polish legislation distinguishes two basic classes of projects (including their changes)
subject to the environmental impact assessment process. These are public and private projects which always have a significant impact on the environment and the list is based on
the annex 1 in Directive EIA. This Regulation establishes a list of the Council of Ministers
of the year 2010 – § 2. The second group are projects that can have a potentially significant
impact on the environment in Directive EIA contained in annex 2, and this group of projects
is included in the Regulation of the Council of Ministers in § 3. In both cases, the changes
of such projects are subject to environmental impact assessment. Therefore certain projects
are considered mandatory while others optional. In Poland, the need for environmental impact assessment in the second group of projects is decided by the competent administrative
authority especially taking into account the type and nature of the project and its location,
and with regard to these aspects of the potential impact of the project on the environment.
A third, separate group includes the projects that can have potentially significant effects on
Natura 2000 sites. They undergo “natura assessment” of environmental impact which is in
Polish legislation also provided in the Act, but can be run completely independently. The law
on access to environmental information, public participation in environmental assessment
and environmental impact from 2008 provides a strategic assessment of the environmental
impact of documents related to the project planning and project policies, strategies, plans and
programs in different areas of the economy.
22
2. Process of Environmental Impact Assessment in the V4 Member Countries
Project Preparation
Notification to Competent
Authority
Screening
Scoping
Environmental Studies
Submission of Environmental
Information to Competent Authority
Review of Adequacy of the
Environmental Information
Consultation with Statutory Environmental
Authorities, other
Interested Parties and the Public
Consideration of the Environmental
Information by the Competent Authority before
making Development Consent Decision
Announcement of Decision
Post-Decision Monitoring if
Project is Granted Consent
Fig. 2.1. Simplified flow-chart of the different stages in an EIA process after EIA Directive (Guidance
on EIA: Scoping, Screening, 2001)
23
Project preparation
Group I.
Application for
determining the
scope of
a report 1
Przygotowanie projektu
Group II. Application for issuing
a decision2 and presentation of a chart3
Group III. Application for issuing
a decision2 and presentation of a chart3
Screening
Grupa I.
Wniosek
o ustalenie
zakresu raportu1
Decision stating
the lack of
necessity to
carry out EIA
Screening
Determining the scope of the report1
and giving opinions on it, issuing
a decision
Report on environmental impact1
Grupa II. Wniosek o wydanie
decyzji2, przedstawienie karty3
Grupa III. Wniosek o wydanie
decyzji2, przedstawienie karty3
Postanowienie
o braku potrzeby
przeprowadzenia
oceny
Określenie oraz opiniowanie zakresu
raportu1, wydanie postawienia
Issuing
a decision 2
Raport1
An investor submits an application
to issue a decision2, presents the
report1
Złożenie przez inwestora wniosku
o wydanie decyzji2, przedstawienie
raportu1
Determination of conditions to
carry out the projects
Uzgadnianie warunków
realizacji przedsięwzięcia
Proceedings involving the
public
Postępowanie z udziałem
społeczeństwa
Processing an application of the
investor, making arrangements,
comments and propositions from
the public
Rozpatrzenie wniosku inwestora,
uzgodnienia, uwagi i wnioski
społeczeństwa
Issuing the decision2
Wydanie decyzji2
Post-completion audit
Analiza porealizacyjna
Group I – public and private projects which can
always have a significant impact on the environment
Group II – projects that can have a potentially
significant impact on the environment
Group III – projects that can have potentially
significant impacts on sites Natura 2000
Grupa I – przedsięwzięcie mogące zawsze
znacząco oddziaływać na środowisko
Grupa II – przedsięwzięcie mogące potencjalnie
znacząco oddziaływać na środowisko
Grupa III – przedsięwzięcie mogące potencjalnie
znacząco oddziaływać na obszar Natura 2000
1
1
2
2
Report – environmental impact report
Decision – decision on environmental conditions
of approval for the project
3
Chart – project information chart
Wydanie
decyzji2
Raport – raport o oddziaływaniu na środowisko
Decyzja – decyzja o środowiskowych uwarunkowaniach
zgody na realizację przedsięwzięcia
3
Karta – karta informacyjna przedsięwzięcia
Fig. 2.2. Simplified flow-chart of the different stages in an EIA process in Poland (Act of 3.10.2008 in
later wording)
24
Zámer
Preliminary environmental
study
Zámer
The project is
nepodlieha
not subject to
Screening procedure
compulsory
povinnému
Zisťovacie konanie
assessment –
hodnoteniu –
proces
process is
posudzovania
ending
končí
The project is subject to
Zámer podlieha
compulsory assessment
povinnému hodnoteniu
The scope and the time
Rozsah hodnotenia
table (schedule)
a časový harmonogram
Environmental impact
statement
Správa o hodnotení
Public discussion
Verejné prerokovanie
Expert review
Odborný posudok
Final record
Záverečné stanovisko
Follow up analysis
Poprojektová analýza
Fig. 2.3. Simplified flow-chart of the different stages in an EIA process in Slovakia (Law No. 24/2006,
in later wording)
25
Project preparation
PĜíprava projektu
Notification
Oznámení zámČru
ZjišĢovací Ĝízení
Screening procedure
The project is not
subject to further EIA
The project is subject to
further assessment and may
affect the environment or the
Natura 2000 network
ZámČr nepodléhá
dalšímu posuzování
EIA
ZámČr podléhá dalšímu
posuzování a mĤåe mít vliv
na äP nebo soustavy
Natura 2000
Justification and written conclusion of the screening –
establish the extent of evaluation
OdĤvodnČní a písemný závČr zjišĢovacího Ĝízení –
stanovení rozsahu hodnocení
statement
Dokumentace
Assessment of the authority that the statement meets
all requirements, sending to the concerned authorities
and releasing to the public
Posouzení úĜadem zda dokumentace splĖuje
všechny poåadavky, rozeslání na dotþené orgány
a zveĜejnČní dokumentace pro veĜejnost
The authorities concerned and the public comment
the documentation
Dotþené orgány a veĜejnost se vyjádĜí k
dokumentaci
Expert review
Posudek
Public discussion of documentation
and expert review
VeĜejné projednání dokumentace a
posudku
Final record
Stanovisko k posouzení vlivĤ provedení
zámČru na åivotní prostĜedí
Fig. 2.4. Simplified flow-chart of the different stages in an EIA process in the Czech Republic (Act No.
100/2001 in later wording)
26
Submission for request
Kérelem benyújtása
Publication of call
Közlemény közzététele
Publication of EIA
KHT közzététel
Involvement administrations
Szakhatóságok bevonása
Information about public
meeting
Tájékoztatás
a közmeghallgatásról
Public involvement
Közmeghallgatás
Making and sending of
-HJ\]ĘN|Q\YNpV]tWpVH
protocol
megküldése
Examination of sugessions
Észrevételek vizsgálata
Decision
Döntés
Announcement of
decision
Döntés közzététele
Fig. 2.5. Simplified flow-chart of the different stages in an EIA after EIA Directive in Hungary (Government Decree No. 314/2005, XII 25, in later wording)
Slovak law refers to the impact assessment in the following aspects:
– strategic documents (proposal of a policy, a development conception, a plan and a programme),
– proposed activities (project, construction, installation, facility and other intervention in
the environment, including their changes).
27
Proposed activities set forth in annex no. 8., part A require environmental impact assessment obligatory, projects set forth in annex no. 8., part B require environmental impact
assessment only if so decided by the competent authority (Pavličková, Kozová, 2009).
In the Czech Republic, EIAs are required for both public and private sector projects.
Under the new Czech Act on environmental impact assessment EIAs are required in two
different areas:
– plans shall be a construction work, activity and technology (including changes in
the project) as set forth in annex no. 1 to Act,
– conceptions shall be strategies, policies, plans or programs prepared or formed by
a public administration authority and subsequently approved or submitted for approval
by a public administration authority.
Plans and conceptions as delimited in Act, the implementation of which could have
serious environmental impact, shall be subject to environmental impact assessment.
The subject of environmental impact assessment of a plan shall be:
– plans set forth in annex no. 1, category I, which shall always be subject to assessment,
– plans set forth in annex no. 1, category II, if so laid down in a fact-finding procedure,
– changes in any plan set forth in annex no. 1, if its capacity or extent is to be increased
by 25% or more, or if there is a significant change in the technology, management of
operations or manner of use thereof and if so laid down in a fact-finding procedure.
The subject of environmental impact assessment of a conception shall be:
– conceptions which set the framework for future permits of plans set forth in annex no. 1;
conceptions for which, in view of their possible effect on the environment, the necessity of their assessment follows from a special regulation and furthermore conceptions
co-financed by European Community funds,
– conceptions in case of which the affected territory is comprised of the territorial area of
only one municipality, if so laid down in a fact-finding procedure,
– changes of conceptions if so laid down in a fact-finding procedure.
Hungarian law refers to the impact assessment: The protection of the environment has
become an important obligation for any developing state. The Hungarian regulations currently
in force are fully in line with the directives and regulations of the European Union. This results
from the fact that the five most important principles of environment protection must be enforced also in Hungary: the protection of the environment should be extended to every sector;
emphasis should be laid on prevention; pollution should be eliminated at source; measures
should be brought wherever they are the most efficient; the polluter should pay for the use of
the environment; and should anyone violate the regulations they shall be fined. In Hungary,
environmental impact analysis is regulated by Government Decree No. 314/2005 (XII 25),
which are determined by the EIA as planned projects and their changes according to the catalogues of projects in annexes no. 1, 2 and 3 of the government decree.
The projects are grouped there into areas of economic activity with respective threshold
values:
– annex no. 1 – threshold values for projects which are always the subject of the compulsory assessment,
28
– annex no. 2 – contains a list of types of installations which require an integrated permit
(Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control IPPC),
– annex no. 3 – contains threshold values for projects that are subject to preliminary assessment. The assessment is the base for the decision of the environment protection
authority (inspector) whether the EIA is necessary.
In Slovakia and the Czech Republic, the EIA procedure (Figs 2.3 and 2.4) always
begins with preparation of a draft documentation called “Zámer” (SVK), “Záměr” (CZ)
(further refer to “Zámer”). “Zámer” is a detailed study which presents characteristic features
of the project, description of the environment and assessment of the impact of the project
on the elements of the environment for at least three variants of the project implementation,
together with the results of preliminary studies, drawings and graphic attachments. This
study becomes the basis for the screening stage where, depending on the type of a project
– according to annexes to the applicable EIA acts in each country, the EIA process will be
either completed or an obligatory environmental impact assessment will be carried out and
the EIA documentation will be prepared “Správa o hodnotení” (SVK), “Dokumentace” (CZ).
In Poland, the EIA procedure has a slightly different course, which depends on the type of
projects listed in the Regulation on projects which might have significant impact on the environment (The Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 9.11.2010). “Project Information
Chart” (further refer to “Chart”) for projects that may potentially have a significant impact on
the environment is prepared at that stage. The chart contains information about the proposed
project, its potential variants, expected use of environmental resources, types of emissions,
solutions protecting the environment, possibility of cross-border impact and forms of nature
protection. Although the regulations do not define it precisely, the chart is to provide basic
data in the form of a survey report. After analysing the information contained in the chart,
the environmental authority may promptly issue a “Decision on environmental conditions of
approval for the project” (further refer to “Decision”), or refer to the preparation of a “Report
on the impact on the environment” (further refer to “Report”). When the project belongs to
a group of the ones that may always have a significant impact on the environment a scope
stage is immediately commenced. This means determining the scope of the “Report” and
thus, the need to implement the EIA procedure.
In Hungary, the EIA procedure depends on qualification of the project into one of
the annexes of the decree (annexes 1–3). If the project is only included in the annex no. 1,
preliminary consultation of the preliminary environmental assessment submitted by the investor takes place. The consultation determines the scope of environmental assessment
and then the course of the EIA process which ends with issuing an environmental permit.
If the project is listed in annex no. 2, the IPPC process, ending with issuing an integrated
permit, is initiated after preliminary assessment. If the project is included in annex no. 3
only, the investor presents preliminary environmental assessment which is the base to
decide whether the EIA will be performed or a decision closing the assessment is issued.
If the suggested project is included both in annexes 1 and 2, preliminary consultations
take place. If it is listed in annexes no. 2 and 3, it is the subject of preliminary assessment. In both cases, the project is the subject to an integrated EIA and IPPC procedure
to obtain a permit to carry it out. In the first case (annex 1 and 2), the procedure ends
29
with issuing an integrated permit, in the second case (annex 2 and 3), it is either an integrated procedure or an IPPC procedure only (for projects with low environmental impact)
(Tamásová, 2013).
The documentations which allow to evaluate the impact of the project on the environment, despite different titles are quite similar. It is “Správa o hodnotení” in Slovakia,
“Dokumentace” in the Czech Republic, “Raport o oddziaływaniu na środowisko” in Poland
and “Környezeti hatástanulmány” in Hungary. In all countries, the documentation is the most
important element of the EIA procedure. The studies present in detail the following aspects:
impact of the project on the environment and human health, description of at least three
variants of the project (zero solution and two other ones) including possibilities to reduce
the negative impact, assessment of cross-border impact on the environment, indications
concerning monitoring, post-completion analysis, environmental compensation or social
conflicts. The content of the studies is determined by national law in particular countries.
However, the changes of the scope are usually caused by the need to apply a higher level
of details when considering specific interactions due to the existing land use and vulnerability of environmental components. No special qualifications (person authorized) are
necessary to prepare such documentations in all V4 countries, except the Czech Republic
and in Hungary, where special permits are necessary for those preparing preliminary environmental assessment.
Active participation of the society, including submitting proposals and making comments
on the publicly presented studies and during public discussions are elements of the EIA
procedure in the V4 countries.
“Odborný posudok” (SVK), “Posudek” (CZ) (further refer to “Posudok”), is an extra
stage added to the EIA procedure in Slovakia and the Czech Republic. It presents a review
of the current state of the process documentations which have been prepared. “Posudok” may
be prepared only by a professionally qualified person authorized for the EIA process. Such
person is chosen and authorised by an appropriate authority – ministry or voivodeship office
basing on the person’s previous experience in the field. The list of authorised persons with
their contact data and the specified experience is available from the EIA computer system.
The authorisations are granted to persons who have passed a state examination. A resolution
of a regional director responsible for environmental protection, prepared upon the director’s
request by appropriate specialists, is an equivalent of that stage in Poland. Depending on
the nature of the project further documents, such as an opinion of a sanitary inspector, etc.,
may be required. In Hungary, such role is played by a national or regional inspectorate of
nature, environment and water resources protection.
The EIA process in Slovakia and the Czech Republic ends with issuing a resolution
“Záverečné stanovisko”. The necessary decision “Záverečné stanovisko” is a recommendation
and it is not binding for the authority issuing a permit to launch the project. It means that
the resolution may be negative, but in case of very great public interest, health protection
etc., the authority may grant permission to carry out the project. In Poland, the EIA process
ends with a “Decision”. Obtaining it and complying with its requirements is critical to
the implementation of the project. Only a positive “Decision” allows to apply for a subsequent
30
administrative decisions (e.g. concession for exploitation of minerals, building permits, etc.).
The issued “Decision” should take into account the overriding public interest. A negative
decision may be given, for example, as a result of a failure to comply with the project decision
and planning documentation. The parties participating in the proceeding shall have the right
to appeal against such a decision. In Hungary depending on a type of a project, the process
ends when an environmental permit or an integrated permit, which is the condition to launch
the project, is issued or denied.
Professionally Qualified Persons for the EIA Process
In accordance with the current legal system the authors of a “Chart” and a “Report” in
Poland do not need to have any special qualifications. In the 1990’s there was a list of certified experts, however, it was abandoned after a few years. Currently, the quality of the EIA
documentation is verified by a body appointed for that purpose, i.e., general director for
environmental protection and subordinate regional directors. Additionally, in difficult cases
like projects of a greater range, an appropriate director asks for an opinion of the Regional
Commission or the National Impact Assessment. Specialists gathered in the commissions
should guarantee balanced premises for the further opinions or decisions. The environmental
decision is issued by the appropriate authority, depending on the type of the project involved
e.g., regional director for environmental protection, a mayor or a wójt (the head of a commune governing body).
It is similar in Slovakia, where an author of a study called “Zámer” or “Správa o hodnotení” does not need any qualifications. There is an authorised expert appointed to carry out
“Posudok” who supervises the proper course of the EIA. In the Czech Republic, an authorized person prepares “Dokumentace” and “Posudok” separately and the same person is not
allowed to prepare both documents. Such person is chosen and authorised by an appropriate
authority – ministry or voivodeship office basing on the person’s previous experience in
the field. The list of authorised persons with their contact data and the specified experience is
available from the EIA computer system. The authorisations are granted to persons who have
passed a state examination. In the Czech Republic, habitat assessment (related to Natura 2000
areas) can only be performed by a person authorised in the field, and apart from that, there
is an authorised person appointed by the Minister of Health who is responsible for the part
of the EIA procedure which role is to assess the health risk (Health Impact Assessment). In
Hungary (Tamásová, 2013), preliminary and detailed assessment can only be carried out
by an authorised person. According to the current legal regulations there are two types of
competences:
1) in the field of nature or landscape protection (issued by Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection),
2) in the field of environment and water resources protection (issued by the proper Chamber
of Engineers).
As it is shown by the previously mentioned examples, there are significant differences in
the EIA procedure in the V4 countries in terms of documentation, the requirements concerning
persons involved in the EIA process or the final decision – as well as a resolution.
31
Complete information’s showing the EIA process for different types of projects can be
found at the following web sites (last visit September 2013):
– in Poland:
• http://www.gdos.gov.pl/Categories/view/204/OOS
• http://poradnik.ekoportal.pl/inny/OO_0.html
– in Slovakia:
• http://eia.enviroportal.sk
– in the Czech Republic:
• http://portal.cenia.cz/eiasea/view/eia100_cr
• http://portal.cenia.cz/eiasea/view/SEA100_koncepce
– in Hungary:
• www.kormany.hu
• http://www.kvvm.hu/index.php?pid = 9&sid = 50&hid = 527
3. Comparing the Phase of Screening
in the Fields of Tourism and Recreation,
Water Management and Mining
in the V4 Countries
Under EIA Directive during the process of qualification, the undertakings which require
assessment of the impact have been identified and further subdivided into the types of undertakings for which EIA is mandatory – group I (annex I of the EIA Directive) and for which
it may be required – group II (annex II of the EIA Directive). For the latter, it is necessary
to carry out a diagnosis (screening), a selection at the initial stage determining whether
the undertaking from the group II should be the subject to EIA. The screening is based on
the individual study and/or checking the threshold values or criteria set by a given country
(Guidance on EIA: Scoping, Guidance on EIA: Screening, Wytyczne..., 2009).
Threshold limits and criteria indicating the need to carry out the EIA procedure are different in character and value. They may relate, for example, to capacity, number of beds, the area
covered by the project, the amount of extracted raw materials, etc. Analysis of legal regulations of the EIA in the V4 countries related to the threshold limits and criteria for projects of
various types of activities showed significant differences, even when considering the threshold
values of screening of mining projects, recreational facilities, etc. Differences in the applicable
threshold limits, criteria for the compulsory EIA procedure and for screening have been shown
on the example of selected types of projects in the following fields: purpose built facilities for
recreation, tourism and sport (Gałaś et al., 2013b), water management and mining industry.
Purpose Built Facilities for Recreation, Tourism and Sport
Undertakings EIA Directive in the field of sport, recreation and tourism facilities (SRTF)
have been qualified as the ones belonging to the group II in all analysed countries and divided
into the same types. Differences appear in the screening of particular types, as the criteria
used in each country vary thus resulting in other threshold values (Tab. 3.1).
In Slovakia EIA is mandatory for certain types of undertakings belonging to the group II.
For such projects as: sports and recreational ports, ski downhill runs, ski running tracks, ski
lifts, ski jumps, cable cars and other facilities it is required to carry out EIA if they are located
in protected areas (Tab. 3.1).
In Poland and the Czech Republic, screening is compulsory in such situations. Also,
threshold and exclusion criteria which allow not to carry out EIA have various characters
and values (Tab. 3.1). For example, for the above mentioned hotels and holiday centres in
Poland and the Czech Republic, the threshold value is the gross covered area equal to 2 hectares
and 1 hectares, respectively, while in Slovakia it is the number of beds 500 and 60 depending
on the type of the building. In Hungary the limit is over 500 beds or an area over 3 hectares.
33
34
Downhill ski courses,
cross-country ski
courses, ski-lifts, skijumps, cable lines and
other facilities
Recreational ports for
yachts and small boats
Ports for water sports
(including moles, storage premises, repair
facilities etc.)
Construction of
recreational and hotel
complexes and related
facilities
Undertakings
for not less than
10 vessels, using
the length of a coastline < 20 m
with gross covered
area not smaller than:
– 0.5 ha in areas with
nature protection
zones and buffer
zones of the protected areas,
– 2 ha in areas other
than those mentioned in the first
point
(A)
PL
X
X
(B)
to 100 places for vessels
over 500 accom. places
and up 10 000 m2
inside urban area and
60 accom. places and
up 5000 m2 outside
urban area
(A)
SVK
X
X
(B)
an area > 1 ha
(A)
CZ
X
X
(B)
over 480 t of carried
weight or 100 small
boats (sport boats)
over 1350 t load; over
1350 t and more with
an equipment connected to the bank
over 500 accom. places
or an area > 3 ha
(A)
HU
X
X
X
(B)
Table 3.1. List of undertakings which require screening carrying out of the EIA process in the field of SRTF, together with the indication of threshold
values in each V4 member country – simplified, column (A) – the threshold values, column (B) – the individual study (EIA Directive, Act of 3.10.2008,
The Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 9.11.2010, Act No. 24/2006, Act No. 408/2011 Coll., Act No. 100/2001, Government Decree No. 314/2005,
XII 25, in later wording)
an area of land under
development not
smaller than 0.5 ha
non listed
X
X
from 5000 m2 to
2000 m2
X
X
X
over 5000 people or
over 3 ha or over 300
parking places
an area > 5000 m2
over 50 accom.
places
18 holes or more for
the whole golf course
(not for the minigolf)
non listed
an area > 1 ha
non listed
– if the planned undertakings are located in protected areas, then for the screening stage the threshold data do not apply
– if the planned undertakings are located in protected areas it is mandatory to prepare a report on the impact of the undertaking on
the environment,
– if the planned undertakings are located in protected areas, the screening stage has stricter thresholds values,
Permanent camp sites
and caravan sites
Theme parks
Construction of sport,
golf courses and related
facilities
Permanent race tracks
and testing tracks for
motor vehicles
Table 3.1. cont.
X
X
3. Comparing the Phase of Screening in the Fields of Tourism and Recreation ...
35
Exceptions include enterprises located in Natura 2000 areas, where the screening process
is always required.
It is difficult to explain explicitly the differences in EIA procedures in the field of sport,
recreation and tourist facilities in the analysed countries. Especially their small share among
the studies carried out by the survey respondents in Poland is significantly different when
compared to all other countries. Polish regulations cause that such objects less frequently
than elsewhere are the subject to the EIA procedure. Such undertakings usually do not
cause any threat to particular environmental resources. Hence, they are rarely negatively
perceived by local communities which strongly react in case of other proposed investments,
for example such as mining ones. Therefore, the authorities related to the environment more
frequently than in other cases decide at the screening stage that it is not necessary to carry out
the EIA procedure. However, such objects are often located in areas of high natural value. If
the undertakings occur to be in the areas which are legally protected (national parks, nature
reserves, Natura 2000, etc.), there are clear limitations and rules that should be respected in
such cases (Kistowski & Pchałek, 2009; Pavličková, 2013). In Poland, recreation and tourism
are often recommended as the direction of economic development to the local authorities.
Tourist and recreational facilities are simply associated with easy economic benefit. Therefore,
investment pressure in this field focused on valuable natural areas can be a serious threat to
their values and integrity. The survey results may indicate a different approach to this issue
in different countries.
Water Management
In the following, the comparison of proposed activities which are subject to the compulsory environmental impact assessment is evaluated.
Activities which are subject to the compulsory environmental impact assessment are
mainly the same in all V4 countries – Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary
(Tab. 3.2). There are only small differences among threshold values in investigated activities.
For example the threshold value for abstraction of ground water or artificial groundwater
recharge schemes of 5 million m3 per year in Hungary is stricter than in other mentioned
countries, where the threshold value is over 10 million m3 per year (Tab. 3.2). Also for activity installations for the transfer of water resources between river basins the threshold value
in Hungary is stricter where the basin of abstraction exceeds the capacity of 100 million m3
per year and in Slovakia opposite to Poland and the Czech Republic where the basin of
abstraction exceeds the capacity of 2 billion m3 per year in case that the volume of the water
transferred exceeds 5% of this rate of flow or amount of water withdrawn or transferred
exceeds 100 million m3 per year. Regarding dams, water reservoirs and other installations
intended for retention or accumulation of water including dry reservoirs the strictest threshold
values for compulsory environmental assessment is in Slovakia – with total new capacity or
additionally retained capacity over 1 million m2 and strict threshold value in Hungary equals
2 million m3 of expanded and stored water volume contrary to the Czech Republic and Poland
where the volume of retained or accumulated water exceeds 10 million m3 per year. Geothermal power stations and heating plants, sludge-deposition sites with a capacity and ports for
water sports are the subject of compulsory environmental impact assessment only in Slovakia.
36
non listed
non listed
if the volume of retained
or accumulated water
exceeds 10 M m3 per
year
2000 M m3 per year
(long-term) in the case
that the volume of
the water transferred exceeds 5% of this rate of
flow or amount of water
withdrawn or transferred
exceeds 100 M m3/year
over 50 MW
over 250 000 m3
– with the dam height
over the base line over
8 m,
– with total new capacity or additionally
retained capacity over
1 M m2,
– with the area over
100 ha
over 300 M m3/year and
if the amount of water
transferred exceeds 5%
of this flow or amount of
water over 10 M m3/year
Geothermal power stations and
heating plants
Sludge-deposition sites with
a capacity
Dams, water reservoirs and other
installations intended for retention
or accumulation of water including
dry reservoirs
Installations for the transfer of water resources between river basins
where the multi-annual average
flow of the basin of abstraction
exceeds
over 50 MW
CZ
over 50 MW
SVK
Industrial installations for production of electricity from water
energy (hydroelectric power stations)
Activity facilities and installations/threshold values
2 billion m3 per year
and where the amount
of transferred water exceeds 5% of this flow or
the amount of water
transferred exceeds
100 M m3/year
– of not less than
10 M m3 of new or
additional amount of
water,
– water-retention structures raising water
levels by 5 m or more
non listed
non listed
non listed
PL
capacity of 100 M m3/year
or 3 M m3/year
2 M m3 of expanded and
stored water volume
non listed
non listed
in nationally protected
natural areas
HU
Table 3.2. List of undertakings which require obligatory/compulsory assessment carrying out of the EIA process in the field of water management with
the indication of threshold values in each V4 member country – the simplified (EIA Directive, Act of 3.10.2008, The Regulation of the Council of
Ministers of 9.11.2010, Act No. 24/2006, Act No. 100/2001, Government Decree No. 314/2005, XII 25, in later wording)
37
38
50 ha
non listed
over 500 ha
which can take vessels
of over 1350 t
which permit the passage of vessels of over
1350 t
over 100 places for
vessels
Amelioration measures, mainly
drainage, irrigation, protection of
soil against erosion land arrangement, forest-technical amelioration
Trading ports, piers for loading
and unloading, connected to land
and outside ports (excluding ferry
piers)
Inland waterways and ports including port facilities for inland water
traffic
Ports for water sports (including
piers, storage premises, repair
facilities etc.)
for vessels with loadbearing capacity exceeding 1350 t
non listed
for at least 100 000
inhabitants
over 1100 m3/h
PL
non listed
non listed
for passage of ships with of vessels with tonnage
displacement over 1350 t over 1350 t
100 t equivalent inhabitants and sewerage systems for more than 5000
connected inhabitants
over 100 000 equivalent
inhabitants
Waste water treatment plants and
sewerage networks
10 M m3/year
CZ
over 10 M m3/year
SVK
Extraction of ground water or
artificial groundwater recharge
schemes
Table 3.2 cont.
non listed
for more 1350 t deadweight vessels
non listed
non listed
non listed
of 5 M m3/year
HU
if the volume of retained or
accumulated water exceeds
10 000 m3 per year or
the height of the dam structure exceeds 10 m above
the footing bottom
non listed
over 10 t of live weight
Dams, water reservoirs and other instal- – 3–8 m,
lations intended for retention or accu- – 0.5–1 M m3,
mulation of water including dry reser- – 50–100 ha
voirs with:
– the dam height over the base line,
– total new capacity or additionally retained capacity,
– the area
Projects aimed at protection of seashores non listed
and securing them against the impact of
the sea as well as other projects causing
the change in the coastal zone, including
sea banks, jetties, piers, except for their
reconstruction
Ponds intended for fish breeding with non listed
fish stocking in the case of fish population
without limit
Sludge-deposition sites with a capacity
without limit
non listed
without limit
50 000–250 000 m3
Shipyards
Extraction in stream beds or bottom land without limit
non listed
Geothermal power stations and heating 5–50 MW
plants
CZ
10–50 MW
SVK
Industrial installations for production 5–50 MW
of electricity from water energy (hydroelectric power stations)
Activity facilities and installations/
threshold values
non listed
without limit
in areas of conservation or in buffer zones
for environmental protection or at the height
of not less than 1 m
non listed
non listed
without limit
non listed
without limit
PL
non listed
non listed
1 M m3 of expanded and
stored water volume; in
protected areas without
size limitation
non listed
without limit
non listed
non listed
non listed
HU
Table 3.3. List of undertakings which require screening carrying out of the EIA process in the field of water management with the indication of threshold values in each V4 member country – the simplified (EIA Directive, Act of 3.10.2008, The Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 9.11.2010, Act
No. 24/2006, Act No. 100/2001, Government Decree No. 314/2005, XII 25, in later wording)
39
40
Long-distance aqueducts
Municipal pipelines for water supply
and transport, municipal water pipes
supplying water from water treatment
facility to water distribution pipes, except for their alteration with the use of
the trenchless method
Waste water treatment plants and sewerage networks
non listed
non listed
10 000–100 000 equivalent
inhabitants, and sewerage systems 5000–50 000
connected inhabitants or
the industrial sewerage
systems with the diameter
exceeding 500 mm
2000–100 000
equivalent inhabitants
10 thousand population
equivalent; in protected
areas or without size
limitation
non listed
without limit
without limit
water lake in the middle
aquifer or aquifer storage
(minimum) operating
water level of 20% of
the total in a year
– ground water of 1000 m3,
– thermal karst water of
500 m3,
– layers of water of
5000 m3,
– cold karst water of
2500 m3
non listed
non listed
without limit
10–100 M m3/year
or if the long-term average
rate of flow in the watershed from which water
is transferred ranges
200–2000 M m3
in a volume between 1 and
10 M m3/year
non listed
HU
not less of water than
10 m3/h
non listed
PL
non listed
CZ
over 20 km
non listed
Abstraction of ground water or artificial 3–10 M m3/year
groundwater recharge schemes
SVK
threshold values
Installations for the transfer of ground 3–10 M m3/year
water between river basins, if such
transfer aims at preventing of possible
water shortage
Installations for the transfer of water 60–300 M m3/year
resources between river basins where
the multi-annual average flow of the basin of abstraction exceeds
Table 3.3 cont.
non listed
non listed
Current control and channeling the river non listed
Stream order
non listed
non listed
non listed
Standing water
without limit
for no less than 10 ships non listed
or using the shoreline
over a distance greater
than 20 m
over 10 ships, on over
non listed
20 m long coastline
without limit
width in the bottom at
least 1.5 m
5 ha of regulated water
0.5 ha of regulated
water surface and over surface and 1 km from
3 m deep; in protected the coastline lengths; in
areas
size limitation
non listed
from river km 3; in
length limitation
non listed
1 km, water base 50 m
without size limitation in
protected natural areas
non listed
non listed
non listed
non listed
in protected areas
in protected natural areas
without limit
non listed
land improvement
covering an area of
2 ha or more
without limit
without limit
non listed
over an area of 10–50 ha
non listed
a) 10–500 ha
b) over 50 ha only
in protected areas
which can take
vessels of up to
1350 t
which permit
the passage of vessels up to 1350 t
without limit
without limit
with expected yield non listed
over 100 l/s
without limit
non listed
Recreation ports for yachts and small non listed
boats
Canals
non listed
Geothermal waters abstraction
Amelioration measures, mainly:
a) drainage, irrigation, protection of soil
against erosion land arrangement,
b) forest-technical amelioration
Trading ports, piers for loading and unloading, connected to land and outside
ports (excluding ferry piers)
Inland waterways and ports including
port facilities for inland water traffic
Flood protection objects
Drillings for drinking water supply
Table 3.3 cont.
41
We have found the differences in amelioration measures, mainly drainage, irrigation,
protection of soil against erosion land arrangement; forest-technical amelioration – this activity
is assessed in the Czech Republic over 50 hectares, in Slovakia over 500 hectares and this
activity is not a subject of compulsory assessment in Poland and Hungary. Trading ports are
not a subject of compulsory assessment in the Czech Republic and Hungary. What we have
found interesting is that industrial installations for production of electricity from water energy
(hydroelectric power stations) are not a subject of compulsory assessment in Poland, they are
subject only of screening procedures and similarly waste water treatment plants and sewerage
networks are not a subject of compulsory assessment in Hungary (Tab. 3.3).
Taking into consideration the fact that any project may have an impact to Natura 2000
in Poland the screening is performed. More detailed information is to be found in the aforementioned legislation.
Mining Industry
Preliminary analysis allows to determine that mining projects being the subject to an
obligatory EIA procedure are defined in a similar way in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and
Hungary. Definitions of such projects in Poland are hard to compare directly with the above
mentioned countries, except for extraction and processing of oil, gas and radioactive elements.
Extraction and processing of solid minerals is the source of the biggest impact on the environment in the V4 countries. In Poland the EIA procedure is obligatory in case of extraction
of minerals by surface mining if the surface of the mining area (MA) is greater than 25 hectares, and in case of underground mining when the output is over 100 000 m3/year (Tab. 3.4).
In the other V4 countries the output of particular raw materials is important but the methods
of extraction are not taken into consideration. In Slovakia, mining of rock materials such as
natural aggregates, clay raw materials and glass sand are distinguished, but requirements for
all types of minerals are the same. The EIA procedure is obligatory when the output exceeds
200 000 tons/year or more than 10 hectares of land is covered. In case of solid fuels (e.g. hard
coal) and magnesite ore, the limit extraction is equal to 100 000 tons/year. The most similar
to Polish one is the legal regulation introduced in the Czech Republic. In the Czech Republic
the procedure is obligatory for new mining projects and those where production exceeds
1 million tons/year. Apart from that, hard coal exploitation has also been distinguished. There
is a similar level (25 hectares) determining the area of the mining terrain (MT) for open pit
mining, and if the mining terrain is within a protected area the EIA procedure is obligatory
regardless of the size of the area covered. The following limits have been established for
hard coal: production of 100 000 tons/year, mining terrain greater than 25 hectares, and
without limit if it is situated in protected areas. Additionally, limits for metal ore have been
determined: iron ore mining when the extraction is over 1 million tons/year, non-ferrous metal
ores 100 000 tons/year and the mining terrain over 25 hectares.
Radioactive elements also belong to the solid mineral ores but they have been discussed
separately. Their extraction and processing, regardless of annual production requires the EIA
procedure in Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The only exception is Hungary where
a limit of production of 100 000 tons/year (Tab. 3.4) has been established. In Poland, the exploitation of radioactive elements also requires the EIA. Documented reserves of uranium
occur only in the Czech Republic.
42
Also solid mineral processing plants are treated differently. In Poland the EIA procedure
is obligatory in case of the covered area which exceeds 25 hectares. In the Czech Republic
the limit for coal processing plants has been fixed at the amount of feed at 3 million tons/year.
In Slovakia the feed limit is over 100 000 tons/year in case of coal and magnesite ore and
for building stone processing plants it is 200 000 tons/year or the surface area greater than
10 hectares. Hungary does not specify any limits for processing plants.
Liquid fuels and gas projects are treated quite similarly. In case of extraction and processing of oil the threshold value of the daily production is 500 tons/day in Poland, Slovakia,
Hungary and it is only 50 tons/day in the Czech Republic. Limits of gas extraction are similarly
defined 500 000 m3/day and only 50 000 m3/day in the Czech Republic. However, it should
be noted that there are no resources of oil and gas where industrial exploitation might be
possible in the Czech Republic.
Storage of natural gas requires the EIA process in Slovakia in instances when it exceeds
the volume of 500 000 m3 in artificial gas reservoirs and 100 million m3/year if it takes place
in natural rock ones. In Poland such storage, in both, cases requires the EIA without any limit.
In Slovakia, the list of projects also includes geothermal boreholes of the depth not
exceeding 500 meters and boreholes used for storage of radioactive waste. In the Czech
Republic and Hungary, extraction of peat requires the EIA, if the extraction area exceeds
150 hectares and 25 hectares respectively, and it is without surface limits in protected areas.
The same divisions as for the projects that may have a significant impact on the environment are established for solid mineral resources. It should be mentioned that all mining
projects, regardless of the criteria for screening, are subject to the screening stage in case
that they may have an impact on protected species and habitats in the Natura 2000 areas.
In Poland, as in previously discussed mining projects, also the ones that may have
a significant impact on the environment, are classified according to the method of operation:
open pit and underground (Tab. 3.5). In case of open-pit mining, the following limits have
been determined: open-pit mining area (MA) greater than 2 hectares or output higher than
20 000 m3/year, operation in flood-endangered areas, in forests and in their vicinity, the areas
of nature protection and other mining areas (MA) and in case when the exploitation requires
usage of explosives and underground exploitation including boreholes if they do not reach
the parameters specified for group I (obligatory EIA) which always require screening.
The following activities require screening in the Czech Republic: coal mining above
100 000 tons/year and lignite 200 000 tons/year (Tab. 3.5), processing of coal with the feed of
1–3 million tons/year, extraction of other minerals at the level of 10 000–1 000 000 tons/year
and increase of production in existing plants by 1 million tons/year. In Slovakia, the screening
is required when extraction of coal, ores and magnesite does not exceed 100 000 tons/year.
For the extraction of natural aggregates, kaolin, refractory clay, glass and foundry sands
the limit value is extraction of 100 000–200 000 tons/year or the surface area surface of
5–10 hectares. In Hungary that EIA stage is required for all mining projects without any specified
limits.
Exploitation and processing of oil and gas in Slovakia is limited to 500 tons/day and
500 000 m3/day respectively. In Hungary, screening refers to those investments that are taking
place in the areas of nature protection and water resources.
43
44
over 50 t/day
over 50 000 m3/day
non listed
non listed
over 500 t/day
over 500 000 m3/day
over 100 M m3/year
over 500 000 m3
Extraction and processing of natural
gas
Underground storage of natural gas
in natural mineral structures
Underground storage of natural gas
in artificially built underground
spaces
without limit
Extraction and processing of petroleum
over 100 000 t/year
Extraction and processing of ores
and magnesite
feed over 3 M t/year
without limit
over 100 000 t/year
Processing of hard and brown coal,
(PL – installations for processing of
minerals other than listed in Article
2 section 1 item 26)
new activity
CZ
Prospecting, extraction and process- without limit
ing of radioactive minerals including
spoil banks and sludge-drying beds
and their recovery
over 100 000 t/year
SVK
Extraction of coal, lignite and
bituminous minerals, surface and
underground
threshold values
without limit
without limit
over 500 000 m3/day
over 500 t/day
without limit
non listed
without limit
like other extraction of
minerals
PL
non listed
non listed
over 500 000 m3/day
over 500 t/day
100 000 t/year
1 M t/year for iron ores,
100 000 t/year for nonferrous ores, 25 ha of
land taken
non listed
100 000 t/year, from
25 ha of land taken, without limit if located on
the nature protected area
HU
Table 3.4. List of undertakings which require obligatory carrying out of the EIA process in the field of mining industry with the indication of threshold
values in each V4 member country – the simplified (EIA Directive, Act of 3.10.2008, The Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 9.11.2010, Act No.
24/2006, Act No. 100/2001, Government Decree No. 314/2005, XII 25, in later wording)
Extraction of other minerals, unless
they are included in items 1 to 6 and
9 to 14
Extraction drillings (with the exception of drillings for investigating
the soil stability) mainly:
– geothermal drillings,
– drillings for drinking water supply,
– drillings for deposition of radioactive waste
Underground storage of waste in
natural mineral structures and built
underground spaces
Extraction of minerals, stone quarries and surface extraction and
processing of stone, extraction of
limestone, kaolin, ceramic, heatproof clays, claystones, glass sands,
foundry sands, gravel sand and sand
(PL – other than listed in Article 2
section 1 item 27 point) (HU – other
than listed in Appendices 1)
Prospecting and surveying mineral
deposits
non listed
without limit
over 500 m
100 000– 200 000 t/year
or 5–10 ha of land taken
without limit
non listed
non listed
non listed
non listed
non listed
from 25 ha of land taken,
without limit if located
on the nature protected
area
non listed
non listed
non listed
– open-cast mining
where the mining area
is not smaller than
25 ha,
– underground mining
with annual extraction
capacity not less than
100 000 m3
– connected with
non listed
geological works and
the use of explosives,
– in the sea territory of
Poland,
– performed by underground method,
– performed by drillhole method at a depth
greater than 1000 m
non listed
non listed
new activity, over
1 M t/year
over 200 000 t/year or
over 10 ha of land taken
Table 3.4 cont.
45
46
non listed
non listed
non listed
non listed
non listed
non listed
up to 500 t/day
up to 500 000 m3/day
Underground storage of natural gas up to 100 M m3/year
in natural mineral structures
Underground storage of natural gas up to 500 000 m3
in artificially built underground
spaces
Extraction and processing of
natural gas
without limit
up to 100 000 t/year
like other extraction of minerals
non listed
without limit
non listed
Processing of hard and brown coal
(PL – installations for processing
of minerals other than listed in
Article 2 section 1 item 26)
Extraction and processing of ores
(chem., biol. and technol.) and
magnesite
Extraction and processing of
petroleum
PL
black coal,
200 000 t/year
brown coal
feed 1–3 M t/year
CZ
SVK
Extraction and processing of coal/
lignite and bituminous minerals,
surface and underground
non listed
a) without limit,
b) drilling only in
the protected area:
Nature 2000, caves,
groundwater reservoir
a) without limit,
b) drilling only in
the protected area:
Nature 2000, caves,
groundwater reservoir
non listed
without limit
non listed
without limit
HU
Table 3.5. List of undertakings which require screening when the process of EIA is carried out in the field of mining industry with the indication of
threshold values in each V4 member country – the simplified (EIA Directive, Act of 3.10.2008, The Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 9.11.2010,
Act No. 24/2006, Act No. 100/2001, Government Decree No. 314/2005, XII 25, in later wording)
Extraction of minerals, stone
quarries and surface extraction
and processing of stone, extraction of limestone, kaolin, ceramic,
heatproof clays, claystones, glass
sands, foundry sands, gravel sand
and sand (PL – other than listed in
Article 2 section 1 item 27 point)
(HU – other than listed in Appendices 1)
without limit
100 000–200 000 t/year 10 000–1 000 000 t/year a) regardless of the mining site
or 5–10 ha of land
area:
taken
• for extraction of peat or lacustrine chalk,
• in areas of immediate or potential flood risk,
• in or within 100 m of forest
areas,
• in the nature protected areas
described in article 6 section 1
items 1–5 and 8–9 of the Act
of 16 April 2004 on nature protection or within buffer zones
of protected areas, mentioned
in Article 6 section 1 items 1–3
therein,
• within 250 m of the areas
mentioned in Article 113
section, 2 item 1 of the Environmental Protection Act of
27 April 2001 (Journal of Laws
of 2008 No. 25 item 150, as
amended 8),
• if the activities involve the use
of explosives,
• if another mining area with
open-cast mineral extraction
operation is located within
0.5 km of the planned opencast mineral extraction site;
b) from the mining zone with area
exceeding 2 ha or with annual
output exceeding 20 000 m3,
other than listed in point a
Table 3.5 cont.
47
48
non listed
over 300 m
up to 500 m
without limit
100 000–200 000 t/year non listed
or 5–10 ha of land
taken
without limit
Extraction of other minerals, unless they are included in items 1 to
6 and 9 to 14
Extraction drillings (with the exception of drillings for investigating the soil stability) mainly:
– geothermal drillings,
– drillings for drinking water supply,
– drillings for deposition of radioactive waste
Underground storage of waste in
natural mineral structures and built
underground spaces
non listed
up to
1 000 000 t/year
CZ
non listed
non listed
SVK
Prospecting and surveying mineral
deposits
Extraction of minerals
Table 3.5 cont.
non listed
excluding the construction of
underground water intakes of
a depth of less than 100 m
non listed
non listed
non listed
a) underground extraction of
minerals other than listed in
Article 2 section 1 item 27
point b, or using drilling methods other than listed in Article
2 section 1 item 24,
b) in sea territory of Poland of
minerals other than listed in Article 2 section 1 item 24 or under
the surface of inland waters;
a) connected with geological
non listed
works and the use of explosives,
b) in the sea territory of Poland,
c) performed by underground
method,
d) performed by drill-hole method
at a depth greater than 1000 m
non listed
non listed
PL
HU
In Poland that group of projects also includes exploration and prospecting of deposits.
This applies to projects which require drilling of boreholes exceeding 1000 meters in depth
in legally protected areas and 5000 meters outside such areas and also underground mining
(Tab. 3.5).
Parameters for the screening stage of exploitation boreholes drilling, such as potable
water wells, have been determined in the analysed countries (no limit in the Czech Republic, in
Poland less than 100 meters) or geothermal ones (in Slovakia to the depth of 500 meters) and
boreholes used for storage of radioactive waste (in Slovakia to the depth of 300 meters, in
the Czech Republic without limit).
Apart from that, extraction of peat has been included in the area up to 150 hectares in
Slovakia and regardless of the output in Hungary and Poland.
The V4 countries like the other member states of the European Union can have some
freedom when specifying the threshold parameters that determine the need to initiate the EIA
procedures for projects of different groups. The selection criteria are set out in annex III of
the EIA Directive. Less liberal threshold parameters in certain countries result in lower number
of the completed EIA procedures. According to the European Commission 1000 procedures
are carried out in Germany every year and as many as 4000 in Poland (http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/eia/home.htm). In case of the V4 countries it can be observed that mining,
water management and tourism significantly contribute to the development of the Gross
Domestic Product (GDP). Therefore, it can be assumed that when preparing specifications of
the thresholds only the most significant environmental aspects are taken into consideration,
not raising barriers to maintain and develop the sectors of the economy that generate profits,
provide jobs, produce energy and supply raw materials (Gałaś & Gałaś, 2012).
Are the thresholds in the V4 countries too liberal? If we considered opening a coal
mine having typical parameters for the Upper Silesia Coal Basin: production capacity of
2–4 million tonnes/year, location of seams 700–1100 meters below the ground level, it would
appear that such a project requires an obligatory EIA procedure in each of the V4 countries.
In Poland, a retention reservoir Świnna Poręba has been being built on the Skawa River
near Wadowice since 1986 (Gałaś & Gałaś, 2009). Finally it is supposed to have the following
characteristics: the total volume of 161 million m3, the height of the dam 50 m, 3.8 MW power
plant output. If a project of such a reservoir was considered, due to the large volume it would
be the subject of an obligatory EIA procedure in each of the V4 countries. Additionally, in
Poland and Slovakia the parameter of the maximum height of the dam would be exceeded.
However, the limit of the maximum power – 50 MW would not be exceeded in Slovakia.
The redevelopment of a hotel at Arłamów is currently being implemented in Poland. The
project is being carried out in the Słonne Mountains Landscape Park, in the vicinity of Natura
2000 area within the future borders of the planned Turnicki National Park. The project aims to
increase the number of beds from 110 to 421, parking spaces from 154 to 425 and to increase
the build-up area from 0.47 to 2.44 ha (Łyjak et al., 2008). Such an investment should be
the subject of an obligatory EIA procedure in Poland (actually there was such a proceeding,
RDOŚ Rzeszow), Slovakia and the Czech Republic. However, in Hungary, such project would
be the subject of screening both in terms of accommodation and the project area.
49
The differences specified in the thresholds and criteria for the screening stage can therefore
be considered as indicators of occurrence of certain resources which shape economic policies
of particular countries. In general, it can be said that mining in the V4 countries is regarded
as harmful to the environment and the thresholds exempt only small plants located outside
the protected areas (due to the nature and/or water resources) from the obligatory EIA procedure. Also, regulation of rivers and construction of water reservoirs are properly controlled due
the established threshold values. The thresholds set for the object of tourism and recreation
may seem too lenient in all V4 countries, but especially in Hungary. This is due to the fact
that the tourism industry is generally regarded as slightly harmful to the environment but
this is not always the truth (for example, the impact of skiing on the environment: landslide
of slopes, drainage of areas, consequences of snowmaking).
4. Research Methodology the Survey
“Assessment of the Quality
of the Environment in the V4 Countries”
The Environmental Impact Assessment procedure as a primary instrument for environmental management in the V4 countries constituted the subject of the study. The aim
of the study included obtaining information about the experts conducting the procedure and
the authors preparing the EIA documentation, methods and tools applied to the process at
each stage of the procedure, the experience of applying EIA in environmental management
and assessment of the procedure in the countries. Empirical studies related to observations of
the studied phenomena carried out on a sample group of experts involved in the EIA procedure
to the varying degrees were the tools applied to conduct the research. A survey method, which
is one of the most popular ways to collect information in empirical studies, was chosen as
the research method. A survey sent by e-mail was the research technique and a questionnaire
was used as research tool. The research methodology included the following stages: preparation of the survey questionnaire and conducting the survey, evaluating the results.
Preparation of the Survey Questionnaire
The first step was a joint preparation of the questionnaire by all the partners. The works included determining the contents and arrangement of questions and possible answers. The final version of the questionnaire comprised 22 single or multiple-choice questions of the following types:
– closed,
– semi-open with a set of possible answers and the possibility to enter the respondent’s
own opinion on the subject,
– and open ones.
The following four thematic areas can be distinguished in the questionnaire:
– describing respondents in terms of the length of service in the EIA/SEA procedures,
the number of prepared EIA documents and fields of economy and environmental issues
they specialised in,
– working methods and techniques of the respondents, including types of guidelines, procedures and methods and also the software that respondents used for the EIA procedures,
– opinions of the respondents regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the EIA procedures,
the main objectives of the EIA, quality of information and notification of the process to
the public,
– the respondents’ suggestions related to the improvement of efficiency of the EIA/SEA
and comments and suggestions regarding the issue.
51
Conducting the Survey, Evaluating the Results
Online surveys were conducted in the period of January – February 2013 simultaneously
in four countries: Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary. About 200 people
– experts specialising in the subject of the study in each country – were invited by e-mail
to participate in the survey. Fifty responses had been expected. Lists of potential survey
participants from each country involved in the project were prepared on the basis of publicly
available databases related to the EIA procedure.
Invited respondents completed the survey placed on the project website www.environ.
agh.edu.pl and the answers were anonymously sent to the e-mail address of the project
coordinator in each country. Following the receipt of a fixed number of completed questionnaires the process of analysing and processing the results was started. The collected data were
processed by statistical methods with the help of the spreadsheets Microsoft Office Excel
2003 and Statistica 8.0. The results were analysed separately in each Member State and then
compared with the results from the whole V4 group.
The survey questionnaire „Assessment of the Quality of the Environment in the V4
Countries” is presented below (Tab. 4.1). The questionnaires were sent in the mother tongues
of the countries taking part in the study. Therefore, some of the questions were adapted to
the situation in a particular country. This included titles of guidelines that were used and types
of assessment methods. All language versions of the questionnaire can be found in the annex
to the monograph (annex 3).
Table 4.1. The survey questionnaire „Assessment of the Quality of the Environment in the V4 Countries”
The questionnaire survey
Dear Madam/Sir,
Here is the questionnaire, which is the part of the implementation of International Visegrad Fund project with title “Assessment of the Quality of the Environment in the V4
Countries (AQE V4)”. Its purpose is to review the current guidance materials in connection with the development of new techniques and methodologies as well as the practical
experiences gained from the process of EIA/SEA.
We would kindly ask you to fill online form of the questionnaire. Please, after reading
the question tick the suitable answers or add your own opinion. The questionnaire is anonymous. Completing the questionnaire will take up to 10 minutes and the information will
be invaluable for the project implementation.
The survey results will be compared in V4 countries and will be available on the project
website and upcoming book after analysis.
Thank you in advance for your willingness and cooperation.
dr inż. Slávka Gałaś, AGH University of Science and Technology Krakow, Poland
doc. Ing. Martina Zeleňáková, PhD., the Technical University of Košice, Slovakia
doc. Dr. Ing. Miloslav Šlezingr, Mendel University in Brno, the Czech Republic
dr. Károly Penksza, Hungarian Biological Society, Hungary
52
4. Research Methodology the Survey “Assessment of the Quality of the Environment in the V4 Countries”
Questionnaire
1. How many years have you worked with Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA)?
0–5
6–10
10+
2. Approximately what proportion of your time is devoted to EIA?
0–25%
26–50%
51–75%
76–100%
3. Approximately what proportion of your working time is devoted to the Strategic
Environmental Assessment (SEA)?
0–25%
26–50%
51–75%
76–100%
4. How many EIA documentations have you been involved in the last three years?
1–5
6–10
11–15
16+
5. How many SEA documentations have you been involved in the last three years?
1–5
6–10
11–15
16+
6. Have you been participated in the assessment of transboundary effects?
Yes, please specify, the kind of activities and neighboring country:
No
7. Which stages of the EIA process are you predominantly involved with?
Tick all suitable answers.
Report
Screening
Scoping
Impact assessment
Environmental statement
Mitigation and monitoring
Other, please specify:
8. When undertaking EIA which of the following environmental components do
you specialise in?
Population (health risks, social and economic consequences)
Geology, geodynamic phenomena and geomorphological conditions
Climatic conditions
53
Atmosphere (e.g. emissions and air pollution)
Water (e.g. quality, quantity)
Soil (e.g. contamination, soil erosion)
Fauna, flora and their habitats (e.g. protected, rare, endangered species and their
habitats, migration corridors, etc.)
Landscape – the structure and land use
Protected areas and their buffer zones (e.g. Natura 2000, national parks, protected
landscape area, protected areas of water resources)
Territorial system of ecological stability
Complex urban and land use
Cultural and historical monuments
Archaeological deposits
Paleontological sites and important geological sites
Intangible cultural values (e.g. local traditions)
9. Which of the following stressors in the implementation of the EIA process do you
specialize in?
Air pollution – the main source of air pollution (stationary, mobile), qualitative
and quantitative characterization of emissions, carbon capture method, the method
of measuring emissions
Water pollution – the total amount, type and quality indicators of discharges,
discharge location (recipient, public sewer, wastewater treatment), the source of
waste water disposal method
Waste – the total amount (t/year), the method of waste management
Noise and vibration (source strength)
Radiation and other physical fields (thermal, magnetic, and others)
Landslides
10. In which sectors (of industry) do you have experience of EIA preparation?
Mining industry
Energy industry
Metallurgical industry
Chemical, pharmaceutical and petrochemical industry
Wood, pulp and paper industry
Industry of building materials
Mechanical and electrical engineering
Other industries
Infrastructure
Water management
54
Agricultural and forest production
Food industry
Transport and telecommunications
Purpose-built facilities for sport, recreation and tourism
Military construction
Strategy documents (draft policy, development policy, plan and program, including strategy documents, financed by the European Union)
Planning documentation
11. Which methodology procedures do you used most often?
Please specify:
12. Which methodology procedures do you use in transboudary environmental impact assessment (e.g. for impact prediction or alternatives comparison)?
Please specify:
13. Do you think that given the methodological guide for the EIA process are sufficient?
Yes
No
Partly
14. In your opinion, what is the main purpose of EIA?
Cross, please, a maximum of 3 answers.
Comply with the area development
Reducing the environmental impacts
Support for decision making
Tool for sustainable development
Assistance for investors
Contribution to the proposed decision
Reduce future costs
The basis for obtaining a building permit
15. What are the strengths of current practice in EIA for the country?
A good foundation in law
Many instructions, guidance and teaching guides
Sophisticated methods of prediction impacts – impacts on the environment
Scientific contribution
55
16. What are the weaknesses of the current practice in EIA for the country?
Insufficient assessment of alternatives
Limited consideration of cumulative impacts
Insufficient involvement of public
Subjectivity in predicting the environmental impacts
Insufficient monitoring
Limited quality control of EIA documentation
Change after the submission of the draft
Inadequate screening
Poor coordination with land – planning documentation
Limited impact in decision
Missing advisory department for the EIA process
17. Do you think the public is well informed on the steps of the EIA process?
Yes
No
Partly
18. Are the input data in processing documentation in EIA procedure easily accessible and of the required quality?
Yes
No
Partly
19. What procedures and methods do you use for identification and assessment of
impacts?
Ad hoc methods
Checklists
Matrix
Sectoral guidelines
The systematic sequential approach (SSA)
Networks
Simulation modeling workshops
Spatial analysis methods
Rapid assessment techniques
Multicriteria assessment
Indicators of environmental quality (environmental indicators)
Risk analysis
Mapping overlay
56
Geographic Information Systems
Life Cycle Assessment
Best Available Technologies – BAT
Economic analysis – cost-effectiveness analysis
Expert opinion
Consultations
20. Do you use for environmental impact assessment any specialized software and
which in particular?
Please specify:
21. In your opinion, is current EIA satisfactory? What should be modified/amended
in the existing EIA process with a view to improving its effectiveness?
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
22. Your comments, recommendation note regarding EIA:
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
Thank you for your time and willingness to cooperate in the development of the questionnaire.
5. Analysis and Evaluation
of the Survey in the V4 Member Countries
About 800 respondents, natural persons or companies, involved in the process of Environmental Impact Assessment in all V4 countries were invited by e-mail to take part in the survey.
Addresses of the respondents were obtained from lists of professionally qualified persons
(SVK: www.eia.enviroportal.sk/sposobile-osoby, CZ: www.portal.cenia.cz/eiasea/osoby/osoby)
publicly available on the Internet and the Internet databases of completed Environmental
Impact Statements made available online (PL: www.ekoportal.gov.pl, HU: www.kvvm.hu),
as well as companies that provided such services. In each Member State there was an attempt
to obtain replies from 50 respondents who took part in the survey which came to a total of
200 replies that have been obtained from the respondents.
On the basis of the survey results analysis and evaluation of questions from 50 respondents in the analysed V4 countries have been conducted. The survey results were evaluated
for individual V4 countries: survey evaluation in Poland, in Slovakia, in the Czech Republic
and in Hungary and subsequently mutually compared: analysis and evaluation of the survey
in the V4 Member Countries. The results present general information about the EIA process,
similarities and differences in methods of implementation and understanding of the process
in all V4 countries.
Survey Evaluation in Poland
The whole number of the respondents was 50. It resulted from the survey that 54% of
them had been involved in EIA for more than 10 years and 24% for more than 6–10 years.
Thirty-two percent of the respondents devoted one fourth of the working time to deal
with EIA and 80% of the respondents spent the same time working with SEA. Only 12% of
the respondents devoted 76–100% of their working time to deal with EIA.
In the last three years, most of the respondents participated in preparation of up to
5 sets of documentation. In case of EIA it was 44% and 2% participated in preparation of
SEA documentation. In the same period, more than 16 sets of the EIA documentation were
prepared by 28% of the respondents and 8% dealt with the SEA documentation.
Twenty-two percent of the respondents took part in carrying out cross-border proceedings
on environmental impact. The cases concerned mainly Germany and the Czech Republic in
the following projects: a wind farm – the Czech Republic, mining – the Czech Republic, management of water resources – Germany, power industry – Germany, the Czech Republic, road
and rail infrastructure – Germany, the Czech Republic, navigability of the Oder – Germany,
58
5. Analysis and Evaluation of the Survey in the V4 Member Countries
ammunition disposal, hangover from the former German Democratic Republic, coke plants
– the Czech Republic. Apart from that, the respondents were involved in the consultation on
a nuclear power plant in Kaliningrad (Russia), power industry – Russia, Belarus, Ukraine,
road and rail infrastructure – Ukraine.
Eighty-two percent of the respondents were mostly engaged in preparing reports on
the impact of projects on the environment and prognosis of the environmental impact.
Fifty-two percent of the respondents dealt with arrangements and giving opinions and 42% of
the respondents marked their participation in issuing opinions. The least respondents checked
possibility of issuing decisions – 18%.
When carrying out EIA the respondents most frequently specialized in the following aspects of the environment: air (volume and concentration of emission and immission) – 54% of
the respondents, water conditions in such areas as water quality, water regime, drainage conditions, resources, supply – 48%, protected areas and their buffer zones – 42%. Twelve percent
of the respondents (at least) indicated archaeological sites and intangible assets (such as local
traditions) as their specializations in the environment elements listed in the environment survey.
When conducting the EIA the respondents most frequently specialized in the following types of emissions: emissions of air pollutants – 58%, solid waste – 56%, waste water
– 42%. Emission of radiation and other physical fields were the most rarely selected – 12%
of the respondents.
Most frequently (in the first three places) the respondents prepared EIA reports in the field
of infrastructure and energy industry – 38%, then in water resource management, transport
and telecommunication – 36% and strategy documents (draft policies, development concepts,
plans and programs, including strategy documents financed by the European Union) – 34%
of the respondents. Among the least frequent activities the respondents checked the answers
(1–3) concerning reports on the impact of military constructions – 6%.
Methodology Guide for the EIA process Administrative proceedings in matters determined
by the Act of 3 October 2008 on the provision of information about the environment and its
protection, public participation in environmental protection and environmental impact assessment is the guide most commonly used by the respondents (66%). Instruction The method of
determining emission and immission of industrial noise in the environment (ITB No. 338/2003)
– ITB Warsaw 2003 was used by 50% of the respondents. A handbook of good practice in
performing environmental studies of domestic roads edited by J. Bohatkiewicz, GDDKiA/
EKKOM Sp. z o.o. Krakow 2007 – was used by 48% of the respondents. The same textbooks
were used by the respondents to assess cross-border impact of a project on the environment.
However, only 18% of the respondents stated that the available literature was sufficient
for the work with the EIA. Half of the respondents (50%) thought that the published methodological guides for the EIA process were only partly sufficient.
The respondents considered the following problems as the main purpose of the EIA:
elimination of the negative impact on the environment (78%), support for a decision-making
process (60%) and a tool for sustainable development (48%). The lowest number of checked
answers obtained the possibility of reducing costs in the future, which was marked as the main
purpose by 16% of respondents.
59
When choosing strong points of the EIA process, the opinions of the respondents were
evenly split. All of the proposed alternatives: a good foundation in the current legal regulations; many instructions, guidelines and recommendations for the EIA, advanced methods
of forecasting environmental impacts and scientific input – were chosen by 34–36% of
the respondents.
A subjective approach to impact assessment was chosen by 44% of the respondents as
the greatest weakness of the current EIA procedure. Low share of the cumulative impact
was chosen by 40%, and poor coordination with spatial planning documentations by 38% of
the respondents. The fewest, only 4 respondents (8%), chose insufficient stage of screening
as a weakness of the EIA.
Almost half (46%) of the interviewed respondents believed that the public was only partly
sufficiently informed about the stages of the EIA process. Thirty percent of the respondents
believed that public was sufficiently informed and 22% that they were not sufficiently informed
about the stages of the EIA process.
Answering the question if the respondents had access to a sufficient amount of data (in
the required quality, updated, etc.) when preparing the EIA documentation, most of the respondents (56%) estimated that it was only partially sufficient. For 18% of the respondents
archival data were satisfactory and only 8% of the respondents felt that not enough.
More than half of the respondents asked about procedures and methods used to identify
and evaluate the impact chose: methods of forecasting – 58%, modelling techniques (such as
mathematical models, models to simulate phenomena, experimental methods in situ) – 54%,
environmental indicators – 52% and multicriteria assessment – 50%. The least used tools to
forecast the impact included: networks and diagrams – 16% and the decision tree – 12% of
respondents.
The respondents usually used the following specialized software for the environmental
impact assessment: GIS – 60%, HPZ 2001 GEO – 20% and 10% of the respondents used
Operat 2000 and LeqProfessional.
The majority (76%) of the respondents expressed their points of view on the problem
whether the current EIA process was efficient and what should be changed/modified to increase
its effectiveness. The following suggestions were mentioned:
– training and in-service courses for officials,
– increasing effectiveness of the officials’ work,
– better education of investors who treat the EIA process as inconvenient necessity,
– more flexible and simplified EIA procedures,
– change of screening criteria – reducing the number of projects having significant impact
on the environment,
– correction of the definition of the scope of the report, adapting it to the specific scope
of the project,
– defining universal criteria to assess the impact on particular elements of the environment,
– improving efficiency of the EIA process,
– more precise methodology of monitoring when the project is carried and after its completion,
– better control of quality of the EIA documentation,
60
– imposing obligatory analysis of the state of habitats and protected species in the areas
of Natura 2000 after completion of the project,
– creation of eco-negotiators to conduct public consultations,
– re-establishment of specialist experts on EIA with five-year certification,
– lack of proper involvement of the administration authorities,
– lack of help for investors,
– shortening the EIA procedures for issuing an environmental decision,
– increasing influence of the EIA on the decision – making process,
– increasing influence of the local government units on the final decision, taking into account investment needs of the communes.
Slightly more than half (52%) of the respondents expressed their comments on the EIA
process, the most important issues were related to:
– a real need for public awareness of the issues in the EIA process and its importance,
– improvement of efficiency of the stage determining the scope of the report, ignorance
and unwillingness of officials,
– upsetting the principle of sustainable development concerning protection of the environment in relation to the investment needs of communes,
– existence of very large problems in the implementation of any projects within the areas
of Natura 2000 – huge costs of running the investment projects,
– protraction of the investment process in the areas of Natura 2000 (it is necessary to wait
till the end of the vegetation season to perform the assessment),
– considering relations between the investor, leading and decision making authorities and
so called public, especially environmental organizations,
– the problem of collecting the data necessary for preparation of the “Report”, including
cases when more than one option is necessary,
– increase of qualifications of persons assessing the reports,
– improvement of transparency and independence of the evaluation/control of EIA procedures,
– introduction of the five-year certification for persons engaged in preparation of the EIA
report,
– lack of information concerning the procedure and the goal of the EIA procedure,
– documentation of required quality which is the base for EIA procedures.
Survey Evaluation in Slovakia
A total of 50 respondents filled in the questionnaire, 48% of them had been dealing with assessing environmental impact for 10 years or more. Sixty-six percent of the respondents stated
that they had devoted 0–25% of their work time to the process of EIA, and 94% of
the respondents had devoted 0–25% of their work time to the SEA process. A total of 10%
of the respondents devoted 76–100% of their time to the EIA process and in that time period
all of the respondents were dealing with the SEA process.
Most (38%) of the respondents dealt with 0–5 sets of EIA documentation, 28% of respondents were involved in 6–10 sets of EIA documentation, 14% of respondents with 11–15 sets
61
of EIA documentation and 18% were involved in more than 16 sets of EIA documentation
in the three year period.
In the past three years 88% of respondents participated in preparation of 0–5 sets of
SEA documentation, 4% shared in 10–15 set of SEA documentation and 2% in more than
sets of 16 documentation.
From all of the respondents 78% did not take part in assessing the impacts reaching
beyond the state borders. Cross-border cooperation was listed in two cases neighbouring
with Poland (for example, recreational facilities), in two cases with the Czech Republic
(for example, nuclear activities), in four cases with Hungary (for example, nuclear activities), in five cases with Austria (for example, nuclear activities) and in one case with Serbia
(for example, wind energy).
The majority of respondents were connected to all of the phases of the process of assessing the environmental impacts. For example, 84% of respondents had a share in planning,
60% of respondents took part in surveying activities, 68% of respondents shared in the report
on the evaluation and 76% of respondents were involved in the professional assessment.
A total of 42% of respondents stated that they were linked to the final positions and 10%
of respondents to post-project analysis. Furthermore, respondents were also dealing with
predictions of acoustic relations.
When going through the EIA process respondents were to deal with a whole range of
environmental branches. Protected landscapes and territories and their protected zones were
the most common specialisation for 60% of respondents.
Most of the respondents (52%) specialised in water when dealing with the EIA process
– total amount, type and quality indicators of released waste-waters, the place of releasing
(recipient, public sewage, waste-water treatment plants), the origin of waste-waters and
the method of treatment. Biota, protection of landscapes, protection of nature, ecological
stability systems, natural sciences, land use, land and ecology were the other outputs in which
respondents specialised when they were involved in the EIA process.
The respondents had experience in preparation of EIA in the entire range of industrial
sectors: 50% of respondents had experience in the field of infrastructure, 38% of respondents
in the area of the energy industry and 36% of respondents in the area of sport and recreation
facilities and the travel industry.
Environmental Impact Assessment in the Slovak Republic (EIA), the general guide,
SEA, 2008 were the most common methodological approaches applied by 60% of the respondents. Fifty-two percent of respondents worked with the General Guide to the Law
no. 127/1994 Coll. of., 1994, EIA Centre, KKE FNS CU, Bratislava. The least used was
the methodological approach Environmental Impact Assessment of the effects of chemical
technologies, 1994 Faculty of Chemical Technology STU in Bratislava, which was listed
by 6% of the respondents.
Sixty-six percent of the respondents stated that they used the same method when assessing foreign impacts as when analysing impacts within Slovakia.
Eighteen percent of the respondents considered the methodological handbooks for the EIA
process as sufficient, while 34% of respondents considered them to be insufficient and 44%
of respondents thought that they are partially sufficient.
62
Up to 82% of the respondents stated that the primary purpose of EIA is lowering of
the environmental impacts. Supporting decision-making process is an additional purpose
of EIA for 44% of the respondents and 6% of respondents listed reducing future costs as
the main purpose of EIA. Contribution of the public in the decision-making process was also
given as another primary purpose for EIA.
Fifty-two percent of the respondents identified a good foundation in legal provisions
as being among the advantages of present practice in the field of EIA in Slovakia and only
8% of respondents mentioned a scientific contribution. The participation of the public was
given as another advantage and one respondent said that in Slovakia there were currently no
positive aspects of the current practice in the field of EIA in Slovakia.
As the weakness of the present practice in the field of EIA in Slovakia 48% of the respondents marked insufficient post-project analysis and monitoring, while 36% of respondents
thought that the limited consideration of cumulative impacts is a drawback and 36% considered subjectivity in the prediction of impacts a disadvantage. Other weaknesses according
to the respondents were the fact that the state did not guarantee financing of the results of
the EIA, but it depended on the goodwill of the investor instead, weak legal and methodological
foundation and the fact that the processing of the documentation and professional assessment
was directly paid by the applicant.
The awareness of the public regarding the steps in the EIA process was considered by
24% of the respondents as sufficient, while 16% of the respondents felt it was insufficient,
and 52% of the respondents as partially sufficient.
When processing only 18% of the respondents had sufficient amount of data/input data
and 64% of the respondents considered the amount of data as partially sufficient.
The ad hoc methods were among the most commonly used methods for identification and
assessing impacts for 44% of the respondents, while for 40% of respondents these were tables
and matrixes showing causes and effects and for 28% of respondents such were the methods
of mapping overlay. Methods such as the evaluation of description method or professional
knowledge and experience were also listed.
When evaluating environmental impacts, 50% of respondents used Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
In the following part there are some interesting responses and comments of respondents
given to the question whether the current EIA process is in their opinion satisfactory and
what would be necessary from the viewpoint of increasing effectiveness to alter/change in
the presently valid EIA process in the Slovak Republic.
– The actual EIA/SEA process is set satisfactorily; there are problems in the data foundation and partially in the ignorance of investors regarding how the EIA process can save
their investment costs (plans are often made in areas which the investor bought for
implementing the proposed activity even before the basic foundations of suitability of
the placing of the plan in such location had been determined).
– An ecologist should offer an opinion regarding every activity, because assessing of
impacts on the environment is involved here; in practice this is not done.
– It would be necessary to eliminate political and lobbyist operations on all levels of EIA
and SEA processes.
63
– It would be appropriate if EIA documentation were drafted solely by properly qualified
personnel as it is done, for example, with documentation for land-planning decisions or
construction activities.
– The preparation of professional methodologies which are to be used in practice is important, especially methodologies for evaluating impacts on territories of Natura 2000
and methodologies for evaluating the impacts on biotopes. Setting limits for assessing
the importance of an impact, etc.
– It is necessary to connect the EIA process with the process used for issuing of building
permissions or changes of the purpose of the area usage – to ensure better connection
with the public and their awareness.
– The processor of the assessment and processing of the documentation are directly paid
by the applicant, so their impartiality is nearly impossible.
– At present anyone has the opportunity to make a written stance in the EIA process and
thus become a participant in the processes related to issuing a building permission. The
possibility to express oneself as a natural person should be limited to the people having
permanent or temporary residence in the location of the planned activities.
– It is necessary to ensure feedback between EIA process and building permits and subsequent carrying out of the construction.
– It would be advantageous to ensure the monitoring and assessing of the fulfilment of
the programme of monitoring and other conditions resulting from the final position.
The last question provided the respondents with space for their proposals, notes and
comments regarding the given problems. Therefore, some initiatives relating to the EIA
process are summarised here:
– fewer laws and regulations, more science;
– to improve the cohesion of EIA conclusions with the construction law (from the land
planning up through building permission);
– to support the independence of the assessor by excluding his contractual relation to
the applicant. To ensure the transfer of measures from the planning to the decision-making
process according to the construction law, even in case when the result of the surveying
activities is such that the assessment is not necessary;
– all documentation should be drafted professionally by properly qualified persons;
– to develop the methodology of assessing health risks resulting from noise pollution of
the environment in conjunction with Act no. 355/2007 Coll. as amended;
– assessing in recent times has become very formal; almost everything is taken from archives and the contribution of the actual authors of documentation is very small while
research and truly detailed and professional assessments are absent.
Survey Evaluation in the Czech Republic
Eighty-four percent of the respondents out of the total of 50 evaluated questionnaires
had been dealing with the environment impact assessment for over 10 years.
Half of the respondents stated that a quarter of their working time was the most that they
devoted to the EIA process; 80% of the respondents devoted no more than a quarter of their
64
time to the SEA process. Eight percent of the respondents devoted between 76% and 100%
of their time to the EIA process; no respondent devoted the same time to the SEA process.
In the last three years 48% of the respondents worked on 0–5 EIA documents,
20% of respondents created 6–10 EIA documents, 14% created 11–15 EIA documents, and
16% of respondents worked on over 16 EIA documents.
In the last three years 72% of the respondents created 0–5 SEA documents, 8% of
the respondents created 6–10 SEA documents, 6% created 11–15 SEA documents, and 12%
of the respondents worked on over 16 SEA documents.
Out of the total number of the respondents, 20% cooperated in impact assessment
extending beyond the country borders (EIA/SEA).
Cross-border cooperation was mentioned in three cases with Poland (e.g. ski resort and
lodging houses, flood protection, coal mine Turów), there were two cases of cooperation
with Germany (e.g. wind farm) and Austria, one case with Slovakia. One of the respondents
even cooperated in a case which reached such countries as Montenegro, Serbia and Italy
(e.g. 400 kV power line).
As regards to the stage of the process of the environmental impact assessment, 48% dealt
with the project itself, 86% dealt with announcements, 48% dealt with exploratory processes,
74% dealt with documentation, 50% prepared reports and 20% issued opinions concerning
impact assessment of the project implementation on the environment. The respondents rarely
dealt with sub-threshold announcements, expert consulting and subcontracts for documentation.
The largest group of the respondents worked with water regimes – 76%. The next category
was landscape assessment (structure and use of landscape, landscape character) – 64%. The
fewest respondents dealt with cultural values of intangible character – 6% only.
The most frequently assessed stressors were water pollution – 70% of the replies, followed by waste and waste treatment – 60% of replies. The least frequently assessed were
radiation and physical fields – 10% of the replies.
Infrastructure, facilities for sports and recreation, transport and telecommunications, which
gained over 50% of points, were the fields where the respondents had the most experience in
EIA preparation. The least explored field was military construction (4%), 8% of respondents
dealt with other fields that were not listed in the questionnaire, followed by metallurgical
industry – 10%.
The most frequently used methodological procedure was Information System EIA Pursuant to Act No. 244/1992 Coll. (68%), followed by the Methodological Instruction Department
Assessment of the Environmental Impact of ME on the Issue of Looking at the Form of Annex
3 and Act No. 100/2001 Coll., on the Environmental Impact Assessment, as amended. The
least frequently used option was the Methodological Guidance on Conducting Biological Assessments (16%). Twelve percent of the respondents chose another procedure, which was not
listed in the questionnaire, e.g. the methodology of landscape fragmenting and permeability,
Information System EIA Pursuant to Act No. 244/1992 Coll.
When assessing impact on the environment exceeding the country borders 60% of respondent used the same methodology as when assessing impacts within the Czech Republic.
Only 22% of the respondents thought that the methodological manuals issued for the EIA
procedure were sufficient; 8% thought they were highly insufficient.
65
According to 88% of the respondents the main aim of EIA was to reduce impacts on
the environment; according to 56% it was support for decision making processes. Only 10%
of the respondents mentioned reduction of future costs and 4% of the respondents would
choose an option that was not in the questionnaire.
A strong point of the current practice in the EIA field in the Czech Republic was good
foundation in the form of legal regulations according to 64% of the respondents. Only 4%
of the respondents considered the scientific contribution a strong point.
Forty-two percent thought that subjective prediction of effects was a weakness. According
to 30% of the respondents, it was the limited consideration of cumulative effects. Only 2%
of the respondents thought that insufficient involvement of the public was a disadvantage.
Fifty-two percent of the respondents thought that the public was sufficiently informed
about the EIA process steps; 16% thought the public was not informed sufficiently and 32%
thought that the public was informed partially.
Only 36% of the respondents had a sufficient amount of input data available in the required quality and updated. Fifty percent of the respondents were partially satisfied with
the quality of data.
The most frequently used methods and procedures for the identification and assessment
of impacts were Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and consultations (78% each). The
least mentioned method was networks and economic analysis and other procedures (4%).
Eighty-six percent of the respondents used specialized software for the environment
impact assessment. GIS was used by 70% of the respondents.
The question whether the current EIA process was satisfactory and how it could be
adapted/modified to increase its efficiency was answered by 31 the respondents out of the total
number of 50.
The evaluated questionnaires show that only six respondents considered the current EIA
process and its status completely satisfactory.
Eight respondents considered the current EIA process and its status quite satisfactory
but they had some comments and proposals. For example:
– investor’s pressure on the EIA creating clerk and the effort to modify the project assessment,
– the need to improve the coordination of the Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic (hereinafter ME CR), especially concerning preparation, allocation of assignments
and issuance of methodological instructions.
–
–
–
–
66
Seventeen respondents named some defects of the current EIA process. For example:
the EIA process should be accepted more seriously by the relevant state authorities and
the authorized persons,
in many cases there are unsubstantiated objections which authorities cannot distinguish
and eliminate from the process in time which slows the process down and discourages
investors from the investment,
it is very difficult to find legal protection of the investor in the EIA process,
the term “settlement of relevant comments” should be clarified,
– even officially acknowledged methods, e.g. SYMOS are put in doubt, some special acts
are also put practically in doubt in several issues and then the EIA documentation is
futilely more extensive,
– the person preparing the announcement and documentation is in direct economic link
to the customer (investor) who dictates the processed topics with limited versions of
the submitted proposal; at the same time the financial and temporal space to gain and
use good quality data is limited as well,
– EIA procedures are demanded for small economic activities whose impact on the environment is very limited; while they should rather focus on the potential large sources,
as defined in the original EU guideline,
– the main insufficiency is the consequences of disrespecting of the final recommendations,
– it is necessary to unify the requirements for the quality and depth of assessment – recommend a minimum content and scope of the assessment of the particular components
of the environment.
Fifteen out of 50 respondents provided specific proposals and comments on the issue.
For example:
– when preparing the documentation, mainly for SEA, there is improper access to territorial planning data available to clerks,
– the documentation should not be prepared in its full scale for some projects, but based
on screening of only those parts that could have a negative impact on the environment,
– improving the quality of the exploratory stage at the level of regional authorities and
the ME CR,
– for the sake of efficiency it would be appropriate that the ME CR implemented inspections of EIA and mainly SEA preparation quality.
Survey Evaluation in Hungary
The total number of the respondents was 50. It resulted from the survey that 62% of them
had been involved with the EIA for not longer than 5 years and 22% for more than 10 years.
Even up to 70% of the respondents devoted only one fourth of the working time to deal
with EIA and as many as 94% of the respondents spent the same time working with SEA.
In the last three years most of the respondents participated in preparation of up to 5 sets of
the EIA documentation – 72%, while 94% of the respondents participated in preparation
of the SEA documentation. In the same period more than 16 sets of the EIA documentation
were prepared by 6% of the respondents and 0% of them dealt with the SEA documentation.
Eighty-four percent of the respondents did not take part in implementing a cross-border
procedure on the environmental impact of the project. Only four people indicated that they
took part in such proceedings, which involved such countries as Slovakia and Austria.
The respondents were most frequently engaged in conducting a stage of the preparation
of the project – 60%, subsequent most frequent activity was making an environmental impact
assessment – 54%, and 50% marked participation in providing an expertise. The fewest
respondents specified the possibility of issuing a decision (6%).
67
When implementing the EIA the respondents most frequently specialized in the following elements of the environment: fauna, flora – 62% of the respondents, protected areas,
their buffer zones and the human population – 44% of the respondents. Choosing among
the elements of the environment listed in the survey, intangible assets (e.g. local traditions)
and archaeological sites were indicated as the respondents’ specialization by 0% and 4% of
the respondents, respectively (the fewest).
When carrying out the EIA procedures, the respondents most frequently specialized
in the following types of emissions: sewage emission – 32%, solid waste and changing of
the landscape – 28%. Emission of radiation and other physical fields were the least frequently
chosen types of emission – 6% of respondents.
Most frequently (in the first three places) the respondents had prepared the EIA reports
in the field of agricultural and forestry production – 54% water management – 30%, infrastructure and sport, recreation and tourism facilities – 22%. Not a single respondent marked
impact reports in the field of military construction and mechanical and electrical engineering.
More than half of the respondents (62%) believed that the published methodological
guides for the EIA process were adequate only partially and 34% of the respondents stated
that the available literature was helpful when dealing with the EIA procedures.
First of all, the respondents considered the following functions as the main objectives
of the EIA: elimination of the negative impact on the environment (72%), support for the decision-making process (52%) and as a tool supporting the decision-making process (30%).
Possibility of reducing costs in the future received the lowest number of votes, as only 12% of
the respondents selected it as the main objective of the procedure.
When choosing a strong part of the EIA process, the respondents most frequently indicated
advanced methods of forecasting environmental impacts and scientific contribution – both
options were chosen by 58% of the respondents.
As the greatest weakness of the current EIA procedures the respondents indicated
poor post-completion analysis and monitoring – 48%, no public involvement – 44%, and poor
coordination of planning documentations – 38% of the respondents. Only 4 respondents (8%)
chose insufficient quality control of the EIA documentation as a weakness of the EIA.
As many as 48% of the interviewed individuals believed that the public were not sufficiently informed about the stages of the EIA process, only 8% of respondents estimated
that the public were sufficiently informed about the stages of the EIA process and as many
as 44% believed that they were sufficiently informed only partially.
Answering the question if the respondents had access to a sufficient amount of data (in
the required quality, updated, etc.) when preparing the EIA documentation, most of the respondents – 66% evaluated them as only partially adequate. The same number of respondents
– 16% answered definitely “yes” or “no”.
Almost half of the respondents indicated that they applied the method of environmental
indicators to identify and evaluate the environmental impact – 48% of the respondents.
The second position was occupied by experts’ opinions – 40% and the third was the ad hoc
methods – 32% of the respondents. Among the least popular tools for the impact prediction,
the respondents marked: life cycle assessment – 8%, and networks and diagrams – 4% of
the respondents.
68
As specialized software to assess the environmental impact 60% of the respondents
applied the Geographic Information System (GIS), and 4% the IRAS software. The rest of
the respondents did not answer the question.
Only 36% of the respondents used the opportunity to present their views on the problem whether the current EIA process was efficient and what should be changed/modified to
increase its effectiveness. The respondents referred their suggestions to the following issues:
– requirement for greater involvement of public organizations and the general public,
– lack of data on the environment and the size of the impact of the project on the environment, insufficient funds for research,
– necessary improvement of the monitoring stage,
– increased enforcement of the decision making process and documentation, publicly
available results,
– implementation of the multi-criteria approach to the assessment, professional methods
to resolve conflicts,
– increased involvement of experts,
– necessity to make the process known and easily understood by a layman,
– the need to receive feedback and to monitor the issued decisions, the results of the monitoring are to improve the efficiency of the process,
– necessity to devote more time to prepare documentation and to get access to geographic
information systems,
– increased consultation to eliminate subjectivity,
– elimination of corruption,
– involvement of all elements of the environment to assess the environmental impact,
increasing consideration of the assessment criteria,
– availability of the EIA results for the public,
– thorough knowledge of the technical parameters of the proposed project as the crucial
circumstance to carry out the EIA properly.
Fourteen percent of the respondents expressed their comments on the EIA process. The
most important issues were as follows:
– extension of the EIA process and including all disciplines, involving many experts,
– development of a common methodology for impact assessment, improvement of the quality of documentation,
– increase of efficiency of cooperation of the participants involved in the process,
– receiving feedback, revealing aspects of the decision-making process,
– reduction of administrative decisions, increasing efficiency of the EIA process.
Evaluation of the Survey in the V4 Member Countries
The results of the survey in the V4 countries have been presented and compared according to the order of the questions sent out in the questionnaires (chapter 4, annex 3).
Only such responses to the survey have been compared which had the answers chosen from
the same options.
69
The survey revealed that among all the respondents, except those from Hungary, the largest group comprised respondents with the longest period of involvement in the EIA, over
10 years. The most experienced experts in the field of EIA worked in the Czech Republic,
where the group made up to 84% of the respondents from the country (Fig. 5.1). While in
Hungary the largest group (62%) comprised the experts who had only five years of experience.
In Slovakia and Poland seniority structure was similar. It could be generally assumed that
experienced experts in particular countries had been involved in EIA since its beginning. Assessment procedures were generally started in 1992–1994, except Poland where it is believed
to have started in the beginning of 1980’s.
1. How many years have you worked with Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA)?
Hungary
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Poland
0%
0–5
20%
6–10
40%
10+
60%
80%
100%
No response
Fig. 5.1. Answers of respondents to the question: „How many years have you worked with Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)”?
A decreasing trend can be observed in all the surveyed countries when analysing
the amount of time that respondents spent dealing with EIA and SEA processes (Fig. 5.2). The
largest group was constituted by experts that devoted only 25% of their working time to deal
with the EIA which was the most evident in Hungary, while such group occupied the second
and the third places in Slovakia and the Czech Republic respectively (from 32 to 70%).
In the SEA process this group of respondents clearly dominated the other groups – from
80 up to 94%. Only one (HU) and up to 6 (PL) of the respondents indicated that they spent
all their time at the EIA. In case of the SEA process not a single person chose this option
as an answer. It could mean that experts used to prepare reports as a part of their jobs
besides other tasks which could be a result of smaller number of SEA prepared or great
competition on the market of environmental expertise. Most companies offer a full range
of studies in management and protection of the environment (noise maps, post-completion
analysis, management plans, etc.).
70
a)
2. Approximately what proportion of your time is devoted to EIA?
Hungary
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Poland
0%
b)
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
3. Approximately what proportion of your working time is
devoted to the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)?
Hungary
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Poland
0%
0–25%
20%
26–50%
40%
51–75%
60%
80%
76–100%
100%
No response
Fig. 5.2. Answers of respondents to the questions: a) „Approximately what proportion of your time is
devoted to EIA?”, b) „Approximately what proportion of your working time is devoted to the Strategic
Environmental Assessment (SEA)?”
In the last three years most of the respondents from all V4 countries had taken part in preparation of up to 5 sets of EIA documentation (38–48%) (Fig. 5.3). This group was significantly
dominated by the respondents from Hungary who constituted up to 72% of the interviewed
respondents. Similar results were obtained when the respondents were asked about the SEA
documentation. In that case advantage of the group preparing 0–5 sets of documentation was
even more significant. It may result from the amount of the working time that the respondents
devoted to the EIA and SEA processes (respondents’ answers to question 2 and 3).
71
a)
4. How many EIA documentations have you been involved in the last three years?
Hungary
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Poland
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
b)
5. How many SEA documentations have you been involved in the last three years?
Hungary
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Poland
0%
20%
0–5
6–10
40%
11–15
60%
16+
80%
100%
No response
Fig. 5.3. Answers of respondents to the questions: a) „How many EIA documentations have you been
involved in the last three years?”; b) „How many SEA documentations have you been involved in the last
three years?”
Twenty percent of the respondents from Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic and 12%
from Hungary took part in assessment of cross-border effects and environmental impact (Fig. 5.4).
72
The proceedings were predominantly associated with development of nuclear power stations,
wind power stations, road and rail infrastructure, flood protection and exploitation of mineral
resources.
6. Have you been participated in the assessment of
transboundary effects?
Hungary
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Poland
0%
20%
Yes
No
40%
60%
80%
100%
No response
Fig. 5.4. Answers of respondents to the question: „Have you been participated in the assessment of
trans-boundary effects?”
The question about the stage of the EIA in which the respondents were engaged was
focused on analysis of the stages that had occurred in all the investigated countries (Fig. 5.5).
The results, calculated as an arithmetic mean of the answers received from all the V4 countries, showed that people who had most often dealt with preparing reports on the impact of
projects on the environment and forecasting the impact dominated among the respondents,
the arithmetic mean value from all the countries equalled to 62.5%.
The results obtained from Hungary where such group of respondents occupied merely
the third place seem to be interesting. It may have influenced the answers to the other questions which had been obtained. Preparing expertise was marked at the second position by
the respondents, the next one was the screening process and than issuing the final decision.
Apart from that the respondents from particular countries declared issuing “Project
Information Cards” (i.e. “Zámer” in Slovakia – as many as 84% of the respondents), making
post-completion analysis and providing consultations. Such a variety of answers may partly
explain the results obtained in question 2 and 3, related to the limited amount of time that
respondents had devoted to the EIA/SEA processes (resulting from consequences of administrative procedures necessary to obtain administrative decisions).
73
7. Which stages of the EIA process are you predominantly
involved with?
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Screening
Poland
Report
Slovakia
Preparing
expertise
Czech Republic
Issuing the
final decision
Hungary
Fig. 5.5. Answers of respondents to the question: „Which stages of the EIA process are you predominantly involved with?”
When preparing the EIA the results based on the mean arithmetic values of the respondents’ answers from all V4 countries showed that the respondents mostly specialized
in the following elements of the environment: protected areas – 50% of the respondents,
water conditions – 50%, fauna, flora and their habitats – 47% and the landscape – 46% of
the respondents (Fig. 5.6a).
In Poland, the amount of specialists dealing with the landscape is the smallest, in
the Czech Republic it is the one dealing with flora, fauna and the habitat and in Hungary
with water conditions (Fig. 5.6b).
More important than the four mentioned specializations in particular elements of the environment occurred to be: the air in Poland and soil in the Czech Republic and Hungary.
Among the four mentioned specializations numerous experts in human population appeared
only in Hungary and Slovakia. Less than 15% of the respondents mentioned intangible assets and archaeological sites as their specialisation among the elements of the environment.
The respondents’ answers were quite similar in case of the question on the types of
emissions the respondents specialise in when accomplishing the EIA. The first three positions
according to the arithmetic mean value (40–49%) were occupied by: waste-water, solid waste
and air pollution (Fig. 5.7). Emission of radiation and other physical fields (13% – arithmetic
mean) were the least frequently chosen types of emission in all the surveyed countries. The
results indicate market demand for experts in waste-water, emission into the air and solid
waste, because these emissions are the most commonly discharged into the environment
when undertaking projects.
74
a)
8. When undertaking EIA which of the following environmental components do you
specialise in?
Population
36%
Geology and geomorphological conditions
31%
Climatic conditions
25%
Atmosphere
40%
Water
50%
Soil
39%
Fauna, flora and their habitats
47%
Landscape
46%
Protected areas and their buffer zones
50%
26%
21%
14%
Intangible cultural values
17%
9%
b)
8. When undertaking EIA which of the following environmental components do you specialise in?
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Poland
Slovakia
Population
Atmosphere
Fauna, flora and their habitats
Czech Republic
Geology and geomorphological conditions
Water
Landscape
Intangible cultural values
Hungary
Climatic conditions
Soil
Protected areas and their buffer zones
Fig. 5.6. Answers of respondents to the question: „When undertaking EIA which of the following environmental components do you specialise in?”: a) mean arithmetic values of the results from all V4
countries; b) the structure in each V4 country
75
9. Which of the following stressors in the implementation of the EIA process do you
specialize in?
80%
60%
40%
20%
N
o
re
sp
on
se
0%
Poland
Slovakia
Czech Republic
Hungary
Fig. 5.7. Answers of respondents to the question: „Which of the following stressors in the implementation of the EIA process do you specialize in?”
Most of the respondents (arithmetic means placed the results in the first four places)
prepared the EIA reports in the field of infrastructure – 44%, agricultural and forestry production – 36%, then water management – 34%, purpose-built facilities for sport, recreation and
tourism – 32% (Fig. 5.8).
Agricultural and forestry production owed its position among the top four positions to
the reports carried out in Hungary, in the other countries its position was not so high (Tab. 5.1).
In Poland there was also a lower participation in purpose-built facilities for sport, recreation
and tourism as well as water management were lower in the Czech Republic. A large number
of reports were related to energy industry in Poland and Slovakia and to transport and telecommunication in the Czech Republic and Poland. Planning documentation, representing strategic
environmental impact assessment (SEA) occupied the seventh place and strategy documents
the eleventh. Military construction was the least frequently chosen sector of the economy in
all the surveyed countries. On the basis of these results it can be assumed which sectors of
economy have been developing the most in particular countries (Tab. 5.1).
76
10. In which sectors (of industry) do you have experience of EIA preparation?
Other
2%
No response
3%
3%
10%
15%
Food industry
16%
21%
22%
Strategy documents
23%
23%
Other industries
24%
Mining industry
26%
30%
32%
Energy industry
32%
32%
Water management
34%
36%
Infrastructure
44%
Fig. 5.8. Respondents’ answers to the question: „In which sectors (of industry) do you have experience
of EIA preparation?” (mean arithmetic values of all the answers)
Table 5.1. Answers of the respondents to the question: “In which sectors (of industry) do you have
experience of EIA preparation?” In the order from the most (position no. 1) to the least frequently selected options (position no. 17)
Position
Country
1.
PL
Energy industry
SVK
Infrastructure
CZ
Infrastructure
2.
Infrastructure
Energy industry
3.
Water management
4.
Water management
Mining industry
HU
Water management
Infrastructure
77
Table 5.1 cont.
Position
Country
PL
SVK
CZ
HU
5.
Strategy documents
6.
Mechanical and elec- Industry of building
trical engineering
materials
7.
Other industries
Mechanical and elec- Other industries
trical engineering
Energy industry
8.
Food industry
Strategy documents
9.
Mining industry
10.
Wood, pulp and
paper industry
Other industries
Energy industry
11.
Industry of building
materials
Mining industry
Water management
Wood, pulp and
paper industry
12.
Strategy documents
Strategy documents
Other industries
13.
materials
materials
Food industry
14.
Wood, pulp and
paper industry
Food industry
15.
Mechanical and elec- Metallurgical intrical engineering
dustry
Wood, pulp and
paper industry
16.
17.
Military construction Military construction Military construction Military construction
Food industry
Mining industry
The respondents’ answers to questions no. 11 and 12 on the methodology and guidelines used in the EIA/SEA and in cross-border proceedings in each V4 countries have not
been considered in the evaluation of the survey in the analysed countries. The results have
been presented in the previous chapter of the monograph.
It results from the data concerning the respondents’ answers to the question whether there
is enough literature available to deal with EIA tasks that only 18–34% of the respondents rated
it as sufficient (Fig. 5.9). The result calculated as mean arithmetic values of all the answers
showed that more than a half of the respondents – 55.5% believed that the given methodological
78
guides for the EIA process were only partly sufficient. Most (34%) of the negative opinions
on methodological assistance came from Slovakia. On the other hand, none of the respondents
from Hungary rated the available literature on EIA as insufficient.
13. Do you think that given the methodological guide for
the EIA process are sufficient?
70%
60%
50%
Yes
40%
No
30%
Partly
20%
No response
10%
0%
Poland
Slovakia
Czech
Republic
Hungary
Fig. 5.9. Answers of respondents to the question: „Do you think that given the methodological guide
for the EIA process are sufficient?”
Respondents in V4 countries mainly found (by the mean arithmetic values): elimination
of negative impacts on the environment (80%), support for decision-making process (53%)
and a tool supporting sustainable development (36%) (Fig. 5.10) as the main goals of the EIA.
The results were obtained by calculating the mean arithmetic values of the answers obtained
from all the surveyed countries. The fewest respondents – 11% indicated a reduction of costs
in the future. The results show that the EIA process is treated as a real tool for the rational
management of the environment and reduction of anthropopression.
When choosing the strengths of the EIA process respondents from V4 countries first of all
indicated: strong legal basis (46%), advanced forecasting methods (34%) and a large number
of instructions and guides (27.5%) (Fig. 5.11). The choice of a large number of instructions
and guidelines as a strength is partly incoherent with the answers to question no. 13, where
the respondents from Slovakia (even 34%) and Poland (26%) rated the available literature as
insufficient. In conclusion it can be said that all the answers about strengths received from
Poland were similar to each other, all the suggested options obtained 34–36% of answers,
while in the other countries differences in the assessments could have been noticed. Legal
foundations were specially well evaluated in Slovakia and the Czech Republic, while in
Hungary contribution of science and advanced forecasting techniques were indicated.
79
14. In your opinion, what is the main purpose of EIA?
100%
90%
Comply with the area
development
80%
Reducing the environmental
70%
impacts
Support for decision making
60%
Tool for sustainable
50%
development
40%
Assistance for investors
30%
Reduce future costs
20%
The basis for obtaining
a building permit
10%
No response
0%
Poland
Slovakia
Czech
Republic
Hungary
Fig. 5.10. Answers of respondents to the question: „In your opinion, what is the main purpose of EIA?”
15. What are the strengths of current practice in EIA for the country?
70%
A good foundation in law
60%
Many instructions, guidance
and teaching guides
50%
Sophisticated methods of
prediction impacts - impacts
on the environment
40%
Scientific contribution
30%
Other
20%
No response
10%
0%
Poland
Slovakia
Czech
Republic
Hungary
Fig. 5.11. Answers of respondents to the question: „What are the strengths of current practice in EIA
for the country?”
80
When calculating the mean arithmetic values of the answers it occurred that the respondents indicated: insufficient monitoring – 38%, subjective approach to impact assessment –
37% and underestimated cumulative impact – 36% as the biggest weaknesses of the current
EIA procedures (Fig. 5.12a). In Poland and Hungary, the lack of coordination between the EIA
processes and planning documents was pointed out and the lack of post-completion control
was mentioned in Slovakia. A significant group of respondents from Hungary pointed out
insufficient public participation in the EIA procedure (Fig. 5.12b).
a)
No response
Other
Missing advisory department for the EIA process
5%
3%
11%
Poor coordination with land - planning documentation
29%
Limited quality control of EIA documentation
22%
Insufficient monitoring
38%
Subjectivity in predicting the environmental impacts
37%
Insufficient involvement of public
22%
Limited consideration of cumulative impacts
36%
Insufficient assessment of alternatives
20%
b)
60%
Insufficient assessment of alternatives
Limited consideration of cumulative
impacts
50%
Insufficient involvement of public
Subjectivity in predicting the
environmental impacts
40%
Insufficient monitoring
Limited quality control of EIA
documentation
30%
Poor coordination with land –
planning documentation
20%
Missing advisory department for the
EIA process
Other
10%
No response
0%
Poland
Slovakia
Czech Republic
Hungary
Fig. 5.12. Answers of the respondents to the question: “What are the weaknesses of the current practice
in EIA for the country?”: a) by the mean arithmetic values of all the answers; b) by country
81
Fifty-two percent of the respondents from the Czech Republic estimated that the public
was sufficiently informed about the stages of the EIA process. However, only 15–30% of
the interviewed respondents shared the same opinion in Hungary, Slovakia and Poland.
The dominating group of the respondents believed that the public was only partly informed
about the stages of the EIA process, 49% – the mean arithmetic value. While 17.5% of all
the respondents felt that the public was not sufficiently informed about the stages of the EIA
process (Fig. 5.13).
The latter result is quite worrying because one of the cornerstones of the EIA process
was to allow the public to participate in the environment protection. Such share can be
achieved by informing the public about the proposed project and by the possibility to study
the Environmental Impact Statement. Apart from that, public discussions with all interested
parties were organised as a part of the EIA/SEA process.
17. Do you think the public is well informed on the steps of the EIA process?
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Poland
Yes
No
Slovakia
Czech
Republic
Partly
No response
Hungary
Fig. 5.13. Answers of respondents to the question: „Do you think the public is well informed on the steps
of the EIA process?”
Analysis of the answers to the question whether the respondents had access to a sufficient
amount of data (the required quality, updated, etc.) revealed that the substantial majority
(50–66%) of the interrogated people believed that it was provided partly (Fig. 5.14). Only
16–18% of the respondents in Hungary, Slovakia and Poland found that the archived data
were satisfactory. In the Czech Republic, the group comprised 36% of the surveyed experts.
The mean arithmetic value of all the answers showed that 14.5% of all respondents indicated
insufficient data in the EIA process.
82
18. Are the input data in processing documentation in the EIA
procedure easily accessible and of the required quality?
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Poland
Yes
Slovakia
No
Czech
Republic
Partly
Hungary
No response
Fig. 5.14. Answers of respondents to the question: „Are the input data in processing documentation in
the EIA procedure easily accessible and of the required quality?”
Interesting conclusions can be drawn from the analysis of the procedures and methods applied to identify and evaluate the impact. The most frequently used procedures and methods, by
arithmetic mean, which the respondents indicated were: environmental indicators – 46%,
multicriteria assessment – 40% and forecasting methods – 38% (Fig. 5.15).
19. What procedures and methods do you use for identification and assessment of impacts?
46%
35%
26%
37%
38%
Mapping
overlay
Forecasting
methods
40%
28%
9%
Methods
ad hoc
Checklists
Matrix
Networks
Multicriteria Environmental
assessment
indicators
Fig. 5.15. Answers of the respondents to the question: „What procedures and methods do you use for
identification and assessment of impacts?”, mean arithmetic values of all the answers
83
However, respondents from particular countries chose different methods (Tab. 5.2). None
of the above mentioned ones were chosen as a dominant one in Slovakia. Methods ad hoc,
matrix and checklists were the most commonly used methods there. In the other countries
the first three most popular methods appeared to be: forecasting methods (Poland), the mapping
overlay method (the Czech Republic) and the methods ad hoc (Hungary) interchangeably.
Respondents from all the countries agreed that the networks method was the least frequently
used one.
Table 5.2. Respondents answers to the question: „What procedures and methods do you use for identification and assessment of impacts?”, in the order from the most to the least frequent answer (from
the top to the bottom)
Position
from
the top to
the bottom
Country
PL
SVK
CZ
HU
1.
Forecasting
methods
Methods ad hoc
Environmental
indicators
Environmental
indicators
2.
Environmental
indicators
Matrix
Multicriteria
assessment
Forecasting
methods
3.
Multicriteria
assessment
Checklists
Mapping overlay
Methods ad hoc
4.
Matrix
Mapping overlay
Methods ad hoc
Multicriteria
assessment
5.
Mapping overlay
Multicriteria
assessment
Forecasting methods
Mapping overlay
6.
Checklists
Environmental
indicators
Checklists
Matrix
7.
Methods ad hoc
Forecasting
methods
Matrix
Checklists
8.
Networks
Networks
Networks
Networks
For environmental assessment, the respondents in all the countries mostly used specialized software related to spatial information systems GIS 50–70%, apart from that 20% of
respondents in Poland chose the software HPZ 2001 GEO and 10% of them used Operat 2000
and LeqProfessional. Single respondents from Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary
ticked such types of software as MIKE BASIN and IRAS.
Questions 21 and 22 were open ones, where respondents were given an opportunity to
express their views and comments on the EIA process.
The majority of respondents in the Czech Republic (62%), Slovakia (66%) and Poland
(70%) expressed their opinions on the subject of efficiency of the current EIA process and
what should be changed/modified to increase its effectiveness. In Hungary, 46% of respondents
84
expressed their own opinions. The opinions have been described in details within the assessment of the survey for each country in one of the previous chapters. Among the suggestions,
the following ideas were mentioned:
– improvement of the quality control of EIA documentation,
– increase of the influence of EIA on decision-making processes,
– defining universal criteria to assess the impact on individual elements of the environment,
– proper defining of the scope of the report, adapting it to the specific scope of the project,
– lack of respecting of the final resolution,
– changing the screening criteria for conducting EIA procedure for small projects,
– reduction of the pressure on the people preparing EIA documentation,
– preparation of a list of professional EIA experts,
– better participation of the public in the EIA process.
Less than one third of the respondents in Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary
expressed their comments on the EIA process. In Poland, a bit more than a half (52%) of
the respondents used the opportunity to present their comments. The key issues included:
– a real need for public awareness of the aspects of the EIA process,
– improvement of the skills of persons assessing the reports,
– higher quality of the EIA documentation,
– introduction of certification methods for people preparing EIA documentation.
Summarising the results of the survey it can be stated that the largest group of the respondents consisted of people with the longest period of service in the EIA, more than 10 years,
and the respondents from the Czech Republic comprised the biggest part of the group. It can
be roughly assumed that experienced experts from particular countries had been involved in
the EIA since its inception. Assessment procedures were generally started in 1992–1994, except
Poland where it is believed to have started in the beginning of 1980’s. It is really satisfying
that the persons with the longest period of service in this field used to prepare cross-border
evaluations. It is essential because, apart from projects whose cross-border impact can be
relatively easy, like wind farms, the respondents also listed road infrastructure and nuclear
power stations there.
A tendency to decrease the amount of working time that respondents spent dealing with
the EIA and the SEA processes may mean that the experts used to prepare environmental
reports as a part of their jobs besides other tasks which could have been the result of a great
competition on the market. Most companies offer a full range of studies in the field of management and protection of the environment (noise maps, post-completion analysis, management
plans, etc.). Such situation may have some influence on the amount of the EIA documentation
which was prepared in the last three years. Most of the respondents from all V4 countries
participated in preparation of up to 5 sets of EIA documentation. The presented data show
that most of the respondents dealt with the preparation of reports on the environmental impact
of projects and forecasting the impact.
85
When concerning the elements of the environment and the type of emission the respondents specialised in when dealing with the EIA process the obtained results show that
the largest group of respondents concentrated on protected areas, water conditions, fauna,
flora and landscape. And in case of industrial emissions, the largest group of the respondents
dealt with water pollution, air pollution and production of wastes.
The respondents most frequently prepared reports in the following areas: infrastructure,
agriculture and forestry and water management. It can be assumed that those were the sectors of
the economy where the most intensive recovery of the economy had occurred in V4 countries.
The V4 respondents indicated the following procedures and methods as the most commonly used to identify and evaluate the impact: environmental indicators, multicriteria assessment and forecasting methods which most frequently involved application of Geographic
Information systems (GIS).
Methodological preparation of the EIA process and the amount of available data seems
to be unsatisfactory because more than half of the respondents estimated that they were
adequate/satisfactory only partially. The number of respondents who indicated that the public
was not informed or only partially informed about the EIA process is also worrying. Does
it mean that one of the cornerstones of the EIA process which was public participation in
the environmental protection stayed on the sidelines? That task was accomplished in all
analysed countries by informing the public about the proposed project and allowing the public to study the Environmental Impact Statement as well as expressing their comments on
the report. Additionally, public discussions with all the interested parties were organised as
a part of the EIA/SEA process.
Results concerning the primary goal and the strengths of the EIA indicate that the process was treated as a real tool for rational management of the environment and decreasing
the anthropopression. To improve the effectiveness of the EIA process weaknesses indicated
by the respondents such as insufficient monitoring, subjective approach to the impact assessment and poorly considered cumulative impact should be reduced.
The obtained results are very interesting and bring valuable information on the implementation of the EIA process in V4 countries. In order to study the answers of the respondents
accurately an additional statistical analysis of the correlation of selected variables was carried
out. The results are shown in the following chapter.
6. Analysis of Phenomena Correlation
The goal of the analysis of the phenomena correlation was to determine mutual relations
among the selected variables in all V4 countries. The descriptive analysis included the total
number and percentage distribution of the investigated variables which have been shown in
the table (Tabs 6.1–6.2) and diagrams (Figs 6.1–6.12). Results of the analysis of correlations
of answers to the questions no. 2, 6 and 8 (Tabs 6.1–6.2) given by respondents from Hungary
were not included in the analysis because the answers to the survey question concerning
usage of methodological guides applied in the EIA were presented there in a different way
than in other countries.
The analysis of the correlation of the phenomena was divided into two parts. In the first
part, significance of correlations of such variables, which had been the results of answers to
the single choice questions, was analysed (Tab. 6.1).
For example, professional experience and the part of time spent on EIA process by
a respondent. The relationship was studied by means of chi-square test, or Fisher’s exact test
when the expected value was lower than 5. The level of significance was set at α = 0.05. It
was expected that the results of the analysis would reveal for example, if work experience
had had any influence on the respondent’s participation in cross-boarder EIA procedures and
the number of stages of the EIA process which the respondents had been engaged in.
In the second part, the correlation of variables which had been the results of answers to
the multiple choice questions, was analysed (Tab. 6.2). Mutual relationship was assessed on
the basis of comparative analysis. Its goal was to find out certain aspects, among them, what
methodology and what guides the respondents with the longest period of service and those
working in particular sectors of the economy used and if there were any differences in those
aspects in the surveyed countries. The following sectors of the economy, out of 17 possible
ones, had been chosen for the assessment: water management, purpose-built facilities for
sports, recreation and tourism, mining industry and transport and telecommunication – from
the scope of EIA, strategy documents (draft policy, development policy, plan and program,
including strategy documents, financed by the European Union) – from the scope of the SEA.
The statistical package IBM SPSS Statistics 20.0 was applied for the analysis.
87
Table 6.1. Values of statistical significance p of correlations between answers to selected questions
(single choice) being the subject of statistical analysis in each country. The colour marks the correlations,
where statistically significant correlation occurred (p < 0.05)
No.
88
Correlation between
questions (no. of a question
vs no. of the question in
the survey)
Statistical significance values p
PL
SVK
CZ
HU
1.
The correlation between
the part of working time
the respondents devoted to
the EIA and the number of
sets of EIA documentation
prepared by them in the last
three years (q. 2 vs q. 4)
p = 0.001
p < 0.001
p = 0.001
p < 0.001
2.
the amount of available
methodological guides
used by the respondents
(1–8 guides) and the assessment of their adequacy
for the EIA process (q. 11
number vs q. 13)
p = 0.002
p = 0.327
p = 0.287
p = 1.000
3.
the length of service of
the respondents in EIA
and their participation in
performing cross-border
procedures
(q. 1 vs q. 6)
p = 0.639
p = 0.030
p = 0.430
p = 0.318
4.
the respondents in EIA and
the number of stages of
the EIA process (0–7) which
they had dealt with
(q. 1 vs q. 7)
p = 0.243
p = 0.243
p = 0.087
p = 0.169
5.
the respondents in EIA and
the number of selected sectors of the economy (0–8)
in which the respondents
declared their experience in
preparing Reports
(q. 1 vs number q. 10)
p = 0.116
p = 0.645
p = 0.943
p = 0.005
Table 6.2. Analysis of correlations of variable phenomena that had been the results of answers to
the multiple choice questions
No.
Correlation of variable phenomena
1.
The correlation between the methodological guides used by the respondents and the assessment of the adequacy of the available guides for the EIA process (q. 11 vs q. 13)
2.
The correlation between the selected sectors of the economy in which the respondents
declared their experience in preparing EIA reports and the assessment of the adequacy of
methodological guides for the EIA process (q. 10 vs q. 13)
3.
The correlation between the selected sectors of the economy in which the respondents
declared having experience in preparing EIA reports and frequency of choosing particular
methodological guides for the EIA process (q. 10 vs q. 11).
4.
The correlation between the length of service of the respondents in the EIA and the sectors
of the economy, in which the respondents had experience in preparation of the EIA reports
(q. 1 vs q. 10)
5.
The correlation between the selected sectors of the economy, in which the respondents were
experienced in preparation of EIA reports and the assessment of a sufficient amount of
available data (of the required quality, updated, etc.) (q. 10 vs q. 18)
6.
The correlation between the respondents’ length of service in the environmental impact assessments and procedures and methods they used to identify and evaluate the impact
(q. 1 vs q. 19)
7.
The correlation between the selected sectors of the economy in which the respondents were
experienced in the preparation of EIA reports and the procedures and methods they used to
identify and evaluate the impact (q. 10 vs q. 19)
The Correlation between the Part of Working Time the Respondents Devoted
to the EIA and the Number of Sets of EIA Documentation Prepared by Them
in the Last Three Years (Tab. 6.1, no. 1)
In all the investigated countries, there was a statistically significant (p ≤ 0.001) correlation
between the share of the working time and the amount of the EIA documentation prepared
in the last three years (Tab. 6.1). The number of the prepared sets of EIA documentation
had been growing with the increase of the amount of time devoted to EIA procedures in all
the V4 countries. Percentage distribution of particular responses is shown in the following
chart (Fig. 6.1). The significant majority of people who devoted up to 25% of their working
time to EIA procedures prepared not more than 5 documents in the last 3 years (about 90%
in Poland and Hungary, 68% in the Czech Republic and 57% in Slovakia). The respondents
who devoted to EIA process more than half of their working time much more frequently
prepared more than 16 sets of documentation (45% in Poland, 50% in Hungary, the Czech
Republic and Slovakia).
89
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
Slovakia
Poland
2. Approximately what proportion of your time is devoted to EIA? vs 4. How many EIA documentations
have you been involved in the last three years?
40%
20%
20%
0%
0–25%
26–50%
51–75%
0%
76–100%
the part of working time the respondents devoted to the EIA
p < 0,001
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
Hungary
Czech Republic
p = 0,001
40%
40%
p = 0,001
26–50%
51–75%
76–100%
40%
20%
20%
0%
0–25%
0%
0–25%
26–50%
51–75%
0–25%
76–100%
p < 0,001
26–50%
51–75%
the number of EIA documentations prepared by them in the last three years
0–5
6–10
11–15
16+
Fig. 6.1. Distribution of the number of sets of EIA documentations made in the last three years and
the time devoted to the EIA procedures
The Correlation between the Amount of Available Methodological Guides
Used by the Respondents (1–8 Guides)
and the Assessment of Their Adequacy for the EIA Process (Tab. 6.1, no. 2)
A significant correlation between the amount of guides used in the study and assessment
of their methodological adequacy (p = 0.002) was observed only among the answers given
by the respondents from Poland. The more guides had been used, the more inadequate or
partly adequate they seemed to be. Sixty percent of the respondents who marked usage of
only one guide assessed it as adequate, the remaining 40% determined it as partially adequate
(Fig. 6.2). Those who indicated all of the eight guides, assessed them as completely inadequate.
A similar situation was observed in Slovakia, while in the Czech Republic significantly more
90
respondents marked guides as adequate, when among the respondents who had ticked only
one guide the result was even 100%. However, the respondents who indicated more than 5
available guides found them only partly adequate.
methodological guides used by the
respondents
11. Which methodology procedures do you used most often? vs 13. Do you think that given
the methodological guide for the EIA process are sufficient?
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0%
20%
40%
respondents
p = 0,002
80%
100%
60%
80%
100%
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0%
20%
40%
Slovakia
p = 0,327
respondents
60%
Poland
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0%
p = 0,287
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Czech Republic
the assessment of their adequacy for the EIA process
No
Partly
Yes
Fig. 6.2. Distribution of the number of methodological guides used by the respondents (1–8 guides)
according to assessment of their the adequacy for the EIA process
91
The Correlation between the Length of Service of the Respondents
in EIA and Their Participation
in Performing Cross-Border Procedures (Tab. 6.1, no. 3)
Statistically significant correlation between increasing percentage of people involved
in cross-border procedures and the length of involvement in the EIA (Tab. 6.1, Fig. 6.3) had
been observed only in Slovakia (p = 0.030). The cross-border procedures involved people
who had been working in the field for more than five years. Among the respondents whose
length of service exceeded 10 years approximately one third had been involved in cross-border
procedures, while in the group working in this field from 6 to 10 years it was only a bit more
than 10% (Fig. 6.3). Similar results could have been observed in Poland and Hungary, while
the Czech Republic respondents from any analysed range of the length of service had not
participated in cross-border procedures.
10+
the length of service of the
respondents in EIA
respondents in EIA
1. How many years have you worked with Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)? vs 6. Have you
been participated in the assessment of transboundary effects?
6-10
0-5
0%
20%
40%
60%
Poland
80%
6-10
0-5
0%
20%
40%
60%
Czech Republic
0-5
0%
20%
p = 0,030
10+
p = 0,430
6-10
100%
respondents in EIA
respondents in EIA
p = 0,639
10+
80%
40%
60%
80%
100%
80%
100%
Slovakia
10+
6-10
0-5
100%
0%
20%
p = 0,318
the participation in performing cross-border procedures
40%
60%
Hungary
No
Yes
Fig. 6.3. The correlation between the length of service of the respondents in environmental impact assessments and their participation in performing cross-border procedures
92
in EIA and the Number of Stages of the EIA Process (0–7)
which They Had Dealt with (Tab. 6.1, no. 4)
Statistically significant correlation between the length of service of the respondents
in environmental impact assessments and the number of stages of the EIA process (report,
screening, scoping, impact assessment, environmental statement, mitigation and monitoring,
decision making, post-completion audit), which the respondents (Tab. 6.1, Fig. 6.4) had been
involved in was observed in none of the V4 countries. No regularities have been found in
any aspect of the subject either. As an example, an image of the investigated correlation in
Poland is shown (Fig. 6.4).
in EIA and the Number of Selected Sectors of the Economy (0–8)
in which the Respondents Declared Their Experience
in Preparing Environmental Impact Statements (Reports) (Tab. 6.1, no. 5)
A statistically significant correlation between the extending length of service and
the growing number of sectors of the economy in which the respondents had had experience
in preparation of EIA reports (Tab. 6.1, Fig. 6.5) could have been observed only in Hungary
(p = 0,005). Among those who had declared their experience in one sector of the economy
there were almost only the persons who had been working in the field of EIA for up to five
years. Among those who had experience in two to four sectors of the economy, people who had
been working the shortest comprised about 50%, while among those who had served for more
than 10 years that share varied from about 20% to over 30%. Respondents with experience
in 6, 7 sectors of the economy comprised about 70% of those with work experience longer
than 10 years (Fig. 6.5). There was no such correlation in the other countries of the V4 group.
The Correlation between the Methodological Guides Used by the Respondents
and the Assessment of the Adequacy of the Available Guides
for the EIA Process (Tab. 6.2, no. 1)
In Poland, the majority of the respondents generally assessed the published guides as
partly or completely adequate for the EIA process (Fig. 6.6). However, a significant share of
the respondents (25–40%) considered them as inadequate. Only 15–20% of respondents found
them completely adequate. In Slovakia, like in Poland, a large percentage of the respondents
found the available guides completely inadequate (25–45% of respondents) or partly adequate.
The study Environmental Impact Assessment of the effects of chemical technologies, 1994
Faculty of Chemical Technology STU in Bratislava is worth distinguishing as almost 70% of
the respondents using that guide rated the available materials as fully adequate for EIA process.
In the Czech Republic, the vast majority of the respondents (76–91%) evaluated the available guides as partly adequate. Relatively fewer respondents in comparison with the Polish
and Slovakian ones rated the methodological guides as completely inadequate, as such share
was only 0–14%.
93
Poland
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
0
2
3
4
5
6
2
3
4
5
7
0%
0–5
p = 0,169
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
p = 0,438
the length of service of the respondents in EIA
the number of stages of the EIA process
1
1
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
1
6–10
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
6
10+
1
5
Fig. 6.4. The correlation between the length of service of the respondents in environmental impact assessments and the number of stages of the EIA
process which the respondents had dealt with
p = 0,087
Czech Republic
p = 0,243
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Hungary
94
Slovakia
1. How many years have you worked with Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)? vs 7. Which stages of the EIA process
are you predominantly involved with?
0%
0%
20%
20%
60%
60%
80%
80%
100%
100%
the length of service of the respondents in EIA
Czech Republic
40%
Poland
40%
p = 0,645
0–5
p = 0,005
0
1
2
3
4
6
7
15
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
6–10
0%
0%
10+
20%
20%
60%
60%
Hungary
40%
Slovakia
40%
80%
80%
100%
100%
Fig. 6.5. The correlation between the length of service of the respondents in environmental impact assessments and the number of sectors of the economy in which the respondents had experience in preparation of EIA reports
p = 0,943
1
3
5
7
9
12
15
p = 0,116
16
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
the number of selected sectors of
the economy
the economy
the economy
the economy
1. How many years have you worked with Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)? vs 10. In which sectors (of industry)
do you have experience of EIA preparation?
95
11. Which methodology procedures do you used most often? vs 13. Do you think that given
the methodological guide for the EIA process are sufficient?
Methodology of environmental impact assessment as a whole
in the process of issuing an integrated permit
Guidance on preparation of environmental impact assessment of motorways
Guidance of the European Commission on EIA: Scoping
Guidance of the European Commission on EIA: Screening
Administrative proceedings in matters determined by the Act of 3 October
2008
A handbook of good practice in performing environmental studies of
domestic roads
Guidance for preparation of environmental impact assessment of wind farms
Instruction ITB No. 338/2003: “The method of determining emission and
immission of industrial noise in the environment”
the methodological quides used by the respondents
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
60%
80%
100%
60%
80%
100%
Poland
Methodology for evaluating of visual impacts of wind turbines
and wind farms on land
The methodology for the identification and evaluation of landscape
characteristic
Environmental Impact Assessment in the Slovak Republic (EIA),
the general guide
Environmental Impact Assessment – part noise and vibration
Environmental Impact Assessment of linear construction (highways)
Public participation in the EIA process
Multicriteria evaluation of variants in the EIA process
Environmental Impact Assessment of construction and operation
of water projects
Environmental Impact Assessment of the effects of chemical technologies
General Guide to the Law no. 127/1994 Coll.
0%
20%
40%
Slovakia
Methodology for Assessment of Concepts According to Act No. 100/2001 Coll.
Methodological Instruction Department Assessment of the Environmental
Impact of ME
Methodological Guidance on Conducting Biological Assessments
Methodical instructions to evaluate the possibility of placing wind and
photovoltaic power plants
Information System EIA Pursuant to Act No. 244/1992 Coll.
Guide to evaluating the significance of impacts on the subjects of protection
of Natura 2000 sites
Operation of Waste Management, the Ministry of Environment
Methodical instruction 9/2008-150-METO
Methodological Instruction on monitoring of water
Methodological Instruction Department of Water Protection Ministry of the
Environment
0%
20%
40%
Czech Republic
the assessment of the adequacy of methodological guides for the EIA
No
Partly
Yes
Fig. 6.6. Distribution of the assessment of adequacy of the published methodological guides used in
the process of EIA according to the types of guides that respondents used for this process. Complete
names of methodologies are presented in the annex 2
96
The Correlation between the Selected Sectors of the Economy
in which the Respondents Declared Their Experience in Preparing EIA Reports
and the Assessment of the Adequacy of Methodological Guides
The respondents from Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic who declared that
they had experience in water management most frequently marked that the published guides
for the EIA were adequate or partially adequate (Fig. 6.7). In the Czech Republic, all of
the respondents who had experience in that field evaluated the books as adequate or partially
adequate. In other fields taken into consideration the percentage of people who considered
the available guides inadequate was the lowest i.e. 4–9%, when compared with the other
states. In Poland and Slovakia, the number of specialists from other disciplines who found
the guides inadequate varied in the range of 20–35% and 50–63% respectively. The problem
was definitely assessed the worst in Hungary, where not a single respondent dealing with
the mentioned sectors marked the guides adequate for the EIA process. All specialists working
in the field of transport and telecommunication evaluated the guides as inadequate, similarly
to the great majority of the respondents who had experience in the other four fields (65–75%).
10. In which sectors (of industry) do you have experience of EIA preparation? vs 13. Do you think that
given the methodological guide for the EIA process are sufficient?
Strategy documents
Strategy documents
Purpose-built facilities
for sport, recreation
and tourism
and tourism
Transport and
telecommunications
Transport and
telecommunications
Water management
Water management
Mining industry
Mining industry
the selected sectors 0%
of the economy
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Poland
of the economy
Strategy documents
Strategy documents
and tourism
and tourism
Transport and
telecommunications
Transport and
telecommunications
Water management
Water management
Mining industry
the selected sectors
of the economy
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
80%
100%
Slovakia
Mining industry
0%
20%
40%
60%
Czech Republic
80%
100%
of the economy
the assessment of the adequacy of methodological guides for the EIA
20%
40%
60%
Hungary
No
Partly
Yes
Fig. 6.7. Distribution of the adequacy assessment of the published guides for the EIA process and
the selected sectors of the economy in which the respondents declared having experience in preparing
the reports
97
in which the Respondents Declared Having Experience in Preparing EIA Reports
and Frequency of Choosing Particular Methodological Guides
In Poland, the respondents had most frequently chosen the following methodological
guides: Administrative proceedings in matters determined by the Act of 3 October 2008 on
the provision of information about the environment and its protection, public participation
in environmental protection and environmental impact assessment and A handbook of good
practice in performing environmental studies of domestic roads, edited by J. Bohatkiewicz,
GDDKiA/EKKOM Sp. z o.o. Krakow 2007 (Fig. 6.8, on the interleaf). They were especially
popular among the people working in the fields of: transport and telecommunications, purpose
built facilities for sport, recreation and tourism and strategy documents. It can be assumed
that those guides together with the Instruction ITB No. 338/2003: The method of determining
emission and immission of industrial noise in the environment – ITB Warsaw, belonged to
the well-prepared ones and met the expectations of users in Poland.
In Slovakia, definitely the most popular guides were: Environmental Impact Assessment
in the Slovak Republic (EIA), the general guide, SEA, 2008 and General Guide to the Law
no. 127/1994 Coll. of., 1994, EIA Centre, KKE FNS CU, Bratislava. They had been chosen
the most frequently by the respondents dealing with: strategy documents, water management
and transport and telecommunication.
In the Czech Republic, the first position among the most frequently chosen guides was
held by Methodological Instruction Department assessment of the environmental impact of
ME on the issue of looking at the form of Annex 3 and Act No. 100/2001 Coll., On the Environmental impact assessment, which was mainly marked by the respondents working
in the fields of water management, mining industry and strategy documents. It was also,
together with the guide Information System EIA pursuant to Act No. 244/1992 Coll., most
frequently selected by other specialists working in different fields. It can be observed that in
the Czech Republic the methodology for the SEA assessment published as Methodology for
assessment of concepts according to Act No. 100/2001 Coll., On the assessment of impacts
on the environment, as amended by Act No. 93/2004 Coll., was also widely used in other
investment sectors of the economy.
in the EIA and the Sectors of the Economy
in which the Respondents Had Experience
in Preparation of the EIA Reports (Tab. 6.2, no. 4)
In Poland and Slovakia, the significant majority of the respondents had worked in
the declared sectors of the economy for over 10 years (Fig. 6.9). In Poland such sector
was the pulp and paper industry, in Slovakia it was mining industry. In the Czech Republic
the people having served for more than 10 years comprised the largest group compared with
the other countries and people with the length of service below 5 years occurred only in 6
of 17 sectors of the economy. In almost every field in the surveyed countries people with
the length of service lower than 5 years were in significant minority.
In Hungary, there is a noticeable, large share of employees having served for less than
five years, especially in such sectors as food industry and agricultural and forest production,
where they made 50–100%. The majority of employees having served for more than 10 years
occurred in the metallurgical industry in Hungary.
98
0%
0%
0%
Strategy documents
Mining industry
20%
20%
20%
Slovakia
Poland
60%
60%
80%
80%
80%
100%
100%
100%
Water management
40%
60%
Czech Republic
40%
40%
Fig. 6.8. Distribution of the most popular methodological guides by sectors of the economy in which the respondents declared having experience. Complete names
of methodologies are presented in the annex 2
the selected sectors of the economy
the methodological guides
Methodological Instruction Department of Water Protection Ministry
of the Environment
Methodical instruction 9/2008-150-METO
Operation of Waste Management, the Ministry of Environment
Guide to evaluating the significance of impacts on the subjects of
protection of Natura 2000 sites
Information System EIA pursuant to Act No. 244/1992 Coll.
Methodical instructions to evaluate the possibility of placing wind and
photovoltaic power plants
Methodological guidance on conducting biological assessments
Methodological Instruction Department assessment of the
environmental impact of ME
Methodology for assessment of concepts according to Act No.
100/2001 Coll.
General Guide to the Law no. 127/1994 Coll.
Environmental Impact Assessment of the effects of chemical
technologies
Environmental Impact Assessment of construction and operation of
water projects
Multicriteria evaluation of variants in the EIA process
Public participation in the EIA process
Environmental Impact Assessment of linear construction (highways)
Environmental Impact Assessment – part noise and vibration
Environmental Impact Assessment in the Slovak Republic (EIA), the
general guide
The methodology for the identification and evaluation of landscape
characteristic
Methodology for evaluating of visual impacts of wind turbines and
wind farms on land
Instruction ITB No. 338/2003: “The method of determining emission
and immission of industrial noise in the environment”
Guidance for preparation of environmental impact assessment of wind
farms
A handbook of good practice in performing environmental studies of
domestic roads
Administrative proceedings in matters determined by the Act of
3 October 2008
Guidance of the European Commission on EIA: Screening
Guidance of the European Commission on EIA: Scoping
Guidance on preparation of environmental impact assessment of
motorways
Methodology of environmental impact assessment as a whole in the
process of issuing an integrated permit
10. In which sectors (of industry) do you have experience of EIA preparation? vs 11. Which methodology procedures do you used most often?
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0–5
6–10
10+
the sectors of the economy
the number of EIA documentations prepared by them in the last three years
Czech Republic
Mining industry
0%
0%
20%
20%
60%
60%
Hungary
40%
Slovakia
40%
Fig. 6.9. Distribution of sectors of the economy according to the respondent’s length of service in the EIA
Mining industry
Energy industry
Energy industry
Other industries
Other industries
Infrastructure
Water management
Water management
Infrastructure
Food industry
Strategy documents
Food industry
Strategy documents
20%
Mining industry
0%
Energy industry
Mining industry
Energy industry
Poland
Infrastructure
Other industries
Other industries
Water management
Water management
Infrastructure
Food industry
Food industry
Strategy documents
Strategy documents
0%
80%
80%
100%
100%
1. How many years have you worked with Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)? vs 10. In which sectors (of industry) do you have experience of
EIA preparation?
99
in which the Respondents Were Experienced in Preparation of EIA Reports
and the Assessment of a Sufficient Amount of Available Data
(of the Required Quality, Updated, etc.) (Tab. 6.2, no. 5)
Respondents from Poland definitely determined the quantity and quality of data in all
analysed sectors of the economy as partially sufficient (58.8–71.4%) (Fig. 6.10). The respondents preparing reports in the field of purpose built facilities for sport, recreation and tourism
assessed the amount of data as sufficient (29%) and partially sufficient (71% of the respondents).
A similar situation could have been observed in the results obtained from Slovakia and
Hungary. However in Slovakia, an advantage of a sufficient amount of data (62.5%) was
observed only in studies concerning strategy documents. In Hungary, all of the respondents
evaluated the data as partially sufficient in the field of transport and telecommunication.
The data from the Czech Republic were rather different, as the majority of the respondents indicated that the data were sufficient and more or less the same proportion of answers
“yes” and “partly” could have been indicated. However, there were some respondents who
had marked the data as insufficient (7–15%) in all of the analysed fields.
10. In which sectors (of industry) do you have experience of EIA preparation? vs 18. Are the input data
in processing documentation in EIA procedure easily accessible and of the required quality?
Strategy documents
Strategy documents
and tourism
and tourism
Transport and
telecommunications
Transport and
telecommunications
Water management
Water management
Mining industry
Mining industry
of the economy
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Poland
of the economy
Strategy documents
Strategy documents
and tourism
and tourism
Transport and
telecommunications
Transport and
telecommunications
Water management
Water management
Mining industry
Mining industry
of the economy
0%
20%
40%
60%
Czech Republic
80%
100%
of the economy
the assessment of a sufficient amount of available data
No
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
80%
100%
Slovakia
0%
20%
40%
60%
Hungary
Partly
Yes
Fig. 6.10. Distribution of the assessment of sufficient amount of available data (of the required quality,
updated, etc.) in selected sectors of the economy
100
The Correlation between the Respondents’ Length of Service
in the Environmental Impact Assessments and Procedures and Methods They Used
to Identify and Evaluate the Impact (Tab. 6.2, no. 6)
As it was previously mentioned, people with the length of service longer than 10 years
constituted the largest percentage of people who had taken part in the survey in Poland,
Slovakia and the Czech Republic (Fig. 6.11). Only in Hungary the situation was different,
as the largest group of respondents comprised people with the length of service up to five
years. Respondents from Poland and the Czech Republic with the longest length of service
of more than 10 years most frequently selected in the survey the following methods to identify and evaluate the impact: the matrix (62 and 100% respectively) and the networks and
diagrams (75 and 100% respectively). The respondents with the same length of service from
Slovakia chose the method of mapping overlay (64%) and from Hungary the multicriteria
assessment (42.9%). Those with the length of service shorter than five years used to choose
most frequently the forecasting methods in Poland and Slovakia, and the checklists method
in the Czech Republic and Hungary.
the methods used to evaluate the impact
1. How many years have you worked with Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)? vs
19. What procedures and methods do you use for identification and assessment of impacts?
Environmental
indicators
Multicriteria
assessment
Forecasting
methods
Mapping overlay
Networks
Matrix
Checklists
Methods ad hoc
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Environmental
indicators
Multicriteria
assessment
Forecasting
methods
Mapping overlay
Networks
Matrix
Checklists
Methods ad hoc
100%
0%
20%
Environmental
indicators
Multicriteria
assessment
Forecasting
methods
Mapping overlay
Networks
Matrix
Checklists
Methods ad hoc
0%
20%
40%
60%
40%
60%
80%
100%
80%
100%
Slovakia
Poland
80%
Environmental
indicators
Multicriteria
assessment
Forecasting
methods
Mapping overlay
Networks
Matrix
Checklists
Methods ad hoc
100%
0%
20%
the lenght of service of the respondents in EIA
40%
60%
Hungary
Czech Republic
0–5
6–10
10+
Fig. 6.11. The correlation between the length of service of the respondents in environmental impact
assessments and procedures and methods they used to identify and evaluate the impact
101
in which the Respondents Were Experienced in the Preparation of EIA Reports
and the Procedures and Methods They Used to Identify
and Evaluate the Impact (Tab. 6.2, no. 7)
According to the survey the respondents who declared to be experienced in preparation
of the SEA most frequently chose the following methods to identify and evaluate the impact:
the forecasting methods in Poland (70.6%), the methods ad hoc in Slovakia (75%) and
the environmental indicators in the Czech Republic (84.6%) (Fig. 6.12, on the interleaf). In
Hungary, two methods received the same percentage of responses: the methods ad hoc and
the environmental indicators (57.1%).
In the case of the environmental impact assessments of investments in the mining sector, the respondents from Poland and the Czech Republic chose the environmental indicators
(58.3 and 76.2% respectively) and the methods ad hoc in Slovakia (71.4%), while in Hungary
forecasting methods were the most popular (55.6%). The results for other selected fields are
shown in detail on the graph (Fig. 6.12).
***
Summing up, it may be shown that statistical analysis of the survey results proved a number of differences in the V4 countries where surveys in terms of relations between selected
variables in the EIA were performed. The analysis showed correlation between the answers
of respondents from each country depending on the length of their service and sectors of
the economy in which the respondents had experience in preparation of reports. On the other
hand it confirmed concurrence of relations in some areas in all the V4 countries, such as an
increase of the time devoted to the EIA process accompanied by an increasing number of
the prepared sets of EIA documentation. Generally, it can be noted with satisfaction that only
specialists with the length of service longer than 10 years had been involved in the crossborder proceedings in all countries.
The analysis pointed out the lack of correlation between the length of service of the respondents and a number of stages of the EIA process which the respondents most often dealt
with (screening, scoping, reports, expert opinions, arrangements and giving opinions, issuing
decisions, post-completion analysis). It did not show, except for Hungary, any significant
correlation between the extending length of service and the growing number of sectors of
the economy in which the respondents had experience in the preparation of EIA reports.
Respondents in Slovakia, Poland and Hungary definitely determined the quantity and
quality of data as partially sufficient in certain sectors of the economy. In the Czech Republic,
the majority of the respondents indicated that the data were sufficient.
In terms of the number of methodological guides used by the respondents according to
their methodological adequacy for the EIA process significantly more respondents in the Czech
Republic than in other V4 countries marked the guides as sufficient. Those respondents who
indicated that they had used only one of the selected guides declared even 100% of sufficiency.
Apart from that, adequacy of the published methodological guides used in the EIA process
for particular types of guides that respondents used for this process was evaluated.
102
0%
0%
0%
0%
20%
20%
20%
20%
Slovakia
Poland
60%
60%
60%
40%
Hungary
60%
Czech Republic
40%
40%
40%
80%
80%
80%
80%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Methods ad hoc
Checklist
Matrix
Networks
Environmental indicators
Mapping overlay
Forecasting methods
the methods used to evaluate
the impact
Mapping overlay
Methods ad hoc
Forecasting methods
Checklists
Matrix
Networks
the impact
Methods ad hoc
Checklists
Matrix
Networks
Mapping overlay
Forecasting methods
the impact
Methods ad hoc
Checklists
Matrix
Networks
Mapping overlay
Forecasting methods
the impact
Fig. 6.12. The correlation between the selected sectors of the economy in which the respondents were experienced in preparation of EIA reports and procedures and
methods they used to identify and evaluate the impact
the selected sectors of
the economy
Mining industry
Water management
recreation and tourism
Purpose-built facilities for sport,
Strategy documents
the economy
Mining industry
Water management
Strategy documents
the economy
Mining industry
Water management
Strategy documents
the economy
Mining industry
Water management
Strategy documents
and assessment of impacts?
10. In which sectors (of industry) do you have experience of EIA preparation? vs 19. What procedures and methods do you use for identification
The study Environmental Impact Assessment of the effects of chemical technologies,
1994 Faculty of Chemical Technology STU in Bratislava can be positively distinguished in
Slovakia as almost 70% of the respondents from the country who had used that guide rated
the available materials in the field of EIA as completely adequate. When analysing the sectors of the economy in which the respondents declared having experience in preparing EIA
reports, the results of the survey indicated that the respondents working in the field of water
management most often indicated that published guides for the EIA process were sufficient
or partially sufficient. Basing on the assessment of methodological guides being the most
popular in particular sectors of the economy, it was possible to indicate the guides ranked in
the top positions. Summing up it can be stated that the following methodological guides met
users’ needs: Administrative proceedings in matters determined by the Act of 3 October 2008
on the provision of information about the environment and its protection, public participation in environmental protection and environmental impact assessment, A handbook of good
practice in performing environmental studies of domestic roads, edited by J. Bohatkiewicz,
GDDKiA/EKKOM Sp. z o.o. Krakow 2007 (PL), Environmental Impact Assessment in
the Slovak Republic (EIA), the general guide, SEA, 2008, General Guide to the Law no.
127/1994 Coll. of., 1994, EIA Centre, KKE FNS CU, Bratislava (SVK) and Methodological
Instruction Department assessment of the environmental impact of ME on the issue of looking
at the form of Annex 3 and Act No. 100/2001 Coll., On the Environmental impact assessment”,
„Information System EIA pursuant to Act No. 244/1992 Coll. (CZ).
It may be assumed that experienced specialists applied well-proven methods of preparation and interpretation which required extensive knowledge and experience to identify and
evaluate the environmental impact. The most common were: matrix and networks and diagrams
in Poland and the Czech Republic, mapping overlay method in Slovakia and multicriteria
assessment in Hungary. On the other hand, the specialists with the shortest length of service
from Hungary applied classical methods, such as checklists that can be considered simple
and transparent to interpret.
When considering all sectors of the economy (purpose built for recreation, sport and tourism and water management, mining industry), the respondents in the Czech Republic strongly
indicated the method of environmental indicators to identify and evaluate the environmental
impact, the same method was indicated by the respondents in Hungary, methods ad hoc were
the most popular in Slovakia, and forecasting methods in Poland.
Statistical analysis of correlation of the investigated variables in the V4 countries provided
interesting and important information for potential cooperation in assessment of the crossborder impact. Knowing the requirements and habits of the other side it is easier to prepare
consultations at an international level.
Results of the analysis can also be helpful in choosing a methodology to evaluate
the impact on the environment. When solving problems in a similar way as the neighbours,
their experience can be used and efficiency of the process of environmental impact assessment can be improved.
7. Conclusions and Recommendations
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedure has been used for over 28
years. Preventive protection of the environment and quality of life is its main task. Gaining
experience in environmental protection and sustainable development led to the creation of new
schemes of the EIA procedure and activation of further groups of professionals and the public
taking active part in the procedure. During that time period serious changes of the political
system and economy have been made in the V4 countries. Those historical events have had
a profound influence on the policy of environmental management. The changes that took place
in the V4 countries, which had previously belonged to the Communist Block with centralized
management of the economy and the public sphere, completed the long-term period when
environmental costs had not been taken into account when stimulating the economic growth.
Growing importance of the EIA procedure in legislation and changes which are to
facilitate the process of making decisions in environmental management and conservation
of natural resources have been observed in all V4 countries. Also, protection of the most
precious natural values and biodiversity, which is implemented by the European Ecological
Network Natura 2000, has been included in the EIA procedure. The purpose of the network
is to protect species and habitats identified as important for future generations of the EU
(Engel, 2009; Kistowski & Pchałek, 2009; Kowalczyk et al., 2009).
Poland is the first country among the V4 ones which has developed its own EIA procedure. The year 1990 when the National Commission for Environmental Impact Assessment
was established is treated as the crucial moment. In the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic,
the EIA procedure was launched by the relevant law in 1992, which was effective in the Czech
Republic after Slovakia had left the federation. The Hungarian legislation was published in
1993, and a year later the first EIA regulations were passed in Slovakia. Involving the public
in the procedure by publishing information and initiating public discussions as well as the possibility to submit proposals and comments, being the result of further modifications, should
be considered as the greatest achievements in the V4 countries.
The contemporary economic development also induces changes in the EIA procedure.
The EIA procedure standard adopted by the European Commission (Directive 1985) has been
applied with some departures in the V4 countries but on similar basis as provided in the EIA
Directive. As a result, there are differences in the pattern of conduct between the particular
V4 countries, either at the stage of screening, scoping, preparation of the report or issuing
the decision.
104
In Poland the procedure is begun when an investor submits an application to issue
a decision determining the conditions for implementation of the project. The application
is accompanied by a “Project Information Chart” or an “Environmental Impact Statement”
depending on the type of the project. The “Projects Information Chart” (“Chart”) provides
basic information about the project and its environmental impact and it is rather general in
character. In Slovakia and the Czech Republic the procedure always starts with submitting
a detailed documentation (“Zámer”) by an investor and in Hungary by delivering a “Preliminary
environmental assessment” which determines preliminary assessment of the environmental
impact. The authority conducting the EIA procedure after getting acquainted with the “Chart”
(Poland) or “Zámer” (Slovakia, the Czech Republic) or a “Preliminary environmental assessment” (Hungary) issues a decision on initiation or completion of the EIA (depending whether
the project belongs to a group that may have a significant impact on the environment or not).
Of course, the more information the authority obtains the greater chance to make the correct
decision it has.
Qualification of the project design for an obligatory EIA procedure is done in a similar
way resulting from the EIA Directive (1985) in the V4 countries. The projects are, in accordance with the relevant guidelines (annexes to the EIA national laws or regulations), divided
into two groups: 1) always requiring all procedures – compulsory/obligatory assessment
and 2) requiring the screening stage and a further decision of the relevant authority whether
the EIA procedure is necessary or not. The screening phase in V4 countries was illustrated
in the presented monograph by the examples from the field of tourism and recreation, water
management and mining (chapter 3). The thorough analysis showed relatively large differences
in the established threshold values determining if a project requires screening or the obligatory
EIA procedure. The thresholds and criteria for the selected project are different in different
countries and vary in nature and value, for example, the number of beds or the footprint of
the building. This aspect was mentioned in the proposal to the European Commission suggesting changes in the EIA (Proposal for a directive..., 2012). It would include setting precise
criteria defining if the conduct of the EIA is required or not. In the opinion of the authors of
this study it could partially, negatively affect conditions of development in the V4 countries.
It should be clearly emphasized that investment projects of fundamental importance for
the economy (particularly objects of transport infrastructure – highways, motorways, airports)
and accompanying investments (mining and processing plants supplying raw materials, gas
stations, etc.) are still carried out in those countries. As it can be assumed on the basis of
this assessment the differences shown in the thresholds and criteria for the screening stage in
various countries can be considered as indicators of the possession of certain natural resources,
on which each country builds its economic policy.
Preparing an environmental impact statement plays an important role in the EIA procedure, as it makes the basis for the subsequent decisions. Differences concerning the persons
making such reports can be noticed in the V4 countries. In the Czech Republic and Hungary
the authors must have certified qualifications in the field. Additionally, in the Czech Republic
and Slovakia an opinion “Posudok” concerning the evaluation of the procedure, a report,
held consultations etc., is issued prior to the final decision finishing the EIA procedure. It
can be prepared by an expert, who may be only an authorized person. Despite establishing
105
strict criteria and requirements for specialist knowledge of an expert, it should be noted that
the person must bear an extreme responsibility. If the analysed project can have an impact
on the integrity of a Natura 2000 area, an opinion issued by an expert on Natura 2000 sites
is also required. In Poland, the task is fulfilled by the general directorate for environmental
protection and in voivodeships by regional directorates for environmental protection, which
were specially established for the purpose under the Act on the EIA. That institution is
responsible, among other aspects, for implementation of the environmental policy concerning management of the nature conservation, including the Natura 2000 sites and for control
of an investment process and passing information about the environment. The director of
environmental protection manges the team whose members are the persons responsible for
particular fields of the economy and who prepare relevant opinions or make decisions. In
more difficult cases, the director may direct the case to the established Regional or National
Commission for the EIA. This is an important moment verifying quality of the documentation and the whole procedure. A solution similar to the Polish one has been proposed as one
of the potential changes in the EIA Directive. The proposal puts forward establishing a point of
complex service to coordinate the EIA procedure (Proposal for a directive..., 2012).
In the Czech Republic, habitat assessment (related to Natura 2000 areas) can only be
performed by a person authorised in the field, and apart from that, there is an authorised person
appointed by the Minister of Health who is responsible for the part of the EIA procedure
which role is to assess the health risk (Health Impact Assessment). In Hungary, preliminary
and detailed assessment can only be carried out by a person who is authorised in the field of
nature or landscape protection, or environment and water resources protection.
Development has been observed in the V4 countries since 1990 but it has been especially
intensive since 2001. It has been also accompanied by adoption of the European Ecological
Natura 2000 Network, whose mission is to protect habitats and species valuable for the European Community. It turns out that there are many plant communities, refuges and migration routes of birds in the V4 countries. An average area of designated Natura 2000 sites in
all V4 is equal to 21.04% of the V4 countries surface area. Planned projects often interfere
with protection of habitats and species in the Natura 2000 sites. It especially concerns linear
facilities such as roads intersecting a country from east to west and from south to north. There
is hope that such mistakes will not be committed in the V4 countries after introduction of
the European Ecological Network. It is undoubtedly a great opportunity to shape the economic
development while maintaining and respecting natural resources and environmental assets.
In such activities transparent procedure of the EIA and proper qualification of projects at
the stage of screening are in fact the foundation of the decision-making process. Already
at this stage efforts should be made to eliminate such wrong decisions that allow to carry
out the project, which actually have a significant impact on the environment. Multi-stage
and multi-criteria EIA procedures which involve all the interested parties should ensure that
the decision will determine all appropriate conditions for implementation of the project.
Meanwhile, there is investors’ pressure to avoid the EIA procedure as it simplifies, shortens
the process of obtaining the environmental decision and the building permit for the project
and reduces the costs of its implementation. For this reason a large responsibility is placed
on the authors of the “Project Information Chart”, “Zámer” or a “Preliminary environmental
106
assessment”. In this aspect the chart formula seems to be too constricted. The environmental
authorities in the Czech Republic and Slovakia use the documentation (“Zámer”), which
fully provides the necessary data at the appropriate level of detail. According to the authors
of this study preparation of such a detailed documentation (“Zámer”) is worth adapting as
a standard procedure in the other V4 countries.
In Slovakia there is an EIA computer information system which has been used since
2004. All sets of documentation (including all graphic attachments), opinions and decisions
taken during the procedure are available in the system. In recent years, the system has been
supplemented with information about the EIA procedures carried out since 1994 – when
the first EIA act was introduced. The system also includes a list of experts authorized to issue
opinions divided into various sectors of the economy together with their contact details and
the current experience. There is a computer information system working on similar principles
in the Czech Republic. Additionally, it is supplemented with a list of experts authorized to
perform reports and reviews of projects with potential impact on Natura 2000 sites. Usage
of the system is completely free of charge in both countries, in the Czech Republic and in
Slovakia. There is no information system in Hungary. The EIA documentation is stored in those
inspectorates which have carried out the EIA procedures. In Poland, there is an information
system which has been used for several years, but only information on completed reports
and issued decisions can be found there. The data, e.g. a report, are available after receiving
an application which should be submitted directly to the office or sent electronically. After
accepting the application, the given report is sent by email or delivered on a CD. A fee is
charged for preparation of the information each time. It can be said that the information
system is the mark of public participation in the EIA procedure. Hence, operation of the EIA
information system in Slovakia and the Czech Republic should be considered as an example
of good practice and adapted in the other V4 countries.
The results of the survey (the whole V4 group assessed jointly) indicated that the representative group of the respondents who took part in the study in the V4 countries comprised
the persons whose work experience in the field of the EIA was longer than 10 years. As far
as the elements of the environment are concerned, the respondents most often specialized in
protected areas, water conditions, fauna, flora and landscape. In case of industrial emissions,
the largest group consisted of experts in the field of water and air pollution and waste. The
respondents most frequently prepared reports on the following sectors of economy: infrastructure, agriculture and forestry and water management. It can be assumed that the major
economic boom in V4 countries can be observed in those particular sectors of the economy.
The respondents from the V4 countries indicated the following procedures and methods as
the most commonly used ones to identify and evaluate the impact: environmental indicators,
multi-criteria comparative analysis and forecasting methods which most frequently applied
the Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Generally, the respondents expressed reservations
about the methodological preparation of the EIA process and the amount of data available for
the EIA process. The further weaknesses mentioned by the respondents included: insufficient
monitoring, subjective approach to the assessment of impacts and inadequate consideration
of cumulative impacts. On the other hand, the respondents, as the main purpose and strengths of
the EIA, indicated the fact that the process was treated as a real tool for rational management
107
of the environment and for reducing the human impact. The following issues were among
the respondents’ suggestions which goal was to improve effectiveness of the EIA process:
– improvement of the quality control of EIA documentation,
– increase of the influence of EIA on decision-making processes,
– defining universal criteria to assess the impact on individual elements of the environment,
– proper defining of the scope of the report, adapting it to the specific scope of the project,
– the lack of respecting of the final resolution,
– changing the screening criteria for conducting EIA procedure for small projects,
– reduction of the pressure on the people preparing EIA documentation,
– preparation of a list of professional EIA experts,
– better participation of the public in the EIA process.
Summing up, it can be concluded that the goals set for the project “AQE V4” were reached
and the basic differences in the EIA procedures in the V4 countries have been presented in
this monograph. It should be clearly emphasised that the system experience gained in each
country and considered to be a good practice could be implemented in other countries, which
would allow for better compliance with the rules and standards of protection and management
of the environment.
Application of the survey to evaluate the EIA procedures turned out to be a useful tool
for understanding of behaviour and attitude of experts in the EIA process. The authors of
the project hope that those results will help to conduct the EIA procedure in the V4 countries. In particular, it concerns assessment of cross-border impacts. The best solutions from
various countries, by sharing experiences, can contribute to improvement of the quality of
the procedure in the V4 countries and in the European Union. In some aspects, it seems to
be advisable to develop common positions such as the regulation of the EIA which concern
the amendments proposed by the European Commission.
in Language of Each V4 Country
Conclusions and Recommendations in Polish
WNIOSKI I ZALECENIA
Procedura oceny oddziaływania na środowisko (ang. Environmental Impact Assessment
– EIA) jest stosowana już od ponad 28 lat. Pozwala ona na prewencyjną ochronę środowiska
i jakości życia. Zdobywane doświadczenia w obszarze ochrony środowiska i zrównoważonego
rozwoju prowadziły do tworzenia nowych schematów procedury EIA i uaktywniania kolejnych grup specjalistów oraz społeczeństwa, biorących udział w tej procedurze. W tym czasie
w krajach V4 dokonały się poważne zmiany ustrojowe oraz gospodarcze. Te historyczne już
wydarzenia miały ogromny wpływ na politykę zarządzania środowiskiem. W krajach V4,
należących wcześniej do obozu socjalistycznego, w których gospodarka i sfera publiczna
były zarządzane centralnie, zmiany zakończyły długoletni okres konstruowania rozwoju bez
uwzględniania kosztów środowiskowych.
We wszystkich krajach V4 można zauważyć wzrost znaczenia procedury EIA w ustawodawstwie i zmianach, które mają ułatwić podejmowanie decyzji ekologicznych w celu
racjonalnego wykorzystania i ochrony zasobów środowiska. Jednocześnie w procedurze EIA
uwzględniono dbałość o najcenniejsze walory przyrodnicze i bioróżnorodność, co skutkowało powstaniem Europejskiej Sieci Ekologicznej Natura 2000. Jej zadaniem jest ochrona
gatunków i siedlisk dla przyszłych pokoleń mieszkańców Wspólnoty Europejskiej (Engel,
2009; Kistowski & Pchałek, 2009; Kowalczyk et al., 2009).
Spośród krajów V4 Polska jako pierwsza wypracowała swoją procedurę EIA. Za przełomową datę uznaje się 1990 r., kiedy powołano Komisję Krajową ds. Ocen Oddziaływania
na Środowisko. W Czechosłowacji procedurę EIA uruchomiła odpowiednia ustawa w 1992 r.,
która obowiązywała w Czechach po odejściu z federacji Słowacji. Na Węgrzech uregulowania prawne nastąpiły w 1993 r. Rok później uchwalono pierwszą ustawę EIA na Słowacji.
W następstwie kolejnych modyfikacji EIA, za największe osiągnięcia w krajach V4 należy
uznać uwzględnienie w procedurze udziału społeczeństwa, co przejawiło się w informowaniu
go i dyskusjach publicznych oraz możliwości składania wniosków i uwag.
Współczesny rozwój gospodarczy powoduje, że także w procedurze EIA wymuszone
zostają zmiany. Przyjęty przez Komisję Europejską wzorzec procedury EIA (Directive 85/337/
EEC, 1985) w krajach V4 jest aplikowany z pewnymi odstępstwami, ale na podobnych
zasadach, które określa dyrektywa EIA. W efekcie tego występują różnice w schemacie
109
postępowania pomiędzy poszczególnymi krajami V4 już na etapie screeningu, scopingu,
sporządzania raportu oraz wydawania decyzji.
W Polsce procedura rozpoczyna się w momencie złożenia przez inwestora wniosku
o wydanie decyzji określającej warunki do realizacji przedsięwzięcia, do którego dołączona
jest „Karta informacyjna przedsięwzięcia” albo „Raport o oddziaływaniu na środowisko”
w zależności od rodzaju przedsięwzięcia. „Karta informacyjna przedsięwzięcia” dostarcza
wszystkich podstawowych danych o projekcie i jego oddziaływaniu i ma charakter dość
przeglądowy. Na Słowacji oraz w Czechach procedura zawsze zaczyna się od złożenia
przez inwestora szczegółowej dokumentacji „Zámer”, a na Węgrzech „Wstępnej oceny
środowiskowej” określających wstępną ocenę wpływu na środowisko. Organ, który prowadzi postępowanie EIA po zapoznaniu się z „Kartą informacyjną przedsięwzięcia” (Polska),
„Zámerem” (Słowacja, Czechy) lub „Wstępną oceną środowiskową” (Węgry), wydaje
postanowienie o wszczęciu postępowania EIA lub o braku potrzeby jego przeprowadzenia
(jeżeli przedsięwzięcie należy do grupy mogących potencjalnie znacząco oddziaływać na
środowisko). Oczywiście dysponując pełniejszymi informacjami, organ ma większe szanse
na podjęcie prawidłowej decyzji.
Kwalifikacja projektu przedsięwzięcia do obligatoryjnej procedury EIA w krajach V4
odbywa się na podobnych zasadach, wynikających z dyrektywy EIA (1985). Przedsięwzięcia
są dzielone na dwie grupy według odpowiednich wytycznych (załączniki do krajowych ustaw
EIA lub rozporządzenia):
1) wymagające zawsze postępowania w sprawie oceny,
2) wymagające rozpatrzenia – screeningu i decyzji odpowiedniego organu o konieczności
przeprowadzenia EIA lub o braku potrzeby jego przeprowadzenia.
Na omówionych przykładach przedsięwzięć z zakresu turystyki i rekreacji, gospodarki
wodnej i górnictwa przedstawiono etap screeningu w krajach V4 (rozdział 3). Wnikliwa analiza wykazała stosunkowo duże różnice w ustalonych parametrach progowych przedsięwzięć
dotyczących ich kwalifikowania do screeningu oraz do obligatoryjnego procesowania EIA.
Progi i kryteria dla wybranego przedsięwzięcia mają w poszczególnych krajach różny charakter i wartość, odnoszą się na przykład do liczby miejsc noclegowych albo do powierzchni
zabudowy planowanego obiektu. Ten aspekt znalazł wyraz w zgłoszonym wniosku Komisji
Europejskiej o zmianach w EIA (Proposal for a directive..., 2012). Dotyczyłyby one między
innymi ustalenia szczegółowych kryteriów selekcji dla wymagania lub nieprzeprowadzenia
postępowania EIA. W ocenie autorów niniejszej monografii mogłoby to częściowo negatywnie wpłynąć na warunki rozwoju w omawianych krajach V4. Trzeba wyraźnie zaznaczyć,
że w tych krajach dalej realizowane są projekty inwestycyjne o podstawowym znaczeniu
dla gospodarki kraju (zwłaszcza obiekty infrastruktury komunikacyjnej – drogi szybkiego
ruchu, autostrady, linie kolejowe, lotniska) oraz inwestycje towarzyszące (zakłady górnicze
i przetwórcze dostarczające surowców, stacje paliw itp.). Jak można wnioskować na podstawie
dokonanej oceny, różnice wykazane w progach i kryteriach etapu screeningu w poszczególnych państwach można uznać za wyznaczniki posiadania określonych zasobów środowiska,
między innymi na których poszczególne kraje kształtują swoją politykę gospodarczą.
110
8. Conclusions and Recommendations in Language of Each V4 Country
Dużą rolę w procedurze EIA odgrywa sporządzenie dokumentacji o oddziaływaniu
na środowisko (ang. Environmental Impact Statement), która tworzy podstawę do podjęcia
następnych decyzji administracyjnych. Pomiędzy państwami V4 można zauważyć różnice
dotyczące osób sporządzających takie opracowanie. W Czechach oraz na Węgrzech od
autorów wymaga się posiadania uprawnień w tym zakresie. W Czechach oraz na Słowacji
przed wydaniem decyzji kończącej proces EIA dodatkowo jest wydawana opinia „Posudok”,
dotycząca oceny przebiegu procedury, raportu, przeprowadzonych konsultacji itd. Opinie
sporządza biegły, którym może być tylko uprawniona osoba współpracująca z ekspertami
specjalizującymi się na przykład w ocenie hałasu, rozprzestrzenienia się zanieczyszczeń
w powietrzu, złóż kopalin itd. Mimo ostrych kryteriów powołania i wymagań dotyczących
specjalistycznej wiedzy biegłego należy zauważyć, że na takiej osobie spoczywa wyjątkowa
odpowiedzialność. Jeżeli analizowane przedsięwzięcie mogłoby mieć wpływ na integrację
obszaru Natura 2000, to opinię wystawia także biegły do spraw obszarów Natura 2000.
W Polsce zadania takie pełni specjalnie do tego celu powołana na mocy ustawy o EIA Generalna Dyrekcja Ochrony Środowiska oraz na obszarach województw Regionalna Dyrekcja
Ochrony Środowiska. Instytucja ta odpowiada między innymi za realizację polityki ochrony
środowiska w zakresie zarządzania ochroną przyrody, w tym i obszarami Natura 2000, oraz
w zakresie kontroli procesu inwestycyjnego i przekazywania informacji o środowisku. Dyrekcji podlega zespół złożony z osób odpowiedzialnych za określone dziedziny gospodarki,
przygotowujących odpowiednie opinie, postanowienia czy decyzje. W trudniejszych przypadkach dyrektor może sprawę skierować do powołanej Regionalnej lub Krajowej Komisji
ds. EIA. Jest to ważny moment weryfikacji jakości dokumentacji i całej procedury. Podobne
jak w Polsce, rozwiązanie zostało zaproponowane jako jedna z możliwych zmian dyrektywy EIA. Propozycja przewiduje powołanie punktu kompleksowej obsługi i koordynacji
procedury EIA (Proposal for a directive..., 2012).
W Czechach ocenę siedliskową (związaną z obszarami Natura 2000) może wykonać tylko
osoba uprawniona w tym zakresie. Dodatkową procedurą EIA jest ocena ryzyka zdrowotnego
(ang. Health Impact Assessment), którą przygotowuje uprawniona do tego osoba, wybierana
przez ministra zdrowia. Na Węgrzech dokumentację EIA, wstępną oraz szczegółową ocenę
środowiskową mogą sporządzać tylko uprawnione osoby w dziedzinie ochrony przyrody
i krajobrazu oraz w zakresie ochrony środowiska i zasobów wodnych.
Obserwowany od 1990 roku, a zwłaszcza po 2001 roku, rozwój w krajach V4 odbywa
się przy jednoczesnym stworzeniu Europejskiej Sieci Ekologicznej Natura 2000, której zadaniem jest ochrona siedlisk i gatunków cennych dla Wspólnoty. Okazuje się, że na terenie
państw V4 jest wiele takich zbiorowisk roślinnych, ostoi i szlaków migracyjnych ptaków.
Średnia powierzchnia wyznaczonych obszarów Natura 2000 wynosi 21,04% powierzchni
państw V4. Planowane przedsięwzięcia często kolidują z ochroną siedlisk i gatunków w obszarach Natura 2000. Dotyczy to zwłaszcza obiektów liniowych, np. dróg przecinających
cały kraj ze wschodu na zachód lub z południa na północ. W krajach V4 po wprowadzeniu
oceny siedliskowej Europejskiej Sieci Ekologicznej można mieć nadzieję, że błędy przy projektowaniu przedsięwzięć nie będą popełniane. Niewątpliwie istnieje wielka szansa na rozwój
gospodarczy przy zachowaniu oraz poszanowaniu zasobów i walorów środowiska. W tych
111
działaniach przejrzysta procedura EIA i właściwe kwalifikowanie przedsięwzięć na etapie
screeningu są w zasadzie podstawą procesu decyzyjnego. Już na tym etapie należy dążyć do
wyeliminowania niewłaściwych decyzji, powodujących dopuszczanie do realizacji przedsięwzięć, które w rzeczywistości w istotny sposób oddziałują na środowisko. Wieloetapowa
i wielokryterialna procedura EIA, do której włączani są wszyscy zainteresowani, powinna
zapewnić określenie w decyzji wszystkich odpowiednich warunków realizacji przedsięwzięcia. Tymczasem istnieje presja inwestora, aby procedurę EIA ominąć, co mogłoby uprościć
lub skrócić drogę uzyskania decyzji środowiskowej, a następnie pozwolenia na realizację
przedsięwzięcia i zmniejszyć koszty jego realizacji. Z tego powodu duża odpowiedzialność
spoczywa na autorach „Karty informacyjnej przedsięwzięcia”, „Zámeru” oraz wstępnej oceny
środowiskowej. W tym aspekcie formuła „Karty informacyjnej przedsięwzięcia” wydaje się
być zbyt wąska. W Czechach i na Słowacji organ środowiskowy korzysta z dokumentacji
(„Zámer”), która w pełni dostarcza potrzebnych danych na właściwym poziomie szczegółowości. Zdaniem autorów niniejszego opracowania wykonywanie tak szczegółowej dokumentacji
(„Zámer”) powinno obowiązywać we wszystkich krajach V4.
Na Słowacji od 2004 r. funkcjonuje System Informacyjny EIA, w ramach którego są
dostępne wszystkie dokumentacje (wraz ze wszystkimi załącznikami graficznymi), opinie
oraz decyzje podejmowane na każdym etapie procedury. W ostatnich latach system był
uzupełniony o informacje dotyczące przeprowadzonych procesów EIA od 1994 r., czyli od
momentu powstania pierwszej ustawy EIA. System obejmuje też listę uprawnionych biegłych
do sporządzania opinii, z podziałem na poszczególne działy gospodarki, wraz z podaniem
danych kontaktowych oraz doświadczenia ekspertów. W Czechach system informacyjny działa
na podobnych zasadach, dodatkowo uwzględnia uprawnionych biegłych do sporządzania
raportów oraz opinii dotyczących przedsięwzięć z potencjalnym oddziaływaniem na obszary Natura 2000. W obu przypadkach, w Czechach i na Słowacji, korzystanie z systemu jest
całkowicie bezpłatne. Na Węgrzech system informacyjny nie został stworzony, sporządzona
dokumentacja EIA przechowywana jest w inspektoratach, które prowadziły postępowanie EIA.
W Polsce od kilku lat też istnieje system informacyjny, jednak można w nim tylko wyszukać
informacje o wykonanych raportach i wydanych decyzjach. Udostępnienie do wglądu danych np. raportu odbywa się na podstawie wniosku złożonego bezpośrednio w urzędzie lub
przesłanego drogą elektroniczną. Po rozpatrzeniu przykładowy raport przesyłany jest drogą
elektroniczną lub na płycie CD. Za przygotowanie informacji każdorazowo pobierana jest
opłata. Można by powiedzieć, że system informacyjny jest wizytówką udziału społeczeństwa
w procedurze EIA. Funkcjonowanie systemu informacyjnego EIA na Słowacji oraz w Czechach należy uznać za przykład dobrej praktyki i adaptować w pozostałych krajach V4.
Wyniki badania ankietowego (obejmującego wspólnie grupę V4) wskazały, że reprezentatywną grupę respondentów, która wzięła udział w badaniu w państwach V4, tworzyły
osoby z ponad dziesięcioletnim stażem pracy w zakresie EIA. Przy wykonywaniu EIA
okazało się, że zapytani najczęściej specjalizują się w obszarach chronionych, warunkach
wodnych, faunie, florze oraz krajobrazie. W przypadku rodzajów emisji, którymi najczęściej
zajmują się przy ocenie oddziaływania, najliczniejszą grupę tworzą eksperci z zakresu zanieczyszczania wód, atmosfery oraz odpadów. Respondenci najczęściej przygotowują raporty
z następujących dziedzin gospodarki: infrastruktura, rolnictwo i leśnictwo oraz gospodarka
112
wodna. Można przypuszczać, że to właśnie w tych sektorach gospodarki panuje największe
ożywienie na obszarze państw V4. Za najczęściej wykorzystywane procedury i metody służące do identyfikacji oraz oceny wpływu respondenci V4 wskazali: wskaźniki środowiskowe,
wielokryterialną analizę porównawczą oraz metody prognozowania, przy których zdecydowanie najczęściej wykorzystują systemy informacji przestrzennej (GIS). Ogólnie ankietowani
wyrazili zastrzeżenia dotyczące przygotowania metodologicznego procesu EIA oraz ilości
danych, którymi dysponują w procesie EIA. Za następne słabe strony respondenci uznali
między innymi niewystarczający monitoring, subiektywne podejście w ocenie wpływu oraz
słabo uwzględniane oddziaływanie skumulowane. Z drugiej strony odpowiedzi respondentów
dotyczące głównego celu oraz mocnych stron EIA wskazują na to, że proces jest traktowany
jako prawdziwe narzędzie do racjonalnego gospodarowania środowiskiem i służące ograniczaniu antropopresji. Wśród postulatów dotyczących zwiększenia efektywności procesu EIA
znalazły się między innymi kwestie dotyczące:
– dokształcenia urzędników,
– polepszenia kontroli jakości dokumentacji EIA,
– zwiększenia wpływu EIA w procesie decyzyjnym,
– uelastycznienia oraz uproszczenia procedury EIA,
– zdefiniowania uniwersalnych kryteriów oceny wpływu na poszczególne elementy środowiska,
– poprawnego określenia zakresu raportu, dostosowującego zakres do specyfiki przedsięwzięcia,
– nierespektowania końcowego postanowienia,
– zmiany kryteriów screeningu w zakresie przeprowadzania procedury EIA dla małych
przedsięwzięć,
– ograniczenia presji na osoby sporządzające dokumentację EIA,
– utworzenia listy specjalistów rzeczoznawców ds. EIA,
– zapewnienia udziału społeczeństwa w procesie EIA.
Podsumowując, można stwierdzić, że cele postawione w ramach realizacji projektu
„AQE V4” zostały zrealizowane, a w niniejszej monografii zaprezentowano podstawowe
różnice procesu EIA w państwach V4. Należy wyraźnie zaznaczyć, że doświadczenia systemowe w poszczególnych krajach, uznane za dobre praktyki, mogą być wdrażane w pozostałych krajach, co pozwoli na skuteczniejsze przestrzeganie norm oraz standardów w ochronie
i zarządzaniu środowiskiem.
Zastosowanie badania ankietowego w ocenie procesu EIA okazało się być użytecznym
narzędziem pozwalającym na poznanie zachowań i postaw ekspertów w zakresie procesu
EIA. Autorzy projektu mają nadzieję, że przedstawione wyniki będą pomocne przy wykonywaniu procedury EIA w krajach V4. W szczególności dotyczy to realizacji przedsięwzięć
o oddziaływaniu transgranicznym. Dobre praktyki wypracowane w poszczególnych krajach
na podstawie wymiany doświadczeń mogą się przyczynić do podniesienia jakości procedury
w krajach V4 i w Unii Europejskiej. W niektórych aspektach celowe wydaje się wypracowanie
wspólnych stanowisk, jak choćby w kwestii regulacji EIA w kontekście zmian proponowanych
przez Komisję Europejską.
113
Conclusions and Recommendations in Slovak
ZÁVERY A ODPORÚČANIA
Postup posudzovania vplyvov na životné prostredie (EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment) bol zavedený pred viac ako 28 rokmi. Jeho hlavnou úlohou je preventívna ochrana
životného prostredia a kvality života. Získanie skúsenosti v oblasti ochrany životného prostredia a trvalo udržateľného rozvoja viedli k vytvoreniu nových schém procesu EIA a k aktivácii
ďalších skupín odborníkov a verejnosti, ktorí sa procesu aktívne zúčastňujú. Počas tohto
obdobia, sa v krajinách V4 udiali významné zmeny politického systému a ekonomiky. Tieto
historické udalosti mali hlboký vplyv na politiku environmentálneho manažmentu. Zmeny
prebiehajúce v krajinách V4, ktoré predtým patrili do komunistického bloku s centralizovaným
riadením ekonomiky a verejnej sféry, ukončili dlhodobé obdobie bez zohľadnenia nákladov
na životné prostredie pri stimulácii hospodárskeho rastu.
Rastúci význam postupu EIA v zákonoch a zmenách, ktoré majú uľahčiť proces rozhodovania v environmentálnom manažmente a zachovaní prírodných zdrojov, bol pozorovaný vo
všetkých krajinách V4. Do procesu EIA bola tiež zahrnutá ochrana najcennejších prírodných
hodnôt a biodiverzity, ktoré sú implementované do Európskej ekologickej sústavy Natura 2000.
Účelom sústavy je chrániť druhy a biotopy identifikované ako dôležité pre budúce generácie
EÚ (Engel, 2009; Kistowski & Pchałek, 2009; Kowalczyk et al., 2009).
Poľsko je prvou krajinou spomedzi krajín V4, ktorá vytvorila svoj vlastný proces EIA. Rok
1990, kedy bola založená Národná komisia pre posudzovanie vplyvov na životné prostredie
je považovaný za kľúčový moment. V Českej a Slovenskej federatívnej republike bol proces
EIA zahájený príslušným zákonom v roku 1992, ktorý bol naďalej platý v Českej republike
po rozdelení federácie. Maďarské zákony boli zverejnené v roku 1993 a o rok neskôr bol na
Slovensku schválený prvý zákon EIA. Zapojenie verejnosti v procese zverejňovania informácií
a začatie verejnej diskusie, ako aj možnosť predkladať návrhy a pripomienky, je výsledkom
ďalších úprav, ktoré by mali byť považované za najväčšie úspechy v krajinách V4.
Zmeny v procese EIA vyvoláva tiež súčasný ekonomický rozvoj. Štandardný postup EIA,
ktorý prijala Európska komisia (Smernica 1985), sa s niektorými odchýlkami používa v krajinách V4, ale na rovnakom základe, ako je stanovené v Smernici EIA. V dôsledku toho existujú
rozdiely v spôsobe správania medzi jednotlivými krajinami V4, a to buď vo fáze zisťovacieho
konania, rozsahu hodnotenia, prípravy správ alebo vydávania rozhodnutia.
V Poľsku sa proces začína, keď investor predloží žiadosť o vydanie rozhodnutia
o stanovení podmienok pre realizáciu projektu. Žiadosť je doplnená „Informačným listom
projektu”, alebo „Správou o vplyve”, v závislosti od typu projektu. „Informačný list projektu”
poskytuje základné informácie o projekte a jeho vplyvoch na životné prostredie, a je skôr
všeobecného charakteru. Na Slovensku a v Českej republike postup vždy začína podaním
podrobnej dokumentácie obsahujúcej počiatočné posúdenie vplyvov na životné prostredie
investorom („Zámer”) a v Maďarsku doručením „Predbežnej environmentálnej štúdie”, ktorý
určuje predbežné posúdenie vplyvov na životné prostredie. Orgán vykonávajúci proces EIA
po oboznámení sa s „Informačným listom projektu” (Poľsko) alebo „Zámerom” (Slovensko,
Česká republika) alebo „Predbežnou environmentálnou štúdiou” (Maďarsko), vydá rozhodnutie
114
o začatí alebo ukončení EIA (v závislosti na tom, či projekt patrí do skupiny, ktorá môže mať
významný vplyv na životné prostredie alebo nie). Samozrejme, čím viac informácií orgán
získa, tým má väčšiu šancu urobiť správne rozhodnutie.
Kvalifikácia návrhu projektu pre povinný proces EIA sa v krajinách V4 vykonáva podobným spôsobom, vyplývajúcim zo Smernice EIA. Projekty sú v súlade s príslušnými pokynmi
(prílohou EIA národných zákonov a predpisov), rozdelené do dvoch skupín: 1) vyžadujúce
povinné hodnotenie a 2) vyžadujúce zisťovacie konanie a ďalšie rozhodnutia príslušného
orgánu, či je EIA proces nutný alebo nie. Fáza zisťovacieho konania v krajinách V4 bola
vysvetlená na príkladoch z oblasti cestovného ruchu a rekreácie, vodného hospodárstva
a baníctva (kapitola 3). Dôkladná analýza ukázala pomerne veľké rozdiely v stanovených
prahových hodnotách, ktoré určujú či projekt vyžaduje zisťovacie konanie alebo povinné
hodnotenie vplyvov na životné prostredie. Prahové hodnoty a kritériá pre vybrané projekty
sú v jednotlivých krajinách rôzne a líšia sa povahou a hodnotou, napríklad počet lôžok alebo
podlahová plocha budovy. Tento aspekt sa odráža v návrhu Európskej komisie odporúčajúcej
zmeny v EIA (Proposal for a directive..., 2012). To by malo zahŕňať nastavenie presných
kritérií, ktoré definujú či je EIA potrebná alebo nie. Podľa názoru autorov tejto štúdie by
to mohlo čiastočne negatívne ovplyvniť podmienky vývoja v krajinách V4. Malo by byť
jasné, že investičné projekty, ktoré majú zásadný význam pre hospodárstvo (najmä objekty
dopravnej infraštruktúry – cesty, diaľnice, letiská) a sprievodné investície (závody ťažby
a spracovania, ktoré dodávajú suroviny, čerpacie stanice a pod) je v týchto krajinách stále
vykonávaný. Ako sa dá na základe posudzovania predpokladať, rozdiely uvedené v prahových
hodnotách a kritériách pre fázu zisťovacieho konania v rôznych krajinách možno považovať
za ukazovatele vlastníctva určitých prírodných zdrojov, na ktorých každá krajina buduje
svoje hospodárske politiky.
Príprava Správy o hodnotení hrá dôležitú úlohu v procese EIA, pretože je to základ pre
ďalšie rozhodnutia. V krajinách V4 možno pozorovať rozdiely týkajúce sa osôb, ktoré robia
takéto správy. V Českej republike a Maďarsku, autori musia mať certifikované vzdelanie
v odbore. Navyše, v Českej republike a na Slovensku, „Posudok”, týkajúci sa vyhodnotenia
procesu, správy, verejných prerokovaní a pod., je spracovaný pred záverečným stanoviskom,
ktorým končí proces EIA. Je pripravený odborníkom, ktorým môže byť len odborne spôsobilá osoba. Prostredníctvom stanovenia prísnych kritérií a požiadaviek na odborné znalosti
experta je potrebné poznamenať, že osoba musí mať vysokú zodpovednosť. Ak analyzovaný
projekt môže vplývať na integritu v oblasti Natura 2000, je tiež potrebné stanovisko vydané
odborníkom na lokality sústavy Natura 2000. V Poľsku je táto úloha vykonaná generálnym
riaditeľstvom pre ochranu životného prostredia a krajských riaditeľstiev pre ochranu životného
prostredia, ktoré boli špeciálne zriadené na účely podľa zákona o EIA. Táto inštitúcia je okrem
iného zodpovedná za implementáciu environmentálnej politiky týkajúcej sa manažérstva
ochrany prírody, vrátane lokalít Natura 2000 a pre kontrolu investičného procesu a odovzdávanie informácií o životnom prostredí. Riaditeľ environmentálnej ochrany riadi tím, ktorého
členmi sú osoby zodpovedné za jednotlivé oblasti ekonomiky, a ktorý pripravuje príslušné
stanovisko alebo robí rozhodnutia. V iných prípadoch to môže riaditeľ nariadiť regionálnej
alebo národnej komisii pre EIA. To je dôležitý moment pre overovanie kvality dokumentácie
115
a celého procesu. Riešenie, podobne ako v Poľsku, bolo navrhnuté ako jedna z potenciálnych
zmien v Smernici EIA. Návrh predkladá stanovenie bodu komplexnej služby pre koordináciu
postupu EIA (Proposal for a directive..., 2012).
V Českej republike, hodnotenia lokalít (v súvislosti s oblasťami Natura 2000), môžu
byť vykonané iba osobou oprávnenou v danej oblasti, a okrem toho, oprávnenou osobou
menovanou ministrom zdravotníctva, ktorý je zodpovedný za časť EIA procesu, ktorej úlohou je posúdiť zdravotné riziko (posudzovanie vplyvu na zdravie). V Maďarsku, predbežné
a podrobné posúdenie môže vykonávať iba osoba, ktorá je oprávnená v oblasti ochrany prírody
a krajiny alebo ochrany životného prostredia a vodných zdrojov.
Vývoj v krajinách V4 bol pozorovaný od roku 1990, ale intenzívny bol predovšetkým od
roku 2001. Ten bol tiež sprevádzaný prijatím Európskej ekologickej sústavy Natura 2000, ktorej
úlohou je chrániť prirodzené biotopy a druhy cenné pre Európske spoločenstvo. Ukazuje sa, že
v krajinách V4 existuje mnoho rastlinných spoločenstiev, azylových a migračných trás vtákov.
Priemerná rozloha lokality Natura 2000 vo všetkých V4 sa rovná 21,04% plochy krajín V4.
Plánované projekty sú často v rozpore s ochranou prirodzených biotopov a druhov v lokalitách
Natura 2000. Jedná sa najmä o líniové objekty, ako sú cesty pretínajúce krajinu od východu
na západ a od juhu na sever. Existuje predpoklad, že zavedením európskej ekologickej siete
sa takéto chyby v krajinách V4 nebudú vyskytovať. Nepochybne je to skvelá príležitosť k formovaniu hospodárskeho rozvoja pri zachovaní a rešpektovaní prírodných zdrojov a prírodného
bohatstva. V takýchto činnostiach, transparentný postup EIA a správna kvalifikácia projektov
vo fáze zisťovacieho konania sú v skutočnosti základom rozhodovacieho procesu. Už v tejto
fáze je potrebné vyvinúť úsilie na odstránenie tých zlých rozhodnutí, ktoré umožňujú realizovať
projekt majúci významný vplyv na životné prostredie. Viacstupňové a multikriteriálne postupy
EIA, ktorých sa zúčastňujú všetky zainteresované strany by mali zabezpečiť, aby rozhodnutia
určili všetky vhodné podmienky pre realizáciu projektu. Medzitým je tu tlak investora, aby
sa zabránilo postupu EIA, aby sa zjednodušil a skrátil proces získavania environmentálneho
rozhodnutia a stavebného povolenia pre projekt, a aby sa znížili náklady na jeho realizáciu.
Z tohto dôvodu je veľká zodpovednosť kladená na autorov „Informačného listu projektu”,
„Zámeru” alebo „Predbežnej environmentálnej štúdie”. V tejto súvislosti sa Informačný list
zdá byť príliš obmedzený. Orgány životného prostredia v Českej republike a na Slovensku
využívajú dokumentáciu („Zámer”), ktorá plne poskytuje potrebné dáta na zodpovedajúcej
detailnej úrovni. Podľa autorov tejto štúdie, príprava takej podrobnej dokumentácie („Zámeru”)
je hodnotná na prijatie ako dokumentácie aj v ostatných krajinách V4.
Na Slovensku sa od roku 2004 používa informačný systém o EIA. Všetky dokumentácie
(vrátane všetkých grafických príloh), stanoviská a rozhodnutia prijaté v priebehu procesu
sú k dispozícii v systéme. V posledných rokoch bol tento systém doplnený o informácie
o postupoch EIA vykonaných od roku 1994 – kedy bol prijatý prvý zákon o EIA. Súčasťou
systému je aj zoznam odborne spôsobilých osôb – odborníkov oprávnených spracovávať
posudky, rozdelený do rôznych oblastí, spolu s kontaktnými údajmi a odbornosťou. K dispozícii je informačný systém pracujúci na podobnom princípe aj v Českej republike. Navyše
je doplnený o zoznam odborníkov oprávnených vykonávať správy a hodnotenia projektov
s potenciálnym dopadom na lokality sústavy Natura 2000. Použitie tohto systému je v oboch
krajinách, v Českej republike a aj na Slovensku, úplne zadarmo. V Maďarsku neexistuje žiadny
116
informačný systém. Dokumentácia EIA je uložená v inštitúciach, ktoré vykonávajú postupy
EIA. V Poľsku je informačný systém, ktorý sa používa už niekoľko rokov, ale možno tu nájsť
iba informácie o dokončených správach a vydaných rozhodnutiach. Údaje, napr. Správa je
k dispozícii po prijatí žiadosti, ktorá by mala byť predložená priamo do kancelárie alebo
zaslaná elektronicky. Po prijatí žiadosti je daná správa zaslaná e-mailom alebo dodávaná na
CD. Poplatok za prípravu informácií je zakaždým účtovaný. Dá sa povedať, že informačný
systém je znakom účasti verejnosti v procese EIA. Preto prevádzka informačného systému
EIA na Slovensku a aj v Českej republike by sa mala považovať za príklad dobrej praxe,
ktorá by mala byť uplatnená aj v ostatných krajinách V4.
Výsledky prieskumu (celá skupina V4 hodnotená spoločne) uvádzajú, že reprezentatívny
súbor respondentov, ktorí sa zúčastnili dotazníkového prieskumu v krajinách V4, tvoria osoby,
ktorých pracovné skúsenosti v oblasti EIA boli dlhšie ako 10 rokov. Pokiaľ ide o oblasti
životného prostredia, respondenti sa najčastejšie špecializujú na chránené územia, vodné
pomery, faunu, flóru a krajinu. V prípade priemyselných emisií, najväčšia skupina sa skladala
z odborníkov v oblasti ochrany vôd, znečistenia ovzdušia a odpadov. Respondenti najčastejšie
pripravujú správy v nasledujúcich sektoroch ekonomiky: infraštruktúra, poľnohospodárstvo
a lesníctvo a vodné hospodárstvo. Možno predpokladať, že hlavný ekonomický rozvoj možno
pozorovať v krajinách V4 v týchto jednotlivých sektoroch ekonomiky. Respondenti z krajín
V4 uviedli nasledujúce postupy a metódy najčastejšie používané na identifikáciu a hodnotenie
vplyvov: environmentálne indikátory, multikriteriálne hodnotenie a prognostické metódy, ktoré
najčastejšie využívajú geografické informačné systémy (GIS). Všeobecne platí, že respondenti
vyjadrili nedostatky týkajúce sa metodickej prípravy procesu EIA a množstva dostupných
údajov pre proces EIA. Medzi ďalšie nedostatky uvedené respondentmi patrí: nedostatočné
monitorovanie, subjektívny prístup k hodnoteniu vplyvov a nedostatočné posúdenie kumulatívnych vplyvov. Na druhej strane, respondenti, ako hlavný účel a silnú stránku EIA uviedli,
že tento proces je považovaný ako skutočný nástroj pre racionálne environmentálne manažérstvo a pre zníženie vplyvov človeka na životné prostredie. Medzi návrhmi respondentov
na skvalitnenie procesu EIA boli spomenuté podnety týkajúce sa predovšetkým:
– školenia a preškoľovacie kurzy pre úradníkov,
– zlepšenie riadenia kvality dokumentácie EIA,
– zvýšenie vplyvu EIA v rozhodovacích procesoch,
– pružnejšie a zjednodušené postupy EIA,
– definovanie univerzálnych kritérií pre posúdenie vplyvu na jednotlivé zložky životného
prostredia,
– riadne definovanie rozsahu správy, jej prispôsobenie konkrétnemu rozsahu projektu,
– nedostatočné rešpektovanie konečného riešenia,
– zmeny kritérií pre zisťovacie konanie EIA procesu pre malé projekty,
– zníženie tlaku na ľudí pripravujúcich dokumentáciu EIA,
– príprava zoznamu kvalifikovaných EIA odborníkov,
– zlepšenie účasti verejnosti v procese EIA.
Záverom možno konštatovať, že ciele stanovené pre projekt „AQE V4” boli dosiahnuté
a základné rozdiely v procesoch EIA v krajinách V4 boli prezentované v tejto monografii. Malo
117
by byť jasne zdôraznené, že systém získaných skúseností v jednotlivých krajinách a uplatňovanie dobrej praxe by mohlo byť realizované v iných krajinách, čo by umožnilo lepší súlad
s pravidlami a štandardmi ochrany životného prostredia a environmentálneho manažérstva.
Aplikácia dotazníkového prieskumu pre hodnotenie EIA procesov sa ukázala byť
užitočným nástrojom pre pochopenie správania a postoja odborníkov v procese EIA. Autori
projektu dúfajú, že tieto výsledky pomôžu vykonávať EIA proces v krajinách V4. Jedná sa
najmä o posúdenie cezhraničných vplyvov. Najlepšie riešenia z rôznych krajín, zdieľanie
skúseností, môžu prispieť k zlepšeniu kvality riadenia v krajinách V4 a v Európskej únii.
V niektorých aspektoch sa zdá byť vhodné vypracovať spoločné postoje, ako je regulácia
EIA, ktorá sa týka zmien navrhnutých Európskou komisiou.
Conclusions and Recommendations in Czech
ZÁVĚRY A DOPORUČENÍ
Posuzování vlivů na životní prostředí (EIA) je proces, který se uplatňuje již více než 28
let. Jeho hlavním cílem je preventivní ochrana životního prostředí a kvality života. Nabyté
zkušenosti v oblasti ochrany a trvale udržitelného rozvoje životního prostředí vedly ke vzniku
nových podob procesu EIA a k aktivizaci dalších skupin z řad odborníků i veřejnosti, jež se
na tomto procesu podílejí. Během tohoto období došlo v zemích Visegrádské čtyřky (V4) k
závažným změnám v jejich politickém systému a ekonomice. Tyto historické události měly
na politiku ochrany životního prostředí zásadní vliv. Změny, které se odehrály v zemích V4
(jež byly předtím součástí komunistického bloku s centralizovaným řízením ekonomiky
i veřejné sféry) završily dlouhé období, kdy náklady na ochranu životního prostředí nebyly
při stimulaci ekonomického růstu brány v úvahu.
Rostoucí význam EIA v legislativě a změny, jež mají usnadnit proces rozhodování v oblasti
řízení životního prostředí a ochrany přírodních zdrojů, lze vysledovat ve všech zemích V4. Do
procesu EIA byla zahrnuta také ochrana nejvýznamnějších přírodních hodnot a biodiverzity,
která je implementována prostřednictvím Evropské ekologické sítě Natura 2000. Cílem této
sítě je ochrana přírodních druhů a míst jejich výskytu, jež byly označeny jako důležité pro
budoucí generace EU (Engel, 2009; Kistowski & Pchałek, 2009; Kowalczyk et al., 2009).
Jako první v rámci V4 svůj vlastní proces EIA vyvinulo Polsko. Za klíčový okamžik se
považuje rok 1990, kdy zde byla ustavena Národní komise pro posuzování vlivů na životní
prostředí. V České a Slovenské federatívne republice byl proces EIA odstartován příslušným
zákonem v roce 1992, který platil v České republice poté, co se rozdělila federace. Maďarský
zákon byl publikován v roce 1993 a o rok později byly první předpisy ohledně EIA přijaty
na Slovensku. Za největší úspěch v zemích V4 je třeba považovat zapojení veřejnosti (které
je výsledkem dalších změn) do procesu prostřednictvím zveřejňování informací a pořádání
veřejných diskusí a také poskytnutím možnosti předkládat návrhy a připomínky.
Také aktuální hospodářský vývoj vyvolává v procesu EIA změny. Norma pro tento
proces schválená Evropskou komisí (Directive EIA, 1985) byla sice v zemích V4 aplikována
s určitými odchylkami, nicméně na podobné bázi, jak určuje zmíněná směrnice. Důsledkem
jsou rozdíly v konkrétní praxi jednotlivých zemí V4, ať už jde o fázi zjišťovacího řízení
(screening a scoping), vyhotovení zprávy či vydání rozhodnutí.
118
V Polsku je proces zahájen tím, že investor předloží žádost o vydání rozhodnutí, která
určuje podmínky realizace projektu. Spolu s touto žádostí předkládá také „Projektové informační karta” nebo „Zprávu o dopadech”, podle typu projektu. „Projektová informační karta”
podává základní informace o projektu a jeho vlivu na životní prostředí; ve své podstatě je
poměrně obecné. Na Slovensku a v České republice proces vždy začíná tím, že investor
předloží podrobnou dokumentaci obsahující výchozí posouzení vlivu na životní prostředí
(Záměr) a v Maďarsku předloží předběžné posouzení, které určuje předběžné posouzení
vlivu na životní prostředí. Po zhodnocení „Karty” (Polsko), „Záměru” (Slovensko, Česká
republika) nebo „Předběžného hodnocení vlivů” (Maďarsko) vydá orgán provádějící EIA
rozhodnutí o zahájení nebo dokončení procesu EIA (podle toho, jestli projekt patří či nepatří
k takovým, jež by mohly mít na životní prostředí významný dopad). Samozřejmě čím více
informací orgán obdrží, tím je větší šance, že vydané rozhodnutí bude správné.
Jestli má navrhovaný projekt povinně podstoupit proces EIA se v zemích V4 určuje podobným způsobem, podle Směrnice EIA. V souladu s příslušnými zásadami (dodatky k národním
zákonům či předpisům upravujícím EIA) jsou projekty rozděleny do dvou skupin: 1) ty, jež
musí podstoupit kompletní proces a 2) ty, jež musí projít zjišťovacím řízením a u nichž má
příslušný orgán následně rozhodnout o případné nutnosti podstoupit EIA. Zjišťovací řízení
v zemích V4 bylo ilustrováno na příkladech z oblasti cestovního ruchu a rekreace, vodního
hospodářství a důlního průmyslu (kapitola 3). Důkladná analýza ukázala poměrně velké
rozdíly pokud jde o stanovované limitní hodnoty určující, zda projekt vyžaduje jen zjišťovací
řízení, či již musí absolvovat celý proces EIA. Tyto limity a kritéria se v jednotlivých zemích
liší co do jejich povahy i hodnoty; například počet lůžek nebo plošná rozloha budovy. Tato
skutečnost byla zmíněna v návrhu pro Evropskou komisi, který navrhuje potřebné změny
v EIA (Proposal for a directive..., 2012). Zahrnovaly by také nastavení přesných kritérií
určujících, kdy je proces EIA vyžadován a kdy ne. Podle názoru autorů této studie by toto
mohlo částečně negativně ovlivnit podmínky rozvoje v zemích V4. Je třeba jednoznačně zdůraznit, že v těchto zemích i nadále pokračují investiční projekty mající pro tamní ekonomiku
zásadní význam (zejména v oblasti dopravní infrastruktury – rychlostní silnice, dálnice, letiště)
a s nimi související investice (těžařské a zpracovatelské závody dodávající suroviny, čerpací
stanice apod). Na základě tohoto hodnocení lze předpokládat, že rozdíly u jednotlivých zemí
pokud jde o limitní hodnoty a kritéria pro zjišťovací řízení mohou být brány jako ukazatele
vlastnictví určitých přírodních zdrojů, na nichž daná země staví svou hospodářskou politiku.
Příprava prohlášení o dopadu na životní prostředí hraje v procesu EIA významnou roli,
neboť je podkladem pro následná rozhodnutí. Také pokud jde o osoby připravující takováto
prohlášení, můžeme v jednotlivých zemích V4 pozorovat rozdíly. V České republice a Maďarsku musí být certifikovány v oboru. V České republice a na Slovensku se před konečným
rozhodnutím ukončujícím proces EIA navíc vydává „Posudek” obsahující hodnocení procesu, zprávu, uskutečněné konzultace atd. Může ho napsat odborník a může se jednat pouze
o oprávněnou osobu. I přes existenci přísných kritérií a požadavků na odborné znalosti je
třeba poznamenat, že tato osoba musí nést extrémní zodpovědnost. Může-li mít posuzovaný
projekt dopad na integritu oblasti, která je součástí soustavy Natura 2000, je vyžadován také
posudek vydaný odborníkem na lokality Natura 2000. V Polsku tuto úlohu plní generální
ředitelství pro ochranu životního prostředí a (na úrovni jednotlivých vojvodství) regionální
119
ředitelství pro ochranu životního prostředí. Tyto úřady byly zřízeny speciálně za tímto účelem
podle zákona o EIA. Jsou zodpovědné mj. za implementaci environmentální politiky co se týče
řízení ochrany přírody, včetně lokalit Natura 2000, a za řízení investičního procesu a předávání
informací o životním prostředí. Ředitel pro ochranu životního prostředí je vedoucím týmu,
jehož členové jsou osoby zodpovědné za konkrétní oblasti ekonomiky; ti připravují příslušná
opatření nebo vydávají rozhodnutí. Ve složitějších případech může ředitel záležitost předat
Regionální nebo Národní komisi pro EIA. Jde o důležitý moment, kdy se ověřuje kvalita
dokumentace a celého procesu. Řešení podobné tomu polskému bylo navrženo jako jedna
z možných změn Směrnice EIA. Tento návrh prosazuje zřízení místa komplexních služeb
pro koordinaci procesu EIA (Proposal for a directive..., 2012).
V České republice, hodnocení vlivů na stanoviště (v souvislosti s oblastí Natura 2000),
může být provedena pouze osobou oprávněnou v dané oblasti, a kromě toho, existje oprávněná
osoba jmenovaná ministrem zdravotnictví, která je zodpovědná za část EIA, jejímž úkolem
je posoudit zdravotní riziko (posuzování vlivu na zdraví). V Maďarsku může předběžné
a podrobné posouzení provádět pouze osoba, která je oprávněna v oblasti ochrany přírody
a krajiny nebo ochrany životního prostředí a vodních zdrojů.
Vývoj lze v zemích V4 vysledovat už od roku 1990, od roku 2001 je však obzvláště
intenzivní. Souběžně s ním byla přijata také Evropská ekologická síť Natura 2000, jejímž
posláním je ochrana přírodních druhů a míst jejich výskytu považovaných za cenné pro Evropské společenství. Ukazuje se, že v zemích V4 se nachází mnoho rostlinných společenstev,
útočišť a migračních tras ptactva. Průměrná rozloha stanovených lokalit soustavy Natura 2000
ve všech zemích V4 představuje 21,04% plošné rozlohy těchto zemí. Projektové plány často
ochranu v lokalitách Natura 2000 narušují. Jde zejména o lineární stavby, jako jsou silnice
protínající zemi z východu na západ a z jihu na sever. Je naděje, že v zemích V4 se takovéto
chyby nebudou po zavedení evropské ekologické sítě opakovat. Směrování ekonomického
rozvoje při současném zachování a respektování přírodních zdrojů a ekologických hodnot
bezpochyby představuje velkou příležitost. U takovýchto aktivit je transparentnost procesu EIA
a náležité posouzení projektů ve fázi zjišťovacího řízení základem rozhodovacího procesu. Již
v této fázi by měla být vyvíjena snaha eliminovat špatná rozhodnutí, jež by následně umožnila
realizovat projekt s výrazným dopadem na životní prostředí. K tomu, aby rozhodnutí určilo
všechny příslušné podmínky realizace projektu, by měly sloužit vícestupňové procesy EIA
postavené na více kritériích. Současně je vyvíjen tlak ze strany investorů, kteří se snaží
EIA vyhnout, jelikož to zjednodušuje a zkracuje proces získání rozhodnutí a stavebního
povolení a snižuje náklady na implementaci projektu. Na autorech „Projektové informační
karty”, „Záměru” nebo „Předběžného hodnocení vlivů” proto leží velká zodpovědnost.
V tomto konkrétním ohledu se vzor Karty zdá být příliš úzce pojatý. V České republice a na
Slovensku mají orgány pro řízení životního prostředí k dispozici dokumentaci („Záměr”),
která poskytuje veškerá potřebná data jdoucí do všech potřebných detailů. Autoři této studie
se domnívají, že přípravu takto detailních podkladů („Záměru”) by mělo smysl zavést jako
dokumentaci i v ostatních zemích V4.
Na Slovensku se už od roku 2004 pro EIA používá informační systém. Jsou v něm
uloženy všechny dokumenty (včetně grafických příloh), posudky a rozhodnutí vydaná v průběhu procesu. V posledních letech byly do systému doplněny informace o procesech EIA,
120
jež probíhaly od roku 1994 (kdy byl přijat první zákon o EIA). V systému lze nalézt i seznam
odborníků oprávněných vydávat posudky. Je rozdělen podle jednotlivých oblastí ekonomiky
a obsahuje také kontakty a informace o jejich praxi a zkušenostech. V České republice je
v provozu informační systém fungující na podobných principech. Doplňuje ho navíc seznam
odborníků oprávněných vypracovávat zprávy a hodnocení projektů s možným dopadem na
lokality Natura 2000. Použití systému je jak v České republice, tak na Slovensku bezplatné.
V Maďarsku neexistuje žádný informační systém. Dokumentace EIA je uložena u těch inspektorátů, které provádějí hodnocení EIA. V Polsku je již několik let v provozu informační
systém, který ovšem obsahuje pouze informace o vyhotovených zprávách a vydaných rozhodnutích. Samotná data, např. zprávy, jsou k dispozici na základě žádosti, která se podává
přímo úřadu nebo se posílá elektronicky. Po přijetí žádosti je daná zpráva zaslána e-mailem
nebo doručena na CD. V každém takovém případě se za přípravu informací účtuje poplatek.
Dá se říci, že informační systém odráží míru participace veřejnosti v procesu EIA. Provoz
zmíněných informačních systémů na Slovensku a v České republice by proto měl být brán
jako příklad dobré praxe a zaveden i v ostatních zemích V4.
Výsledky průzkumu (země V4 byly hodnoceny společně – jako skupina) naznačily,
že reprezentativní skupinu zúčastněných respondentů tvořily osoby, jež měly v oboru EIA
více než desetiletou praxi. Pokud jde o konkrétní oblasti životního prostředí, nejčastější
specializací respondentů byly chráněná území, stav vodních zdrojů, fauna, flóra a krajina.
V oblasti průmyslových emisí tvořili největší skupinu odborníci na znečišťování vodních
zdrojů, znečišťování ovzduší a odpady. Respondenti nejčastěji vypracovávali zprávy týkající
se těchto sektorů ekonomiky: infrastruktura, zemědělství a lesnictví a vodohospodářství. Lze
předpokládat, že právě v těchto konkrétních odvětvích ekonomiky se v zemích V4 projevil
hlavní ekonomický boom. Respondenti ze zemí V4 uvedli, že k identifikaci a hodnocení vlivů
nejčastěji používají následující postupy a metody: environmentální ukazatele, hodnocení dle
více kritérií a prognostické metody, obvykle s využitím Geografických Informačních Systémů
(GIS). Celkově respondenti uváděli výhrady k metodické přípravě procesu EIA a k množství
dat, která jsou pro tento proces k dispozici. Jako další nedostatky byly uváděny: nedostatečné
monitorování, subjektivní přístup k posuzování vlivů a nedostatečné zohledňování kumulativních vlivů. Naopak jako hlavní účel a silnou stránku EIA uváděli respondenti fakt, že
proces se používá jako skutečný nástroj pro racionální řízení životního prostředí a omezování
následků lidské činnosti. Mezi návrhy respondentů ohledně zkvalitnění procesu EIA byly
zmíněny záležitosti týkající se především:
– školení a provozní kurzy pro úředníky,
– zlepšení kontroly kvality dokumentace EIA,
– zvýšení vlivu EIA na rozhodovací procesy,
– pružnější a zjednodušené postupy EIA,
– definování univerzálních kritérií pro posouzení vlivu na jednotlivé složky životního
prostředí,
– řádné definování rozsahu zprávy, přizpůsobit ji konkrétním rozsahu projektu,
– nedostatek respektování konečného řešení,
– změny kritérií screeningu pro provádění EIA postupu pro malé projekty,
– snížení tlaku na lidi připravující dokumentaci EIA,
121
– příprava seznamu kvalifikovaných odborníků EIA,
– lepší účast veřejnosti v procesu EIA.
Závěrem lze říci, že cílů stanovených pro projekt „AQE V4” bylo dosaženo a že základní
rozdíly v procesu EIA mezi jednotlivými zeměmi V4 byly v této monografii popsány. Je třeba
jednoznačně zdůraznit, že systémové zkušenosti nabyté v jednotlivých zemích a považované
za dobrou praxi by mohly být uplatněny i v dalších zemích, což by přispělo k většímu souladu,
pokud jde o předpisy a normy pro ochranu a řízení životního prostředí.
Využití průzkumu hodnotícího procesy EIA se ukázalo být užitečným nástrojem pro
pochopení chování a postojů odborníků participujících na EIA. Autoři projektu doufají, že
tyto výsledky budou napomáhat při realizaci procesu EIA v zemích V4. Konkrétně se to
týká posuzování přeshraničních vlivů. Nejlepší řešení uplatňovaná v jednotlivých zemích
a vzájemné sdílení zkušeností může přispět ke zlepšení kvality procesu v zemích V4 i v celé
Evropské unii. V některých aspektech se zdá být žádoucí vyvinout společné postoje, jako je
například regulace EIA, v duchu změn navržených Evropskou komisí.
Conclusions and Recommendations in Hungarian
KÖVETKEZTETÉSEK ÉS AJÁNLÁSOK
A környezeti hatásvizsgálati (KHV) folyamat már több mint 28 éve működik. Fő feladata
a környezet és az életminőség preventív védelme. A környezetvédelem és a fenntartható
fejlődés területén szerzett tapasztalatok a KHV folyamatba új módszereket vezettek be,
valamint a szakemberek és a társadalom egyre újabb csoportjait mozgósították, hogy aktívan
kapcsolódjanak be ebbe a folyamatba. Ezalatt a Visegrádi négyek (V4) országaiban komoly
politikai és gazdasági változások mentek végbe. Ezeknek, a ma már történelminek számító
eseményeknek rendkívül nagy befolyása volt a környezetgazdálkodási politikára. A V4
országokban, amelyek korábban a politikát és gazdaságot központilag irányító, szocialista
táborhoz tartoztak, a bekövetkező változások lezártak egy sokéves olyan folyamatot, amelyben
a fejlődést a környezeti költségeket figyelmen kívül hagyásával tervezték.
Úgy tűnik, minden V4 országában növekszik a KHV folyamat jelentősége a törvényhozásban, és azoké a változásoké, amelyeknek meg kell könnyíteniük az ökológiai döntések
meghozatalát a környezeti erőforrások racionális felhasználása és védelme érdekében. Valamint
a KHV folyamatba bevonták a legértékesebb természeti értékek és a biológiai sokféleség megóvását, ami a Natura 2000 Európai Ökológiai Hálózaton keresztül valósul meg. Ennek a hálózatnak a feladata, hogy megőrizze a jövő nemzedékeknek az Európai Közösség számára fontos
fajtákat és élőhelyeket (Engel, 2009; Kistowski & Pchałek, 2009; Kowalczyk et al., 2009).
A V4 országok közül Lengyelország dolgozta ki elsőként a saját KHV folyamatát. Döntő
dátumnak 1990 tekinthető, amikor megalakult az Országos Környezetpolitikai Bizottság.
A Cseh és Szlovák Szövetségi Köztársaságban a KHV folyamatot egy 1992-ben megszavazott törvény indította be. Magyarországon a jogi szabályozás 1993-ban született meg. Egy
évvel később szavazták meg az első KHV törvényt Szlovákiában. A KHV egymást követő
módosításai következtében a V4 országokban a legnagyobb eredménynek a társadalomnak
a folyamatba tájékoztatással és nyilvános vitákkal, valamint indítványok és észrevételek
beadásának lehetőségén keresztül történő bevonását kell tekinteni.
122
Korunk gazdasági fejlődése miatt a KHV eljárásban is módosításokra van szükség.
Az Európai Bizottság által elfogadott KHV folyamat formátumát (1985 évi irányelv) a V4
országokban bizonyos eltérésekkel alkalmazzák, de hasonló alapelvek szerint, mint ahogy
azt a KHV Irányelv előirányozza. Ennek eredményeként különbségek mutatkoznak az egyes
V4 országok között a eljárás folyamatában, legyen az már maga a screening, scoping, a jelentéskészítés szakasza, vagy a határozathozatal.
Lengyelországban az eljárás akkor kezdődik, amikor a beruházó benyújtja a kérvényét
a projekt megvalósításának feltételeit meghatározó határozat kiadására, amihez, a vállalkozás
fajtájától függően, „Projektinformációs Lapot” vagy „Hatásjelentést” csatolnak. A „Projektinformációs Lap” az alapvető adatokat tartalmazza a projektről és a környezetre gyakorolt
hatásáról, és elég áttekintő jellegű. Szlovákiában és Csehországban az eljárás mindig azzal
kezdődik, hogy a beruházó részletes dokumentációt terjeszt be a környezetre gyakorolt hatás
előzetes értékeléséről („Zámer”). A hatóság, amely a KHV eljárást lefolytatja, miután megismerkedett a „Lappal” (Lengyelország) vagy a „Zámerrel” (Szlovákia, Csehország), határozatot
hoz a KHV eljárás megindításáról vagy lezárásáról (ha a vállalkozás ahhoz a csoporthoz
tartozik, amely potenciálisan jelentős hatást gyakorolhat a környezetre). Természetesen több
információ birtokában a hatóságnak nagyobb esélye van a helyes döntés meghozatalára.
A vállalkozás tervének kötelező KHV eljárásra minősítése a V4 országokban a KHV
Irányelvből következő, hasonló alapelvek szerint történik. A projektek, megfelelő irányelvek
szerint (az országos KHV törvények mellékletei vagy rendeletek), két csoportra vannak osztva:
1) azokra, amelyek esetében mindig le kell folytatni az eljárást, valamint azokra 2) amelyek
esetében a megfelelő hatóságvizsgálatára, screeningjére és döntésére van szükség arról, kell-e
lefolytatni KHV eljárást vagy sem. Az ismertetett, a turisztika és pihenés, a vízgazdálkodás és
bányászat köréből vett példák a screening szakaszt mutatják be a V4 országokban. A mélyreható
elemzés viszonylag nagy különbséget mutatott a projekteket a screeningbe, valamint a kötelező KHV eljárásba sorolásra megállapított küszöbértékek között. A kiválasztott projekthez
megadott küszöbértékeknek és kritériumoknak az egyes országokban különböző a jellege és
fontossága, például a szálláshelyek számához vagy a projekt szerint beépítendő alapterülethez
vannak viszonyítva. Ez a szempont kifejezésre jutott az Európa Tanácsnak a KHV-t módosító
indítványában is (Proposal for a directive..., 2012). Érintette volna többek között azoknak a kritériumoknak részletes megállapítását, amelyek meghatározzák, hogy a KHV eljárást le kell-e
folytatni vagy sem. A jelen munka szerzőinek megítélése szerint, ez részben negatív hatást
gyakorolt volna a fejlődés feltételeire a tárgyalt V4 országokban. Világosan meg kell mondani,
hogy ezekben az országokban továbbra is folynak az adott ország gazdasága számára alapvető
jelentőségű beruházási projektek (főleg a közlekedési infrastruktúra területén – gyorsforgalmi
utak, autópályák, repülőterek), valamint járulékos beruházások (az alapanyagokat szállító
bánya – és feldolgozóüzemek, benzinkutak stb). És ahogy arra az értékelésből következtetni
lehet, a screening szakasz küszöbértékeiben és kritériumaiban az egyes országoknál kimutatott
különbségeket a rendelkezésre álló környezeti erőforrások mutatóiként lehet felfogni, amelyek
alapján az egyes országok a gazdaságpolitikájukat alakítják.
A KHV folyamatban nagy jelentősége van a környezeti hatásvizsgálati dokumentáció
(environmental impact statement) elkészítésének, amely alapot teremt az ezt követő közigazgatási döntések meghozatalához. A V4 országok között különbségeket lehet megfigyelni
123
ezeknek a tanulmányoknak az elkészítési módjában. Csehországban és Magyarországon
a szerzőktől megkövetelik, hogy jogosultsággal rendelkezzenek ezen a területen. Ezen kívül
Csehországban és Szlovákiában a KHV eljárást lezáró határozat kiadása előtt kiadnak egy,
az eljárás lefolyására, a jelentésre, a lefolytatott konzultációkra stb. vonatkozó véleményt,
„Posudokot”. A véleményt szakértők állítják össze, akik csak erre jogosultsággal rendelkező
olyan személyek lehetnek, és aki együttműködnek pl. zajszint mérésére, a szennyeződések
levegőben történő terjedésére, bányászható ásványi rétegekre stb. specializálódott szakemberekkel. A szakértő kinevezésére és a vele szemben támasztott speciális tudásra vonatkozó
szigorú feltételek ellenére az ilyen személyt kivételes felelősség terheli. Ha pedig a projekt
kihatással lenne egy Natura 2000 terület egységére, akkor egy, a Natura 2000 területekkel
foglalkozó szakértőnek is véleményt kell mondania. Lengyelországban ezt a feladatot, a KHV
törvény alapján speciálisan ebből a célból alkotott törvény alapján létrehívott Környezetvédelmi
Főigazgatóság, valamint a vajdaságok területén a Regionális Környezetvédelmi Igazgatóság
látja el. Ez az intézmény felel többek között a környezetvédelmi politikáért a természetvédelem területén, beleértve ebbe a Natura 2000 területeket, valamint a beruházási folyamat
ellenőrzését és a környezetre vonatkozó információk átadását is. A Környezetvédelmi Igazgató
alá van rendelve egy csoport, amelynek a gazdaság különböző területeiért felelős személyek
a tagjai, és akik egymás között előkészítik a megfelelő véleményt vagy határozatot. Nehezebb
esetekben az Igazgató az ügyet a Regionális vagy Országos KHV Bizottság hatáskörébe
utalhatja. Ez fontos pillanat a dokumentáció és az egész eljárás minőségének ellenőrzésében.
A lengyelországihoz hasonló megoldás az egyik módosítási javaslat a KHV Irányelvhez.
A javaslat komplex szolgáltató központokat hozna létre, és a KHV eljárás koordinációját
irányozza elő (Proposal for a directive..., 2012).
A V4 országokban az 1990, de különösen 2001 óta megfigyelt fejlődés a Natura 2000
Európai Ökológiai Hálózat egyidejű átvételével történik, amelynek a feladata a Közösség számára fontos élőhelyek és fajták védelme. Kiderült, hogy a V4 országok területén számos ilyen
növényi társulás, madárpihenő és vonulási útvonal található. A kijelölt Natura 2000 területek
átlagos területe a V4 országok területének 21,04%-a. A tervezett projektek gyakran ütköznek
az élőhelyek és fajták védelmével a Natura 2000 területeken. Ez főleg vonalas objektumokra,
pl. az egész országot keletről nyugatra vagy északról délre keresztülszelő utakra vonatkozik.
A V4 országokban, az Európai Ökológiai Hálózat bevezetése után, reménykedni lehet
abban, hogy ilyen hibákat nem követnek el. Kétségtelenül nagy az esélye, hogy a gazdasági
fejlődés a környezeti erőforrások és értékek megőrzése és tiszteletben tartása mellett valósuljon
meg. Ebben a tevékenységben az átlátható KHV folyamat, és a projektek helyes minősítése
a screening szakaszában valójában a döntési folyamat alapját jelenti. Már ebben a szakaszban
törekedni kell azoknak a helytelen döntéseknek a kizárására, amelyek következtében olyan
projektek megvalósítását engedélyezik, amelyek valóban lényeges hatást gyakorolnak a környezetre. A több szakaszos és több feltételes KHV eljárásnak, amelybe az összes érdekeltet
bevonják, biztosítania kell, hogy a határozatokban meg legyen adva a projekt megvalósításának minden feltétele. Eközben fennáll a nyomás a beruházó részéről, hogy kikerülje a KHV
eljárást. Ez megkönnyíti, lerövidíti a környezetvédelmi határozat, majd a projekt kivitelezési
engedélyének megszerzését, és csökkenti a megvalósítás költségeit. Emiatt nagy felelősség
124
terheli a Projektinformációs Lap és a Zámer szerzőit. Ebből a szempontból úgy tűnik, hogy
Lap formulája túl szűk. Csehországban és Szlovákiában a környezetvédelmi hatóság olyan
dokumentációt használ (“Zámer”), ami teljes egészében, a kellő részletességgel tartalmazza
a szükséges adatokat. A jelen tanulmány szerzőinek véleménye szerint ezt a részletes dokumentációt (“Zámer”) érdemes adaptálni a többi V4 országba is.
Szlovákiában 2004 óta működik a KHV Információs Rendszer, amelynek keretében
elérhető minden dokumentáció (az összes grafikus melléklettel együtt), vélemény és határozat, ami az eljárás során keletkezett. Az utóbbi években ezt a rendszert kiegészítették az
1994-től, amikor az első KHV törvény született, lefolytatott KHV eljárásokra vonatkozó
információkkal. A rendszer tartalmazza a jogosultsággal rendelkező szakértőknek a gazdaság egyes ágazataira felosztott listáját is, az elérhetőségi adatokkal és a szakértők szakmai
tapasztalatával együtt. Csehországban az információs rendszer hasonló elvek szerint működik, ezen kívül ki van egészítve a Jelentések elkészítésére jogosult szakértőkkel, valamint
a Natura 2000 területekre potenciálisan hatással lévő projektekre vonatkozó véleményekkel.
Mindkét esetben, Csehországban és Szlovákiában is, a rendszer használata teljesen ingyenes.
Lengyelországban néhány éve már szintén létezik az információs rendszer, azonban csak az
elkészült jelentésekre és a kiadott határozatokra vonatkozó információk találhatók meg benne.
Az adatok rendelkezésre bocsátása, pl. betekintés a jelentésbe, közvetlenül a hatóságnál beadott
vagy elektronikus úton megküldött kérvény alapján történik. A kérvény elbírálása után az
adott jelentést elektronikus úton vagy CD lemezen küldik el. Az információ összeállításáért
minden alkalommal díjat kell fizetni. Azt lehet mondani, hogy az Információs rendszer jól
tükrözi a társadalom részvételét a KHV folyamatban. A KHV Információs rendszer működését
Szlovákiában vagy Csehországban a jó gyakorlat példájának kell elismerni, és adaptálni kell
a többi V4 országba.
A kérdőíves vizsgálat eredményei (a V4 csoportot együtt értékelve) azt mutatják, hogy
a válaszadók reprezentatív csoportja, aki a V4 országokban részt vett a felmérésben, olyanokból
állt össze, akik a KHV területén már több mint 10 éves szakmai tapasztalattal rendelkeznek.
A környezeti elemek szempontjából, a megkérdezettek leginkább a védett területek, a vízi
feltételek, a fauna, flóra és a tájvédelem tárgykörének szakemberei. Az emisszió fajtáinak
esetében a legnépesebb csoportot a víz-, a légszennyezés és a hulladékgazdálkodás szakértői
alkotják. A gazdasági területek, amelyeken a válaszadók a leggyakrabban készítenek jelentéseket: infrastruktúra, mező- és erdőgazdaság, valamint a vízgazdálkodás. Fel lehet tételezni, hogy
a gazdaságnak éppen ezeknek a területein uralkodik a legnagyobb élénkülés a V4 területén.
A hatás azonosítására és értékelésére leggyakrabban használt eljárások és módszerek a V4
válaszadói szerint: a környezeti mutatók, több tényezős összehasonlító elemzés, valamint
a prognosztizálási módszer, amelyhez döntően a legtöbbször a térinformatikai rendszert
(GIS) használják. Általánosan a megkérdezetteknek fenntartásaik voltak a KHV folyamat
módszertani előkészítésével, valamint az adatok mennyiségével kapcsolatban, amivel a KHV
folyamatban rendelkeznek. A következő gyenge pontnak a válaszadók többek között a nem
kielégítő monitoringot, a hatás értékelésének szubjektív megközelítését, valamint a kumulált
hatás nem kellő figyelembevételét ítélték. Másrészről a válaszadóknak a KHV fő céljára és
erős oldalaira vonatkozó válaszai azt mutatják, hogy a folyamatot a racionális környezetgaz125
dálkodás, és az ember környezetre gyakorolt hatásának korlátozására szolgáló igazi eszköznek
tekintik. A válaszadók javaslati alapján a következő ötleteket említették:
– képzések és továbbképző tanfolyamok a tisztésgviselők, hatósági szakemberek részére,
– a KHV dokumentáció minőségének ellenőrzése, szükség szerinti javítása,
– nagyobb ráhatás, beleszólás a KHV döntéshozatali folyamataiba,
– rugalmasabb és egyszerűbb környezeti hatásvizsgálati eljárások,
– meghatározó univerzális kritériumok hatásának értékelése az egyes környezeti elemek
tekintetében,
– a jelentésicélterületek pontosabb meghatározása, a projekt speciális igényeihez alkalmazkodva,
– a végeredmény, vagy a végső állásfoglalás nem megfelelő szintű elfogadása,
– kis projektek esetén, változik a szűrési kritériumok elvégzésének környezeti hatásvizsgálati eljárása,
– csökken a lakosság részérő a nyomás a KHV dokumentáció elkészítésére,
– szakértői lista készítése azon személyekről és vagy cégekről akik jogosultal KHV dokumentációt készíteni a nyilvánosság növekedése,
– a lakossági részvétel fokozása a KHV folyamatokban.
Összefoglalva azt lehet mondani, hogy az „AQE V4” program keretében kitűzött cél
teljesült, és a jelen monográfiában ismertettük a KHV folyamat eltéréseit a V4 országokban.
Világosan meg kell mondani, hogy a egyes országokban a rendszerrel szerzett, jó gyakorlatnak
tekinthető tapasztalatok, bevezethetők a többi országban is, ami lehetővé teszi a környezetvédelemi és környezetgazdálkodási szabványok és standardok eredményesebb betartását.
A kérdőíves vizsgálat alkalmazása a KHV folyamat értékelésének kérdésében hasznos
eszköznek bizonyult, ami lehetővé teszi a szakemberek viselkedésének és hozzáállásának
megismerését a KHV folyamat területén. A projekt szerzői remélik, hogy az ismertetett
eredmények segíteni fogják a KHV folyamat végrehajtását a V4 országokban. Különösen
vonatkozik ez a határon átnyúló hatású vállalkozások megvalósítására. Az egyes országokban
kidolgozott jó gyakorlatok a tapasztalatcseréken keresztül hozzájárulhatnak az egész folyamat
minőségének emeléséhez a V4 országokban és az Európai Unióban. Némelyik vonatkozásban
célszerűnek látszik közös álláspont kidolgozása, mint például a KHV szabályozásához az
Európa Tanács által javasolt módosításokkal kapcsolatban.
Annex 1
Glossary of Basic Concepts
Related to the EIA Procedure
128
decyzja o pozwoleniu na
budowę
organ administracyjny
strona postępowania
analiza porealizacyjna
zatwierdzenie dokumentu
organ zatwierdzający
właściwy organ
postanowienie o pozwoleniu
organ resortowy
wpływ na środowisko
ocena oddziaływania na
środowisko (OOŚ)
raport/prognoza o oddziaływaniu na środowisko
opinia
ekspertyza
decyzja o środowiskowych
uwarunkowaniach
wdrożenie i obserwacje
zapobieganie i ograniczanie
wpływu
monitoring
A decision on the construction permit
Affected authority
(Affected party) Affected
municipality
After-project analysis
Approving (of a strategic
document)
Approving authority
Competent authority
Decision on the permission
Departmental authority
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Environmental impact statement
Expert review
Expertise
Final record
Implementation and
follow up
Mitigation and impact management
Monitoring
PL
badania indywidualne
EN
A case-by-case examination
SVK
monitorovanie
zmierňovanie a riadenie
vplyvu
uskutočňovanie navrhovanej činnosti a poprojektová
analýza
záverečné stanovisko
expertíza
odborný posudok
správa o hodnotení
posudzovanie vplyvov na
životné prostredie (EIA)
vplyv na životné prostredie
rezortný orgán
rozhodovanie o povolení
príslušný orgán
schvaľujúci orgán
schvaľovanie (strategického
dokumentu)
poprojektová analýza
dotknutá obec
dotknutý orgán
rozhodnutie o stavebnom
povolení
preskúmanie prípadu od
prípadu
CZ
monitorování
zmírnění a řízení vlivů
provádění a sledování
stanovisko k posouzení
vlivů provedení záměru na
životní prostředí
expertíza
posudek
dokumentace
posuzování vlivů záměru na
životní prostředí (EIA)
vliv na životní prostředí
příslušný úřad
rozhodnutí o povolení
dotčený správní úřad
schvalující orgán
schvalování (strategického
dokumentu)
poprojektová analýza
dotčená strana
dotčený orgán
rozhodnutí o stavebním
povolení
individuální hodnocení
HU
monitoring/nyomonkövetés
hatás kezelése és enyhítése
végrehajtás és nyomon
követés
végleges jegyzőkönyv
szakértő
szakértői összefoglaló
környezeti hatástanulmány
környezeti hatásvizsgálat
(KHV)
környezeti hatás
ágazati hatóság
döntés az engedély kiadásáról
illetékes hatóság
jóváhagyó hatóság
jóváhagyás (stratégiai dokumentum)
projekt utáni elemzés
érintett fél
érintett hatóság
építési engedélyre vonatkozó
döntés
eseti vizsgálat
społeczeństwo
publicznie dostępne wykazy
screening
kryteria selekcji
znaczące skutki w środowisku
dokument strategiczny
strategiczna ocena oddziaływania na środowisko (SOOŚ)
zrównoważony rozwój
aspekty środowiskowe
rozwiązania chroniące
środowisko
Public
Publicly accessible registers
Screening procedure
Selection criteria
Significant effects on the
environment
Strategic document
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)
Sustainable development
The environmental aspects
The measures to protect the
environment
planowane przedsięwzięcie
karta informacyjna przedsięwzięcia
Preliminary environmental
study
Proposed activity
biegły rzeczoznawca
Professionally qualified
person
wykonawca
organ zezwalający
Permitting authority
wnioskodawca
strona powodowa
Party of origin
Proponent
zámer
postępowanie z udziałem
społeczeństwa
Participation of the public
concerned
Procurer
odborne spôsobilá osoba
warianty przedsięwzięcia
Options of the project
opatrenia na ochranu životného prostredia
environmentálne aspekty
opatření na ochranu životního prostředí
environmentální aspekty
udržitelný rozvoj
posuzování vlivů koncepce
na životní prostředí (SEA)
posudzovanie strategických
dokumentov (SEA)
udržateľný rozvoj
strategický dokument
významné vlivy na životní
prostředí
zásady (kritéria)
zjišťovací řízení
informační systém eia/sea
veřejnost
navrhovaná činnost
navrhovatel
zadavatel
záměr
autorizovaná osoba
příslušný úřad
oznamovatel
účast veřejnosti
varianty řešení projektu
oznámení
soustava chráněných území
Natura 2000
strategický dokument
významný vplyv na životné
prostredie
výberové kritériá
zisťovacie konanie
verejne prístupné registre
verejnosť
navrhovaná činnosť
navrhovateľ
obstáravateľ
povoľujúci orgán
strana pôvodu
účasť zainteresovanej
verejnosti
varianty projektu
oznámenie
obwieszczenie
Notification
lokalita Natura 2000
obszar Natura 2000
Natura 2000 site
a környezet védelmére hozott
intézkedések
környezeti aspektus
fenntartható fejlődés
stratégiai környezeti hatásvizsgálat (SKV)
stratégiai dokumentum
jelentős környezeti hatás
választási feltétel
vizsgálati eljárás
nyilvánosan hozzáférhető
nyilvántartás
nyilvánosság
tervezett tevékenység
indítványozó/javaslattevő
vásárló
előzetes környezeti hatástanulmány
képzett személy
engedélyező hatóság
eredeti fél
nyilvánosság részvétele
a projekt feltételei
stratégiai dokumentum
bejelentése
Natura 2000 terület
Annex 1. Glossary of Basic Concepts Related to the EIA Procedure
129
PL
Krajowa Komisja do spraw
Ocen Oddziaływania na
Środowisko
kompensacja przyrodnicza
opiniowanie i uzgadnianie
przedsięwzięcia mogące
znacząco oddziaływać na
środowisko
przedsięwzięcia mogące zawsze znacząco oddziaływać
na środowisko
przedsięwzięcia mogące
potencjalne znacząco oddziaływać na środowisko
udostępnianie informacji
o środowisku
regionalne komisje do spraw
ocen oddziaływania na
środowisko
zakres oceny i harmonogram
transgraniczne oddziaływanie na środowisko
progi lub kryteria
wariant zerowy
EN
The National Environmental
Impact Assessment Commission
The nature compensation
The opinions and approvals
required
The projects which may
have a significant impact on
the environment
The proposed projects likely
to always have significant
effects on the environment/
projects listed in annex 1 to
the Directive EIA
The proposed projects with
potentially significant effects
on the environment/projects
listed in annex 2 to the
Directive EIA
The provision of information
on the environment
The Regional Environmental
Impact Assessment Commissions
The Scope and the Time
Table (Schedule)
The transboundary impact
on the environment
Thresholds or criteria
Zero alternative
SVK
nultý variant
prahové hodnoty alebo
kritéria
cezhraničný vplyv na životné prostredie
rozsah hodnotenia a časový
harmonogram
okresné úrady
poskytovanie informácií o
životnom prostredí
navrhovaný projekt, ktorý
môže prípadne mať významný vplyv na životné
prostredie
navrhovaný projekt, ktorý
môže mať vždy významný
vplyv na životné prostredie
projekty, ktoré môžu mať
významný vplyv na životné
prostredie
posudky a vyjadrenia
prírodná kompenzácia
Orgány štátnej správy pre
posudzovanie vplyvov na
životné prostredie
CZ
nulová varianta
limitní hodnoty
přeshraniční vliv na životní
prostředí
rozsah hodnocení a časový
hramonogram
orgán kraje v přesené
působnosti
poskytování informací o
životním prostředí
navrhovaný záměr vyžadující zjišťovací řízení
navrhovaný záměr vždy
podléhající posouzení
záměry, které mohou mít
významný vliv na životní
prostředí
názory a požadované
schválení
přírodní kompenzace
Ministerstvo životního
prostředí ČR
HU
nincs más megoldás
feltételek küszöbe
határon átnyúló környezeti
hatókör és időbeli ütemezés
regionális környezeti hatásvizsgálati bizottságok
a környezeti információk
előrejelzése
a projekt potenciálisan
jelentős hatást gyakorolnak
a környezetre
az a javasolt projekt amely
jelentős hatással lehet a
környezetre
az a projekt amely jelentős
hatással lehet a környezetre
kötelező vélemények és
jóváhagyások
kompenzációs rendszer a természet érdekében
Nemzeti környezeti hatásvizsgálati bizottság
Annex 2
The Methods Applied
to the EIA Process in Poland, Slovakia
and the Czech Republic
132
Environmental Impact
Assessment of construction and operation of water projects,
1994 PEDOHYG,
Bratislava
Metodický pokyn
9/2008-150-METO
k aplikaci novely
zákona č. 185/2001
Sb. o odpadech
Methodical instruction 9/2008-150METO the application
of the amendment to
Act No. 185/2001
Coll. on the waste
A handbook of good
practice in performing
environmental studies
of domestic roads,
edited by J. Bohatkiewicz, GDDKiA/
EKKOM Sp. z o.o.
Krakow 2007
Podręcznik dobrych
praktyk wykonywania
opracowań środowiskowych dla dróg
krajowych, red. J. Bohatkiewicz, GDDKiA/
EKKOM Sp. z o.o.,
Kraków 2007
Posudzovanie vplyvov výstavby a prevádzky vodných diel
na životné prostredie,
1994, PEDOHYG,
Bratislava
Environmental Impact Metodický pokyn pro
monitorování vod
Assessment of the
effects of chemical
technologies, 1994
Faculty of Chemical
Technology STU in
Bratislava
Posudzovanie
vplyvov chemických technológií na
životné prostredie,
1994, CHTF STU v
Bratislave
Guidance for preparation of environmental
impact assessment
of wind farms, M.
Stryjecki, K. Mielniczuk, GDOŚ, Warsaw
2011
Wytyczne w zakresie prognozowania
oddziaływań na środowisko farm wiatrowych, M. Stryjecki, K.
Mielniczuk, GDOŚ,
Warszawa 2011
EN
Methodological Instruction Department
of Water Protection Ministry of the
Environment to § 59
paragraph 1 point. k)
of Act No. 254/2001
Coll., on water and on
amendment of certain
acts (the Water Act),
as amended by Act
No. 150/2010 Coll.
CZ
Metodický pokyn
odboru ochrany vod
MŽP k § 59 odst.
1 písm. k) zákona
č. 254/2001 Sb.,
o vodách a o změně
některých zákonů
(vodní zákon), ve znění zákona č. 150/2010
Sb.
EN
General Guide to the
Law no. 127/1994
Coll. of., 1994, EIA
Centre, KKE FNS
CU, Bratislava
SVK
Všeobecná príručka
k zákonu NR SR č.
127/1994 Z. z., 1994,
Centrum EIA, KKE
PriF UK, Bratislava
EN
Instruction ITB No.
338/2003: „The
method of determining emission and immission of industrial
noise in the environment – ITB Warsaw
In the Czech Republic
PL
In Slovakia
Instrukcja ITB Nr
338/2003: „Metoda
określania emisji i imisji hałasu
przemysłowego
w środowisku – ITB
Warszawa
In Poland
Names of the methods in native languages and in English
Assessment – part
noise and vibration,
1998, University of
Zilina, Zilina
Metodický návod k
vyhodnocení možností umístění větrných
a fotovoltaických
elektráren z hlediska
ochrany přírody a
krajiny
Guidance on preparation of environmental
impact assessment of
motorways. Part II
– annex. Annex C,
Tracz M. et al.
ABiEA/Ekodroga,
Krakow 1998
Wytyczne wykonywania ocen oddziaływania autostrad na
środowisko. Część II
– Załączniki. Zał. C,
Tracz M.i inni –
ABiEA/Ekodroga,
Kraków 1998
Posudzovanie
vplyvov na životné
prostredie – časť
hluk a vibrácie, 1998,
Žilinská univerzita
v Žiline, Žilina
Environmental Impact Informační systém
Assessment of linear
EIA podle zákona č.
244/1992 Sb.
construction (highways), 1995, PEDOHYG, Bratislava
Posudzovanie vplyvov líniových stavieb
(diaľnic) na životné
prostredie, 1995, PEDOHYG, Bratislava
Guidance of the
European Commission
on EIA: Scoping, June
2001
Wytyczne Komisji
Europejskiej dotyczące OOŚ, Scoping,
czerwiec 2001
Methodical instructions to evaluate the
possibility of placing
wind and photovoltaic
power plants for the
protection of nature
and landscape
Information System
EIA pursuant to Act
No. 244/1992 Coll.
Guide to evaluating
the significance of
impacts on the subjects of protection of
Natura 2000 sites
Příručka k hodnocení
významnosti vlivů na
předměty ochrany lokalit soustavy Natura
2000
Public participation
in the EIA process,
1995, EIA Centre FA
STU Bratislava
Účasť verejnosti
v procese posudzovania vplyvov na
životné prostredie,
1995, Centrum EIA,
FA STU, Bratislava
Guidance of the European Commission on
EIA: Screening, June
2001
Operation of Waste
Management, the
Ministry of Environment for the management of construction
and demolition waste
and waste management
Návod odboru odpadů
MŽP pro řízení
vzniku stavebních a
demoličních odpadů a
pro nakládání s nimi
Wytyczne Komisji
Europejskiej dotyczące OOŚ, Screening,
czerwiec 2001
Multicriteria evaluation of variants in the
EIA process, 1994,
EIA Centre, KKE
FNS CU, Bratislava
Viackriteriálne vyhodnocovanie variantných riešení v procese
EIA, 1994, Centrum
EIA, KKE PriF UK,
Bratislava
Administrative proceedings in matters
determined by the Act
of 3 October 2008
on the provision of
information about the
environment and its
protection, public participation in environmental protection and
environmental impact
assessment
Postępowania administracyjne w sprawach
określonych ustawą
z dnia 3 października
2008 r. o udostępnianiu informacji
o środowisku i jego
ochronie, udziale społeczeństwa w ochronie środowiska oraz
o ocenach oddziaływania na środowisko
Annex 2. The Methods Applied to the EIA Process in Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic
133
Methodology for
evaluating of visual impacts of wind
turbines and wind
farms on land, ME
Bratislava, 2010 SEA
Banska Bystrica, TU
in Zvolen
Metodika hodnotenia
vizuálnych vplyvov
veterných elektrární
a veterných parkov
na krajinu, MŽP Bratislava, 2010, SAŽP
Banská Bystrica, TU
vo Zvolene
Methodology for Assessment of concepts
according to Act no.
100/2001 Coll., On
the assessment of impacts on the environment, as amended by
Act No. 93/2004 Coll.
Methodological Instruction Department
Assessment of the
of ME on the Issue of
Looking at the Form
of annex 3 and Act
no. 100/2001 Coll.,
On the Environmental
Impact Assessment
Metodický pokyn odboru posuzování vlivů
na životní prostředí
MŽP k problematice
nahlížení na formu
přílohy č. 3a zákona
č. 100/2001 Sb.,
o posuzování vlivů
na životní
The methodology for
the identification and
evaluation of landscape characteristic,
2010, ME Bratislava,
SEA Banska Bystrica,
TU in Zvolen
Metodika identifikácie a hodnotenia
charakteristického
vzhľadu krajiny,
2010, MŽP Bratislava, SAŽP Banská
Bystrica, TU vo
Zvolene
Metodika posuzování
vlivů koncepcí podle
zákona č. 100/2001
Sb., o posuzování vlivů na životní prostředí, ve znění zákona č.
93/2004 Sb.
Methodological Guidance on Conducting
Biological Assessments
Environmental Impact Metodický návod k
provádění biologickéAssessment in the
Slovak Republic
ho hodnocení
(EIA), the general
guide, SEA, 2008
Posudzovanie
vplyvov na životné
prostredie v Slovenskej republike (EIA),
Všeobecná príručka,
SAŽP, 2008
EN
In the Czech Republic
CZ
Methodology of environmental impact assessment as a whole in
the process of issuing
an integrated permit,
Warsaw 2004
EN
Metodyka oceny
oddziaływania na środowisko jako całość
w procesie wydawania
pozwolenia zintegrowanego, Warszawa
2004
In Slovakia
SVK
EN
PL
In Poland
Names of the methods in native languages and in English
cont.
Annex 3
The Questionnaires
in Language of Each V4 Country
The Questionnaires for Poland
Badanie ankietowe
Szanowna Pani/Szanowny Panie,
Oddajemy w Państwa ręce ankietę, która jest częścią realizowanego międzynarodowego
projektu finansowanego przez Międzynarodowy Fundusz Wyszehradzki „Assessment of
the Quality of the Environment in the V4 Countries“ (AQE V4) – „Ocena jakości
środowiska w krajach V4”. Celem projektu jest dokonanie przeglądu procedur i zaleceń odnośnie ocen oddziaływania na środowisko w związku z rozwojem nowych technik
i metod, a także uzyskanie informacji odnośnie praktycznych doświadczeń w procesie
OOŚ/SOOŚ w kraju i za granicą. Prosimy o wypełnienie niniejszego elektronicznego
formularza ankiety. Każde pytanie prosimy uważnie przeczytać i następnie zaznaczyć odpowiednią odpowiedź, ewentualnie dodać swoją własną opinię. Ankieta jest anonimowa.
Wypełnienie ankiety zajmie Państwu mniej więcej 10 minut, a informacje będą bezcenne
dla wyników projektu.
Wyniki ankiety będą porównane z uzyskanymi wynikami ankiety w państwach Grupy
Wyszehradzkiej (V4), a po ich przetworzeniu będą dostępne na stronie internetowej projektu oraz w przygotowywanej publikacji, o czym będziemy informować tych z Państwa,
którzy nadeślą ankiety.
Dziękujemy z góry za gotowość do współpracy.
Główni autorzy ankiety:
dr inż. Slávka Gałaś AGH Akademia Górniczo-Hutnicza im. St.Staszica w Krakowie, Polska
doc. Ing. Martina Zeleňáková, PhD., Uniwersytet Techniczny w Koszycach, Słowacja
doc. Dr. Ing. Miloslav Šlezingr, PhD., Uniwersytet im. Mendela w Brnie, Czechy
dr Károly Penksza, Węgierskie Towarzystwo Biologiczne, Węgry
Ankieta
1. Ile lat Pani/Pan pracuje w zakresie ocen oddziaływania na środowisko (OOŚ)?
0–5
6–10
10+
2. W przybliżeniu jaką część swojego czasu pracy poświęca Pani/Pan procesowi
OOŚ?
0–25%
26–50%
51–75%
76–100%
3. W przybliżeniu jaką część swojego czasu pracy poświęca Pani/Pan procesowi
strategicznej oceny oddziaływania na środowisko (dalej tylko SOOŚ)?
0–25%
136
26–50%
51–75%
76–100%
Annex 3. The Questionnaires
4. W sporządzeniu ilu dokumentacji OOŚ brała Pani/Pan udział w ostatnich trzech
latach?
1–5
6–10
11–15
16+
5. W sporządzeniu ilu dokumentacji SOOŚ brał Pani/Pan udział w ostatnich
trzech latach?
1–5
6–10
11–15
16+
6. Czy brała Pani/Pan udział w przeprowadzeniu postępowania transgranicznego?
Tak, proszę podać, dla jakiego rodzaju działalności oraz w związku z którym państwem sąsiednim:
Nie
7. Którym etapem w procesie oceny oddziaływania na środowisko zajmuje się
Pani/Pan najczęściej?
Proszę zaznaczyć krzyżykiem wszystkie odpowiednie odpowiedzi.
Screening
Scoping
Raport o oddziaływaniu/prognoza oddziaływania
Ekspertyza
Uzgadnianie i opiniowanie
Wydanie decyzji
Analiza porealizacyjna
Inne, proszę podać:
8. W którym z poniżej wymienionych elementów środowiska Pani/Pan się specjalizuje przy realizowaniu OOŚ?
Populacja ludzka (np. wielkość populacji dotknięta wpływem prognozowanego
działania, ryzyko zdrowotne, konsekwencje społeczne i ekonomiczne)
Środowisko geologiczne, kopaliny, zjawiska geodynamiczne i geomorfologiczne
uwarunkowania
Uwarunkowania klimatyczne
Powietrze (np. ilość oraz stężenie emisji oraz imisji)
Warunki wodne (np. jakość, reżim, warunki odwodnienia, zasoby, zaopatrzenie)
Gleby (np. sposoby użytkowania, zanieczyszczenie, erozja gleby)
Fauna, flora i ich siedliska (np. chronione, rzadkie, zagrożone gatunki i ich siedliska, korytarze migracji, stan zdrowia roślinności i zwierząt itp.)
Struktura użytkowania gruntów, krajobraz
Obszary chronione oraz ich strefy buforowe (np. Natura 2000, parki narodowe,
obszary chronionego krajobrazu i inne)
137
Nieruchomości, obszary zabudowane
Dziedzictwo kulturowe
Stanowiska archeologiczne
Stanowiska dokumentacyjne przyrody nieożywionej
Wartości niematerialne (np. lokalne tradycje)
9. W których z poniżej wymienionych rodzajach emisji Pani/Pan specjalizuje się
przy realizowaniu OOŚ?
Emisja zanieczyszczeń do powietrza – główne źródła zanieczyszczenia powietrza
(stacjonarne, mobilne), ilościowa i jakościowa charakterystyka emisji, metody zatrzymywania emisji, metoda pomiaru emisji
Emisja ścieków – łączna ilość, rodzaj i jakość, wskaźniki ścieków, miejsca zrzutu
Emisja odpadów – całkowita ilość (t/rok), gospodarka odpadami
Emisja hałasu i wibracji (źródło, natężenie)
Emisja promieniowania i innych pól fizycznych (termiczne, magnetyczne i inne
– źródło i natężenie)
Inne (np. deformacje terenu, zmiany krajobrazu)
Awarie przemysłowe
10. W której dziedzinie gospodarki ma Pani/Pan doświadczenie w przygotowaniu
raportu OOŚ?
Górnictwo
Przemysł energetyczny
Przemysł metalurgiczny
Przemysł chemiczny, farmaceutyczny i petrochemiczny
Przemysł drzewny, papierniczy
Przemysł materiałów budowlanych
Mechanika i elektrotechnika
Inne branże przemysłu
Infrastruktura
Gospodarka wodna
Produkcja rolna i leśna
Przemysł spożywczy
Transport i telekomunikacja
Obiekty sportowe, rekreacyjne i turystyczne
Budownictwo wojskowe
Dokumenty strategiczne (projekty polityk, koncepcji rozwoju, plany i programy,
w tym dokumenty strategiczne, finansowane przez Unię Europejską)
138
Dokumentacje planistyczne
11. Z których wydanych dla procesu OOŚ przewodników metodologicznych korzysta Pani/Pan najczęściej?
Instrukcja ITB Nr 338/2003: Metoda określania emisji i imisji hałasu przemysłowego w środowisku – ITB Warszawa
Wytyczne w zakresie prognozowania oddziaływań na środowisko farm wiatrowych, M. Stryjecki, K. Mielniczuk, GDOŚ, Warszawa 2011
Podręcznik dobrych praktyk wykonywania opracowań środowiskowych dla dróg
krajowych, red. J. Bohatkiewicz, GDDKiA/EKKOM Sp. z o.o., Kraków 2007
Postępowania administracyjne w sprawach określonych ustawą z dnia 3 października 2008 r. o udostępnianiu informacji o środowisku i jego ochronie, udziale społeczeństwa w ochronie środowiska oraz o ocenach oddziaływania na środowisko
Wytyczne Komisji Europejskiej dotyczące OOŚ, Screening, czerwiec 2001
Wytyczne Komisji Europejskiej dotyczące OOŚ, Scoping, czerwiec 2001
Wytyczne wykonywania ocen oddziaływania autostrad na środowisko. Część II –
Załączniki. Zał. C, Tracz M. et al. – ABiEA/Ekodroga, Kraków 1998
Metodyka oceny oddziaływania na środowisko jako całość w procesie wydawania
pozwolenia zintegrowanego, Warszawa 2004
12. Jaką metodę stosuje Pani/Pan w ocenie transgranicznego wpływu przedsięwzięcia na środowisko?
Takie same jak w punkcie nr 11
13. Czy Pani/Pan uważa, że wydane metodologiczne przewodniki dla procesu OOŚ
są wystarczające?
Tak
Nie
Częściowo
14. Jakie są Pani/Pana zdaniem główne cele OOŚ?
Proszę zaznaczyć krzyżykiem maksymalnie trzy odpowiednie odpowiedzi.
Osiągnięcie zrównoważonego rozwoju obszaru
Eliminacja negatywnego wpływu na środowisko
Wsparcie procesu decyzyjnego
Narzędzie na rzecz zrównoważonego rozwoju
Pomoc dla inwestorów
Redukcja kosztów w przyszłości
Podstawa do uzyskania pozwolenia na budowę
139
15. Jakie są według Pani/Pana mocne strony aktualnej praktyki w zakresie OOŚ
w Polsce?
Dobre fundamenty w obowiązującej legislatywie prawnej
Wiele instrukcji, wytycznych i przewodników odnośnie postępowania OOŚ
Zaawansowane metody prognozowania oddziaływań na środowisko
Wkład naukowy
16. Jakie są według Pani/Pana słabości obecnej praktyki w OOŚ dla kraju?
Brak rozważenia alternatyw przedsięwzięcia
Słabo uwzględniane oddziaływania skumulowane
Brak zaangażowania publicznego
Subiektywne podejście przy ocenie skutków
Słaba analiza porealizacyjna – monitoring
Niewystarczająca kontrola jakości dokumentacji OOŚ
Zmiana projektu po przedłożeniu dokumentacji projektu
Niewystarczający etap screeningu
Słaba koordynacja z dokumentacjami planowania przestrzennego
Ograniczony wpływ w procesie decyzyjnym
Brakujące doradztwo w procesie OOŚ
17. Czy Pani/Pan uważa, że społeczeństwo jest dobrze informowane o etapach procesu OOŚ?
Tak
Nie
Częściowo
18. Czy ma Pani/Pan przy sporządzaniu dokumentacji OOŚ do dyspozycji wystarczającą ilość danych (w wymaganej jakości, aktualne itd.)?
Tak
Nie
Częściowo
19. Jakie procedury i metody wykorzystuje Pani/Pan do identyfikacji oraz oceny
oddziaływania?
Metody ad hoc
Listy sprawdzające (proste, wagowe)
Tabele, macierze (stan-presja-reakcja)
Sieci i diagramy systemowe
140
Drzewo decyzyjne
Metody nakładania map
Metody prognozowania
Techniki modelowania (np. modele matematyczne, modele do symulacji zjawisk,
eksperymentalne metody in situ)
Wielokryterialna analiza porównawcza
Wskaźniki środowiskowe
20. Jakie oprogramowanie specjalistyczne wykorzystuje Pani/Pan do oceny oddziaływania na środowisko?
GIS
HPZ 2001 GEO
MIKE Basin
ENSIS
RIBASIM
IRAS
21. Czy Pani/Pan uważa, że obecny proces OOŚ jest sprawny? Co należałoby zmienić/zmodyfikować w zakresie zwiększenia efektywności procesu OOŚ?
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
22. Miejsce na Pani/Pana sugestie, komentarze, uwagi dotyczące danej problematyki:
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
Dziękujemy za poświęcony czas i chęć współpracy przy wypełnianiu niniejszego kwestionariusza.
141
The Questionnaires for Slovakia
Dotazníkový prieskum
Vážená pani/Vážený pán,
práve ste dostali do rúk dotazník, ktorý je súčasťou riešenia medzinárodného projektu
dofinancovaného z Medzinárodného Vyšehradského fondu „Assessment of the Quality
of the Environment in the V4 Countries” (AQE V4) – Posúdenie kvality životného
prostredia v krajinách V4. Cieľom projektu je prehodnotiť aktuálne metodické príručky
vo väzbe na vývoj nových metód a metodických postupov, ako aj získať praktické skúsenosti z procesu EIA/SEA u nás a v zahraničí. Prosíme Vás o vyplnenie elektronického
formulára dotazníka. Každú otázku si pozorne prečítajte a vyhovujúce odpovede označte
krížikom, prípadne doplňte svoj vlastný názor. Dotazník je anonymný. Vyplnenie dotazníka bude trvať maximálne 10 minút a informácie budú neoceniteľné pre riešenie projektu.
Výsledky prieskumu budú porovnávané s výsledkami získanými pri prieskume v ďalších
krajinách V4 a po spracovaní budú k dispozícii na webovej stránke projektu a v pripravovanej publikácii.
Vopred Vám ďakujeme za ochotu k spolupráci.
Hlavní autori ankety:
dr inż. Slávka Gałaś AGH Akadémia banícko-hutnícka v Krakove, Poľsko
doc. Ing. Martina Zeleňáková, PhD., Technická univerzita v Košiciach, Slovensko
doc. Dr. Ing. Miloslav Šlezingr, PhD., Mendelova Univerzita v Brne, Česká republika
dr. Károly Penksza, Maďarská biologická spoločnosť, Maďarsko
Otázky
1. Koľko rokov sa venujete oblasti posudzovania vplyvov na životné prostredie
(ďalej len „posudzovanie vplyvov”)?
0–5
6–10
10+
2. Približne aký podiel svojho pracovného času venujete procesu EIA?
0–25%
26–50%
51–75%
76–100%
3. Približne aký podiel svojho pracovného času venujete procesu SEA?
0–25%
26–50%
51–75%
76–100%
4. Na koľkých EIA dokumentáciách ste sa podieľali v posledných 3 rokoch?
1–5
142
6–10
11–15
16+
5. Na koľkých SEA dokumentáciách ste sa podieľali v posledných 3 rokoch?
1–5
6–10
11–15
16+
6. Podieľali ste sa na posudzovaní vplyvov presahujúcich štátne hranice?
Áno, uveďte prosím, pre aký druh činností a v súvislosti s akou susednou
krajinou:
Nie
7. Akému štádiu procesu posudzovania vplyvov na ŽP sa prevažne venujete?
Zaznačte krížikom všetky vyhovujúce odpovede.
Zámer
Zisťovacie konanie
Správa o hodnotení
Odborný posudok
Záverečné stanovisko
Poprojektová analýza
Iné, prosím uveďte:
8. Na ktoré z týchto zložiek prostredia sa špecializujete pri vykonávaní EIA procesu?
Obyvateľstvo (napr. počet obyvateľov dotknutých vplyvmi navrhovanej činnosti,
zdravotné riziká, sociálne a ekonomické dôsledky)
Horninové prostredie, nerastné suroviny, geodynamické javy a geomorfologické
pomery
Klimatické pomery
Ovzdušie (napr. množstvo a koncentrácia emisií a imisií)
Vodné pomery (napr. kvalitu, režimy, odtokové pomery, zásoby)
Pôda (napr. spôsob využívania, kontaminácia, pôdna erózia)
Fauna, flóra a ich biotopy (napr. chránené, vzácne, ohrozené druhy a ich biotopy,
migračné koridory živočíchov, zdravotný stav vegetácie a živočíšstva atď.)
Krajina – štruktúru a využívanie krajiny, krajinný obraz
Chránené územia a ich ochranné pásma (napr. lokality Natura 2000, národné parky, chránené krajinné oblasti, chránené vodohospodárske oblasti)
Územný systém ekologickej stability
Urbánny komplex a využívanie zeme
Kultúrne a historické pamiatky
Archeologické náleziská
Paleontologické náleziská a významné geologické lokality
Kultúrne hodnoty nehmotnej povahy (napr. miestne tradície)
Iné, uveďte prosím:
143
9. Na ktoré z týchto výstupov sa špecializujete pri vykonávaní EIA procesu?
Ovzdušie – hlavné zdroje znečistenia ovzdušia (stacionárne, mobilné), kvalitatívna a kvantitatívna charakteristika emisií, spôsob zachytávania emisií, spôsob
merania emisií
Voda – celkové množstvo, druh a kvalitatívne ukazovatele vypúšťaných odpadových vôd, miesto vypúšťania (recipient, verejná kanalizácia, čistiareň odpadových
vôd), zdroj vzniku odpadových vôd, spôsob nakladania
Odpady – celkové množstvo (t/rok), spôsob nakladania s odpadmi
Hluk a vibrácie (zdroje, intenzita)
Žiarenie a iné fyzikálne polia (tepelné, magnetické a iné – zdroj a intenzita)
Zosuvy
10. V ktorej odbornej oblasti máte skúsenosti s prípravou EIA?
Ťažobný priemysel
Energetický priemysel
Hutnícky priemysel
Chemický, farmaceutický a petrochemický priemysel
Drevospracujúci, celulózový a papierenský priemysel
Priemysel stavebných látok
Strojársky a elektrotechnický priemysel
Ostatné priemyselné odvetvia
Infraštruktúra
Vodné hospodárstvo
Poľnohospodárska a lesná výroba
Potravinársky priemysel
Doprava a telekomunikácie
Účelové zariadenia pre šport, rekreáciu a cestovný ruch
Vojenské stavby
Strategické dokumenty (návrh politiky, rozvojovej koncepcie, plánu a programu
vrátane strategických dokumentov, spolufinancovaných Európskou úniou)
Územnoplánovacia dokumentácia
11. Z ktorých uvedených metodických postupov vychádzate najčastejšie?
Všeobecná príručka k zákonu NR SR č. 127/1994 Z. z., 1994, Centrum EIA, KKE
PriF UK, Bratislava
Posudzovanie vplyvov chemických technológií na životné prostredie, 1994,
CHTF STU v Bratislave
Posudzovanie vplyvov výstavby a prevádzky vodných diel na životné prostredie,
1994, PEDOHYG, Bratislava
144
Viackriteriálne vyhodnocovanie variantných riešení v procese EIA, 1994, Centrum EIA, KKE PriF UK, Bratislava
Účasť verejnosti v procese posudzovania vplyvov na životné prostredie, 1995,
Centrum EIA, FA STU, Bratislava
Posudzovanie vplyvov líniových stavieb (diaľnic) na životné prostredie, 1995,
PEDOHYG, Bratislava
Posudzovanie vplyvov na životné prostredie – časť hluk a vibrácie, 1998, Žilinská
univerzita v Žiline, Žilina
Posudzovanie vplyvov na životné prostredie v Slovenskej republike (EIA), Všeobecná príručka, SAŽP, 2008
Metodika identifikácie a hodnotenia charakteristického vzhľadu krajiny, 2010,
MŽP Bratislava, SAŽP Banská Bystrica, TU vo Zvolene
Metodika hodnotenia vizuálnych vplyvov veterných elektrární a veterných parkov
na krajinu, MŽP Bratislava, 2010, SAŽP Banská Bystrica, TU vo Zvolene
12. Aké metodiky používate v posudzovaní cezhraničných vplyvov činností?
Tie isté ako sú uvedené v bode 11
13. Myslíte si, že vydané metodické príručky pre proces EIA sú dostatočné?
Áno
Nie
Čiastočne
14. Aké sú podľa vášho názoru hlavné účely EIA?
Zaznačte krížikom, prosím, maximálne 3 odpovede.
Dosiahnutie súladu s rozvojom územia
Znižovanie dopadov na životné prostredie
Podpora pre rozhodovanie
Nástroj pre trvalo udržateľný rozvoj
Pomoc pre investorov
Prispieť k návrhu rozhodnutia
Zníženie budúcich nákladov
Podklad pre získanie stavebného povolenia
15. Aké sú silné stránky súčasnej praxe v oblasti EIA na Slovensku?
Dobrý základ v právnych predpisoch
Mnoho pokynov, usmernení, metodických príručiek
Sofistikované metódy predikcie vplyvov – impaktov na ŽP
145
Vedecký prínos
16. Aké sú slabé stránky súčasnej praxe v oblasti EIA na Slovensku?
Nedostatočné posúdenie alternatív
Obmedzené zváženie kumulatívnych vplyvov
Nedostatočné zapojenie verejnosti
Subjektivita v predikcii vplyvov
Nedostatočná poprojektová analýza – monitoring
Obmedzená kontrola kvality EIA dokumentácie
Zmena návrhu po predložení dokumentácie
Nedostatočné zisťovacie konanie
Slabá koordinácia s územno-plánovacou dokumentáciou
Obmedzený vplyv v rozhodovaní
Chýbajúce poradné oddelenie pre EIA proces
17. Je podľa Vás verejnosť dostatočne informovaná o krokoch procesu EIA?
Áno
Nie
Čiastočne
18. Mávate pri spracovávaní dostatočné množstvo údajov/vstupných dát (v požadovanej kvalite, aktuálne a pod.)?
Áno
Nie
Čiastočne
19. Aké postupy a metódy využívate pri identifikácii a posudzovaní vplyvov?
Metódy ad hoc
Kontrolné zoznamy a katalógy kritérií
Tabuľky a matice, vyjadrujúce príčiny a účinky
Siete a systémové diagramy
Strom rozhodovania
Metódy nakladania máp
Prognostické metódy
Metódy modelovania (napr. matematické modely, modely pre simuláciu javov,
experimentálne in situ alebo laboratórne modely)
Viackritériálna analýza (napr. metóda funkcie úžitku, metóda Totálneho ukazovateľa kvality prostredia, metódy stanovenia váh kritérií)
146
20. Využívate pri hodnotení vplyvov na životné prostredie špecializované softvéry?
Aké konkrétne?
GIS
HPZ 2001 GEO
MIKE Basin
ENSIS
RIBASIM
IRAS
21. Je podľa Vás súčasný proces EIA vyhovujúci? V čom by bolo potrebné z hľadiska zvýšenia efektívnosti upraviť/zmeniť platný proces EIA?
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
22. Miesto pre Vaše návrhy, poznámky a pripomienky k danej problematike:
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
Ďakujeme za Váš čas, ochotu a spoluprácu pri vypracovaní predloženého dotazníka.
147
The Questionnaires for the Czech Republic
Dotazníkový průzkum
Vážená paní/Vážený pane,
právě jste dostali do rukou dotazník, který je součástí řešení mezinárodního projektu dofinancovaného z Mezinárodního Vyšehradského fondu „Assessment of the quality of the
environment in the V4 Countries” (AQE V4) – „Posouzení kvality životního prostředí
v zemích V4”. Jeho cílem je přehodnotit aktuální metodické příručky ve vazbě na vývoj
nových metod a metodických postupů jako i získaných praktických zkušeností z procesu
EIA/SEA u nás a v zahraničí. Prosíme Vás o vyplnění dotazníku. Každou otázku si pozorně pročtěte a vyhovující odpovědi označte křížkem, případně doplňte svůj vlastní názor.
Dotazník je anonymní. Bude to trvat maximálně 10 minut a informace budou neocenitelné
pro řešení projektu.
Výsledky průzkumu budou porovnány s výsledky získané při průzkumu v ostatních zemích V4 a po zpracování budou k dispozici na webových stránkách projektu a v následné
publikaci, o které budete informováni.
Dopředu děkujeme za ochotu k spolupráci.
Hlavní autoři ankety:
dr inż. Slávka Gałaś, AGH Akademie hornické-hutnická v Krakově, Polsko
doc. Ing. Martina Zeleňáková, PhD., Technická univerzita v Košicích, Slovensko
doc. Dr. Ing. Miloslav Šlezingr, PhD., Mendelova univerzita v Brně, Česká republika
dr. Károly Penksza, Maďarská biologická společnost, Maďarsko
Dotazník
1. Kolik roků se věnujete oblasti posuzování vlivů na životní prostředí(dále jen
„posuzování vlivů”)?
0–5
6–10
10+
2. Přibližně jaký podíl svého pracovního času věnujete procesu EIA?
0–25%
26–50%
51–75%
76–100%
3. Přibližně jaký podíl svého pracovního času věnujete procesu SEA?
0–25%
26–50%
51–75%
76–100%
4. Na kolika EIA dokumentacích jste se podíleli v posledních 3 letech?
1–5
148
6–10
11–15
16+
5. Na kolika SEA dokumentacích jste se podíleli v posledních 3 letech?
1–5
6–10
11–15
16+
6. Podíleli jste se na posuzování záměru (EIA) nebo posuzování koncepce (SEA),
jehož předmětem bylo posuzování vlivů na životní prostředí přesahujících státní
hranice?
Ano, uveďte prosím, pro jaký druh činností a v souvislosti s jakou sousední
zemí
Ne
7. Jakému stupni procesu posuzování vlivů na ŽP se převážně věnujete?
Zaznačte křížkem všechny vyhovující odpovědi.
Záměr
Oznámení
Zjišťovací řízení
Dokumentace
Posudek
Stanovisko k posouzení vlivů provedení záměru na ŽP
Jiné, prosím uveďte:
8. Na které z těchto složek prostředí se specializujete při vykonávaní EIA procesu?
Obyvatelstvo (např. počet obyvatelů dotknutých vlivy navrhované činnosti, zdravotní rizika, sociálně a ekonomické důsledky)
Horninové prostředí, nerostné suroviny, geodynamické jevy a geomorfologické
poměry
Klimatické poměry
Ovzduší (např. množství a koncentrace emisí a imisí)
Vodní poměry (např. kvalita, režim, odtokové poměry, zásoby)
Půda (např. způsob využívání, kontaminace, půdní eroze)
Fauna, flóra a jejich biotopy (např. chráněné, vzácné, ohrožené druhy a jejich biotopy, migrační koridory živočichů, zdravotní stav vegetace a živočišstva atd.)
Krajina – struktura a využívání krajiny, krajinný ráz
Chráněné území a jejich ochranné pásma (např. lokality Natura 2000, národní
parky, chráněné krajinné oblasti, chráněné vodohospodářské oblasti)
Přírodní zdroje
Územní systém ekologické stability
Hmotný majetek
Kulturní a historické památky
Archeologické naleziště
Paleontologické naleziště a významné geologické lokality
Kulturní hodnoty nehmotné povahy (např. místní tradice)
Jiné, uveďte prosím:
149
9. Na které z těchto stresorů se specializujete při vykonávaní EIA procesu?
Znečištění ovzduší – hlavní zdroje znečistění ovzduší (stacionární, mobilní), kvalitativní a kvantitativní charakteristika emisí, způsob zachytávání uhlíků, způsob
měření emisí
Znečištění vody – celkové množství, druh a kvalitativní ukazovatele vypouštěných odpadových vod, místo vypouštění (recipient, veřejná kanalizace, čistírna
odpadních vod), zdroj vzniku odpadních vod, způsob nakládání
Odpady – celkové množství (t/rok), způsob nakládání s odpady
Hluk a vibrace (zdroje, intenzita)
Záření a jiná fyzikální pole (tepelné, magnetické a jiné – zdroj a intenzita)
Sesuvy půdy
10. Ve které odborné oblasti, máte zkušenosti s přípravou EIA?
Těžební průmysl
Energetický průmysl
Hutnický průmysl
Chemický, farmaceutický a petrochemický průmysl
Dřevozpracující, celulózový a papírenský průmysl
Průmysl stavebních látek
Strojírenský a elektrotechnický průmysl
Ostatní průmyslové odvětví
Infrastruktura
Vodní hospodářství
Zemědělství a lesní výroba
Potravinářský průmysl
Doprava a telekomunikace
Účelové zařízení pro sport, rekreaci a cestovní ruch
Vojenské stavby
Strategické dokumenty (návrh politiky, rozvojové koncepce, plány a programy,
včetně strategických dokumentů spolufinancovaných Evropskou unií)
Územně plánovací dokumentace
11. Z kterých uvedených metodických postupů vycházíte nejčastěji?
Metodický pokyn odboru ochrany vod MŽP k § 59 odst. 1 písm. k) zákona
č. 254/2001 Sb., o vodách a o změně některých zákonů (vodní zákon), ve znění
zákona č. 150/2010 Sb.
Metodický pokyn pro monitorování vod
150
Metodický pokyn 9/2008-150-METO k aplikaci novely zákona č. 185/2001 Sb.
o odpadech
Návod odboru odpadů MŽP pro řízení vzniku stavebních a demoličních odpadů a
pro nakládání s nimi
Příručka k hodnocení významnosti vlivů na předměty ochrany lokalit soustavy
Natura 2000
Informační systém EIA podle zákona č. 244/1992 Sb.
Metodický návod k vyhodnocení možností umístění větrných a fotovoltaických
elektráren z hlediska ochrany přírody a krajiny
Metodický návod k provádění biologického hodnocení
Metodický pokyn odboru posuzování vlivů na životní prostředí MŽP k problematice nahlížení na formu přílohy č. 3a zákona č. 100/2001 Sb., o posuzování vlivů
na životní prostředí, ve znění pozdějších předpisů
Metodika posuzování vlivů koncepcí podle zákona č. 100/2001 Sb., o posuzování
vlivů na životní prostředí, ve znění zákona č. 93/2004 Sb.
12. Jaké metodiky používáte při posuzování vlivů na životní prostředí přesahujících
státní hranice (EIA)?
Ty samé, které jsou uvedené v odpovědi č. 11
13. Myslíte si, že vydané metodické příručky pro proces EIA jsou dostatečné?
Ano
Ne
Částečně
14. Jaké jsou podle vašeho názoru hlavní účely EIA?
Zaznačte křížkem, prosím, maximálně 3 odpovědi.
Dosáhnutí souladu s rozvojem území
Snižování dopadů na životní prostředí
Podpora pro rozhodování
Nástroj pro trvale udržitelný rozvoj
Pomoc pro investory
Přispět k návrhu rozhodnutí
Snížení budoucích nákladů
Podklad pro získání stavebního povolení
15. Jaké jsou silné stránky současné praxe v oblasti EIA v České republice?
Dobrý základ v právních předpisech
Mnoho pokynů, usměrnění, metodických příruček
151
Sofistikované metody predikce vlivů – impaktů na ŽP
Vědecký přínos
16. Jaké jsou slabé stránky současné praxe v oblasti EIA v České republice?
Nedostatečné posouzení alternativ
Omezené zvážení kumulativních vlivů
Nedostatečné zapojení veřejnosti
Subjektivita v predikci vlivů
Nedostatečná poprojektová analýza – monitoring
Omezená kontrola kvality EIA dokumentace
Změna návrhu po předložení dokumentace
Nedostatečné zjišťovací konání
Slabá koordinace s územně-plánovací dokumentací
Omezený vliv v rozhodování
Chybějící poradní oddělení pro EIA proces
17. Je podle Vás veřejnost dostatečně informovaná o krocích procesu EIA?
Ano
Ne
Částečně
18. Míváte při zpracovávaní dostatečné množství údajů/vstupních dat (v požadované kvalitě, aktuálně, a pod.)?
Ano
Ne
Částečně
19. Jaké postupy a metody využíváte při identifikaci a posuzování vlivů?
Metody ad hoc
Kontrolní seznamy
Matice
Odvětvové metodiky
Síťování
Prostorové analýzy
Rychlé metody hodnocení
Multikriteriální hodnocení
Ukazovatele kvality životního prostředí (environmentální ukazovatele)
Riziková analýza
Mapové překryvy
152
Geografické informační systémy
Hodnocení (posouzení) životního cyklu – Analýza LCA
Nejlepší dostupné technologie (Best Available Technologies – BAT)
Ekonomické analýzy – analýza efektivnosti nákladů
Expertní systémy
Konzultace
20. Využíváte při hodnocení vlivů na životní prostředí specializovaný software?
Jaké konkrétně?
GIS
HPZ 2001 GEO
MIKE Basin
ENSIS
RIBASIM
IRAS
21. Je podle Vás současný proces EIA vyhovující? V čem by bylo potřebné z hlediska
zvýšení efektivnosti upravit/změnit platný proces EIA?
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
22. Místo pro Vaše návrhy, poznámky a připomínky k dané problematice:
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
Děkujeme za Váš čas, ochotu a spolupráci při vypracování předloženého dotazníku.
153
The Questionnaires for Hungary
Kérdőíves felmérés
Tisztelt Hölgyem, Uram!
Ez a kérdőív, amelyet most Ön a kezében tart egy nemzetközi társfinanszírozásban létrejött projekt része. A Visegrádi V4 Országok Alapítványa (International Visegrad Fund)
a tagországok környezeti állapotának felmérését és értékelését tűzte ki célul, hasonló nevű
programjában: „Assessment of the Quality of the Environment in the V4 Countries
AQE V4”. Most egy aktuális vezetőfüzet összeállítása a cél, amely tartalmazza a legújabb
technológiákat és metodológiákat éppúgy, mint a gyakorlati környezeti hatásvizsgálati/
stratégiai környezetei vizsgálati (KHV/SHV) tapasztalatokat itthon és külföldön egyaránt.
A kérdőív anonim. Kérem, olvassa el valamennyi kérdést alaposan és jelölje meg a leginkább odaillő választ, vagy egészítse azt ki saját véleményével.
Remélhetőleg talál rá időt, hogy kitöltse kérdőívünket, amely csak 10 percet vesz igénybe,
de a kapott információk felbecsülhetetlenek a projekt számára.
A felmérés eredményeit összehasonlítják a V4 más országaiban kapott eredményekkel és
a feldolgozás után elérhetőek lesznek a projekt weboldalain valamint az elkészülő kiadványban, amelyekről Önt értesítjük.
Előre is nagyon köszönjük együttműködési hozzájárulását!
A kérdőív szerzői:
dr inż. Slávka Gałaś, AGH, Tudomány és Technológia Egyetem, Krakkó, Lengyelország
doc. Ing. Martina Zeleňáková, PhD., Technikai Egyetem Kassa, Szlovákia
doc. Dr. Ing. Miloš Šlezingr, PhD., Mendel Egyetem Brno, Csehország
dr. Penksza Károly, Magyar Biológiai Társaság, Magyarország
Kérdőí
1. Hány éve foglalkozik környezeti hatásvizsgálattal?
0–5
6–10
10+
2. Idejének mekkora részében foglalkozik környezeti hatásvizsgálattal (KHV)?
0–25%
26–50%
51–75%
76–100%
3. Idejének mekkora részében foglalkozik stratégiai környezeti vizsgálattal (SKV)?
0–25%
26–50%
51–75%
76–100%
4. Hány környezeti hatásvizsgálati (KHV) dokumetációt készített el az utóbbi 3 évben?
1–5
154
6–10
11–15
16+
5. Hány stratégiai környezeti vizsgálati (SKV) dokumetációt készített el az utóbbi
3 évben?
1–5
6–10
11–15
16+
6. Végzett már környezeti hatásvizsgálati tevékenységet határon túl is?
ha igen, mely országokban és milyen tevékenységet
nem
7. A KHV folyamat mely részterületébe kapcsolódott be leginkább?
Több részterületet is aláhúzhat.
Előkészítés
Hatásvizsgálat
Értékelő jelentés
Szakvélemény
Zárónyilatkozatára
Projekt utáni elemzés
Egyéb, éspedig:
8. A KHV folyamat során melyik környezeti komponenssel foglalkozott leginkább?
Több választ is aláhúzhat.
Populációk (például a tervezett tevékenység hatása adott populációkra,
egyészségügyi kockázatok, szociális és gazdasági követlezmények)
Sziklás termőhelyek, ásványok, geodinamikai jelenségek és geomorfológiai körülmények
Klimatikus körülmények
Légkör (a kibocsájtott anyagok mennyisége, koncentrációja és a levegőszennyezés)
Vízi körülmények (minőség, vízelvezetés feltételei és eszközei)
Talaj (talajhasznosítás és erózió)
Növény- és állatvilág, élőhelyek (védett, ritka és veszélyeztetett fajok és ezek élőhelyei
Állatok vándorlási útvonala, zöld folyosók, flóra és fauna egészségi állapota
Táj-tájstruktúra és tájhasználat
Védett természeti területek és ezek pufferzónája (Natura 2000 területek, nemzeti
parkok, tájvédelmi körzetek)
Az ökológiai stabilitás területi egységei
Városi környezet és tájhasználat
Kulturális és történelmi emlékek
Régészeti feltárások
Őslénytani és geológiai lelőhelyek
Szellemi kulturális értékek (pl. helyi hagyományok)
Egyéb, éspedig:
155
9. A KHV folyamat eredményei közül mely részterületre szakosodott?
Valamennyi megfelelő választ húzza alá!
Levegő-a légszennyezés fő forrásai (állandó és mozgó források), a kibocsájtás
mennyiségi és minőségi becslése, széncsapda módszerek, a kibocsájtás mérésének
módszerei
Víz-teljes vízkészlet, típus és minőségi indikátorok szennyvízbeveztésnel, szennyvízbevezető elhelyezése (kommunális hálózatok, szennyvíztisztító), a szenyvíz
forrásai, szennyvízkezelési módszerek
Hulladék-teljes mennyiség (tonna/év), hulladékkezelési technológiák
Zaj és rezgés (források és veszélyek)
Sugárzás és egyéb fizikai behatások (hő, mágneses és egyéb- források és veszélyek)
Egyéb adatok (nagymértékű tájváltozásokés beavatkozások országos léptékben)
Egyéb, éspedig:
10. Mely szakterületeken vannak tapasztalai a KHV folymatokat illetően?
Valamennyi megfelelő választ húzza alá!
Bányászat
Energiaipar
Vaskohászat
Vegyipar, gyógyszeripar és olajipar
Fa- és papíripar
Építőipar
Mechanikai és eletronikai ipar
Egyéb ipari tevékenységek
Infrastuktúra
Vízgazdálkodás
Erdő – és mezőgazdaság
Élelmiszeripar
Számmítmányozás és telekommunikáció
Sport, turizmus, szabadidő
Katonai beruházások
Stratégiai tervek ( fejlesztési tervek, programok, stratégiai dokumentációk, EU-s
kofinanszírozott projektek)
Területi tervezés és dokumentáció
Egyéb, éspedig:
11. Melyik módszert használja a leggyakrabban?
Ellenőrzőjegyzékek
Mátrixok
Kvantitatív módszerek
Hálózatok
Hatásfolyamat-ábrák
156
Térképfedvények
Egyéb, éspedig:
12. Milyen módszert használ leggyakrabban nemzetközi hatásfelmérés során?
Ha használ valamilyen módszert, kérjük részletezze.
Egyéb, éspedig:
13. Mit gondol, a rendelkezésre álló, publikált KHV útmutatók megfelelő színvonalúak?
Igen
Nem
Részben
14. Véleménye szerint mi a KHV fő célja?
Maximum 3 választ húzzon alá.
Területfejlesztés
Környzeti károk mérsékelése
Döntéshozatasli támogatás
Eszköz a fenntartható fejlődéshez
Segítség a befektetőknek
Hozzájárulás a döntéshozatalhoz
Csökkenti a jövőbeli költségeket
Megalapozza ez építési engedély kiadását
Egyéb, éspedig:
15. Mi az erőssége a jelenlegi KHV gyakorlatnak?
Megfelelő jogi megalapozottság
Változatos segédanyagok
A várható környzeti hatások előrejelzésének pontossága
Tudományos hozzájárulás
Egyéb, éspedig:
16. Melyek a gyenge pontjai a jelenlegi KHV gyakorlatnak?
Az alternatívák értékelésének elégtelensége
A kumulatív hatások korlátozott figyelembe vétele
A nyilvánosság bevonása nem megfelelő
A hatások megjósolása szubjektív
A projekt lezárása után nem megfeleő az utánkövetés, a monitoring
A KHV dokumentáció minőségi ellenőrzése nem megfelelő a dokumentáció benyújtása után nincs lehetőség hiánypótlásra, változtatásra nem megfelelő vizsgálati eljárás
157
A területi tervezési dokumentációval nincs összehangban kevés hatása van a döntéshozatali folyamatokra
A KHV folyamatok során segítő, tanácsadó testület hiánya
Egyéb, éspedig:
17. Mit gondol, a közvélemény tájékoztatása megfelelő módon történik a KHV folyamatban?
Igen
Nem
Részben
18. Elegendő adat és információ áll rendelkezésére a feldolgozási folyamat során
(megfelelő minőségben, ideig stb.)?
Igen
Nem
Részben
19. Milyen eljárást vagy módszert követ a hatások megállapítása során?
Ad hoc módszerek
Ellenőrzőlisták
Mátrixok
Ágazati irányelvek
Szisztematikus szekvenciális módszerek
Hálózatok
Szimulációs modellezések
Térbelei elemzési technikák
Gyors értékelési technikák
Többszempontú elemzések
Környezetállapot indikátorok
Kockázatelemzés
Átfedő térképezés
Földrajzi Információs Rendszerek, GIS technikák
Életciklus elemzések
Legjobb rendelkezésre álló technológiák
Ökológiai elemzések, költség-hasznon elemzések
Szakértői vélemény
Konzultáció
Egyéb, éspedig:
20. A környezeti hatások elemzése során használ e valamilyen speciális pl. térinformatikai szoftvert? Ha igen, kérjük részletezze!
GIS
HPZ 2001 GEO
158
MIKE Basin
ENSIS
RIBASIM
IRAS
Egyéb, éspedig:
21. Ön szerint a jelenlegi környezeti hatásvizsgálati folyamat teljes így? Milyenváltoztatásokra, kiegészítésekre lenne szükség a KHV vizsgálatok hatékonyságának
növelése érdekében?
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
22. Kérjük javaslatait, észrevételeit ossza meg velünk:
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
Köszönjük az idejét és együttműködését a kérdőív kitöltésében. A felmérés végleges eredményei az AQE V4 projekt céljának eléréséhez lesznek felhasználva.
Bibliography
Engel J., 2009. Natura 2000 w ocenach oddziaływania przedsięwzięć na środowisko (in Polish).
Ministerstwo Środowiska, Warszawa.
European Commission, 2001. Guidance on EIA: Scoping.
European Commission, 2001. Guidance on EIA: Screening.
Florkiewicz E. & Kawicki A., 2009. Postępowanie administracyjne w sprawach określonych ustawą
z dnia 3 października 2008 r. o udostępnianiu informacji o środowisku i jego ochronie, udziale
społeczeństwa w ochronie środowiska oraz o ocenach oddziaływania na środowisko (in Polish). Zeszyty Metodyczne Generalnej Dyrekcji Ochrony Środowiska, Ministerstwo Rozwoju
Regionalnego, Departament Programów Pomocowych i Pomocy Technicznej, Warszawa.
Gałaś S. & Gałaś A., 2009. Assessment of Ecological Stability of Spatial and Functional Structure
Around Świnna Poręba Water Reservoir. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, Vol. 18,
No. 3A, 83–87.
Gałaś S. & Gałaś A., 2012. Protection of Mineral Resources as a Part of Spatial Planning in
Poland and in Slovakia. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, Vol. 21, No. 5A, 73–77.
Gałaś S., Gałaś A., Zvijáková L., Zeleňáková M., Šlezingr M., Fialová J., Házi J. & Penksza K.,
2013a. Assessment of environmental impact assessment process in V4 countries – partial
results. In Conference proceedings: Grassland management and nature conservation, 25–26
February 2013, Budapest.
Gałaś S., Gałaś A., Zvijáková L., Zeleňáková M., Fialová J., Kubíčková H., Šlezingr M., Házi J.
& Penksza K., 2013b. Environmental impact assessment process in the field of rekreacion in
the V4 countries. Journal of Landscape Management, Vol. 3, No. 1, 12–18.
Kistowski M. & Pchałek M., 2009. Natura 2000 w planowaniu przestrzennym – rola korytarzy
ekologicznych (in Polish). Ministerstwo Środowiska, Warszawa.
Kowalczyk P., Nieznański P., Stańko R., Mas F.M. & Sanz M.B., 2009. Natura 2000 a gospodarka
wodna (in Polish). Ministerstwo Środowiska, Warszawa.
Łyjak Ł., Kunysz P. & Kowalski J., 2008. Raport o oddziaływaniu na środowisko planowanego
przedsięwzięcia p.n. Budowa Wschodnioeuropejskiego Centrum Kongresowo-Sportowego
Arłamów; w miejscowości Arłamów, gmina Ustrzyki Dolne, województwo podkarpackie (in
Polish). Ochrona Środowiska s.c., Przemyśl.
Poradnik ocen oddziaływania na środowisko 1999, red. W. Lenart, A. Tyszecki (in Polish). Ekokonsult, Gdańsk.
Pavličková K., 2013. Impacts of Recreational Activities on the Environment with an Emphasis on
Protected Areas. Journal of Landscape Management, Vol. 3, No. 1, 25–32.
161
Pavličková K., Kozová M. red., 2009. Posudzovanie vplyvov na životné prostredie (in Slovak).
Učebné texty, Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave.
Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council, 2012, amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on
the environment, Brussels.
Protocol 2003. Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. Kyiv.
Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 2009, On the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive (Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directives 97/11/EC
and 2003/35/EC), Brussels.
Tamásová A., 2013. Porovnanie procesu posudzovania vplyvov na životné prostredie v Slovenskej
republike a v Maďarsku (in Slovak). Diplomová práca, Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave,
Prírodovedecká fakulta, Bratislava.
Wytyczne w zakresie postępowania w sprawie oceny oddziaływania na środowisko dla przedsięwzięć współfinansowanych z krajowych lub regionalnych programów operacyjnych, 2009
(in Polish). Ministerstwo Rozwoju Regionalnego, Warszawa.
Zvijáková L., Zeleňáková M., 2013. EIA in V4 countries. In Conference proceedings: Grassland
management and nature conservation, 25–26 February 2013, Budapest.
Zvijáková L., Zeleňáková M., Gałaś S., Gałaś A., Šlezingr M., Házi J. & Penksza K., 2013. In
conference proceedings: State of the environmental impact assessment in the Visegrad group:
the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, Praha.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/home.htm (last visit in September 2013)
Natura 2000 Barometer, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info (last visit in September 2013)
www.sopsr.sk (last visit in September 2013)
www.nature.cz (last visit in September 2013)
www.eia.enviroportal.sk/sposobile-osoby
www.portal.cenia.cz/eiasea/osoby/osoby
www.ekoportal.gov.pl
www.kvvm.hu
Used acts of Law
Act No. 100/2001 Coll. on environmental impact assessment – in the Czech Republic.
Act of 3.10.2008 on the Provision of Information on the Environment and its Protection, Public
Participation in the Environmental Protection and Environmental Impact Assessments (Journal
of Laws No. 199, item 1227), the Act on the EIA – in Poland.
Directive 79/409/EEC replaced by Directive 2009/147/EC: The Birds Directive – Directive
2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conservation of wild
birds – determines criteria determining the refuge for endangered bird species.
Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the environmental effects of certain public and private
projects.
Directive 92/43/EEC: The Habitats Directive – The Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – establishes rules for protection
of other species of animals and plants and natural habitats and procedures to protect areas
particularly sensitive in nature.
162
Bibliography
Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.
Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.
Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing
for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating
to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice
Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC.
Directive 2009/31/EC. on the geological storage of carbon dioxide and amending Council Directive 85/337/EEC, European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/60/EC, 2001/80/EC,
2004/35/EC, 2006/12/EC, 2008/1/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006.
Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on
the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.
Government Decree 86/1993 (VI 4) on the provisional regulation of environmental impact assessment of certain activities – in Hungary.
Government Decree No. 314/2005 (XII 25) on environmental impact assessment and the integrated
environmental permit – in Hungary.
Act No 24/2006 Coll. on environmental impact assessment – in Slovakia.
The Act of 27 April 2001. Environmental Law (Journal of Laws No. 25, item 150, as amended)
– in Poland.
The Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 9.11.2010 on types of projects likely to have
a significant impact on the environment (Journal of Laws No. 213, item 1397) – in Poland.
Law on Environmental Protection and Management in 1980. Ustawa o ochronie i kształtowaniu
środowiska z 3 stycznia 1980 r. – in Poland.
Law on Environmental Protection in 1994, 1998 – in Poland.
Act No 244/1992 Coll. Zákon České národní rady č. 244/1992 Sb. o posuzování vlivů na životní
prostředí, ze dne 15. dubna 1992 – in the Czech Republic.
Act No 408/2011 Coll. on EIA. Zákon č. 408/2011 Z. z. ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa zákon č. 24/2006
Z. z. o posudzovaní vplyvov na životné prostredie a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov
v znení neskorších predpisov a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov – in Slovakia.
Act No 38/2012 Coll. Zákon č. 38/2012 Sb., kterým se mění zákon č. 100/2001 Sb., o posuzování
vlivů na životní prostředí a o změně některých souvisejících zákonů (zákon o posuzování vlivů
na životní prostředí), ve znění pozdějších předpisů, ze dne 11. ledna 2012. – in the Czech
Republic.
List of Figures
Fig. 2.1. Simplified flow-chart of the different stages in an EIA process after EIA Directive
(Guidance on EIA: Scoping, Screening, 2001)
Fig. 2.2. Simplified flow-chart of the different stages in an EIA process in Poland (Act of 3.10.2008
in later wording)
Fig. 2.3. Simplified flow-chart of the different stages in an EIA process in Slovakia (Law
No. 24/2006, in later wording)
Fig. 2.4. Simplified flow-chart of the different stages in an EIA process in the Czech Republic
(Act No. 100/2001 in later wording)
Fig. 2.5. Simplified flow-chart of the different stages in an EIA after EIA Directive in Hungary
(Government Decree No. 314/2005, XII 25, in later wording)
Fig. 5.1. Answers of respondents to the question: „How many years have you worked with
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)”?
Fig. 5.2. Answers of respondents to the questions: a) „Approximately what proportion of your
time is devoted to EIA?”, b) „Approximately what proportion of your working time is
devoted to the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)?”
Fig. 5.3. Answers of respondents to the questions: a) „How many EIA documentations have you
been involved in the last three years?”; b) „How many SEA documentations have you been
involved in the last three years?”
Fig. 5.4. Answers of respondents to the question: „Have you been participated in the assessment
of trans-boundary effects?”
Fig. 5.5. Answers of respondents to the question: „Which stages of the EIA process are you
predominantly involved with?”
Fig. 5.6. Answers of respondents to the question: „When undertaking EIA which of the following
environmental components do you specialise in?”: a) mean arithmetic values of the
results from all V4 countries; b) the structure in each V4 country
Fig. 5.7. Answers of respondents to the question: „Which of the following stressors in the
implementation of the EIA process do you specialize in?”
Fig. 5.8. Respondents’ answers to the question: „In which sectors (of industry) do you have
experience of EIA preparation?” (mean arithmetic values of all the answers)
Fig. 5.9. Answers of respondents to the question: „Do you think that given the methodological
guide for the EIA process are sufficient?”
Fig. 5.10. Answers of respondents to the question: „In your opinion, what is the main purpose of
EIA?”
164
List of Figures
Fig. 5.11. Answers of respondents to the question: „What are the strengths of current practice in
EIA for the country?”
Fig. 5.12. Answers of the respondents to the question: “What are the weaknesses of the current
practice in EIA for the country?”: a) by the mean arithmetic values of all the answers;
b) by country
Fig. 5.13. Answers of respondents to the question: „Do you think the public is well informed on
the steps of the EIA process?”
Fig. 5.14. Answers of respondents to the question: „Are the input data in processing documentation
in the EIA procedure easily accessible and of the required quality?”
Fig. 5.15. Answers of the respondents to the question: „What procedures and methods do you use
for identification and assessment of impacts?”, mean arithmetic values of all the answers
Fig. 6.1. Distribution of the number of sets of EIA documentations made in the last three years
and the time devoted to the EIA procedures
Fig. 6.2. Distribution of the number of methodological guides used by the respondents (1–8
guides) according to assessment of their the adequacy for the EIA process
assessments and their participation in performing cross-border procedures
assessments and the number of stages of the EIA process which the respondents had
dealt with
assessments and the number of sectors of the economy in which the respondents had
experience in preparation of EIA reports
Fig. 6.6. Distribution of the assessment of adequacy of the published methodological guides used
in the process of EIA according to the types of guides that respondents used for this
process. Complete names of methodologies are presented in the annex 2
Fig. 6.7. Distribution of the adequacy assessment of the published guides for the EIA process and
the selected sectors of the economy in which the respondents declared having experience
in preparing the reports
Fig. 6.8. Distribution of the most popular methodological guides by sectors of the economy in
which the respondents declared having experience. Complete names of methodologies
are presented in the annex 2
Fig. 6.9. Distribution of sectors of the economy according to the respondent’s length of service
in the EIA
Fig. 6.10. Distribution of the assessment of sufficient amount of available data (of the required
quality, updated, etc.) in selected sectors of the economy
assessments and procedures and methods they used to identify and evaluate the impact
Fig. 6.12. The correlation between the selected sectors of the economy in which the respondents
were experienced in preparation of EIA reports and procedures and methods they used
to identify and evaluate the impact
List of Tables
Table 3.1. List of undertakings which require screening carrying out of the EIA process in
the field of SRTF, together with the indication of threshold values in each V4 member
country – simplified, column (A) – the threshold values, column (B) – the individual
study (EIA Directive, Act of 3.10.2008, The Regulation of the Council of Ministers of
9.11.2010, Act No. 24/2006, Act No. 408/2011 Coll., Act No. 100/2001, Government
Decree No. 314/2005, XII 25, in later wording)
Table 3.2. List of undertakings which require obligatory/compulsory assessment carrying out
of the EIA process in the field of water management with the indication of threshold
values in each V4 member country – the simplified (EIA Directive, Act of 3.10.2008,
The Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 9.11.2010, Act No. 24/2006, Act
No. 100/2001, Government Decree No. 314/2005, XII 25, in later wording)
Table 3.3. List of undertakings which require screening carrying out of the EIA process in the field
of water management with the indication of threshold values in each V4 member
country – the simplified (EIA Directive, Act of 3.10.2008, The Regulation of the Council
of Ministers of 9.11.2010, Act No. 24/2006, Act No. 100/2001, Government Decree
No. 314/2005, XII 25, in later wording)
Table 3.4. List of undertakings which require obligatory carrying out of the EIA process in the field
of mining industry with the indication of threshold values in each V4 member country
– the simplified (EIA Directive, Act of 3.10.2008, The Regulation of the Council of
Ministers of 9.11.2010, Act No. 24/2006, Act No. 100/2001, Government Decree
Table 3.5. List of undertakings which require screening when the process of EIA is carried out in
the field of mining industry with the indication of threshold values in each V4 member
country – the simplified (EIA Directive, Act of 3.10.2008, The Regulation of the Council
of Ministers of 9.11.2010, Act No. 24/2006, Act No. 100/2001, Government Decree
Table 4.1. The survey questionnaire „Assessment of the Quality of the Environment in the V4
Countries”
Table 5.1. Answers of the respondents to the question: “In which sectors (of industry) do you
have experience of EIA preparation?” In the order from the most (position no. 1) to
the least frequently selected options (position no. 17)
166
List of Tables
Table 5.2. Respondents answers to the question: „What procedures and methods do you use for
identification and assessment of impacts?”, in the order from the most to the least
frequent answer (from the top to the bottom)
Table 6.1. Values of statistical significance p of correlations between answers to selected questions
(single choice) being the subject of statistical analysis in each country. The colour marks
the correlations, where statistically significant correlation occurred (p < 0.05)
Table 6.2. Analysis of correlations of variable phenomena that had been the results of answers to
the multiple choice questions
ISBN 978-83-7464-678-9

AQE V4

Transcription

Similar documents

general guidance on the preparation of terms of reference for

SN10.1-Appiah-Opoku-Indigenous Knowledge and Environmental

Mathew Hall, Peter Hegedüs, Josip Maras, Marco Mori, Zoltán

5. EIA methodologies

Calibur

youth participation in national agenda through new media

Survey Solutions with a Human Touch

Greater Houston Port Bureau, Capt. Bill Diehl

The most beautiful smile of Slovakia

English