Reviewing the EIA process in Spain: streamlining and beyond

  1. Juan M. Martínez-Orozco 1
  2. Begoña González-Calderón
  3. Iñigo Sobrini 2
  1. 1 Universidad Europea de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Europea de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04dp46240

  2. 2 Asociación Española de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental. E.T.S. Ingenieros de Montes
Revista:
UVP-Report

ISSN: 0933-0690

Año de publicación: 2016

Volumen: 30

Páginas: 88-92

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.17442/UVP-REPORT.030.16 GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: UVP-Report

Resumen

In Spain, most of the amendments made by Directive 2014/52/EU on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) were anticipated in the new national Law 21/2013, on Environmental Assessment. The Directive, and the Spanish Law, aim to offer better protection for the environment while reducing administrative burdens. The Spanish new Law particularly addresses concerns about time-lines, unnecessary delays and legal certainty. This paper attempts to critically examine the nature of changes that may be associated with the implementation of the revised EIA Directive in Spain, including modifications already undertaken in Spanish national legislation. It is believed that some measures for simplifying and rationalising EIA procedures in Spain will result in a more effective approval process. Some other provisions, however, will probably have adverse consequences on the benefits that subsequently accrue from EIA.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Law 21/2013 – Ley 21/2013 de evaluación ambiental (Environmental Assessment Act) as of 09/12/2013. BOE 296.
  • Revised EIA Directive – Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Official Journal of the European Union L 124: 1-18.
  • Royal Decree – Real Decreto Legislativo 1302/1986 de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (Royal Decree on Environmental Impact Assessment) as of 28/06/1986. BOE of 30/06/1986.
  • Arroyo, L. (2014): Infrastructure Planning in Spain. Public Participation and Legal Protection. Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law 11 (3): 232-248.
  • Arts, J.; Runhaar, H.; Fischer, T.B.; Jha-Thakur, U.; van Laerhoven, F.; Driessen, P. & Onyango, V. (2012): The Effectiveness of EIA as an Instrument for Environmental Governance – A Comparison of the Netherlands and the UK. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 14 (4): 1250025 (1-40).
  • Barker, A. & Wood C. (1999): An evaluation of EIA system performance in eight EU countries. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 18 (4): 387-404.
  • Bond, A. & Pope, J. (2012): Editorial: the state of the art of impact assessment in 2012. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30 (1): 1-4.
  • Casermeiro, M.A.; Desdentado, L.; Díaz, M.; Espluga, A.P.; González, S.; Martínez-Orozco, J.M. & Sobrini, I. (2010): Libro Blanco de la Evaluación Ambiental en España (Whitebook of environmental assessment in Spain). Asociación Española de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (Spanish EIA Association), Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino (Ministry of Environment, Rural Areas and Sea), Madrid.
  • Cesca, S.; Grigoli, F.; Heimann, S.; Gonzalez, A.; Buforn, E.; Maghsoudi, S.; Blanch, E. & Dahm, T. (2014): The 2013 September-October seismic sequence offshore Spain: a case of seismicity triggered by gas injection? Geophysical Journal International 198 (2): 941-953.
  • COM – Commission of the European Communities (ed.) (2005): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Better Regulation for Growth and Jobs in the European Union. COM(2005) 97 final, Brussels.
  • COM – European Commission (ed.) (2013): Streamlining environmental assessment procedures for energy infrastructure Projects of Common Interest (PCIs). Brussels.
  • COM – European Commission (ed.) (2015): Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Better regulation for better results – An EU agenda. COM(2015) 215 final, Strasbourg.
  • GHK (2008): Evaluation on EU Legislation – Directive 85/337/EEC (Environmental Impact Assessment, EIA) and associated amendments. Final Report. GHK, Birmingham.
  • GHK (2010): Collection of information and data to support the Impact Assessment study of the review of the EIA Directive. Final Report, London.
  • Gibson, R.B. (2012): In full retreat: the Canadian government's new environmental assessment law undoes decades of progress. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30 (3): 179-188.
  • Hansen, E. & Wood, G. (2016): Understanding EIA scoping in practice: A pragmatist interpretation of effectiveness. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 58: 1-11.
  • Jiricka, A.; Formayer, H.; Schmidt, A.; Völler, S.; Leitner, M.; Fischer, T.B. & Wachter, T.W. (2016): Consideration of climate change impacts and adaptation in EIA practice – Perspectives of actors in Austria and Germany. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 57: 78-88.
  • Lyhne, I.; Cashmore, M.; Runhaar, H. & van Laerhoven, F. (2016): Quality control for environmental policy appraisal tools: an empirical investigation of relations between quality, quality control and effectiveness. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 18: 121-140.
  • Middle, G. & Middle, I. (2010): The inefficiency of environmental impact assessment: reality or myth? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 28 (2): 159-168.
  • Oosterhuis, F.(2007): Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive. Final report for DG Environment. Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
  • Tajima, R.; Gore, T. & Fischer, T.B. (2014): Policy integration between Environmental Assessment and Disaster Management. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 16 (3): 450028 (1-28).
  • Wood, C. (1995): Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review. Harlow.