Narrow Results

The 1992 Climate Change Convention aims to stabilise greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Joint Implementation (JI) and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) are instruments which allow countries with high marginal costs of abatement to participate in emission reduction projects in countries with lower marginal abatement costs with the incentive of gaining carbon credits for the reduction of GHGs. The environmental benefits sought by the Convention relate mainly to he mitigation of climate change. However, consideration should also be given to other potential environmental, economic and social effects of JI/CDM projects on the local population and host country. This paper discusses the need for integrating environmental and social considerations into the JI/CDM process. It undertakes a preliminary retrospective environmental assessment of AIJ energy projects in the Czech Republic and Estonia. It also proposes support for capacity building and data collection systems in host countries, application of a simple participative scoping exercise for all projects followed by further work as necessary, upgrading of the Uniform Reporting Format for projects, and incorporation into project approval criteria.

Besides other approaches, interviewing main actors (decision-makers, consultants, developers) can provide valuable information about their subjective attitude as well as indicate probable weak areas and help in formulation of strategy for further research and EIA system development. This paper considers results of the survey conducted in Estonia in early 2008 as a part of national EIA system analysis. The survey covered main actors' contentment with different aspects such as EIA legislation, public participation, EIA outcomes, experts' qualification and impartiality, etc. As evidenced by what they have pointed out, the EIA system leaves much to be desired. All actors seemed to be worried about the low effectiveness of EIA. Deficiencies in public participation were also brought forward. Decision-makers trusted consultants' qualifications, but many of them felt that consultants were biased. However, the obtained results did not indicate any correlation between expert bias and contentment with EIA outcomes, perceived by decision-makers.

Screening is a crucial stage in the environmental assessment process, because by this process a decision is made whether or not further assessment of a plan or project is required, and by doing so, the likelihood of implementing plans and projects harming the environment is to be decreased. In the Habitats Directive, it is explicitly stated that the competent authority should ascertain that no harm will be done to EU sites belonging to the Natura 2000 network before authorisation for further action is granted. A review of some of the national guidance documents concerning the Natura Assessment developed by EU Member States showed diversity in the scope and depth prescribed for the assessment. A five-year review of screening decisions in Estonia demonstrated that the Habitats Directive and the respective EU guidelines are poorly applied. The majority of the EIA and SEA screening decisions in 2004–2009 did not consider the impacts on Natura 2000 sites. Those decisions that did consider them addressed primarily the location-induced aspects of the proposed plan or project, with respect to the location of the relevant Natura 2000 site. Less than one third of decisions considered location, likely effects and their significance together. In the rest of the cases, the reasoning was missing or unclear. Since the study demonstrated important deficiencies in the screening stage of the Natura Assessment, the Estonian EIA Act urgently needs to be modified to comply fully with the requirements of the Habitats Directive and to ensure that the conservation objectives of nearly 600 Estonian Natura 200 sites are not compromised.