12 Environmental impact assessments
| (34379)
15627/12
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(12) 628
| Draft Directive amending Directive 2011/92/EU of the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment
|
| Legal base | Article 192(1) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Communities and Local Government
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 10 February 2014
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 86-xxv (2012-13), chapter 4 (19 December 2012) and HC 86-xxxiii (2012-13), chapter 9 (27 February 2013)
|
| Discussion in Council | See para 11.7 below
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
12.1 As we noted in our Report of 19 December 2012, Directive
2011/92/EU[33] establishes
a procedure for identifying whether or not a project is likely
to have a significant environmental effect (and hence be subject
to an impact assessment), and how that assessment should be conducted,
including the information to be provided by developers, and the
procedures for consulting authorities with environmental responsibilities
and the public. We also noted that, because a number of shortcomings
had been identified in the Directive, the Commission had put forward
in October 2012 this proposal, which sought to focus assessments
on a smaller number of projects with significant environmental
effects; to improve their quality; and to ensure that the Directive
is applied consistently.
12.2 We were told that the Government
supported the Commission's intention to streamline the environmental
impact assessment process, but that it was important to achieve
an appropriate balance between protecting the environment and
imposing burdens on developers and competent national authorities,
its initial view being that the proposal did not achieve this.
It also suggested that, although the EU and Member States share
competence in this field, some of the changes should be left to
Member States, and that it was important to avoid disproportionate
impacts on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
12.3 We commented that it was evident this proposal
raised a number of concerns, with clearly significant differences
between the view taken by the Commission on many issues and that
of the Government. We added that, although the changes proposed
seemed to us to give rise more to issues of proportionality than
of subsidiarity, it would be helpful if the Assessment which the
Government had said it would be providing could explicitly address
that issue. In the meantime, we also said that we were drawing
the proposal to the attention of the House, whilst holding it
under scrutiny.
12.4 Our Report also dealt at some length with
the fact that, if subsidiarity issues had arisen, the late submission
of the Explanatory Memorandum would have made it difficult, if
not impossible, for the House to submit a Reasoned Opinion under
Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) TFEU on the Application of the Principles
of Subsidiarity and Proportionality within the deadline for doing
so. We therefore asked for an explanation why the Memorandum
could not have been supplied earlier, the Government's (somewhat
unconvincing) response to this question being the main focus of
our subsequent Report of 27 February 2013.
Minister's letter of 10 February 2014
12.5 We have now received from the Secretary
of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
a letter of 10 February 2014, in which he says that the Government
had been very clear that many of the Commission's proposals would
be unacceptable to the United Kingdom, and that, as its concerns
were largely shared by other Member States, these had been addressed
in the Council's position. However, the European Parliament had
voted in plenary on 9 October 2013 on amendments which broadly
supported the original Commission text, but which had also made
additional proposals which would have increased burdens, added
further complexity to the existing environmental impact assessment
procedure, and would in particular have made all activities associated
with shale gas exploration and extraction subject to mandatory
assessment.
12.6 The Minister adds that, as securing changes
on shale gas had been the Parliament's key objective, it seemed
unlikely that the negotiations would be successful. However, because
of its elections this year, its Rapporteur had been keen to secure
a quick agreement, and the Parliament had therefore delayed its
first reading and had instead agreed to enter into trilogue discussions
with the Council, for which the Presidency had been given a mandate
to take a strong line, and not accept amendments which could unnecessarily
add to business costs. In particular, the UK had played a leading
part in a blocking minority of Member States which had made it
clear that the Parliament's proposed changes relating to shale
gas were completely unacceptable.
12.7 The Minister says that, contrary to earlier
indications, agreement was unexpectedly reached in principle in
the run up to Christmas, and that, although the text had still
to be voted on by the European Parliament, this was expected in
March or April. He adds that, if the Parliament does vote to
accept it, the formal agreement of the Council will then be required,
but his expectation is that this will be forthcoming. He says
that, given the UK's long-standing domestic environmental safeguards,
there really is no need for European legislation in this area,
but he believes that, despite pressure from the European Parliament,
the agreed text — though not perfect — is a significant
improvement on the Commission's original proposal. He therefore
asks if we would be able to provide the necessary scrutiny clearance
for this concluding stage.
12.8 The Minister's letter is accompanied by
an Impact Assessment analysing the effect of each of the elements
of the Commission's original proposal, and, although this notes
the difficulty of making any precise estimate, it suggests that
the costs to the UK would have been about £25 million a year
for competent authorities and £45 million for developers.
He says that it is not possible at present to assess the equivalent
costs of the compromise text, but he does not anticipate that
these will be significant as all the provisions which would have
been costly have either been deleted or made voluntary. These
include the pre-screening of projects to assess whether an environmental
impact assessment is needed, the mandatory "scoping"
of proposals, the use of accredited experts to prepare and verify
environmental reports, and the introduction of a one-stop consenting
process for projects requiring environmental assessments under
more than one EU Directive. Also, the timeframes in the negotiated
text are now broadly in line with practice in the UK.
Conclusion
12.9 As we commented in our initial Report
on this document, it deals with a detailed and complex area, making
it difficult to form a clear picture of the changes proposed and
their precise implications. However, it would appear from what
the Minister has said that, contrary to earlier indications last
autumn, it has been possible to reach agreement with the European
Parliament on a text which omits the most undesirable and burdensome
elements, including those which the Parliament had been keen to
see on shale gas. Consequently, although we are using this further
Report to draw the most recent developments to the attention of
the House, we are now willing to clear the document.
33 OJ No. L 26, 28.1.12, p.1. Back
|
